Checker Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CHECKER CAB CO. 683
,and Knott Supermarkets,3 those standards are met only if the em-
ployer has an annual direct inflow of 1 million dollars or an annual
indirect inflow of 2 million dollars or direct out-of-State sales of
$100,000 per annum. As none of these requirements is satisfied here,
we find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this case. The petition will therefore be dismissed.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
8 110 NLRB No 68.
H. H. WILLIAMS D/B/A CHECKER CAB CO. AND BATON ROUGE YELLOW
CAR CO., INC. and EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATION OF YELLOW AND
CIIECKER CAB CO., PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-1061. October 29,
1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William W. Fox, 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 :
The Employer owns and operates two taxi companies in the city
,of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. These companies provide a preponder-
ance of the taxi service available to white passengers in Baton Rouge,
particularly for passengers picked up at bus and rail depots. The
Employer also provides the only airport limousine service for the 3
.airlines serving Baton Rouge, having a written exclusive agreement
with Delta Airlines for such service and oral agreements with the
,other 2. Approximately 31 percent of the Employer's gross revenues
are derived from trips to and from bus, rail, and airline terminals.
Jurisdiction will not be asserted over the Employer. We are will-
ing to concede that taxicab companies, like those involved in this
case, may fall within the broad scope of the Board's legal power to
assert jurisdiction. However, as recognized by the Courts,' the
Board may properly refuse to exert the full limits of this power
-when the assertion of jurisdiction would not effectuate the basic pur-
poses of the Act.
Before the 1950 jurisdictional plan was promulgated, the Board
itself, in a series of decisions issued August 15, 1950, found that the
I See , e. g, N L R B. v. Denver Bldg . & Construction Trades Council , et al, 341 U. S.
675, 684,
110 NLRB No. 109.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
policies of the Act would not be effectuated by assuming jurisdiction
over taxicab companies operating within the confines of a single State,
because of their essentially local character.2 Nevertheless, after the
1950 plan, the Board began exercising jurisdiction over such com-
panies, subject only to the limitation, announced in the Cambridge
case,' that the company be either the sole taxicab concern in the area
serving instrumentalities of commerce or be licensed by such instru-
mentality, and that the company derive a substantial part of its in-
come from serving that instrumentality.
In our view, the Board's original rule, established after 15 years of
administrative experience, was correct and should again be control-
ling. Taxicab companies, by their very nature, perform local oper-
ations and are essentially local entities. To assert jurisdiction over
such enterprises would neither comport with the congressional intent
that the Board refrain from extending its activities to matters of
local significance,' nor otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall refuse to assert jurisdiction over taxicab
companies, and the Cambridge decision is hereby overruled. We shall
therefore dismiss the petition in this case.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I believe the majority is wrong in reversing the Cambridge Taxi
case and deciding that it will not take jurisdiction over any taxicab
companies. That case represents the result of many years' experience
with the problem of jurisdiction over the taxicab industry. On the
basis of that experience the Board finally agreed not to assert jurisdic-
tion over taxicab companies operating merely as a means of local con-
venience. At the same time, however, it recognized that certain taxi-
cab operations are in fact vital and necessary to the transportation of
passengers engaged in interstate travel. Thus the Board acknowl-
edged, as I think it should now, that where a taxicab company is (1)
either the only one serving instrumentalities of commerce in a particu-
lar city or is the holder of a contract, license, or franchise to serve these
terminals, and (2) derives a substantial portion of its revenue from
such business, that the company's operations are neither insubstantial
nor remotely related to interstate commerce and that the Board ac-
cordingly should assert jurisdiction.
The importance of the operations of the Employer in this case to
passengers reaching or leaving Baton Rouge by interstate carrier is
2 Yellow Cab Company of Calafornsa , 90 NLRB 1884 ; Skyvtiew Transpw tation Co 90
NLRB 1895 ; Brooklyn Cab Corporation, 90 NLRB 1898
3 Cambridge Taxi Company, 101 NLRB 1328.
' See, e . g, Final Report of the Joint Committee on Labor - Management Relations , Senate
Report No 986 , 80th Cong , 2d Sess , Part 3, p. 14 ; Hearings before the Senate Com-
mittee on Labor and Public welfare on S 249, 81st Cong , 1st Sess , Part 1, pp 175-177.
3 BEALL BROTHERS 3, ETC. 685
quite evident. The Employer, under 1 exclusive written and 2 oral
agreements, provides the sole limousine service for the 3 airlines serv-
ing the Baton Rouge airports. In addition, it provides taxi service for
white passengers to and from bus and rail terminals. Its income from
these services amounts to about $75,000 annually, more than 30 percent
of its total revenue.
I believe this segment of commerce and labor is sufficiently impor-
tant to persons traveling between and among the several States to
warrant the assertion of jurisdiction under the doctrine of the Cam-
bridge Taxi case which I see no reason to depart from as a reasonable
and satisfactory answer to the problem of jurisdiction in this industry.
As I have discussed at some length in the recent Breeding Transfer
Company case 5 the,general propositions and authority upon which
the majority relies in this case, I shall nol repeat that discussion here.
MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
Applying the jurisdictional criteria set forth in my separate opinion
in the recent Breeding Transfer Company case,' I would assert juris-
diction over this Employer in conformity with the rule announced in
Cambridge Taxi Company.'
5 110 NLRB 493.
6 110 NLRB 493.
7 101 NLRB 1328.
3 BEALL BROTHERS 3; MCLELLAN STORES COMPANY; F. W. WOOLWORTH
COMPANY; THE FAIR, INC.; FRANKLIN STORES CORPORATION OF PORT
ARTHUR C. R. ANTHONY COMPANY, INC.; MAYFAIR CORPORATION OF
PORT ARTHUR and SABINE AREA INDUSTRIAL UNION LOCAL 1814,
CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 39RC-713, 39-RC-715, 39RC-716,
39-RC-717, 39-RC-720, 39RC-721, and 39RC-724. October
29,1954
Decision , Direction of Elections, and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Arthur Safos, hearing officer., The hearing officer's rulings made at
3 On May 3, 1954, the Petitioner filed requests for permission to withdraw its petitions
in the above-entitled cases. The requests were granted by the Officer in Charge of the 39th
Subregion, but permission to withdraw was subsequently rescinded on the same day. On
May 4, 1954, a hearing was held with respect to the withdrawal applications and, after the
hearing, the matter was submitted to the Board. By order dated June 10, 1954, the
Board denied the withdrawal requests upon the ground that the Petitioner had engaged in
a strike for recognition since the filing of the petitions and the Board had been admin-
istratively advised that the Petitioner had been picketing each of the Employers' premises
and was continuing such picketing. As the Petitioner by its picketing was engaged in ac-
tion inconsistent with an unequivocal request for withdrawal, the proceeding was re-
110 NLRB No. 96.