[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR784.103]

[Page 626]
 
                             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 ``fishery industry,'' broadly defined. The amendment had been 
defeated (83 Cong. Rec. 7408), as had an amendment subsequently offered 
by Congressman Mott of Oregon (to a pending amendment proposed by 
Congressman Coffee of Nebraska) which would have provided an exemption 
for ``industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or 
handling * * * fishery or seafood products whichare seasonal or 
perishable'' (83 Cong. Rec. 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: ``This 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.'' 
It was after this explanation that the amendment was adopted (83 Cong. 
Rec. 7443). When 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.