Central Truck Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 374 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC. and S. J. HERRIN, PETITIONER and TRUCK
DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 512, AF-
FILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.1
Case No. 10-RD,94. February 9$, 1950
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank
E. Hamilton, 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Teamsters is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees
designated in the petition.
The Teamsters was certified by the Board on November 20, 1950,
and is currently recognized by the Employer as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of the Employer.
3. As noted above, the Teamsters was certified on November 20,
1950, following a consent election, as the bargaining representative of
a unit at the Employer's Ocala, Florida, terminal, which included
over-the-road drivers and city pick-up and delivery drivers. After
attempting to negotiate a single contract covering both types of
drivers, the Employer and the Teamsters decided that such factors
as lack of interchange and separate seniority made it necessary to
follow their practice at the Employer's other terminals of having
a contract for each group. Accordingly, the parties executed two
city pick-up contracts and one over-the-road contract. The current
city pick-up contract was entered into on October 1, 1951, for a 2-year
period. The over-the-road contract, effective from November 10, 1950,
to January 31, 1951, provided for automatic yearly renewal thereafter
in the absence of 60 days' written notice by either party of a desire to
cancel or terminate the contract. On November 2,1951, the Teamsters
notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate a new over-the-road
contract. Thereafter, on November 15, 1951, the Petitioner filed the
instant petition.
1 Herein called the Teamsters.
98 NLRB No. 56
CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC. 375
The Teamsters moves that the petition be dismissed because it was
filed during the certification year and its contracts constitute a bar.
It also takes the position that only the certified unit is appropriate,
but if the Board orders an election it should be confined to over-the-
road drivers because the petition was filed by an over-the-road driver
and the city pick-up contract is, in any event, a bar. The Petitioner,
who agrees that only the certified unit is appropriate, contends that
the contracts are not a bar as their coverage is different from the
certified unit and the over-the-road contract was opened by the Team-
sters' timely notice. However, the Petitioner is willing to proceed
to an election in either or both of the contract units if they are found
appropriate by the Board. The Employer also takes the view that if
an election is directed, the appropriate unit should be the same as the
certified unit.
We agree with the Petitioner that the contracts in this case cannot
operate as a bar to an election. The Employer and the Teamsters
have departed from the certified unit by dividing it into two contract
units. We find therefore, apart from other considerations, that the
contracts are not a bar to a determination of representatives.2 Ac-
cordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is hereby
denied.,' -
We find that 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. We find in agreement with the parties that the following unit,
certified on November 20, 1950, constitutes a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act'
All city pick-up and delivery drivers and helpers, over-the-road
drivers, all warehouse employees including tow-motor operators,
checkers, stackers, callers, loaders, and unloaders at the Employer's
Ocala, Florida, terminal, but excluding all other employees such as
office employees, professional employees, mechanics, guards, and
supervisors as defined in he Act.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Calaveras Cement Company, 89 NLRB 378.
8 We find no merit in the Teamsters ' argument that the petition should be dismissed
because it was filed during the, certification year. As the petition was filed during the
twelfth month of the certification year and was not processed until after the expiration
of the certification year, there was no prejudicial intrusion into the Teamsters' right
'to undisturbed bargaining during the certification year. Cf. National Heat Treating, 95
NLRB No. 144
4 As the parties agree that the over -all unit is appropriate , we find no merit in the
Teamsters ' contention that the election should be confined to the over -the-road drivers
because the petition was filed by an over-the -road driver.
6 However , we do not pass upon the unit placement of watchmen and greasemen as
the Employer does not employ employees in these classifications.