Allied Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ALLIED MILLS, INC. 369
Accordingly, the Board will direct an election for the employees at
that location.29
Upon the entire record the Board finds that all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's plant 5, excluding truck
drivers, car lift operators, warehousemen, craters, stock clerks, time-
keepers, production planners, material planners and schedulers, office
and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, foremen, and all super-
visors as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.30
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
29 See, for example , C. I. Brink, Incorporated , 57 NLRB 477, in which the Board held
that where an employer converted in part, for defense purposes , from its standard busi-
ness to a new product, employees engaged in the latter work could comprise a'separate
single-employer unit despite a history of multiemployer bargaining for the plant. See
also Demuth G lass Works , Inc., 53 NLRB 451. Moreover , the Board has consistently
held that where a classification or craft group of employees exists only at one employer's
plant, single -plant bargaining is appropriate as to those employees although the remainder
of employer 's personnel may be within a multiemployer bargaining group. See Members
of the California State Brewers Institute, Southern Division, 90 NLRB 1747 ; Pacific
Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 94 NLRB 477. -
89 The parties agreed that timekeepers , production planners , material planners and
schedulers should be excluded from the unit . As the record shows these employees do
not share common working conditions and interests with the remainder of the plant
force, the Board concurs in this agreement . The parties agreed, and we find, that the
Employer ' s watchmen are guards within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded.
The UAW-CIO wished to exclude, and1 the AFL Intervenors wished, to include , foremen
in the unit . As the record shows that all foremen at the plant have authority effectively
to recommend with respect to hiring , suspension , layoff, recall, promotion , and discharge
of employees under their supervision , we find that the foremen are supervisors as defined
in the Act , and exclude them from the unit.
ALLIED MILLS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, TRUCK
DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION, LOCAL No. 784, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 17-RC-1073. September 24,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene Hoffman,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
96 NLRB No. 54.
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
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) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Employer agree that a unit consisting of
all truck drivers, helpers, warehousemen, and general plant employees,
excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. However, the Employer
contends that all of its employees are not "employees" within the
meaning of the Act, but are "agricultural laborers" over whom the
Board may not assert jurisdiction: In the alternative, the Employer
contends that, if all of•its employees are not agricultural laborers, all
of its employees are subject to the provisions of the Act because of
the continuous nature of its operations. .
At its plant in Cozad, Nebraska, which is the only plant involved
in this proceeding, the Employer is engaged in dehydrating green
alfalfa, processing sun-cured alfalfa into alfalfa meal, and manu-
facturing animal feeds from alfalfa, corn, molasses, and other prod-
ucts. The Employer is not engaged in the planting or cultivation
of alfalfa, but purchases green alfalfa standing in the fields and sun-
cured alfalfa standing in stacks or windrows on farmers' fields. The
Board has previously held that the agricultural exemption does not
apply to employees who work in a separate commercial establish-
ment on commodities which are not grown by their own employer
where such work materially changes the agricultural product to
enhance its value.2 Accordingly, we reject the Employer's conten-
tion that all of its employees are "agricultural laborers" within the
meaning of the Act.
I As in previous years, a rider to the Board's current Appropriation Act (Public Law
134, 82d Cong , 1st Sess., August 31, 1951 ) requires the Board to define agriculture as
defined in Section 3 ( f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the purpose of determining
who are "agricultural laborers " within the meaning of Section 2 ( 3) of the National
Labor Relations Act
2 Franklin Country Sugar Company, 92 NLRB 1341 ; Imperial Garden Grocers, 91
NLRB 1034 ; Roberts Fig Company, 88 NLRB 1150; Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, 80
NLRB 853.
ALLIED MILLS, INC. 371
There remains for consideration the status of employees classified
as "cuttermen" and "loadermen." 3 Cuttermen operate the machines
which mow the green alfalfa standing in fields "leased" by the
Employer.4 The machines also chop up the alfalfa and blow it into
trucks for transportation to the Employer's plant, where it is put
through a dehydrating process. The Employer also purchases sun-
cured alfalfa as it stands in stacks or windrows on the farmers' fields.
Loadermen operate tractors equipped with special forks which gather
such sun-cured alfalfa and place it on the Employer's trucks.
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to which we are
required to refer to the definition of agriculture,5 defines agriculture
as follows :
(f) "Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and
among other things includes the . . . harvesting of any agri=
cultural or horticultural commodities . . . and any practices .. .
performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in con-
junction with such farming operations, including preparation
for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for
transportation to market.
It is apparent that both cuttermen and loadermen are engaged in
the farming operation of harvesting alfalfa on a farms The record
in this case does not substantiate the Employer's alternative conten-
tion that its operations are so continuous and integrated as to make
the work of cuttermen and loadermen an incident of the Employer's
commercial activities rather than an incident of farming operations.
Accordingly, cuttermen and loadermen fall within the classification
of agricultural laborers and must, therefore, be excluded from the
unit herein found appropriate. However, as described more fully
below, it appears that at various times cuttermen and loadermen are
assigned to work at the Employer's plant. They are included in the
unit and may be represented by the Petitioner if successful in the elec-
tion hereinafter directed, for time spent in such nonagricultural
work.'
8 As stated above, the Employer contends that, if all of its employees are not agri-
cultural laborers , all of its employees are subject to the provisions of the Act . However,
the Board ' s jurisdiction must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the
Act and not by the positions taken by the parties Cf. Pacific Metals Company, Ltd, 91
NLRB 696.
4 Although the agreements made with the farmers who cultivate the alfalfa are described
as leases , it appears that the Employer does not perform any operations on such "leased"
land other than the moving and cutting described above.
5 See footnote 1, supra.
6 See Wage Hour Div, Interpretative Bulletin No 14, August 21, 1939 , pars 5 (a) and
11 The Board has excluded as agricultural laborers employees engaged in operations
similar to those performed by loadermen See L T Malone, 94 NLRB 1016 (operators of
mechanical loaders , field bugs , and silver kings)
L T Malone, supra ; Robe) is Fiq Company, supra
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : All truck
drivers, helpers , warehousemen , and general plant employees at the
Employer 's Cozad, Nebraska , plant, excluding all cuttermen and load-
ermen , office and clerical employees, professional employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. Cuttermen are employed approximately 6 months of a year in
harvesting alfalfa, as described above. Generally, they are assigned
to work in the Employer 's plant during those months in which no
harvesting can be done . The record does not disclose the exact divi-
sion of their time between agricultural and nonagricultural work.
On the other hand, loadermen are engaged on a year-round basis in
loading operations and they are assigned to work in the Employer's
plant on an intermittent basis, depending upon the state of the weather.
Thus, because loadermen spend less than 50 percent of their time in
nonagricultural work , it is clear that they are not eligible to vote in
the election . However, it appears that some cuttermen may have such
a substantial interest in the election as to be the basis for permitting
them to vote therein. In accordance with usual Board policy, only
those cuttermen who were assigned to work in the Employer 's plant
during at least half of the number of weeks in which they worked in
1950 shall be eligible to vote."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 WCAU, Inc., 93 NLRB 1003; Libby McNeill & Libby, 90 NLRB 279; Delaware Broad-
casting Company, 82 NLRB 727.
LIBERTY CORK CO., INC., and UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM &
PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-
1159. September 24, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, 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 Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1 The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
96 NLRB No. 53.