Mississippi Employment Sec. Commission v. B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc.

Decision Date09 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 44159,44159
Citation193 So.2d 564
PartiesMISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION v. B. C. ROGERS & SONS, INC.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

H. L. Hutcherson, Jackson, for appellant.

O. B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Justice.

B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc., the Appellee, made application to the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, the Appellant, for refund of contributions in the amount of $121,912.48, paid by it under the Mississippi Employment Security Law. Miss. Code of 1942 Ann. §§ 7368 through 7446. The Commission denied the refund. The Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County reversed and entered judgment awarding the refund. From this judgment the Commission has appealed.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. The appellee is a Mississippi corporation, the stock of which is owned entirely by Mr. B. C. Rogers. Mr. Rogers as an individual is involved in an extensive poultry producing operation around the Town of Morton, in Newton County, Mississippi. All the chickens raised by B. C. Rogers, through contract growers, are sold to the corporation, B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc. The corporation owns a plant and machinery in the Town of Morton valued at $1,000,000. There are about 450 employees in the plant. The sole work of the corporation is the dressing, cleaning, cutting up, packaging, selling, and distributing the chickens to the retail outlets. B. C. Rogers, as an individual farmer, sells all of his chickens to the corporation and the corporation likewise purchases its entire supply of live chickens from B. C. Rogers, the individual farmer. In explaining the complete operation from the egg to the packaged chicken ready for the consumer market, John M. Rogers, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the corporation, and the son of B. C. Rogers, testified:

'A. In a broiler operation, you need hens to produce eggs for the hatcheries. The number of hens would be based on a previous record of several months back. You get your eggs from this source. The eggs are transferred to the hatcheries. The hatched chickens are then placed on farms where the growers take care of the chickens and raise them into broilers. The farmers-in this case, B. C. Rogers-provides feed and the grower provides labor and the use of his house. Now, the chickens are then caught by a catching crew, which takes the chickens and transports them to the processing plant. From that point they are processed-picked, defeathered etc.-and all the necessary work is done for the complete bird to be ready to cook. From that point they are transported by trucks to terminal markets-grocery stores, A & P., etc.-for retail and consumer consumption.

Q. Is that procedure used by Mr. Rogers in his operation?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the system used by all other farmers? They are either controlled or owned outright-the plants processing poultry?

A. Yes. It is necessary to have the complete cycle to be able to have a profit or return on your investment. Without every segment of this complete cycle he could not stay in operation today. You have to perform every function of this service to be able to get a return on your investment.'

He further testified that there is no open market for live poultry in Mississippi or anywhere else in the United States. B. C. Rogers, by way of further explanation, testified:

'Q. (Mr. Triplett) Does B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc., buy any poultry except from Mr. Rogers?

A. No, sir. I have a few things I could add. The corporation does pay separate taxes; keeps a separate set of books.

Q. (Mr. Hutcherson) Does the corporation pay Mr. Rogers individually for these chickens?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. (Mr. Hutcherson) Does the corporation operate as a separate business entity from Mr. Rogers' individual business?

A. (Mr. B. C. Rogers) There is a lot of overlapping. But it is a different operation. In paying taxes, it would be. However, that processing plant is an essential to my growing chickens, because it is just absolutely necessary that I have that kind of business.'

The sole question involved on this appeal is whether or not the services performed by the corporation's employees in its processing plant are exempt as 'agricultural labor' as defined in Section 7440(i)(6)(A) (Supp.1964) of Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated. If the services performed for the corporation, B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc., by these employees are exempt as agricultural labor, then its applications for refund should be allowed; but if it is determined that the services of these employees are not exempt as agricultural labor, the applications for refund should be denied.

One of the most fundamental and basic rules observed by all courts in construing and interpreting the laws of a State is to determine the legislative intent and purpose in enacting a law. This Court over the years has conscientiously and zealously tried to construe statutes, if reasonably possible, so as to carry out the legislative intent and purpose in remedying an evil and in avoiding a danger or hazard. See Thornhill v. Ford, 213 Miss. 49, 56 So.2d 23 (1952); Virden v. State Tax Commission, 180 Miss. 467, 177 So. 784 (1938); Gift v. Love, 164 Miss. 442, 144 So. 562, 86 A.L.R. 63 (1932).

Economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment is the menace and evil that the Legislature attempted to overcome and conquer when it enacted into law the Mississippi Employment Security Law. This Court passed on this Law and declared it constitutional in the case of Tatum et al. v. Wheeless et al., Unemployment Compensation Commission, 180 Miss. 800, 178 So. 95 (1938). The Mississippi Legislature, in stating the purpose of the act and the public policy of the State, used as strong and positive words as the English language can provide.

The Legislature left no room for doubt when it said:

'The purpose of the act is to promote employment security by increasing opportunities for placement through the maintenance of a system of public employment offices and to provide through the accumulation of reserves for the payment of compensation to individuals with respect to their unemployment.' § 7368 Miss.Code of 1942 Ann. (Emphasis added.)

'As a guide to the interpretation and application of this Act, the public policy of this State is declared to be as follows: Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals and welfare of the people of this State. Involuntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of our economic life. This can be provided by encouraging employers to provide more stable employment and by the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment to provide benefits for periods of unemployment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of poor relief assistance. The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment the public good, and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require the enactment of this measure, under the police powers of the State, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.' § 7369 Miss.Code of 1942 Ann. (Emphasis added.)

Keeping this clearly expressed purpose and intent in mind, we now move on to a consideration of Section 7440(i)(6)(A), Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated (Supp.1964), which is in these words:

'(6) The term 'employment' shall not include-(A) Agricultural labor. The term 'agricultural labor' includes all services performed-

(i) On a farm, in the employ of any employing unit, in connection with cultivating the soil, or in connection with raising, or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity, including the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and management of livestock, bees, poultry, and fur-bearing animals and wildlife.

(ii) In the employ of the owner or tenant or other operator of a farm, in connection with the operation, management, conservation, improvement, or maintenance of such farm and its tools and equipment, or in salvaging timber or clearing land of brush and other debris left by a hurricane, if the major part of such service is performed on a farm.

(iii) In connection with the production or harvesting of naval stores products, or any commodity defined as an agricultural commodity in section 15(g) of the Federal Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended, or in connection with the raising or harvesting of mushrooms, or in connection with the hatching of poultry, or in connection with the ginning of cotton, or in connection with the operation or maintenance of ditches, canals, reservoirs or waterways used exclusively for supplying and storing water for farming purposes.

(iv) In handling, planting, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, grading, storing, or delivering to storage or to market or to a carrier for transportation to maket, any agricultural or horticultural commodity; but only if such service is performed as an incident to ordinary farming operations, or in the case of fruits and vegetables, as an incident to the preparation of such fruits or vegetables for market. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to be applicable with respect to service performed in connection with commercial canning or commercial freezing or in connection with any agricultural or horticultural commodity after its delivery to a terminal market for distribution for consumption.

'As used in this subsection, the term 'farm' includes stock, dairy, poultry, fruit, fur-bearing animals, and truck farms, plantations, ranches, nurseries, ranges, greenhouses or other similar structures used...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n v. Total Care, Inc.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Septiembre 1991
    ...that "economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment is ... [a menace and evil]." Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. B.C. Rogers & Sons, Inc., 193 So.2d 564, 566 (Miss.1967). In a statement of public policy we have described as "as strong and positive words as the English la......
  • Seals v. St. Regis Paper Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Mayo 1970
    ... ... No. 45827 ... Supreme Court of Mississippi ... May 25, 1970 ... Rehearing Denied July 2, ... driven by Smith in the course of his employment with St. Regis Paper Company. The accident ... Capital Transport Co., Inc. v. Segrest, 254 Miss. 168, 181 So.2d 111 (1965); ... Miss. State Highway Commission, 216 Miss. 321, 62 So.2d 375 (1953); Smith v ... ...
  • Agri-Foods, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Julio 1974
    ...to a corporate farmer which processes poultry owned and grown by a separate business entity (Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. B. C. Rogers and Sons, Inc., 193 So.2d 564 (Miss.1962); Lowe v. Bertie's Poultry Farms, Inc., 91 Idaho 695, 429 P.2d 427 (1967)); nor does it apply to a......
  • Etchechoury v. Avi-Simplot Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1969
    ...Industrial Commission v. Growers Equipment Co., 152 Fla. 595, 12 So.2d 889 (1943), and in Mississippi Employ. Sec. Com'n v. B. C. Rogers & Sons, Inc., 193 So.2d 564 (Miss.1967), cases relied upon by the court in Bertie's, the there involved did not produce the agricultural product they proc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT