Dofflemyer v. National Labor Relations Board
| Decision Date | 04 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 13646.,13646. |
| Citation | 206 F.2d 813 |
| Parties | DOFFLEMYER et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DOFFLEMYER et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ivan G. McDaniel and Kenneth N. Dellamater, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Jean Engstrom, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HEALY, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
The petitioners ask us to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, and the Board in turn seeks enforcement. The order proceeds on a finding that an employee of petitioners, one Flossie Baty, who worked as a packer in petitioners' grape packing shed, was discharged because her son had participated in concert with some other employees in a walkout following an unsuccessful wage demand. Petitioners contend that Mrs. Baty was not discharged but merely quit through sympathy with those who walked off the job. However, their main contention, and the only one we shall notice, is that their activities are agricultural and as such beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.
The petitioners, who were proceeded against individually and as copartners, are W. Todd Dofflemyer, his brother Lewis L. Dofflemyer, and the former's son, Robert T. Dofflemyer. As partners under the name of Dofflemyer Bros. they own and operate a packing shed and storage plant. Here they pack and store grapes grown on adjoining lands, some 80 acres in extent, which they own and operate individually or in partnership. Petitioners do not serve others but pack and ship only the product of their own lands.
The packing season normally extends from August to November, with a lull in September. The grapes are brought from the fields in boxes and are sorted and culled. They are then repacked in new boxes and moved to the storage room where they are kept cool until sold. The packing plant has 93 employees, about 80% of whom work exclusively in the shed. The remaining 20% spend part of their time in the fields. The work is correlated as between the ranch and the shed so that the supply comes in regularly. Separate time and payroll records are kept for the two classes of workers, field and plant.
The National Labor Relations Act, § 2 (3), excludes from its operation "any individual employed as an agricultural laborer". Annually since 1946 Congress has added a rider to the appropriation for the Board providing that no part of the appropriation "shall be * * * used in connection with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders concerning the bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers as referred to in * * * section 3(f)" of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That section of the latter Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(f), so far as here pertinent, defines agriculture as including "any practices * * * performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market." The parties are agreed that the foregoing definition affords the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waialua Agricultural Co. v. Maneja, 13114.
...effect.12 The decisions of this Court bear out the breadth of the exclusion of agricultural workers. Dofflemyer v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 813 (Judge Healy) shows that technical distinctions should not be used to circumscribe the words "farmer" and "farm" as used in......
-
Ares v. Manuel Diaz Farms, Inc., No. 02-10576.
...within which farming operations or practices performed incidental thereto were conducted." Id. at 50. Similarly, in Dofflemyer v. NLRB, 206 F.2d 813 (9th Cir.1953), the Ninth Circuit found that the operations of a grape packing shed and storage plant fell within the agricultural exception. ......
-
Goldberg v. CROWLEY RIDGE FRUIT & VEG. GROWERS'ASS'N
...S.Ct. 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 100; Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co., Ltd., 349 U.S. 254, 75 S.Ct. 719, 99 L.Ed. 1040; Dofflemyer v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 813; and Mitchell v. Hornbuckle, D.C.M.D.Ga.1957, 155 F. Supp. 205. A most loose and cursory reading of the opinion i......
-
Hodgson v. IDAHO TROUT PROCESSORS COMPANY, 72-2415.
...with its operations. The case is thus governed by Farmers, etc., Irrigation Co. Trout Processors' reliance on Dofflemyer v. N.L.R.B., 206 F.2d 813 (9th Cir. 1953), is misplaced. In that decision, this court held that workers in a packing shed, who picked grapes grown by their three employer......
-
29 C.F.R. § 780.151 Particular Operations On Commodities
...Lenroot v. Hazelhurst Mercantitle Co., 59 F. Supp. 595; North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n v. NLRB, 109 F.2d 76; Dofflemeyer v. NLRB, 206 F.2d 813.)(c) Peanuts and nuts (pecans, walnuts, etc.). Grading, cracking, shelling, cleaning, sorting, packing, and storing.(d) Eggs. Handling, cooling......
-
29 C.F.R. § 780.138 Application of the General Principles
...in agriculture, a family partnership which performs the same operations would also be engaged in agriculture. ( Dofflemeyer v. NLRB, 206 F. 2d 813.) However, an incorporated association of farmers that does not itself engage in farming operations is not engaged in agriculture though it proc......