(a) As noted in § 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 § 784.113), and are not affected by the natural factors (§ 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 § 784.116 for a more detailed discussion).