Brothers Coach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

BROTHERS COACH CORP. 931
Brothers Coach Corp . and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-
CIO.' Case No. AO-94. May 17, -1966
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Brothers Coach Corp., herein called the
Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections
102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, on April 20, 1966,
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ATU, filed
a response to the petition.
In pertinent part, the petition and response allege as follows :
1. There is an unfair labor practice proceeding pending before the
New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called the State
Board, Docket No. SU 40223, filed by ATU against the Employer.
2. The Employer is engaged at Station Plaza, Hewlett, Nassau
County, New York, in the business of chartering buses for all
occasions and contracting for the transportation of children for
schools and camps. Although the transportation of school children
is generally intrastate, on various occasions the school districts re-
quire bus transportation for the children outside the State of New
York to Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
3. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, the Employer
purchased parts and accessories valued in excess of $70,000 directly
and indirectly from outside the State of New York. During that
same period, its gross receipts were $1,236,756.37 of which substanti-
ally more than 50 percent is derived from the intrastate transporta-
tion of, school children for schools and camps. Substantially in
excess of 50 percent of the Employer's operating time and of the
working time of its employees is spent in such transportation and in
servicing the equipment used therefor. The Employer's remaining
bus chartering service is a very minor fraction of the Employer's
total business.
4. No finding with respect to the aforementioned commerce data
has been made by the State Board nor has it held a hearing.
5. ATU argues that, under the precedents of Camp Baumann
Buses, Inc., et al.,1 and Raybern Bus Service, Ine.,z the Board would
not assert jurisdiction over the Employer herein.
6. No proceeding involving the Employer is presently pending
beforethe Board.
On the basis of the above, the Board' is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer is engaged in the business of transportation by
bus at Hewlett, Nassau County, New York.
1142 NLRB 648.
2128 NLRB 430.
158 NLRB No. 94.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. As indicated -above, substantially in excess of 50 percent of the
Employer's revenue is derived from intrastate transportation of
school children and substantially more than 50 percent of the Em-
ployer's operating time and of the working time of its employees is
spent in connection with the operation and servicing of such local
transportation. While the Employer's bus service is available to
others by charter, the revenue derived therefrom is a relatively minor
part of the Employer's total revenue. Further, the transportation of
children outside New York, on the occasions when the school districts
require it, would not appear materially to change the substantially
local nature of the Employer's operations. It thus appears that the
Employer is a local bus enterprise engaged primarily in the intra-
state transportation of school children. In these circumstances, the
Camp Baumann and Raybern precedents would be controlling here-
in, and the Board would decline to assert jurisdiction because it
would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over
local bus transportation companies, such as the Employer herein,
which are substantially local in character and which operate pri-
marily in aid of local communities in the field of education.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the
allegations present herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction
over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cog-
nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
Ets-Hokin Corporation , Employer-Petitioner and IBEW Local
Union 769, AFL-CIO I and Laborers ' District Council in the
State of Arizona, Including Locals 479 , 383, 556, Construction
Locals in the State of Arizona of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Including Locals 1089,
2402, 906, 1216, 1538, 1100, 1914, 471, 857, 2096, 1153, 1061, 445, 326,
and 2763; Locals 83 and 310 of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
and Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International
Association , Local Union No. 395, and Operating Engineers,
Local 428.2 Case No. ? 8-RM-146. May 17,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon 'a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Roy H. Garner, of the National Labor Relations Board. The
i Intervenor IBEW Local 769, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of
its current contract which covers the unit being sought.
2 Intervenors Operating Engineers , Local 428 and the Basic Crafts unions were per-
mitted to intervene at the hearing based on contracts with the Employer-Petitioner
which contain classifications which overlap with the unit sought and the contract be-
tween IBEW Local 769 and the Employer-Petitioner. Neither the Operating Engineers,
Local 428 nor the Basic Crafts desired to be included on a ballot in an election directed
by the Board.
158 NLRB No. 86.