Brown Express

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BROWN E%PREss; RED ARROW FREIGHT LINES , INC.;-
SPROLES-RED BALL LINES, INC. ; AND MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LINES,
INC., EMPLOYERS and DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION No.
745, AFFILIATED WITH I. B. T. C. W. H. & A. F. L.; INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCALS 565 , 47, 968, 593 ; GENERAL TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , LOCAL No. 583, AFL,
PETITIONERS
Case No. 16-RC-172, et al.-Decided November 23,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed,' a consolidated hearing was held
before E. Donald Wilson, 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' The Em-
ployers' motion to dismiss is granted for reasons hereinafter stated.'
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,4 the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
1 These cases were consolidated by order of the Board on July 21, 1948.
2 The hearing officer properly denied a motion to intervene made by the National Asso-
ciation of Motorized Common Carrier Truck Line Employees , herein called the Union. In
the Matter of Red Arrow Freight Lines , Inc, et al., 77 N. L. R B. 859 , the Board ordered
the Union disestablished and the contract then in existence abrogated . The hearing officer's
ruling is correct , inasmuch as the Board gill not permit a company -dominated union which
has been disestablished to participate in such proceedings Matter of Standard Oil Com-
pany of California , 63 N L. R. B. 471.
2 The Employers have filed a motion to dismiss in which, inter alga, they contend that the
units sought are inappropriate . For reasons hereinafter discussed, we shall not consider
the merit of the other contentions with respect to the Employers ' motion.
* Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray.
4 The request for oral argument on behalf of the Employers , and the National Association.
of Motorized Common Carrier Truck Line Employees , is denied, inasmuch as the record, in,
our opinion , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 114.
753
'754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Petitioners are labor organizations affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployers.
3. The Petitioners seek with respect to each Employer, separate
units of all city pick-up and delivery drivers, dockmen, helpers, and
checkers, excluding mechanics, supervisors, and professional em-
ployees, at selected terminals in the system operated by each of the
Employers.5 The Employers, on the other hand, contend that the
units claimed are inappropriate upon the ground that to be appro-
priate, the units should be system-wide in character, coextensive with
the Employers' operations, and should include all employees of the
same classification in one category.
The Employers are independent freight carriers, whose operations
are divided into two main divisions consisting of (1) the hauling of
commodities "over-the-road" between cities geographically separated
from one another and (2) the "local" pick-up and delivery of freight
to and from the terminals of the Employers. Each Employer con-
ducts its operations separately and independently from the operations
of the other Employers. Likewise each Employer governs its own
operations, wherever located, upon the basis of an over-all manage-
ment and personnel policy.a All the terminals operated by the indi-
vidual Employers are centrally administered without regard to geo-
graphical considerations. The evidence discloses that, in harmony
with a policy of centralized control and the integration of activities
with respect to the employees in the various terminals, each Employer
maintains throughout its own organization uniform wage rates and
working conditions for employees in like classifications; and that,
while temporary interchange of employees between terminals is in-
frequent, the transfer of employees is effected between the various
terminals according to the needs of each Employer and the desires
of the employees themselves.
We believe, despite the geographical separation of the terminals
in the Employers' operations, that the functional interrelationship
between terminals, the centralized management control of all termi-
nals under the main offices of the individual Employers, the transfer
of employees between terminals under the conditions stated above, and
the similarity of skills and working conditions among the employees
5 Brown Express at Dallas , Waco, Fort Worth, and Houston, Texas ; Red Arrow Freight
Lines, Inc , at Dallas and Waco, Texas ; Sproles-Red Ball Lines, Inc, at Waco, Fort Worth,
Wichita Falls, Beaumont, and small towns adjacent to Beaumont, Texas, Marchants Fast
Motor Lines, Inc, at Dallas , Fort Worth , San Angelo , and small towns adjacent to San
Angelo, Texas.
6 Periodic meetings of employees at various levels, continuous management checks, inspec-
tions, and advice to terminal managers in charge , over -all recreation plans , and over-all
policies as to safety rules and regulations.
BROWN EXPRESS 755
in the various terminals of the Employers, require a finding that only
a system-wide unit of non-supervisory employees for each Employer
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.z
Although, as the Petitioners contend, we have established units
on a basis similar to that sought herein, it is not true that such a
basis resulted from "custom in industry." In the series of cases cited
by the Petitioners in support of this contention,8 the Board was, in
part, influenced by the extent of organization among the employees
concerned. However, under the amended Act, the Board is precluded
from giving controlling weight to this factor in unit determinations.9
Because it appears that the proposed units are restricted to a por-
tion of an over-all operation of each Employer, we find, in view of
the system-wide management and personnel policy, as well as the
highly integrated operations of each of the Employers, that separate
units limited to specific terminals of the several Employers as sought
by the Petitioners, are inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
As we have found that the units sought by the Petitioners are not
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, we also find
that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act. We shall therefore dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in the instant matter be,
and they hereby are, dismissed.
7 Matter of American Bu8lines , Inc., 79 N. L R. B. 329.
Matter of Sunset Motor Lines , 59 N. L. R. B. 1434 ; Matter of English Freight Company,
58 N. L. R. B. 1387 ; Matter of Motor Fuel Carriers , Inc., 62 N. L R B . 1439; Matter of
East Texas Motor Freight Lines, 55 N. L. R. B. 967 ; Matter of Johnson Motor Lines, 60
N. L. R. B . 761; Matter of Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines , 61 N. L. R. B. 872, 59
N. L. R. B. 203.
Section 9 ( c) (5).
817319-49-vol. 80-49