Lindstrom Hatchery and Poultry Farm

`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