View Rule

Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML

DOL/ESA

RIN: 1215-AA93

Publication ID: Spring 1996

Title: Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection (29 CFR Part 500)
Abstract: The legislative history of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) indicates that the principles found in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand, 471 F.2d 235, are to be followed in determining whether a joint employment relationship exists in the employment of migrant and seasonal farm workers in a given fact situation. The Department intends to publish an NPRM to solicit comments on a clarification of the regulations to more closely comport with the legislative history of MSPA and the principles found in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand and also possible modifications to the procedures for MSPA hearings, seeking more timely decisions. In addition, Public Law 104-49 (November 15, 1995) amended MSPA's private right of action, transportation insurance requirements, and disclosure obligations to agricultural workers. This enactment requires implementing rules under the transportation insurance requirements within 180 days of enactment (i.e., by 5/13/96).
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL)	Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 500
Legal Authority: 29 USC 1801 to 1872, as amended

Legal Deadline:

Action	Source	Description	Date
Final	Statutory		05/13/1996

Statement of Need: These regulations need to be revised in order to provide needed clarifications and to make the hearing process more efficient. In the legislative history to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), Congress stated that the term "joint employment" in MSPA was to have the same meaning as is found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Further remarks in the legislative history indicate that the principles found in Hodgson v. Griffin and Brand, 471 F.2d 235, were to be determinative. However, subsequent legal developments have created confusion as to appropriate criteria for determining the existence of a joint employment relationship. In its rulemaking, the Department will solicit comments to clarify the regulatory criteria for determining when a joint employment relationship exists between two or more employers. The Department will also consider modifying the rules relating to procedures for hearings, seeking more timely decisions.

Alternatives: Regulatory alternatives will be developed as part of this review.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: There is no identifiable cost impact to the contemplated clarifying change in the regulations. Employers in the agricultural community will benefit from the clearer, more definitive criteria provided regarding joint employment relationships. An expedited hearing process will also be beneficial to all parties.

Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite
Final Action	05/00/1996

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No	Government Levels Affected: None
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
Agency Contact: Maria Echaveste Administrator, Wage and Hour Division Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration Room S3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone:202 219-8305