Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Mcelrath Poultry Company, Inc., Petitioner-cross Respondent, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-cross Petitioner.no. 73-3430 Summary Calendar.**rule 18, 5th Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 494 F.2d 518
May 23, 1974
J. Roy Weathersby, William B. Paul, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Walter C. Phillips, Reg. Director, N.L.R.B., Region 10, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this enforcement proceeding, with cross-petition for review, the NLRB acknowledges '. . . that disposition of the jurisdictional issue in the present case is controlled by this Court's decision in Abbott Farms, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 487 f.2d 904 (1973), in which, on similar facts, this Court found that the Board's bargaining order was not entitled to enforcement because the employees in the certified unit were agricultural laborers.'1
It nevertheless '. . . adheres to its position that employees like those in the present case are employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act . . ., and are not exempted from that coverage as agricultural laborers under Section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . and Section 2(3) of the Act.'
The Board lacks jurisdiction.2
Enforcement denied.
Two of the employees involved were primarily truck drivers, as in Abbott. One was a full-time mechanic who maintained the trucks. 'By a parity of reasoning, those employees who repair the mechanical implements used in farming are also included within the agricultural exemption.' Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 349 U.S. 254, 263, 75 S.Ct. 719, 725, 99 L.Ed. 1040 (1955)
Abbott Farms, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 487 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1973); N.L.R.B. v. Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., 471 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1972); N.L.R.B. v. Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 405 F.2d 1025 (5th Cir. 1969); Mitchell 341 (N.D.Ga.1960). Supp. 341 (N.D.Ga.1960)