[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR784.103]

[Page 670-671]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
         CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
PART 784_PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLICABLE TO FISHING 
AND OPERATIONS ON AQUATIC PRODUCTS--Table of Contents
 
Subpart B_Exemptions Provisions Relating to Fishing and Aquatic Products
 
Sec. 784.103  Adoption of the exemption in the original 1938 Act.

    Although in the course of consideration of the legislation in 
Congress before passage in 1938, provisions to exempt employment in 
fisheries and aquatic products activities took various forms, section 
13(a)(5), as drafted by the conference committee and finally approved, 
followed the language of an amendment adopted during consideration of 
the bill by the House of Representatives on May 24, 1938, which was 
proposed by Congressman Bland of Virginia. He had earlier on the same 
day, offered an amendment which had as its objective the exemption of 
the T`TT`TfisheryT industry,T'TT'T broadly defined. The amendment had 
been defeated (83 Cong. Rec. 7408), as had an amendment subsequently 
offered by Congressman Mott of Oregon (Tto a pending amendment proposed 
by Congressman Coffee of NebraskaT) which would have provided an 
exemption for T`TT`Tindustries engaged in producing, processing, 
distributing, or handling * * * fishery or seafood products which are 
seasonal or perishableT'TT'T (T83T Cong.T Rec.T 7421-7423). Against this 
background, when Congressman Bland offered his amendment which 
ultimately became section 13(a)(5) of the Act he took pains to explain: 
T`TT`TThis amendment is not the same. In the last amendment I was trying 
to define the fishery industry. I am now dealing with those persons who 
are exempt, and I call the attention of the Committee to the language 
with respect to the employment of persons in agriculture * * * I
am only asking for the seafood and fishery industry that which has been 
done for agriculture.T'TT'T ItT wasT afterT thisT explanationT thatT 
theT amendmentT wasT adoptedT (T83T Cong.T Rec.T 7443T).T When

[[Page 671]]

the conference committee included in the final legislation this 
provision from the House bill, it omitted from the bill another House 
provision granting an hours exemption for employees ``in any place of 
employment'' where the employer was ``engaged in the processing of or in 
canning fresh fish or fresh seafood'' and the provision of the Senate 
bill providing an hours exemption for employees ``employed in connection 
with'' the canning or other packing of fish, etc. (see Mitchell v. 
Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; McComb v. Consolidated Fisheries, 75 F. Supp. 
798). The indication in this legislative history that the exemption in 
its final form was intended to depend upon the employment of the 
particular employee in the specified activities is in accord with the 
position of the Department of Labor and the weight of judicial 
authority.