Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cea v. Cobb-Vantress, Inc. (arwd, 2019-04-15) · Strongest negative: Holly Farms Corp v. NLRB (ca4, 1996-05-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Holly Farms Corp v. NLRB (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
4th Cir. · 1996 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, at least as to live- 20 haul drivers, NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1069 (1982).
discussed Cited "but see" Nos. 93-1710, 93-1882 (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
4th Cir. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, at least as to live-haul drivers, NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1069 , 103 S.Ct. 488 , 74 L.Ed.2d 631 (1982).
discussed Cited "but see" Holly Farms Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
4th Cir. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, at least as to live-haul drivers, NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1069 , 103 S.Ct. 488 , 74 L.Ed.2d 631 (1982). ÍI With respect, to the second error of law committed by the Board, the facts were stipulated by the parties.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cea v. Cobb-Vantress, Inc.
W.D. Ark. · 2019 · confidence medium
Cea is correct in arguing that some laborers who work in poultry operations do not qualify for the agricultural exemption if the jobs they perform do not specifically involve “the raising of poultry.” See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Farms, I|nc., 681 F.2d 1105, 1106 (8th Cir. 1982) (finding that truck drivers and yard workers who transported poultry between independent contractors and the producer’s processing plant were not “agricultural laborers”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Herman v. Continental Grain Co.
M.D. Ala. · 2000 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Coleman v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 629 F.2d 1077, 1081 (5th Cir.1980) (live-haul drivers were within the secondary meaning of agriculture, performing work by a farmer as an incident to or in conjunction with their employer’s primary farming task of raising poultry); Marshall v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 552 F.2d 124, 126 (5th Cir.1977) (the fact that tomatoes grown by independent farmers were processed by the employer prevented it from receiving the “secondary agriculture” exemption); Skipper v. Superior Dairies, Inc., 512 F.2d 409, 411-12 (5th Cir.1975) (employees who deliv…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holly Farms Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
SCOTUS · 1996 · confidence medium
B. 1440 (1992), and with the Eighth Circuit’s case law, see NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F. 2d 1105, 1106 (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1069 (1982), and Valmac Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 599 F. 2d 246, 249 (1979). 48 F. 3d, at 1371-1372. 4 Other Federal Courts of Appeals, in conflict with the Fourth and Eighth Circuits, have held that live-haul workers employed by vertically integrated poultry producers are engaged in “agriculture.” See, e.g., Coleman v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 629 F. 2d 1077, 1079 (CA5 1980); NLRB v. Ryckebosch, Inc., 471 F. 2d 20, 21 (CA9 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Baldwin v. Iowa Select Farms, L.P.
N.D. Iowa · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F.2d 1105, 1106 (8th Cir.) .(holding that employees who transported live poultry from an independent grower’s farm to their employer’s processing plant were not “agricultural laborers,” citing Bayside), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1069 , 103 S.Ct. 488 , 74 L.Ed.2d 631 (1982); Valmac Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 599 F.2d 246, 249 (8th Cir.1979) (concluding that employees who transported products away from the farm did not do work that was either “primary” or “secondary” farming); see also Reich v. Tiller Helicopter Servs., Inc., 8 F.3d 1018, 1023-3…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
HUDSON FARMS, INC., Respondent
82-1038.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 1, 1982.
681 F.2d 1105
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. General Counsel, P. Dawn Sikkema, William A. Lubbers, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate General Counsel, Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board., Hugo Swan, Jr., Gilker & Swan, Fort Smith, Ark., for respondent, Hudson Farms, Inc.
Collinson, Heaney, Miller, Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., for enforcement of its order issued on September 30, 1981, against Hudson Farms, Inc., 258 NLRB No. 49 (1981). The Board found that Hudson Farms violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 823, which had been certified as the bargaining representative for the company’s truck drivers and yard workers. It ordered Hudson Farms to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the Union, or otherwise violating the employees’ Section 7 rights, and directed the company to bargain with the Union upon request.

Hudson Farms, an integrated poultry producer, employs truck drivers and yard workers to transport its poultry between independent contract growers, which raise the chickens to market weight, and the company’s processing plant. Hudson Farms contends that these employees are “agricultural laborers” who are exempt from the Act’s coverage under the meaning of Section 2(3). Accordingly, the company argues that the Board’s bargaining order should be denied enforcement because the Union includes these truck drivers and yard workers who are exempt from the Act’s coverage.

The sole question presented here is whether Hudson Farms’ truck drivers and yard workers are “employees” or “agricultural laborer[s]” within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. This issue is controlled by Valmac Industries v. NLRB, 599 F.2d 246, 248-249 (8th Cir. 1979). In Valmac Industries v. NLRB, supra, 599 F.2d at 249, this Court, relying on Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, 429 U.S. 298, 97 S.Ct. 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 494 (1977), held that employees who transported live poultry from an independent grower’s farm to their employers’ processing plant were “employees” not “agricultural laborer[s]” under the Act.

Accordingly, on the basis of Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, and Valmac Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, and the evidence as a whole, we hold that the Board’s determination that Hudson Farms’ truck drivers and yard workers are “employees,” rather than “agricultural labor-eas],” under Section 2(3) of the Act is warranted by the record and has a reasonable basis in law. The Board, therefore, properly determined that Hudson Farms violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and its order is enforced.