Charleston Transit Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 26, 1959123 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1959) Copy Citation 1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Charleston Transit Company and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America AFL-CIO, Division 1493, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC- 3582. May 26, 1959 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 Arthur P. West, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is a Nest Virginia corporation engaged in the operation of a local passenger transit system by motorbus in and around Charleston, West Virginia, a city of approximately 100,000 population. The Employer carries no freight or mail, nor does it interchange or share facilities with any other transit company. Dur- ing 1958 it carried more than 9,000,000 passengers including those who use bus service to commute to work at Union Carbide, Goodrich- Gulf Chemical, and other industries in the Charleston area. Its gross revenues for 1958 were about $1,300,000, derived almost exclusively from passenger fares. Purchases of diesel fuel, tires, and parts pro- duced out of the State exceeded $160,000 in 1958. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over its operations because they are wholly intrastate and do not substantially affect interstate commerce.' The Board has recently adopted revised jurisdictional standards 2 as a consequence of the situation to which the Supreme Court referred in its decision in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board,' so that more individuals, labor organizations, and employers may invoke the rights and protections afforded by the statute. In Siemons Mailing Service 4 the Board fully set forth the general considerations which persuaded it that this could best be accomplished by the utilization of revised In Charleston Transit Company, 1.11 NLRB 1214, involving this Employer, the Board declined to assert jurisdiction as the Employer's operations did not meet the jurisdictional standard then in effect for transit companies. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America, AFL v. N.L.R.B., 238 F. 2d 38), the Board held that the retroactive application of its standard to the Employer's operations was proper and again refused to assert jurisdiction on the ground that the Employer's interstate operations were insubstantial. 118 NLRB 1164. The right of the Board to change its jurisdictional standards even retroactively, has been upheld. Optical Workers' Union Local 24859, et al. v. N.L.R.B., 227 F. 2d 687, at 691 (C.A. 5). A dismissal in an earlier proceeding on jurisdictional grounds does not, therefore, preclude the Board from asserting jurisdiction in a new proceeding under its present jurisdictional standards. See Yellow Cab Company of California, 93 NLRB 766. 3 Press Release (R-576) October 2, 1958. 8 353 U.S. 1. ,1122 NLRB 81, Member Jenkins concurring specially. 123 NLRB No. 161. CHARLESTON TRANSIT COMPANY 1297 jurisdictional standards as an administrative aid in making its juris- dictional determinations. The Board has chosen this case to set forth the revised standards to be applied in all future and pending cases to enterprises operating transit systems. The Board has decided that it will better effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over all transit systems which do a gross volume of business of at least $250,000 per annum. Application of this standard to the facts in this case requires the Board to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. Accordingly, the Board denies the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition, finding that it will effectu- ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's bus drivers. The Employer urges that the appropriate unit should include the mechanics, greasers, and storeroom clerks, collectively called shop- men. It contends that only a single unit consisting of the drivers and shopmen is appropriate here because two consent elections have been conducted in past years for the larger unit; the two groups are func- tionally integrated; and the Petitioner's claim is based solely on its extent of organization. There are 89 bus drivers and 27 shopmen employed in the Em- ployer's operations. The drivers' only function is operation of the buses. They are supervised by a superintendent of transportation, assisted by eight dispatchers. The shopmen are responsible for the proper maintenance and repair of the vehicles under the direct con- trol of the superintendent of equipment. There is no interchange of duties between drivers and shopmen. Although both groups are hourly rated and participate in the same fringe benefit programs, we see no persuasive reason to hold in this case that these two groups of employees are more closely integrated than other similar groups in the bus transportation industry. The previous consent elections on the broader basis failed to result in the selection of a bargaining representative and accordingly are not binding herein. The differences in working conditions and supervision, the fact that there has been no past bargaining history, the absence of interchange of duties, and the fact that no union is seeking to represent the drivers and shopmen in a single unit indicate that the bus drivers as such may constitute a separate appropriate unit.' Since a unit of bus drivers is 5 Gastonia Transit Cosn.panej, 91 NLRB 'S94; Union Bits Lines, Inc., 85 NLRB 107; Safeway Trails, Inc., 120 NLRB 79, 82. Cf. Tennessee Coach Company, 88 NLRB 253; Amarillo Bits Company, 78 NLRB 1103. 508S89-60-vol. 123-83 1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriate for the reasons just stated, we find no merit in the Em- ployer's contention that the unit is inappropriate because the Peti- tioner's claim is based solely on its extent of organization.' We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All motor coach operators (bus drivers) of the Employer at its Charleston, WVest Virginia, establishment, excluding all shopmen, maintenance, terminal, office and all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 Section 9(c) (5) of the Act only prohibits the Board from giving controlling weight to the extent to which the employees have been organized . The Berger Brothers Company, 116 NLRB 439, 441. Puerto Rico Drydock & Marine Terminals , Inc. and Jose A. Falu Rosario and Miguel Angel Rivera Amariles ILA District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico , ILA Ind., and Local 1575 , ILA District Council of the Ports of Puerto Rico , ILA Ind. and Jose A. Falu Rosario and Miguel Angel Rivera Amariles . Cases Nos. 04-CA-803 and 24-CB-190. May 28, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On February 24, 1958, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Company and the Respondent Unions had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommend- ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Com- pany and the Respondent Unions had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these particular allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Gen- eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting brief. 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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the General 123 NLRB No. 160. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation