Wayland v. Kleck
Decision Date | 07 April 1941 |
Docket Number | Civil 4300 |
Citation | 57 Ariz. 135,112 P.2d 207 |
Parties | W. 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 |
Court | Arizona 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.
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:
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:
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-
In re Refund of Contributions of Batt
... ... 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
... ... 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
... ... (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
...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......