Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By assisting in the preparation and filing of a disaffiliation letter and decertification
petition , and by threatening and warning against employees ' union activities , thereby interfer-
ing with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce , within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act
by an alleged unlawful refusal to bargain.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.
SWIFT & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 20 -RC-2045. May
12, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert
Schneider, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles
and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that its employees are not "em-
ployees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, but are
"agricultural laborers" to whom the Act does not apply.
The Employer is engaged in the raising and feeding of live-
stock, principally cattle, which it buys and fattens for slaughter
on its 129-acre feed lot, located approximately 41 miles from
Firebaugh, California. The Employer also operates a number
of packing plants throughout the United States, the nearest of
which is located at San Francisco, approximately 160 miles
from the Firebaugh feed lot. The instant case concerns 16
workers, classified as feed truckdrivers, corral workers,
shopmen, millworkers, bin feeders, feedmixers, and molasses
mixers, who work on this feed lot. The feed lot, situated on a
country road, includes a 25-acre piece, on which are various
farm buildings, and a 7-acre piece for pasturage for sick
animals. The buildings include 13 houses (9 for workers and
their families), a grain elevator for storing 2,600 tons of
grain, 2 warehouses, a building for grinding barley, a building
where feeds are mixed, and a shop for repairing tools and
tractors. The feed lot is equipped to feed and fatten approxi-
mately 6,500 head of cattle at a given time. Cattle, obtained
from breeders from Texas to Wyoming, are intensively fed for
104 NLRB No. 120.
SWIFT & COMPANY 923
a period up to 150 days in the case of calves, and from 80 to
120 days in the case of steers and heifers.
The feed lot manager is in immediate control of the feed lot,
working under the general direction and advice of the Em-
ployer's chief veterinarian located at the Employer's research
laboratories in Chicagoy Employees at the feed lot have a
farming or ranching background. They work in and around the
corrals, caring for the livestock. They brand and sort live-
stock. They feed the animals, clean stockpens, and repair
equipment. They handle, grind, and mix feeds.' Handling of
the animals includes medical attention and the final loading
of the animals for shipment to the packing plant in San
Francisco.
Accounting services for the feedlot are handled in a separate
office division set up in the San Francisco plant. Expenses for
these services are charged to the feed lot, which is handled as
an independent operation from a profit-and-loss standpoint.
There is no interchange of personnel between the packing plant
and the feed lot, either on a permanent or temporary basis.
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by which we
must be governed in determining the question of coverage under
Section 2 (3) of the statute we administer, defines the term
"agriculture" to include inter alia, "the raising of live-
stock . . . and any practice . . . performed by a farmer or on
a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming
operation . . . ."
It is important to note that the "raising of livestock" per se
constitutes "agriculture" by this definition. We have been
advised by the Department of Labor,2 whose interpretation of
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act it is our policy
to follow whenever possible,' that, in determining what con-
stitutes the "raising of livestock," it is not material tha* the
livestock is raised for the Employer's own commercial or
industrial purposes, or that the livestock is not bred on the
premises, or that the feed is purchased and not produced. It is
the nature of the feeding operation itself which is controlling.
The length of time the livestock is held on the feed lot is a
determinative factor under the Fair Labor Standards Act
definition. Unless performed as an incident to or in conjunction
with farming operations, the feeding and care of livestock over
a brief period of a few days pending its sale, shipment, or
slaughter is not "agriculture" because it cannot reasonably
be characterized as the "raising" of livestock. The feeding,
fattening, and general care of livestock over a substantial
period of time, however, does constitute the "raising of live-
stock" and is thus employment in "agriculture" within the
1 None of this food is raised by the Employer , but practically all is obtained from nearby
farms . In an earlier case involving the Employer ' s feed lot employees at Watertown, South
Dakota , the Board found the feed lot employees were "agricultural laborers " within the
meaning of the Act . In that case , feed lot employees spent some of their time sowing and
harvesting a crop on 22 acres adjoining the feed lot . Swift and Company, 63 NLRB 1227.
'Opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor dated April 1, 1953, addressed to the
Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board.
$ Imperial Garden Growers , 91 NLRB 1034 . and cases cited therein.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act even
though some or all of the fattened livestock are ultimately
sold, shipped, or slaughtered by the feeder.
Under the principles outlined above, it seems clear that, for
purposes of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
accordingly of Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the feeding, fattening, and care of cattle for
substantial periods, such as 80 to 150 days, must be regarded
as a distinct enterprise--separate and apart from thepacking-
plant operations, which are not of course "agriculture." So
regarded, the feed lot operations are plainly the "raising of
livestock" and thus do constitute "agriculture" under Section
3 (f), even though the cattle are ultimately destined for slaughter
and conversion into meat products at the Employer' s meat-
packing enterprise. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's
feed lot employees are "agricultural laborers" within the
meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; we shall, therefore, dis-
miss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
G. K. LIVESTOCK COMPANY and AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 368, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1199.
May 12, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville W.
Turnbaugh, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.'
I We find without merit the Employer 's attack upon the Petitioner 's showing of interest.
The Board has consistently held that the adequacy of a showing of interest is a question for
administrative determination, not subject to direct or collateral attack . Stokely Foods, Inc.,
78 NLRB 842.
2During the past year the Employer sold $2,075,387 worth of livestock to King Packing
Company, a company engaged in interstate commerce , which annually ships outside the State
goods valued in excess of $25,000. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that
these facts would justify the assertion of jurisdiction in this case . Hollow Tree Lumber
Company, 91 NLRB 635; Walter G. Brix, Inc., 96 NLRB 519. We dismiss the instant petition,
however, for other reasons stated hereinafter.
104 NLRB No. 121.