*2 may produce Very briefly it said men, here, petitioners buy handle under pota- large portion great contract a crop of Idaho. After are dug, sorting, place are taken for grading packing. washing, Sometimes readying shipment in “cel- this is done lars” farms on the and sometimes produce men’s warehouses. The laborers employed Weston, Boise, readying E. A. who do this are crews Idaho, peti- by produce men and “warehouse tioners. are called and cellar” crews. In instances the some Rockwell, Counsel, How- Alvin Gen. J. readying. farmer few assists Counsel, Lichtenstein, Gen. Asst. ard produce grows po- man instances the William F. Scharni- Findling and David persons working In some instances tatoes. in B., Washington, kow, Attys., all of L. R. N. cellar crews live C., respondent. D. and, vicinity activity when of such HEALY, Cir- Before STEPHENS over, go back is to other seasonal FEE, Judge. District Judges, and cuit Ownership in to the farms. employment or grower until remains produce Grow- STEPHENS, and as Idaho Potato Judge. graded, Circuit it is ownership unchanged until ers, Inc., is cases on file Respondents several packing them. cost of dealer sells Board, all of Relations Labor National grower. borne sometimes complaint, were consolidated one case, includ statement of general af- A subjects cease and desist and of a name, abbreviated name, status They order. here action firmative petitioners “ * ** and of each con pray party Honor- each case, and the nature in the against cerned charge and set aside the deci- to review Court able each, set out 1.1 note Labor Re- of the National orders sion Region Washing- (Seattle, Nineteenth Nation- the ease. The Statement complaint ton), its dated Board, October issued herein called Labor Relations al 1942, against Growers, Idaho Potato Board, by Regional fol- Director petitioners’ activities is set out extent of territorial nature and as to the A statement engaged engaging Growers; m each also m and were Inc., W. herein called meaning Wilson; practices within the Wilson, unfair labor L. S. called P. Taube, herein Taube, 2(6) 8(3) of Section co- L. B. Ted doing partners, Act. *3 Taube Meyer as business L. S. prac Labor Taube; to unfair Company, With & heroin called complaint Friedman, as amended at the hear tices the ing alleged co- E. Friedman and Arthur (1) re in that partners, doing substance: & as Friedman business S. spondents through respondent Friedman; Sons, and Idaho herein called its sec Company, Association executive Traffic and called Warehouse herein Falls January retary O’Neil, on or about Company; and others did Rowenah Warehouse 24, 1942, cause a to be held at Ida J. E. O’ administratrix of estate of Falls, Idaho, employees deceased, ho re Neil, of the both this administratrix spondents Growers, Wilson, Taube, predecessor being Potato re times and at business O’Neil;i Friedman, Company, O’Neil, respondent Warehouse ferred to herein respondents Stuart; Stuart, Holden, Stuart, and and the C. R. A. herein called G. Holden, co-partners, known to and number farmers well do Holden and ing L.L. advised, Brothers, urged, them ployees and em both this warned said as Holden business join respondent predecessor or remain members of firm Holden to and Union, Brothers, Inc., being tho form an unaffiliated to but to com referred times union, respondent Holden; or to discon mittee threatened and Idaho and as the joined Association, Traffic tinue of the if herein called Trafiic members; (2) complaint alleged remained union Association.ii February 10, 1942, respondents engaged or about and there and were had respondents directly through after, practices engaging and within in unfair labor Association, 8(1) (5), meaning Traffic its ex U. and secretary, attorney 2(6) 5), 158(1, and a named and ecutive and Section § S.C.A. (7), respondents 152(6, 7), for meetings in conversations and the Na § 29 Ü.S.C.A. Grange repre 449, Act, with and farmers 49 Stat. Labor Relations tional Act, col re sentatives condemned and and that herein called bargaining presented by spondents contracts had lective and Potato Growers Taube respondents encouraged engaging engaged to and said each also and were Union; persons opposing meaning practices to assist of Sec unfair within the (3) 2(6) (7) as a activities of 8(3) result these and Section and tion respondents Grange Act, local and various 49 Stat. National Labor Relations meetings during Act, Feb 449, farmers’ were held herein the re called the and ruary spondents statements and March 1942 at which Potato Growers and Taube op passed made were and resolutions i Although position J. E. and Holden O’Neil to the Union and threats made Brothers, Inc., parties boycott agree are not into dealers who entered proceedings, Union, in this Re- to these at times ments with the said activities be port they, predecessors ing among publicized as business em and circulated respondents O’Neil, respondents; ployees (4) Rowenah administra- that on or O’Neil, 7, respondents of E. trix of the estate J. and L. S. ar about March ranged Taube, Holden, L. co- Ted and B. farmers and partners, doing dealers, ostensibly purpose business as & L. S. Taube of allow Company, purposes respectively, ing explain representatives union only program Union, convenience are when refer- included at which state collectively respond- passed ence is made to “the ments made resolutions were and opposition membership ents” and to “the dealers.” re in spondents’ employees terms Whether the refer the business in the Union and depends predecessor bargaining Union, in each instance collective respondents the time the O’Neil Hol- threats made were that there began operations joined den business business would be of work if re loss Union; (5) of J. successors Brothers, E. O’Neil and Holden mained members February respectively. Inc., thereafter, The extent March respondents J. E. Holden Broth- O’Neil and made or caused to made ers, Inc., responsible published newspapers the unfair la- circulated practices among press bor is discussed in note statements eight ii respondents expressing opposition rep The first named re releases spondents, farmers, eight eases, Granges resent different Traf em membership party ployee fic Association respondent also named as a in the Union and to the By bargaining, attempts in each of these cases. at collective threat September ening disapproval pub corrected order loss of work and dated opinion cases were lic if at- consolidated. petitioners’ both intra- appar- note ent business is 2.2 From this latter note it tempts continued; During (6) the 1941-42 season it sold spective Shelley shipped Growers, Wil- from its Idaho Falls son, approximately Taube, Friedman, Com- warehouses 1000 carloads Warehouse O’Neil, begin- potatoes pany, percent than Stuart and more ning January urged shipped points outside the State warned un- to refrain from of Idaho. membership; ion jointly maintains P. Wilson W. potatoes severally handling and re- a warehouse for the have failed per- by specified bargain Firth, fused acts to collec- Idaho. 10 and 15 Between tively Union, representative cent of him handled dur- respective respondents’ employees pota- 1941-42 season consisted of *4 grown by appropriate although himself, units, Union at toes remainder of potatoes by during represented employees him said 'times of each of handled units; period by consisting bought appropriate potatoes of him in the growers (8) respondent from other dealers and re-sold Potato and Growers by February shipped him. sold from his or about demoted He and during ap- employee position plant and Firth 1941-42 season named to an inferior proximately quit employment, potatoes, him dis- carloads of forced charged his 450 shipped percent him about and to reinstate be- 90 of which were refused points cause of in and activities outside the State of Idaho. Meyer Union; on behalf of and Friedman and Arthur E. February doing copartners, on or Taube about Friedman are business as 1942, discharged firm, and refused to reinstate Friedman & main Sons. This whose Chicago, Illinois, op- six named of their mem- because office is leases and bership in activities and on behalf of the erates a warehouse at Idaho Falls for the potatoes. handling generally Union. of It is en- respondents, prior hearing, gaged produce The to the business in various they filed an answer in which denied the States. In the course of its Falls Idaho practices. purchases operations potatoes unfair labor commission of They from it allege growers During the units set forth in other and dealers. complaint respond- shipped to the it from 1941-42 season sold approximately ents Potato Growers not and Taube were its Idaho Falls warehouse appropriate. potatoes, per- about 360 carloads of 90 respondents. shipped The business All of sold cent points which were respondents except of the the Traffic As outside the State of Idaho. being sociation, Company, herein at times called Idaho Falls Warehouse respondent dealers, potatoes Corporation, among are dealers various busi- Idaho Falls, vicinity. Idaho, enterprises in Idaho ness conducted it at Idaho respondent except Falls, dealers the Potato maintains a han- warehouse customarily buy potatoes dling potatoes. Growers lots of This only buys potatoes growers vi from other dealers and farmers in the and deal- from pack, load, ship, cinity, resale, and re-sell ers for but also at times acts as an Growers, handling potatoes grow- agent them. The Potato in the cooperative being enterprise, percent pota- does not About 65 to 85 ers. buy potatoes during it deals but it the 1941-42 toes handled sea- ships farmers, purchased them for the account of both it for respondent shipped Dur- son re-sale. were non-members, members and season this ordinarily approximately potatoes, dealers with all of whom it 700 carloads of percent final makes settlement at the end of about 90 which were sold and points shipped All of the season. dealers outside the State. employ country Growers, Inc., maintain warehouses and non- is a Idaho Valley co-operative incorpo- profit association, in the Snake River in the crews vicinity Falls, speci of Idaho Idaho. The rated under the laws of the State of Ida- operations particularized respondent sorts, packs, ships of each fic ho. This potatoes below. for both sells its members Taube, growers. L. S. Ted It also at mar- and other times Holden, doing potatoes acquired :and L. B. business as L. lots in carload kets Company, copartnership & are a Taube dealers. It carries on a substan- S. principal City, portion operations office Kansas of its the vicini- tial ty Shelley, Idaho, firm This maintains warehouses Missouri. of Idaho Falls and handling potatoes at both Idaho a warehouse at each of maintains buys Shelley, potatoes places. Falls and Idaho. vicinity handling potatoes of these warehouses from Its method is to pota- buyer purchase growers who offers to both and dealers and re-sells them. find do, how crews, hiring 3 and interstate. note state where, it, is described. cellar- handling do stipulated in New York and an individual oral and then toes agreement sum corpora grower the sole stockholders with the dealer produce operated tion, dispose buyer potatoes business of his price expenses Idaho Palls. and in both in New York During incurred offered less corpora season this the 1941-42 Growers sort the Potato ing, in the course of acquired potatoes packing handling tion sold 739 cars them. At growers, sent these cars season this makes end points of Idaho. outside the State settlement with corporation potatoes during tracks carloads on the sold 129 whose has handled buyers During Palls cash and the at Idaho season. the 1941-42 season purchased shipped approximately so sent most the cars Potato Growers potatoes points i of Idaho. outside the State 1300 carloads of in the course corporation’s operated operations Holdens About these vicinities. shipped percent business and at or about the liquidating of these acquired corporation points outside the State Idaho. duly appointed the third stockholder. Idaho interests of Rowenah O’Neil is the co-partnership acting as de Since that time the estate administratrix of the operated type O’Neil, has the same scribed above As administratrix E. deceased. J. *5 of at Idaho business as was conducted of E. O’- business J. she carries by corporation. substantially in Palls the same manner Neil by his it was conducted the latter before Traffic Association is an Idaho Idaho August in 1942. death corporation with its office at Idaho Palls. his death and Rowenah O’Neil before corporation organized Sep in was This O’Neil, administratrix, since that rendering purpose tember 1941 of a warehouse in Idaho maintained shippers aid spect assistance to with re and potatoes. handling Dur- Palls of problems kinds, of and “to traffic bought 800 the 1941-42 season arising preparation, matters out potatoes and from 900 carloads shipment inspection, sale merchan per- dealers, of which more than other dise and commodities whatsoever na shipped the State cent was and sold outside stockholders, It has no ture.” but issues Idaho. memberships instead All re stock. operates a A. G. owns and ware- Stuart spondent dealers and about seven other Shelley, at He in house handles Idaho. potato shippers vicinity in dealers operations Shelley po- the course memberships. of Idaho Palls hold such grown by himself tatoes both prior Por some time since to 1942 the As During growers. season about the 1941-42 sponsored has sociation a luncheon potatoes percent him handled Monday Representa each in Idaho Palls. During growers. bought from other companies tives of the member and some ap- shipped 1941-42 sold the season meetings. others have attended these Carl potatoes, proximately 200 carloads DeLong, secretary executive of the re percent of which was sold about 95 shipped spondent usually Association, Traffic has points Ida- the State of outside meetings. presided Early in these ho. in after the Union became active Idaho doing L. R. Holden and L. C. respondents Palls and asked the and cer co-part Brothers, Holden a business as are potato shippers tain other firm, nership. This which came into exist bargain collectively representa with it as July 1942, operates a in owns and ence respective employees, tive of their as de at Idaho Palls where it handles warehouse following 3, Weston, scribed note Eli general operates produce potatoes and a respondents, counsel for the received partnership At the time business. meetings. one of invitation attend these acquired organized property Ho did so and others Brothers, Inc., from Holden Palls represent present voted to retain him to liqui Corporation, which was an Idaho negotiations. them in He later re Holden, L. R. L. June C. dated paid by a check of a fee the Traffic ceived Association. shipped during i This employees. status The re- car- total of about 2500 1941-42 season potatoes oper- potatoes dealers handle of its the course loads they acquire throughout farmers deal- Its the State Idaho. ations employees pack slightly manager who than ers. The sort and testified more potatoes each of these Palls from the Idaho half preparing market, process Shelley operations. them for Act (3) Issues. subdivision provided that 152(3)], U.S.C.A. it is [29 § questions petitioner’s are out in Four set * * * ‘employee’ “the term shall However, opening brief issues. employed ag- include individual as an questions some conclusions include * * ricultural laborer agree, we which we do not but shall nearly treat under issues as as can he As has are been noted the queries. the four grouped by cellar- dealers into go Are the involved herein warehouse crews which different engaged agricultural laborersf farms to the dealers’ warehouses and jobs engaged agriculture except performing above scribed are certain odd when give warehouse,i that the Act does not crews. the Board jurisdiction employees. re over these of those These crews of work done each crews, working substantially spondents whether A a farmer’s cel- the same. warehouse, employees, eight crew, consisting lar or in a dealer’s under of about supervision of the warehouse foreman. run electric machine works at a sorter working usually power. "When in a farmer’s cellar crew on a are under the immediate direction of as sor known consist of four seooper, jigger, crew foreman ters, who is also known as head one one as a one as a sorter When man. work is to be done in swamper, as a and one as a sack sewer. farmer’s, complete agreed grower cellar a crew is usual- After a has with a dealer ly buy sent dealer the warehouse. or handle latter’s potatoes it is times, however, according At necessary the dealer does not send sort complete grade shipment. crew farmer him- pack because the This them for self performed works as member of the crew and at dealer’s work is either grower’s times has one or farm hands more one or in the cellar Usually work as members crew. sorter of these crews which works at the *6 pays wages weighs dealer crew mem- grades, the of the sacks it máehine where although country by him, potatoes. bers sent to the is Most of such work as the pays on occasions farmer them for the the in the various warehouses of done the Except place during work done in his cellar. for the a rush takes dealers pays the period unusual eases when farmer the of a few weeks in fall the the crew, Throughout from the sales year. the dealer deducts the season considerable paid price potatoes growers’ the the farmer for the work is done in the cel- such wages paid sorting po- Approximately percent amount crew as the of the lars. 90 packing potatoes. by the tatoes handled some the graded packed The farmer at times is dissatisfied dealers are in the coun- job sorting try. country the done the crew If is in the the work done customarily registers necessary in such cases it is for either the farmer or the complaint potatoes crew the foreman truck to the dealer’s dealer complaint whether the in- directed to or If warehouse direct railroad cars. it pota- dividuals cm the crew or to the crew as a is done the dealer’s warehouse Occasionally regis- whole. a farmer after are then toes loaded on cars the ware- complaint stopped ters his the crew is shipment. for house working representative only until a potatoes partially of the re- At times the are spondent dealer to the cellar grower’s comes and ad- in the In sorted cellar. such in- justs complaint. no stance, they graded There is evidence are not and all of the of a has removed, that discharged member crew ever been are not so to be culls there has complained sorting because a farmer at the dealer’s a further warehouse. crew potatoes about the member’s work. au- such At times also the are of discharge thority respond- necessary mem- quality to hire and crew that it is finally bers rests with man- the foreman or at the ent dealers to wash them warehouse respective respondent’s agers they government inspec- pass ware- will before although houses, country foremen of crew tion. frequently crews are to select allowed contend that the em- ployees prepare potatoes When the season own crews. be- sort who growers’ gins shipment each fall dealers cus- cellars and upon application tomarily rehire satisfac- warehouses on the crews de- the dealers’ tory previously crew members who have i work of Milo Rash discussed infra' for them. worked job. example of such an odd Car- is an cellar The Board found potatoes loading packing special respond- employed crews shipment types examples agricultur- employed are other ent are not work. al laborers.
301 preparation products for trade prepare into farm for movement the the reaped or shipment 3). contends or been (see market note The Board after In exempt gathered, agricultural laborers. are not are not Heights Citrus Whittier the Act Labor Relations the cases North terms of National N.L.R.B., Cir., 76, and Ass’n “agricultural v. F.2d laborers.” Cir., 111 Packing Co., 9 N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea set full Unit Petitioners out reason F.2d ing, the latter line of we took Department ed States Agriculture’s defi particularly set it out in more agricultural nition of the Social and state that labor opinions of those cases. We adhere to Security Board would consider reasoning in those followed cases. “ag involved in this case think, speaking, essentially We “Victory laborers” ricultural and that occupy a instant case the laborers in the Tax” under is levied the same definition. in North laborers do similar status as the Several Idaho cases also cited are supra, N.L.R.B., Whittier Ass’n v. Citrus opening mind, brief. must borne supra, Packing Co., and N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea however, purpose of the statutes peti and since have seen note we governing are activities these federal and state activities, employed in tioners are interstate very purposes different from follows, hold, are and we so Wagner (National Act Labor Re so-called within reach of Labor Act. Act), with we deal lations ing. are here petitioners un- (2) May guilty determining not whether or practices com- labor same -were agricultural case fair mitted if la are un- borers, cleavage farmers sharp must make we their control? der reasoning. the basis of our We must deter 2” labor, heading to “Point No. persons perform mine who paragraph done, which years brief is different from designating ever, is sometimes some done, meaning, habitually issues. Its how- ago the farm essentially er, the same. A laborers; summariza- agricultural we are must relating to the farmers’ purposes Wagner evidence consider Act tion protest is to be found in *7 organize potato workers; in interference, he on Hansen while was Idaho Falls peti- himto and turned over some of the restraint and coercion. among August 1941, Hendricksen, tions which been had circulated In Jack C. potato growers. employee Hansen told two had these an employees arrangements Keyes Blair, “an ex- that would be a with conversation meeting potato Carpenters’ of Blair made a workers Union.” ecutive of the January organizational suggested An some of the meet- to Hendricksen that ing potato employees was time. of attend a meet- held at that dealers organizing grocery News Union clerks. was of meat cutters and spread among these such em- soon and three other workers Hendricksen meeting. ployees other Blair dealers and dealers and attended such a among vicinity explained farmers in on ployees em- of that occasion organization. January Idaho Mi- Falls. About after how to start a Rash, employee Rosquist, weeks lo of or three later one an warehouse Two signed Growers, applica- the Potato Labor execu- had an an American Federation of sug- Union, tive, tion for Foreman, at home and Fred called Hendricksen’s supervision gested petitions had em- to Hendricksen that who over ployees among employees Idaho Falls of interest- warehouse circulated those Growers, forming organization. Potato called Rash into a labor ed dricksen, Hen- testimony employee foreman’s Rash’s Falk office. was C. A. and another peti- Foreman asked him “what all this caused Taube about,” saying among employees union was of business tions be circulated people employees among “several of the different dealers” and also telephoned instiga- Growers, Rash had was the of Hol- Potato Testimony Sorman, Company. den, of it. tor Swen an Warehouse time, Raymond employee January Hansen, E. O’Neil an J. L. or- January foreman, ganizer about O’Neil’s Team- for the “Joint Council Lloyd Johnson, presence began sters,” of Sorman came Idaho Falls employees organize creamery other at the O’Neil O’Neil workers in the vi- peti- query premises upon contention house crews. is the this It among There factually tioners that was known is accurate. when based not however, growers doubt, potato start- farmers and that a movement had no they op ed toward the of the crew were alarmed and posed members into a union be affiliated the cellar-ware- unionization of Falls, and the ployees em- that O’- other dealers’ in Idaho meeting an who others retained attended this Neil several had paid attorney “going spent. for. their time so to break who was go meeting City so Union would never at the Hall attend- was through.” people. Employees ed 60 to 70 from January operating evening Falls, Thereafter, dealers the Idaho Shel- ley, Hansen, manager, areas, including employees Fred Firth Farrel L. Gustafson, secretary treasurer, pro- all and E. S. the warehouses affected ceeding, meeting. George Growers, Trask, attended the a director of the Hersley, meeting farmer, presided O’Neil, Holden, E. L. B. J. R. O. manager present Stanger, DeLong, and informed those of the fact G. Carl A. Company, that present and four other farmers who about the Warehouse mostly persons, had been farmers interested selected as committee propose meeting growing potatoes, talk to they to the held Falls, form union of their own. stat- to discuss the mat He a hotel Idaho carpenters organize ed that “the laborers and the ter of the Union’s drive potato everybody area, expressed else” in the workers. farmers Pocatello Falls, any possible which was near Idaho made a over increase in the “had concern wages potato racket of labor unions and he didn’t workers and sure asked present want that same condition to Ida- of the em come to the nature complaint. ployees’ ho He said Falls.” there no It was decided that a need letting money get appointed their out of farmers to in State committee of keep representative when could it at home. He in- vite troduced one West. West stated that the warehouse to attend a each dealer’s community always day gotten meeting along had next at the the farmers right City until “these damned Falls set God racketeers Hall and discuss agitators difficulty. came here” and caused It was tlement under Manager Secretary- present trouble. Hansen and those that this discussion stood purpose attempting Treasurer Gustafson Potato Grow- to be present meeting adjust ers were both at the among differences without interven spoke. things, stated, Hansen tion of “outside union.” does that the appear at the Potato Growers whether or how the evidence always happy family been until one issued invitations committee Organizer day. the Union had trouble. All of started next the re to be held spondent dealers, however, Hansen testified that on this Gus- occasion asked certain years previous meeting. tafson stated that a few attend Hansen had succeeded in on the afternoon of Before getting legislature Manage January 24, State a so- enact Hansen the Po r *8 “potato sorting bill”; called that this bill Norell and one told Ernest tato Growers respondent employment peo- employees caused an increase in for two or ple sorting packing meeting who worked in and said wanted about potatoes; and that present. Gustafson Man- be About the same time to them ager legisla- Hansen would return to the asked Foreman if he should attend Rash repeal ture meeting and obtain of this law “unless be afternoon. held that changed.” you “Yes, go.” said, conditions I want Foreman Manager Secretary-Treas- Hansen and told Rash that would also Foreman paid gave support meeting. spent urer Gustafson further at the About for time by meeting Coon, day to these activities Warren statements made of the noon the meeting. They, Trask, Taube, at the buyer C. R. went Holden, country B.L. J. E. O’Neil and Carl De- crew where cellar Long help- by respondent’s employees lent further their assistance were at work. plan meeting. meeting to be held that announced He Growers, Taube, gave City Potato and Warehouse in at the Hall afternoon by Company asking lent assistance certain members crew two structions employees wages of their to attend. He stated to attend. were paid found that The Board the remarks at as usual to those who would above; by Foreman to Rash as detailed of mem crew selected two its tended. Manager Hansen, conduct Secre- bers, the tary-Treasurer Moore and Jack Hendrick Willard Moore, Rash, sen, Gustafson and Director Hendrieksen attend.
308
structure,
any
a nation wide union
rlo wise made
acts
opposition
meetings
nothing
at
in
held
which
the less their own. “In fact
voiced;
feelings
high;
justifies
and that
permits
ran
statute
violation
its
Co.,
employer.”
stop raising potatoes
Pub.
threats
and other
N.L.R.B. v. Star
Cir.,
470;
97 F.2d
N.L.R.B. v. Polson
They
threats were made.
contend that
Co., Cir.,
Logging
their dismissal port finding. Where there has been layoff, as indicated temporary er experience picker, at other Taube’s Idaho Falls warehouse had also had February lay-offs scooper types sorting at the time of the but all and also jigger. five were members of the Union and all eleven those off Union mem- respondent laid Taube contends seniority bers. policy for that as to no terminating weight seniority found give Board that in did not reason employment February during lay-offs. However, on making Willard Moore these 5,1942, respondent Taube discriminat- ad- December before month of regard ined to his respondent hire tenure of em- simi- vent of the Union ployment discouraged eight lay- necessary in a larly found it to make organization; such discrim- at that time were All laid off offs. those respondent with, respond- ination restrained, working said interfered first season at this Moreover, and coerced its Falls ent’s Idaho warehouse. rights guaranteed lay-offs prior exercise of the them Metcalf con- to the December country Moore, of the Act. crew ferred with Clifford foreman, alleged As to his discrimination of the as to what members of crew against Hendricksen, Taube be laid off. Moore recommended should Falk, Wadsworth, Goodell, employee on his who was and Crandall that working crew In Board found dis- his first season be laid off. that Taube did not employ- February, however, criminate Metcalf not as to hire or did confer tenure any lay-offs laying regarding ment as to them in them off with Moore February made, although 5,1942. three off, Moore’s crew were at the time laid The discrimination against more than from other crew. One Potato Ghrowers Rash. The com- plaint alleges them was Willard Moore. that Rash was discrimina- torily quit why posi- testifying demoted and forced to B. his L. discharged February 24, off, tion or on 1942. was laid was Moore that he began youngest crew, work Rash for the Potato Grow- one of men table, possibly.” ers in He not return work did “a little slow on Met- season, during calf, supervision .in 1939-40 but returned who had over the ware- country respond- fall of 1940 and worked until the date house crews alleged During his discrimination. ent was not called as witness. employment Moore, first season of ing sort- Rash did Clifford man, Willard Moore’s crew fore- “good and miscellaneous work described latter as a man During Falls warehouse. sea- the 1940-41 in the crew.” Metcalf did not consult mostly sorting during he son worked crews with Foreman Moore the 1941-42 country. quality both the warehouse and in the about the of work of Wil- season At the Mana- close season Moore. He visited the cellars where lard ger during only Hansen sent for Rash and told him in worked this crew the season grateful only office he the former’s was or four times remained three during work done Rash season to minutes on these occasions. At hoped lay-offs he Rash would return the fol- Moore time of son, and Hendrick- lowing below, season would him more need asked discussed Metcalf if their September satisfactory time. 1941 Rash was and Metcalf practice affirmatively. plied returned work. B. Holden’s L. activi- ship Potato Growers Union thwart ties to and Metcalf’s bags potatoes bags prior lay-offs op- known as brand these remark made bags, bags, dump position to use field Union have been stated country temporary packing lay-offs as a means of Soon after the above. sought that had to be “re-run” in the on behalf of members execution began bargaining warehouse. Soon after Rash his em- contracts with the of collective September ployment 1941 Foreman as- dealers under circum- various signed looking him the work of after below. Metcalf about that stances detailed require bags. group This work not did to a while time stated however, time, busy very and when he didn’t “think damned at work *10 looking bags Rash after the other did Metcalf of the Union.” referred much helping pack- bargaining ear-loader such as 'the contracts out- the collective potatoes. bags “anybody rageous of of boxes Part stated that who super- signed Rash was the direct the time under a contract like that would abe at vision of Foreman and other Les- times Of re- damned fool.” indicates nothing under- record discharge, discriminating- do not we Rash either slightest Moore or whole” make stand that the “order accepted rein- employee’s would not at dependent upon discharged Rash As a matter fact did statement. re-employment. application There for pay pay. period, gave charge Long, a Rash his the end of a of certain ter packing foreman d occasion, supervise warehouse, to Rash Foreman said on work in the * * guess “Well, *. is all it I his work. job your They organization- have decided to discontinue Rash attended Union’s * * dumpers put January meeting the sacks *. will al on 16 and immediate- ly into sack room drivers the truck on its Fore- behalf. became active country interrogation crews.” will take them out to the man’s of Rash soon there- might he Rash that Foreman told the latter union business” and after about “this get country able to work on a Rash crew. statement to Rash some deal- protested instigator that if un- he did so he would ers had said he was “the scooping. able to do whole business” has been detailed Manager Han- Soon after these events above. thereafter told Rash Foreman Organizer meeting City sen Rash was on told Hansen that attend the January at the Hall discharged, temporarily but was laid was as detailed above. Rash off he would to Rash. a con- like talk elected member the Union’s Manager Rash on Hansen then called tract committee. February attending meeting when Hansen was Between a 10 and Ow- separate en re- Traffic Association at a hotel sent letters to the various spondent requested Falls. Hansen said to Rash that oc- which he thought meetings casion misled on behalf of the Union Rash was with these Union, purpose discharge negotiating but that he did not bargaining copy him union collective activities. Hansen said contracts. A up proposed he would take Grow- the Potato contract enclosed each put- respond- ers’ ting of these The letter board directors the matter of letters. to the copy pro- back ent Potato and a Rash to work in Growers the warehouse posed let and would Rash know contract was sent to it on or about later. Hansen February not, however, receipt position. did offer after Rash a Soon of this proposed employment letter After Rash’s and the termination contract Mussman, meeting respond- employee, Victor Hansen called a warehouse at this assigned handling ent’s Idaho Falls the work of warehouse of all em- ployees Shelley begun Mussman sacks. respondent both its Idaho Falls work for the operations. only pre- Potato Growers Both Hansen and Fred Fore- man, supervisor ceding Schofield, fall. Joe another ware- Idaho Falls employee, employees, house warehouse ing. attended meet- same time was as- signed help spoke suggesting look after Hansen the sacks. After to the em- days ployees “get they Long, about Lester would J. lots further foreman quicker” by warehouse, forming organiza- lots was told Foreman job, belonging tion of their than take the sack own over sacks getting reply such into a state Union. Rash stated in of confusion from to Hansen improper handling might that he did not think there give Long accordingly pow- their own would them trouble. as much transferred support er or work in as affiliation with an inter- warehouse to that organization. handling performs Long stated, national sacks. Hansen still however, this work. that he did not The work consumes about believe the em- two- ployees would need of his thirds time. affiliation and they February up early prob- said that if would take Late their in March aft- employment lems with him and er Rash’s ger the Board of Direc- termination Mana- they get meeting tors ho believed Hansen called a could whatever suggested Employees wanted. He Growers’ take up problems through grievance Falls the Idaho warehouse for com- discussion mittee. An it election written whether should allow ballot was the dealer O’- part then held for members of Neil to use such a the Potato commit- Growers’ presence carrying opera- tee Hansen Fore- certain man. Rash two tions. Rash asked Hansen if should at- committee, griev- elected to this Rash tend this elect- chairman of the by receiving ed its chairman the most ance committee. Hansen told Rash there presence, votes. was no need of his but that February right Thereafter on en- would be if he wished to Foreman attend. tered the “sack room” Rash attended where Rash was and asked Han- and, although at work conclusion date was not sen before whether he was *11 306
accept re-employment represent offered him. union established a right when to its to N.L.R.B., Phelps Corp. 313 Dodge majority See v. the employees? 177, 845, 197-200, U.S. 61 85 L.Ed. S.Ct. question is set This is not numbered and 1217; York Hand- A.L.R. New part (3)” out as a and is treated of “issue Mfg. N.L.R.B., Cir., kerchief v. Co. in the brief under that number. F.2d 147-148. petitioners (4) evidence, justified 7,7 Were the The does not re- see note ques- fusing bargain support suggestion to union until in this made discharged. with, restrained, Hansen testified that Rash terfered its and coerced inquiring rights indicated on this occasion after exercise guaranteed as to his status certain them there were Section Act. jobs take; bargain; he would not that Hansen The inter- other refusals thought ference, restraint, (1) asked if Rash than himself “better and coercion. any arrangement boys,” respondent of these other indicated the necessity working force; problems with reduced dealers to handle their sorry through said, you, that Rash then “I feel Mean- Association. Traffic fact, sorry pass while, proposed feel I so I think I will after con- the letters and right money get hat now some tracts mentioned above had been mailed to you out;” help respondent this remark that after on be- and other dealers Union, Hansen told Rash that at- in view his half of the Hansen Eugene Trask, titude he had better look for other work. Potato director of the deny testimony by attorney Growers, Weston, Rash did not Han- asked Eli Boise, Idaho, sen. The Board credits it. to come Falls to Idaho employment already As Rash’s had been in order to discuss with deal- problems. February terminated at remark about the time of the ers their labor On “passing benefit, 16, 1942, Attorney the hat” for Hansen’s Weston attended discharged meeting sponsored by is obvious that he having was not the Traffic Associa- respondents made this remark. Hansen stated Idaho tion in Falls. The inability present, on cross examination an to rec- other dealers who voted any having specific ever ollect Rash retain Weston a fund offered contribute job employment payment. after his Er- termination. for his The voted contributions Norell, being accordingly, nest spondent of the re- foreman of one made most of them country crews, deposited Potato Growers’ with funds Asso- of the Traffic lay- paid by DeLong, testified he told Rash after his ciation and Weston secretary. the latter on off country could work Norell’s executive appropriate crew and com- that Rash could have units. The alleges scoop.” plaint work on the crew “if wanted that all he job. him a Potato Rash denied that Norell offered Growers on its cellar Foreman, event was Norell’s who warehouse crews at Idaho Falls and Shel- superior, respondent ley, told Norell time to about on its cel- Taube “scooping something” Rash if he Falls do lar and warehouse crews at Idaho Shelley, respondent Norell on went the crew. Whether offered Wilson job country Firth, on the latter’s crew and warehouse Rash his cellar crews clear, respondent free from doubt. is how- and of the his cel- Stuart on ever, Shelley, if he did so con- the offer was lar and crews at job. scooping fined to a of all the respective Hansen testified that before Rash’s cellar em- and warehouse crews at ployment termination told Foreman to Falls exclusive of office attempt, supervisory employees business, higher on account of rank decreased constitute, pay opera- foremen, roll reduce the and combine cellar crew than suggested respondents, Long He case of each of said a unit tions. testified the appropriate purposes able to do work. Rash’s of collective Scooping paid bargaining meaning 5 cents an hour than within less position, 159(b). 9(b) Rash’s former was still Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § part operations answer, hearing, amended at the admits continued alleged appropriateness Growers, Rash was not the units as the except substantially equivalent employ- Po- offered Growers and Taube. ment. tato Shelley February 24, Falls The Board found that on The Idaho warehouses sep- of these are under Potato Growers dis- of each regard'to supervisors. supervisor hire of respon- criminated and tenure arate each employment discouraged warehouses, however, of Rash and of these manager organization; has sible who an office a labor plant Falls, by such at Idaho which is about 8 discrimination In- said *12 in- bargain be- bargain to whole case petitioners them. The tion that refused majority question mov- of dicates was not a that a was not shown cause appropriate appar- employees any of factor in difficulties. It is petitioners opposed union ent to the bargaining units had authorized were Shelley Shelley. February miles from foreman about of units The each practice telephones appropriate. each, of “his” as a found every manager repeatedly The Feb- in Idaho Falls Board or about found that in Shelley ruary day business matters at the and at all times material about thereafter, designated general The nature of the Union was warehouse. by majority employees performed by selected a the warehouse Shelley respondent of the dealers in units cellar crews at Idaho Falls and pursuant appropriate employees Occasionally, found to be same. 'the Act, 9(a) exchanged each of the was at that warehouses of between the places. thereafter, and at all times material two these representative Manager now is the of the em exclusive That ployees Hansen viewed the pur- employees respondent in each of said units Potato Growers respect bargaining pose Shelley group of collective at Idaho as one Falls and employment, pay, wages, rates of hours la with common interests as to matters employment. bor and other conditions as set forth shown bargain. Important February The above the fact refusals vicinity meeting employees is the Idaho Falls in the he called to one of both organiza- Grange, Shelley known farmers’ well a the Idaho Falls and warehouses urged Grange respondent members other tion. at which them attempt farmers about the a were concerned union of their own. Un start because, potato workers ion has members in to unionize the both the Idaho Falls ultimately Shelley responden contended, labor costs are warehouses of these pro- paid only organization, the farmer. Soon after the ts.i is the respond- posed moreover, among contracts sent has members employees any ent and various other dealers on behalf warehouses. above, meeting of the The Board Union that at all times ma- found Grange employees respond- so-called local oth- masters and terial herein the of the place ers took in a hotel in Falls. ent Potato Growers on its cellar and ware- Shelley, Hansen and Trask of Director house crews at Idaho Falls and respondent respondent attended of the Growers Taube on its cellar and meeting. Attorney Weston was also warehouse crews at Idaho Falls and Shel- agreed present. ley, It was on this occasion of the Wilson on cel- general growers meeting” Firth, to hold “a in or- lar and warehouse crews at and of explain proposed der Union con- Stuart on his cellar and developments Shelley, tracts and the warehouse crews at and of all the respec- to unionization of the workers. dealers on their meeting place February 23, Such a took tive cellar and warehouse crews at Idaho Grange Hall, place Falls, employees in York exclusive office su- present pervisory higher near Idaho Falls. Weston was rank than explained pre- foreman, the nature of the contracts cellar crew constitute and con- pre- the dealers. sented Some statistics stituted the case of each said re- by Manager pared regarding spondents appropriate pur- Hansen how unit poses bargaining, contracts would increase labor of collective meeting. group were read at the costs insure to said units of each recited, among a resolution which voted of said the full benefit of their present things, self-organization rights those at other meeting and to collec- entering protested bargaining into tive otherwise effectuates dealers and policies contracts between the Union of the Act. vicinity farmers al- (3) Representation unless the the Union aof participate negotiations; majority appropriate lowed to units. It was represented stipulated hearing also that farmers should be at the the Union present designated representative and allowed to evidence in case had been matter went the Board. purposes bargaining before Those of collective passed majority pay further motion rolls unanimously produ- respective “that dealers in or ship po- or in this area refuse to send cers majority any packer produce ship- Union has as members a i The tatoes per signs the contracts combined Idaho who discussed Shelley plants meeting.” of each of these Falls and Shelley plants meetings employees, but not in the other similar Several organizations Grange were held alone. Board, except a minor If as to members. union their crew affiliation of *13 matter, adopted findings as majority Examiner’s they any the had doubt about the our status, very easy findings and issued its order. it would been to have have carefully study gone have upon claim. If we proof demanded this union case only treated majority over as whole but have lacking, had been found the opinion. points We are in this whole have been over. the raised trouble would gument Grange vicinity York Owen and O’Neil. soon after the between in the meeting. Manager dealers, however, remained farmers and Hansen testified meeting. spoke of these further discussion after the at several he attended meetings attempted Sunday, 8, 1942, Weston such On March and that he they stating Owen, organize the so that wrote a letter to .times to the perhaps predica position prop- “put dealers were a worse could themselves meeting represent erly than March case ment before the 7. their interests the wages planned any He were un- stated that he to attend the or cases where costs regular meeting affect the dealers the next der would consideration that potatoes.” day, however, prices they when a decision receive for their would encouraged op- as to farmer matter.” Weston farmer made “the Hansen’s activities 1942, 2, position March stated that would advise Owen as to to the Union. On meeting. rep- progress Organizer Hansen, Owen, Mean others made at Weston, resenting Union, while on March re with Owen wrote the met pro reminding representing Wes- Wilson him of dealers. Grange meeting posed stating previously mailed, York contract ton mentioned the nego duty meetings that under held the Act it was a and the other Grange showing the attitude of tiate within a a union reasonable with nego- represented per He that in order to which ployees, cent or more farmers. tiate, stated em necessary asking position him with it would be his recognize” Grange. negotiating. replied A similar reference to Wilson “to meeting again day, group Man- as a was held the next the dealers had turned the attending ager meet- this matter Hansen also over Weston he understood Manager ing. Hansen that Weston was in with Weston and communication Organizer position taken Weston Hansen. On March Owen iterated the Manager preceding day. Hansen also said like sent letters that sent Wilson to the why Monday, under- see the Union On that he did not dealei'S. oi’ganize community’s potato took to workers, March Weston wrote Owen that he had community meeting was devoted to been unable to attend the dealers’ “very agriculture getting along day Falls, although in Idaho he had good” expected without Union. Owen stated to do so. Weston that he meeting considering like to talk that he would favored contracts various they farmers, individually although that, he understood had un upon erroneous of the Union’s contract idea stood failure of Owen con Manager meeting” Hansen demands. Weston vince farmers at the “last thought ar- stated that could dealers were to be for the time relieved of range negotiating, such a former he would communicate agreed invite 'to those who were attend. Owen as soon as he heard the dealers negotiations. proposed meet- March about further On Weston indi per- held, attended 60 to 70 cated that there were or four three deal presided questioned and several of sons. Weston ers with to whom he represented majority, dealers were at this Union’s later he would meeting. number of A submit names of those dealers to Owen. spoke, undertaking to there. Owen state No names were ever submitted. purposes 18, Organizer the Union and nature On March Hansen and grow- proposed contracts. Several another Owen had Weston. meeting. spoke suggested at this J. O’- ers also E. Weston that since he was locat stating pres- Boise, spoke, Idaho, negotiations Neil to Owen ed at be con “ * * * group, what in 'the mail. Hansen and ence ducted Owen refused you your favorably country; suggestion. Hell ever done to consider you get your questioned why gun again in the Hell don’t Weston whether in causing others, back instead of trouble on case certain dealers the Union had a * * majority, spoke, Hansen also but not name did the res stating sorting pondent the Potato dealers. Hansen Growers’ indicated the eight willing proof had risen from cents Union was costs 'to fifteen submit of ma jority began. negotiations a hundred because of lack of interest of whenever activity began. question union since three discussed the order meeting finally during negotiations up possible broke an ar- should be
?09- Friedman, co- law fact and as to er Friedman and Arthur E. convinced both as to & Friedman supports findings, partners doing S. evidence business as findings. Company; logically Sons; order runs Falls Warehouse Briefly order is as follows: O’Neil, Es» Rowenah administratrix O’Neil, deceased; E. A. Stu- tate of respondents, Grow- Idaho Potato J. J. art; Inc.; L. co- ers, Wilson, Taube, R. Holden and L. P. Ted C. W. L. S. doing Holden, co-partners partners business as Holden doing B. Broth- and L. ers; Association, when Company; Mey- and Idaho Traffic & business as L. S. Taube *14 charges bargain conducted, urging that refusal to stated Hansen and Owen that they proceed according Owen were filed with the Board. should to the order April. charges presented, filed such in which contracts had been potato urging season ended soon but 1941-42 Weston that the Grow- charges negotiations after there ers’ had filed and should be conducted first. been dealings repre- were no further between Owen asked if the consider dealers would covering sentatives of the Union an election all and the respectively replied 5, dealers until October 1942. dealers the area. Weston Organizer thought not, On that date Hansen and he but that he discuss Owen would met Weston who said that possibility a the matter with the and advise there was dealers some the dealers could meet Owen result. representatives. with from the Union Weston March Weston wrote Owen On they Boise, stating he a con asked Owen Hansen if could had attended prove majority They a vention Palls, Twin for the as- Traffic Association at Union. preceding Saturday Idaho, him sured could and Owen stated proposed meeting had would claim it as of the been unsuccessful after the date the night attempt together presented. Organizer in an contracts had been to call quorum prob a a Hansen about that of Committee labor time also to O. talked possibility R. Holden about lems. He stated that to he told those discuss- ing the whom he about in situation with some talked the -Union’s of the deal- negotiations. meeting place upon having further ers. Such a took sistence on Oc- negotia meeting Owen, Organ- Weston tober At this stated to the order of dealers’, Hansen, position Represen- izer tions that he believed the and International May present to tative Al be the better one “inasmuch as Un- we Manager questionable should ion. eliminate cases in Hansen of the Potato Grow- volving percent ers, pro L. B. the 51 before Holden of C. R. Holden rule we suggested Stanger with ceed the others.” He A. G. Ware- possibility getting “advisory opin Company, DeLong an house Traffic As- sociation, present ion” from the Board about Wilson the law with respondents. necessity among “bargaining to the On this occasion industry.” wages being there was entire Weston an discussion of seeing paid potato locality, intention of Owen on or workers in March 26 explaining pirating 27 after the with dealers a labor commit was rep- wage dealers, causing tee of the but increases. The did not communicate Union with Owen on either of dates. On resentatives stated that the Union those be could stopping pirating. Blarch Weston wrote Owen another of assistance There “show-up letter which he stated that was also discussion been about had time” get togeth willing to the labor unable committee and whether the dealers would be meeting, pay employees spent er for a but that he would be in in travel- again day. Idaho Palls the next between The let the warehouses the cel- representa- ter stated that Weston would Weston discuss mat lars. asked the Union why they notify lengthy ters with the committee and Owen tives agreement wanted such a “just replied arrange as soon as canwe a meet Owen that it would ing.” possible paragraph Owen did not hear from 'to Weston write two con- day, days satisfactory the next but a few later which received tract would be to the copy April represent- aof letter dated in3 which Union. The dealers secretary inquired Weston’s wrote Hansen ed whether accept wage that Weston was ill in bed Union and could not would and other Monday meeting, presumably agreed attend the items which dealers had April among They of the Traffic Association. Also on themselves. asked the Un- representatives proposal Owen wrote a letter to Weston in ion submit the meetings membership. proposal he stated that there Union held to the negotiations good presented faith, had no been was meeting at a that he saw no reason for further meet on October 9 and the members did ings agree accept proposed wages until the Union was shown that not there be- . negotiations disparity wages would be such The letter cause of the that were successors, as- officers, any spective agents, in the interest acting agent for or signs, shall: and their respondents; suggested postponed. Shelley it should being paid Owen Idaho Falls and negotiate agreement possible be areas. replied hearing. Organi Owen, Hay, fore the Weston On October busy pre They no as he would be time to meet met with Weston. zer Hansen preparing hearing.ii proposed contract. him with a sented dealings length be- There have been no further called attention Weston respondents. understood tween the Union said he had contract and apart however, noted, two should be be satisfied the Union would paragraph dealings agreement. replied of "the the Union each Owen gave wage something increases the document start, “probably the Union down.” about the time be cut their began could objec organize workers substantial raised no other Weston except January 1942, there- to a closed further increases document tion to the except representatives April May. shop clause, All of them after in and the modify yet willingness Friedman, expressed to delete who had *15 operations during They explained their version of the sea- resumed 1942-43 also it. stop pirat given son, wage since to have increases Union could assist bow the ing, wages given opening provided now the check-off. of this season. The it was the paid approxi- representatives increases stated that as a result of these The Union slips proposed con- issue termination mate those contained in the then Union could employment by employees on October left their submitted the Union tract whenever requiring by pirating prevent 'the em and 12. respondents report ployees at the Union’s The Board found that affected to employment. Growers, Wilson, Taube, Friedman, receiving other before office During Company, each of Weston Stuart and of October Warehouse counter-proposal bargain collectively agreed with to them refused to submit proposed He never did or about contract. Union on March and Union’s representative suggested 1942, Organizer April 1, that the Hansen and as the so. appro- respective employees representatives to meet allowed of their Union priate pay, Asso Traffic to rates of at the next units dealers with the 19, Monday, employment wages, other con- October hours of and on ciation negotiate thereby employment who wished ditions of and dealers and those with, restrained, could do so. and coerced with Union interfered a contract arranged rights exercise of and Weston thereafter Hansen Act, by meeting. guaranteed Section and for such Saturday proposed meet and also the re- before the On telegraphed spondents ing Or Weston Holden and O’Neil refused sim- October 19 bargain collectively DeLong ilarly ganizer was Un- Hansen hospital and Holden on or about October and and P. ion O. Washington gone by thereafter, “on the refusal to bar- and that Hansen price representatives concerning ceiling.” by gain, The Union Metcalf’s remarks proposed bargain- not meet on October dealers did Union and the collective and by by 24, it, Manager a let submitted Weston wrote contracts On October Rash in which he stated Hansen’s thought statement that he Owen ter to majority by proved and latter was misled never had 'the Union by speech 7, dep- respondent posi Union, took on March his dealers his suggestion “as be a certification and there should recation tion filing respondent date of the Potato Growers’ or as of this date own, Complaint February, his not as of a labor of their form concerning re actions and those of Foreman The letter 1942.” grievance not deem themselves of a committee did election dealers proof majority respondent obliged bargain Potato Grow- until 'to the ers, speeches the farmers at About otherwise. certification meetings sending Grange Weston saw Or as detailed' the letter time telling above, wage Hansen, ganizer Hansen that the unilateral increas- respondent recommending es, dealers dealers have interfered was hearing they proceed with, restrained, with the their em- coerced hat t negotiations. rights ployees guar- in the exercise of the no use further he saw similarly Weston told 7 of anteed the Act. the same About May respondent dealers that the Owen findings regarding meetings ii through go going with the “were respond between the communications hearing,” no of further use there although agree the Union are based the testi negotiations, ents and believed an Organizer mony Hansen. hearing of Owen and reached if the ment could be 3. The Idaho Potato Grow- from: a. and desist Cease successors, ers, officers, agents, Inc., and its collectively with (1) Refusing bargain assigns, shall, addition: Chauffeurs, & Teamsters, Warehousemen discouraging a. Cease and desist with the Helpers, affiliated Local Chauffeurs, Teamsters, membership in Labor, as the ex- American Federation Helpers, Local af- Warehousemen & representative clusive filiated with American Federation of the units dealers in each of Labor, et cetera. pur- appropriate found above poses bargaining; of collective b. following Take the ac- affirmative tion: (2) violating rights manner (1) Rash; Make whole Milo (cid:127)guaranteed 7 of Act. § (2) Post notices. certain following b. Take the affirmative ac- It is complaint further ordered that the tion: be dismissed alleges insofar as Teamsters, (1) collectively Bargain Taube, L. S. Ted Chauffeurs, Helpers, & Lo- Warehousemen L. B. co-partners doing business cal affiliated with the American Fed- as L. S. Taube & Company, discriminated Labor; eration of regard to the hire and employ- tenure of immediately Post certain notices in ment Falk, C. Hendricksen, C. A. Jack conspicuous places respective ware- Clency Wadsworth, Crandall, L. Mervin houses of the in Idaho and Harold Goodell. Falls, Firth, Shelley, place petition dealers is denied. *16 (cid:127)of business of the Idaho Traffic Associa- petition of the Board for enforcement Falls, in pe- tion and maintain for a of granted. its order is riod sixty (60) days of at least consecutive from posting, the date of em- notices FEE, Judge ALGER District JAMES ployees of the stating (concurring). that the will engage not may hesitation, agree, We without they which are ordered to conduct from petitioners, them, the each of en- 1, a, (1) paragraphs cease and desist gaged practices respect in unfair labor Order, (2) will of this to certain of their in warehouse par- affirmative action set forth take the respect crews and in to the union as found 1,b, Order; agraph (1) of this by by majority the Board and the of majority, court. Both the Board Notify Regional (3) and the the Director of however, away take from the steps comply with the farmer the Order. taken protection Congress which give intended to Taube, 2. The L. S. Ted by language to him the of Subdi- Holden, co-partners L. B. do- Act, (3) vision the 152(3), of U.S.C.A. § Company, as L. S. business Taube & prevents of, organization control agents, successors, assigns, and their of, “agricultural the laborer” under the shall, in addition: authority of the National Labor Relations discouraging a. and desist from Cease language Act. This completely swept is Chauffeurs, Teamsters, away by the findings of the Board and the Helpers, & Local af- Warehousemen filiated with American majority. The reasoning damage the Federation of La- by this is the more since the caused rights elision bor, any labor or in of the are of of Idaho employees, discharging refusing their or disposed while thus of themselves are any their reinstate or in directly parties litigation. not thermore, the Fur- any discriminating regard manner right speech the free is de- employment to their hire and tenure farmers in nied to their any employ- or condition of term their own interests the characterization there- ment. practice. of as an unfair following action, b. Take the affirmative in intimating results These erroneous which the Board finds will effectuate the farmers, protecting the activities of the Act. policies of practices, rights, own were unfair labor Moore; (1) Make Willard whole finding and in cellar members of crews notices; laborers, agricultural (2) certain Post were ren- processes: procedural exemption as a which must possible by improper dered two pleaded first, party seeking the proved by determination because crews; rights second- organize union to ly, cellar establish thereunder. ut- lumping of improper because disregarded Board facts terly issues diverse interests and these cellar crews work which still do Board, findings and resulting in one set of generally, altogether, formerly and was order. done farmer and the farmhands may part farm, a normal agreed persons hired operation of a many that in engage his warehousemen and dealers to cases the farmer and regular operations sorting grading engage farmhands now in the work part as regarded potatoes of a away cellar crew. dis- the warehouse and The Board farms, employees subject operations facts that are Act, though may even still re- cellar farmer crews land are conducted may, potatoes facilities, tain title farmer sorting in- his directly, pay price work, potatoes, but grading which he owns. disregarded the differentiation between and those mem- Board facts that persons engaged per- generally as members of bers of the cellar crews are crews, plain. cellar vicinity initial confusion manent residents of the attempt was caused when the to recruited largely made farmers families of organize cellar agricultural crews and the warehouse and from laborers on union, crews in notwithstanding one di- facts disregarded the Board farms. The language rect preventing Act or- pays members of the farmer ganization agricultural directly, crew, gener- laborer. but sometimes cellar ally and, event, indirectly, retains confusion worse made this The Board operations an indirect control over their through joinder by entertaining confounded dealer. It is his relations with the proceeding a claim unfair labor one preparation for true, market, operation is a raised, against (1) a farmer who practices seed but so is the selection of the potatoes processed and marketed own supervision, may be done under although marketed oth- he also advice, of a dealer. It is true dealer, coopera- non-profit ers as *17 works in the warehouse crew same often tive, grading, sorting dealing pota- fai-mer, this but cellar of and also the farmer-members, (3) a toes of traffic respec- is no confusion to the excuse only association consisted not of tive functions. mentioned, but com- those above of strict (See mercial dealers also. No. of main example application specific As a of the opinion.) case, phase of doctrines to one this of the W. land, cer- grew on his own P. Wilson situation, complicated Board The the harvested sort- potatoes tain which he union, following by the lead of the its con- own by cellar crew in his means of a ed upon, sideration of an order based implication employ land. If on his own the lating to, without differentiation the vari- Board, by findings of affirmed the the of types of ous possession work done on the land majority, employ he must the are that farmer, cellar, of the or in his sim- union crew under such circumstances work and and commercial done warehouses ply sells he also warehouses and because shipment processing potatoes others, pota- then no bought from potatoes interstate commerce. escape regulation, can in Idaho grower interests, are two each field there In this plain language of Con- notwithstanding the definitely protected by lan- the which is of guage realists, any account we take If gress. Act. are These interests of the the is then no obstacle to facts, there of the employees, (b) farmers. (a) those regula- organization and of like extension protects first not policy which is opera- laborers in agricultural tion of protects strong than that more preparing planting seed tions of forth, clearly policy is set Each second. ground. Act, body and the first members finding the Board that relating “agri- clause second cultural engaged under such cir- crew a cellar rights given the of laborer”. The farm, were farmers, in re- cumstances of this clause language laborers, neither agricultural accords labor, are substantive not not spect to such court law. This nor the with the fact is error this clause to treat adjective. place not Act, should this Relations court doctrine support such should lend sweeping upon stamp approval cas- analogy fanciful based on the relating to away Act of the clause of the es, or at all. it, agricultural laborer, nor should upon the handled Whether so fundamental implication, prejudice land, actually reach farmer’s own parties rights of the farmers who are not commerce, beside stream of interstate litigation. to this harrowing point. plowing and language Board No of the drop- the order ground; cutting and the of the expressly plaintiffs to directs seed; culti- ping irrigation and of the do, any- doing, or to cease and desist from har- growing crop; and the vation of the thing with cellar to members potatoes, vesting sorting nothing crews. There order traditionally by the forms done of labor preclude plaintiffs assembling such himself, family persons farmer crews unorganized separately workers pat- warp whom hires. Unless this we crews, prevent the warehouse or to by casuistry, all such labor is local tern farmers, separately cooperatively, either character, part bound soil and from hiring their own cellar crews. There- pattern, warp thereof. Unless at- we fore, the writer If concurs in result. tempted regulations the order of interpreted the Board could may beyond pale well con- by reference crews, to relate to cellar gressional power. or administrative writer compelled would be to dissent. protect their attempt to The farmers did meet- by holding rights under this clause engaging other activ- ings protest prevent unionization of ities undoubtedly language was Harsh field. belligerent atti- meetings and used at such (See farmers. tudes taken opinion.) The majority Note farmers, inherently right under Congress relating to language of the agricultural REVE- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL laborer, to demonstrate (two cases). NUE v. MONTGOMERY object regulation of the activities Nos. laborers, least and their is at of themselves par strike. right of labor to Appeals, Circuit Fifth Court Circuit. no expressions farmers are July 20, 1944. con- than those which are more violent picket line. When such comitances *18 legitimate against de- demonstrations rights, guaranteed struction of their own Act, prac- in this were cited unfair labor tices, be- the Board error. committed farmers, lief of the mani- evinced distrust, inimical action festations intended, made their interests was finding the Board fact agricul- crew is member of a cellar right freedom But the tural laborer. monopoly of the speech should not be a employee. Whether this was industrial part attempt upon the deliberate union to away plain language get from the by organizing agricultural labor- the Act ers, deliberately and whether the Board ex- scope findings without dif- tended activities, if, ferentiation over diverse hand, these results ac- on complished part through an en- on either carry thusiasm to what conceived out purposes of Labor to be the the National notes hold that who work farming, but and 7. specializing who are cinity. practices. Falk, Opposi- Hendricksen and another The unfair employee during attempt called tion to
Notes
farmer We recite notes 66 res crews, pectively, this in summarization evi- but cellar-warehouse tions. Trask, On that occasion Metcalf said Stan- re- L. B. garding Union, you belong plan meeting helping ger “Now that of Janu- you speeches ary 24; the God Union damned do feel of Hansen meeting; partici- better about it?” L. B. Holden’s Gustafson pation meeting January Growers, acts of the designed asking Company Union, to thwart the been Warehouse has employees discussed above. to attend of their certain knowing purpose, Moore, anti-union Willard one those em- whose Growers, Taube, ployment respondents Potato Metcalf terminated on this occa- Company with, sion, began Warehouse interfered work for the and restrained, Taube every and coerced their the fall of 1936. He worked for it rights guaranteed February 5, 1942, exercise of the season thereafter until except voluntary Act, lay-off 7 of the 157. § 29 U.S.C.A. one from Feb- ruary until December 1941. Moore at- 5 The discrimination organizational meeting tended the Union’s against complaint Moore. The al- Taube January joined the Union. He February leges that on spoke attended and City at the at the employ- spondent Taube, terminated the January Hersley, Hall on chair- Moore, Jack C. Hendrick- ment of Willard meeting, man of the stated that Clency Wadsworth, sen, Falk, L. C. A. money State, would take out of the Harold be- Mervin Crandall and Goodell by stating Moore answered this contention membership activity of their in and cause experience that his aas member of a la- on behalf of Union. The bor on the coast employment showed Taube denies ter- “this condition did exist.” Moore also were for union minations this occasion that it should be activity, making them but contends that possible for the Union and the dealers to singled employees who out those agreement come to an im- would capable. lay-offs A total of least eleven prove the conditions of the were made the time and the evidence hurting very- “without the dealer much.” shows that a decline business necessi- February On the afternoon lay-offs. ques- after the a number of tated such eleven mentioned above had re- tion is whether the six named turned to the singled among work in the above were out inclusion country, Metcalf told Moore and the oth-