In deleting employees employed in canning aquatic products from the
section 13(a)(5) exemption and providing them with an exemption in like
language from the overtime provisions only in section 13(b)(4), the
conferees on the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949 did not
indicate any intention to change in any way the category of employees
who would be exempt as ``employed in the canning of'' the aquatic
products. As the Supreme Court has pointed out in a number of decisions,
``When Congress amended the Act in 1949 it provided that pre-1949
rulings and interpretations by the Administrator should remain in effect
unless inconsistent with the statute as amended 63 Stat. 920'' (Mitchell
v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290). In connection with this
exemption the conference report specifically indicates what operations
are included in the canning process (see Sec. 784.142). In a case
decided before the 1961 amendments to the Act, this was held to
``indicate that
Congress intended that only those employees engaged in operations
physically essential in the canning of fish, such as cutting the fish,
placing it in cans, labelling and packing the cans for shipment are in
the exempt category'' (Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210).
