contract between consolidated citrus the harvester and ruiz harvesting the labor contractor that ruiz harvesting and rees harvesting alone had the exclusive right to control the workers second if we look to the control of the district court analyzed those in the show are all her primarily agricultural decisions this court has said in annabelle and martinez mendoza may not be considered as elements of control do not indicate control this is the second time were before the court the first time fifteen months ago or so the court decided that the standard that should apply here is the common law test of agency to determine joint employment previously the district court had applied the suffers or permits to work standard which under the fair labor standards act which is a very forgiving standard and looks to considerations of economic dependency and stead of common law considerations of control the court re mandated to the district court to apply the common law test it did not authorize the court to take additional fact finding and everyone agreed that that was the proper way to proceed on the same facts the district court held again analysis actually favored consolidated citrus this time around the court again on the same facts said that control actually favors the workers when we break down and look at the the facts of the district court consider this time around i think there are really sort of eight key points that the district court thought favored a finding of control which is the touchstone of the the standard under the common law and those are the four as follows that consolidated citrus had the right to set the roadside and pick rate that it paid to raise harvesting but that was just a reason harvesting its labor contractor that was as part of the agreement between consolidate citrus and the labor contractor second that consolidated citrus had the right to halt work in the groves for any reason which is anything that in a standard feature that any landowner would request of a labor contractor on his property throughout harvest groves in florida the fourth is that trees harvesting said to pick particular blocks based on fruit fruit rightness again an agricultural decision that any landowner or harvester would know  s consolidated citrus had supervisors on the property and the property is about eight thousand acres and they drove around on the property to check in with the various crews ruiz harvesting was not the only crew there were other labor contractors that had crews consolidated citrus had their own crews and they maybe spent about ten or fifteen minutes checking in just to make sure that fruit was being picked and was being put in the right place and they never interacted directly with the workers that's that's undisputed instead if there was any information to pass along it was only to the harvesting supervisors in fact this court in the prior appeal observed that rule is that consolidated citrus had very little to no supervisory relationship with the workers themselves and finally if you can tell it is interest before i'm some random audits of really is harvesting books and for my own primarily because if there is there are known to be predatory practices among labor contractors and consolidated citrus was and is in some sense trying to ensure that that ruiz harvesting both maintained its commit follow through on its commitments under the labor contract and also to protect the workers so really if we look at these eight factors we break them down essentially into purely agricultural decisions that any land owner would have the right to choose to engage in this court said an amiable and martinez windows are the kinds of agricultural decisions that landers get to make that do not indicate control the second bucket are x a consolidated citrus took either as as a as a party to the contract to oversee what reason harvesting did to make sure that it was complying with its obligations under labor contract or to protect the workers and there's there's no it makes sort of neither good sense nor good policy for acts that are consolidated citrus took simply to protect the workers to somehow become the factors that  standard review especially following this court's decisions in a mobile and matt martinez windows in which or even imply applying a more forgiving standard for the workers but the facts here simply do not support control at the level of the common law test agency test is the right to control so let me start out by saying that the district court's decision an analysis here is an excellent blueprint for this court in terms of examining that issue i understand that this is the no review but as this court mentioned in its previous decision there's been extensive fact finding and what the district court did is went back and used the facts from the six day trial and applied them the interest that which seemed to be in the interest of the workers such as auditing the books and things of that nature against c c l pay in the common law agency principles determination particularly when they're being held control consisted not only of some of those payroll mechanisms that that consolidated citrus argues were designed to protect the workers but also clear that some very fundamental and disha of control such as the ability to unilaterally stop work at any time that was in the contract isn't that also in part though for it least in part for the benefit of the workers for example if there's if there's lightning in the area that's what i understood that at least some of it was and some of it's faith benefit of c c l pay no doubt if the as a product is not up to par or whatever they might want to change fields but some of it is also for the benefit of the workers well i'm not sure it's in the record with respect to that particular contract or provision what is in the record is that c c lp could stop work for any reason and what is also in the record is the testimony from with from one of the supervisors that that didn't fact happen when the supervisor went out to the field and saw that there was garbage and saw that there were message out there the supervisor in fact set the crew home the c c l supervisors temp the work home so that is you know reflection of  desperate is it your position that if we don't consider the things that were arguably done primarily for the benefit of the workers and that there's still enough under the common law principles of agency to find them a joint employer well i mean i think under the common law approach suppose you're under the comma principles do not examine the motive of the conduct i recognize that but also i mean we have to think about the practical implications of what we're doing and if the practical implications are that an employer who is trying to comply with its f l s a requirements and its requirements and things of that nature is then held liable as a result of that i mean i think that's something we need to take into consideration so my question is again if we don't consider those things that are arguably primarily primarily for the benefit of the workers is your position that there's still enough to hold c c l p liable as a joint employer under the common law principles of agency yes your honor i think there is and i think that's the correct result because what c c p did sufficiently capitalized so c c p got the benefit of this bargain right c c p it's like we're going to be extensively involved we're going to be exclusively involved with respect to all of the cake or protection procedures but we'll take some modest steps with respect to our compliance with with you know federal wage and hour laws but it didn't take the obvious step this is not a case of don't let a good deed go unpunished this is a company that had enormous control based on i think a very fair analysis  record what do you say about the eight points that your colleague well let me find earth classic things a landowner would do well i mean i think first of all that with the exception that with the exception of looking after the workers to with respect to the facts with respect to the law to start out can you tell me about the facts sheets he rattled off a bunch of facts ok circumstances that the typical landowner under these circumstances would to go beyond state mandated requirements with respect to contamination procedures i mean that seems like and to me that seems like an agricultural thing right because if you allow citrus canker into your fields then you've lost i mean it spreads like wildfire and you presumably would lose your entire crop said that seems like an agricultural thing so i would set that one aside as well and lester something i'm missing now except that it went beyond what was required by the state but what difference does it make whether it's required by the state or not if it's if it comes down to the existence or nonexistence of your business because you have no crops ok if i could say something with respect to the law already addressed this issue of whether these are agriculture decisions whether c c was overly active in its previous decision when it up held the district court's finding that c was a joint employer this court has already addressed it on this record but there is a difference between the definition of a join a player under half l s a and the definition of a join up player under common law agency principles when you agree twice by the district court supervision and payroll methods and personnel there is no case authority indicating that those factors need to be treated differently in fact this court in antin or said yes and they listed things that a landowner under the circumstances would do regardless of control you pick out one and that is they could stop work ok what is take off the rest of them you think know they they they produce citrus right so anything dealing with workers is all to be going to have to do with agriculture but this is not a case like a mob ok this is not a case where to question of when you plant the seeds and when you plant the crops this is a case where the supervisors went out there and for ninety minutes a day you know were able to direct the direct to work or deal with the contractor supervised and how many contractors were on the premises i'm not sure now well what does record tell us shows is what the record shows is that each of the grower supervisors dealt with the crews at least ninety minutes per day that's what the record shows regardless of how many understand how many how many  harvesters if i could also say something in your honor with respect to the argument which is just completely incorrect that the district court changed its nella since if you look at what the district court did case and basically said look everything under the contract the right to hire the right to fire that does not show control right consistent with their argument but then consistent with the earlier decision under phyllis at the district court with through all of the factors that showed substantial supervisory control so the only difference is that the district court did not include a separate subheading in the suspicion that the analysis is exactly the same the district court cites it's pretty the previous record cites a previous decision the district court did not flipflop the district court looked again at substantial supervisory control on the record of this case as a means to find joint employer the district court also noted that  the the previous test court judge and in looking in issuing a summary judgment order also found there was substantial supervisory control it's hard not to look at this record and not see super substantial supervisor the standards are different ok but the economic realities test subsumes a control test and it's a controlled test to supervision the payment methods that drove the decision of the district court here and on to no review should lead to this court to affirm a finding of joy employer it's the same record it's the same record ok celestin a garcia is the precedent for this court in terms of addressing issues of agricultural decisions overly active court it's the same record right and there's nothing to indicate that you are nothing indicating any of the cases cited by consolidated citrus indicating the a need to consider supervision in a much more narrow fashion and the common law  agency tests as compared to economic dependencies test the economic dependency test include several factors that are part of the common agency test but to those factors through those factors ownership of the land common supervision and control common payment method and personal practices common and those were the three primary factors that the district court twice relied upon on an extensive record to find a common law ownership was in the position to be able to safeguard against labor violations right he was in a position to do the very obvious thing asked the workers have you been asked to kick back many the obvious they if you're dealing with a consolidated citrus the consistencies and supervise supervise supervising the workers and the the court district court did say the first time around that there was some supervisory relationship mostly related to  implicitly disagreed in the last appeal where it actually said that there was little to no supervisory control and that's because ruiz harvesting right is the labor contractor for consolidated citrus trees harvesting is the is the employer of these workers and th no dispute with respect to that but rules harvesting is only one of many labor contractors that consolidated citrus used there were anywhere from two hundred to two hundred fifty workers in the grove at that one time your honor asked the question as to sort of how many there are ten to fifteen different labor contractors and consolidate citrus had some of its own workers that were h two a visa workers as well what about mr lopez's point about for example the fact that your client deducted an hour from the hours that he kept for each of the worst yeah and i think that you know part of the reason for that is is to standardize so to ensure it's the same kind of worker protection reason that we discussed earlier that your honor was concerned about is that if you can standardize this so that everyone gets a similar deduction is so that it's not left in the hands of the contractor which can inflate or change the practices it was it was it was a act motivated to ensure uniformity and to produce accurate records it wasn't it wasn't done in with any other kind of control or or active supervising of the workers so i don't you know if that's the best they have i certainly don't think that rises to the level of the kinds of considerations that this court has held before control and it's again back in that that bucket of care that's taken to ensure that both rees harvesting is meeting its obligations under the labor contract and