The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1949-12-01
Finance Formers Wont To Have
Cake And Eof II Too, Luwyer Soys

Washington (LPA) The huge
Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. and othel
big California "finance farmers
are determined to keep unions out
so the farmers can have their cake
and eat it too, an attorney for ID
Giorgio admitted to the Nat
/ Labor Relations Board
Robert Z. Burns of San Fran,
cisco made this startling confess
ion in response to a direct ques-
tion from NLRB member John M
Houston. He said in effect that D.
Giorgio had no intention of bar
gaining with the Natl Farm Labor
Union-AFL or any of it's locals be-
cause under the Taft Hartley act
the company did not have to bar
gain with agricultural workers
But Di Giorgio wanted the workers
to be subject to the TIL punitive
clauses, Burns went on, so the
workers wouldn't be able to strike
successfully at strategic times.
Representing the NFLU's Local
218 in Kern County, California,
and three other local unions attor-
ney Alexander Schulman of Los
Angeles countered that Burns was
trying to argue the plight of a
poor farmer, but that Di Giorgio
was "a gigantic, multi-million dol
lar industrial empire"
The two lawyers and a third
from the office of the NLRB's gen
eral counsel were presenting oral
arguments in case arising from
Local 218's strike against Di
Giorgio which began % months
ago. Truck drivers on the ranch,
represented by Teamsters Local 81,
joined the strike. Other units of
Local 81 together with Teamsters
Local 84S and Wine Workers Local
45 warmly supported it.
The NLRB must rule whether an
injunction obtained in July 1948 by
its general counsel, Robert n.
Denham, against the four locals
shall be made permanent. Although
the Taft Hartley act specifically
exempts agricultural workers from
using the facilities Of the NLRB,
Denham got the injunction by in
sisting they were conducting a
secondary boycott of Di Giorgio.
Denham acted on a complaint filed
by Di Giorgio, contending that the
farm union could be punished by
the Taft Hartley act even if it
couldn't have such benefits as
Board conducted elections and
Board certifcation.
Seven months after the injunc-
tion was granted an NLRB trial
examiner held the penalties could
not be imposed if the benefits could
not be enjoyed. Accordingly, he re-
commended that complaints against
Local 218 and Teamster Local 81,
also composed of agricultural work.
ers, be dismissed.
At the same time, however, the
examiner ruled that Wine Workers
Local As and Teamsters Local 848
were guilty of a boycott. These
two unions were charged with
having engaged in strikes to COM
pei other employers not to do busi-
ness with Di Giorgio. Both sides
filed exceptions.
Attorney Schulman asked the
NLRB to uphold the examiners
dismissal of complaints against
NFLU Local 218 and Teamsters
Local 81, and to reverse the exam
iner's ruling against the Wine
Workers and Teamsters Local 848.
He said that suit might be brought
against General Counsel Denham
for denying agricultural workers
their civil rights.
Schulman denied the two latter
unions had conducted any boycott
since all the unions simply had
followed the product" namely the
fruits and vegetables on Di Gior-
gio's '12,C0O-acre ranch. In addi-
ton, he said that if the agricul-
,ural workers are exempted from
he Taft Hartley act, unions asso-
,iated with them in a common
effort must be exempted
700.