McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

McARTHUR JERSEY FARM DAIRY, INC. 885
Still another argument in justification of Petitioner's conduct herein is that the practice
of transporting voters to the polling place is not per se conduct such as to constitute a
basis for setting aside an election Thesimpleanswer to this argument is that the Petitioner's
conduct herein cannot be equated with the practice of transporting employees to the polls
The Petitioner cannot be said to have provided the employees with transportation where the
evidence fails to establish that any car driver was unwilling to transport his regular passengers
unless he received payment, and where the evidence fails to establish that the car drivers
were transporting anyone but their regular passengers
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, in the opinion of the undersigned, the payments made by the Petitioner
herein were made under such circumstances that they would tend to influence votes, and,
therefore, it is recommended that the objections of the Employer be sustained, that the
election be set aside, and that a new election be ordered
As provided in the Board's order directing hearing on objections, any party may, within
ten (10) days from the date of issuance of this report, file with the Board in Washington, D C ,
an original and six (6) copies of exceptions thereto Immediately upon the filing of such
exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties, and shall file a copy with the-Regional Director, Fifth Region, National Labor Relations
Board, Baltimore, Maryland
McARTHUR JERSEY FARM DAIRY, INC. Clld I N T E R N A-
T I ON A L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
LOCAL UNION NO. 390, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2573.
January 18, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R.
Fraker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
The Employer is a Florida corporation engaged in the pur-
chasing, processing, and sale of milk, butter, cheese, and other
dairy products . Its gross sales , all of which are local, are in
excess of $5.5 million a year. Its direct out-of-State purchases
are in the neighborhood of $272,000 annually and its indirect
out-of-State purchases exceed $274,000. By Florida Milk Com-
mission rulings all milk within the State is sold at a fixed price
and bids for sales to the United States Navy and to the Veterans'
Administration are restricted to those dairies within the State
having less than 500 employees, some 6, including the Employer.
During the past 2 years, the Employer, as chosen bidder, has
received approximately $100,000 from sales to the United States
Navy, for naval and coast guard boats, and to the Veterans'
Administration for its hospital. The purchases do not satisfy
the Board's minimal standards for the assertion of jurisdiction.
Nor do we think that the Employer's operation is among the
107 NLRB No. 171.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"enterprises which substantially affect the national defense."
Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Murdock, dissenting:
I cannot agree with my colleagues' unexplained conclusion
that the Employer herein is not an enterprise which "sub-
stantially affects the national defense." During the past 2 years
it has sold approximately $100,000 worth of dairy products to
the United States Navy for naval and coast guard boats and to a
Veterans' Administration hospital.' It does not contest juris-
diction.
I believe it reasonable to conclude that food supplies for the
personnel of naval vessels are just as essential to keep them
operating as is fuel for the boilers. If that is not denied, I am
unable to understand the basis for the majority's conclusion
here. Do they regard fresh dairy products as an unnecessary
luxury for naval personnel? Or does the amount fail to meet
some new but unexpressed quantitative test for what is "sub-
stantial" in connection with the national defense concept?
In my dissent in the Taichert, Inc.,2 case, I pointed out the
considerations which underlay the adoption of the national de-
fense concept in the Board's jurisdictional plan, that prior to
that case the Board had never undertaken to weigh the quanti-
tative amount of goods or services furnished or to make value
judgments as to the degree of their essentiality to the national
defense, and had never dismissed an enterprise furnishing
goods or services to the armed services. I believe the liberal
jurisdictional approach followed in this area prior to the
Taichert case is the only safe course to follow, when dealing
with enterprises affecting the national defense. The departure
from it in the Taichert and subsequent cases contributes to
the confusion which exists today as to just what the Board's
jurisdictional policy is in substantial areas.
'The record indicates that in the future it also intends to bid on contracts to supply the
naval base at Key West, Florida.
2 107 NLRB 779.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1272. January 18,
1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry L. Segal,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
107 NLRB No. 168.