St. Louis Public Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ST. Louis PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY AND TRANSIT
CASUALTY COMPANY and LOCAL 1307 , AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF
STREET , ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, AFL
Case No. 14-R-1195.-Decided February 4, 1946
Miss Helen F. Humphrey , for the Board.
Mr. Claude Ill. Gray, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Service Company;
and Mr. Preston Fstep , of St. Louis Mo., for the Casualty Company.
Messrs. S. D. Flanagan and R . F. Stein, of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Local 1307, Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees
of America, AFL, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of St. Louis Public Service Company, herein called the Service
Company, and Transit Casualty Company, herein called the Casualty
Company, both of St. Louis, Missouri, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
J. J. Fitzpatrick, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at St.
Louis, Missouri, on August 28, 1945. The Company and the Union
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce 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.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
St. Louis Public Service Company, a Missouri corporation, has its
principal office and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it
65 N. L . R. B., No . 130. 775
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is engaged in the business of operating street cars and bus lines com-
prising the only comprehensive transportation system available to
inh :bitants, of the St. Louis area.,
Transit Casualty Company, a Missouri corporation and subsidiary
cf St. Louis Public Service Company, has its principal office and
place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the
business of insuring against public liability and claims relating to
workmen 's compensation.2
Although the record indicates that the Service Company 's opera-
tions probably affect commerce within the meaning of the Act suffi-
ciently to warrant our assuming jurisdiction over its employees; it
contends , and we find, that the Casualty Company, and not the Service
Company, is the present employer of the employees concerned.4 The
Casualty Company, although admittedly the employer of the em-
ployees concerned, takes the position that it is not properly subject to
tlie,jurisdiction^ of the Board in the present proceeding. Aside from
the issue as to whether the Casualty Company is subject to the juris-
diction of the Board, we are of the opinion that the effect of the Cas-
ualty Company's operations on interstate commerce, through its rela-
tionship with the Service Company, or otherwise, is so remote that
to assert jurisdiction would not effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that,the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
filed by Local 1307, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Rail-
way and' Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
1 This transportation system, although not operated across the State lines, is patronized
by approximately 95 percent of the passengers utilizing these types of conveyances and
furnishes direct transportation to and from war plants and other industrial concerns
whose products move in interstate commerce
2 At the present time, Transit Casualty insures St. Louis Public Sevice Company and a
street railway company in Los Angeles , California , whose stock , with that of St. Louis
Public Service Company, is largely owned by the same individuals. Aside from the opera-
tion of a Los Angeles branch office , which is supervised from its main office in St. Louis,
there is no evidence from which the conclusion can he drawn that Transit Casualty Com-
pany may be engaged in its own right in interstate commerce or activities affecting inter-
state commerce.
3 See Matter of Baltimore Transit Company, 47 N. L. It. B 109 , 140 F. ( 2d) 51 ( C. C. A.
4), cert. den . 321 U S 759 Cf. Matter of Chicago Motor Coach Company, 62 N. L. R. B.
890
4 Although such employees were, prior to June 1. 1945 , employed in the claim department
of the Service Company, they were subsequently transferred to the Casualty Company upon
the latter ' s incorporation and assumption of the functions formerly performed by the claim
department of the Service Company Furthermore , notwithstanding the fact that the
Service Company and the Casualty Company have in common several officers and directors,
there is no direct evidence in the record that the Service Company actually controls or has
the right to control the business and labor relations of the Casualty Company
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 777
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, dissenting :
Try-my view of this case the Casualty Company forms an integral
part of the operations of the Service Company. It seems clear that
the' Casualty Company is merely a department of the Service Com-
pany, which the latter has seen fit to incorporate for reasons not dis-
closed in this record. That no real independence was thus given to
the Casualty Company is established in view of the interlocking nature
of the directorship of both companies-and their common ownership.
These circumstances convince me that the case must be viewed as one
in which a completely owned subsidiary of an enterprise concededly
subject to the jurisdiction of the Board attacks that jurisdiction merely
by showing a separate corporate charter as evidence of its immunity.
This defense has generally been rejected by the Board.'
Because the operations of the Service Company, the parent corpo-
ration, are conceded by the majority to affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act, I should have thought it sufficient for the Board
to entertain this petition. My colleagues, however, do not pass upon
the question whether the Casualty Company is subject to the Board's
jurisdiction, but prefer to rest their decision on the theory that its
operations have too remote an effect on commerce to warrant an asser-
tion of jurisdiction as to it. I take this to mean that the majority
would not disagree that the Board has jurisdictional power here; only
that the majority, as a matter of administrative discretion, chooses
not to exercise that power. I do not concur in this refusal.
Moreover, I do not consider the operations of the Casualty Com-
pany as remote in their effect upon commerce. It is a significant fact
that office and clerical as well as_ other categories of employees in
the operating branch of the Service -Company have been represented
by the petitioning union for several years. Certainly we are bound
to realize the effect of concerted activity, for recognition by the employ-
ees of the Casualty Company upon their fellow union members. That
any expression of sympathetic action by the latter would cause an
interruption in the operations of the Service Company, conceded to
have an effect on commerce, is obvious. On the basis of these con-
siderations I would entertain the petition.
"The Tennessee Valley Authority Act, 48 Stat. 58, and the Rural Electrification Act, 49
Matter of William Randolph Hearst, et at., 2 N. L R. B. 530 ; Matter of Maryland Distillery,
Inc., et at., 3 N. L. R. B. 176; Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440;
Matter of The Calco Chemical ComDanw . 12 N. L. R. B. 34.