Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1378 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

NI
In the Matter Of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF STREET, -ELECTRIC RAILWAY,' AND MOTOR COACH
EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA (AFL),
Case No. 8-R-1338
SUPPLEMENTAL' DECISION
AND
'AMENDED DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
June 13, 194
On- March 15, 1944, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election herein,l directing the conduct of an,election among main-
tenance employees of the Company, with the exclusion of mainte-..
nance employees on the New York lines, who the Board found were
already represented by Interstate Motor Coach Employees Associa-
tion, Inc., herein called the Interstate, under an unexpired collective
bargaining contract. Thereafter, Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America
'(AFL), herein called the Amalgamated, filed a petition for recon-
sideration alleging that the ,decision was contrary to the evidence,
and that, the Interstate was not functioning as bargaining repre-
sentative of the Company's employees on the New York lines. On
March 24, 1944, the, Board issued an Order staying the election, re-
opening the record, and directing a further hearing herein. ' Pur-
suant thereto, and upon due notice, a further hearing was held in
Cleveland, Ohio, on April 20 and. 21, 1944, before John A. Hull,
Jr., Trial Examiner. 'The Company,' the Amalgamated, and ` the
Interstate appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
,evidence bearing,on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the further hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby'
affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file -briefs with
the Board.
1 55 N. L. R. B. 504.
56,N. L. R. B, No. 245.
1378
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 1379
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In our original decision we found, on the basis of the record then
made, that the Interstate has for several years represented the Com-
pany's maintenance employees on the New York lines 2 -as a separate
• bargaining unit and that it is presently the exclusive bargaining
representative of such employees pursuant to a contract effective
December ,1, 1940, which was renewed for another' year by operation
of an automatic renewal provision, 60 days prior to December 1, 1943.
Since the Amalgamated did not request the Company to recognize
it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in-
volved in this proceeding until October 12, 1943, we held the Inter-
state's contract to bar the conduct of an election among the mainte-
nance employees on the New York lines. We believe that the evi-
dence at the • further hearing rebuts our prior conclusion as to the
effect of the Interstate's contract. It appears that since 1941 the
Amalgamated, recognized by the Company as the bargaining repre=
sentative of its members among the Company's maintenance em-
ployees, has steadily encroached on the Interstate's membership
among the maintenance employees on the New York lines and has
represented a substantial number of such employees in the presenta-
tion of grievances to the Company. At Scranton and Long Island
City, maintenance employees have been discharged for failure to
maintain membership in the Amalgamated pursuant to maintenance-
of-membership provisions in a contract between the Amalgamated
and the Company covering the,Amalgamated's, members., At Buffalo
where the Interstate now claims'no membership, the Company ch'ecks'
off dues, for the Amalgamated and notifies the Amalgamated of the
hiring of new maintenance employees.
A situation thus has developed where two bargaining agencies are
representing segments of a bargaining unit, each acting under color
of authority of a collective bargaining agreement.3 The conflicting
claims and practices of the two unions negate the illusion of stability
in labor relations created by their contracts. In fact, neither the
Amalgamated nor the Interstate is functioning presently 'as the, ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all maintenance employees of
the Company on its New York'lines, nor has either labor organization
2 These employees are located principally at Buffalo , Syracuse, and Long Island City, New
York, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. •
8 The Amalgamated's most recent contract expired October 31, 1943, and , at the time of
the first hearing herein , negotiations for a new contract had resulted in proceedings before
the National War Laboi Board.
1380 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so functioned for a considerable period of time. - Our usual rule, 4 that
a determination of representatives will not be made in the face of an
unexpired, exclusive, collective bargaining contract, has no application
where the exclusive recognition features of the contract have been
abrogated in practice, and the employer is, in fact, extending recogni-
tion to two labor organizations whose claims are in conflict. We find
that the Interstate contract does not constitute a bar to the conduct of
an election among the maintenance employees of the Company on the
New York lines.5 . '
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of maintenance employees of the Company through-
out its system, including such employees on the New York lines, -within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As stated in oiir earlier decision the Amalgamated has been recog-
nized by the Company for a period of years as exclusive bargaining'
representative of drivers and terminal employees in a system; wide unit.
and seeks here to be designated also as exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the maintenance employees in a system-wide unit. If success-
ful, the Amalgamated would include the maintenance employees in
the unit it already represents.
The Interstate seeks only to retain its asserted status as- the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the maintenance employees on
the New York lines. We have heretofore provided' that the main-
tenance employees other than those on the New York lines shall be'
afforded the opportunity to decide in an election whether or not they
desire to be represented by the Amalgamated in the same unit with
drivers and terminal employees. It is clear that the maintenance
employees on the New York lines, also, may appropriately function
as part of this existing bargaining unit, as the Amalgamated contends.
On the other hand, the history of collective bargaining on their behalf
indicates `that the'-New York maintenance employees may, if they so
desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall,
make no determination of the appropriate bargaining unit for "such
employees, pending the outcome of an election in which they may
register their choice between the Amalgamated, the Interstate," or,
neither, and by means of which the question concerning representation
See Matter of Mill B, Inc , 40 N. L R. B 346
a The Interstate argues in its brief that a limitation on expenditure of Board funds con-
tained in Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1941, 57 Stat. 494, precludes the Boaid
from, proceeding in this matter . Since the limitation referred to has nor application to
- representation proceedings , we find no merit in this contention., See Matter of California
Door Company, 52 N. L. R B. 68, 70.
{
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 1381
which has arisen affecting them will be in part resolved . If a majority
of the maintenance employees on the New York lines vote for the
Amalgamated, they will have indicated thereby their desire to be in-
cluded in the system -wide unit of drivers and terminal employees, and
will be a part of such unit; if they choose the Interstate, they will
remain a separate bargaining unit.
In accordance with the foregoing, our Direction of Election herein
will be amended to provide for a separate election among all mainte-
nance employees and Cardex employees on the New York lines' of
the Company, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by the Amalgamated
or the Interstate for the -purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither. In view of the' lapse of time since the issuance of our
original Decision and Direction of Election, we will, also direct that
the employees in both voting groups eligible to participate in the
elections shall be those who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Amended Direction of Elec-
tions hereinafter set, forth , subject to the limitations and additions
specified therein. The Regional Director is hereby authorized to
conduct the elections by mail, , either in whole or in part.
AMENDED DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Central Grey-
hound Lines , Inc., Cleveland , Ohio, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty ( 30) days
from the date of this Amended _ Direction , under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations , Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions , among the maintenance and cardex employees of the Company
in the groups set forth below, who were employed during the said
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Amended
Direction , including , employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily' laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
1382 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
who present themselves in person at the polls, but'excluding any
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired, or reinstated prior to the date 'of the elections:
(1) all maintenance employees of the Company, including Carder
employees, but excluding maintenance employees and Cardex em=
ployees on the New York lines and supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
'action, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Amalgamated Association of 'Street, Electric Railway, and Motor
Coach Employees of America (AFL), for the purposes of collective
i bargaining; -
1(2) all maintenance employees and Cardex employees on the New'
York lines of the Company, excluding supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in -the status of employees, or effectively recommend such-
action, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach
Employees of America (AFL), or by Interstate Motor Coach Em-
ployees Association, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.