Blue and White Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

'956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trainees , office clerical employees , guards , professional employees,
buyers, department managers , and supervisors ii as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
u The parties agree that various nonselling department managers are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act , and disagrees as to the status of alteration workroom heads.
As we are, in any event , excluding all nonselling employees from the unit found appro-
priate, we find it unnecessary to determine the unit placement of these nonselling
employees.
Pioneer Holding Company d/b/a Blue and White Cab Co. and
Chauffeurs and Associated Workers Union , Petitioner. Case
No. 18-RC-3996. March 4, 1960
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 Clarence A. Meter, 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the taxicab business in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Its gross volume of business, for the calendar year 1959,
was $1,260,000. During fiscal 1959, the Employer purchased more
than $85,000 worth of gas and tires from sources which obtained them
from out of State. As the Employer's gross volume of business ex-
ceeds the $500,000 minimum prescribed for retail enterprises, includ-
ing taxicab companies, we find that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer .2
3. The Employer and Local 958 contend that their 1958 contract
bars the petition herein. As the contract contains a union-security
clause identical to one which the Board has already found to be il-
legal,3 we find that this contract cannot serve as a bar 4 Accordingly,
1 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co, 122 NLRB 188, footnote 5; Cab Services, Inc d/b/a
Red and White Airway Cab Company, 123 NLRB 83
2 Local 958 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, intervened on the basis of its contract with the Employer Local 12,
Office Employees International Union, also intervened but for the limited purpose of
stating its position with regard to certain employees , already covered by its contract with
the Employer , who are Included in the Petitioner 's alleged appropriate unit.
3 Cab Services , Inc., supra
' During the pendency of this proceeding , the Employer and Local 958 entered into a
supplemental agreement which purported to eliminate the invalid union -security clause.
This current contract is not urged , nor can it serve, as a bar.
426 NLRB No. -113.
BLUE AND WHITE CAB CO . 957
we find that a question affecting commerce exists within the meaning
of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. ,The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's regular and
extra drivers, cab servicemen, dispatchers, and order takers, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, managerial employees, guards, and super-
visors. The Employer and Local 958 contend that their bargaining
history, on a multiemployer basis, precludes the establishment of the
single-employer unit requested by the Petitioner. In addition, both
Intervenors and the Employer would exclude the dispatchers and
order takers. The Intervenor, Local 958, would also include the
owner-drivers in the unit. No other party takes any position respect-
ing the owner-drivers.
We find no merit in the contention that a single-employer unit is
not appropriate because of Local 958's bargaining history with the
Employer, as part of a multi-employer group. Since their contract
contained an illegal union-security clause, Local 958 was, within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act, as unlawfully assisted union.
In such a case, the Board has held that it will not give any weight to
collective-bargaining history.' Consequently, we find a unit limited
to the Employer's employees is appropriate.
With regard to the dispatchers and order takers, we shall exclude
them. They are already covered by the contract which Office Em-
ployees Local 12 has with the Employer.
Approximately six owner-drivers operate under the Blue and
White colors pursuant to a lease arrangement with the Employer.
There are, in addition, certain owner-drivers who are shareholders of
the corporation, possessing about six shares of its stock. Since there
are 96 shares outstanding and each share carries only 1 vote, these
owner-drivers have no effective voice in the management of the com-
pany. Thus, their stock ownership, alone, would not preclude their
inclusion in a unit with other employees, if they are otherwise includi-
ble.' However, the owner-driver shareholder, who is on the Em-
ployer's board of directors, must be excluded from any such unit, as
he is in a position to formulate and determine corporate policy?
The record is inconclusive with regard to the employee status of
owner-drivers. As it is impossible to determine from it whether or
not they are, in fact, employees or independent contractors, we shall
permit them to vote subject to challenge.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All
regular and extra drivers, and cab servicemen at the Employer's.
6 Cavendish Record Manufacturing Company, et at, 124 NLRB 1161.
6 Coastal Plywood & Timber Company, 102 NLRB 300 , 301-302.
7 Cab Services, Inc., supra.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Minneapolis, Minnesota, operation, excluding the dispatcl ers and
order takers, the owner-driver who is on the Employer's board of
directors, all office clerical employees, managerial employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Central Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc., Maryland Laundry
Corp., and the Puritan Laundry & Linen Supply, Inc.' and
Local 285, AFL-CIO, Laundry & Dry Cleaning International
Union, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2926. March 4, 1960
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 Louis Aronin, hearing offi-
cer. 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 herein to a three-member panel [Chairman
Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Union executed an agreement on May 10,
1959, in which the Employer (1) recognized the Union as the bar-
gaining representative for all the "production employees" at its plant,
and (2) agreed to negotiate a contract with the Union at some indefi-
•nite time in the future. The agreement contained no substantive
• terms relating to work, hours, or conditions of employment, but was
confined solely to the above-mentioned provisions. The Employer
contends that this agreement bars the present petition filed on October
:8,1959. We find no merit in the Employer's contention. An agree-
'.ment which provides only for the recognition of a Union is not a
contract which would bar a petition, and according to well-established
precedent, a labor organization is entitled to the benefits of Board
.certification, notwithstanding its^recognition by an employer.3 7
Under these circumstances, we find that the recognition agreement
of May 10, 1959, is not a bar to the petition herein, and that 6, question
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
i Appalaohian Shale Produot8 Oo., 121 NLRB 1160 , 1163.
8 See Bell Airorajt corporation, 98 NLRB 1277 ;_The Purdy . Oompmny, 123 NLRB .. 1032.
1126 NLRB No.120. ^: