Best Motor Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 314 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BEST MOTOR LINES, EMPLOYER and JEAN MCCONNELL,
PETITIONER and DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 745, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, UNION
Case No. 16-RD-33.-Decided November 15, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition for decertification 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
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the bargaining representative of the employees of
the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The Union moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the grounds :
(1) that the petition had not been filed by a person or persons qualified
at the time to file a petition for decertification; and (2) that it has a
contract with the Employer which constitutes a bar to the petition.
The contention of the Union that the petition as filed is invalid by
reason of the alleged disqualification of the Petitioner to file the peti-
tion is based upon the premise that at the time it was filed the Petitioner
and the other individuals on whose behalf the petition was filed were
not employees within the unit represented by the Union involved in
this proceeding. The record discloses that, following some dispute
* Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
314
BEST MOTOR LINES 315
between a group of employees, including the Petitioner, and the officers
of the Union resulting in suspension of these employees from member-
ship in the Union, the latter demanded that the Employer discharge
such employees under the closed-shop provision in the collective bar-
gaining agreement between the Employer and the Union; that the
Employer, desiring to avoid a conflict with the Union, had, at the time
when the petition was filed, given to various members of this group
temporary work assignments elsewhere in its organization or had
loaned such employees to other employers upon a temporary basis;
that in so doing the Employer did not remove these employees from
its pay roll; nor did it discontinue paying them their regular salaries
or formally transfer them out of the unit in which they had been
employed and for which the Union was the bargaining representative.
In view of the foregoing, we find that at the time of the filing of the
petition, not only the Petitioner, but also the other members of the
group in whose behalf the petition was filed, were employees of the
Employer within the unit represented by the Union.' Accordingly,
we find that the Petitioner and the employees for whom the Petitioner
seeks Board action under the present petition were, at the time of filing,
qualified to file and support the petition in this proceeding. We reject,
therefore, the first ground urged by the Union as the basis of its
motion to dismiss the petition.
The contention of the Union that its contract with the Employer
constitutes a bar to this proceeding is based upon the assumption that
the contract entered into between the parties on July 15, 1947, cover-
ing the unit in question was automatically renewed on July 15, 1948.
The 1947 contract provided that it was to be effective for 1 year, subject
to automatic renewal from year to year thereafter unless notice to
change or modify was given by either party at least 60 days before the
terminal date of the contract. The record reveals that on May 5, 1948,
the Union advised the Employer by letter of its desire to reopen the
contract and to negotiate a new agreement effective July 15, 1948.
Thereafter, no further action was taken by either party. In this
connection, the Union argues that it abandoned its attempt to reopen
the 1947 contract and that, therefore, its letter to the Employer failed
to forestall the operation of the automatic renewal clause. We do not
agree with this contention. Although a new contract was never
actually negotiated, we believe that the 1947 contract was reopened
and that the automatic renewal clause therein was rendered inopera-
tive by the Union's timely notice that it desired to negotiate a new
' Cf. Matter of Quick Industries Incorporated, 71 N. L. R. B. 949 ; Matter of Perry
County Plywood Corporation, 74 N. L. R. B. 1397.
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement? We find, therefore, that the contract is not a bar to this
proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All lead mechanics, mechanics and mechanics' helpers, welders,
painters, body-men, tire men, parts men, and wash and grease men
employed at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, terminal, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Best Motor Lines, Dallas,
Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possi-
ble, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph
numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, 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, and
also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for
purposes of collective bargaining, by Dallas General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 745, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL.
2 Matter of Whitin Machine Works , 76 N. L . R. B. 998.