Camptown Bus Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 4 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Camptown Bus Lines , Inc. and Local 6, International
Federation of Health Professionals , a/w Interna-
tional Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO, Pe-
titioner. Case 22-RC-6622
September 20, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On February 25, 1976, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereaf-
ter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Acting Regional Director's
decision, contending that the Acting Regional Direc-
tor erred in asserting jurisdiction over its operations.
By telegraphic order dated March 26, 1976, the
Board granted the Employer's request for review.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review, including
the Employer's brief on review, and makes the fol-
lowing findings:
1. The Employer is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business in Newark, New Jer-
sey. It is primarily engaged in the transportation of
physically and mentally handicapped school children
for the Newark Board of Education. The Employer is
also engaged in private contract work, including pri-
vate charters, school charters, and the transportation
of factory employees. In the performance of these
contracts during the 1975 calendar year, the Em-
ployer received gross revenues of approximately
$1,100,000, of which $256,000 was derived from
sources other than from the transportation of school
children to and from school. Of the latter amount,
the Employer derived approximately $168,000 from
private charter work; $55,000 from school-related
charters; and $33,000 from the transportation of fac-
tory workers.
We find merit in the Employer's contention inso-
far as it argues that its school bus operations for the
Newark Board of Education are exempt from the
Board's jurisdiction. We disagree, however, with its
position that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its pri-
vate charter operations because the revenue from
that operation does not satisfy the $256;000 gross
volume jurisdictional standard for the transit indus-
try'
A majority of the Board recently held in Roesch
Lines, Inc.,2 that the provision of transportation serv-
ices for school districts is so intimately related to the
school district's function as to warrant the conclusion
that such services are, in effect, a municipal function.
As such, the employer performing such functions is
exempt from the Act? Accordingly, in the instant
case, we shall decline jurisdiction over the Employ-
er's operations insofar as they involve the provision
of school bus services for the Newark Board of Edu-
cation 4
With respect to the private charter operation, we
recently considered in Mitchell School, Incorporated,
and Main Line Day School, Incorporated,' the funda-
mental principles applicable to an employer engaged
in both exempt and nonexempt operations. We there
held that in determining whether the jurisdictional
standard has been satisfied for the purpose of assert-
ing jurisdiction over the nonexempt operation, we
would use the total volume of the exempt and the
nonexempt operations. Accordingly, as the total
gross revenues of the Employer exceed $1 million, we
shall assert jurisdiction over the Employer's nonex-
empt operations.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. As a portion of the Employer's operations are
exempt from our jurisdiction, the issue remains as to
the appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. In view of a jurisdictional finding herein, we
find that the appropriate unit should be limited to
the Employer's employees who are engaged in pro-
viding nonschool related charter bus services. The
record reveals, however, that the Employer employs
a number of regularly assigned school bus drivers
who, in emergencies, also operate charter buses. Con-
sequently, in accordance with the principles enuncia-
ted in Berea Publishing Company,' those drivers
should be included in the unit if they perform charter
1 Charleston Transit Company, 123 NLRB 1296 (1959).
2 224 NLRB 203 (1976).
3 Sec. 2(2) of the Act excludes from the definition of "employer" any
"wholly owned Government corporation . . or any State or political sub-
division thereof "
4 For reasons expressed in We Transport, Inc, and Town Bus Corp., 215
NLRB 497 (1974), Member Jenkins would assert jurisdiction over
Employer's entire operations, including Employer's school bus operations
5 224 NLRB 1017 (1976).
6 140 NLRB 516 (1963).
226 NLRB No. 3
CAMPTOWN BUS LINES 5
bus services for sufficient periods of time to demon-
strate that they have a substantial interest in the
unit's working conditions.'
With respect to the mechanics and their helpers
who are employed at the Employer's Hunter Street
facility, the Employer asserts that these employees
should be included in the unit, and the Petitioner is
not opposed to their inclusion. Inasmuch as the me-
chanics and their helpers have regular contact with
the charter drivers and are commonly _supervised
with them, we shall include them in the unit. Accord-
7 Roesch Lines, Inc., 224 NLRB 203 (1976).
ingly, we -find that the following unit is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time charter bus
drivers, mechanics, and mechanics' helpers em-
ployed by the Employer at its 265 Elizabeth Av-
enue and its 51 Hunter Street, Newark, New Jer-
sey, locations, excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior fn. omitted
from publication.]