Minidoka Irrigation District

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Minidoka Irrigation District and International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local 370, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 19-RC-4810
May 7, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Henry L.
Chiles, Jr. on June 27, 1968. Following the close of
the hearing the case was transferred to the Board by
the Acting Regional Director for Region 19, in
accordance with Section 102.67(h) of the Rules and
Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board.
Thereafter, pursuant to a remand issued by the
Board on September 19, 1968, an additional hearing
was held before the Hearing Officer on December
19, 1968, and February 6, 1969. Subsequent to the
initial and second hearings the parties filed briefs
with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearings and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs, the Board finds:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time and
seasonal employees of the Employer, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The
Employer contends that the Board is precluded from
asserting jurisdiction in this case by reason, inter
alia ,' of the fact that its employees are agricultural
employees as defined in the rider to the Board's
current appropriation act.'
The record discloses that the Employer,
'In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to pass on the
Employer's alternative contention that it is a political subdivision of the
State of Idaho, and therefore exempt from the Board 's jurisdiction.
'80 Stat. 1378, 1401, P L. 89-787, 81 Stat. 386, 408, P. L. 9-132 ( 1968),
H R 18037, 90th Cong 2d Ses. (1967).
hereinafter referred to as the District, is a mutual
nonprofit irrigation district which is owned by the
landowners within an area of approximately 72,000
acres within the State of Idaho. The District does
not store any water, but it diverts water from
facilities maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation.
It supplies water to farmers and other water users
for irrigation purposes. The employees of the
District, numbering approximately 38, are engaged
only in the distribution of the water diverted, and in
the operation and maintenance of the canals,
laterals, and other structures necessary to this
function. In 1968, which appears representative of
its annual operations, the District diverted
approximately 487,000 acre-feet of water. Of the
total diverted, 298,250 acre-feet, or more than 99
percent of the total ultimately delivered, was
supplied to water users for farming purposes.' The
District supplied 1,111.3 acre-feet of water, or less
than 1 percent to towns and golf courses for lawn
irrigation.
Annually, since 1954, the Congress has added to
the Board's appropriation act a rider which includes
in the definition of agricultural laborers, and thereby
exempts from the Board's jurisdiction, "employees
engaged in the maintenance and operation of
ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when
maintained or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis
and at least 95 percent of the water stored or
supplied thereby is used for farming purposes." The
record is clear that the employees of the District are
engaged solely in the functions described in the
appropriation rider, and that more than 95 percent
of the water supplied by the District is used for
farming purposes. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is dismissed.
'We rind no merit in the Petitioner 's contention that the discrepancy
between the amount of water diverted by the District and the amount
supplied to water users for farming use, which is accounted for by natural
losses ensuing from evaporation, seepage , and flow back to the Snake
River , requires the conclusion that the District fails to meet the 95 percent
use test set forth in the appropriation rider . We similarly find no merit in
the Petitioner' s alternative argument that the 95 percent use test is not met
because the owners of approximately 7,100 acres of nonagricultural land
within the District fail to exercise entitlement to their allotted share of the
water.
'Truckee-Carson Irrigation District , 164 NLRB No. 152, and Sutter
Mutual Water Company , 160 NLRB 1139.
175 NLRB No. 143