Geo. I. Petit, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 710 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GEO. I. PETIT, INC.,' EMPLOYEE and UNITED
PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-606.-Decided April 04, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. In its brief, the
Employer requested the dismissal of the petition on various juris-
dictional grounds. For the reasons stated below, the request is hereby
denied.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the processing
and wholesale and retail distribution of poultry and eggs at its Doyles-
town, Ohio, plant. From April 1 to November 30, 1949, the Employer
purchased approximately $930,570 worth of poultry and eggs, of
which $612,137, or approximately 65 percent, represented shipments
of poultry originating outside the State.2 During that period, the
Employer also purchased machinery and equipment in the amount of
$5,181, of which $1,165 represented shipments from sources outside the
State. From April 1 to December 31, 1949, the Employer's total sales
of poultry and eggs amounted to approximately $1,261,387, all of
which were made within the State. Of this amount, $653,602 repre-
sented sales to retail chain stores, such as the A & P and Kroger, and
$585,133 represented sales to independent retail outlets, for resale
within the State;' $22,097 represented sales to hospital and clubs for
their own use; and $555 represented sales to the cafeteria of a corpora-
tion engaged in interstate commerce.
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
The out-of-State shipments of poultry were brought directly to the Employer 's plant
from points outside the State.
89 NLRB No. 87.
710
-GEO./ I. PETIT, INC. 711
We think the Freirich 3case governs here. There the Board asserted
jurisdiction over a meat processor which similarly imported substantial
amounts of unprocessed meats from out of the State for processing and
likewise made all sales locally. [Our dissenting colleague, who joined
in the Freirich decision, fails to distinguish that case from this. In
our view, no logical distinction for purposes of accepting jurisdiction
could be drawn between processors of meat and processors of poultry
who supply local markets.] Accordingly, we find, contrary to the
Employer's contentions, that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and that to assert juris-
diction in this case will effectuate the policies of the Act .4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act:
4. We find, in accord with the stipulations of the parties, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production, maintenance, and service employees at the Employ-
er's Doylestown, Ohio, plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the
3Julian Freirich and Selma Freirich, d/b/a Julian Freirich Co ., 86 NLRB 542; see
Tennessee Packers, Inc ., 87 NLRB 90 ; cf. Herold & Sons , Inc., 82 NLRB 174.
4 The Employer also contends that the Board lacks jurisdiction because its workers fall
within the exemption for "agricultural laborers " in the definition of "employee" contained
in Section 2 (3) of the Act . We find no merjt in this contention . As the workers process
only poultry and eggs purchased , but not raised , by the Employer and do not work on a
farm, they are clearly engaged in a commercial , rather than a farming , operation.
Accordingly , we find that the individuals concerned are not "agricultural laborers," and
are entitled to the benefits of the Act . See Atlantic Commission Company, Inc., 84 NLRB
944, and cases cited therein ; South Georgia Pecmn Shelling Co ., at al., 85 NLRB 591.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the election,•and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting :
I would not assert jurisdiction in this case. The Employer is en-
gaged solely in purchasing eggs and poultry from nearby farmers
and processing these farm products for local consumption. In my
opinion, such operations, comparable in nature to those performed
by bakeries over which the Board has consistently refused to assert
jurisdiction,6 are clearly local in character; and, therefore, it will not
effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction.7
Accordingly, I would dismiss this petition.
E Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc., 86 NLRB 1326, and cases cited therein.
7 See Squire's Inc., 88 NLRB 8; Evans Fur Company and Evans Apparel Company,
88 NLRB 1095; May Potato Chip Company, 86 NLRB 191.