(a) No single test will determine whether a worker is in fact
employed ``by'' a country elevator establishment. This question must be
decided on the basis of the total situation (Rutherford Food Corp. v.
McComb, 331 U.S. 722; U.S. v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704). Clearly, an employee
is so employed where he is hired by the elevator, engages in its work,
is paid by the elevator and is under its supervision and control.
(b) ``Employed by'' requires that there be an employer-employee
relationship between the worker and the employer engaged in operating
the elevator. The fact, however, that the employer carries an employee
on the payroll of the country elevator establishment which qualifies for
exemption does not automatically extend the exemption to that employee.
In order to be exempt an employee must actually
be ``employed by'' the exempt establishment. This means that whether the
employee is performing his duties inside or outside the establishment,
he must be employed in the work of the exempt establishment itself in
activities within the scope of its exempt business in order to meet the
requirement of actual employment ``by'' the establishment (see Walling
v. Connecticut Co., 154 F. 2d 552).
(c) In the case of employers who operate multiunit enterprises and
conduct business operations in more than one establishment (see Tobin v.
Flour Mills, 185 F. 2d 596; Remington v. Shaw (W.D. Mich.) 2 WH Cases
262), there will be employees of the employer who perform central office
or central warehousing activities for the enterprise or for more than
one establishment, and there may be other employees who spend time in
the various establishments of the enterprise performing duties for the
enterprise rather than for the particular establishment in which they
are working at the time. Such employees are employed by the enterprise
and not by any particular establishment of the employer (Mitchell v.
Miller Drugs, 255 F. 2d 574; Mitchell v. Kroger Co., 248 F. 2d 935).
Accordingly, so long as they perform such functions for the enterprise
they would not be exempt as employees employed by a country elevator
establishment operated as part of such an enterprise, even while
stationed in it or placed on its payroll.
