The primary question in these cross-petitions for review and enforce *336 ment of an order of the National Labor Relations Board is whether the unfair labor practices found therein “affect commerce” within the meaning of § 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151, et seq., for the purpose of establishing the Board’s jurisdiction under § 10 (a). 1 The petitioner Cooperative annually purchases about $200,000 worth of petroleum products from an Ohio supplier who receives the products from outside the state. That this is sufficient to support the Board’s jurisdiction under § 10(a) is now settled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224 (1963).

Petitioner makes three other arguments. The first is that, even though the jurisdictional question had already been determined in the representational proceeding, it should have been relitigated in the unfair labor practice proceeding because the jurisdictional facts had become “stale.” But petitioner offered no proof of changed circumstances affecting the amount of its annual purchases of petroleum products from outside the state. 2 Absent such an offer, we are aware of no authority requiring the Board to relitigate the issue. See National Carbon Company, 110 NLRB 2184 (1954); The Texas Pipe Line Company, 129 NLRB 705 (1960); cf. American Broadcasting Company, etc., 134 NLRB 1458 (1961).

Next, petitioner argues that its employees are agricultural laborers within the meaning of § 2(3) of the Act and are therefore excluded from the Act’s coverage. We think, however, that the record supports the Board’s contrary determination. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755 (1949); Lucas County Farm Coop. Ass’n v. National Labor Relations Board, 289 F.2d 844 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 823 (1961); National Labor Relations Board v. Central Oklahoma Milk Producers Ass’n, 285 F.2d 495 (10th Cir. 1960).

Finally, we find no merit in petitioner’s claim that the Board abused its discretion in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. The Board’s order will be enforced.

Affirmed.