Armour & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARMOUR & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 58, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 17-RC-1713. March 29, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Michael J.
Lucero, hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
The Employer contends that the individuals involved in this
case are not employees 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 slaughtering, packing, and
distribution of meat products at various plants throughout the
United States. The Petitioner seeks a unit of sheep feeders
at the Employer's St. Joseph, Missouri, plant.
The 5 individuals classified as sheep feeders feed, fatten,
and care for sheep for periods of 40 to 90 days prior to
slaughter of the animals. The work involves driving trucks
and dumping feed into feed pens. This is performed at pens
on the Employer's property located about a block from its
main slaughterhouse. After the sheep are fattened, the sheep
feeders deliver the animals to receiving pens for slaughter.
Section 2 (3) of the Act excludes from the definition of
"employee" any individual employed as an "agricultural
laborer."
By a rider to the Board's current appropriation Act,'
the Board is precluded from processing representation cases
involving "agricultural laborers" as defined in Section 3 (f)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The definition of "agriculture" in Section 3 (f) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act includes, inter alia, "the raising of
livestock . . . and any practice . . performed by a farmer
or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such
farming operations . . . ."
It should be noted that the "raising of livestock" per se
constitutes "agriculture" by this definition. Thus the Board
167 Stat. 257.
108 NLRB No. 26.
ARMOUR & COMPANY 101
has previously held that the feeding , fattening, and care of
cattle for 80 to 150 days on a feedlot many miles removed
from the employer ' s packing plant must be regarded as the
"raising of livestock " and such operations constitute "ag-
riculture" under Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.'
We have been advised by the Department of Labor,3 whose
interpretation of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act it is our policy to follow whenever possible, that the
40- to 90-day period for feeding, fattening, and caring for
sheep is comparable to the 80 to 150 days considered a
substantial period in the raising of cattle , and that employees
performing this work are engaged in "agriculture" within
the meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's sheep feeders
are agricultural laborers within the meaning of Section 2 (3)
of the Act . We shall, therefore , dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
2 Swift & Company , 104 NLRB 922.
3 See opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor dated March 10, 1954, addressed
to the Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board, attached hereto
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Solicitor
Washington
Miss Ida Klaus
Solicitor
National Labor Relations Board
Washington 25, D. C.
March 10, 1954
Dear Miss Klaus:
This will reply to your inquiry as to whether certain em-
ployees of an operator of a large slaughter or packing plant are
engaged in the "raising of livestock " within the meaning of the
definition of "agriculture " in section 3(f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
As you indicate we pointed out in our letter to you of April 1,
1953 that employees engaged in operations on a feed lot in
"feeding, fattening and caring for cattle for substantial periods,
such as 80 to 150 days " are engaged in "raising livestock"
within the meaning of section 3 ( f) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act "even though some or all of the fattened livestock are
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ultimately sold, shipped or slaughtered by the feeder" that is,
the employer who operated both the feeding lots and the packing
plant. In the situation you now present the employees are en-
gaged in feeding, fattening, and caring for sheep for from 40 to
90 days prior to slaughter at pens located about a block from
the employer's slaughter house. You wish to know whether the
proximity of the feeding pens to the slaughter house and the
shorter period of time involved are sufficient to change the
conclusions set forth in our prior opinion.
As indicated in our letter of April 1, 1953 the feeding and
care of livestock over a brief period of a few days pending its
sale, shipment, or slaughter cannot reasonably be characterized
as the "raising of livestock" within the definition. It would ap-
pear, however, that the 40 to 90 day period for feeding, fatten-
ing, and caring for sheep is comparable to the 80 to 150 days
in which the employees were engaged in raising cattle under the
facts of our prior letter. It is my opinion that the employees
here involved are engaged in "agriculture" within the meaning
of section 3(f) of the Act even though the feeding, fattening and
care of the sheep take place about a block from the packing
house,
Very truly yours,
Stuart Rothman
Solicitor of Labor
TOM ZWEIFEL, INCORPORATED and AUTOMOTIVE ME-
CHANICS LODGE NO. 510, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, and TRUCK DRIVERS AND ALLIED IN-
DUSTRIES LOCAL 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, Jointly, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3693.
March 29, 1954
AMENDED DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking an election in a unit
of the Employer's service and parts employees. On December
31, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election' in which it included new- and used-car salesmen
and office clerical employees in the appropriate unit, On
January 7, 1954, the Petitioner filed a motion with the Board
to reconsider its unit finding, and requested oral argument, 2
contending that the new- and used-car salesmen and office
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied because in our opinion
the record and the motion to reconsider adequately present the issues and the position
of the parties.
108 NLRB No. 20.