General Truck Drivers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1243 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS 1243
and desist from in any manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.5
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United and Whelan do not constitute a single employer within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The activities of Whelan set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to- lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
3. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Harris, Frazier, and Love,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Whelan has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Whelan has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Whelan has not engaged in the unfair labor practice , as alleged in the complaint,
of discharging Williams because of his union membership or activities.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
6 May Department Stores v . N. L. R. B. , 326 U. S. 376.
General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local
630, AFL-CIO ; and General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers Union, Local 542, AFL-CIO and California Asso-
ciation of Employers . Case No. 01-CC-213. May 1, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 13, 1956, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting brief.
The Respondent Unions filed no exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and the
1 The Trial Examiner incorrectly stated that Local 980 won the election at the Barlow
plant and that bargaining negotiations were conducted between representatives of the
Local and of Barlow. The correct name of the Employer should be Hallberg instead of
Barlow. It appears that this is clearly a clerical error.
115 NLRB No. 195.
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entire record in this case, and finds no merit in the General Counsel's
exceptions. The Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that:
The Respondents, Local 630 and Local 542 of General Truck Driv-
ers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, AFL-CIO, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
the employees of Morris Trubin, H. H. Stacey, Williams & Son, or
of any other employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to perform services, where an object thereof is to
force or require Morris Trubin, H. H. Stacey, Williams & Son, or
any other employer or person to cease doing business with Sebastopol
Apple Growers Union.
2., Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their respective business offices copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notices, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of each Re-
spondent herein, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps°shall
be taken by said Respondents to insure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of the Act as regards employees of Gould Transportation Company,
Inc., Choumas Produce Company, and Roy Jameson & Son.
2illembei ituidock does this in the absence of exceptions by the Respondent Unions
without passing on the merits of the issues
a In the event that this Oider is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
theie shall be substituted toi the ,souls "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Dee,ee of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS 1245
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 630, AFL-CIO, AND ALL MEMBERS OF
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION,
LOCAL 542, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of
Morris Trubin, Williams & Son, and H. H. Stacey, or of any other
employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof
is to force or require Morris Trubin, Williams & Son, and H. H.
Stacey, or any other employer or other person to cease doing busi-
ness with Sebastopol Apple Growers Union.
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 630, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 542, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed on August 30, 1955, and on
November 4, 1955 , respectively, by California Association of Employers , herein
called CAE , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board , herein re-
3pectively called the General Counsel I and the Board, by the Acting Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles , California ), issued his complaint,
dated December 6, 1955 , and an amendment to the complaint, dated December 9,
1955 , against General Truck Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 630,
herein called Local 630 , and General ' Truck Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers
Union , Local 542 , herein called Local 542, alleging that Respondents 2 had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hen t ing
^Cullrr-utely the shove-u. nod labor organizations are referred to herein as Respondents.
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges,
the complaint, amendment to the complaint, together with notice of.hearing thereon,
were duly served upon each respondent and upon CAE.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleged
in substance that (1) since about August 10, 1955,3 General Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 980, herein called Local 980, has been
engaged in a labor dispute with three named primary employers over recognition as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of said employers although
Local 980 had not been certified by the Board as such representative; (2) since
about said date, in furtherance of said dispute and in order to secure the desired
recognition, Local 980 has engaged in picketing at the premises of said primary
employers; (3) since about September 19, in furtherance of said dispute of Local
980 with the primary employers, Local 630, instructed, requested, and appealed to the
employees of certain named employers to cease handling goods or to perform serv-
ices for the primary employers here involved; (4) since about August 12, in further-
ance of aforesaid dispute of Local 980 with said primary employers, Local 542 in-
structed, requested, and appealed to the employees of an employer to cease handling
goods or to perform services for the primary employers here involved.
Each Respondent duly and timely filed an answer denying the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on January 4, 1956, at Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, and on the following day at San Diego, California, before a duly designated
Trial Examiner The General Counsel and each Respondent was represented by
counsel and they participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce pertinent evi-
dence, to argue orally at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file
briefs After the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner received, and duly
considered, letters from the General Counsel, counsel for CAE, and from counsel for
Local 542, which set forth certain legal theories of the issues here involved and cita-
tions in support thereof During the course of the hearing, counsel for Local 630
moved (page 28 of the stenographic report of the hearing) to strike certain evidence
and testimony from the record. Decision thereon was reserved. The motion is now
denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF SEBASTOPOL APPLE GROWERS UNION
Sebastopol Apple Growers Union , herein called SAGU, a California cooperative
corporation , has its principal offices and place of business in Sebastopol , California,
where it is engaged in canning , packing, selling , and shipping apples, applesauce , spiced
apples, and similar processed products . During the fiscal year ending May 31, 1955,
SAGU purchases amounted in excess of $400,000. During the same period, its
sales of finished products exceeded $ 1,000,000, about $350,000 of which was shipped
to points located outside the State of California
Upon the above undisputed facts , the Trial Examiner finds that SAGU is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.4
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 630, Local 542, and Local 980, are, and each of them is, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This proceeding centers around the questions (1) whether the activities of two
business representatives of Local 630, namely, Pete Nickoliessen and Bill Williams,
and the activities of Jack Rafn, business agent of Local 542, in appealing to certain
persons, whose employers had no current labor dispute with either union, not to
handle or work on Sebastopol apples, were, as alleged in the complaint , as amended,
* Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1955. 1 -
* Upon a petition foi representation filed by Local 980 sometime in 1955, the Board
assumed jurisdiction over SAGU and ordered that an election be held among the_ em-
ployees of SAGU.
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS 1247
violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and (2) whether said activities were
in furtherance of Local 980's attempt to obtain recognition as exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees of certain other employers in violation of Section 8
(b) (4) (B) of the Act.
A. The pertinent undisputed facts _
During the 1954-55 Sebastopol apple season, Local 980 filed with the Board
five separate petitions seeking to become the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of certain employees of SAGU, O. A. Hallberg & Son, Manzana Products,
Sebastopol Co-operative Cannery, and T. Barlow Company.
After the Board had issued its Decisions and Direction of Elections, the Board's
representatives duly conducted elections at SAGU, Hallberg, and Barlow. No elec-
tions were held at the Manzana and Sebastopol Co-operative plants, although they
had been scheduled, because of the withdrawal of the petitions involving these plants
by Local 980 on July 17.
Local 980 won the election at the Barlow plant and lost the other two elections
Bargaining negotiations were conducted between representatives of Local 980
and representatives of Barlow until July 11, when an impasse was reached on three
issues. Local 980 then informed Hallberg that if it did not execute the contract
submitted by it within a specified time it would picket the plant. When Hallberg
refused to bow to the demand of Local 980 a picket line was placed at the Hallberg
establishment on August 6. and it still was there at the time of the hearing.
Pici.et lines were also placed at the Sebastopol Co-operative plant on August 4, at
SAGU on August 5, and at Manzana on August 6 Soon each major apple process-
ing plant in the Sebastopol area was picketed by Local 980 The picket lines at
the afoiesaid plants were still present at the time of the hearing herein.
On September 19, Pete Nickoliessen, a business representative of Local 630, went
to the place of business of Morris Trubin, which is located in a produce market
in Los Angeles, some 500 miles from the Sebastopol area, and told Trubin's non-
supervisor receiving cleik, Pete Reinoso, not to receive the Sebastopol area apples
which had been already unloaded but which weic standing in front of Trubm's estab-
lishment. Reinoso did as Nickoliessen requested and left the case of apples where
they had been when he reported for work that day 5
About mid-September Nickoliessen and Bill Williams, another Local 630 busi-
ness representative, came to the Los Angeles establishment of Williams & Son
while a load of Sebastopol area apples were being unloaded and asked Edward
Rios, a Williams & Son supervisor and also its receiving clerk, whether he had
not been advised by his superiors not to handle those apples. When Rios answered
in the negative, either Williams or Nickoliessen replied that he had better not receive
the shipment because it was "hot cargo" and then suggested that those apples which
had been already unloaded be put back on the truck. Williams then asked the
Williams & Son employees who were helping to unload the apples, "If they didn't
know better than to receive the apples," to-which they replied that they did not
know the apples were "hot." Thereupon, under instructions from Nickoliessen and
Williams, said employees immediately stopped unloading the apples and those apples
which had been unloaded were put back on the truck and the truck was driven
away from Williams & Son's loading platform.
Under date of September 15, Local 630 wrote Los Angeles Markets Arbitration
Association as follows-
Under the terms of our Agreement,ii we are notifying you that Sebastopol
Co-op, Sebastopol Fruit Growers Assoc., Miller Fruit Co, and Sebastopol
Reinoso was very reluctant to answer itith any degree of directness or truthfulness the
questions propounded to him on direct examination by the General Counsel He attempted
to convey the impression that Nickoliessen never told him not to receive the apples. How-
ever, when confronted with the contents,of the written sworn statement given by him
to a Board field examiner on the day following the above described incident, he readily
admitted that Nickoliessen had instiucted'him not to receive the aforesaid apples.
6 Which reads in part as follows : "A sanctioned picket line is one that has been sanc-
tioned by the Joint Council of Teamsters No 42 of Los Angeles. The union shall notify
the Association promptly of such Joint Council action to make this paragraph effective,
and agrees to allow 24 hours after the arrival of any merchandise shipped before the
placing or authorizing of such picket line before invoking this paragraph , a duplicate copy
of said notice shall be sent to the party against whom such picket line is placed or author-
ized. Immediately upon the cessation of such picket line authorization notice shall be
served upon the Association of such fact "
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Apple Growers Union, all of Sebastopol, California, have been placed on the
official "We Do Not Patronize" list of the Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42,
and that these concerns are now being picketed by the Teamsters Unions con-
cerned.
Attached please find a list of the brand names of the different distributors
Thank you very much for your usual cooperation in matters of this kind
In the latter part of August, James J. Belt, a lumper,7 was advised by J. W. Wil-
liams, a San Diego produce broker, that some apples would arrive in San Diego,
some 500 miles from Sebastopol, the following morning in a truck owned and oper-
ated by H. H. Stacey, and that Belt should arrange to unload the said truck There-
upon, Belt went to Stacey's San Diego office and was informed that the truck had
crossed the Sebastopol Apple Growers Union picket line and was due, if not inter-
fered with, the following morning. Belt then went to Jack Rafn, business agent
of Local 542, and after telling Rafn about the situation, asked Rafn to find some
plausible excuse which would relieve him of unloading the apples Rafn and
Belt arranged to meet the following morning where Belt normally met pi oduce
trucks coming from places north of San Diego which he was to unload.
When Belt and Rafn met as planned, Rafn informed Belt that the driver of the
Stacey truck had in fact crossed a picket line and that the truck could not be un-
loaded "until it was straightened out." The two of them then went to Rideout's
Produce Company, the place where Belt was to have unloaded the apples, and Rafn
told Rideout's "receiving man" in substance, "The applies would be there but they
would not be unloaded in time for them to make their early morning deliveries."
Even though it was Belt's normal procedure to meet the apple truck some 7 miles
north of San Diego, guide the drivers to the place where the unloading was to take
place, and then immediately proceed, with the aid of a helper, to unload the trucks,
this normal procedure was ignored on this particular occasion. Belt testified, rather
reluctantly but creditably, that he did not meet the aforesaid Stacey truck at his
usual spot; that he first saw the truck at Williams' place of business at about 7
o'clock that morning; that he unloaded several other trucks prior to unloading the
Stacey truck; that he started to unload the Stacey truck at about 10 or 11 o'clock
that morning; and that if Rafn had not told him not to unload the truck "until it was
straightened out," the truck would have been at Rideout's at about 3 or 4 o'clock
that morning and the apples would have been unloaded forthwith.
B. Concluding findings
One of the primary charges against Respondents in this case is bottomed upon the
provisions of the Act which makes it an unfair labor practice for a union or its
agents to induce or encourage employees of secondary employers (i. e., employers
with whom the union is not directly in a dispute ) to "engage in a strike or a con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment " to handle goods or to perform
services , where certain unlawful objects are present.
Under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act three elements must be shown to be
present in order to find a violation , to wit : (1) The union , or its agents , must engage
in or induce or encourage the employees of a secondary employer to (2) engage in a
strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, or otherwise
handle, or perform any service where (3) an object thereof is forcing or requiring the
secondary employer to cease using or otherwise dealing in the products of any
producer or to cease doing business with any other person.
The primary labor dispute was between Local 980 and SAGU and certain other
Sebastopol apple shippers. In furtherance of this dispute Local 630 and Local
542 directed economic pressure against three employers who had no dispute with
either Respondent or with any other union. Respondents, through their respective
representatives ,8 requested certain employees fo cease handling Sebastopol apples.
As a result , in one instance the apples were not delivered to the purchaser, in
another case there was a considerable delay in unloading the apples, and in the
third instance the apples remained in front of the purchaser 's premises for an un-
disclosed length of time.
In view of the foregoing , it can hardly be doubted that "an object" of Respondents'
tactics was to force Trubin , Williams & Son, and H . H. Stacey to "cease doing
business" with SAGU and the other Sebastopol apple shippers . The use of see-
A person who is regularly engaged in unloading produce trucks7
8 The Trial Examiner finds that Nickoliessen, Williams. and Rain, whose activities con-
stitute a part of the evidence relied upon herein, were acting within the scope of their
general authority on the occasions involved.
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS 1249
ondary pressure to obtain such objectives is precisely what the statute was designed
to proscribe 9
Equally clear is it that the activities of Respondents constituted "inducement or
encouragement" within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4). "The words," as the
Supreme Court said in I . B. E. W. v. N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694 at pages 701-702,
"'induce and encourage ' [as used in the section ] are broad enough to include in
them every form of influence or persuasion."
The September 15 letter of Local 630, set out above, while not illegal in itself,
clearly indicates that Local 630 intended to bring economic pressure against the
members of the Los Angeles Markets Arbitration Association who did business
with the employers who were engaged in the labor dispute with Local 980.10
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner is convinced , and finds,
that the three essential elements of a violation-inducement , refusal , and unlawful
objective-have been proven and that by engaging in the above -described conduct
Respondents have, and each of them has, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A).11
The fact that only one employee figured in each incident in which Nickoliessen,
Williams, and Rafn engaged is wholly immaterial . 12 It is also immaterial that the
aforementioned work stoppages were of short duration.13
The Trial Examiner further finds that the record is devoid of any probative
evidence that, as alleged in the complaint , as amended , Local 980 's picketing at
the plants of SAGU and at the other aforesaid Sebastopol apple shippers had as its
purpose "the forcing or requiring" SAGU and the other picketed shippers to recognize
Local 980 as the exclusive collective representative of their respective employees.
Accordingly , the Trial Examiner recommends that the allegations of the complaint,
as amended , that Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B ) be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the business operations of Sebastopol Apple Growers Union, set forth
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents , jointly and severally, have engaged in activities
violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom , and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. I
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sebastopol Apple Growers Union is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 630, General
Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 542, General Truck Drivers,
° See Cong. Rec. 4198, where Senator Taft explained that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) "makes
it unlawful to resort to a secondary boycott to injure the business of a third party who is
wholly unconcerned in the disagreement between an employer and his employees " See
also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. v. N. L. R. B., 181
F. 2d 34 (C. A. 2) affirmed 341 U. S. 694, where the court said at page 37, "The grava-
men of a secondary boycott is that its sanctions bear, not upon the employer who alone
Is a party to the dispute, but upon some third party who has no concern in it."
10 See N. L R. B. v Associated Musicians of Greater New York Local 802, etc., 226 F_
2d 900 (C. A. 2) enfg. 110 NLRB 2166; N L R B v Denver Bldg and Construction
Trades Council, 193 F. 2d 421 (C A 10) '
11 Crook Company, 115 NLRB 23, Marsh Foodivners, Inc, 114 NLRB 639,
Cisco Construction Company, 114 NLRB 27; Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc,
107 NLRB 299; Joliet Contractors Association, 99 NLRB 1391; International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et at. v. Al L R. B., supra; Associated Musicians,
supra
12Dueet Transit Lines, Inc., 92 NLRB 1715, cited with approval in Cisco Construction
Company, supra
19 Crook Company, supra
390009-56-vol 115-80
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 980, each affiliated with AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in concerted activities where an object thereof was to force or
require Morris Trubin , H. H. Stacey , Williams & Son, and their respective employees
to cease doing business with Sebastopol Apple Growers Union, Respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegations of the complaint , as amended , that Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning bf Section 8 (b)
(4) (B) of the Act have not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
Central Carolina Farmers Exchange , Inc. and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-807. May 1, 1,956
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 Lewis Wolberg, hearing of-
ficer. 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 : 2
1. The Employer, a North Carolina corporation, is a farmers' co-
operative association engaged in processing and marketing poultry,
eggs, grain, seed, and livestock. It has approximately 15,000 stock-
holders and serves both member and nonmember farmers located in
Durham and surrounding counties. Its operations include 10 depart-
ments, consisting of the main office, feed mill and grain, egg, poultry,
hatchery, seed and wholesale farm supply, trucking, garage, livestock
market and slaughterhouse, and cold storage and freezer locker de-
partment. The Employer also has eight service stores which sell at
retail various farm supplies. All but the livestock and slaughterhouse
department, which is located 10 miles from Durham, and 7 of the serv-
ice stores, which are located in surrounding counties, are in Durham,
North Carolina.
The Employer contends, in effect, that all its employees are engaged
in agriculture and that therefore the Board does not have jurisdiction.
'At the hearing , an attorney purporting to represent 179 of the Employer 's employees
sought to intervene for the purpose of introducing evidence to show that these employees
do not wish to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by any union. We
affirm the hearing officer's ruling denying intervention to this employee group, who did
not purport to be , or to function as, a collective -bargaining representative The ques-
tion of representation can be best resolved by means of the election hereinafter directed.
Pasco Packing Co ., 106 NLRB 1223.
2 As the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties,
we deny the Employer 's request for oral argument.
115 NLRB No. 191.