Opinion ID: 445297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: At-Sea First Processing Exemption

Text: 25 The district court found that the appellants were also excluded from the minimum pay and overtime provisions of the FLSA as workers engaged in: (1) first processing of fish, (2) at sea, (3) in conjunction with fishing operations. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(5). Because we find that the last of these elements is not present, we need not address the appellant's argument as to the others. 26 Again the question arises which standard of review to apply to an exemption under the FLSA. Because the district court incorrectly interpreted the regulation, we can review the question in this instance as one of law. See Helland v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 488 F.2d 496, 497 (9th Cir.1973). See also Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1960, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) (Rule 52(a) does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law....). 27 Under the regulations, processing performed in conjunction with fishing operations is interpreted to mean processing which takes place on the catcher vessel. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 784.131. This regulation is consistent with the Senate Report: 28 The purpose of [the Sec. 213(a)(5) exemption] is to make certain that the Act will be uniformly applicable to all employees on the fishing vessel including those employees on the vessel who may be engaged in these activities at sea as an incident to the fishing operations conducted by the vessel. 29 S.Rep. No. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 33, reprinted in 1961 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1620, 1652-53 (emphasis added). 30 Icicle argues that the Senate Report is merely illustrative of one fact pattern to which the exemption applies, and does not impliedly preclude application of the exemption to processing done on nonfishing vessels. They argue that the regulation is unduly restrictive and should be rejected, relying on Mitchell v. Trade Winds Co., 289 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.1961). 31 Reading the regulation in light of the general policy that exemptions under the FLSA are narrowly construed, we conclude that the Senate Report was not intended to be merely illustrative. The administrative interpretation embodied in the regulation is correct. 32