Arkansas Valley Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 391 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ARKANSAS VALLEY
Arkansas Valley Industries , Inc. I and Laborers' In-
ternational Union of North America , Local 107,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 26-RC-2946
September 11, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Alva W.
Jones of the National Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer operates a chicken farm,
hatcheries, and poultry processing plants at various
locations in Arkansas. The Petitioner requests an
election in a unit of all production employees at
hatcheries 1 and 3 located at Russellville, Arkansas,
excluding clerical employees, watchmen, and su-
pervisors. The Employer contends that the em-
ployees sought are agricultural laborers and there-
fore specifically excluded from the definition of
"employee" in Section 2(3) of the Act.
The two hatcheries at Russellville have a com-
bined capacity to process in its incubators and
hatching machines approximately 600,000 eggs per
week. Between one-half and 1 percent of the eggs
are supplied by the Employer from its own farm at
Dardanelle, Arkansas, about 7 miles from Russell-
ville. The balance is produced on breeder farms of
independent farmers under contract with the Em-
ployer, from hens owned by the Employer.
The Employer's hatchery operations involve
picking up its eggs at the breeder farms; delivering
them to the hatcheries; unloading the eggs and
setting them in incubators for a period of approxi-
' The Employer's name appears in the caption as amended at the hear-
ing
2 The record does not reveal what proportion of the drivers ' time is
spent at these various duties
3 Miller Hatcheries v Boyer, 131 F 2d 283 (C A 8)
" Central Carolina Farmers Exchange, Inc, 115 NLRB 1250; Wilbur
INDUSTRIES, INC. 391
mately 18 days; and transferring them to hatching
machines where they are kept for a period of ap-
proximately 3 days. When the chicks are hatched,
the hatchery employees inoculate and debeak them,
pack them, and transport them to independent
farms where the Employer's chicks are raised by
farmers under contracts with the Employer.
Thereafter, when the chickens have reached
broiler size, they are transferred to processing
plants owned and operated by the Employer, where
they are prepared for market.
Of the 39 employees sought, all work solely in the
hatcheries, except 5 who also operate six 1-to-2-ton
hatchery pickup and delivery trucks. These five em-
ployees transport the eggs from the breeder farms
to the hatcheries and the chicks from the hatcheries
to the broiler farms. These duties are in addition to
work performed at the hatcheries proper, which in
no way differs from that work performed by the
other hatchery employees.2
Section 2(3) of the Act excludes agricultural
laborers from the definition of employees covered
by the Act. Annually, since 1946, Congress has
added a rider to the Board's appropriation bill
providing that no part of the appropriation shall be
"used in connection with ... bargaining units com-
posed of agricultural laborers . . ." as set forth in
Section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
section defines agriculture as follows:
"Agriculture" includes farming in all its
branches and includes ... the raising of
poultry, and practices, ... performed by a
farmer on a farm as an incident to, or in con-
junction with, such farming operations ....
It is clear that the hatchery employees are en-
gaged in the raising of poultry within the meaning of
Section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,3 and
are therefore agricultural laborers within the mean-
ing of Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.4
As to the five employees who, in addition to per-
forming work at the hatcheries, engage in pickup
and delivery operations, it is clear that their work in
the hatchery is agricultural in nature. Moreover,
although hauling itself is a nonfarming activity,5 it
is also clear that the Employer, in operating the
chicken hatcheries, is engaged in the exempt activi-
ty of raising poultry, and that the employees in mak-
ing pickups and deliveries, in the circumstances
presented here, are engaged in exempt activities.6
We therefore find that these five employees are also
agricultural laborers.
E Lindstrom, dlbla Lindstrom Hatchery and Poultry Farm , 49 NLRB
776
5 Norton & McElroy Produce, Inc, 133 NLRB 104
6 See Strain Poultry Farms , Inc, 160 NLRB 236, at fn 4, McAnally
Enterprise , Inc., 152 NLRB 527
167 No. 47
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , we find that no question affecting ORDER
commerce exists , within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) of the Act , concerning the representation of IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case
"employees" as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act. 26-RC-2946 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.