Rochester Dairy Cooperative

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 23, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1467 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

ROCHESTER DAIRY COOPERATIVE 1467 Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 316 Fed- eral Building , 110 South Fourth Street , Minneapolis , Minnesota , Telephone No. 334-2611, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Rochester Dairy Cooperative and Southeastern Minnesota Milk Haulers Association , Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-6319. Sep- tember 23,1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Charles J. Frisch. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Em- ployer and the Petitioner filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Jenkins]. 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 Petitioner claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of 18 individuals engaged in hauling milk for the Employer under contracts which they hold either individually or as partnerships. The parties agree that the unit should not include certain other drivers who work for and are hired by the contract haulers. In Case No. 18-RC-4331 1 the Board, on July 13, 1960, found that the same group of individuals herein sought to be represented were independent contractors and not employees of the Employer. We have considered both the present record and the record in Case No. 18-RC- 4331. As the present record does not reveal any substantial or mate- rial change in the relationship between the Employer and the indi- viduals involved from that which existed at the time of the earlier proceeding, we find, in accord with the determination in that proceed- ing, that these individuals are independent contractors 2 and not employees within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the petition. i The record in Case No. 18-RC-4331 was introduced in evidence in the present pro- ceeding as an exhibit by the Employer. 2 In view of our determination set forth above, we find it unnecessary to consider the issue as to whether the haulers may be supervisors within the meaning of the Act. 154 NLRB No. 124.