Seashore Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act. sa
5. The record shows that there is one employee at the Employer's
operation who divides his time equally between driving one of the
Employer's trucks and working as a laborer in the Employer's re-
ceiving department.
We are of the opinion, and we find, that the part-time truck driver
has a sufficiently substantial interest in the conditions of employment
in both the plant unit and the truck drivers' unit and in the outcome
of both directed elections to entitle him to vote in each election. Ac-
cordingly, we shall permit the part-time truck driver to vote in both
elections. 10
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 International Paper Company , Southern Kraft Division, et at., 94 NLRB 483.
10 Cf. Swift and Company, 58 NLRB 657; Wadham's Division of Socony -Vacuum OR
Company, 54 NLRB 1164.
SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION
OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 34-RC-288. August 03,
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 John H. Pickens, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.1
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Petitioner had presented no proof of an adequate showing of interest among the employees
in the unit requested . The hearing officer overruled the motion, stating that the question
of whether or not a petitioner has made an adequate showing of inerest is an administrative
matter not subject to attack at the hearing We affirm the hearing officer's ruling. J. P.
Stevens & Co ., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513; Ballantine Produce Co., Inc, 81 NLRB 629
The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition ( a) on grounds relating to the com-
pliance status of the Petitioner, and (b ) on the grounds that its operations do not affect
interstate commerce , and that its operations are so local in nature that assertion of
jurisdiction by the Board in this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act. The
hearing officer referred these motions to the Board. As to (a), the fact of compliance, by a
labor organization which is required to comply, is a matter for administrative determination
and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that
the Petitioner is in compliance . See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844; Swift &
Company, 94 NLRB 917; Cf. Highland Park Manufacturing Co., 71 S Ct. 489. As
to (b), we find, for the reasons appearing in paragraph 1, infra, that the Employer is
engaged in commerce and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion The Employer' s motions to dismiss are hereby denied.
95 NLRB No. 170.
SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 1297
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged in the
business of transporting passengers by bus between New Bern, North
Carolina, and various other points within the State. It also operates,.
by virtue of a lease agreement between itself and the Norfolk Southern
Bus Corporation, two runs daily between Washington, North Caro-
lina, and Norfolk, Virginia, the only out-of-State point it services.
The Employer is licensed by both the North Carolina State Utilities..
Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Em=
ployer owns and operates its own bus terminals at five locations. At
other points it shares the facilities of union bus terminals. Tickets
sold at any of these terminals are accepted as fare to points of desti-
nation on the Employer's busses and on.the busses of other connecting
lines extending throughout the United States and Canada.
Although the Employer purchased no vehicles during 1950, it ob-
tained 5 new busses in 1951 from D. C. Beck Company of Cleveland,.
Ohio, the total value of which was $90,000. During the calendar year
of 1950, the Employer's volume of business amounted to approxi-
mately $756,000. During this same period the Employer purchased
$58,544 worth of gasoline from the Shell Oil Company, rented tires
under a mileage contract agreement from B. F. Goodrich Company
of Atlanta, Georgia, at a cost of $22,159, and secured its lubricant
requirements in amount of $3,808 from several oil companies, includ-
ing Gulf and Kendall. The record fails to disclose the number of
passengers carried during the 1950 period, but it does reveal that
during the month of March 1950, over 142,700 passengers were trans-
ported on the Employer's approximately 60 busses.
Upon the foregoing facts, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. And for the reasons stated
in W. C. King d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623, we find that,
it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
case.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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 asks for a unit consisting of the Employer's bus
operators and maintenance employees, excluding all other employees.
The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should also include
all . its other employees, including supervisors, but excluding its of-
ficers
The Employer's operations are divided into 4 main divisions : The
traffic department with a total complement of 15 persons, including a
traffic manager, various station managers , ticket agents, and baggage
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
porters; the transportation department with 70 persons, among whom
are 60 full-time and part-time bus drivers, a superintendent of trans-
portation, and various division managers and dispatchers; the main-
tenance department employing 45 persons, including a superintendent
of maintenance, several shop foremen ,2 cleanup employees, greasers,
and several categories of skilled mechanics; and the auditing depart-
ment which has 11 clerical employees. The Employer also maintains
3 watchmen at the New Bern location. There does not appear to have
been any history of bargaining among the Employer's employees.
As there is no disagreement between the parties as to the inclusion
of bus drivers and nonsupervisory maintenance employees in a single
bargaining unit, and as the Board has frequently found that these
two categories of employees may appropriately bargain together, we
find that a unit including them both is appropriate.3
The dispatchers, as 'their title indicates, perform the function of
dispatching busses; seeing that bus drivers report on time, and making
sure that schedules are punctually met. The record discloses that
occasionally they suspend drivers for cause during the absence of the
division manager. It was also testified without contradiction that
the dispatchers possess authority effectively to recommend discharge
or discipline of the bus drivers, although on such occasions the division
manager makes an independent investigation -before taking final
action. In several cases the Board has held that dispatchers who per-
formed duties similar to those of the dispatchers involved herein: were
not supervisors.4 Unlike those cases where the authority of the dis-
patchers merely consisted of routine direction of their subordinates
in a manner not requiring the exercise of independent judgment or
of any supervisory authority, the present record contains uncontro-
verted evidence that the dispatchers possess and exercise sufficient dis-
cretionary authority over the drivers as to place them within the
Act's definition of supervisor. Although the division manager con-
ducts an independent investigation concerning recommendations made
by the dispatchers, we are persuaded by the record that the Employer
nevertheless accords considerable weight to such recommendations
before taking final action. Under all the circumstances, we find that
the dispatchers are supervisors and shall exclude them from the unit 8
The record establishes that the superintendent of transportation,
the division managers, 'the superintendent of maintenance, and the
foreman of the Jacksonville shops have the authority to hire and dis-
. 2 The Employer maintains shops at the New Bern , Jacksonville , Beaufort, and Aurora,
North Carolina , locations.
Tennessee Coach Co ., 88 NLRB 253 ; Central Bus Lines, 88 NLRB 1223. `
See, e. g.,' New England- Transportation Company, 90 NLRB 539 ; and The McMahon
Transportation Company, 89 NLRB 1652.
See Tennessee Coach Company, supra. '
SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 1299~
charge and to discipline employees working under them. We find that
they are supervisors as defined in the Act.and shall exclude them from
the unit.
As the Employer's New Bern shop is its largest one and is the work-
ing headquarters of the superintendent of maintenance, the foreman
of that location does not independently hire and discharge employees
but "works through the superintendent." However, there are some 30
employees under his direction, and as it is clear from the record that
he disciplines such employees, we find that he is a'supervisor and shall
exclude him from the unit.
Though the record is silent as to the duties and authority of the
foreman of the Employer's Beaufort shop, the record discloses that
there are presently three employees working under him. As he ap-.
pears to occupy a position in the Beaufort shop similar to that of the
shop foreman at the Jacksonville location, we find that he is a super-
visor and shall exclude him. The "foreman" of the Aurora shop, how-
.ever, works alone and has no one under him to supervise. We shall
include him in the unit.
. The ticket agents and baggage porters whom the Employer would
also include perform their work within the several terminals. They
work under the general, supervision of the traffic manager and under
the immediate supervision of the respective station managers.. As the
interests of these employees are closely related to those of the bus
drivers and maintenance employees included in the unit hereinafter
established, we shall include them.
The auditing department employees work in the Employer's main
office in New Bern, performing duties which apparently include all
clerical and bood work necessary to the operation of the Employer's
extensive business. We find them to be office clerical employees and,
in accord with our general policy as to such employees, shall exclude
them from the unit.
The watchmen, three in number, spend all their working time in the
performance of watchmen's duties. We find that they - are guards
within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that all bus operators and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer, including regular part-time bus operators," and the
6 The total complement of drivers includes an undisclosed number of part-time employees
who substitute for the regular full-time drivels , usually on the week ends , and work
during peak periods. They work from 4 or 5 hours to 30 hours per week. There are also
about 10 work -drivers who themselves work regularly for other employers , and who drive
the Employer 's busses from their homes to their places of work, returning at the close of
their work shift, and transporting workers and other passengers on their route . The work-
drivers spend an average of 2 hours a day driving the busses . Though it is not clear from
the record , there is some indication that a number of these substitute drivers and work-
drivers may not work on a regular basis, but "skip" one or several weeks at a time
before being called back to work. As set forth above, all regular part-time drivers are
included in the unit . However, if any of the part-time drivers are not employed on a
regular, ,but only a casual basis, they are deemed to be excluded.
961974-52-vol. 95-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman at the Aurora shop, ticket agents, and baggage porters, but
excluding watchmen, all employees in the auditing department, the
superintendents of transportation and maintenance, the foremen of
the Jacksonville, New Bern, and Beaufort shops, dispatchers, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate:
for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted. from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting in part :
I believe these dispatchers are nonsupervisory employees and would
include them in the unit.' What recommendations they do make are
subject to an independent investigation and cannot, on this record, be
characterized as having the necessary effectiveness to justify a finding
that the dispatchers are .anything more. than minor functionaries per-
forming routine administrative duties.
GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-606. August 23,1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
On June 15, 1951, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Board herein,' an election by secret ballot was conducted
under the direction and supervision of'the Regional Director for the
Third Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate.
Upon completion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties. The tally shows that, of the 112 valid votes counted, 23 were
for the Petitioner, 87 for the Intervenor (Federal Labor Union No.
23933, AFL), and'2 against the participating labor organizations. In
addition, there were 23 challenged, and 3 void, ballots.
On June 19, 1954 the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the election. In accordance with the rules and regulations of the
Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and, on
July 12,1951, issued and served upon the parties his report on ob-
jections to the election. In his report, the Regional Director found
that the Petitioner's objections raised no substantial or material is-
sues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and
recommended that the objections-be overruled and that the Intervenor
be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
193 NLRB 1668.
95 NLRB No. 172.