Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 96 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SALINAS VALLEY VEGETABLE EXOHANGE, O. R.
RECKER PACKING CO., SMITH VEGETABLE COMPANY, AND FLOYD N.
SMITH COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 912, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER and FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL 78, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORK-
ERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, INTERVENOR
Case Nos. 31-RC--654, 21RC-667, 21-RC-668 , and 21-RC-669.-
Decided March. 1.5, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed and consolidated,' a hearing was held
before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are here affirmed 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.3
' The petition in Case No. 21-RC-654 was filed on December 6, 1948, and the petitions
in Cases Nos . 21-RC-667, 668, and 669 were filed on December 17, 1948. All of the cases
were consolidated on January 10, 1949, pursuant to Section 203 64 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended
2 At the outset of the hearing, the Intervenor , who has not complied with Section 9 (h)
of the Act , moved to intervene on the basis of alleged currently existing contracts with
the Employers herein involved . Over the Petitioner 's objection , the motion was granted.
The record indicates some doubt as to whether the Intervenor 's contractual interest was in
fact current at the time of the hearing . We find it unnecessary to resolve this issue. In
view of the determinations reached herein , the intervention was not prejudicial.
'Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock.
8 The Board has previously found these Employers to be engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act . See, Matter of Arena-Norton Co ., et ai., 62 N . L. R. B. 1070; 60
N. L. It. B. 1166.
82 N. L. R. B., No. 6.
96
SALINAS VALLEY VEGETABLE EXCHANGE 97
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employers.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of "all shed workers, in-
cluding trimmers, packers, icers, car loaders and unloaders, labelers,
floor help, crate liners and lidders." 4
The Employers are engaged in the growing, packing, and market-
ing of lettuce, melons, and other fresh fruits and vegetables in the
Salt River Valley area of Arizona. During the various packing sea-
sons, these Employers employ persons for the purpose of sorting and
packing their products. At least 95 percent of the commodities packed
in the sheds are grown in fields owned or leased by the Employers .5
The products are transported from the fields to the respective pack-
ing sheds in equipment either owned or rented by each Employer.
There, they are cleaned, sorted, packed, and loaded into cars for
shipment to market.
Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act excludes from
the definition of the term employee "any individual employed as an
agricultural laborer." The Board has previously held that employees
performing duties, similar to those involved in this case, for the
Employers involved herein were not "agricultural laborers" within
the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.6 However, when these earlier
cases were decided by the Board, the definition of "agricultural la-
borer" set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had not
been incorporated by reference into the National Labor Relations
Act 7 That definition, under the rider to the Board's current appro-
priation Act, is now controlling on the question of whether particular
employees are "agricultural laborers" within the meaning of Section
2 (3) of the Act."
In interpreting the agricultural exemption under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the courts have held such exemption applicable to
employees engaged in performing operations which relate to com-
modities grown by the employer concerned, while holding the exemp-
4 An alternative unit sought by the Petitioner is limited to all shed workers engaged in
packing lettuce only.
The Floyd N. Smith Co. packs only products which it has grown itself. The record
shows that the remaining Employers customarily pack their own grown products, only
arranging to pack products grown by others in the event that their own produce is inade-
quate to meet marketing requirements or to keep their packing shed crews working.
See footnote 3, supra.
7 That definition , insofar as applicable here , reads as follows :
. "agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among other things
includes . . . the production , cultivation , growing and harvesting of any agricul-
tural . . . commodities . . . and any practices . . . performed by a farmer or on a
farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations , including
preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transpor-
tation to market.
" Matter of Elliott A Sons Co., 78 N. L. R. B. 1078.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion inapplicable to employees working on commodities grown by
others.9 In the recent Di Giorgio case,10 this Board recognized that
practices such as packing products grown on the Employer's own farm
are performed as an incident to or in conjunction with farming opera-
tions as defined in the agricultural exemption,l1 because such practices
are generally necessary for the disposal of farm products 12 We there
indicated that "when fruit is sold in its raw state and the only process-
ing involved consists of boxing or crating it in order to ship it to
market, the operation retains its agricultural aspect."
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the packing shed employees
here involved, in packing produce grown on their Employers' own
fields preparatory to shipment to market, render services that are
an ordinary incident to farming operations. Accordingly, we find
such employees to be "agricultural laborers" within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act and we shall dismiss the petitions
herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in the instant proceed-
ings be, and they are, dismissed.
9Walling v. Peacock Corp ., 58 Fed Supp . 880 (Dist. Ct., E. D Wise., 1943), and cases
cited therein.
19 Matter of Di Giorgio Fruit Corp., 80 N. L. R. B . 853. In that case , the Board held
that employees engaged in juicing and processing fruit and canning the juices were not
"agricultural laborers" inasmuch as these operations were not necessary to prepare the
fruit for market in the normal course of business , but, rather , were performed "to change
the nature of the product and thereby increase its value for purposes of sale."
ss See footnote , 7, supra.
12 See N. L. R. B. v. Campbell, 159 F. ( 2d) 184 (C. A. 5, 1947 ), where the Court, in
holding that employees of a packing house who packed only tomatoes grown on the
Employer's own farm were agricultural laborers, said :
Congress , as well as this Court has recognized that the packing and preparing of
agricultural products for the market is a necessary incident to any agricultural
operation , for no farmer , dependent upon that which he produces to sustain his opera-
tions, could long exist if he could not market that which he produces , and so long as
the operation of washing, packing and preparing for market by the employees of a
farmer is on that only which he has produced on his farm , it is a necessary incident
to farming and is agricultural labor.
See also, Lee Wilson tf Co. v. U. S., 171 F. 2d 503 ( C. A. 8, 1948).