AgriGeneral L.P.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 972 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

972
325 NLRB No. 181
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 We disagree, however, with the Regional Director’s further deter-
mination that under Camsco and Cal-Maine Farms, 307 NLRB 450
(1992), enfd. 998 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1993), allegations that individ-
uals are agricultural laborers need not be analyzed on a classifica-
tion-by-classification basis. In Camsco, the Regional Director found
that the petitioned-for employees were agricultural laborers. The
Board granted review only as to the fresh pack department employ-
ees, who handled produce from other farms, and ultimately found
these workers to be statutory employees. Although the Board noted
that the employer had ‘‘departed from the traditional model of the
farmer who simply prepares his own products for market,’’ the
Board’s analysis focused solely on the work of the particular em-
ployees in question. By denying review of the Regional Director’s
determination that the other members of the petitioned-for unit were
agricultural laborers, the Board clearly indicated that the question of
employee status would not be resolved on an employer-wide basis.
Cal-Maine did not involve a classification-by-classification analysis
because the employer made only the general assertion that it did not
receive any products from outside suppliers and therefore that all of
the employees in its processing plant were agricultural laborers. The
Board found that the employer failed to meet its burden regarding
that assertion.
Nevertheless, we agree with the Regional Director that the Em-
ployer failed to establish that only the shipping employees have con-
tact with the outside eggs and that, for this reason, only the shipping
employees are statutory employees. Accordingly, we affirm the Re-
gional Director’s finding that all of the unit employees are statutory
employees.
AgriGeneral L.P. and United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local 1059, Petitioner. Case 8–
RC–15554
June 30, 1998
DECISION ON REVIEW
By Chairman Gould and Members Fox and
Liebman
On July 1, 1997, the Regional Director for Region
8 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which
he concluded that the production and maintenance em-
ployees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit are not ag-
ricultural laborers within the meaning of the Act. In
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Em-
ployer filed a timely request for review, and the Peti-
tioner filed a statement in opposition. By Order dated
August 4, 1997, the Board granted the Employer’s re-
quest for review. The Petitioner filed a brief on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record in this
proceeding, we affirm the Regional Director’s conclu-
sion. We find, in agreement with the Regional Direc-
tor, that the Employer failed to satisfy its burden of
proving that the employees are agricultural laborers ex-
cluded from the coverage of the Act under Section
2(3).
In Camsco Produce, 297 NLRB 905, 908 (1990),
the Board held that it would assert jurisdiction over in-
dividuals performing activities incidental to or in con-
junction with farming operations ‘‘if any amount of
farm commodities other than those of the employer-
farmer are regularly handled by the employees in ques-
tion.’’ The Board further held that the party asserting
that individuals are exempt as agricultural laborers has
the burden of proving the applicability of the exemp-
tion. In the present case, we find that the Regional Di-
rector properly found that the Employer did not meet
its burden under Camsco, because it failed to establish
that the unit employees do not regularly handle or
come into contact with eggs received from outside pro-
ducers.1
Accordingly, the Regional Director’s Decision and
Direction of Election is affirmed, and the case is re-
manded to the Regional Director for further appro-
priate action.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00972 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.143 APPS10 PsN: APPS10