**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
GRO”ERSELLER* ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable Claude A. Williams Chairman end Executive Director Texas Unemployment Compensation Austin, Texas~ Dear Sir: Re: Opinion No. Wereservice tine farm e compensatio ed on turpen- ?Lemployment d r atea questions.
**We**have your letter as r0u0w8: **.L.**

lations and the Cammiss labor' lnolaaes all

on a farm in oonneoof thesc~l, the hareraising, :f,eeding oti. estoak, bees, and poultry; or

etloy$th the iala;.' ioh were farm, transp~orting, also the paoklng, paokaging,

or.marketlng of those materials or artlole.8. Such servioes do not oonstituta tagrloultural labor', however, unless they are -:.Honorable Claude A. Wllllams, Page 2

performed by an employee of t&a 6wner OP

### tenant of the farm on whloh the materials ln their raw or natural state were produoed, and unless snoh prooessing, paoklng, paokaglng, transporting, or marketing-is carried on as an inoident to ordiaarg farming operations as distinguished tram manufaoturing or commercial operations.

‘As used herein the term ‘farm’ smbraoea the farm In the oralnarlly aooepted sense, and inoludes stock, dairy, poultry,. fruit and truck farms, plantations, renahe ,ranges, end oroharas. The term

‘farm* does not embraoe lumbering and roredtrp Industry ror the purpose of thie Act.” *OnJu4 2~. 19 above r6gulatian ii

an lathn 25;, Regulation C& .,.

‘The term *agrloultural labor’ includes all services pertormed

.
_’ (1) By an~employee, on a E~ZIIL, in ‘~ooIqe0tl.o~ nith l&e.oultlvatlon or the so&l& the harree@ of orops, or.th$ raieing, $eeaihg;:tar managemn “&
or llyeetqok, bees i and poultqt @r

., (2) By an 5mploy5e in ootieotion ritli the prooeesIng of ag%lolen from mat5rial.n which rclre,~ prodaoed ti h3arm, al50 the paoking, trana art10 as. P ortlng, r”--

or marketing of thee5 m erlals or, Sri&: servl~elr~do not oonatitute *agrLii oulteal $abor’,.however, anlear theyz~5 p5.r~ formed by,an 5mplo~55 of the owner OTtenant of the farmxui whlah ,thexia~allhl.s in thdr 

### rawor natural~etate were podtied; and ~151~s suoh prooeselng, pasklng, paokaging, trans orting, 

### x q,~ marketing Is 

### carried QII as 

### e.n in01 ent to Or86narY iarmIng opesatlons as dlstlngulshed rrom nanufaoturlng or oommerolal operations*

“As used herein the term ‘farm’ embraass the farm In the ordinarily, aooepted sense, and Innlades stook, dairy, ponltrp, rrult and truck farms,Honorable Clahde A. Williams, page 3 .,

lantatlons, ranohes, ranges, and orohards. !&I e term *farm* dors net embraoa Jqmberlng and rorestrp industry for the purpose of this 

### Aot.t Regulation 25 'Agricultural Packing and Marketing Assoolatlons Sec. 19 (g1 (6) (D) ,The iaot t&t an lndlvldual is engaged ln handling farm proauots does not or ltselr makethe services performed for him fagrloulturalt. Serdoes are often perrormea by employees in oonnectlon with the paoklng, processing, packaging, transporting or marketing for sale to oonsumers or farm products whloh are~not a part of oralnary farmlag operations but a:part o$: aomierolal~.tm. manitfaottiring operations. ~*ma&~s~h~-ser~le*r ~' are pertorpsd byeinbltld~ls~.~o'~ara:~~~~lo sn 

### ae~oolation~cir ~prodaoclra,~-ef~,thB~~.:t 3; 

### Hi,:b$ ‘: a"' produots in ~oonneotlonwith.whloh the seroloee are perrormed were produoed by the members ,of suoh aeaooiatlon, the aerrloea of sooh employees are not exempt as agrioultural labor, since the indlrlduale are employers ,of the assoolatlon and not of a-partloular, produo5ti.t

.. *Gn

### Ihatlarr1, 194Dphc4 

### Gommlt~elon rwoiuded Reg&tlon Z?&

**aad** Regalatlok 25, abqljte. Thor6 ha8 been no~Gommlsaion Regulation 011thle subjsot~ nlnoo the last mentioned-date. 

## l Dpa.the anaotment oi the Unamploflasnt Gompensatlon Aot this Commlsslon began oolleotlng,taxes iron the &gate Haml Storea, Ino. Its oontinued to oolloot unemploymssattaxes rrom the named-employer until Sanuary 1; ~1940,when 10 relieved the employer of liability begiunlng January 1, 1940, in aooordanoe with Its deoislon dated Maroh 19, 1940, tihloh read8 in part: *It la therein stated that *The Wieergata Naval Stores, Inoorporated, .operated what le~oanmonlp called a turpentine farm near Wlergate, ln Newton County Texas. The operation of a turpentine oamp consists or the making, ~gathering and stilling ‘Or crude guminto gumsplrlts Andy resin. This operation is accomplished by chipping a live pine tree_’

,~.’

Eonornble Claude Ai UIlllams,, Page &

and pq l olng therion

aoup. into whl.oh arude gum 

### Isoollsoted. ‘,Xh%s 5mtl5 ~gti 1s psrlodlo5lly gathered and transported to the anmpst$ll where same la pzooessed into the gumspirits 01 turpentine and resin. The 

### orude gumis ordinarily harvested or oollected during eight or nlne,montha of each calendar year. The persons performing the serrloe abovementioned are unskilled laborers who work urider the supervision oi a.foreman.” Wpon the basis of the lnformatlon presented, it is the opInlon or this Commlsslon bnd it hereby rules that services perrormed for you, of the kind specified above are servloes which oomewithin the exoeptlon afrorded agrioultural 1,abor

l l. Under the T5xas Vn5mloyDient Act and the Beg&t&O85 .-lea 8 Ofimpensatlon ed,‘~w5$5 end a~ the serrioee perio2meQ 

### for the &inplQytirag210tit~lr~5 labor and st5mpt? *2., If, suoh servioes bid oonati$utta agrloalture labor prior to January 1, 1940, of contributions pa14 be mad5as to? due after ADrIl 1. 19397, (b) taxes April 1, 191397 - --- 

### my a *sfti.na .,(a] t+xes au0 

### .prSor

to

"3. In the event that a refund wexe due tiergate Naval Stores, Inoorporatcd, for taxes pald.

.

Honorable G1auds.A. WIlllams, Page 5

thi8. Commission whloh 

### mire**due** prior 

### toApril1, 1938, exoept ior’ the taot that Section 8 of the Unemployment Compenaatlon Aot , Artl 01s 5221b-6, Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes. zrerented suoh r~efund, would an act of the legisiature .makIng appropriation or the amount or euoh refund and authorizing payment to the employer be valid?
*4. 1l Question No, 3 is answered ‘yes’ howwould such payment be aooompllshed and out or what fund would it be paid?” Article 5221b, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides that servfoes performed for wages 

### under oer.taln oiromastqoee constitute employment.under the Texas Dnemployment Gcapensatlon Ant to the GosmiIleIoxi thst.;thep ~.: tloha iiom ~fhdA&.~ Among 5221b 

### IeIJeotl~on 17 (g,)~:(5) ~~ ,~~;

In view of this exemption the Commlsslon aotlng under the authority of Article 5221b, Seotlon 9, enacted the quoted regulations.

The regulation dIaolosae that tie Ga&esloa Intdndsd to llmlt the~tapa:.ragrloultorar.labQr” to that .&?&ox pertormed on a **farti, ‘** **fia** defined **br~,ther; Xa**  **all~,Inrrtanore** it is held that the term *farmu Is to be uudrretood. Ix Its 

### ordinarr and.fopular 

### 8anaeand 

### thatiz$‘~a traot 

### o$laud tissd 

### tarra aleg 

### oroplr~ an&reari 3 804 ,Gkwdon- Y. Buster, 257 8: W. 2201ll3 %!a, ,3 16 page 248. 2) Wo;de &Phrasds,

The 8tat;es:::: of Golorado and Gounsotlout have adopted regulations wlth ~substantlally the sams

### wording as themrsgulatlons of the Texas Unemployment Compensation %amleslon regaralng agrioultural X.:abor* %:a suit for the oolleatlo~ of taxes assessed against q oonoern operating mushroomsheds, styled Great Western EushroomGompany V. hIustr$al Gommlaslon, 82 Pao~; (26) 751, theSupreme~ .Gourt of Colorado said:

“We~oannot think ,the promulgated regulation is other than~ln keeping wlth ~theclear intent 

### ai the enactment.v .,.
; .:

__-.Konorable Claude A, WUllama, Page 

### 6

The oourt further disowaad the tact that the opera-. tions in question ware oarrled out throughout moqt 0r ths peer, : a&the parposs In the axamptlon of agrloultural labor was that it was seasonal work thus It should not be contended that the Legislature intended to exempt this type of anployment. The court held that this was not agrloultural labor as defined by the Commission.

In the oase of Park Floral CompanyV. Industrial Commission, 91 Pao. 492, In the Supreme Court of Colorado, the demandwas madeupon a floral oompanyfor payment of taxes. The company contended that this operation was within the exsmption of agrloultural labor and further that the promulgation of the Commission ruling constituted an arbitrary attempt by the Commission to restrlot and limit the ordinary meaning of the term *ag.rloultural labox”

. The eorurt .thsrs said that this objeotlon.~Is roreoloerd by the 

### reoent zonounocupent @f 

### that ::..~ cow-t l.q the oam of: (Priat We&em Mm,%I ,. trial Ccmmlasl~,‘~su~ra~ ~~l%e ooart in ,q,oq Qom

thl~~,insg. ..~.

ang,:*i ~Q.U~ ~.

~, anob:altWhdld that the’ dalegatlon’of the autherlty to 

### enaotr’uiesandregu; latlons was not an Invalid delegation of legislative authority.

In the dase or Ii Duys 6cCo 

### 5Atl. (26) ,23, the Supmu& Court o? et al V. Tone, &%%O~t held that the regulation of the ConmIssion of Connedflout to~be valid, and that it did not riolats ths aqua2 protestion or due pro

### oem olausas or the 

### Ganstltutlon.'Bte .ooart 

### tithXs opinlmi redswed the definition or *iarm laborer* and *agr$oulture*.

Aoting wider the s=e rule msklng p~wsr as 

### lt 'provided ,in the Colorado Unemployment .Watate, the Tsxai Comaisslon enaoted the 

### mme regulation as that of Colorado,

Your regulations or Deosmber 5, 1936, and July 2, 1937, stated ihat they lntsndsd the teSln wfarma to ambraoe, end undpr this dethltlti the turpsntlhe industry would not be *agrIoultural labor*. The power or the Texas Commlsslan to ennaottheir regulations-Is 

### awtained by the Ii. Duys k Cornpany.snd Park Floral 

### aaees, supra. However, the aotlcm of the CommIsalon anMaroh 

### 19,19J,O, In reaoinding its rsgulatlon, refleots a ohangs In their attitude. They must hare Intended that the term should have the broadest 

### meaning in liner with the modern trend.

You have furnished a photostatlo oopy of the findings oi raot and oonoluslons of law of the Distriot’ Court of the United Statas for the Middle Distriot of Georgia in the oase’of Gso. I. Shelton, et al, plaintiffs, VS. Marion H. Allen.Honorable Claude A. Wllllame, Page 7

The applloant oites the ruling **or** the oourt as a basis for the olaimed exemptioni But, let it be reoogulzed that the Statutes of Texaa.oontain no auoh exemption as that of Title 12, Section IlAlj, U. S. C. A. Further, this oaae was disposed of on prooedural grounds without passing on the merlts. In the oasa of United States Y. Turner Turpentine Companyin 111 Fedi (26) IJM, an opinion of the Clroult Court of Appeals for the Fifth Clroult, holds that the producers of crude gumare engaged in agrioultural labor. Wecall your attention to ths raot that this deolslon is influenced, if not based upon the fact that Ceorgla in 1939 had enaoted a statute providing that all orlglnsl produoars of crude gumand their employsas ware depaarad to be farmsrs’lnso $ar as any statutes or the Stats, ralata& :Hoeuoh*~:s’tattitaox%&, or he ever been on $ha~~statuttc~QQ T of Tsxal;‘.,i T@at~aorfff .~s.f ’ur.~~~~, ther lnfluenaad bl the Wdera Statuta,‘.on tki’ib stibfhti~ ,~

The dtstlnotion between farming and that of out&g and logging timber was reo,ognlzed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee In the oaee of Robinson V. Stacklay, 61 S. W. (Za) 677. In the aasi Pratt 

### ,v..Clty oi,Maaan, 

### 1% a.,&..19lj the Uourt of Ap,psals~of Claorgia wasp ,oonstruing a mtinla2pal..~ 

### > ordinsnae ‘,ot thr cltr or Yaeon, tilsh-r.aqulred that mar&ants : or ‘others outside. the 

### bltylimits delir6rlng ~goodala the City to take out a dray lloonsd fur eaoh w&g& used in the delivery. The facts ln that oase were that %he lndlrldual Sn question was a farm& ln ,that ha raised ‘truok. ohlakens and ducks on his farm. Also on said rarmwas a m’nara.?.water well 1 from whloh the individual took the mineral water and delivered and aold, same,wlthln the oity~ llmlts~ of ihe City of Maoon. The court concluded that suoh license would have to be begtired under tha‘taota~ and stated as rollowst

‘1. That said mineral water wa:snot a farm product withln tha.meanl.ng ,of seotlon 1851 of the Civil Code of 1910 and that. the requirement of said ordlnanee as o taking out a lioense zas apTV plloable to plaintiff In error.

“2. That the ract that plaintlfr in error drew and bottled sa,id wster from a well located on his ownland, and that he was also engaged In raising truck, chickens, and ducks, whioh were.

Honorable Claude A., ~llllama, Page 8

also delivered by means of, said truok, dld not -relieve him from procuring the ‘dray’ or oooupatlon lloansa as required by said ordlnanoa.* In the case of Great Western MushroomCompanyvs. Industrial Comm., 82 Pao. (26) 751, the Supreme Court of Colorado 5.nconstruing a similar statute said that the Lagislature sought only to exempt seasonal labor suoh as farm labor. This applloant, by its own admission, opar.ates nine or ten months a year, and there is 

### no showing that somework 

### isnot done throughout the tmlve months of aaoh year. Can it than be said that Is only seasonal labor as defined by the Commission1a regulations?

The statutory authority ror the regulations of ~Deo, 5, 1936,.

### and’fuly 2, 1937, is The oonstltutlonaUty.~ of .rubstan$l ar asant sties. Artlola 522&b-9(a).,, l$tha s+nw~egtilatl&ik .: haa besn uphbld. by the. Suprama36urt .af 

### Ooldr~$ulo~ In.park Floral Co, v. Industrial Uomm.~, 91

### Pa@. (26)492,and by the yp;;;t.Court or Conneotlout in the oasa~of H. Duys &Company

. 

### ,5Atl. (2d) 23.

The authorities cited, together with that of Great Western Hushroom Company, 

### Y. Industrial Cokmlsslon, supra, give ample support for the regulation and determination of your Co~111&3slon

prior to iknuary Jr 1940. The’oourts in the Park IQoraLand H. Duys & Company oases, aupra, 

### 5ay that by the evolutionary prooassse attendant upon our present day buaiuara methods manyaotlvitles formerly 

### ambraoad in tarmlng hava 

### beoomespealalleod or ramoved rrom the iarm.

Your rlrat question asksr Wndar the Texas Unsmploymant Compensation Aat and the Regulat-lons lndlahtad, were and a.0 the sarvloas performed for the employer agrloulture labor and exempt?” It la oar opinion that the dotermination of llablllty by the Commlsslon upon the taxes aoorulng prior to January 1, 19&O,was supported by the resolutions quoted. That being true, there can be no refund. Therefore, it is unneoesasry to answer your questions 2, 3 and J,regarding refunds.,.% .;; 3 ‘~ .‘

.

..-
Honorable Claude.A. Wllllams, Page 9

A part 03 four rirst question ia an inquiry 0r the present llab5.l.lty .ot .,the Wlargata ,Haval Stoma. ror unatnplogment taxesa

There being no prrsant regulation darlnlng ‘agrim aultural labors*, we must determine the soopa of that term. The Commlaslon plaoes no llraltatlon on the term. In answarLng the queatlon of liability prior to January 1, 1940, we reoognlzad the llmltatlon you plaosd on the term *agrloultural laboP.by the Commlaslon~a regulations spaolfylng servloea on a farm.’ The word 

### l agrloulture* has a broader meaning than farming, In Ra Rodgers, 279 9. W. 800. Lowe Y. North Dakota WorkmantaCompensation Bureau, 261,W. W. 867. Vna maybe employed ln agriculture andyet not be a farmer ln the ordinary sense of the term, nor even a farm laborer as the term is used In our 

### lien laws.”

.._ Eciwk+a~~..lri darining ~%gr~,atii&.~~~l to that tam ;$heiMead Turner TarpaxitlnB ~aabe, ,supra, ourlty Agency. This, latltade would support the ruling o? the Commission of March 19, 1940, as refleotkd by thd photo-. statlo aopy of latter of Orville S. Carpenter, Chairman and Eraoutlva Dlraotor , to,,the Wleqgata, Naval Stmes. ,-We.,do.n@ say that suoh a rullng.would~ be, coljlpat~lbla with ~opf regulatlons arraotlva to~iianuarg ~1, X9&0. 3!&e on rapogt?d 

### ~baol-:~ alon balng.in sup art or the broad&t &tort 0 .oone$!cuotlkm

or *agricultural f: T aborn,. pou’ara justified in tbllting that daoisltm when,it doir ‘not oonillot with your ownragulatlons~

‘Iourp .varp truly APPROVED

MAY2, 194l ATTQRWEY GZWEftAL

OF!iXXAS /s/ GRom? - FIRSTASSI-, ATTOEtNEy (fBM$RAL BT /a/ Yorrgu~o$~

MBtHzddt