Michigan Peat, Inc.

518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Michigan Peat, Inc. and United Dairy & Bakery Workers, Local 87, Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-1333. April 29, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George Rallis, hearing of- ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer contends that the employees sought by the Peti- tioner are agricultural laborers and therefore not subject to the juris- diction of the Board. The Employer is engaged in harvesting, processing, and packing sedge peat, deposits of which are formed in shallow areas of water-filled depressions and in boggy meadows, and consist of decomposed fibrous and matted vegetable matter such as roots and rootlets of reedy type plant matter. The peat is not sown or planted but is found in its natural state. The Employer's operations generally consist of removing surface brush from the land and digging ditches to drain off water, leaving the sedge peat exposed. The peat is broken up by plow and rototiller and is disced and exposed to the sun for drying. The dried peat is pushed by bulldozers to the roadside where it is loaded into trucks and hauled to the peat pile where it remains until ready for grind- ing, cleaning, bagging, and shipment to customers. Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act excludes from its coverage "any individual employed as an agricultural laborer," and the Board's annual appropriation rider directs, in effect, that the Board, in determining whether an employee is an agricultural laborer, shall be guided by the definition set forth in Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is Board policy to give great weight to the interpretations of Section 3 (f) by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.' The Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions of the United States Department of Labor, in its Interpretative Bulletin on Agri- 1 See Columbiana Seed Company, 119 NLRB 560, 562. 127 NLRB No. 69. MICHIGAN PEAT, INC. 519' culture, Processing of Agricultural Commodities and Related Sub- jects, states in Section 780.12 (c), that the term "agricultural or horti- cultural commodities" contained in Section 3(f), does not include commodities produced by the exploitation of natural resources or by uncultivated natural growth, and that employees engaged in the gathering or harvesting of wild commodities such as "mosses," or the appropriation of uncultivated products from the soil are not em- ployed in "the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of agricultural or horticultural commodities." Therefore, in accordance with such interpretation, we find that the Employer's employees are not agricultural laborers within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and that a question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties are in agreement that the Employer's production and maintenance employees constitute an appropriate unit. They are in dispute, however, with respect to the outside foreman at Minden City, whom the Employer would exclude, and a mechanic, whom the Peti- tioner would exclude, as supervisors. The outside foreman (Moore) directs the work of the other em- ployees at the Minden City plant. The Employer testified that he has the same responsibilities as the inside foreman, who the parties agreed is a supervisor, and has the authority to recommend the hire and discharge of employees. In these circumstances we find that the outside foreman at Minden City is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude him from the unit. The mechanic (Smith) is the senior of two mechanics at the Capac operations. The record shows that he does not have the authority to hire or discharge or to effectively recommend the same and there is no indication that he exercises any other supervisory authority. We find therefore that the mechanic is not a supervisor within the mean- ing of the Act and shall include him in the unit. Accordingly, we find that a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's operations at 4114 Cade Road, Capac, Michigan, and 2905 Polk, Minden City, Michigan, including truck- drivers, and mechanics, but excluding office clerical employees, the, office cleaning woman, guards, the outside foreman at Minden City,. all other foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer's operations are seasonal in nature although some operations continue throughout the year. The peak season starts about March of each year and ends in October. Inasmuch as the cur- rent season has already begun and peak seasonal employment will occur within our usual time for holding elections, we shall direct an immediate election in this case.2 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Central San Vicente, Inc, 117 NLRB 397 at 399.