Section 13(a)(6) of the Act exempts from the minimum wage requirements of section 6 and from the overtime pay requirements of section 7:

(a) Man-day is defined by section 3(u) of the Act as follows:

(b) Under section 3(e) of the Act the term employee does not include certain individuals in determining mandays of labor. Section 3(e) provides that:

(c) The legislative history of the 1966 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act indicates that the Congress in enacting minimum wage protection (section 6(a)(5)) for agriculture workers for the first time sought to provide a minimum wage floor for the farmworkers on large farms or agri-business enterprises. The section 13(a)(6)(A) exemption was intended to exempt those farmworkers on the smaller or familysize farms. In keeping with this intention, a labor requirement of 500 man-days was incorporated into the exemption, and certain workers were specifically excluded from the man-day count, as provided in section 3(e) (1) and (2).

Section 13(a)(6)(A) applies to an employee provided all the following conditions are met:

(a) He must be “employed in agriculture”

(b) By an “employer”

(c) Who did not use more than “500 man-days” of agriculture labor

(d) During any “calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year.”

Section 13(a)(6)(A) exempts “any employee employed in agriculture * * * by an employer * * *.” It is clear from this language that it is the activities of the employee rather than those of his employer which determine the application of the exemption. In other words, the exemption applies only to employees who are engaged in agricultural activities. Thus some employees of the employer may be exempt while others may not. In any case the burden of effecting segregation between exempt and nonexempt work as between different groups of employees is upon the employer. For a more detailed discussion of what constitutes employment in agriculture, see subpart B of this part.

(a) The employer may be an individual, a partnership, or a corporation. It is not necessary that the employer be a farmer as defined in § 780.131. It is sufficient that he “uses” agricultural labor.

(b) In applying this exemption, one of the main criteria is the number of man-days of agricultural labor used by the employer. Section 13(a)(6)(A) provides that the exemption shall not apply to an employee employed in agriculture “if such employee is employed by an employer who did not * * * use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor * * *.” From this language of the statute, the man-days of all agricultural workers, unless specifically excluded, of an employer whether he be the owner of a single farm, the owner of an enterprise consisting of several farms, a tenant farmer, an independent contractor, etc., are to be counted for purposes of section 13(a)(6)(A) whether they are employed at one place or several widely scattered places. For example if an employer owns and operates two farms, it is the total number of man-days used on both farms and not that used on each individual farm that determines whether he meets the 500 man-day test. Likewise independent contractor who harvests crops on different farms during the harvesting season must total all the man-days of agricultural labor used on all such farms except those excludable under section 3(e) in determining whether he meets the 500 man-day test.

(a) Section 3(u) of the Act defines man-day to mean “any day during which an employee performs agricultural labor for not less than 1 hour.” 500 man-days is approximately the equivalent of seven employees employed full-time in a calendar quarter. However, a farmer who hires temporary or part-time employees during part of the year, such as the harvesting season, may exceed the man-day test even though he may have only two or three full-time employees.

(b) All of the employer's employees who are engaged in “agricultural labor” except those specifically excluded by section 3(e) (see § 780.301) and those exempt under section 13(a)(14) (see subpart F of this part) must be counted in determining whether the 500 man-day test is met. This is true even though an employee may be exempt from the monetary provisions under another section of the Act. For example, a general manager of a farm may be an exempt executive employee under section 13(a)(1) or a sheepherder may meet the requirements of section 13(a)(6)(E). Regardless of those exemptions, their man-days of employment would be included in the man-day count of the employer.

(c) A farmer whose crops are harvested by an independent contractor is considered to be a joint employer with the contractor who supplies the harvest hands if the farmer has the power to direct, control or supervise the work, or to determine the pay rates or method of payment for the harvest hands. (See § 780.331.) Each employer must include the contractor's employees in his man-day count in determining whether his own man-day test is met. Each employer will be considered responsible for compliance with the minimum wage and child labor requirements of the Act with respect to the employees who are jointly employed.

In applying section 13(a)(6)(A), it is necessary to consider each of the four calendar quarters (January 1-March 31; April 1-June 30; July 1-September 30; October 1-December 31) in the preceding calendar year (January 1-December 31). If in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year the employer used more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor, he must comply with the minimum wage requirements of section 6(a)(5) with respect to any employee not otherwise exempt in the current year. Compliance with the Act is required in the current year regardless of the number of man-days of agricultural labor used in the current year. On the other hand, if in the preceding calendar year the number of man-days used did not exceed 500 in any calendar quarter, there is no requirement to comply with respect to employment of agricultural labor in the current calendar year regardless of how many man-days are used in any calendar quarter of the current calendar year. Such employees are exempt under the basic provisions of section 13(a)(6)(A).

Section 13(a)(6)(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 provides a minimum wage and overtime exemption in the case of “any employee engaged in agriculture * * * if such employee is the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the employer's immediate family.” The requirements of this exemption, evident from the statutory language, are that the employee be employed in agriculture and that he be a close blood relative, spouse or member of the employer's immediate family. Reference is made to subpart B of this part as to what constitutes employment in agriculture. The section 13(a)(6)(B) exemption applies to such an individual even though he is employed by an employer who otherwise used more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in a calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year, as discussed in § 780.305.

The Act does not define the scope of “immediate family.” Whether an individual other than a parent, spouse or child will be considered as a member of the employer's immediate family, for purposes of sections 3(e)(1) and 13(a)(6)(b), does not depend on the fact that he is related by blood or marriage. Other than a parent, spouse or child, only the following persons will be considered to qualify as part of the employer's immediate family: Step-children, foster children, step-parents and foster parents. Other relatives, even when living permanently in the same household as the employer, will not be considered to be part of the “immediate family.”

Section 3(e)(1) specifically excludes from the employer's man-day total (as defined in section 3(u)) employees who qualify for exemption under section 13(a)(6)(B). See § 780.301. This man-day count is a basic factor in the application of the section 13(a)(6)(A) exemption. See § 780.302 et seq.

Section 13(a)(6)(C) was added to the Act by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966. The legislative history of the exemption indicates that it was intended to apply to the local worker who goes out on a temporary basis during the harvest season to harvest crops. The exemption was not intended to apply to a full-time farmworker, that is, one who earns a livelihood at farming. For instance, migrant laborers who travel from farm to farm were not intended to be within the scope of this exemption.

(a) Section 13(a)(6)(C) of the Act applies to an employee who:

(1) Is employed in agriculture.

(2) Is employed as a hand harvest laborer.

(3) Is paid on a piece-rate basis.

(4) Is paid piece-rates in an operation which has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece-rate basis in the region of employment.

(5) Commutes daily from his permanent residence to the farm on which he is so employed.

(6) Has been employed in agriculture less than 13 weeks during the preceding calendar year.

(b) In order for the exemption to apply to an employee, all of the requirements must be met. Since a hand harvest laborer is normally an agricultural worker, while so engaged, such an employee would meet the basic requirements that he be employed in agriculture. Subpart B of this part contains a more detailed discussion of what constitutes employment in agriculture. The meaning and application of the remaining requirements are discussed in the following sections.

(a) The term hand harvest laborer for purposes of this exemption refers to farm workers engaged in harvesting by hand, or with hand tools, soil grown crops such as cotton, tobacco, grains, fruits, and vegetables. The term would not include harvesting operations performed by an employee with an electrically powered mechanical device, such as a “blueberry picking tool.” “Hand-harvesting” refers only to soil-grown crops and does not include any operation involving animals, such as shearing or lambing of sheep and catching chickens. Hand-harvesting is defined as manually gathering or severing the crop from the soil, stems, or roots at its growing position in the fields. Included are integral related operations, closely related geographically and in point of time, which are performed before the transportation to concentration points on the farm.

(b) The definition is limited to harvesting, and the performance by the hand harvester of any nonharvesting operation in the same workweek would cause the loss of the section 13(a)(6)(C) exemption.

The exemption provides that the employee must be paid on a piece-rate basis. To be exempt the employee must be compensated solely on piece rates during the workweek. The exemption does not apply in any workweek in which the employee is compensated on any other basis. For example, if an employee is compensated on an hourly rate for part of the week and on a piece rate for part of the week, the exemption would not be available. Also, if any pieceworker who is otherwise subject to the minimum wage provisions of the Act does not meet all the requirements set forth in this section he must be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour worked in a particular workweek, regardless of the fact he is paid on piece rate unless he is exempted by some other provision of the Act.

A significant test of the exemption is that the hand harvest operation “has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment.” The legislative history is silent on who must customarily and generally recognize the hand harvest operation as having been paid on a piece rate basis. However, considering the context in which the term is used, such recognition must be on the part of agricultural employers and employees and other individuals in the region of employment who are familiar with farming operations and practices in the region and the method of compensation utilized in such operations and practices.

(a) A requirement of the exemption is that an employee must commute each day from his permanent residence to the farm where he is employed. Thus, the exemption does not apply to a migrant worker who travels to different areas of the country during the harvesting seasons. This would be true even though the worker may remain in the area for a considerable period of time. On the other hand, if a migrant worker actually changes his place of residence and thereafter commutes daily from his permanent residence, the exemption applies from the date of the change of residence if the other tests are met.

(b) The fact that a worker may live on the farm where the operations are performed would not be a reason for disqualification. For example, if the other tests for the exemption are met, members of a tractor driver's family who reside on the farm could be employed in picking cotton within the terms of the exemption. Such family members would be considered to be commuting daily from their permanent residence despite the fact that their residence may be located on the farm at which they are employed.

(a) The exemption provides that an “employee must have been employed in agriculture less than 13 weeks during the preceding calendar year.” For purposes of determining whether a worker has been employed in agriculture less than 13 weeks during the preceding calendar year, a week is considered to be a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours consisting of seven consecutive 24-hour periods during which the employee worked at least 1 “man-day.” Section 3(u) of the Act defines a man-day as “any day during which an employee performs any agricultural labor for not less than 1 hour.”

(b) In defining the term “week” in this manner for purposes of section 13(a)(6)(C) (as well as section 3(e)(2)) comports with the traditional definition of week used in administering all the other provisions of the law. On this basis, the phrase “employed in agriculture less than 13 weeks” means that an employee has spent less than 13 weeks in agricultural work, regardless of the number of hours he worked during each one of the 13 weekly units. This position recognizes and accommodates to situations where an employee works very long as well as very short hours during the week. This would accord with the legislative history of this exemption which clearly indicates that it was meant to apply only to temporary workers whose hours of work would undoubtedly vary in length, and would, thereby effectuate the legislative intent.

(c) In determining the 13-week period, not only that work for the current employer in the preceding calendar year is counted, but also that agricultural work for all employers in the previous year. It is the total of all weeks of agricultural employment by the employee for all employers in the preceding calendar year that determines whether he meets the 13-week test. In this respect a self-employed farmer who works as a hand harvest laborer during part of the year is considered to be “employed” in agriculture only during those weeks when he is an employee of other farmers. Thus, such weeks of employment are to be counted but any weeks when he works only for himself are not counted toward the 13 weeks.

(d) The 13-week test applies to each individual worker. It does not apply on a family basis. To carry the example in the preceding section further, members of a tractor driver's family who reside on the farm could be employed in picking cotton within the terms of the exemption even though the driver had been employed in agriculture as much as 13 weeks in the previous calendar year, so long as the family members themselves had not.

(e) If an employer claims this exemption, it is the employer's responsibility to obtain a statement from the employee showing the number of weeks he was employed in agriculture during the preceding calendar year. This requirement is contained in the recordkeeping regulations in § 516.33 (d) of this chapter.

Section 3(e)(2) specifically excludes from the employer's man-day total (as defined in section 3(u)) employees who qualify for exemption under section 13(a)(6)(C). (See § 780.301.) This man-day count is a basic factor in the application of the section 13(a)(6)(A) exemption. (See § 780.302 et seq.)

(a) Section 13(a)(6)(D) of the 1966 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from the minimum wage and overtime provisions “any employee employed in agriculture * * * if such employee (other than an employee described in clause (C) of this subsection): (1) Is 16 years of age or under and is employed as a hand harvest laborer, is paid on a piece rate basis in an operation which has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment, (2) is employed on the same farm as his parent of persons standing in the place of his parent, and (3) is paid at the same piece rate as employees over age 16 are paid on the same farm.”

(b) It is clear from the legislative history of the amendments that the exemption was intended to apply, where the other specific tests are met, only to minors 16 years of age or under who are not “local” in the sense that they are away from their permanent home when employed in agriculture. Specifically the exemption was intended to apply in the case of the children of migrants who typically accompany their parents in harvesting and other agricultural work. (S. Rept. No. 1487, 89th Cong., second sess., to accompany H.R. 13712, pp. 9 and 10)

(a) Section 13(a)(6)(D) applies to an employee engaged in agriculture who meets all of the following tests:

(1) Is not a local hand harvest laborer,

(2) Is 16 years of age or under,

(3) Is employed as a hand harvest laborer,

(4) Is paid on a piece rate basis,

(5) Is employed in an operation which has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment,

(6) Is employed on the same farm as his parent or person standing in the place of his parent, and

(7) Is paid at the same piece rate as employees over age 16 are paid on the same farms.

(b) Some of these requirements which are common to both sections 13(a)(6)(C) and 13(a)(6)(D) have already been discussed in connection with section 13(a)(6)(C) and need not be repeated. They are found in §§ 780.311 (employed in agriculture), 780.312 (hand harvest laborer), 780.313 (piece rate basis), and 780.314 (operations customarily * * * paid on a piece rate basis). The other requirements are discussed in the following sections.

The exemption applies only to migrant or other than local hand harvest workers 16 years of age or under who do come within the scope of section 13(a)(6)(C) (application to all local hand harvest laborers who commute daily from their permanent residences). (See § 780.315.) A local youth under the prescribed age who commutes daily from his permanent residence to the farm to perform work is not exempt under section 13(a)(6)(D). The exemption may, however, be available for the specified minors who work for short periods of several days or weeks without returning daily to their homes on farms beyond commuting distances from their permanent homes.

Section 13(a)(6)(D) by its very terms is available only to employees 16 years of age or under. Accordingly, even though all the other tests of the exemption are met, the exemption is inapplicable in the case of an employee over 16 years of age and the employer must pay to such an employee the applicable statutory minimum wage unless his operations come within the reach of some other exemption, such as section 13(a)(6)(A). Furthermore, although section 13(a)(6)(D) provides a minimum wage and overtime exemption for minors 16 years of age or under, the employer must nevertheless comply with the child labor provisions of the Act prohibiting the employment of minors in agriculture except under certain conditions and circumstances. These provisons are discussed in part 1500, subpart G of this title.

(a) The words “employed on the same farm” are accorded their natural meaning with the usual caution, however, that as in the case of all other exemptions, the exemptive language is to be construed narrowly. (See § 780.2.)

(b) Individuals who are considered as “his parent or persons standing in place of his parent” include natural parents, or any other person where the relationship between that person and a child is such that the person may be said to stand in place of a parent. For example, one who takes a child into his home and treats it as a member of his own family, educating and supporting the child as if it were his own, is generally said to stand to the child in place of a parent.

Section 13(a)(6)(E) which was added to the Act by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act for any employee “employed in agriculture” if he is “principally engaged in the range production of livestock.” It is apparent from the language of section 13(a)(6)(E) that the application of this exemption depends on the type of work performed by the individual employee for whom exemption is sought and on where the work is done. A determination of whether an employee is exempt therefore requires an examination of that employee's duties and where they are performed. Some employees of the employer may be exempt while others may not.

(a) All the following conditions must be met in order for the exemption to apply to an employee:

(1) He must be “engaged in agriculture”;

(2) Be “principally engaged”;

(3) On the “range”, and

(4) In the “production of livestock.”

(b) Since the raising of livestock is included in the definition of agriculture under section 3(f) of the Act (see §§ 780.119-780.121 of subpart B of this part), the range production of livestock would normally be deemed agriculture work, and, consequently, an employee, during this time he is engaged in such activities, would meet the basic requirement of the exemption that he be “employed in agriculture.”

(a) To determine whether an employee is “principally engaged” in the range production of livestock, one must consider the nature of his duties and responsibilities. To qualify for this exemption the primary duty and responsibility of a range employee must be to take care of the animals actively or to stand by in readiness for that purpose. A determination of whether an employee has range production of livestock as his primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case. The amount of time spent in the performance of the range production duties is a useful guide in determining whether this is the primary duty of the employee. In the ordinary case it will be considered that the primary duty means the major part, or over 50 percent, of the employee's time.

(b) Under this principle, an employee who spends more than 50 percent of his time during the year on the range in the duties designated as range production duties would be exempt. This is true even though the employee may perform some activities not directly related to the range production of livestock, such as putting up hay or constructing dams or digging irrigation ditches.

(a) For purposes of this exemption, “range” is defined generally as land that is not cultivated. It is land that produces native forage for animal consumption, and includes land that is revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage cover that is managed like range vegetation. “Forage” as used here means “browse” or herbaceous food that is available to livestock or game animals.

(b) The range may be on private or Federal or State land, and need not be open. Typically it is not only noncultivated land, but land that is not suitable for cultivation because it is rocky, thin, semiarid, or otherwise poor. Typically, also, many acres of range land are required to graze one animal unit (five sheep or one cow) for 1 month. By its nature, range production of livestock is most typically conducted over wide expanses of land, such as thousands of acres.

For an employee to be engaged in the production of livestock, he must be actively taking care of the animals or standing by in readiness for that purpose. Thus, such activities as herding, handling, transporting, feeding, watering, caring for, branding, tagging, protecting, or otherwise assisting in the raising of livestock and in such immediately incidental duties as inspecting and repairing fences, wells, and windmills would be considered as the production of livestock. On the other hand, such work as terracing, reseeding, haying, and constructing dams, wells, and irrigation ditches would not be considered as the production of livestock within the meaning of the exemption.

The term “livestock” includes cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on the farm. This is further discussed in § 780.120. Turkeys or domesticated fowl are considered poultry and not livestock within the meaning of this exemption.

(a) The standard that must be used to determine whether the individual employee is exempt is that his primary duty must be the range production of livestock and that this duty necessitates his constant attendance on the range, on a standby basis, for such periods of time so as to make the computation of hours worked extremely difficult. The fact that an employee generally returns to his place of residence at the end of each day would not affect the application of the exemption.

(b) Thus, exempt work must be performed away from the “headquarters.” The headquarters is not, however, to be confused with the “headquarters ranch.” The term headquarters has reference to the place for the transaction of the business of the ranch (administrative center), as distinguished from buildings or lots used for convenience elsewhere. It is a particular location for the discharge of the management duties. Accordingly, the term “headquarters” would not embrace large acreage, but only the ranchhouse, barns, sheds, pen, bunkhouse, cookhouse, and other buildings in the vicinity. The balance of the “headquarters ranch” would be the “range.”

(c) Furthermore, the legislative history indicates that this exemption was not intended to apply to feed lots or to any area where the stock involved would be near headquarters. Its sponsors stated that the exemption would apply only to those employees principally engaged in activities which require constant attendance on a standby basis, away from headquarters, such as herding, where the computation of hours worked would be extremely difficult. Such constant surveillance of livestock that graze and reproduce on range lands is necessary to see that the animals receive adequate care, water, salt, minerals, feed supplements, and protection from insects, parasites, disease, predators, adverse weather, etc.

(d) The man-days of labor of employees principally engaged in the range production of livestock, even though the employees are exempt from the wage and hour requirements of the Act, are included in the employer's man-day count for purposes of application of section 13(a)(6)(A). Thus, if a cattle rancher in a particular calendar quarter uses 200 man-days of such range production labor and 400 man-days of agricultural labor performed by individuals not so engaged, he is required to pay the minimum wage to the latter employees in the following year.

(a) The test of coverage for sharecroppers and tenant farmers is the same as that applied under the Act to determine whether any other person is an employee or not. Certain so-called sharecroppers or tenants whose work activities are closely guided by the landowner or his agent are covered. Those individuals called sharecroppers and tenants whose work is closeIy directed and who have no actual discretion in controlling farm operations are in fact employees by another name. True independent-contractor sharecroppers or tenant farmers who actually control their farm operations are not employees, but if they employ other workers they may be responsible as employers under the Act.

(b) In determining whether such individuals are employees or independent contractors, the criteria set forth in §§ 795.100 through 795.110 of this chapter are used.

(c) Where a tenant or sharecropper is found to be an employee, he and any members of his family who work with him on the crop are also to be included in the 500 man-day count of the owner or operator of the farm. Thus, where a sharecropper is an employee and his wife and children help in chopping cotton, all the family members are employees of the farm owner or operator and all their man-days of work are counted.

(d) On the other hand, a sharecropper or tenant who qualifies as a bona fide independent contractor is considered the same as any other employer, and only the man-days of agricultural labor performed by employees of such a sharecropper or tenant are counted toward the man-days used by him. If he does not meet the 500 man-day test, he is not required to pay his employees the minimum wage even though those employees are entitled to the minimum wage when working for a separate employer who met the man-day test.

(a) Whether a crew leader or a labor contractor is the employer of the workers he supplies is a question of fact. The tests here are the same as those used to determine whether a sharecropper or tenant is an independent contractor. A crew leader who merely assembles a crew and brings them to the farm to be supervised and paid directly by the farmer, and who does the same work and receives the same pay as the crewmembers, is an employee of the farmer, and both he and his crew are counted as such and paid accordingly if the farmer is not exempt under the 500 man-day test. The situation is not significantly different if under the same circumstances, the crew is hired at so much per acre for their work. This is in effect a group piecework arrangement.

(b) The situation is different where the farmer only establishes the general manner for the work to be done. Where this is the case, the labor contractor is the employer of the workers if he makes the day-to-day decisions regarding the work and has an opportunity for profit or loss through his supervision of the crew and its output. As the employer, he has the authority to hire and fire the workers and direct them while working in the fields. Complaints by the farmer about the quality or quantity of the work or about a worker are made to the contractor or his representatives, who takes whatever action he deems appropriate. His opportunity for profit or loss comes from his control over the time and manner of performance of work by his crew and his authority to determine the wage rates paid to his workers.

(c) There is also the common and general practice of an individual who performs custom work such as crop dusting or grain harvesting and threshing or sheepshearing. In the typical case this contractor has a substantial investment in equipment and his business decisions and judgments materially affect his opportunity for profit or loss. In the overall picture, the contractor is not following the usual path of an employee, but that of an independent contractor.

(d) Whether or not a labor contractor or crew leader is found to be a bona fide independent contractor, his employees are considered jointly employed by him and the farmer who is using their labor if the farmer has the power to direct, control or supervise the work, or to determine the pay rates or method of payment. (Hodgson v. Okada (C.A. 10), 20 W.H. Cases 1107; Hodgson v. Griffin & Brand (C.A. 5) 20 W.H. Cases 1051; Mitchell v. Hertzke, 234 F. 2d 183, 12 W.H. Cases 877 (C.A. 10).) In a joint employment situation, the man-days of agricultural labor rendered are counted toward the man-days of such labor of each employer. Each employer is considered equally responsible for compliance with the Act. With respect to the recordkeeping regulations in 29 CFR 516.33, the employer who actually pays the employees will be considered primarily responsible for maintaining and preserving the records of hours worked and employees' earnings specified in paragraph (c) of § 516.33 of this chapter.

(a) Occasionally a farmer may help his neighbor with the harvest of his crop. For instance, Farmer B helps his neighbor Farmer A harvest his wheat. In return Farmer A helps Farmer B with the harvest at his farm.

(b) In a case where neighboring farmers exchange their own work under an arrangement where the work of one farmer is repaid by the labor of the other farmer and there is no monetary compensation for these services paid or contemplated, the Department of Labor would not assert that either farmer is an employee of the other.

(c) In addition, there may be instances where employees of a farmer also work for neighboring farmers during harvest time. For example, employees of Farmer A may help Farmer B with his harvest, and later, Farmer B's employees may help Farmer A. These employees would be included in the man-day count of the farmer for whom the work is performed on the day in question. Since the Act defines man-day to mean any day during which an employee performs any agricultural labor for not less than 1 hour, there may be days on which these employees work for both Farmer A and Farmer B for a “man-day.” In that event they would be included for that day in the man-day count of both Farmer A and Farmer B.