Chemical Express

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

CHEMICAL EXPRESS 29
Chemical Express and General Drivers and Helpers Local Union
No. 657, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Chemical Express and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local No. 583, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Cement Transport, Inc. and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 583, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 39-RC-1081, 16-RC-1989, and 16-RC-1995. January
8,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Marvin L. Smith, Jr., 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 engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
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.
4. General Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 657, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen-
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 657, and General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 5831.
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 583, together seek to represent a unit,
of truckdrivers employed by Chemical Express at its San Antonio
and Maryneal, Texas, plants, excluding mechanics, servicemen, and
other employees. Local 583 wishes to represent a separate unit of
' Subsequent to the hearing , the Employer moved to dismiss the petitions upon the
grounds that : (a) The units sought by the Petitioners are not appropriate ; ( b) the Peti-
tioners ' showing of interest is not adequate , particularly since a considerable number of
employees notified the Regional Director subsequent to the hearing that they were with-
drawing from the unions , and (c ) the statement by representatives of the Petitioners
that they would not bargain jointly for Cement Transport drivers disqualified them to act
as statutory representative. The motion is hereby denied. Grounds ( a) and (c) are
discussed hereinafter As for ground ( b) the showing of interest is an administrative
matter which is not litigable or subject to collateral attack. The motion to incorporate
in the record the employees ' letter of withdrawal is therefore denied. The Board is sat-
isfied that .the -Petitioners have an adequate showing of interest in the single unit which
it finds appropriate . Whether a majority of employees in that unit desire to be repre-
sented by the Petitioners can best be ascertained by a secret election . East Coast Fish-
eries, Inc., 97 NLRB 1261, 1262.
117 NLRB No. 11.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
;truckdrivers at the Maryneal plant of Cement Transport, Inc., ex-
cluding mechanics, servicemen , and other employees. The Employer
contends that only a single unit comprising truckdrivers, mechanics,
and servicemen employed both by Chemical Express and Cement
Transport, Inc., at their Maryneal, San Antonio, and El Paso, Texas,
plants, is appropriate.
Chemical Express is a specialized motor carrier which transports
bulk cement within the State of Texas. It has terminals at Mary-
•neal, San Antonio, and El Paso, Texas. Cement Transport, Inc., is a
separate corporation engaged in transporting bagged cement in the
Maryneal, Texas, trade area . It has a single terminal at Maryneal.
The two companies have the same officers except for the treasurer
who is different for'each company. The same individual is vice presi-
dent and general manager of both companies. He determines labor
policy., Under the vice president and general manager is an operations
;manager who supervises the activities of both employers. The com-
panies share a common office and clerical force at Dallas. Cement
Transport, Inc., has only one terminal located at Maryneal. This is a
subleased part of the terminal leased by Chemical Express. The
terminal -manager for Chemical Express at Maryneal supervises the
drivers of both companies. Depending on the workload, drivers for
Chemical Express and Cement Transport,- Inc., at Maryneal inter-
change. The two companies have the same employee benefits.
In addition to a terminal at Maryneal, Chemical Express also 'has
terminals at San Antonio and El Paso. Employees at all terminals are
centrally supervised. There is considerable interchange of assign-
ments among drivers at the different terminals.
Upon the basis of the above facts, we find that Chemical Express
and Cement Transport, Inc., constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act and that only a unit including drivers of both com-
panies is appropriate. Moreover, in view of the integration of opera-
tions at all terminals, centralized control, and interchange of drivers
among the terminals, we find that the unit should include the drivers
at all three terminals? ,
There remains the question whether, as urged by the Petitioners,
mechanics and servicemen should be excluded from the unit, or in-
cluded, as requested by the Employer. The mechanics and servicemen
care for and service the automotive equipment. They are under the
general supervision of a maintenance foreman. Truckdrivers who
have the necessary training may be shifted temporarily to maintenance
work. Normally, however, truckdrivers are not qualified to do the
work of maintenance mechanics.
Automotive mechanics and truckdrivers have different skills and
interests. The fact that, as in this case, some of the truckdrivers may
2 The Transport Company of Texas, 111 NLRB 884.
AROOSTOOK FEDERATION OF FARMERS, INC. 31
also have the skills of a mechanic and may occasionally do mechanics'
work does not affect the basic dissimilarity in interests of the two
groups. Accordingly, we shall exclude the mechanics and servicemen
from the unit.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All truckdrivers employed by Chemical Express and Cement Trans-
poit, Inc., at their terminals in Maryneal, San Antonio, and El Paso,
Texas, excluding plant employees, office clerical employees, mechanics,
servicemen, other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. If the Petitioners win the election, they will be certified jointly as
the-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit. The Employer may then insist that the two unions in fact bar-
gain jointly for such employees as a single unit.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' s Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc., 98 NLRB 969, 973.
Aroostook Federation of Farmers , Inc. and Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union, Local #340, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4039. Janu-
ary 9,1957
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,' an election
by secret ballot was conducted on February 14, 1956, under the di-
rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. Thereafter a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties showing that, of 34 votes cast in the election, 8 were for
the Petitioner and 9 were for "no-union," with 17 votes being
challenged. On February 17, 1956, Petitioner filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the challenges and objections,
and, on May 7, 1956, issued and duly served upon the parties his con-
solidated report on objections and challenged ballots, in which he
found that the objections failed to raise substantial and material issues
1114 NLRB 538.
117 NLRB No. 12.