Central Juncos

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

CENTRAL JUNCOS 809
Upon the.basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST) D/B/A CENTRAL JUNCOS and
UNION AMALG AMAPA DE TRABAJADORES. INDUSTRIALES DE JUNCOS
(ILA-AFL), PETITIONER. Case No. 24-RC-291. July 18, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Licari, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 Houston 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 organizations, involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production, main-
tenance, and repair employees at the Employer's tractor and mechanics
shop.3 The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
i Eastern Sugar Associates , 80 NLRB 73.
3 The Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Central Juncos (Ind.) was permitted to
Intervene on the basis of a contract interest . The Sindicato de Trabajadores de la In-
dustria Azucarera de P. R . (CGT-CIO), also possessing a contract interest , although duly
notified of the hearing did not appear.
8 The Employer has only one such shop servicing its several sugar plantations.
99 NLRB No. 121.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the grounds that (1) the employees sought to be represented by
the Petitioner are agricultural laborers within the meaning. of sec-
tion 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Section 2 (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act; (2) the unit requested by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate because the employees sought to be represented
are a part of a larger unit of agricultural employees; and (3) that
there is a long history of collective bargaining covering the employees.
involved herein in an Employer-wide group of agricultural employees.
The Intervenor takes no position as to the issues raised by the
Employer, and stated at the hearing that it had no interest in these
employees and would not participate in any election should the Board
direct one in this proceeding.
The Employer owns and operates several farms and leases others,
on which it plants, grows, and harvests sugar cane. This activity of
the Employer is known as its agricultural division. It also owns and
operates several sugar mills where it processes its own sugar cane and
that of independent farmers into raw and refined sugar. In connec-
tion with its sugar mills, it owns a railroad with extensions termi-
nating in railroad siding located as closely as practicable to its several
farms. It also owns docks. This part of the Employer's business is
known as its operating division.4 These two divisions are completely
separated, and each of them is under the general direction and super-
vision of a vice president, and has a separate supervisory hierarchy.
This proceeding is concerned only with the employees who repair and
maintain the Employer's farm machinery and equipment.
The tractor and mechanic shop is part of the agricultural division.
The employees in this shop include types of machinists usually found
in a modern machine shop, such as engine specialists, motor and pump
specialists, welders, tool makers, and a variety of other mechanics.
They repair and maintain tractors, derricks, winches, and other agri-
cultural tools and implements. They also repair trucks and build and
repair carts for hauling sugar cane from the fields to the railroad
sidings. They do not repair any machinery or equipment for the
Employer's sugar mills, each of which has its own shop and mechanics
for this purpose. There is very little interchange between the em-
ployees of the tractor shop and the employees of any of the shops at
the Employer's sugar mills.
Under the current Board Appropriations Act, the definition of
"agriculture" in section 3 (f) of the FLSA is made applicable to the
exclusion of agricultural laborers appearing in Section 2 (3) of the
NLRA. Section 3 (f) reads as follows:
"Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among
other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil .. ,.
The Employer also has an office division , which takes care of the accounting for the
other two divisions.
NEW CASTLE PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED 811
The production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agri-
culture . . . commodities . . . and any practices . . . performed
by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with
such farming operations, including preparation for market, deliv-
ery to storage or market or to carriers for transportation to
market. [Emphasis added.]
Although the tractor shop employees in the performance of their
duties do not work on a farm, it is nevertheless clear that they service,
maintain, and repair machinery and equipment which the Employer
uses only for its farming operations, that they are completely sepa-
rated from any of the Employer's other operations and that they do
not repair, service or maintain any of its other machinery and equip-
ment. In these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we find
that tractor and mechanic shop employees involved in this' proceeding
perform work and services for the Employer which are incidental to
its farming operations. We further find that the duties of these em-
ployees fall within the definition of "agriculture" contained in section
3 (f) of the FLSA, and hence that they are agricultural laborers
excluded from coverage by Section 2 (3) of the NLRA.S We shall
therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
5 Luce & Company, S. en C., 98 NLRB 1060 , and authorities cited therein . See particu-
larly the letter dated October 4, 1949, addressed to the Solicitor of the Board by the
Assistant Solicitor of the United States Department of Labor ( 1949 W H 1998) See
also Interpretative Bulletin No. 14 issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the United
States Department of Labor, paragraph 12. In Imperial Garden Growers, 91 NLRB 1034,
the Board stated that it would follow the interpretations of the Department of Labor and
its Wage and Hour Division as to Section 3 (f) of the FLSA.
In view of our findings , it is unnecessary to resolve the Employer's other contentions.
NEW CASTLE PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-719.
June 18, 1952
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 Leonard S. Kimmel, hearing
I The Employer contends that Section 9 (c) of the Act and the Rules and Regulations
based thereon which provide that the hearing officer who conducts the hearing shall not
make any recommendations with respect thereto is violative of the fifth amendment to
the Constitution . The Board has held that as an administrative agency created by
Congress it cannot question the constitutionality of the Act which created it and that
it will leave such questions to the courts for determination . Unless and until the courts
have determined otherwise , the Board will assume that the Act is constitutional Samuel
Bonat & Bro . Inc., 81 NLRB 1249 ; Rite-Form Corset Company, Inc ., 75 NLRB 174.
99 NLRB No. 120.