The fact that a practice performed on a farm is not performed by or
for the farmer is a strong indication that it is not performed in
connection with the farming operations there conducted. Thus, where such
an employer other than the farmer performs certain work on a farm solely
for himself in furtherance of his own enterprise, the practice cannot
ordinarily be regarded as performed in connection with farming
operations conducted on the farm. For example, it is clear that the work
of employees of a utility company in trimming and cutting trees for
power and communications lines is part of a nonfarming enterprise
outside the scope of agriculture. When a packer of vegetables or
dehydrator of alfalfa
buys the standing crop from the farmer, harvests it with his own crew of
employees, and transports the harvested crop to his off-the-farm packing
or dehydrating plant, the transporting and plant employees, who are not
engaged in ``primary'' agriculture as are the harvesting employees (see
NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714), are clearly not agricultural
employees. Such an employer cannot automatically become an agricultural
employer by merely transferring the plant operations to the farm so as
to meet the ``on a farm'' requirement. His employees will continue
outside the scope of agriculture if the packing or dehydrating is not in
reality done for the farmer. The question of for whom the practices are
performed is one of fact. In determining the question, however, the fact
that prior to the performance of the packing or dehydrating operations,
the farmer has relinquished title and divested himself of further
responsibility with respect to the product, is highly significant.
Performance of the Practice ``As an Incident To or In Conjunction With''
the Farming Operations
