Tule River Cooperative Gin, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1523 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

TULE RIVER COOPERATIVE GIN, INC . 1523
quently the only ones who could benefit from unionization would be the least
deserving and, conversely, the competent, industrious or otherwise superior
worker would be deprived of his well-earned reward.
4. We deplore the continuous clashing between labor and management in those
places where unions exist; the constant friction, the lack of cooperation, the
definite cleavage between management and the worker aggravated by the con-
tinual agitation of the union leaders. We prefer to continue in the same spirit
of mutual benefit between officers and employees that has prevailed here for
so many years.
5. We are members of an institution serving the public which means that our
relationship to that institution and to the public must be flexible and free from
the restraint of rules and controls imposed by outside influence. We believe that
any influence tending to sever or disrupt this relationship is detrimental to us
as employees, to our institution and to the public as well.
6. We believe that all employees should take an active part in this determina-
tion of the question of relationship of employees with management. It is a well
known fact that the efforts of a vocal and active few often prevails over the
better judgment of the restrained majority. Let's not say to ourselves "It can't
happen here." It is our right to go on record as opposing this minority group
and we hereby do so. We invite employees of all other departments and
branches who feel as we do to likewise register their opposition to this move-
ment. In order to accomplish this we are requesting that this letter be circulated
among the other employees.
[41 signatures of the employees of the Real Estate loan department are sub-
scribed thereon.]
TULE RIVER COOPERATIVE GIN, INC. and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 197, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 2O-RC-
0042. February 19, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was duly held before Albert Schneider, hear-
ing 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 Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a corporation, organized under the State of
California cooperative law, with its principal office at Woodville,
California. It is engaged in the ginning of cotton exclusively for
its approximately 300 grower members. It operates 4 ginning plants
in California : 2 in Woodville, a third in the area between Tipton and
Pixley, and the fourth near Tulare.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, the Employer ginned
approximately 28,000 bales of cotton valued at about $5,000,000, for
102 NLRB No. 158.
1 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which it was paid $320,000 by its grower members as service charges.
In addition, the Employer received about $4,500 in fees from Cali-
fornia Cotton Cooperative Association, a cooperative marketing and
compress association, located in Bakersfield, California, for services
rendered in invoicing cotton transferred to such association and for
other services. During the same fiscal year the Employer's purchases
of raw materials, such as bagging and banding, amounted to about
$75,000, of which amount approximately $20,000 was shipped directly
to the Employer from points outside the State of California.
Approximately 60 percent of the cotton ginned is transferred, upon
authorization of the grower member, to the California Cotton Cooper-
ative Association. The remaining 40 percent is sold to cotton buying
firms that maintain offices in other States and foreign countries or to
local buyers purchasing for the accounts of other firms, or for their
individual accounts.
In opposing jurisdiction, the Employer contends that as a coopera-
tive association of cotton growers, it serves only as agent for the farm-
ers and that therefore its employees are agricultural laborers within
the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, and are theref ore exempt from
the provisions of the Act.' Moreover, it argues that all of the sales
it makes on behalf of its grower members are made locally, that none
of the cotton is shipped by it directly in interstate commerce, and that
there is no direct evidence in the record that any of the cotton processed
by the Employer enters into interstate commerce.
The Employer's representative testified that he "presumed" a fairly
large percentage of all cotton grown in the State of California was
shipped outside of the State and, in fact, that he knew of only 2 or 3
small plants in California that could utilize any of the raw cotton.
He further testified that he had been apprised of a report issued by
the Western Cotton Shippers Association to the effect that approxi-
mately 1,800,000 bales of cotton were produced in California during
the preceding year, of which amount approximately 1,191,000 bales
were shipped in foreign commerce and the balance shipped in domestic
interstate commerce.
Notwithstanding the absence of direct evidence that the specific
cotton processed by the Employer enters into interstate commerce, we
believe that it is not unreasonable to conclude on the evidence here
presented that all but an insignificant amount of cotton produced and
ginned in the State of California is shipped out of the State. The
1 The Employer 's contention that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board because
its employees are agricultural laborers within the meaning of Section 2, (3) of the Act is
without merit As a cooperative enterprise , the Employer is an entity separate and apart
from its constituent members. Therefore its activities are not necessarily those of its
grower members . Under the principles of the Imperial Garden Growers case ( 91 NLRB
1034) and other Board cases , we find that the Employer is not engaged in agricultural
activities so as to constitute its employees agricultural laborers . See also Evan Hall
Sugar Cooperative, Inc., 9 ''71 NLRB 1258.
TULE RIVER COOPERATIVE GIN, INC. 1525
fact that the Employer acquires no title to the cotton which moves
through its plants into interstate commerce is immaterial in determin-
ing whether its activities are subject to Board jurisdiction 2 Nor
is it material that the Employer did not ship the ginned cotton directly
in interstate commerce. The Board has, in effect, recently held, in
similar circumstances, that intermediate but temporary transfers of
possession before final shipment in interstate commerce does not change
the basic interstate character of the activities of the cotton ginner.3
We accordingly find on the record as a whole that the Employer is
an enterprise engaged in processing or handling goods destined for
out-of-State shipment, which goods have a value of $25,000 and more
a year, that its activities meet the jurisdictional tests recently estab-
lished by the Board, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.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).
4. The Board finds, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's two plants at Woodville, the plant located between Tipton
and Pixley, and the plant near Tulare, California, excluding "office
and clerical employees," guards, professional employees, and super-
visors 5 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
5. The Employer's operations are seasonal . They usually begin
the latter part of September and last until the first of February.
In these circumstances, if the Regional Director finds that a repre-
sentative number of employees is not now employed, he may properly
defer the election until at or about the peak of employment in the next
season. We shall therefore direct that an election be held on the
date to be determined by the Regional Director among the employees
in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of the issuance of the notice of election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Federal Compress and Warehouse Company , 95 NLRB 809; N . L. R. B. v. Bradford
Dyeing Association et al., 310 U. S. 318.
8 See National Gas Company , 99, NLRB 273.
4 Cf. Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618; National Gas
Company, supra.
5 The record is inadequate to determine whether or not the ginners exercise the authority
necessary to constitute them supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In the circum-
stances , we shall direct that they be permitted to vote subject to challenge in the election
herein directed.
250983-vol . 102-53-97