William H. Elliot & Sons Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of WILLIAM H. ELLIoTT & SONS COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION or AMERICA C. I. O., PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-215.-Decided August 18, 194.8
Mr. Maurice F. Devine, of Manchester , N. H., for the Employer.
Mr. Julius Gracia, of Manchester , N. H., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Dover,
New Hampshire, on April 23, 1948, before Thomas H. Ramsey, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following : _
FINDINGS OF FACT
THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
William H. Elliott & Sons Company grows and sells roses at its
premises in Madbury, New Hampshire. The Petitioner seeks a unit
of the Employer's rose growers, packers, maintenance men, firemen,
and tractor and truck drivers, excluding executives, office and clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Em-
ployer contends that the employees sought to be represented are "agri-
cultural laborers" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act,
and therefore that the Board is without jurisdiction to entertain the
petition herein.
The Employer purchases small rose plants from growers in Cali-
fornia, which are then planted in cement containers located in green-
houses. The soil in which the rose plants are placed requires
constant care ; among other things, it must be highly fertile and main-
tained under rigid temperature. conditions. The soil in the green-
houses is tested monthly, and the fertilization of the plants is based
78 N. L. R. B., No. 151.
1078
WILLIAM H. ELLIOTT & SONS COMPANY 1079
on these tests. Various scientific preventive methods against insects
and fungus diseases are utilized. The Employer also operates a farm,
where soil is prepared for use in the greenhouses.
The various classifications of employees all perform tasks related to
the growth and production of the roses. The rose growers work in the
greenhouses, watering, cutting, spraying, tying, pinching, and doing
other work` necessary for the growth of the plants, up to the point of
transporting the cut roses to the packing room. The packers grade the
roses, eliminating weak, open flowers, and pack the flowers in wooden
boxes. The maintenance men maintain the pipes and pumps used for
insecticides and water, replace glass, and do various other jobs related
to the upkeep of the plant. The firemen operate the heating plant, to
maintain steam pressure at the proper level. The temperature men
maintain the greenhouse temperature and take care of ventilation;
they also patrol the premises at night. The tractor driver operates
the tractor on the Employer's farm for plowing, harrowing, and pre-
paring soil for the greenhouses. The truck driver hauls fuel to the
plant, fertilizer to the different greenhouses, and cinders from the
boiler rooln. The two drivers and the maintenance men also help in
the preparation of the soil outside the greenhouse, and assist in the
cultivation of hay on the farm.
In Matter of The Park Floral Company,' the Board held that
employees performing similar duties for a like employer were not
agricultural laborers within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
When the Park Floral case was decided in 1940, however, the definition
of "agricultural laborers" set forth in the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 had not been incorporated by reference into the National
Labor Relations Act.' That definition, under the rider to the Board's
current appropriation 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 the case of Damutz v. William Pinchbeck, Inc., 158 F. (2d) 882, a
fireman employed by the operator of a wholesale florist business
brought suit for over-time compensation under the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act. The Employer was engaged in the production of cut flowers,
using plants purchased from others and grown by the employer in a
manner similar to that involved in the present case. The employee
was engaged in firing the boilers which supplied steam to heat the
' 19 N L R B. 403.
s This 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 agricultural or
horticultural commodities . . . and any practices . . . performed by a farmer or on
a farm including preparation for market , delivery to storage or to market or to
carriers for transportation to market.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer's greenhouses and to sterilize the soil in which the plants
were grown . The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
'Second Circuit denied the relief sought , saying that "Such a produc-
tion of cut flowers is clearly the production of a horticultural com-
modity ..." and that, as the employee was engaged in the production
of a horticultural commodity, he was an agricultural employee ex-
cluded from the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On the basis of that case, and because most of the employees sought
by the Petitioner appear clearly to be "agricultural laborers" within
the purview of the definition set forth in Section 3 (f) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.