07.02.2015 Views

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

VI<br />

Enforcement Litigation<br />

<strong>Board</strong> orders in unfair labor practice proceedings were reviewed<br />

by the courts of appeals in 148 enforcement cases during fiscal 1961 1<br />

Some of the more important issues decided by the respective courts<br />

are discussed in this chapter<br />

1. Employees Protected by the Act—The Agricultural Exclusion<br />

The definition of "employee" in section 5(3) expressly excludes,<br />

among others, "any individual employed as an akricultural laborer"<br />

And a longstanding rider to the <strong>Board</strong>'s annual appropriations act<br />

has the effect of writing into this provision the definition of "agriculture"<br />

set forth in section 3(f) of the Fair <strong>Labor</strong> Standards Act<br />

As there defined, "agriculture" consists of "farming in all its<br />

branches and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm<br />

as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations,<br />

including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market<br />

25<br />

In enforcing the <strong>Board</strong>'s order in one case,' the Tenth Circuit<br />

held that these provisions did not exclude from the statutory term<br />

"employee," truckdrivers working for a cooperative milk marketing<br />

association, even though the membership of the cooperative<br />

was limited to farmers Citing a 1949 Supreme Court decision,' the<br />

court pointed out that the employer "entity" here was the cooperative,<br />

not its individual members, and, as it was not itself engaged in<br />

farming, its delivery drivers were not engaged in "practices performed<br />

by a farmer" In another case involving similar facts,' the<br />

Sixth Circuit likewise rejected a claim that the employees of a<br />

farmers' cooperative association were "agricultural laborers" outside<br />

the protection of the act In addition, the court noted that such cooperatives<br />

are not entitled to exemption on the ground that they<br />

are nonprofit organizations<br />

1 Results of enforcement litigation are summarized in table 19 of Appendix A<br />

2 NLRB v Central Oklahoma Milk Producers dean, 285 le 2d 495<br />

8 Farmets Reaervo gr d Irrigation Co McComb, 337 US 755 (1949)<br />

Lucas County Farm Bureau Cooperative Assll N NLRB, 289 F 2d 844<br />

161

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!