Auto Interurban Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of AUTO INTERURBAN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 86, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-R-1983.-Decided April 8, 1947
Paine, Lowe c6 Cofn, by Mr. R. E. Lowe, of Spokane, Wash., for
the Employer.
Mr. C. L. Bentley, of Seattle, Wash., for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. C. Tanner, of Portland, Oreg., for the Intervenor.
Cllr. Jerry Wohlmiuth, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Spokane,
Washington, on November 15, 1946, before David C. Sachs, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OE FACT
I. 'I IiE BUSINESS OF'1'ITE EMPLOYER
Auto Interurban Company is a Washington corporation engaged in
the transportation of passengers for hire from Spokane, Washington,
to points within the State and outside the State in Idaho and British
Columbia.' All the operations of the Employer are subject to the
regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. During the first
9 months of 1946, the Employer transported approximately 2,430,000
passengers on its busses, of whom a substantial portion were trans-
ported across State lines.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
' The Employer operates in British Columbia, Canada, through a wholly owned subsidiary,
Auto Inteiurban Company of British Columbia.
73 N. L. R. B., No. 36.
214
AUTO INTERURBAN COMPANY
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
215
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and
Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1075, herein called the
Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. 'I'IrE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRE SENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit Z'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all the Employer's maintenance
employees in the Repair and Maintenance Department. The Inter-
venor objects to the exclusion of bus drivers from this unit on the
ground that both maintenance employees and bus drivers were in-
cluded in the unit covered by its recent contract with the Employer.
The Employer takes no position respecting the appropriate unit.
We have previously found that bus drivers and maintenance em-
ployees may with equal appropriateness constitute separate units or
be included in a single unit.3 Under these circumstances, and par-
ticularly in the absence of any substantial bargauung history to the
contrary,4 we are of the opinion that the finding with respect to the
appropriate unit or units should depend, in part, upon the desires of
the employees. Accordingly, we shall direct an election anion', the
employees of the Employer in the voting',toup described below.
1. All employees in the Repair and Maintenance Department, ex-
cluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
2 In April 1946, a contract was entered into between the Intervenor and the Employer
effective until September 1, 1946, and to continue indefinitely thereafter unless terminated
upon 30 days' notice by either party. On August 7, 1946, Petitioner demanded recognition
of the Employer, and thereafter filed its petition herein. None of the parties contended that
the contract is a bar to this proceeding, nor could it be, since it is one for indefinite
duration.
$ The problem was comprehensively discussed in Matter of Pennsylvania Lilies, et at, 3
N. L. R B. 622, 665 , and the decision in that case was reaffirmed in Matter of Richmond
Greyhound Lines, Inc, 52 N L R B 1532, 1535
4 As previously indicated, there was no collective bargaining history among the Employer's
employees until April 1946 See fn. 2, supra
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action.
We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this
time. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of
the election. If the employees in the voting group select the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a
separate bargaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be
taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of the unit currently
represented by the Intervenor.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 -
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Auto Interurban Company, Spo-
kane, Washington, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as.agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this 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 who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by the International Association of Machinists , Lodge 86, or
by The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1055, for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
P4
CriArRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
6 Any participant in the election hei ein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thei eof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.