1 - National Labor Relations Board

124 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
concluded that the drivers were not agricultural laborers because
they hauled produce from the farms of independent growers
rather than from their employer's own farm. The court rejected
this conclusion, pointing out that, although the employer's
chickens were raised by independent growers, the employer supplied
the feed and supplies and a number of followup services
to insure the growth of the birds, and retained title to the birds
and the risk of their loss throughout the entire process. Accordingly,
the actions of the independent growers were part of an
integrated poultry raising operation conducted by the employer,
and the trucking activities were an integral part of the poultry
raising operation rather than a separate business. Since the employer's
business, the raising of poultry, and the drivers' activities,
delivery of the poultry to market, were expressly included
in the definition of "agriculture" in the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the court held that the drivers were agricultural laborers
and denied enforcement of the Board's order based on findings
of violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, which
depended on the conclusion that the drivers were not agricultural
laborers.
B. Representation Proceeding Issues
In a number of cases decided by the courts, enforcement of
Board orders based on findings of 8(a) (5) violations was opposed
on the ground that the Board had incorrectly resolved
various issues in the representation proceeding prior to the unfair
labor practice proceeding. The cases included contentions
that the Board had erred in its determination of the appropriate
bargaining unit, in denying an evidentiary hearing on objections
to an election, and in refusing to set aside an election because
of the conduct of a Board agent.
1. Unit Determinations
In general, the courts continued to consistently affirm Board
unit determinations as within the board area of the Board's
discretion. In one such case, 14 the Seventh Circuit sustained the
Board's finding that a unit limited to the claims offices supervised
by an insurance company's divisional superintendent was
appropriate. Pointing out that the Board "is not required by
the Act to choose the most appropriate unit, but only to choose
" State Farm Mutual Automatic Insurance Co. v. N.L.R.B., 411 F.2d 356, cert. denied
396 U.S. 832.