On appeal to the Full Commission that body, finding the claimant to be engaged in non-agricultural work, reversed the order of the deputy and remanded the case to determine whether three or more employees of the employer were engaged in non-agricultural work. The Commission based this holding on the ruling in this Court in Cassady, Sheriff v. Hiatt Lee that: 1942, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661. "It is the character of the labor performed by the employee that must determine its application [the exemption] rather than the character of the employer's business."
The character of his labor was administrative rather than agricultural. 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661 (1942). See, generally, Huebner v. Farmers Cooperative Ass'n of Holland, 167 N.W.2d 369 (Minn.
However, with State and trade regulations requiring processing in order to separate the beans into grades, it is now generally deemed more practical and advantageous to have this work done by commercial firms specializing in the business of processing and distributing farm commodities. In the case of Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721 (8 South. [2d] 661), in considering whether or not plaintiff's employees were engaged in "agricultural labor," the court said: "It is the character of labor performed by the employee that must determine its application rather than the character of the employer's business."
We have referred to a decision cited by the trial judge. In it, Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, the only question was the effect of "Florida Unemployment Compensation Law" on horticultural labor prior to 1 July 1941. Not only was the court considering an entirely different act, dealing with unemployment compensation, but the date we have given was the one on which Chapter 20,672, supra, became effective.
The court also stated that neither that case nor any expression in the case of Fosgate Co. v. United States, 125 F.2d 775, conflicts with the opinion in North Whittier Heights Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board, 109 F.2d 76. In the case of Cassady v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, decided June 12, 1942, Hiatt Lee sought to enjoin the sheriff from collecting unemployment contributions for the years 1939 and 1940, under the Florida unemployment compensation law. The question involved was whether the term "agricultural labor," as used in the Florida law prior to June 1, 1941, included the services of the employees of appellee, who were engaged in performing services in connection with the cultivation of soil and production of crops on groves not owned or leased by their employer.
Presented on this record for adjudication, flowing from the above statement of facts, is the question of whether or not the claimant was engaged in "agricultural labor" within the meaning of the foregoing provisions of law and thereby entitled to unemployment compensation, or was her employment agricultural labor and for this reason her employer was exempt from taxation? In the case of Cassady, Sheriff v. Hiatt Lee, 150 Fla. 721, 8 So.2d 661, we held that the several provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law applied to all laborers not exempted. The public policy of the State of Florida toward unemployment was declared and made known by Section 1 of Chapter 18402, Acts of 1937, Laws of Florida.