El Paso-Ysleta Bus Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 590 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of EL PASO-YSLETA Bus COMPANY, INC.' and DIVISION
1256, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAYS
AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. L.
Case No. 33-CA-45.Decided September 08,1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 26, 1950, Trial Examiner Allen MacCullen issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached. hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, El Paso-Ysleta Bus Com-
pany, Inc., El Paso, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Division 1256, Amalga-
mated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all its
x This appears to be the correct name of the Respondent rather than the name in the
caption of the Intermediate Report.
91 NLRB No. 84.
590
EL PASO-YSLETA BUS COMPANY, INC. 591
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other conditions of employment; and
(b) In any other manner interfering with the effects of Division
1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and
Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bargaining
agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Bargain collectively with the Division 1256, Amalgamated As-
sociation of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of
America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit described in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto;
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its terminal in El Paso, Texas, in
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked Appendix 2 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
(Fort Worth, Texas), shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notice shall not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(c) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with DIVISION 1256,
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAYS AND
MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. L., as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the following bargaining unit
with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
2In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words : "Decision and Order" the words : "Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement :
All bus.drivers, including relief drivers and the night man,
employed by Respondent, but excluding the manager, super-
intendents, office employees, and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
EL PASO-YSLETA Bus LINE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated -------------- By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. Joseph A. Butler, for the General Counsel.
Burges, Scott & Hulse, by Mr . J. F. Hulse, of El Paso, Tex ., for Respondent.
STATEME\T OF THE CASE
Upon a charge dated May 22, 1950, duly filed by Division 1256, Amalgamated
Association of Street , Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America,
A. F. L. (herein called the Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board ( called herein respectively the General Counsel and the Board),
by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region ( Fort Worth , Texas ), issued
a complaint dated July 6, 1950, against El Paso-Ysleta Bus Line, Inc . ( herein
called Respondent), alleging that Respondent had engaged and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8
(a) (5) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(herein called the Act), 61 Stat. 136. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and
a notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that on or about December 1, 1949, and thereafter , Respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the Re-
spondent 's employees in an appropriate unit.
Respondent 's answer, while admitting its refusal to bargain with the Union,
denied that its business affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in El Paso, Texas , on July 19, 1950,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner , Allen MacCullen, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner . The General Counsel and Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence upon the issues was afforded all parties.
Both parties elected to stipulate all of the facts, and waived oral argument and
the filing of briefs.
E,L PASO-YSLETA BUS COMPANY, INC.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
593,
Respondent is a Texas corporation, maintaining its principal office at El Paso,
Texas, and is engaged in the transportation of passengers by motor bus between
El Paso and Ysleta, Texas, and intermediate points. Respondent owns and
operates approximately 13 busses and transports approximately 62,000 passengers
a month. During 1947 the total revenue for all passengers transported was.
$84,052.27, and during the first 6 months of 1948 the revenue was $48,428.35.'
Respondent's operations are not licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, and there is no exchange of passengers with any other transportation sys-
tem. Respondent regularly transports to and from work employees of several
national enterprises over which the Board has asserted jurisdiction in other
proceedings. These include The Phelps Dodge Corporation and two large oil
companies.
In accordance with the Board's decisions in the representation case2 and in
the unfair labor practice case' both involving Respondent, I find, contrary to
Respondent's contention, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The parties stipulated, and I find that following a representation proceeding
before the Board, the Board found that all bus drivers of Respondent, including
the relief drivers and the night man, but excluding the manager, superintendents,
office employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act; that following such representation proceeding an election by
employees in said unit was held, and thereafter pursuant to the result of said
election the Union was certified by the Board as the bargaining representative
of the said employees; that on or about October 14, 1949, the Union requested
Respondent to bargain collectively in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all of the employees of Respondent in the said unit, and that
the Respondent did refuse and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union, and by such conduct has violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
1 At the hearing the parties stipulated that the commerce facts offered and received at
prior hearings involving Respondent in a representation proceeding , 79 NLRB 1068, and
unfair labor practice case, 85 NLRB 1149 , be considered in the present case the same as
if incorporated in the present record as reflecting the business being conducted by Respond-
ent for the period material to the issues in this case , and I find that during the year 1949
and the first half of 1950 , the nature and volume of Respondent 's business remained sub-
stantially the same as shown for 1947 and 1948.
2 El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company , Inc., 79 NLRB 1068.
' El Paso-Ysleta Bus Line , Inc., 85 NLRB 1149.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and territories, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent on or about October 14, 1949, and thereafter,
refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and
Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All bus drivers, including relief drivers and the night man, employed by
Respondent, but excluding the manager, superintendents, office employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. On October 14, 1949, Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., was, and at
all times since, has been, and now is the exclusive representative of all employees
in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on October 14, 1949, and at all times thereafter, to bargain with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]