Central Bus Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1223 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of CENTRAL Bus LINES, INC.," EMPLOYER and BRoTHER-
HOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN ( INDEPENDENT ), PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-783.-Decided March 17, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J.
Rains, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 The
hearing officer reserved to the Board for ruling the Employer' s motion
to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated hereafter in paragraph 4,
the motion is hereby denied.
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-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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 .3
4. The Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that all drivers em-
ployed by the Employer constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
i The Employer 's name appears as amended at the bearing.
2 The hearing officer properly granted the oral motion to intervene made by the Amal-
gamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America,
Local Division 1323, AFL, herein called the Intervenor , upon the basis of a showing of
interest submitted to the Regional Director.
3 The Employer 's contention that no question concerning representation exists because
the record does not contain a showing of interest by either of the labor organizations in-
volved is without merit. We have repeatedly held that the requirement of a showing of
'interest is an administrative matter not open to collateral attack. See 0. D. Jennings
Company, 68 NLRB 516; Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co., Inc., 75 NLRB 614. We
are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner and the Intervenor have made adequate
showings of representation.
88 NLRB No. 215.
1223
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends, however, that the appropriate unit embraces
drivers and maintenance employees.'
The Employer operates a bus transportation company in the States
of Tennessee and Kentucky. It maintains its corporate headquarters
at Nashville, Tennessee; garages at Nashville and Chattanooga, Ten-
nessee; and stations at Gallatin, Lebanon, and Cookville, Tennessee..
It also operates 3 stations in cooperation With other bus companies
and about 50 ticket agencies through commission paid agents. The
office employees, ticket agents, and porters employed in the office and
stations are not involved in this proceeding.
The drivers and maintenance employees, whose representation is
now in question, are employed at the Employer's 2 garages. Each
garage is headed by a supervisor who directly supervises both drivers
and maintenance personnel. The 35 or 40 drivers of the Employer
report to work at either the Nashville or the Chattanooga garage, and
drive busses over assigned routes. The drivers are required by the
Employer to have, in addition to the ability to operate busses, enough
practical mechanical knowledge to care for minor mechanical difficul-
ties which occur while the busses are on the road. They are also
required to meet certain standards of physical fitness prescribed by
the State of Tennessee and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The majority of the Employer's maintenance employees, who number
18 or 20, work at the Nashville garage, only 2 or 3 of them being
assigned to the Chattanooga garage. The maintenance employees
are classified as mechanics, mechanic helpers, washers, greasers, gas-
men, stock clerks, or garage clerks. They are required to possess me-
chanical ability and employment experience fitting them for the jobs
they hold. The Employer also has 6 or 8 "combination drivers," who
operate "commuter runs" each morning and evening from and to
their residences outside Nashville and Chattanooga. During the day
they work as maintenance employees. One of the combination drivers
is a student and attends school during the day. Although in rare
instances a maintenance employee may drive a bus, and some drivers
for health or financial reasons have been transferred to maintenance
jobs, there is no regular interchange between the 2 groups of employees.
Drivers and maintenance employees are placed on separate seniority
lists and pay rolls. The drivers are paid on a mileage basis while
the maintenance employees are paid on an hourly basis. The highest
4 At the hearing the Employer objected to the hearing officer's calling an, officer of the
Employer as a witness and questioning him concerning facts bearing upon the unit ques-
tion. The Employer urged that the Petitioner has the burden of proving the appropriate-
ness of the unit it proposes and contended that the petition should be dismissed for lack
of proof . We find no merit in the Employer's contention . Representation proceedings
pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act are investigatory in nature and not adversary. See
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 63 NLRB 101.
CENTRAL BUS LINES, INC. 1225
paid drivers earn more than the highest paid maintenance employees,
but the difference in wages is not substantial. Generally wage in-
creases and adjustments have been given to drivers and maintenance
employees at the same time. The two groups of employees work sub-
stantially the same number of hours, although the drivers are subject
to a maximum number of hours set by State and Federal regulations
while the maintenance employees are not.' Drivers and maintenance
employees enjoy the same vacation policy and group insurance plan.
The Board has adopted no policy as to the grouping of operating
and maintenance employees in the bus transportation industry.5 In
October 1948 the Board found 6 upon the facts concerning this Em-
ployer's operations that a combined unit of bus drivers and mainte-
nance employees, as requested by the petitioning labor organization
in that case-the Intervenor in this proceeding-was appropriate.
There has been no substantial changd in the Employer's operations
since that decision, and we see nothing in this record to indicate the
inappropriateness of the unit there found appropriate. Accordingly,
we find that all drivers and maintenance employees in the Employer's
system-wide operations, excluding guards, office and clerical employees,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Some question arises concerning the eligibility of the student
drivel to vote in a representation election. The student is employed
to make one "commuter" run to and from his residence each week day.
We conclude that he is a regular part-time employee and has an interest
in the selection of a bargaining representative. Accordingly, we
shall permit the student driver to vote in the election hereinafter
directed.7
At the hearing the Employer and the Intervenor requested that the
Petitioner's name be omitted from the ballot unless it furnished a
copy of its constitution. Apparently, the Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that the Petitioner, under its constitution, cannot prop-
perly represent the employees involved. We have previously stated
that in the absence of any showing that a labor organization will not
accord effective representation to all employees in the bargaining unit,
we will not inquire into its constitution. The willingness of a labor
organization to represent employees and the employees' designation of
that labor organization as representative are the controlling consid-
5 See Tennessee Coach Company, 88 NLRB 253.
O Unpublished decision , Case No. 10-RC-242.
4 See Burrows & Sanborn , Inc., 84 NLRB 304; Flo sheim Retail Boot Shop , 80 NLRB
1312.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erations in determining the competency of an organization to act as
bargaining agent.'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Independent, or by Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, Local Division 1323, AFL, or by neither.
8 Coast Pacific Lumber Company, 81 NLRB 1351 ; Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB
867.
8 Any participant in the election directed may have its name removed from the ballot
upon its prompt request to the Regional Director.