Generally, during the dead or inactive season when operations named
in section 13(a)(5) or 13(b)(4) are not being performed on the specified
aquatic forms of life, employees performing work relating to the plant
or equipment which is used in such operations
during the active seasons are not exempt. Illustrative of such employees
are those who repair, overhaul, or recondition fishing equipment or
processing or canning equipment and machinery during the off-season
periods when fishing, processing, or canning is not going on. An
exemption provided for employees employed ``in'' specified operations is
plainly not intended to apply to employees employed in other activities
during periods when the specified operations are not being carried on,
where their work is functionally remote from the actual conduct of the
operations for which exemption is provided and is unaffected by the
natural factors which the Congress relied on as reason for exemption.
The courts have recognized these principles. See Maneja v. Waialua, 349
U.S. 254; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Maisonet v. Central
Coloso, 6 Labor Cases (CCH) par. 61,337, 2 WH Cases 753 (D. P.R.); Abram
v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., 49 F. Supp. 393 (S.D. Calif.), and
Heaburg v. Independent Oil Mill Inc., 46 F. Supp. 751 (W.D. Tenn.). On
the other hand, there may be situations where employees performing
certain preseason or postseason activities immediately prior or
subsequent to carrying on operations named in sections 13(a)(5) or
section 13(b)(4) are properly to be considered as employed ``in'' the
named operations because their work is so close in point of time and
function to the conduct of the named operations that the employment is,
as a practical matter, necessarily and directly a part of carrying on
the operation for which exemption was intended. Depending on the facts
and circumstances, this may be true, for example, of employees who
perform such work as placing boats and other equipment in condition for
use at the beginning of the fishing season, and taking the necessary
protective measures with respect to such equipment which are required in
connection with termination of the named operations at the end of the
season. Where such work is integrated with and is required for the
actual conduct of the named operations on the specified aquatic forms of
life, and is necessarily performed immediately before or immediately
after such named operations, the employees performing it may be
considered as employed in the named operations, so as to come within the
exemption. It should be kept in mind that the relationship between the
work of an employee and the named operations which is required for
exemption is not necessarily identical with the relationship between
such work and the production of goods for commerce which is sufficient
to establish its general coverage under the Act. Thus, repair, overhaul,
and reconditioning work during the inactive season which does not come
within the exemption is nevertheless closely related and directly
essential to the production of goods for commerce which takes place
during the active season and, therefore, is subject to the provisions of
the Act (Farmers' Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755; Mitchell v.
Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11; Weaver v.
Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 153 F. 2d 597, cert., den., 328 U.S. 858).
