Luce & Co. S. en C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1103 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

LUCE & COMPANY S. EN C. 1103
records foremen, the ground instructor in the. aircraft maintenance
department, and supervisors as defined in the act.r2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Although the unit found appropriate is larger than that requested by the Petitioner,
it apliears . that th'e Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in this unit and; accord-
ingly, we shall provide that an election be held among the employees therein. However,
If the Petitioner does not desire to participate in such an election at this time , we shall
permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days
.after issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election herein.
LUCE & COMPANY S. EN C. and SINDICATO DE CHOFERES Y MECANICOS
DE PUERTO Rico Y RAMOS ANNEXOS, IxC.,1 PETITIONER. Case No.
24-RC-^?94. April 7, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon it 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 prej-
udicial 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 Styles and Peterson].
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 Employer operates a number of sugar cane plantations in
Puerto Rico. In the course of its operations, the Employer utilizes
various items of machinery, such as trucks, tractors, winches, and
other types of heavy equipment. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all
employees engaged in transportation and in the maintenance of trans-
portation equipment at the Employer's Puerto Rican plantations,
including chauffeurs, assistant chauffeurs, operators of heavy equip-
The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer , a partnership which operates sugar cane plantations in various parts
of Puerto Rico, contends that the Act is not applicable to such operations , on the ground
that Puerto Rico is no longer a Territory of the United States . The Employer bases this
contention on the provisions of Public Law 600, 81st Cong., 2nd Seas , approved July 3,
1950, which in substance establishes a procedure for the adoption of a constitution by the
people of Puerto Rico . Upon the approval of such a constitution by the Congress of the
United States , certain provisions of the Act of March 2, 1917. as amended , governing
the relationships between the United States and Puerto Rico, shall be deemed repealed ,
until that time, all the provisions of that Act are to remain in effect. The new cons'titu-
tion . of Puerto Rico has not yet been approved by the Congress of the United States. Ac-
cordingly , we find the Employer's contention to be without merit
98 NLRB No. 166.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, mechanics, and -assistant mechanics. These employees may be
divided into two categories: (1) field employees, including the chauf-
feurs, assistant chauffeurs, and operators of heavy equipment, and
(2) shop employees, including the mechanics-and assistant mechanics.
The field employees operate, or assist in the operation of, the trucks,
tractors, and other field machinery; they perform their duties wholly
within the confines of the Employer's plantations. -Such duties in-
volve operations necessary to the planting, cultivating, and harvest-
ing of the crop, and include preparing the seed bed, transporting seed
and fertilizer within the plantations, planting the seed, applying
herbicides, cultivating, and harvesting. Their duties also include
transporting the harvested cane to railroad sidings located within the
plantations, and loading the cane on railroad cars. The shop em-
ployees work in two repair shops which the Employer operates in
the town of Aguirre, where these employees service, maintain, and
repair the machinery used by the field employees. The Employer is
not engaged in any other enterprise.
The Employer contends, inter alia, that the employees sought by
the Petitioner are all agricultural laborers, and are therefore not
employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. Section 3
(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to which the Board is required
to refer for the definition of agriculture,3 defines the term as follows :
(f) "Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and
among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the
soil . . . the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting
of any agricultural . . . commodities . . . and any practices
... performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in
conjunction with such farming operations, including prepara-
tion for market, delivery to storage or market or to carriers for
transportation to market.
It is apparent that the field employees, in performing duties neces-
sary to the planting, cultivating, and harvesting of the crop, includ-
ing the transporting of seed and fertilizer within the plantations, are
engaged solely in occupations which clearly fall within the above-
quoted definition of agriculture.4 Their duties of transporting the
harvested cane to railroad sidings located within the plantations and-
loading the cane onto railroad cars, being performed by the Employer
on its own plantations, and not in conjunction with any other enter-
prise, are incidental to the Employer's farming operations; accord-
As in previous years, a rider to the Board's current Appropriation Act (Public Law
134,' 82nd 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).
4 Waialua Agr. Go, Ltd. v. Maneja et al., 97 F. Supp. 198, 219-220 ( D. C., Hawaii)
Seattle Wholesale Florists .4ssoctiation, 92 NLRB 1186, 1189, and cases cited therein.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1105
ingly, such duties also fall within that definition.5 We find, therefore,
that the field employees are agricultural laborers within the meaning
of the Act.
Although the shop employees, in the performance of their duties at
the shops, do not work on a farm, the record nevertheless establishes
that they service, maintain, and repair only the machinery used by
the Employer in its farming operations, and that such machinery is
used only in such operations. Under these circumstances, we find
that the duties of the shop employees involve a practice performed by
the Employer as an incident to its farming operations, and that such
duties also fall within the definition of agriculture.6 We find, there-
fore, that the shop employees are also agricultural laborers within the
meaning of the Act.
As we have found that all the employees sought by the Petitioner
are agricultural laborers, we find that no question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
I Vives et al . v. Serrales, 145 F. 2d 552 ( C. A. 1) ; Waialua Agr. Co., Ltd. v. Maneja
et al., supra; Roberts Fig Company, 88 NLRB 1150, 1152; L. Maxey, Inc., 78 NLRB
525, 526.
In a letter to the Solicitor of the Board , dated October 4, 1949 (WHM 35: 370-371),
the Assistant Solicitor of the United States Department of Labor expressed the opinion
that repair shop employees who repaired machinery and equipment used on a farm. and
off the farm appeared to be engaged in some work which was incidental to the farming
operations . See also Wage and Hour Div ., Interpretative Bulletin - No. 14, par. 12.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, MICIIAUD ORDNANCE PLANT and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCicAFr, AGRICULTURAL &
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER.
Case No. 15-RC--637. April 7, 1,952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles R. Kyle,
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
98 NLRB No. 163.