Yellow Cab, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 239 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

YELLOW CAB, INC. 239
but excluding guards, professional employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 As the unit found appropriate is broader than that requested by Petitioner, and
Petitioner 's showing of interest is inadequate with respect to such appropriate unit, the
Regional Director is instructed to conduct the election herein only in the event Petitioner
establishes a proper showing of interest.
Yellow Cab , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
No. 775, Petitioner. Case No. 27-RC-1948. April 24, 1961
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 F. T. Frisbey, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of dispatchers and relief dispatchers
at the Employer's Denver, Colorado, taxicab operation, or, alterna-
tively, would add these employees to the unit of drivers it currently
represents. The Employer moved to dismiss on the ground that the
petition is barred by its contract with the Petitioner. This motion is
denied for the reasons set forth below.
The Employer had a contract with the Petitioner covering the
drivers,' which expired by its terms on July 1, 1960. An addendum
extending the date of this contract was set forth in a letter from the
Employer to the Petitioner, but this addendum was never signed by
the Petitioner. Moreover, the contract was concerned with the rela-
tionship between the Employer and its drivers; there was some refer-
ence in the contract to "extra dispatchers," but it appears that there
are only two individuals in this category and they fill in only occa-
sionally for an absent dispatcher. Therefore, as the contract raised as
1 In addition to the 500 regular and 225 extra drivers whom the Petitioner represents.
it represents a unit of 30 garage employees jointly with the International Association of
Machinists , AFL-CIO.
,131 NLRB No. 41.
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a bar did not cover the categories sought by the Petitioner,' and as the
addendum was not executed by both parties, we find that there is no
contract bar.3 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Employer moved to dismiss on the ground that the proposed
unit is comprised of individuals with supervisory or managerial
status. This motion is denied for the reasons set forth below. The
Employer maintains overall control and direction of its fleet of 725
taxicabs from its central offices. The dispatchers and the telephone
operators, who occupy adjacent offices, are under the supervision of the
communications superintendent and public relations manager, who in
turn is responsible to the general manager. On the same level with
the general manager is the comptroller, and above them the president.
Other supervisory personnel include the personnel director, also re-
ferred to as the superintendent of personnel, who hires the drivers, and
the office manager, maintenance superintendent, and safety director.
There are eight full-time dispatchers, two relief dispatchers, and
one trainee dispatcher. The principal duties of the dispatchers con-
sist of transmitting to the drivers, by radio, orders received by tele-
phone. When an order is received, the telephone operator makes a
written note and passes it through a chute in the glass partition to the
dispatcher. After the dispatcher selects from a log sheet the cab to
receive the order, according to proximity of the cab to the customer's
location, he calls the driver by radio and directs him where to go.
He then time-stamps the order and files it. If too many orders are re-
ceived from a certain area for the dispatchers to handle efficiently,
they may instruct the telephone operators to close down the board for
that area, whereupon the telephone operators inform customers calling
from that area that no more cabs are available. The dispatchers com-
municate such instructions to the telephone operators in writing
through the chute. In the same manner, they may instruct the opera-
tors to slow down in taking orders. The supervisor of the telephone
operators in the performance of their duties is the head operator.
Dispatchers may complain to operators or to management about in-
efficiency, but such complaints are independently investigated by
management. On the basis of the foregoing, we find no merit in the
Employer's contention that the dispatchers supervise the telephone
operators within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer also contends that the dispatchers responsibly direct
the drivers and may discipline them. By issuing what is referred to as
an P-11, a dispatcher may call a driver in from his work for such
infractions of the rules as use of profane language on the radio,
2 As we find that the contract does not cover the employees sought herein, we reject
the Petitioner ' s suggestion that this may be a proper case for unit clarification
3 Appalachian Shale Products Co, 121 NLRB 1160.
YELLOW CAB, INC. 241
arguing with the dispatcher, unusual delay and a callback by the
customer, or logging violations. When an R-11 is issued, the driver
involved brings his cab into the garage and reports, not to the dis-
patcher, but to the superintendent of personnel or the cashier. The
dispatcher fills out a complaint form which sets forth the facts of
the alleged violation but contains no recommendation. The matter
is independently investigated by the superintendent, who decides
whether to send the driver back to work or discipline him. If no basis
is found to exist for the R-11, the driver is credited for his time lost
thereby. It appears that management has never instructed the dis-
patchers that they have any responsibility for disciplinary action.
-Moreover, just as dispatchers report misconduct by drivers, the drivers
report to management derelictions on the part of dispatchers -which,
if supported by investigation, may subject the dispatcher involved
to reprimand or discharge. The dispatchers do not assign drivers to
cabs, but the drivers determine this matter themselves at their work
shifts on a "bidding" system based on seniority: Drivers frequently,
when they do not like a particular area and are forced to load into
that area, "deadhead" out of it even though they lose revenue thereby.
Moreover, drivers sometimes refuse for as long as a week to turn on
their radio because of dissatisfaction with the dispatcher, with no
disciplinary measures. Dispatchers formerly handled calls from
drivers regarding emergency repairs to vehicles by directing them to
have the repairs done on the spot, but such calls are now referred to
the cashier.
In the performance of their duties, the dispatchers are governed by
a detailed set of operating rules and procedures promulgated by the
Employer in the form of bulletins. They must also conform to rules
and regulations laid down by governmental authority relating to the
use of radio and the safe operation of vehicles. Instructions given by
dispatchers to other drivers and other employees relate primarily to
the deployment of vehicles and use of equipment, and do not cover the
manner in which those employees carry out their functions. Indeed,
since the dispatchers are isolated in the radio room, there is no oppor-
tunity for them to observe the-work performance of drivers. This
function is handled by a road supervisor who patrols the city in order
to observe the manner in which drivers adhere to rules. Accordingly,
on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the
dispatchers do not responsibly direct employees, do not have authority
to discipline them or effectively to recommend discipline, and do not
exercise any of the other statutory indicia of supervisory authority.
We find, therefore, that they are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act 4
'See The Baltimore Transit Company, et al., 92 NLRB 1260; see also Carey Trans-
portation, Inc., 119 NLRB 332.
599198-62-vol. 131-17
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We likewise find no merit in the Employer's contention that the
dispatchers are management personnel. Although the dispatchers
attend monthly meetings where they are briefed as to company policy
covering their duties, any suggestions made by them as to company
operations must be weighed and approved by management before be-
ing adopted. Furthermore, other employees may make suggestions
which are accorded the same treatment. We therefore find that the
dispatchers do not participate in the formulation of company policy
nor exercise any other managerial function.5 The Employer's motion
to dismiss on the ground that the proposed unit is comprised of super-
visors or managerial personnel is therefore hereby denied.
We turn now to the question of whether dispatchers should be in-
cluded in the same unit with the drivers currently represented by the
Petitioner, or should constitute a separate appropriate unit. Upon
the basis of the entire record and, particularly, in view of the common
employment interests and the degree of working relationship between
the drivers and the dispatchers, we find that they may, if they so
desire, be represented in the same unit with the Employer's drivers.
However, as the dispatchers have not previously been included in the
unit of drivers, we shall make no unit determination with respect to
them pending the outcome of the election herein directed among
them. If they select the Petitioner as their bargaining representative,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the
existing unit of drivers currently represented by the Petitioner, and
the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of results to that effect.e
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group : All dispatchers and relief dispatchers at the Employer's Den-
ver, Colorado, taxicab operation, excluding extra dispatchers, all
other employees, drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 See The Connecticut Light and Power Company, 121 NLRB 768.
8 CP. New England Transportation Company, 90 NLRB 539.
Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Van Transport
Lines, Inc. and Frank Piazza and George Piazza d/b/a Staats
Express. Cases Nos. 2-CC-551 and 2-CE-1. April 06, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 20, 1960, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
13.1 NLRB No. 42.