Southern Colorado Power Co.

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to activities which constitute the "raising of livestock" there is no basis for distinction on the ground that the livestock is raised for commercial or industrial purposes--in this case, for sale to packing plants.4 The length of time the livestock is held at the feed lot is normally a determinative factor under the Fair Labor Standards Act definition, when the feed is not grown by the feed lot operator.' The term "agriculture" includes, however, as a separate factor, any practice performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with "such farming operations." The feeding and care of livestock which is per- formed as an incident to or in conjunction with the plainly agricultural operation of growing and harvesting of the feed will be considered "agriculture" entirely apart from the length of feeding time involved.6 Here, the Employer is engaged in the cultivation and tillage of the soil, the cultivation, growing, and harvesting of agricultural commodities as well as in the "raising of livestock." Thus, although the Employer may not hold and feed some of the cattle a sufficient length of time to be considered as engaging in the "raising of livestock" with respect to those cattle, his entire holding and feeding opera- tions nonetheless constitute "agriculture" by virtue of the fact that they are performed as an incident to or in conjunction with his farming operations. Accordingly, we find that the regular full-time employees employed at the Employer's feed lots are "agricultural laborers" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4See Swift & Company, 104 NLRB 922 ' See Swift & Company, supra. 6 Opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Labor, dated April 1, 1953, addressed to the Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board. SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 1, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-863. May 12, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was heldbefore Clyde F. Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case 104 NLRB No. 108. SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER COMPANY 927 to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a systemwide unit of all of the Em- ployer's powerplant employees on the ground they constitute a complete production department separate and distinct from other departments. The Employer and the Intervenor' oppose severance of this group from an established systemwide, overall bargaining unit, contending that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because of the high degree of integration in the Employer's operations and a long history of collective bargaining on the more comprehensive basis. The Employer, a public utility, is engaged in the production, distribution, and sale of electric energy to domestic and in- dustrial consumers located throughout six counties of southern Colorado. The electric energy, the Employer's only product, is produced, for the most part, at three strategically located steam powerplants.' The energy produced at the powerplant is relayed through switchboards to main powerlines, then into trucklines, and ultimately to the consumer. The entire operation is con- trolled from the plant and central office located at Pueblo, Colorado. Each of the powerplants is closely interconnected with, and dependent upon, the others and also with the distri- bution processes, so that any plant can, and does, assume the production load of any other plant in the event of a breakdown or extraordinary demand for power at any point throughout the system. Moreover, typical of the operations of electric utili- ties, each phase and each department of the Employer's operations is dependent upon all the others. In addition, there is evidence to the effect that employees are interchanged between the powerplants and other departments, although infrequently. Also, there appears to be a system of promotion into and out of the powerplants. Labor relations are ad- ministered from a central office and fringe benefits are the same for all employees throughout the system. The record conclusively shows that there exists a definite community of interest among the employees, especially as between the em- ployees in the operations division, of which the powerplants constitute an integral part. I The Intervenor , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 667, AFL, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a current collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer, which expires April 16, 1953. 2 There is also one hydroelectric power plant the use of which depends upon the supply of water power and demands upon the Employer 's normal production load. 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Since 1937, the Intervenor has represented, in one unit, all of the employees of the Employer's operations department, in- cluding the powerplants, maintenance and distribution workers. In 1950, this group was joined with the clerical employees to form a single, systemwide, overall unit embracing all of the Employer's employees. The Board has long held that the optimum unit in a public utility is a systemwide industrial unit.' Where, as in the instant case, such a unit has been established for a considerable period of time we are most reluctant to disrupt it. For this reason, and in the light of the high degree of integration of the Employer's operations and the community of interest that exists between all groups of employees, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate and we shall, there- fore, dismiss the petition filed herein.4 ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in this case be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. 'Lynn Gas and Electric Company, 78 NLRB 3. 4East Ohio Gas Company, 94 NLRB 61; Public Service Company of Indiana, 91 NLRB 1151. THE BILLINGS AND SPENCER COMPANY and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS & HELPERS, A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3152. May 12, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Putsuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit all the Employer's forge shop, steel rack, forge maintenance, and hot inspection employees, the forge 104 NLRB No. 118.