STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Respondents in several cases on file with the National Labor Relations Board, all of which were consolidated in one complaint, were subjects of a cease and desist and affirmative action order. They are here as petitioners and “ * * * pray this Honorable Court to review and set aside the decision and orders of the National Labor Reiations Board herein referred to and to grant petitioners such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.” The Board has filed its answer and, in addition, requests us to make and enter our order of enforcement.
We have carefully checked the intermediate report of the hearing examiner with the evidence and find that it fully and fairly summarizes the relevant facts except where otherwise noticed. We have made some changes, have abbreviated relevant portions of this report and have eliminated argument. We adopt portions of it as abbreviated and changed and make such portions parts of this opinion although we set them out as notes. In reading these notes it should be kept in mind that “respondents” therein are the “petitioners” in this review. At times matters which are the subject of conflict in the evidence are stated in the notes as facts. This practice is followed be'cause evidence favorable to the support of the Board’s order, and not repudiated by the Board, and not wholly unbelievable must be taken by us as true.
Very briefly it may be said that produce men, petitioners here, buy or handle under contract a large portion of the great potato crop of Idaho. After the potatoes are dug, they are taken to a place for sorting, washing, grading and packing. Sometimes this readying for shipment is done in “cellars” on the farms and sometimes in the produce men’s warehouses. The laborers who do this readying are crews employed by produce men and are called “warehouse and cellar” crews. In some instances the farmer assists in the readying. In a few instances the produce man also grows potatoes. In some instances persons working in the warehouse and cellar crews live in the vicinity of such activity and, when this seasonal work is over, go back to other employment or to the farms. Ownership in the produce remains with the grower until it is graded, and as to Idaho Potato Growers, Inc., ownership is unchanged until the dealer sells them. The cost of packing is sometimes borne by the grower.
A general statement of the case, including the name, abbreviated name, status of each party and of each organization concerned in the case, and the nature of the charge against each, is set out in note 1.1 [297]*297A statement as to the nature and territorial extent of petitioners’ activities is set out in [298]*298note 2.
[300]*300The Issues.
Four questions are set out in petitioner’s opening brief as the issues. However, some of the questions include conclusions with which we do not agree, but we shall treat the issues as nearly as can he under the four queries.
(1) Are the employees involved herein engaged as agricultural laborersf
In Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 152(3)], it is provided that “the term ‘employee’ * * * shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer * *
As has been noted the employees are grouped by the potato dealers into cellar-warehouse crews which go to different farms and to the dealers’ warehouses and [301]*301prepare the potatoes for movement into the market (see note 3). The Board contends that these employees are not exempt from the terms of the National Labor Relations Act as “agricultural laborers.”
Petitioners set out in full the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition of agricultural labor and state that the Social Security Board would consider the employees involved in this case as “agricultural laborers” and that the “Victory Tax” is levied under the same definition. Several Idaho cases are also cited in the opening brief. It must be borne in mind, however, that the purpose of the statutes governing these federal and state activities are very different from the purposes of the so-called Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), with which we are here dealing. In determining whether or not the employees in the case are agricultural laborers, we must make a sharp cleavage in the basis of our reasoning. We must determine that all persons who perform labor, which is sometimes done, and which some years ago was habitually done, by the farmer, are agricultural laborers; or we must consider the purposes of the Wagner Act and hold that employees who are not working at farming, but who are specializing in the preparation of farm products for trade or shipment after they have been reaped or gathered, are not agricultural laborers. In the cases of North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 76, and N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 626, we took the latter line of reasoning, and more particularly set it out in the opinions of those cases. We adhere to the reasoning followed in those cases.
We think, essentially speaking, the laborers in the instant case occupy a similar status as the laborers do in North Whittier Citrus Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., supra, and N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., supra, and since we have seen by note 2 that petitioners are employed in interstate activities, it follows, and we so hold, that they are within the reach of the Labor Act.
(2) May the petitioners be guilty of unfair labor practices if the same -were committed by the growers and farmers or under their control?
The heading to “Point No. 2” in the brief is different from (2) in the paragraph designating the issues. Its meaning, however, is essentially the same. A summarization of the evidence relating to the farmers’ protest meeting is to be found in notes 44 and 7.
[302]*302The premises upon which this query is based is not factually accurate. There is no doubt, however, that the farmers and growers were alarmed and that they opposed the unionization of the cellar-warehouse crews. It is the contention of petitioners that when it was known among the potato growers that a movement had started toward the organization of the crew members into a union to be affiliated with [303]*303a nation wide union structure, the growers held meetings at which opposition was voiced; that feelings ran high; and that threats to stop raising potatoes and other threats were made. They contend that they are not accountable for acts of petitioners, which the Board sets up as unfair labor practices, as they were performed by petitioners under threats. Testimony upon this branch of the case is summarized in note 4, wherein also it appears that some of the petitioners appeared or sent representatives, and some members of the crews also attended.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Respondents in several cases on file with the National Labor Relations Board, all of which were consolidated in one complaint, were subjects of a cease and desist and affirmative action order. They are here as petitioners and “ * * * pray this Honorable Court to review and set aside the decision and orders of the National Labor Reiations Board herein referred to and to grant petitioners such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.” The Board has filed its answer and, in addition, requests us to make and enter our order of enforcement.
We have carefully checked the intermediate report of the hearing examiner with the evidence and find that it fully and fairly summarizes the relevant facts except where otherwise noticed. We have made some changes, have abbreviated relevant portions of this report and have eliminated argument. We adopt portions of it as abbreviated and changed and make such portions parts of this opinion although we set them out as notes. In reading these notes it should be kept in mind that “respondents” therein are the “petitioners” in this review. At times matters which are the subject of conflict in the evidence are stated in the notes as facts. This practice is followed be'cause evidence favorable to the support of the Board’s order, and not repudiated by the Board, and not wholly unbelievable must be taken by us as true.
Very briefly it may be said that produce men, petitioners here, buy or handle under contract a large portion of the great potato crop of Idaho. After the potatoes are dug, they are taken to a place for sorting, washing, grading and packing. Sometimes this readying for shipment is done in “cellars” on the farms and sometimes in the produce men’s warehouses. The laborers who do this readying are crews employed by produce men and are called “warehouse and cellar” crews. In some instances the farmer assists in the readying. In a few instances the produce man also grows potatoes. In some instances persons working in the warehouse and cellar crews live in the vicinity of such activity and, when this seasonal work is over, go back to other employment or to the farms. Ownership in the produce remains with the grower until it is graded, and as to Idaho Potato Growers, Inc., ownership is unchanged until the dealer sells them. The cost of packing is sometimes borne by the grower.
A general statement of the case, including the name, abbreviated name, status of each party and of each organization concerned in the case, and the nature of the charge against each, is set out in note 1.1 [297]*297A statement as to the nature and territorial extent of petitioners’ activities is set out in [298]*298note 2.
[300]*300The Issues.
Four questions are set out in petitioner’s opening brief as the issues. However, some of the questions include conclusions with which we do not agree, but we shall treat the issues as nearly as can he under the four queries.
(1) Are the employees involved herein engaged as agricultural laborersf
In Section 2, subdivision (3) of the Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 152(3)], it is provided that “the term ‘employee’ * * * shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer * *
As has been noted the employees are grouped by the potato dealers into cellar-warehouse crews which go to different farms and to the dealers’ warehouses and [301]*301prepare the potatoes for movement into the market (see note 3). The Board contends that these employees are not exempt from the terms of the National Labor Relations Act as “agricultural laborers.”
Petitioners set out in full the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition of agricultural labor and state that the Social Security Board would consider the employees involved in this case as “agricultural laborers” and that the “Victory Tax” is levied under the same definition. Several Idaho cases are also cited in the opening brief. It must be borne in mind, however, that the purpose of the statutes governing these federal and state activities are very different from the purposes of the so-called Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), with which we are here dealing. In determining whether or not the employees in the case are agricultural laborers, we must make a sharp cleavage in the basis of our reasoning. We must determine that all persons who perform labor, which is sometimes done, and which some years ago was habitually done, by the farmer, are agricultural laborers; or we must consider the purposes of the Wagner Act and hold that employees who are not working at farming, but who are specializing in the preparation of farm products for trade or shipment after they have been reaped or gathered, are not agricultural laborers. In the cases of North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 76, and N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 626, we took the latter line of reasoning, and more particularly set it out in the opinions of those cases. We adhere to the reasoning followed in those cases.
We think, essentially speaking, the laborers in the instant case occupy a similar status as the laborers do in North Whittier Citrus Ass’n v. N.L.R.B., supra, and N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea Packing Co., supra, and since we have seen by note 2 that petitioners are employed in interstate activities, it follows, and we so hold, that they are within the reach of the Labor Act.
(2) May the petitioners be guilty of unfair labor practices if the same -were committed by the growers and farmers or under their control?
The heading to “Point No. 2” in the brief is different from (2) in the paragraph designating the issues. Its meaning, however, is essentially the same. A summarization of the evidence relating to the farmers’ protest meeting is to be found in notes 44 and 7.
[302]*302The premises upon which this query is based is not factually accurate. There is no doubt, however, that the farmers and growers were alarmed and that they opposed the unionization of the cellar-warehouse crews. It is the contention of petitioners that when it was known among the potato growers that a movement had started toward the organization of the crew members into a union to be affiliated with [303]*303a nation wide union structure, the growers held meetings at which opposition was voiced; that feelings ran high; and that threats to stop raising potatoes and other threats were made. They contend that they are not accountable for acts of petitioners, which the Board sets up as unfair labor practices, as they were performed by petitioners under threats. Testimony upon this branch of the case is summarized in note 4, wherein also it appears that some of the petitioners appeared or sent representatives, and some members of the crews also attended. There is no doubt but that the petitioners were alarmed and impressed by the farmer opposition to the unionization of the cellar-warehouse crews, but this in rlo wise made the acts of the dealers any the less their own. “In fact nothing in the statute permits or justifies its violation by the employer.” N.L.R.B. v. Star Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 465, 470; N.L.R.B. v. Polson Logging Co., 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 314.
(3) Are the petitioners L. S. Taube & Company and the Idaho Potato Growers, Inc., obliged to make the employees Willard Moore and Milo Rash whole, where the employees made no effort to return to work and where the employment was merely a seasonal or temporary layoff ?
This question is treated under “Point No. 4” of petitioners’ opening brief.
We recite in notes 55 and 66 respectively, the summarization of the evi[304]*304dence as to Moore and Rash. As to each of these employees the Board found that their dismissal was not simply a seasonal er temporary layoff, as indicated in the question, but that they had been discriminatorily discharged. We cannot say that there was an absence of evidence to support the finding. Where there has been a [305]*305discriminating- discharge, we do not understand that the “order to make whole” is dependent upon the discharged employee’s application for re-employment. There is nothing in the record which indicates in the slightest that either Moore or Rash would not at any time have accepted reinstatement. As a matter of fact Rash did [306]*306accept re-employment when offered to him. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 197-200, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217; New York Handkerchief Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 114 F.2d 144, 147-148.
(4) Were the petitioners justified in refusing to bargain with the union until the union established its right to represent a majority of the employees?
This question is not numbered and is set out as a part of “issue (3)” and is treated in the brief under that number.
The evidence, see note 7,7 does not support the suggestion made in this ques[307]*307tion that petitioners refused to bargain because it was not shown that a majority of the employees in any of the appropriate bargaining units had authorized the union to bargain for them. The whole case indicates that this question was not a moving factor in the difficulties. It is apparent that petitioners were opposed to the [308]*308union affiliation of their crew members. If they had any doubt about the majority status, it would have been very easy to have demanded proof upon this union claim. If a majority had been found lacking, the whole trouble would have been over.
The Board, except as to a minor matter, adopted the Examiner’s findings as its findings and issued its order. In our study of the case we have gone carefully over it as a whole but have treated only the points raised in this opinion. We are [309]*309convinced both as to fact and as to law that the evidence supports the findings, and the order runs logically from the findings. Briefly the order is as follows:
1. The respondents, Idaho Potato Growers, Inc.; W. P. Wilson, L. S. Taube, Ted Taube, and L. B. Holden, co-partners doing business as L. S. Taube & Company; Meyer Friedman and Arthur E. Friedman, co-partners doing business as S. Friedman & Sons; Idaho Falls Warehouse Company; Rowenah O’Neil, administratrix of the Es» tate of J. E. O’Neil, deceased; A. J. Stuart; C. R. Holden and L. L. Holden, co-partners doing business as Holden Brothers; and Idaho Traffic Association, when [310]*310acting as agent for or in the interest of any of the other respondents; and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
[311]*311a. Cease and desist from:
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 983, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of the employees of the respondent dealers in each of the units found above to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining;
(2) In any other manner violating rights •guaranteed by § 7 of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action:
(1) Bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 983, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor;
(2) Post immediately certain notices in conspicuous places in the respective warehouses of the respondent dealers in Idaho Falls, Firth, and Shelley, and in the place •of business of the Idaho Traffic Association in Idaho Falls, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to employees of the respondent dealers stating that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1, a, (1) and (2) of this Order, and that they will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 1, b, (1) of this Order;
(3) Notify the Regional Director of steps taken to comply with the Order.
2. The respondents L. S. Taube, Ted Taube, and L. B. Holden, co-partners doing business as L. S. Taube & Company, and their agents, successors, and assigns, shall, in addition:
a. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 983, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment.
b. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(1) Make whole Willard Moore;
(2) Post certain notices;
3. The respondent Idaho Potato Growers, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall, in addition:
a. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 983, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, et cetera.
(1) Make whole Milo Rash;
(2) Post certain notices.
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondents L. S. Taube, Ted Taube, and L. B. Holden, co-partners doing business as L. S. Taube & Company, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jack C. Hendricksen, C. A. Falk, Clency L. Wadsworth, Mervin Crandall, and Harold Goodell.
The petition of the dealers is denied. The petition of the Board for enforcement of its order is granted.
Although J. E. O’Neil and Holden Brothers, Inc., are not parties respondent to these proceedings, at times in this Report they, as business predecessors to the respondents Rowenah O’Neil, administratrix of the estate of J. E. O’Neil, and L. S. Taube, Ted Taube, and L. B. Holden, co-partners, doing business as L. S. Taube & Company, respectively, for purposes of convenience only are included when reference is made collectively to “the respondents” and to “the respondent dealers.” Whether the terms refer to the business predecessor depends in each instance on the time the respondents O’Neil and Holden began business operations as business successors of J. E. O’Neil and Holden Brothers, Inc., respectively. The extent to which J. E. O’Neil and Holden Brothers, Inc., are responsible for the unfair labor practices is discussed in note 7.
This respondent shipped during the 1941-42 season a total of about 2500 carloads of potatoes in the course of its operations throughout the State of Idaho. Its manager testified that slightly more than half of these were from the Idaho Palls and Shelley operations.
The work of Milo Rash discussed infra' is an example of such an odd job. Car-loading and packing potatoes for special types of shipment are other examples of such work.
The Union has as members a majority of the employees in the combined Idaho Falls and Shelley plants of each of these employees, but not in the Shelley plants alone.