Long Meadow Farms Cooperative, Inc.

LONG MEADOW FARMS COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED 419 Long Meadow Farms Cooperative, Incorporated and Local 391, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-794. February 13,1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Dyer, 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, a cooperative engaged in processing and selling milk and dairy products at wholesale and retail, operates five plants in North Carolina; only its Durham, North Carolina, plant is involved in this proceeding. The Employer's gross sales, all made within the State, amounted to $3,146,000 during 1954, and $2,400,000 during the first 9 months of 1955; for the same periods, its out-of-State purchases amounted to $88,000 and $64,000, respectively. Beginning about July 1, 1955, the Employer obtained contracts, having a total value in excess of $100,000, to furnish milk to the United States Army commissary and mess halls at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and to a veterans' hos- pital at Durham, North Carolina. The milk furnished the commis- sary, pursuant to contracts valued at about $82,580, is intended for re- sale to military personnel and their families. The Employer has assigned its contract to furnish milk to the mess halls, valued at about $40,000, to another company, and has itself made no deliveries pur- suant thereto ; however, as the record fails to establish that the Em- ployer has been relieved of any of its obligations under that contract, we shall include the value of that contract in computing the dollar volume of the Employer's business. The milk furnished the veterans' hospital, pursuant to a contract valued at about $13,200, is intended for consumption on the premises. In Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594, the Board decided that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over enterprises "engaged in providing goods or services directly related to national defense pursuant to Government contracts, including sub- contracts, in the amount of $100,000 or more a year." We find, con- trary to the contention of the Employer, that food for the United States Armed Forces is directly related to national defense. In fur- nishing such food pursuant to contracts with the Armed Forces, the Employer is therefore providing goods directly related to national de- 3 As the AFL and CIO merged after the hearing in this case, we are taking notice of the merger and amending the designation of the Petitioner accordingly. 115 NLRB No. 70. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fense within the meaning and intent of the Maytag case; the intended use or disposition of such food by the Armed Forces is immaterial.2 The Employer's sales to the veterans' hospital are also directly related to national defense.' As we have found that the Employer provides goods directly re- lated to national defense pursuant to Government contracts in an amount in excess of $100,000 a year, we find that the Employer's opera- tions affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find that all inside workers and mechanics, including ship- ping clerks, at the Employer's Durham, North Carolina, plant, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, driver-salesmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK, concurring : I gladly concur in the decision asserting jurisdiction over this Employer. I dissented from the adoption of the present national defense stand- ard in Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594, because it was more re- strictive than the standard under the 1950 plan which simply pro- vided for assertion over enterprises which "substantially affect the national defense." The present standard imposes the additional re- strictive requirements that goods or services supplied by an employer must be (1) pursuant to Government contracts, (2) in an amount not less than $100,000 per year, and (3) "directly related" to national de- fense. I pointed out in Maytag my view that the vital status of en- terprises which are a part of the national defense effort justified the practice under the 1950 standard of asserting the Board' s full legal jurisdiction in this area-that no part, great or small, of the national defense effort should be hampered by labor disputes if it is within the authority of this Board to prevent it. 2 Unlike our dissenting colleague , we do not believe that the financing of the operations of the commissaries by Government loans rather than appropriations detracts from our findings herein. The manner in which the funds are handled for bookkeeping purposes does not in any way affect the relationship to national defense of the goods sold under the contracts involved herein. 3 Hospstal Hato Tejas, Inc , 111 NLRB 155. 4 This is the unit sought by the Petitioner and not objected to by the Employer. LONG MEADOW FARMS COOPERATIVE , INCORPORATED 421 Here, of course, we have no problem under the Maytag standard on the monetary restriction as the $100 ,000 test is met-only the question of the scope of the requirement that the goods be "directly related" to the national defense. The majority's determination that the furnish- ing of milk-products to the Armed Forces and veterans' hospitals meets the requirements of being "directly related" to the national de- fense is heartening . An earlier Board majority in McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc., 107 NLRB 885 (a case decided prior to Maytag), apparently took the opposite view over my dissent in refusing to as- sert jurisdiction over an employer similarly engaged . It is gratifying that the Board now realistically recognizes Napoleon's statement that "An army marches on its stomach."' So long as the more restrictive requirements of the Maytag stand- ard are permitted to remain in effect, I am, of course , pleased to have the- Board give one of the restrictive requirements a liberal interpre- tation which will permit the assertion of jurisdiction rather than a narrow one which will result in a denial. MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting : I do not agree with the majority's determination to assert jurisdic- tion in this case. The Employer, in my opinion, does not meet the standards established in Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594, for the assertion of jurisdiction over national defense enterprises. Those standards require that the goods or services supplied by an employer must be: (1) pursuant to Government contracts, (2) in the amount of $100,000 or more a year, and (3) "directly related" to the national defense. The Employer's contracts to furnish milk to the army mess halls at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and to the veterans' hospital at Dur- ham, North Carolina, total about $53,000. Even if these contracts could be said to be "directly related" to national defense-a question which need not be decided in this case-they fail by some $47,000 to meet the $100,000 monetary requirement of the Maytag standards. The majority proposes, however, to make up this difference by in- cluding the Employer's contract to supply milk to the commissary at Fort Bragg, which amounts to about $82,500. The majority errs in doing so because-a contract to furnish goods to an army commissary cannot be said to be "directly related" to the national defense, which is a further requirement of the Maytag standards. Congress has ex- pressly forbidden the Department of Defense to use appropriated funds for the operation of commissaries. At most the department may loan a commissary sufficient funds for its operation and only then under conditions which will guarantee repayment.' If the Congress, 5 Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, p. 1217. 413 U. S. C. A. Ch. 358, Sec. 617. 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD charged as it is with the security of the Nation, does not consider the operation of commissaries to be of sufficient importance to the national defense so as to assume responsibility for them, I am at a loss to under- stand how this Board can presume to say that the furnishing of milk to a commissary is "directly related" to the national defense. Commissaries are not operated to feed the Armed Forces but to pro- vide a convenient grocery store for service personnel and their fam- ilies. If, as the result of a labor dispute, the Employer here could not supply milk to the Fort Bragg commissary, it would mean no more than that the service personnel and their families would have to travel about 10 miles to Fayetteville or Southern Pines, North Carolina, to buy their milk from some other grocery store until the commissary obtained a new supplier. The effect on national defense would be too infinitesimal to consider. The majority decision today makes meaningless the jurisdictional requirement of the Maytag case that the goods or services involved be "directly related" to the national defense. The majority should either give meaning to that requirement and decline to assert jurisdiction here or they should abandon it. To do neither is to confuse the public as to what in fact are the Board's jurisdictional standards for national defense enterprises. I would adhere to the standards established by the Maytag case. Ac- cordingly, I would dismiss the petition here for lack of jurisdiction. Glen Raven Knitting Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-868. February 15, 1956 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge duly filed on May 9, 1955, and an amended charge filed on June 2, 1955, by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, issued a complaint dated June 17, 1955, against Glen Raven Knitting Mills, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) -and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, the amended charge, and the notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union on or about June 17,1955. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on or about April 29, 1955, and at all times thereafter, 115 NLRB No. 66.