(a) As noted in Sec. 784.109, the exemption for employees employed
``in'' the named operations does not extend to an employee by reason of
the fact that he engages in fabricating supplies for the named
operations. Employment in connection with the furnishing of supplies for
the processing or canning operations named in section 13(b)(4) is not
exempt as employment ``in'' such named operations unless the functional
relationship of the work to the actual conduct of the named operations
is such that, as a practical matter, the employment is directly and
necessarily a part of the operations for which exemption is intended.
Employees who meet the daily needs of the canning or processing
operations by delivering from stock, handling, and working on supplies
such as salt, condiments, cleaning supplies, containers, etc., which
must be provided as needed if the named operations are to continue, are
within the exemption because such work is, in practical effect, a part
of the operations for which exemption is intended. On the other hand,
the receiving, unloading, and storing of such supplies during seasons
when the named operations are not being carried on for subsequent use in
the operations expected to be performed during the active season, are
ordinarily too remote from the actual conduct of the named operations to
come within the exemption (see Sec. 784.113), and are not affected by
the natural factors (Sec. 784.137) which were considered by the Congress
to constitute a fundamental reason for providing the exemption. Whether
the receiving, unloading, and storing of supplies during periods when
the named operations are being carried on are functionally so related to
the actual conduct of the operations as to be, in practical effect, a
part of the named operations and within the exemption, will depend on
all the facts and circumstances of the particular situation and the
manner in which the named operations are carried on. Normally where such
activities are directed to building up stock for use at a relatively
remote time and there is no direct integration with the actual conduct
of the named operations, the exemption will not apply.
(b) It may be that employees are engaged in the same workweek in
performing exempt and nonexempt work. For example, a shop machinist
engaged in making a new part to be used in the repair of a machine
currently used in canning operations would be doing exempt work. If he
also in the same workweeks makes parts to be used in a manufacturing
plant operated by his employer, this work, since it does not directly or
necessarily contribute to the conduct of the canning operations, would
be nonexempt work causing the loss of the exemption if such work
occupied a substantial amount (for enforcement purposes, more than 20
percent) of the employee's worktime in that workweek (see Sec. 784.116
for a more detailed discussion).
