Wayland v. Kleck

Decision Date07 April 1941
Docket NumberCivil 4300
Citation57 Ariz. 135,112 P.2d 207
PartiesW. ROY WAYLAND, I. A. McCABE and JOSEPH H. CONDREY, as Members of and Constituting the UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Appellants, v. J. S. KLECK, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr Arthur M. Davis and Mr. Fred O. Wilson, for Appellants.

Mr Thomas W. Glenn, for Appellee.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

Plaintiff J. S. Kleck, brought this action against defendants, members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Arizona, to recover contributions paid to the unemployment compensation fund, based on a percentage of the wages paid his employees for the years 1936, 1937, 1938 and the first three quarters of 1939, amounting to the sum of $2,269.62, contending that he was engaged in agricultural labor during said time and therefore not liable for such contributions.

The court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Under the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936 and amendments thereof (sections 56-1001 to 56-1022, Arizona Code, 1939), those employers engaged in agricultural labor are exempted from making contributions to such fund. Section 56-1019.

It appearing that appellee had in his service during such time three and more individuals, the only question for decision is whether such services should be classed as agricultural. The work he was engaged in is described and enumerated in his complaint as follows:

"Clearing grubbing, levelling, ditching, plowing, discing, dragging, bordering and generally preparing lands for and only for the planting of agricultural crops thereon,

"Dragging, sowing, broadcasting and planting seed on said agricultural lands for and only for the purpose of growing agricultural crops thereon and therefrom.

"Digging tanks, reservoirs and catch basins, and placing, forming and fashioning earthern dams for and only for the purpose of impounding water to be used for watering live stock.

"Operating mechanical agricultural implements and farm machinery for the purposes hereinabove enumerated.

"Repairing and servicing such mechanical agricultural implements and farm machinery in the field as well as in a shop on the ranch of the plaintiff maintained and operated for and only for that purpose.

"Operating trucks for and only for the purpose of transporting fuel oil, lubricants and repair parts for the servicing of such implements and machinery in the filed.

"Maintaining a central office and keeping books of accounts in respect to such employees, their occupation and work performed wholly in the services hereinbefore enumerated."

He did this work for various farmers throughout Maricopa County and the state.

The Unemployment Compensation Law does not define "agricultural labor." However, the commission, on June 18, 1937, issued a regulation giving its definition of the term, claiming the right to do so under the authority conferred on it by section 56-1011 "to adopt... rules and regulations" for the administration of the act. Such definition reads:

"The term 'agricultural labor' includes all services performed:

"(1) by an employee on a farm in connection with the cultivation of the soil, the raising and harvesting of crops; the raising, feeding, management of livestock, poultry, and bees; which includes, among others: the spraying, pruning, fumigating, fertilizing, irrigating, and heating which may be necessary and incident thereto;

"(2) By an employee in connection with the drying, processing, packaging, transporting, and marketing of materials which are produced on the farm or articles produced from such materials, provided such drying, processing, packing, packaging, transporting, or marketing is carried on as an incident to ordinary farming operations as distinguished from manufacturing or commercial operations.

"The services hereinabove set forth do not constitute agricultural labor unless they are performed by an employee of the owner or tenant of the farm on which the materials in their raw or natural state were produced. Such services, however, do not constitute agricultural labor if they are carried on as an incident to manufacturing or commercial operations.

"As used herein the term 'farm' includes, among others, stock, dairy, poultry, fruit, and truck farms, plantations, ranches, ranges, orchards, and vineyards

"Forestry and lumbering are not included within the exemption of agricultural labor."

Thus it is seen that the commission undertook to say by rule or regulation what is and what is not agricultural labor.

Our act is complementary to the federal Social Security Act and was adopted in consequence thereof. 42 U.S.C.A., § 901 et seq., sec. 1101 et seq., 49 U.S. Stat. pp. 635, 639. Other states have adopted similar acts and similar regulations thereunder. In fact, the state regulations are very much like the federal regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the administration of the Social Security Act.

Our regulations, subdivisions (1) and (2), correspond, in the subject treated, to subdivisions (a) and (b) in the federal regulation and the regulations of other states. The first subdivision refers to one kind of labor, which is always agricultural, and the second subdivision refers to another kind of labor, which may or may not be so classed. In this subdivision the labor is used in processing things grown on a farm, also the packing, packaging, transportation or marketing the things grown or articles made therefrom. These services, if done for the owner or tenant of the farm on which the materials in their raw or natural state are produced and as an incident to the farming operation, as distinguished from manufacturing or commercial operations, are agricultural.

All these regulations in connection with these unemployment acts recognize that the harvested crops may, owing to the way they are handled, lose their agricultural...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • In re Refund of Contributions of Batt
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1942
    ... ... agriculture. ( Park Floral Co. v. Industrial ... Commission, 104 Colo. 350, 91 P.2d 492; Wayland v ... Kleck, (Ariz.) 112 P.2d 207; Cowiche Growers v ... Bates, (Wash.) 117 P.2d 624; H. Duys & Co. v ... Tone, 125 Conn. 300, 5 A.2d 23; ... ...
  • Janssen v. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1948
    ... ... produced'." The effect of the federal regulation is ... expressed admirably in the case of Wayland ... [192 P.2d 609] ... vs. Kleck, 57 Ariz. 135, 112 P.2d 207, as follows: [64 Wyo ... 339] "Our regulations, subdivisions (1) and (2), ... ...
  • Smythe v. Phoenix
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1942
    ... ... (Big Wood Canal Co. v ... Unemployment Compensation Division of Industrial Accident ... Board, 61 Idaho 247, 100 P.2d 49; Wayland v. Kleck, ... (Ariz.) 112 P.2d 207.) ... Bert H ... Miller, Attorney General, and Thos. M. Robertson, Jr., and ... Paul B. Ennis, ... ...
  • Town of Lincoln v. Murphy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1943
    ...Co. 111 F.2d 400. Chaney v. Stover, 123 F.2d 945. Kaslovitz v. Reid, 128 F.2d 1017. Mulligan v. Federal Land Bank, 129 F.2d 438. Wayland v. Kleck, 57 Ariz. 135. Hagenburger v. Los Angeles, 51 Cal.App. (2d) 161. v. Board of Appeals of Bloomfield, 113 Conn. 49. H. Duys & Co. Inc. v. Tone, 125......
  • 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