Associated Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1564 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not now in a position to offer employment beyond June 1, 1951, to
the employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner. The Em-
ployer testified that it would employ installation personnel only when
required for a specific job; in fact, as it completes the installation of
each generator-turbine at the Davis Dam, it is reducing its working
force accordingly. Thus it appears that employment of the workers
herein sought by the Petitioner has either already terminated or will
terminate shortly. Inasmuch as there does not appear to be a reason-
able prospect of employment of such workers by the Employer after
June 1, 1951, we believe that no useful purpose would be accomplished
by proceeding to a determination of representatives at this time.5
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.6
c Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 88 NLRB 502.
e In the light of our dismissal of the petition herein, we find it unnecessary to discuss
other questions raised by the parties.
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC. and LOCAL 251, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CIIAUFFEURS, WAREIIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-1976. April 18, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.,
1 Contrary to the contention of Lodge 1017 , District 64, International Association of
Machinists , the Intervenor herein, an agreement as to wages only, made supplementary
to a general bargaining contract which expired in December 1950, but deemed operative
pending negotiations for a new contract , may not operate as a bar to the instant petition
timely filed with respect to the major contract . A. 0. Smith Corporation , 78 NLRB 1050.
93 NLRB No. 256.
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC . 1565
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of mechanics and garage employees
at the Employer's Providence, Rhode Island, terminal, including
maintenance employees, but excluding foremen and other supervisors.
The Intervenor contends that the single-terminal unit is not appropri-
ate for bargaining purposes. The Employer takes no position as to
the unit placement of employees at its Providence terminal. There
is no disagreement with respect to the categories of employees to be
included in the proposed unit.
The Employer is engaged in the transportation of freight via trucks
through various States of the United States, more particularly from
Atlanta, Georgia, to Massachusetts, and from New York to Cincinnati,
Ohio. For this purpose, it operates approximately 25 terminals in
11 States and the District of Columbia. The Petitioner and the Inter-
venor, respectively, represent employees at the several terminals, the
Petitioner representing employees at approximately 5 terminals in
New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and the Intervenor repre-
senting employees at approximately 20 terminals situated in various
States of the eastern United States, including the Providence terminal.
The Employer and the Intervenor have entered into master contracts
covering employees at terminals under a general recognition clause
limited only by the jurisdiction of the Intervenor. , Although the In-
tervenor refers to this contract as a "system-wide" contract, it is not
system-wide in actual cover- ge. Employees at the Providence ter-
minal, represented by the Intervenor, however, have been subject to
this contract and to a supplementary agreement for wages applicable
to Providence terminal employees only.
The Board has frequently found appropriate division-wide and
system-wide units of employees in transportation companies.2 In the
instant case, however, neither the terminals represented by the Peti-
tioner nor the terminals represented by the Intervenor correspond
to any functional, administrative, geographical, or other sector of
the Employer's operations. Both labor organizations are engaged in
organizing employees at all terminals. The multiterminal bargain-
ing units presently in operation are essentially units loosely and for-
tuitously grouped together for the convenience of a common represen-
tative for purposes of general bargaining, each terminal individually
treated with respect to matters deemed of local importance, including
wages. Seniority is on a terminal-wide basis; there is no interchange
of employees to or from the Providence terminal.
Under all the circumstances, including the fact that, to a certain
degree, the individual terminals function as autonomous units, and
the fact that there is nothing in the past bargaining history for the
Employer's terminal employees which militates against the selection
of bargaining representatives on a terminal-wide basis, we conclude
' Central Greyhound Lines, Division of the Greyhound Corp ., 88 NLRB 13.
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that a unit limited to the Providence terminal employees is appro-
priate.3 We therefore find that all mechanics and garage employees
at the Employer's Providence, Rhode Island, terminal, including
maintenance employees, but excluding foremen and other supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Cf. Hpgrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841; 85 NLRB 853; Jacksonville
Linen Service, 89 NLRB 1354.
THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY (THE CENTRAL NEWS COMPANY DIVI-
SION ) and PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE CHAUFFEURS
AND HANDLERS , LOCAL. UNION No. 628, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RCi-964.
April 18,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Fred G. Krivonos,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4. The American News Company, the Employer herein, is engaged
in the wholesale distribution of books, magazines, periodicals, and
stationary at over 300 branches throughout the United States. Its
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, branch, called Central News Company
Division, is the only branch involved in this proceeding.
The Employer and the Petitioner agree that all inside employees of
the Employer's Central News Company Division, excluding outside
1 The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to disclose the correct name
of the Employer.
93 NLRB No. 258.