Embree Buses, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 714 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Embree Buses, Inc.' and Chauffeurs Union Local 640,
International Brotherhood - of Teamsters , -Chauf-
feursi, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pe-
titioner.'
Embree Buses , Inc. and Benson Reed, Petitioner, and
Embree Bus Drivers ' Association.' Cases 31-RC-
3428 and 31-RD-354
November 1, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Noel Shipman.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, and by direction of the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 31, this case was transfer-
red to the National Labor Relations Board for deci-
sion.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. Petitioner Teamsters petitioned for a unit con-
sisting of all schoolbus drivers and charter bus driv-
ers employed by the Employer, and indicated that it
has no interest in representing any unit found appro-
priate by the Board which does not include school-
bus drivers. The Employer contends that the Board
should not assert jurisdiction over what is an essen-
tially local enterprise engaged primarily in aid of the
state and local communities in the field of education.
The Employer further claims that the school district,
with which the Employer has a contract to provide
schoolbus transportation, exerts such extensive con-
trol over the Employer's operations as to preclude
the Employer from engaging in meaningful bargain-
ing without the approval of the school district, which
i The names of the Employer and Petitioner Teamsters appear as
amended at the hearing. Petitioner Teamsters intervened in Case 31-RD-
354.
2 Subsequent to the transfer of this case to the Board , an order was issued
remanding the case to the Acting Regional Director for the purpose of
reopening the record to receive further evidence regarding the appropriate-
ness of including certain charter bus drivers in the unit found appropriate.
3 Embree Bus Drivers' Association intervened in Case 31-RC-3428
is exempt from the Board's jurisdiction. Assuming
that the Board does assert jurisdiction, the Employer
contends that the unit sought by, Petitioner Team-
sters is inappropriate. Both the Employer and In-
tervenor Embree Bus Drivers' Association claim that
a contract between them bars the instant petition.
The Employer is a California corporation engaged
in both school and charter bus transportation. Pur-
suant to contracts with the Pasadena Unified School
District, the Employer provides schoolbus services
for that district. During the preceding 12-month pe-
riod, total gross revenues-from both school and char-
ter bus operations exceeded $250,000. Gross reve-
nues from the charter bus operations alone exceeded
$250,000. The Employer purchased goods directly
from ' outside the State of California in excess of
$50,000.
For the reasons expressed in Boesch Lines, Inc.,4
we shall decline to a;sert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations nsofar as they involve the
provision of schoolbus services to the school district.
However, the Employer is engaged in transit opera-
tions other than schoclbus operations which affect
commerce, and which produce annual revenues in
excess of $250,000. Accordingly, we find that it
would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the Employer' s operations only in-
sofar as they involve the provision of nonschool-re-
lated charter bus services.'
2. The labor organizations involved herein claim
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
Having determined that it would be appropriate to
assert jurisdiction based solely upon the Employer's
nonschool-related charter bus service, the nonexempt
aspect of the Employer's operations, the question re-
mains as to what constitutes an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining and whether
any election is warranted.6 In light of our jurisdic-
tional finding, we further conclude that an appropri-
4224 NLRB 203 (1976).
5 Boesch Lines, supra, In 4 For reasons expressed in We Transport, Inc
and Town Bus Corp, 215 NLRB 497 (1974), Member Jenkins would assert
jurisdiction over the Employer's entire operations , including the Employer's
schoolbus operations
6 We find no merit to the contention that an election herein would be
barred by the contract between the Employer and the Embree Bus Drivers'
Association , which expired on February 29, 1976 The Teamsters filed its
petition on March 1. A new contract between the Employer and the Associ-
ation was ratified by the employees on March 4, and signed by the parties
on or about March 15 , although the parties' signatures were dated March 4.
In order for a contract to bar an election , the contract must be signed by all
the parties before a rival petition is filed Appalachian Shale Products Co,
121 NLRB 1160 (1958) In the present case , the contract was signed after
the petition was filed, and, therefore, could not serve as a bar to an election
herein.
226 NLRB No. 116
EMBREE BUSES, INC. 715
ate unit herein should be limited to employees of the
Employer who are engaged in, nonschool-related
charter bus services? But,_ Petitioner Teamsters does
not wish to participate in an election in a_unit which
does not include schoolbus drivers. Intervenor Em-
bree Bus Drivers' Association is opposed to an elec-
tion in any unit. Furthermore, the- RD Petitioner has
given no indication-that it seeks an election in a unit
confined to the Employer's charter bus operations,
which is but a-segment of the existing broader unit
7 Roesch Lines, supra, fn. 4
upon which it based its.,petition.8 Therefore, since no
party-appears-to seek an election in the unit we deem
appropriate, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases
31-RC-3428 and 31-RD-354 be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
8 There are presently approximately 115 schoolbus drivers and 25 charter
bus drivers.