Charleston Transit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charleston Transit Company and Amalgamated Association
of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of
America AFL-CIO, Division 1493, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-
3582. May 26, 1959
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 Arthur P. West, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a Nest Virginia corporation engaged in the
operation of a local passenger transit system by motorbus in and
around Charleston, West Virginia, a city of approximately 100,000
population. The Employer carries no freight or mail, nor does it
interchange or share facilities with any other transit company. Dur-
ing 1958 it carried more than 9,000,000 passengers including those
who use bus service to commute to work at Union Carbide, Goodrich-
Gulf Chemical, and other industries in the Charleston area. Its gross
revenues for 1958 were about $1,300,000, derived almost exclusively
from passenger fares. Purchases of diesel fuel, tires, and parts pro-
duced out of the State exceeded $160,000 in 1958.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Board should not assert jurisdiction over its operations because they
are wholly intrastate and do not substantially affect interstate
commerce.'
The Board has recently adopted revised jurisdictional standards 2
as a consequence of the situation to which the Supreme Court referred
in its decision in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board,' so that more
individuals, labor organizations, and employers may invoke the rights
and protections afforded by the statute. In Siemons Mailing Service 4
the Board fully set forth the general considerations which persuaded
it that this could best be accomplished by the utilization of revised
In Charleston Transit Company, 1.11 NLRB 1214, involving this Employer, the Board
declined to assert jurisdiction as the Employer's operations did not meet the jurisdictional
standard then in effect for transit companies. On remand from the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia (Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employes of America, AFL v. N.L.R.B., 238 F. 2d 38), the Board held that the
retroactive application of its standard to the Employer's operations was proper and again
refused to assert jurisdiction on the ground that the Employer's interstate operations
were insubstantial. 118 NLRB 1164.
The right of the Board to change its jurisdictional standards even retroactively, has
been upheld. Optical Workers' Union Local 24859, et al. v. N.L.R.B., 227 F. 2d 687, at
691 (C.A. 5). A dismissal in an earlier proceeding on jurisdictional grounds does not,
therefore, preclude the Board from asserting jurisdiction in a new proceeding under its
present jurisdictional standards. See Yellow Cab Company of California, 93 NLRB 766.
3 Press Release (R-576) October 2, 1958.
8 353 U.S. 1.
,1122 NLRB 81, Member Jenkins concurring specially.
123 NLRB No. 161.
CHARLESTON TRANSIT COMPANY 1297
jurisdictional standards as an administrative aid in making its juris-
dictional determinations. The Board has chosen this case to set forth
the revised standards to be applied in all future and pending cases to
enterprises operating transit systems.
The Board has decided that it will better effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction over all transit systems which do a gross
volume of business of at least $250,000 per annum. Application of
this standard to the facts in this case requires the Board to assert
jurisdiction over the Employer. Accordingly, the Board denies the
Employer's motion to dismiss the petition, finding that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's bus drivers.
The Employer urges that the appropriate unit should include the
mechanics, greasers, and storeroom clerks, collectively called shop-
men. It contends that only a single unit consisting of the drivers and
shopmen is appropriate here because two consent elections have been
conducted in past years for the larger unit; the two groups are func-
tionally integrated; and the Petitioner's claim is based solely on its
extent of organization.
There are 89 bus drivers and 27 shopmen employed in the Em-
ployer's operations. The drivers' only function is operation of the
buses. They are supervised by a superintendent of transportation,
assisted by eight dispatchers. The shopmen are responsible for the
proper maintenance and repair of the vehicles under the direct con-
trol of the superintendent of equipment. There is no interchange of
duties between drivers and shopmen. Although both groups are
hourly rated and participate in the same fringe benefit programs, we
see no persuasive reason to hold in this case that these two groups of
employees are more closely integrated than other similar groups in
the bus transportation industry. The previous consent elections on
the broader basis failed to result in the selection of a bargaining
representative and accordingly are not binding herein.
The differences in working conditions and supervision, the fact that
there has been no past bargaining history, the absence of interchange
of duties, and the fact that no union is seeking to represent the drivers
and shopmen in a single unit indicate that the bus drivers as such may
constitute a separate appropriate unit.' Since a unit of bus drivers is
5 Gastonia Transit Cosn.panej, 91 NLRB 'S94; Union Bits Lines, Inc., 85 NLRB 107;
Safeway Trails, Inc., 120 NLRB 79, 82. Cf. Tennessee Coach Company, 88 NLRB 253;
Amarillo Bits Company, 78 NLRB 1103.
508S89-60-vol. 123-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate for the reasons just stated, we find no merit in the Em-
ployer's contention that the unit is inappropriate because the Peti-
tioner's claim is based solely on its extent of organization.'
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All motor coach operators (bus drivers) of the Employer at its
Charleston, WVest Virginia, establishment, excluding all shopmen,
maintenance, terminal, office and all other employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 Section 9(c) (5) of the Act only prohibits the Board from giving controlling weight to
the extent to which the employees have been organized . The Berger Brothers Company,
116 NLRB 439, 441.
Puerto Rico Drydock & Marine Terminals , Inc. and Jose A. Falu
Rosario and Miguel Angel Rivera Amariles
ILA District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico , ILA Ind.,
and Local 1575 , ILA District Council of the Ports of Puerto
Rico , ILA Ind. and Jose A. Falu Rosario and Miguel Angel
Rivera Amariles . Cases Nos. 04-CA-803 and 24-CB-190. May 28,
1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 24, 1958, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent Company and the Respondent Unions had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Com-
pany and the Respondent Unions had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommended
that these particular allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together
with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the General
123 NLRB No. 160.