Frank McCann Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1057 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of FRANK MCCANN CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and TAXI-
CAB, Bus, FUNERAL DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION $k496,
INTERNATIONAL. BROTI4ERI300D OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,. W ARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-11 !9.Decided December 16, 1919
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Leo J. Hal-
loran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The business of the Employer
The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation with its place of busi-
ness in Boston, is engaged in the operation of a private livery service.
Automobiles driven by its own chauffeurs are provided by the Em-
ployer on both a contract and a direct fee basis for local and out-of-
State trips. The Employer does not have an Interstate Commerce
Commission license. During the year extending from July 1, 1948,
to June 30, 1949, the Employer's income amounted to approximately
$104,477, about 90 percent of which was derived from trips within the
State, and the remainder from trips into other States. During the
same period, the Employer expended $19,463 for new cars, $7,099 for
gasoline and oil, and $1,325 for tires.
The Employer neither admits nor denies that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
While we do not find that the operations of the Employer are wholly
unrelated to commerce, we find that these operations are essentially
local in character, and that the assertion of jurisdiction in this par-
ticular case would not effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition.'
' Cf. Hertz Drie-Ur-Self Stations , Inc., 78 NLRB 422.
87 NLRB No. 11.5.
577359-50-vol. 87-68 1057
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
We would assert jurisdiction here because the Employer is partly
engaged in transportation that crosses State lines. We believe that
the operations of an employer directly engaged in such transporta-
tion cannot be termed essentially local in character. Earlier decisions
of the Board asserting jurisdiction over taxicab companies, sightseeing
bus companies, and small bus lines support our position here.2
2 See Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc., 82 NLRB 664 (taxicabs) ; Bussard Taxi and Bus
Service, 81 NLRB 1181 ; Chicago Gray Lines, Inc., 81 NLRB 466 (sightse[eing busses)
El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, 79 NLRB 1069; Amarillo Bus Company, 78 NLRB 1103.