Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 581 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MILLER & MILLER MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 581
MILLER & MILLER MOTOR FREIGHT LINES and GENERAL DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AFL, PETITIONER.
Ca 8e No. 16 RO-1157. November 25, 1952
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 James P. Wolf,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of the office and clerical
-employees of the Employer at its Dallas, Texas, terminal office.
The Employer asserts that the only appropriate unit is one which
would include all its office and clerical employees on a system-wide
basis and, in support of this contention, points to the inclusion of its
over-the-road drivers and its pickup and delivery employees in units
for which there has been a multiemployer bargaining history. There
has been no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's office
.and clerical employees.
The Employer operates a motor freight line, with approximately
10 terminals at points throughout the northern part of Texas and 1
-in Oklahoma. A separate manager is in charge of each terminal,
and there are also office managers who are responsible to the terminal
managers at Amarillo, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Over-all direction
of the Employer's operations is exercised by a "policy committee"
located at the Employer's principal office and terminal in Wichita
Falls. All field data from the terminal offices are correlated, and
all disbursements are made, from the office at Wichita Falls.
The terminal managers possess authority to hire and discharge em-
ployees, subject to approval by the policy committee. There is a
substantial difference in pay scales as between the various terminals,
101 NLRB No. 101.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the office employees in Dallas being the highest paid.' The Dallas
clerical employees, however, appear not to have participated in the
Employer's group hospitalization plan. Although there have been
some employee transfers, mostly on a permanent basis, among the
various terminals, these have not included the Dallas office.
For the reasons stated in the Board's recent decision in the Seagram
case,2 we find the bargaining history for the Employer's over-the-
road drivers and pickup and delivery employees not to be determina-
tive of the appropriate unit, or units, for its office and clerical em-
ployees. In view of the substantial degree of autonomy at the local
terminal level, the geographic separation of the various terminals,
and other facts above set forth, we believe that a unit confined to the
office and clerical employees at Dallas may be appropriate .$
Accordingly we find that all office and clerical employees at the
Employer's Dallas, Texas, terminal office, excluding all other em-
ployees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I The Employer asserts , in explanation of this differential , that many employees perform
work outside the scope of their nominal classifications , as, for example , several types of
clericals at Dallas who, in addition to their regular tasks , do filing, which is normally the
function of file clerks.
2 Joseph E. Seagram d Sons, 101 NLRB 101.
a Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 60 NLRB 1403; Associated Transport, Inc., 93 NLRB
1564.
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY and Om WORHffiis INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO AND ITS LOCAL 227 , PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORHF.RS, LOCAL UNION 716, AFL,
INTERVENOR.1 Case No. 39-RC-524. November 25,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board . 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
'The Intervenor appeared at the hearing only for the purpose of protecting its con-
tractual interest as representative of the Employer's electricians . It does not wish to
appear on the ballot in any election directed herein.
101 NLRB No. 100.