G. K. Livestock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act even
though some or all of the fattened livestock are ultimately
sold, shipped, or slaughtered by the feeder.
Under the principles outlined above, it seems clear that, for
purposes of Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
accordingly of Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, the feeding, fattening, and care of cattle for
substantial periods, such as 80 to 150 days, must be regarded
as a distinct enterprise--separate and apart from thepacking-
plant operations, which are not of course "agriculture." So
regarded, the feed lot operations are plainly the "raising of
livestock" and thus do constitute "agriculture" under Section
3 (f), even though the cattle are ultimately destined for slaughter
and conversion into meat products at the Employer' s meat-
packing enterprise. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's
feed lot employees are "agricultural laborers" within the
meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; we shall, therefore, dis-
miss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
G. K. LIVESTOCK COMPANY and AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 368, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1199.
May 12, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville W.
Turnbaugh, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act."
1 We find without merit the Employer 's attack upon the Petitioner 's showing of interest.
The Board has consistently held that the adequacy of a showing of interest is a question for
administrative determination , not subject to direct or collateral attack . Stokely Foods, Inc.,
78 NLRB 842.
2During the past year the Employer sold $2,075 ,387 worth of livestock to King Packing
Company , a company engaged in interstate commerce , which annually ships outside the State
goods valued in excess of $25,000 . We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that
these facts would justify the assertion of jurisdiction in this case. Hollow Tree Lumber
Company, 91 NLRB 635; Walter G. Brix, Inc., 96 NLRB 519. We dismiss the instant petition,
however , for other reasons stated hereinafter
104 NLRB No. 121.
G. K. LIVESTOCK COMPANY 925
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that its employees 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 raising and feeding of
livestock, principally cattle, which it buys and then fattens
for market on its approximately 50 acres of feed lots, which
are located near Nampa, Idaho. The Employer leases pasture-
land and other farmland, on which it grows pasture and crops,
mainly corn, for this livestock.
On its feed lots, the Employer feeds and fattens cattle for
various periods of time: 75 percent of its cattle is fed and
held by it for periods in excess of 90 days and up to 150 days;
15 percent of its cattle is fed and held for periods in excess
of 150 days and up to a year or more; and most of the remainder
are fed and held for periods of 90 days or less. The record
does not disclose the number of cattle at the feed lots at any
given time. On the feed lots are some small storage facilities
and a grinder mill.
The Employer employs both seasonal and regular full-time
employees. The seasonal employees, admittedly agricultural
laborers, are employed principally, if not entirely, to prepare
the soil and plant crops on the leased land and to harvest the
crops, all of which are later transported to the feed lots. The
Petitioner does not seek to represent the seasonal employees.
The 5 regular full-time employees (whom the Petitioner
seeks to represent) transport, prepare, and feed the crops to
livestock at the feed lots. Although they spend some of their
time performing work of the same character as that performed
by the seasonal employees, this work is for them sporadic
in nature and limited to the growing and harvesting seasons.
Their year-round work is essentially at the feed lots. Feeding
is the principal job for 2 of the 5 employees in the requested
unit;3 a third employee, classified as a millman, spends all
his time at the feed lots, where he operates the feed mill; and
the 2 remaining employees assist with feeding but, when not so
employed, perform work of an agricultural nature on the leased
land, which requires considerable fertilizing.
Section 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by which we
must be governed in determining the question of coverage under
Section 2 (3) of the statute we administer, defines the term
"agriculture" to include inter alia, "the cultivation and tillage
of the soil . . . , cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agri-
cultural or horticultural commodities . . . the raising of live-
stock . . . 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, with respect
3The testimony is somewhat contradictory. "For only a small percent of the year," it
would take more than one to do all the actual feeding.
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.5 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 apartfrom 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.
5See Swift & Company, supra.
6opinion 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 held before 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.