Jacksonville Processing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

JACKSONVILLE PROCESSING CORPORATION 943
visors 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
JACKSONVILLE PROCESSING CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL, UNION OF
MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL, 32, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 10-KC-933. March 06, 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 James W. Mackle,
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, a Florida corporation,2 is engaged solely in the
production of naval stores (gum resin and turpentine). The raw
material used is oleoresin, gum from living pine trees, which is
brought or shipped to the Employer's plant, known as a central still,
by the gum farmers who take it from the trees. Sixty percent of the
oleoresin received by the Employer is processed for and on account of
gum farmers. The Employer buys the remaining 40 percent from
farmers, processes it, and sells the resulting gum rosin and turpentine
on its own account.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, the Employer pur-
chased supplies valued at about $82,000, of which $6,000 represents
supplies shipped to the Employer from outside Florida. The value
of all oleoresin delivered to the Employer and processed by it was
about $1,127,593. Of this, $50,721 represents the value of oleoresin
shipped to the Employer from outside Florida.
' At the hearing , the Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that (1)
the Petitioner was not in compliance with Section 9 (f) (B) (2 ) of the Act and therefore
no question of representation exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) of the Act;
(2) the Employer is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act ; and (3)
the employees involved are employed as agricultural laborers within the meaning of the
Act. We have repeatedly held that proof of compliance is a matter of administrative
determination, not litigable by the parties. Further, we are satisfied that the Petitioner
has fully complied with the filing requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the motion is
denied with respect to the first ground . W. if. Wrape Stave Company, Inc ., 90 NLRB
No. 150.
For the reasons given below in paragraphs numbered 1 and 4 , respectively , the motion is
denied with respect also to the second and third grounds.
2 The Employer is owned by The Glidden Company (over which the Board has asserted
jurisdiction : 61 NLRB 297 ) and Turpentine and Rosin Factors , Inc., each of which cor,
porations holds 50 percent of the Employer 's capital stock.
93 NLI{B No. 170.
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's sales were all local: Forty percent of the total
rosin produced was sold by the Employer on its own account to The,
Glidden Co.3 in Jacksonville for approximately $437,000. The record
shows that practically all of the rosin and turpentine produced on
account of gum farmers is ultimately shipped out of State. Although
the Employer ships no goods directly outside the State, it does deliver
necessary goods valued in excess of $50,000 per annum to The Glidden
Co., which in turn produces goods valued in excess of $25,000 which
are destined for out-of-State shipment. Accordingly, Nye find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this case 4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production and
maintenance employees. The Employer does not disagree as to the
appropriateness of the unit, but contends that its employees are "agri-
cultural laborers," and so not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Under Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, the term
"employee" is specifically defined to exclude "any individual employed
as an agricultural laborer." As to the meaning of the term "agri-
cultural laborer," a rider to the Board's current Appropriations Act
makes determinative the definition of "agriculture" contained in
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Labor Standards Act, which, in turn,
refers to the definition of "agricultural commodities" contained in
Section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 5
Both the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division and the
Department of Agriculture, charged with the primary administration
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Agricultural Marketing Act,
respectively, have recently had occasion to consider the applicability
of the pertinent provisions of their respective acts to central stills
engaged, as is the instant Employer, in the processing, for and on
account of the tree farmer, of crude gum taken from living trees.6
8 The Glidden Co. uses the rosin as a raw material for its synthetics plant in Jacksonville,
Florida.
Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides in pertinent part as follows :
"Agriculture includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes . .
the production . of any agricultural . . . commodities (including commodities defined
as agricultural commodities in Section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act as
11amended) . . . .
Section 15 (g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act defines an agricultural commodity
to include "in addition to other agricultural commodities, crude gum (oleoresin) from a
living tree, and the following products as processed by the original producer of the crude
gum (oleoresin ) from which derived : Gum spirits of turpentine , and gum rosin . .
6 There is no question, and we find, that the central still operator is not engaged in
the production of an agricultural commodity in processing crude gum which he has
purchased from tree farmers.
JACKSONVILLE PROCESSING CORPORATION 945
The Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture points out in his
most recent opinion 7 that :
While the central still might be said to be a "producer of agri-
cultural commodities" in the sense that it is engaged in processing
crude gum into gum turpentine and gum rosin . . . the central
still is not a "producer of agricultural commodities" in the sense
that the term "producer" is commonly understood for the pur-
poses of agricultural legislation. In the latter sense, the term
"producer" is synonymous with the term "farmer," and the tree
farmer who produces the crude gum would be considered the
"producer."
In an opinion letter dated February 28, 1951,8 the Administrator
of the Wage and Hour Division, in reliance upon the opinion of the
Department of Agriculture from which we have quoted above, con-
cludes as to the nature of the operations in question, that, because,
within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act, it is the tree
farmer and not the central still that produces agricultural commodi-
ties as.defined in Section 15 (g) of that act, the employees of the
central still are not engaged in the production of agricultural com-
modities within the meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.s
This Board believes it to be its duty to follow, whenever possible,
the interpretation of Section 3 (f) adopted by the Department of
Labor and its Wage and Hour Division, as that agency, and not this
7 Opinion letter of the Solicitor of Agriculture , dated January 2, 1951, directed to the
Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board
8 Opinion letter of the wage and hour Administrator , dated February 28, 1951 , directed
to Gum Processors Association , regarding the status of individuals engaged in the produc-
tion of gum turpentine and gum rosin from crude gum
8 The precise reasoning and conclusions of the wage and Hour Administrator , based upon
the opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture , ate expressed in the opinion
letter ( footnote 7, supra ) as follows
These statement9 indicate that the Department of Agriculture , the Department
best qualified to interpret the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act, considers the
tree farmer and not the central still to be the producer of gum turpentine and gum
rosin processed at the still of the tree farmer. If so , the production of such commodi-
ties, within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act, is accomplished by the
tree farmer and not by the central still I can see no basis for attributing a different
meaning to the word "production" in section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
as applied to the commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g) of
the Agricultural Marketing Act. As you know , the word "production " was, as the
Supreme Court pointed out in Farmers' Reservoir Co. v McComb, 337 U. S 755,
added to section 3 (f) in conjunction with the reference to section 15 (g) of the
Marketing Act "to insure the inclusion of the process " described in the latter section
which, you will recall , is limited to what is done by the original producer of the crude
gum. See also H Rept . No 2738, 75th Cong , 3id sess (1938), p 29
Accordingly , since it now appears that , within the meaning of the Agricultural
Marketing Act, it is the tree farmer and not the central still that produces the com-
modities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15 (g) of that Act, it is my
opinion that the employees of the central still in the situation that you present are
not engaged in the production of such commodities within the meaning of section 3
(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and are, theretore, not within the exemption
provided by section 13 (a) (6 ) of the Act for employees employed in agriculture
943732-51-61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board, has the responsibility and the experience of administering the
Fair Labor Standards Act.10 - Accordingly, we find that the employ-
ees of the Employer herein, whether performing work on crude gum
processed for and on account of the tree farmer or purchased from a
tree farmer, are not employed as "agricultural" laborers within the
meaning of Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 appropriate unit :
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at its plant in Jacksonville, Florida, excluding office and cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 Imperial Garden Growers , 91 NLRB 1034.
THE LANGDALE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL No. 375, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-786.
March 26, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
Jerold B. Sindler, 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 a Georgia corporation engaged near Valdosta,
Georgia, in producing, processing, and selling turpentine, rosin, and
preserved wood products. In connection with these operations, it
owns and operates a naval stores processing plant, wood preserving
plant, machine shop, garage, and sawmill. The Employer is also
1In its brief , the Employer in effect moved to dismiss this proceeding on the grounds
that evidence was not adduced to prove that the Petitioner represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit sought and that it is in compliance with the filing requirements
of the Act As we have frequently held, the showing of interest and proof of compliance
are matteis for administrative deteimination and are not litigable by the parties South
Georgia Pecan Shelling Co , 85 NLRB 591. Moreover, we are administratively satisfied
that the Petitioner has a substantial interest and that it has fully complied with the filing
requirements of the Act. Accordingly , the Employer ' s motion to dismiss is hereby denied
At the hearing and in its brief , the Employer also moved to exclude from the unit
the individuals engaged in its naval stores operations, on the ground that such workers
are "agricultural laborers ." For the reasons stated hereinafter , the motion is hereby
denied.
93 NLRB No. 169.