Lindstrom Hatchery and Poultry Farm

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 776 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

`In the Matter of WII.BUR E. LINDSTROM, ELMER A. LINDSTROM AND
HELEN I. REID, D/B/A LINDSTROM HATCHERY AND -POULTRY FARM
and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BIITCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 28, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
Case No. C-2515.-Decided May 19, 1943
Mr. Robert S. Fousek and Mr. John A. Weiss, for the Board.
Mr. Haysler A. Poague, of Clinton, Mo., Mr. John B. Gage, of
Kansas City, Mo., and Mr. Gregory C. Stockard, of Jefferson City,
Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. EugeneR. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed on August 24, 1942, by
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local No. 28, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called,
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region
(Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated December 3, 1942,
against Wilbur E. Lindstrom, Elmer A. Lindstrom and Helen I. Reid,
d/b/a-Lindstrom Hatchery and Poultry Farm, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended
alleged in substance: (1) that during January and April 1942, the
respondent laid off the employees named in Appendix A and refused
to reinstate the employees named in Appendix B because of their union
activities; (2) that, on or about February 26, 1942, the respondent
49 N. L. R. B., No. 111.
776
LINDSTROM HAPCHERY -AND POULTRY FARM 777
refused to bargain. collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the respondent's employees, in an appropriate unit con-
sisting of all the production and maintenance employees at its hatchery,
'excluding supervisory and office employees; and (3 ) that by these
and other acts and statements, the respondent interfered with, re-
,'strained, and coerced - its' employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On December 10, 1942, the respondent filed its answer admitting
certain allegations with respect to its business but denying, among
other things, that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. It
further asserted that the Board was without jurisdiction in this case
because: (1) the respondent's employees are agricultural laborers
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; and (2) the respond-
ent's operations do not affect commerce.
,Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Clinton, Missouri, from,
December 17 to December 19,1942, before Webster Powell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. Tlie'Board
and the respondent were, represented by counsel. Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the end of
the Board's case and at the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the-
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
evidence failed to sustain the allegations of the complaint, and on
the further ground that the, respondent's employees are agricultural
laborers within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act and' hence are
exempt. The Trial Examiner each time reserved ruling on the motion,
and granted it in his Intermediate Report. - During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made ruling's on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board. has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 22, 1943, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent 'and
the Union. He found that the respondent's employees are agricultural
laborers within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, and recom-
mended that the complainant be dismissed. Thereafter, the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a brief in support of its
exceptions. The Board granted requests of the American Farm
Bureau Federation and of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation to
intervene in the proceedings as amici curiae, and they submitted briefs
in support of the findings of the Trial Examiner and in opposition to
the Union's exceptions.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon-all parties, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
778 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. C., on April 22,'1943-., The respondent and-the AmericanFarm Bu;
reau Federation were represented by counsel and participated in the
argument. The Union did not appear. The Board has considered
the Union's exceptions and the briefs which have been' filed, and finds'
the exceptions to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board'makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a partnership consisting of Wilbur E. Lindstrom,
Elmer A. Lindstrom and Helen I. Reid, doing business as Lindstrom
Hatchery and Poultry, Farm, is engaged in the operation of a com-
mercial hatchery, and in the raising and selling of chickens in various
stages of development on farm lands in ,Henry County near Clinton,
'Missour'i. Some of the eggs used for hatching are produced on the
respondent's property, but over 99 percent of the -eggs used' are pur-
chased from other farmers, known as.and herein referred to as coop-
erative flock owners, with whom the respondent has contracts.
During 1941, approximately 4,500,000 baby chicks were incubated
in the respondent's, hatchery. About 75 percent of these were sold
as day-old chicks. During the fiscal year ending October 1941, the
respondent purchased from cooperative flock owners eggs valued at
approximately $169,497, of which approximately 15 percent were sup-
plied by farmers in the State of Kansas, and the remainder by
farmers in the State of Missouri. During the same period, in addi=
tion to livestock, the respondent sold baby chicks, hatched and raised
by it, valued in excess of $419,410, of which approximately 80 percent
were sold at retail' and shipped to purchasers ' outside, the 'State of
Missouri: These purchasers, consisted principally of poultry raisers
and other persons engaged. in the production of poultry and eggs.'
The respondent owns and operates 2 tracts .of land, hereinafter
referred to as the 38 acre tract and the 330 acre tract. These tracts
are a mile apart and are connected by a public road. Located on its
38 acre tract are the hatchery, large and small brooder house's, large
and small laying houses, an office building, a power plant,' and a
dwelling house. A small apple orchard of about 100 trees is also
located on this tract. A portion of the land is utilized for the grow-
ing of crops which are used as,feed for poultry.
The major part of the respondent's feed crop is grown on the'330
acre tract. In 1942, the respondent also raised on its 330 acre tract
over 100,000 pounds of hogs and over 20,000 pounds of broiler
poultry, ranging in age from, approximately 9 to 10 months, which
,
The respondent 's operations in 1942 were substantially the same in character as those
1. 1941.
-LINDSTROM HATCHERY AND POULTRY FARM 779
were sold alive on the market.2 The respondent also sold chicks 2
or 4 weeks of age. , The respondent raised 175 tons of lespedeza hay
and approximately 20 tons of alfalfa hay. Fifty-five acres were
planted in barley and 30 acres in oats. Of the 330 acre tract, 90
acres were blue grass pasture on which the respondent grazed live-
stock.3 The respondent supplements its own feed raising with pur-
chases of grain and other feed on the market amounting to $10,000
to $12,000 a year.
. In connection with its culling operations, hereinafter described, the
respondent sells feed at the hatchery and to poultry flock owners with
whom it has contracts.4 Except for this small amount of feed, the
respondent uses all the feed it purchases. The crops produced on the
respondent's land are used as cover crops or for feeding purposes
and are ordinarily utilized by the respondent in the course of its
,,operations.
Depending upon the season of the year, the respondent employs
between 10 and 55 persons in production and maintenance work.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local No. 28, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
The respondent contends that all its employees, including those
mentioned in the complaint, are agricultural laborers, and, therefore,
are not employee's within the meaning of the Act.5
In connection with the operations of its hatchery the respondent
handles and sells large quantities of baby chicks. Over 99 percent
2 In January 1942 , the respondent purchased a majority of the chicks which it raised
to broilers from another hatchery. '
In March 1942, the respondent purchased a herd of Hereford cattle. In addition the
respondent had throughout the period in question a number of horses , including nine
brood mares
4 Occasionally an order amounts to as much as ' a ton, but 100 pounds is the largest
quantity usually sold in one order.
.6 Section 2 (3) of the Act provides in part: "the team `employee ' shall include any,
employee. . . but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer "
The complaint alleges that the production and maintenance employees of the respondent
at its hatchery at Clinton , Missouri , exclusive of supervisory and office employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining At the beginning
of the hearing James Wilson, an international representative of the Union, testified that
this unit included all employees handling eggs or poultry in any form at the plant and
in and around the hatchery and broodery . The only employees , other than office and
supervisory , excluded from the unit requested by the Union are two employees herein-
after described klio work on the 330 acre tract the year round, caring for livestock and
doing farm tusks other than those which involve the handling of eggs or poultry.
1
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the eggs hatched in the respondent's incubators are purchased from
poultry flock owners having contracts with the respondent. Less
than one percent are hatched by hens owned by the respondent. Dur-
ing its hatching season the respondent takes all eggs produced by the
flocks of the farmers with whom it has contracts.' These 'eggs are
picked up by the respondent's trucks from about 15 to 20 collection
centers.
'The hatchery operations usually begin about March 1 and continue
through June of each year. Occasionally the season opens earlier.
During this period the respondent normally increases its regular staff
of approximately 20 production and maintenance employees, exclusive
of supervisory and clerical employees, until at the peak of the season
it employs approximately 55 production and maintenance workers;
of whom about 45 work in the hatchery, a, large building with an
incubator capacity of about 1,000,000 chicks per hatch. The re-
inainder of the employees work the year around both indoors and out-
doors'at tasks which, except in the case of 2 employees; are concerned
directly with the care of poultry in the various brooder' and laying
houses located on both the 38 and the 330 acre tracts. Their main
duties, consist of watering and feeding the poultry, cleaning the
poultry houses,, trapnesting,8 and sexing," and in other tasks of a
routine nature in the care of chickens, such as worming and culling.
In the winter the portable battery and colony brooders are kept warm
by means' of wood stoves. These employees saw and split wood for
the stoves.10
The work of a great majority of the employees in the hatchery
consists of unloading eggs from trucks owned and operated by the
respondent after the eggs have been collected from centers near- the
farms of the cooperative flock owners; dipping the eggs in a chemical
solution to remove bacteria ; loading the eggs in trays and placing
them in incubators, where they remain for 21 days; taking the chicks
that are hatched out of the incubators; grading; boxing them; 11 and
Since these eggs are produced under conditions controlled by the respondent, the
respondent pays a premium amounting to approximately 10 cents a dozen over the
established market price. However, the poultry flock owners dispose of their eggs on the
open market at all times except during the period of the respondent's hatchery operations.
T The poultry being raised for broilers are kept in colony brooders on the 330 acre tract.
The one man 'and occasional helper who care for brooders also work during part of the
season caring for poultry on the 38 acre tract.
9 A trapnest is a nest equipped with a hinge door which closes behind an entering hen,
confining her until released , and is used to determine the production of individuals.
0 Sexing consists of separating cockerels and pullets and requires a great deal of skill
and experience. .
10 The large stationary brooders on the 38 acre tract are electrically heated.
"For this purpose the respondent operates two box assembling machines located In
the hatchery. It is necessary to ship the day-old chicks as quickly as possible (within 48
hours) after they are hatched in order to minimize the risk of loss. The chicks are usually
shipped the day that they are hatched They are not fed or watered prior to shipping.
A
LINDDSTROM HATCHERY AND POULTRY FARM 781
loading them onto- trucks for transportation to markets or shipping
points., A few men are engaged in making out credit slips to farmers
who bring their eggs directly to the hatchery, making outgoing bill-
ings for the express company, answering the telephone, selling chicks
to • purchasers at the hatchery, and checking the invoices on eggs
brought in by the respondent's drivers.' The most highly skilled job
in the- hatchery, is the operation of 27 incubator - machines'12 which
includes adjusting them to produce the conditions of heat, moisture;
and air circulation necessary for the proper hatching of chicks. One
employee on the day shift and one on the night shift, each working
under a foreman, perform these tasks. At the end of the hatching
season, over half of the employees are discharged and about half the
remainder are given lay-offs varying from several days to several
weeks. Those .discharged are not necessarily !rehired at the be-
ginning of the next hatching season. These temporary employees
perform no' other tasks except those connected with the hatchery
operations. During the hatchery season , all the employees punch a
time clock at the beginning and end of each work day.
During the summer employment drops to approximately 8 to 12
employees, 5 of whom are customarily employed in watering and
feeding the poultry and cleaning the poultry houses and 2 of whom
are engaged the year round in the care of livestock. The remainder
of the summer employees are employees whose work at the hatchery
is completed and who are engaged in cultivating and harvesting crops,
weeding, tending livestock, and in other 'agricultural operations on
the respondent's farm during the summer and extending into the early
fall. These men work for a few days at a time at the above tasks
and between jobs are laid off.
Culling 1,3 begins in the early fall. The respondent, then recalls the
employees that have been laid off either at the end of the hatching
season or during the summer. Approximately 20 to 30 employees
work during the culling season. The cullers 14 go out in crews of 2
or 3 to cull the undesirable birds from the flocks of the cooperative
flock owners. If, after they have been examined and have been given
blood tests,' any of the birds in a particular flock appear to be sub-
standard or diseased, the farmer is required to segregate the undesir-
able birds from the flock and dispose of them.15 Culling, as practiced
12 These machines have a capacity of from 4,000 to 5,200 chicks per hatch.
23 Culling is the elimination of inferior poultry and the selection of superior poultry
for breeding purposes.
"I Some of the cullers likewise cull flocks maintained by the respondent at various times
during the year to eliminate undesirable poultry and to select hens to enter in egg laying
contests.
11 Those eliminated include hens of low productivity. The respondent supplies, free
of charge , pedigreed cockerels which have been raised on the respondent 's farm to co-
operating flock owners.
782 DECISIONS `OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATPONS^ BOARD
by the respondent's employees, requires considerable skill and training,
some of which is paid for by the respondent." The culling season is
generally over by Christmas, although sometimes it extends into Jan-
uary due to unfavorable weather conditions. At the end of the, season
there-is generally a lull in the respondent's operations during which
some men are laid off.
To summarize, except for July and August, about 20 to 30 produc-
tion and maintenance employees work regularly for the respondent
during the entire year with occasional lay-offs. It employs about 25
extra persons just to work in the hatchery. All but the crew of about
5 men who care for the chickens outside the hatchery 17 and the 2 who
take care of the livestock 18 work in the hatchery during the spring.
During other seasons the men regularly employed in the hatchery
work either as members of the culling crews or help care for chickens
outside the hatchery. A few work at other tasks not directly con-
nected with the care of poultry for short periods during July and
August. Employees working at the hatchery do not receive room and
board and live away from the respondent's property.
The hatchery and farm are operated as integrated parts of the same
enterprise. For instance, the feed grown on the respondent's farm 19
is used to feed the poultry flocks maintained by the respondent in
connection with supplying eggs for hatching purposes and to improve
the breed of flocks of cooperative flock owners who supply eggs to the
hatchery' The respondent also enters its pedigreed hens in egg laying
contests in which they have been awarded numerous prizes, a, fact
which it advertises in order to increase its reputation for producing
fine chicks. Some. feed grown by the respondent is used to fatten
broilers and roasters for market. The respondent's broiler business
is operated to dispose of fowl not sold as chicks and not needed in the
maintenance of the respondent's flocks of adult birds. Likewise, the
respondent raises hogs as a profitable side line. The horses maintained
by the respondent are used to haul feed to the poultry on the 38 acre
tract from warehouses on the 330 acre tract and to haul broken eggs
and manure from the 38 acre tract to the 330 acre tract.
The question in issue is whether employees of a chicken hatchery,
including employees who care for poultry maintained, in connection
with the hatchery, fall within the category of "agricultural laborers."
The respondent contends, in substance, that these employees are exempt
from the coverage of the Act, inasmuch as they are engaged in raising
" Several of the employees , attended a school for culling conducted at the Mountain
Grove, Missouri , Missouri State Experiment Station for periods of a few days during 2
or 3 years . Some of the same employees were sent to the Eamesway School for a 6 weeks'
course.
11 The size of the crew taking care of poultry outside the hatchery varies from year
to year.
8 These men are not included in the unit.
19 As used , the term "farm " refers to both the 38 acre and the 330 acre tracts.
LINNDSTROM HMPC'HERY AND POULTRY FARM 783
chicks and poultry through natural processes and in substantially
the same manner as chicks and other poultry are raised and cared for
on farms generally in this country.
On the other hand, counsel for the Board argues in substance that
the size of the enterprise, the amount, value and nature of the equip-
ment, and the scientific and specialized character of the work per-
formned remove the respondent from the category of a farmer and the
employees from the category of agricultural laborers. Counsel for
the Board further contends that those operations of the respondent
and those duties of its employees which are agricultural in nature
are incidental to the conduct of a commercial' enterprise. '
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the instant case is con-
trolled by the principle enunciated by the Board in the ,t&'ta'i'k Brothers
case.2' In that case, the employer was engaged in the production,
sale, and distribution of fruit trees. berry and vegetables plants, and
ornamental nursery stock, and the bulk of the employees planted,
fertilized, cultivated,. and harvested crops in the open fields under
natural conditions. Although the employer's business was organized
on a large scale, operated in a scientific manner, and had many of the
elements of a commercial enterprise, we held that this did not alter the
agricultural nature of the work performed by the employees and we
refused to assert jurisdiction, on the ground that these employees were
agricultural laborers.
Here the work performed is primarily connected with the hatching
of eggs in incubators and the raising, feeding, and management of
poultry. A substantial number of the respondent's employees in the
alleged appropriate unit are engaged exclusively or during consider-
able periods of time in feeding, watering, and otherwise raising and
caring for baby,chicks and poultry. During part of the year these
men and others cull the undesirable birds from the poultry flocks on
the respondent's farm and on the farms of cooperative flock owners
having contracts with the respondent. These tasks are customarily
regarded as agriculturil. A few of the employees included in the
unit also engage in other agricultural work such as harvesting, weed-
ing, and threshing grain during the summer and early fall. All of
these employees and others hired at the peak of the hatchery season
work in the hatchery during 4 months of the year. The work in the
hatchery consists of unloading eggs from the trucks, dipping the eggs
in an antiseptic solution, placing them in incubator trays, regulating
electrically operated incubators for heat, moisture, and air circula-
tion, unloading the trays when the chicks are hatched, boxing the
chicks, shipping them to shipping-points and to markets, and cleaning
20 Matter ' of Stark Brothers Nurseries and Orchards Company, a Corporation and Local
Industrtial Union No. 11£9, affiliated with the 0. I. 0., 40 N. L. R. B. 1243.
,784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the trays in preparation for the next hatch.21 Although all of the
poultry operations herein described, and especially the work performed
in the hatchery, are done on a large scale 22 and, in a scientific manner,
the raising of chicks in incubators is a recognized practice among
poultry farmers throughout the United States. However, in recent
years many poultry raisers have found it more desirable and profitable
to sell their eggs to hatcheries to be hatched in giant incubators and
to purchase their chicks from these hatcheries. 'Essentially, the opera-
tions performed by the, employees at the hatchery collectively are
similar to the operations performed by the farmer and his "hired
man" in hatching and shipping baby chicks. The difference lies in
the size and the amount of the operations and the extent of the
mechanized equipment used. Likev=ise, the amount of skill required
of the personnel, and the division and specialization of work, is greater
among the respondent's personnel than among agricultural laborers
on the farm of the average poultry farmer.
Under all the circumstances of this case, including the integration of
the work performed on the farm and in the hatchery, we are of the
opinion that the operations performed by the respondent's employees
are essentially agricultural in nature, although the conduct of a hatch-
ery is both a commercial and an agricultural operation. Hatchery
employees have consistently been held to be agricultural laborers under
the Fair Labor Standards Act,23 as administered by the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor., That Division has always
maintained that the operations of a commercial hatchery constitute
"the raising of poultry" within the definition of "agriculture" con-
tained in Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,24 and that
employees engaged in the necessary incidents of these operations are
therefore "employed in agriculture." 25 ,
21 The respondent also purchases chicks from the Rusk Hatchery , a hatchery operated
in the vicinity of Clinton , Missouri, in which Elmer Lindstrom owns a partial interest.
22 The respondent advertises itself as "One of .the world's Largest Poultry Plants !" f
23 Section 13 (a) (6) of the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from both the wage
and hour provisions "any employee, employed in agriculture"
Section 3 (f) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. A., Section 203 (f), provides: "Agriculture In-
cludes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and
tillage of the soil , dairying , the production , cultivation , growing, and harvesting of any
agrieultuial or horticultural commodities ( including commodities defined as agricultural
commodities in, Section 15 (g) [12 U. S. C. A , Sec. 1141 (j) (g) l of the Agricultural
Marketing Act, as amended ), the raising of livestock , bees , fur-bearing animals, or poultry,
and any practices ( including any forestry or lum'beiing operations ) performed by a farmer
or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations , including
preparation for market, delivery to storage, or to market or to carriers for transportation
to market "
25 Cf. United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Interpretative
Bulletin No 14, December 1940, Sec. 9, which reads in part: "The - term 'raising of
poultry' includes the breeding , feeding, and general care of poultry." See also Miller
Hatcheries, Inc. V. I. A. Boyer, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals (C. C A. 8) decided Novem-
ber 3, 1942 , rev'g Boyer,,' v. Miller Hatcherties,' Inc. ('41 ) 42 Fed.'Supp . 135 (U. S. D. C.
S. D. Iowa). -
. 0
LINDST'ROM HATCHERY AND POULTRY FARM 785
In support of their contentions, counsel for the Board- cites the
Grower-Shipper Association, North Whittier Heights Citrus Associa-
tion, and Tovrea Packing Company cases.' These cases are not appo-
site. The Tovrea Packing Company case involved feed lot and feed
mill workers employed by a meat-packing firm. The work performed
by these employees was not essentially agricultural in nature, inasmuch
as their duties related merely to the temporary care of animals await-
ing slaughter. The Board held in that case that the work carried on
by such employees was an incident to and in connection with a clearly
commercial enterprise. In the North Whittier Heights case, the em-
ployees,involved were packinghouse workers who did not perform any
duties outside the packinghouse where they were engaged in the pack-
ing of fruit. Similarly the Grower-Shipper case involved persons
employed as lettuce packers who performed no work in the fields.
We,find that the respondent's production and maintenance em-
ployees are "agricultural laborers" within the meaning of the Act, and
that the Board is without jurisdiction with respect to these employees.
Since the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint relate to
practices of the respondent with respect to the production and main-
tenance employees, and in view of our finding that the Board does not
have jurisdiction with respect to such employees, we shall dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following : ' -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , Wilbur E. Lindstrom, Elmer
A. Lindstrom and Helen I. Reid, d/b/a Lindstrom Hatchery and
^ N. L. R. B. v. Grower-Shipper Vegetable Ass'n of Central California , et al , 122 F. _
(2d) 368 (C. C A 9) enf'g Matter of Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central
California, et al., 15 N L. R. B 32; N. L. R B. v Tovrea Packing Co, 111 F (2d) 626
(C C A 9), cert den 311 U. S 668, enf'g as mod. Matter of Tovrea Packing Company, a
corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local No. 313, 12 N. L. R. B. 1063; North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n. v. N L.' R. B.,
109 F. (2d) 76 (C. C. A. 9), cert. den. 310 U. S. 632 (1940), ren. den. 311 U. S. 724 (1940),
ent'g Matter of North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n. and Citrus Packing
House Workers Union, Local No 21090, 10 N. L. R B 1269. See also Matter of Great
Western Mushroom Company and United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied
Workers of America, United Mushroom Workers Local Union No. 300, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, 27 N L. R. B. 352; Matter of Herman and Otto
Bauske, Co-partners, Doing Business As'Bauske Bros. and International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers, Local 94, affiliated with the A. F. of L., 38 N L. R. B 435. and cases
cited therein; Matter of The Park Floral Company and United Greenhouse and Floral Work-
ers Union, No 510, etc, 19 N L R B 403, and cases. cited therein; Matte, of Seaboard
Lemon Association and Agricultural & Citrus Workers; Local 223(2, A. F. L., 28 N L R B.
273; Matter of Upland Citrus Association and Citrus 'Packing House Workers' Union No
20915, 24 N L. R B. 1136, and cases cited therein ; Matter of E. Clemens Horst Company
and International Association of Machinists, Local, No. 33, 23 N. L. R B. 1193. Cf.
Matter of Saticoy Lenion Association and Agricultural & Citrus Workers Union, Local No.
22342, A. F L, 41 N I, R. B 243; Matter of Seaboard Lemon Association and Agricul-
tural d Cit,us Workers Union, Local 22342, A. F. L, 41 N. L, R B 248.
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Poultry Farm,'Clinton, Missouri, constitute a continuous flow of trade,
traffic, and 'commerce among the several States, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local No. 28, affiliated ,with the American Federation of
Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in and is not engaging in any
unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and
(5) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case,.and pursuant to Section 10 (e)j of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent, Wilbur E.
Lindstrom, Elmer A. Lindstrom and Helen I. Rend, d/b/a Lindstrom
Hatchery and Poultry Farm, Clinton, Missouri, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
APPENDIX A
Bellesine, Carl
Crockett, Porter
Daugherty, Clarence
Forsha, Joe
Hanna, Alla
Hanna, John
Helweg, Lewis
Hunt, Frank
Hunt, June
Hunt, Wallis
John, Harold
Johnson, Bob
Langhammer, Albert
Montgomery, Guy
Stonger, Harold
Terry, Fred
Tribble, Jack
Wright, Marvin
Wright, Virginia Lee
APPENDIX B
Arnold, Robert
Barker, William ti
Beck, Glen
Beeve, Tom
Bellesine, Carl
Cooper, Carl
Crockett, Porter
Daugherty, Clarence E.
Dodson, Leo
Dodson, Orville
Forsha, Joe L.
Foster, John
Hunt, Frank
Hunt, June
Hunt, Wallis
Irvine, David
Johnson , Robert
Langhammer, Albert
McMillian, Thurman
Montgomery, Guy E.
Terry, Fred
Tribble, H. Jack
Wright, Marvin