{ "id": 11795256, "name": "LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; NATIONAL POULTRY WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; ROBERTO SOLIZ VICENTE; ROBERTO MENDOZA; JOSE SAMUEL SOLIS; ESTEBAN SALINAS HERNANDEZ; JUAN IGNACIO MONTES; DANIEL RODRIGUEZ; CARMEN I. MIRANDA; FRANCISCO RAMIREZ R.J.; NOE GONZALEZ; JUAN RODRIGUEZ; FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CASE FARMS, INC., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Laborers' International Union v. Case Farms, Inc.", "decision_date": "1997-08-19", "docket_number": "No. COA96-1042", "first_page": "312", "last_page": "316", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "127 N.C. App. 312" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "281 S.E.2d 408", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 N.C. App. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522537 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "591" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/53/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 U.S. 544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11745772 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/517/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "848 F. Supp. 911", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7404568 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" }, { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/848/0911-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 F.2d 735", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 124236 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "union official not permitted to bring representative action to recover back wages of its members." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/506/0735-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 F. Supp. 1105", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3504514 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1121" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/365/1105-01" ] }, { "cite": "682 F. Supp. 522", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7398563 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "534", "parenthetical": "holding \"a union lacks standing to maintain an action as a plaintiff under the FLSA\" and dismissing the union as a party to the action" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/682/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 L. Ed. 2d 89", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[b]roader economic realities are determinative\" of the definition of employee" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "429 U.S. 826", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6272, 6690, 7396, 8072, 6828, 6866, 7698, 6581, 7286, 6297, 7422 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[b]roader economic realities are determinative\" of the definition of employee" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/429/0826-05", "/us/429/0826-07", "/us/429/0826-03", "/us/429/0826-01", "/us/429/0826-04", "/us/429/0826-06", "/us/429/0826-08", "/us/429/0826-11", "/us/429/0826-02", "/us/429/0826-09", "/us/429/0826-10" ] }, { "cite": "527 F.2d 1308", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1084322 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1315" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/527/1308-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 S.E.2d 105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107", "parenthetical": "holding that union members were not \"employees\" of the union under the FLSA" }, { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526865 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "677", "parenthetical": "holding that union members were not \"employees\" of the union under the FLSA" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 U.S.C. \u00a7 201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 8230, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3635689601062637e-07, "percentile": 0.6368019911585578 }, "sha256": "c66ef9588ef4cb7ac1803c8bad3a2443e440dbc3fbac195c61c509ddf3da607b", "simhash": "1:e427a20006e838bf", "word_count": 1368 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges EAGLES and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "LABORERS\u2019 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; NATIONAL POULTRY WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE LABORERS\u2019 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; ROBERTO SOLIZ VICENTE; ROBERTO MENDOZA; JOSE SAMUEL SOLIS; ESTEBAN SALINAS HERNANDEZ; JUAN IGNACIO MONTES; DANIEL RODRIGUEZ; CARMEN I. MIRANDA; FRANCISCO RAMIREZ R.J.; NOE GONZALEZ; JUAN RODRIGUEZ; FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CASE FARMS, INC., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nPlaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the plaintiff unions for lack of standing to bring suit to recover wages alleged to be owed to plaintiff employees by defendant. Defendant is a poultry processing plant in Morganton, North Carolina. Laborers\u2019 International Union of North America (LIUNA) and National Poultry Workers Organizing Committee (NPWOC) and ten employees of defendant are parties to this action.\nThe main issue in this case is whether the plaintiff unions have standing to bring suit on behalf of the plaintiff employees under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22 (1993).\nThe Wage and Hour Act states that an action to recover unpaid wages \u201cmay be maintained in the General Court of Justice by any one or more employees\u201d or by the Commissioner of Labor \u201cat the request of the employees affected.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.22(b)(c). The Wage and Hour Act\u2019s definition section states: \u201c(3) \u2018Employ\u2019 means to suffer or permit to work. (4) \u2018Employee\u2019 includes any individual employed by an employer.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.2(3)(4). Plaintiffs argue that a union is included in the statute\u2019s definition of \u201cemployee\u201d because the word \u201cincludes\u201d does not limit the meaning of \u201cemployee\u201d to individuals. We disagree.\nThe North Carolina Wage and Hour Act is modeled after the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 201 (1938). In Poole v. Local 305 Nat\u2019l Post Office Mail Handlers, 69 N.C. App. 675, 677, 318 S.E.2d 105, 107 (1984) (holding that union members were not \u201cemployees\u201d of the union under the FLSA), our Court recognized that the policy of the Wage and Hour Act is to \u201cprotect[] those who, as a matter of economic reality, are dependent upon the business to which they render service.\u201d Id. at 678, 318 S.E.2d at 107. In determining the scope of the term \u201cemployee\u201d in Poole, our Court relied upon federal case law that interpreted the term \u201cemployee\u201d as used in the FLSA. Id. A further examination of federal case law interpreting \u201cemployee\u201d under the FLSA reveals that while federal jurisdictions have rejected a narrow interpretation of \u201cemployee,\u201d see Usery v. Pilgrim Equip. Co., Inc., 527 F.2d 1308, 1315, (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826, 50 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1976) (\u201c[b]roader economic realities are determinative\u201d of the definition of employee), they have not held that the definition is sufficiently broad to include unions. International Ass\u2019n of Firefighters v. City of Rome, Ga., 682 F. Supp. 522, 534 (N.D. Ga. 1988) (holding \u201ca union lacks standing to maintain an action as a plaintiff under the FLSA\u201d and dismissing the union as a party to the action); accord Equal Employment Op. Com\u2019n v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 365 F. Supp. 1105, 1121 (E.D. Pa. 1973), modified, 506 F.2d 735 (3rd Cir. 1974) (union official not permitted to bring representative action to recover back wages of its members.)\nSeveral factors used by federal jurisdictions to determine \u201cemployee\u201d status under the FLSA are equally useful in the context of the Wage and Hour Act: (1) whether the alleged employee performs services for the employer; (2) \u201cthe degree of control exerted by the alleged employer\u201d over the individual or entity; and (3) the alleged employee\u2019s \u201copportunity for profit or loss\u201d derived from its relationship with the employer. Harper v. San Luis Valley Regional Medical Ctr., 848 F. Supp. 911, 914 (D. Colo. 1994). Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized that labor unions have standing to assert the rights of employee-members for damages'for unpaid wages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) in United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 134 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1996), the Court\u2019s decision was based partly on the explicit language of the WARN Act which states a \u201cperson seeking to enforce such liability, [under the Act] including a representative of employees\u201d may bring suit. The language of the N.C. Wage and Hour Act contains no such legislative mandate for representative suit by a union. Instead, the statute also allows for suit by the Commissioner of Labor \u201cat the request of the employees affected.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.22(c).\nApplying the above analysis to the facts in our case, we determine the plaintiff unions in this case lack standing under the Wage and Hour Act in that: (1) no services were performed by the unions for defendant as there was no work relationship between the unions and defendant; (2) defendant did not exercise any control over the unions; and (3) any opportunity for profit or loss from the unions\u2019 relationship with defendant was indirect and not a product of an employer-employee relationship. Harper, 848 F. Supp. at 914. Moreover, the General Assembly did provide for collective representation of employees by a third party under N.C. Gen Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22(c) by allowing the Commissioner of Labor to bring suit on behalf of employees. In the absence of other policy or precedent indicating that our definition of \u201cemployee\u201d should be sufficiently broader than the plain language of our statute, we hold that only \u201cindividuals employed by an employer\u201d or the Commissioner of Labor may bring suit for an employee under the Wage and Hour Act.\nNext, the plaintiff unions argue that even if the language of the Wage and Hour Act is not determinative of whether they have standing to sue, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1 (1990), Rule 23 allows them to bring suit. We disagree. This statute provides in pertinent part:\n(a) ... If persons constituting a class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, such of them, one or more, as will fairly insure the adequate representation of all may, on behalf of all, sue or be sued.\nThis statute does not grant or deny standing to parties. Rather than providing a basis for standing, this statute allows a party who is entitled to sue to bring suit on behalf of itself and other parties in the form of a class action. See Canaan v. Reed, 53 N.C. App. 589, 591, 281 S.E.2d 408, 410 (1981). We thus hold that the plaintiff unions lack standing and confirm the trial court\u2019s order dismissing plaintiff unions on this ground.\nAffirmed.\nJudges EAGLES and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Phyllis A. Palmieri for plaintiff-appellants.", "Edwards, Ballard, Clark, Barrett and Carlson, P.A., by Terry A. Clark and Jonathan W. Yarbrough, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LABORERS\u2019 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; NATIONAL POULTRY WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE LABORERS\u2019 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; ROBERTO SOLIZ VICENTE; ROBERTO MENDOZA; JOSE SAMUEL SOLIS; ESTEBAN SALINAS HERNANDEZ; JUAN IGNACIO MONTES; DANIEL RODRIGUEZ; CARMEN I. MIRANDA; FRANCISCO RAMIREZ R.J.; NOE GONZALEZ; JUAN RODRIGUEZ; FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CASE FARMS, INC., Defendant\nNo. COA96-1042\n(Filed 19 August 1997)\n1. Labor and Employment \u00a7 12 (NCI4th)\u2014 Wage and Hour Act \u2014 suit to recover wages due \u2014 no standing by unions\nLabor unions were not employees under the Wage and Hour Act and thus did not have standing to bring suit on behalf of employee-members to recover wages allegedly due under the Act since (1) no services were performed by the unions for defendant employer as there was no work relationship between the unions and defendant; (2) defendant did not exercise any control over the unions; and (3) any opportunity for profit or loss from the unions\u2019 relationship with defendant was indirect and not a product of an employer-employee relationship. Moreover, the General Assembly did provide for collective representation of employees by a third party under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.22(c) by allowing the Commissioner of Labor to bring suit on behalf of employees. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.22.\n2. Parties \u00a7 70 (NCI4th)\u2014 class action statute \u2014 no grant or denial of standing\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 23 allows a party who is entitled to sue to bring suit on behalf of itself and other parties in the form of a class action but does not grant or deny standing to parties.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from an order entered 14 June 1996 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in Burke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 May 1997.\nPhyllis A. Palmieri for plaintiff-appellants.\nEdwards, Ballard, Clark, Barrett and Carlson, P.A., by Terry A. Clark and Jonathan W. Yarbrough, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0312-01", "first_page_order": 348, "last_page_order": 352 }