Camp Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CAMP CAB COMPANY 159
SIDNEY HULETTE AND TYLER MUNFORDd/b/a CAMP CAB
COMPANY and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERSAND HELPERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 215, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No.9-RC-
1807. April 15, 1953
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 G.
Wilkerson, 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 Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The business of the Employer:
The Employer is a partnership organized to supply trans-
portation services to the soldiers and other personnel at
Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky, a military reservation for the
training of army inductees. For this purpose, the Employer
operates a fleet of some 34 taxicabs and a bus, the latter under
the name of the Union Bus Company. The Employer is licensed
by the Public Service Commission of Kentucky for intrastate
transportation and it also operates under a contract with the
Army, requiring it to maintain an adequate transportation
service, at fixed rates, satisfactory to the commanding officer
of the reservation. The Employer occupies a building, located
on the reservation, under a lease from the Army, for which the
Employer pays a stipulated price. The cabs operate within the
reservation and to and from Morganfield, a small town some 2
miles distant. The bus covers the same territory, but operates
over fixed routes. The Employer receives an annual gross
income of some $240,000 ayear, of which $175, 000 to $ 180,000
is derived from the taxicab service within the reservation. The
Employer estimated that 2? percent of the latter fares rep-
resents the discharge or pickup of passengers transferring to
or from an interstate bus line.'
'The evidence shows that the Employer's purchases amount to some $85,000 a year , of which
some $36,000 was for gasoline purchased from the local distributors of the Gulf Oil Company,
$1,500 for oil from the local agents of the Standard Oil Company , and approximately $48,000
for new Ford cabs bought from a Ford dealer . Of the gasoline purchased , a portion was re-
ceived from outside the State of Kentucky . The cabs supplied by the local Ford dealer were
obtained at Louisville , Kentucky , from a Ford assembly plant . We infer , in the absence of
evidence to the contrary , that the Louisville Ford assembly plant follows the practice of other
Ford assembly plants outside the State of Michigan and obtains the bulk of its automotive
parts from points outside he State in which such plant is located . See Ford Motor Company,
(Chicago Branch), 66 NLRB 1317; Ford Motor Company, 57 NLRB 1814.
104 NLRB No. 10.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends that its operations are not in or
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. We find that
the Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning
of the Act. We further find, in view of the Employer's contract
with the Army and the testimony of an army representative
to the effect that interruption of the services of the Employer
would burden the Army's transportation facilities, that the
operations herein constitute a part of the national defense effort
and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. 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 appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all taxicab and bus
drivers employed in the Employer's operations. The Employer
contends that the appropriate unit should include all its em-
ployees, including office and clerical employees, mechanics,
janitors, and car -washing employees but excluding supervisors.
The Board has frequently held that a unit limited to drivers
may be appropriate for collective -bargaining purposes.3 Under
all circumstances, including the absence of any bargaining his-
tory, we are of the opinion that the bus and taxicab drivers
constitute a separate appropriate unit.
We find that the following employees constitute aunit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All taxicab and bus drivers employed by the Employer in-
cluding regular part-time drivers and dispatchers," but ex-
cluding garage employees,5 janitor, office clerical employ-
ees,6 professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Westport Moving and Storage Company , Crate Making Division, 91 NLRB 902. Although the
facts in the present case do not meet the test recently established in Camb ldge Taxi Company,
101 NLRB 1328, the latter case is not controlling where the independent factor of the national
defense relationship exists for the assertion of jurisdiction.
9Gastonia Transit Company, 91 NLRB 894; cf. Pacific Trailways, 91 NLRB 559.
4The parties agreed that as the dispatchers were not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, they should be included in the unit.
5Excluded as garage employees employed in connection with the Employer 's garage at
Morganfield are the mechanics , washers , and other garage personnel. See Skyview Transpor-
tation Company, 92 NLRB 1664.
BSee footnote 5, supra . As the evidence shows that one dispatcher -clerk , Moffitt, is engaged
primarily in bookkeeping and other office clerical work rather than dispatching , he is excluded
from the unit. See Modern Heat and Fuel Cothpany , 89 NLRB 1345.