Archie's Motor Freight, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1627 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

ARCHIE'S MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 1627
excluding all other production and maintenance employees, office cler-
icals, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.'1
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
11 Charles F. Grooms is a. working leadman with respect to the grinders in the machine
shop. He does not have authority toyrecommend hiring or discharging . His sole function
as leadman is to transmit his foreman 's instructions as to job assignments to the
grinders. We find that he is not a supervisor and we will include •him in the unit of
machinists.
Archie's Motor Freight, Inc.' and Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union No . 592, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Warehousemen of America 2
Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-3277. March 29, 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 Thomas J. Walsh, 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 Rodgers, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all road drivers employed at the
Employer's Richmond, Virginia, terminal, excluding local drivers
and all other employees. The Employer contends that the appropri-
ate unit should consist of all. employees of the Employer, including
its employees who operate out of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, and
Franklin, Virginia. Of those employees at Richmond, the Employer
would include in the unit the bookkeeper and the service mechanics.'
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner' s name appears as amended at the hearing
' The record indicates that the Employer employs no "local drivers" at any of its
terminals . We have therefore deleted any 'reference to them from the unit description.
130 NLRB No. 162.
1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer is engaged in the business of hauling commodities by
motor transport. Richmond, Virginia, is its home office, serving as the
bookkeeping and management headquarters for all the terminals. The
Employer has two "sub-offices," located at the places of business of
Union Bag Company in Franklin, Virginia, and at G. C. Murphy De-
partment Store in McKeesport, Pennsylvania. The Employer hauls
for these companies. There are seven employees at McKeesport,
which is approximately 330 miles northwest of Richmond. The dis-
patcher there has the responsibility of directing and assigning the
work of those employees. At Franklin, which is approximately 80
miles southeast of Richmond, there is only one employee. He spends
about 60 percent of his time moving trailers around the lot of Union
Bag Company, and getting them ready to be picked up by the Em-
ployer's drivers. He spends the remainder of his time driving trailers
from Franklin to Richmond and back. The Employer has no other
terminals or suboffices, and there is no bargaining history for any
of the Employer's employees. Although there appear in the record
some factors which might support a finding that a systemwide unit is
appropriate, these factors are not so compelling as to require a finding
that such a unit is the only appropriate Unit .4 Although Richmond
serves as the bookkeeping and management headquarters for all the
Employer's operations, the employees at the McKeesport operation
haul only for G. C. Murphy, their trucks are repaired in McKeesport,
they come in contact with the Richmond drivers only on rare occa-
sions, and they are hired at, and receive their orders from, McKees-
port. In view of these facts, and particularly as the McKeesport
operation is a substantial distance from Richmond,' we shall not in-
clude the drivers at McKeesport in a unit with the Richmond drivers.
We find that the Franklin operation is, in effect, merely an adjunct
of the Richmond terminal; the single employee at Franklin spends 40
percent of his time in driving between Franklin and Richmond, re-
ceives his orders directly from Richmond, and would otherwise not be
accorded an opportunity to choose a bargaining representative. We
shall, therefore, include the one driver at Franklin.
One salaried bookkeeper is employed at the Richmond terminal.
He works a regular 40-hour week doing bookkeeping and various other
jobs around the terminal. On alternate weekends he acts as dis-
patcher, and sporadically he drives short runs, usually to Franklin,
Virginia. Upon the record, we find that the bookkeeper spends 80
percent of his time doing office work, and we shall therefore exclude
him as an office clerical.'
' See Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761; Frederickson Motor Express Corpo-
ration, 121 NLRB 32.
5 See Southeastern Concrete Products Company, Southeastern Concrete Sales, Inc.,
Southeastern Sand Co.. 127 NLRB 1024.
6 Cf. Evansville Television, Inc., 126 NLRB 680.
BALTIMORE BINDING AND WAISTBAND CORP. 1629
The service mechanics perform the usual duties incidental to the
maintenance and repair of trucking equipment. All their work is
done in the repair shop at Richmond and they do not interchange with
the drivers. We find that their intrests are different from those of
the drivers and, in accord with established Board practice, we shall
exclude them.'
There are four lease drivers who operate out of the Employer's
Richmond terminal. The Employer contends that these men are "em-
ployees" within the meaning of the Act, and should therefore be in-
cluded in the unit. The Petitioner contends that they are "independ-
ent contractors" and should therefore be excluded or, at best, should
be allowed to vote subject to challenge. The record shows that these
drivers own their own tractors, that the tractors carry the name and
"colors" of the Employer, and that the owner-drivers and the Em-
ployer have written agreements for the exclusive use by the Employer
of these tractors. The owner-drivers are subject to all the Employer's
rules and regulations. They cannot haul for anyone else; they garage
their tractors at the Employer's terminal; and they receive the same
rate of pay and same benefits as the other drivers. It is clear that the
four lease drivers have no control over the manner and means of ac-
complishing their work, but are subject in all material respects to the
Employer's control. In view of these facts, we conclude that the lease
drivers are employees of the Employer within the meaning of the
Act, and we shall include them in the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
terminals at Richmond and Franklin, Virginia, constitute an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9(b) of the Act:
All over-the-road drivers, including the lease drivers, but excluding
service mechanics, the bookkeeper, office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 See Standard Trucking Company, supra ; Frederickson Motor Express Corporation,
supra.
8 See Golden Age Dayton Corporation, 124 NLRB 916.
Baltimore Binding and Waistband Corp. and Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Case No. 5-CA-1733.
March 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 11, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor
130 NLRB No. 168.
597254-61-voi . 130--104