Armour & Co.

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ARMOUR & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 58, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-1713. March 29, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Michael J. Lucero, 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 engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer withinthe meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer contends that the individuals involved in this case are not employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, but are "agricultural laborers" to whom the Act does not apply. The Employer is engaged in the slaughtering, packing, and distribution of meat products at various plants throughout the United States. The Petitioner seeks a unit of sheep feeders at the Employer's St. Joseph, Missouri, plant. The 5 individuals classified as sheep feeders feed, fatten, and care for sheep for periods of 40 to 90 days prior to slaughter of the animals. The work involves driving trucks and dumping feed into feed pens. This is performed at pens on the Employer's property located about a block from its main slaughterhouse. After the sheep are fattened, the sheep feeders deliver the animals to receiving pens for slaughter. Section 2 (3) of the Act excludes from the definition of "employee" any individual employed as an "agricultural laborer." By a rider to the Board's current appropriation Act,' the Board is precluded from processing representation cases involving "agricultural laborers" as defined in Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The definition of "agriculture" in Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act includes, inter alia, "the raising of livestock . . . and any practice . . performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations . . . ." It should be noted that the "raising of livestock" per se constitutes "agriculture" by this definition. Thus the Board 167 Stat. 257. 108 NLRB No. 26. ARMOUR & COMPANY 101 has previously held that the feeding , fattening, and care of cattle for 80 to 150 days on a feedlot many miles removed from the employer ' s packing plant must be regarded as the "raising of livestock " and such operations constitute "ag- riculture" under Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.' We have been advised by the Department of Labor,3 whose interpretation of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act it is our policy to follow whenever possible, that the 40- to 90-day period for feeding, fattening, and caring for sheep is comparable to the 80 to 150 days considered a substantial period in the raising of cattle , and that employees performing this work are engaged in "agriculture" within the meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's sheep feeders are agricultural laborers within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act . We shall, therefore , dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 Swift & Company, 104 NLRB 922. 3 See opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor dated March 10, 1954, addressed to the Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board, attached hereto DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Solicitor Washington Miss Ida Klaus Solicitor National Labor Relations Board Washington 25, D. C. March 10, 1954 Dear Miss Klaus: This will reply to your inquiry as to whether certain em- ployees of an operator of a large slaughter or packing plant are engaged in the "raising of livestock " within the meaning of the definition of "agriculture " in section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As you indicate we pointed out in our letter to you of April 1, 1953 that employees engaged in operations on a feed lot in "feeding, fattening and caring for cattle for substantial periods, such as 80 to 150 days " are engaged in "raising livestock" within the meaning of section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act "even though some or all of the fattened livestock are 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ultimately sold, shipped or slaughtered by the feeder" that is, the employer who operated both the feeding lots and the packing plant. In the situation you now present the employees are en- gaged in feeding, fattening, and caring for sheep for from 40 to 90 days prior to slaughter at pens located about a block from the employer's slaughter house. You wish to know whether the proximity of the feeding pens to the slaughter house and the shorter period of time involved are sufficient to change the conclusions set forth in our prior opinion. As indicated in our letter of April 1, 1953 the feeding and care of livestock over a brief period of a few days pending its sale, shipment, or slaughter cannot reasonably be characterized as the "raising of livestock" within the definition. It would ap- pear, however, that the 40 to 90 day period for feeding, fatten- ing, and caring for sheep is comparable to the 80 to 150 days in which the employees were engaged in raising cattle under the facts of our prior letter. It is my opinion that the employees here involved are engaged in "agriculture" within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Act even though the feeding, fattening and care of the sheep take place about a block from the packing house, Very truly yours, Stuart Rothman Solicitor of Labor TOM ZWEIFEL, INCORPORATED and AUTOMOTIVE ME- CHANICS LODGE NO. 510, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, and TRUCK DRIVERS AND ALLIED IN- DUSTRIES LOCAL 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Jointly, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3693. March 29, 1954 AMENDED DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION The Petitioner filed a petition seeking an election in a unit of the Employer's service and parts employees. On December 31, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election' in which it included new- and used-car salesmen and office clerical employees in the appropriate unit, On January 7, 1954, the Petitioner filed a motion with the Board to reconsider its unit finding, and requested oral argument, 2 contending that the new- and used-car salesmen and office 'Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied because in our opinion the record and the motion to reconsider adequately present the issues and the position of the parties. 108 NLRB No. 20.