Since the exemptions by their terms apply to the employees
``employed by'' the exempt establishment, it follows that those
exemptions will not extend to other employees who, although actually
working in the establishment and even though employed by the same person
who is the employer of all under section 3(d) of the Act, are not
``employed by'' the exempt establishment. Thus, traveling auditors,
manufacturers' demonstrators, display-window arrangers, sales
instructors, etc., who are not ``employed by'' an exempt establishment
in which they work will not be exempt merely because they happen to be
working in such an exempt establishment, whether or not they work for
the same employer. (Mitchell v. Kroger Co., 248 F. 2d 935 (CA-8).) For
example, if the manufacturer sends one of his employees to demonstrate
to the public in a customer's exempt retail establishment the products
which he has manufactured, the employee will not be considered exempt
under section 13(a)(2) since he is not employed by the retail
establishment but by the manufacturer. The same would be true of an
employee of the central offices of a chain-store organization who
performs work for the central organization on the premises of an exempt
retail outlet of the chain (Mitchell v. Kroger Co., supra.)
