Spokane United Railways

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 14 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of SPOKANE UNITED RAILWAYS and LODGE 86, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL
Case No. 19-R-1394.Decided January 15, 1945
Mr. Alan G. Paine, of Spokane, Wash., for the Company.
Mr. C. L. Bentley, of Seattle, Wash., and Mr. John T. Curtis, of
Spokane, Wash., for the Machinists.
Messrs. C. L. Tanner and William Cooper, of Portland, Oreg., and
Messrs. Frank E. Flynn, and Thomas D. McLaughlin, of Spokane,
Wash., for the Amalgamated.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Lodge 86, International Association
of Machinists, AFL, herein called the Machinists, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Spokane United Railways, Spokane, Washington,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William E.
Spencer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Spokane, Wash-
ington, on October 13, 1944. The Company, the Machinists, and Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, herein called the Amalgamated, appeared, par-
ticipated, 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 hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The request of
the Amalgamated for oral argument is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Spokane United Railways has its principal office and place of busi-
ness at Spokane, Washington, where it is engaged in operating motor
60 N. L R. B., No. 2.
14
SPOKANE UNITED RAILWAYS 15
buses for the carriage of passengers along certain fixed bus routes
in that city and its suburbs. The Company is a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of The Washington Water.Power Company, the president and
vice president of which serve as the president and vice president, re-
spectively, of the Company. The Washington Water Power Company
operates electric distribution lines in Washington and Idaho, owning
and operating hydroelectric generating plants in both States. Electric
energy so generated crosses the Washington-Idaho boundary line in
both directions. The Company uses electric power generated by the
parent corporation to light its various buildings.
In the operation of its motor buses in and about Spokane, the
Company uses gas, oil, butane, and such miscellaneous maintenance
supplies as engine and repair parts, lumber, paint, and glass. During
August 1944, the Company purchased gas, oil, and butane valued at
$15,296.02, nearly all of which was received at Spokane from sources
outside Washington. During the same period the Company purchased
other miscellaneous supplies to the amount of $11,568.84, the major
part of which was secured from local distributors.
The Company leases space on its buses for the display of advertising
posters. Approximately 43 percent of such poster display involves
products advertised and sold on a national basis. Four interstate
railroads and four interstate bus transportation companies provide
passenger depot facilities within Spokane, and bus routes maintained
by the Company pass directly before or within a block of such ter-
minals. Thus, the transportation services provided by the Company
are available for the use of persons arriving or departing on any of
these interstate carriers on the same basis as they are available to
other persons within the city. Except for taxicabs, there are no local
public transportation facilities in Spokane other than the Company's
buses.
Within the corporate limits of Spokane there are 28 producers whose
products move in interstate commerce, each of which employs more
than 100 persons and which as a group employ approximately 7,500
persons. A majority of these employees use the facilities of the Com-
pany on one or more days per week for transportation to and from
work. Outside of the city limits are other business concerns and major
military installations engaged in operations contributing directly to
the war effort, employing in excess of 14,000 persons, a majority of
whom use the facilities provided by the Company on one or more days
per week as part of their transportation to and from work. During
the month of August 1944, the-Company carried a total of 2,322,326
passengers.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that it is
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Re-
lations Act."
II. TIME ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Lodge 86, International Association of Machinists, and Amalgam-
ated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coast Em-
ployees of America are labor organizations affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
As noted above, the Company is engaged in operating motor buses in
and about Spokane, Washington. The president of the Company and
its vice president and general manager established company policies,
which are uniform throughout its system. Aside from its office work,
the Company divides its operations administratively into two depart-
ments (1) the transportation department and (2) the maintenance and
street service department, under the charge of a superintendent of
transportation and a superintendent of maintenance and street service,
respectively. The superintendent of transportation has his head-
quarters at the Company's main garage and all employees subject to
his supervision work in and out of the main garage. The superin-
tendent of maintenance and street service also has his headquarters in
the main garage, but a supervisor subject to his general direction is in
charge of street service with headquarters at the Cedar Street Yards, a
shop and yard one block distant from the main garage, where the Com-
pany maintains a blacksmith shop and keeps its snow plows, sand,
and other equipment for street service. The Company's employees
include the bus operators, dispatchers, register readers, and road
men, who principally constitute the transportation department, and
cleaners and washers, utility men, repairmen, and laborers, who princi-
pally constitute the maintenance and street service department, more
particularly described below.
Phrasing its proposed unit in terms indicative of its special juris-
diction, rather than in phrases indicative of employee classifications
used by the Company, the Machinists contends that all employees of
the Company eligible to its craft membership, who are engaged in as-
sembling, dismantling, maintaining, repairing, rebuilding, and fab-
ricating automotive and mechanical equipment and appurtenances
thereto, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The Company
and the Amalgamated contend that all employees of the Company, ex-
eluding supervisory and office employees, constitute the appropriate
Matter of Charleston Transit Company , 57 N. L. R. B. 1164, and cases cited therein.
SPOKANE UNITED RAILWAYS 17
unit and urge that the past bargaining history between the Company
and its employees has conclusively demonstrated its effectiveness for
this purpose. They further urge that the unit proposed by the Ma-
chinists is not per se an appropriate bargaining unit.
In 1934 the National Labor Board certified the Amalgamated as
bargaining representative of the Company's employees, including bus
operators and maintenance workers in a company-wide unit. Be-
tween 1934 and 1940 the Company recognized the Amalgamated as the
bargaining representative of these employees and negotiated with the
Amalgamated orally on their behalf.
For a long period of time prior to 1934, the Amalgamated and the
Machinists, both of whom are affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, had been generally engaged in a jurisdictional dispute with
respect to the representation of certain employees of streetcar and
bus companies, eligible to craft membership in the Machinists but fre-
quently included by the Amalgamated, organizing on industrial
lines, in broader- company-wide units. In 1940, when the Amalgam-
ated was about to enter into its first written contract with the Com-
pany, the Machinists actively challenged the jurisdiction of the
Amalgamated as an industrial organization affiliated with the same
parent body to represent certain employees of the Company claimed
as craftsmen by the Machinists. The two labor organizations, in
abatement of their dispute, finally agreed that they would refer the
matter to their respective internationals for submission to the ex-
ecutive council of the American Federation of Labor for decision and
that, pending final action by the American Federation of Labor on
the issue, each organization should retain among the Company's em-
ployees the members which it then listed in its roster. Accordingly,
on January -2, 1941, when the Amalgamated and the Company ex-
ecuted their first written agreement, effective for 1 year, they provided,
inter alia, that employees of the Company covered by the contract
should be required after 1 month's continuous employment to share
equally in the cost of maintaining and operating the bargaining
agency in accordance with its rules "except those certain employees
who are of this date bona fide members of International Association
of Machinists, Local No. 86." Appended to the contract was a clari-
fying statement of the history of the dispute between the Amalgam-
ated and the Machinists concerning employees in street railway
service and a list of seven named employees of the Company, then-
claimed as members of the Machinists and identified as covered by the
exception in the contract noted above. -Thereafter, on December 22,
1941, and on January 4, 1943, respectively, the Company and the
Amalgamated executed new contracts, each for a year's duration, and
each providing for membership of all employees covered by the con-
625563-45-vol. 60-3
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tract in the Amalgamated "except those certain employees who were,
as of January 2, 1941, bona fide members of International Association
of Machinists, Local No. 86." A list attached to the December 22,
1941, contract discloses that four of the seven employees named in the
January 2, 1941, agreement as members of the Machinists were in the
Company's employ at the later time. A list attached to the January
4, 1943, contract indicates that, at its execution, three of the original
seven members of the Machinists were then listed as employees of the
Company and that one of these was in military service. On August
23, 1944, the Amalgamated and the Company executed their fourth
written contract, also containing closed-shop provisions, with a sim-
ilar exception for members of the AA.tachinists in 1941.2 A list similar
to that attached to the January 4, 1943, contract is appended thereto.
From 1940 to August 1944, the Machinists took no step to represent
as bargaining agent employees of the Company claimed as members
or subject to its craft jurisdiction or to press its claim through the
American Federation of Labor for settlement of its long standing dis-
pute with the Amalgamated. So far as the record discloses, the inter-
nationals of the claimants have made no attempt to effect a compro-
mise or to work out any other solution of the issue. Since 1934 the
Amalgamated has continued to bargain for bus operators and mainte-
nance employees of the Company at the main garage and at the Cedar
Street Yards in a single unit. Although the certain named members
of the Machinists continuing in the Company's employ have been reg-
ularly excepted from the operation'bf the closed-shop provisions of the
several contracts between the Amalgamated and the Company, all
such employees have been duly represented by the Amalgamated.
The Machinists in August 1944, however, requested recognition as
bargaining representative of certain repairmen and utility men at the
Company's main garage, who it presently contends constitute an ap-
propriate bargaining unit. The Machinists describes its proposed unit
in the general terms noted above. During the course of the hearing,
however, it developed that included in the proposed unit are repair-
men and utility men described as doing "mechanical" work on buses,
and excluded therefrom are repairmen and utility men who do greas-
ing and other services as distinguished from "mechanical" work on
buses, utility men who test brakes and equipment as they transfer
refueled buses about the yard and the main garage, employees classi-
2 This contract was the result of negotiations begun on October 18, 1943 , when the
Amalgamated advised the Company that it desired to negotiate a new working agreement
and a new wage scale for the Company's employees. Pending the settlement of certain
issues before the war Labor Board , the parties agreed to operate under their 1943 contract
until the new contract should be signed. On August 22 , 1944 , the Machinists made its claim
to represent the Company 's employees On August 23, the Amalgamated and the Company
entered into their new agreement , made retroactive to January 2; 1944. Contrary- to the
contention of the Amalgamated , we find that the contract executed August 23 , 1944, does
not constitute a bar to a consideration of the petition upon its merits.
SPOKANE UNITED RAILWAYS 19
fled as bus washers and cleaners, other maintenance employees at
the main garage,3 and all utility men and laborers at the Cedar Street
Yards, who clean and work about both garages and make the streets
passable and safe for bus transportation during the winter season'
Bus operators and other employees in the transportation department
are likewise excluded from the unit proposed by the Machinists. All
repairmen and utility men employed by the Company are concerned
with its public transportation operations, which are necessarily closely
integrated and require a high degree of coordination among all em-
ployees in the several work categories in the two major departments.
The Company's long practice of upgrading employees capable of filling
vacancies occurring in higher paid work categories results not only
in the general competence of its employees and in their adaptability
for, and interest in, the varied work necessary for the rendering of
its important public service, but especially in their common concern
in all employment problems. We question whether employees who
fall within the unit proposed by the Machinists constitute a compre-
hensive group or are even clearly identifiable among the Company's
repairmen and utility men and, further, whether, if identifiable, such
employees as the Machinists would group in a separate unit enjoy a
special community of interest apart from other maintenance em-
ployees of the Company which would justify their inclusion in a re-
stricted bargaining unit at this stage of organization among the
Company's employees. In the absence of affirmative showing on these
points, we cannot conclude that the unit proposed by the Machinists
constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.6 In support of its pro-
posed unit, however, the Machinists urges that the desire of employees
in the proposed unit to constitute a separate bargaining group alone
justifies a finding that they constitute an appropriate unit for bar-
gaining purposes.6 We do not agree. Under other circumstances,
where employees in clearly defined groups have been organized by
two rival labor unions for inclusion in departmental or craft and in-
dustrial groups, respectively, and other factors persuasive of unit
finding are balanced, we have 'sought to learn the desire of the em-
ployees primarily concerned before making a final determination upon
the appropriateness of their unit placement. In the instant case, how-
3 Included in this group are an engineer in charge of the boiler, a fuel dispenser, a painter,
a plumber, two lathe men, and a combination leather worker and blacksmith
* The Company employs 11 men at the Cedar Street Yards, of whom 8 are utility men who
drive trucks and snow plows in the winter, help trim trees and take sand from the curbs
in the spring, and otherwise do general maintenance work for bus service, and 3 laborers
who assist the utility men, and dig sand, load trucks, empty trash barrels, and clean the
garage.
Matter of Triangle Publications, Inc., 40 N. L it. B 1330; Matter of Edward 0. Fiedler,
et al., 55 N L R. B 678
In support of its claim to represent the Company's employees, the Machinists submitted
33 cards dated in August 1944. There are approximately 85 employees in its proposed unit.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever, the employees claimed by the Machinists have bargained with
-their employer for 10 years as part of a system-wide unit. The con-
tinued exemption of 3 of these employees, among a proposed group
of 85 employees, from the payment of dues to the Amalgamated does
not indicate any specific cleavage of the proposed group from other
maintenance employees for bargaining purposes. The Amalgamated
has diligently represented all categories of employees covered by its
contracts with the Company during the entire period of its service
as representative. Stability acquired through the experience of such
collective bargaining relations cannot be lightly sacrificed to-the de-
sire of a craft or miscellaneous group of employees who subsequently
seek separate bargaining rights against the will of other employees,
who, through long comprehensive bargaining on a broad scale, have
gained substantial rights in their common employment. In view of
this long bargaining history, and the interests accruing to the Com-
pany's employees therefrom, we are of the opinion that to attempt to
carve out from the established unit a bargaining group of such em-
ployees as the Machinists claims to represent would not insure to
employees as a whole the rights guaranteed under the Act.' For the
reasons above stated, we find that the bargaining group proposed by
the Machinists is not a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining , and we shall dismiss the petition filed herein.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing finding of fact, and the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of employees of
Spokane United Railways, Spokane, Washington, filed by Lodge 86,
International Association of Machinists, AFL, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Y Matter of American Can Company, 13 N L R. B 1252.