Breeding Transfer Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 17, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation BREEDING TRANSFER COMPANY 1157 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: On July 12, 1950, the Intervenor, Die and Tool Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists, was certified, following u consent election, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees involved herein.:' Subsequently, the Employer and the In- tervenor entered into a collective bargaining contract effective from August 7, 1950, to July 1, 1951. On April 24, 1951, the Intervenor re- quested the Employer to meet with it for the purpose of modifying the terms of that contract. The instant petition was filed on May 14, 1951, and the hearing was held on June 27, 1951, and July 6, 1951. At the hearing, and in its brief, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition and the hearing thereon were untimely. This motion was referred to the Board. As the peti- tion was filed about 2 months before the end of the certification year and the hearing was also conducted before the certification year ex- pired, it is clear, for the reasons indicated in National Heat Treating Company, 95 NLRB No. 144, that the petition should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Intervenor's motion to dismiss is hereby granted. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' Case No. 13-RC-1328. BREEDING TRANSFER COMPANY and GENERAL DRIVERS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS , LOCAL No. 21, AFFILIATED WITH I. B. T. C. W. & H. OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-1379. August 17,1951 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 William F. Trent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 95 NLRB No. 159. 1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board ,finds:. 1. The Employer, a partnership, having its principal office in Hannibal, Missouri, is engaged in the trucking and cartage business. All its operations are carried on within the State of Missouri. It has trucking contracts with the Wabash Railroad Company, and the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company, under the terms of which it transports freight in. less than carload lots between the freight depot in Hannibal, Missouri, and consignors -and consignees located in the area." During, the year 1950, the Employer's total volume of business amounted to $22,311, of. which $6; 147' represented the amount received for the transportation of freight under its- con- tracts with the Wabash and the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Companies. The Employer also takes orders for moving furniture outside the State, the actual hauling being performed .by Clipper Van Lines. During the year 1950, the Employer received approximately $225 for services rendered to the Clipper Van Lines. The Employer contends that its operations do not have a sufficient impact on interstate commerce to, justify the assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. We do not agree. We believe that the exclusive serv- ices which the Employer -performs for the two interstate railroad companies constitute an essential link in the operations of these in- strumentalities of commerce. Under these circumstances, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and ,that it will effectuate the, purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.' 2.. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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,collecti;ve bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All truck drivers employed by the Employer at its place of business in Hannibal, Missouri, excluding all supervisors. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLEs took no part in the con- sideration of the the above Decision and Direction of Election. It appears ;- from the record that :,: these contracts are exclusive , except that any consignee or consignor may pick up or.deliver .`his own goods if he so desires. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation