Opinion ID: 71035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Degree of supervision of the work

Text: 31 The second factor bearing on joint-employment status is the degree of supervision [by the grower], direct or indirect, of the work. 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii)(B). Somewhat similar to the previous factor, such supervision includes overseeing the pickers' work and providing direction. Aimable, 20 F.3d at 441. This factor, like the growers' control over the workers, has more to do with common-law employment concepts of control than with economic dependence. Indeed, the suffer or permit to work standard was developed in large part to assign responsibility to businesses which did not directly supervise the activities of putative employees. Rutherford Food Corp., 331 U.S. at 728 & n. 7, 67 S.Ct. at 1476 & n. 7; Sheffield FarmsSlawson-Decker Co., 121 N.E. at 476. Nevertheless, a grower's supervision of farmworkers, like a grower's control of them, provides some guidance to our inquiry. 32 In considering this factor, special aspects of agricultural employment [must] be kept in mind. House Report at 4554. When unskilled labor is utilized in an agricultural setting, for example, the grower is not expected to look over the shoulder of each farmworker every hour of every day. Thus, [i]t is well settled that supervision is present whether orders are communicated directly to the laborer or indirectly through the contractor. Aimable, 20 F.3d at 441 (citing Griffin & Brand, 471 F.2d at 238). 33 In this case the evidence reflects that the growers supervised the pickers in substantial ways. In addition to telling them when picking could begin and distributing the boxes, the growers' field workers directly oversaw and intervened in the pickers' work, both directly and indirectly, on a daily basis. Turke testified to the growers' oversight and direct intervention as follows: 34 Q. And what would these D & S Farms people do? 35 A. They would walk around and make sure the baskets were full, make sure the quality control was there, no trash in the baskets. If there was a problem, they'd bring it to our attention. 36 Q. Did you ever see the D & S Farms employees talk directly to the workers or try to show them what they were doing wrong? 37 A. Yes. Yes. 38 Q. Did that happen very often? 39 A. Day to day. They couldn't hardly be out there without it. 40 Turke also testified that the growers would complain to him that the job was not going fast enough. 41 We find this supervision more substantial than the infrequent assertions of minimal oversight by the grower in Aimable, 20 F.3d at 441, where the grower's employees, except on rare occasions, left supervision and oversight of [the farmworkers] entirely to [the contractor] and his crew and rarely provided any direction to [the farmworkers'] work, id. In contrast to this de minimis supervision, id., the growers in the present case oversaw and directly intervened in the pickers' work on a daily basis. See Griffin & Brand, 471 F.2d at 238 (finding joint employment where farmer's field supervisors regularly gave instructions to crew leaders who passed them on to workers); Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568, 590 (E.D.N.C.1986) (finding joint employment based in part on regular supervision). 42