skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Photos representing the workforce - Digital Imagery© copyright 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.
www.dol.gov

Previous Section

Content Last Revised:
---DISCLAIMER---

Next Section

CFR  

Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to ESA

Title 29  

Labor

 

Chapter V  

Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor

 

 

Part 780  

Exemptions Applicable to Agriculture, Processing of Agricultural Commodities, and Related Subjects Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

 

 

 

Subpart F  

Employment or Agricultural Employees in Processing Shade- Grown Tobacco; Exemption From Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Requirements Under Section 13(a)(14)


29 CFR 780.502 - Legislative history of exemption.

  • Section Number: 780.502
  • Section Name: Legislative history of exemption.

    The exemption for shade-grown tobacco workers was added to the Act 
by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961. The intent of the 
committee which inserted the provision in the amendments which were 
reported to the House (see H. Rept. No. 75, 87th Cong., first sess., p. 
29) was to exclude from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of 
the Act ``employees engaged prior to the stemming process in processing 
shade-grown tobacco for use as cigar wrapper tobacco, but only if the 
employees were employed in the growing and harvesting of such tobacco''. 
The Report also pointed out that ``such operations were assumed to be 
exempt prior to the case of Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473 (1956), as a 
continuation of the agricultural process occurring in the vicinity where 
the tobacco was grown''. The original provision in the House-passed bill 
was in the form of an amendment to the Act's definition of agriculture. 
In that form, it would have altered the effect of the Supreme Court's 
decision in the case of
Mitchell v. Budd, cited above, by bringing the described employees under 
the exemption provided for agriculture in section 13(a)(6) of the Act. 
(H. Rept. No. 75, p. 26, and H. Rept. No. 327, p. 17, 87th Cong., first 
sess.) The Conference Committee, in changing the provision to provide a 
separate exemption, made it clear that it was ``not intended by the 
committee of conference to change * * * by the exemption for employees 
engaged in the named operations on shade-grown tobacco the application 
of the Act to any other employees. Nor is it intended that there be any 
implication of disagreement by the conference committee with the 
principles and tests governing the application of the present 
agricultural exemption as enunciated by the courts.'' (H. Rept. No. 327, 
supra, p. 18.)
Previous Section

Next Section



Phone Numbers