Groendyke Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

GROENDYKE TRANSPORT, INC. 997
Groendyke Transport , Inc. and Southern Con-
ference of Teamsters , affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Cases 16-RC-4660 and 16-RC-4661
June 5, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
Upon petitions filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held before Hearing Officer Charles H.
Steere . Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure , Series 8 , as amended , and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 16, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by
the Employer' and the Petitioner. A reply brief was
also filed by the Employer.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby all-
firmed .'
Upon the entire record in these cases, including
the briefs filed herein , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer, and is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a regional
unit of drivers and owner-drivers employed by the
Employer at its terminals located in Texas,
Oklahoma, and Louisiana.' In the alternative, the
Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of
drivers and owner-drivers employed by the Em-
ployer at each of the terminals located in these
same States. The Employer contends that the only
unit appropriate for bargaining is a systemwide
unit. There is no history of collective bargaining at
any of the terminals involved herein.
The Employer is engaged as a motor common
carrier in the transportation of petroleum, petrole-
um products, and other commodities. There are 26
terminals located in Colorado, New Mexico, Kan-
sas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana. Trucks are
dispatched into the various States and any one ter-
minal may dispatch into any of the States. Drivers
call in to the central dispatch center at the home
office in Enid, Oklahoma, at the end of trips in
order to return with loads to their home terminals.
The terminals are widely scattered geographically
and operate under the central control of the home
office. All terminals handle intrastate-interstate
business. Local terminals receive and dispatch or-
ders depending upon the commodities involved.
After the original allocation of business is made by
the home office, the local terminals deal directly
with customers. Meetings of terminal managers and
dispatchers throughout the system are held periodi-
cally at the home office.
The terminal managers who are directly responsi-
ble to the home office exercise a considerable
amount of autonomy in handling day-to-day opera-
tions. Work rules, which vary from terminal to ter-
minal, are established by terminal managers.
Discipline, including discharge for reasons other
than specific violations of company rules, is made
by terminal managers subject to later check by the
home office. Terminal managers make effective
recommendations regarding personnel and respon-
sibly direct the operations of the terminals.
Grievances are settled at the local terminal and,
although the employees have the right of appeal to
the home office, most matters are resolved at the
terminal level. In short, the terminal manager is the
Employer's coordinator for all the functions per-
formed by the Employer within that particular area.
Wages vary from terminal to terminal based on
local economic conditions and competition with
other employers for similar personnel. Separate
I As the record, including the briefs, adequately sets forth the issues and
positions of the parties , the Employer 's request for oral argument is denied
' The Employer has filed a motion requesting a rehearing on the Hearing
Officer's ruling revoking a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Regional
Director for Region 16 on September 6, 1967 For the reasons stated at the
hearing by the Hearing Officer, the Employer 's motion is denied
' In Case 16-RC-4660 the Petitioner requested all terminals located in
Texas, and in Case 16-RC-4661 the Petitioner requested all terminals
located in Oklahoma The Texas terminals are located at Amarillo,
Angleton , Beaumont , Corpus Christi , Dallas, Gainesville , Houston, and
Wichita Falls The Oklahoma terminals are located at Ardmore, Duncan,
Enid, Oklahoma City, Ponca City, and Tulsa During the course of the
hearing, it was ascertained that the Employer had opened a terminal at
Baton Rouge , Louisiana This terminal was manned by transfers and by
local hiring The Petitioner amended its position at the hearing to include
the Baton Rouge terminal as one of the terminals for which it is seeking
representation
171 NLRB No. 143
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wage adjustments have been made applicable to in-
dividual terminals. Record testimony reflects about
seven transfers from terminal to terminal during a
period of 3-1/2 years.
In support of its request for a regional unit, the
Petitioner contends that such a unit would be con-
sistent with industry pattern and practice. The
record, however, fails to establish a uniform pattern
and practice of regional bargaining in this industry,
and it is clear that the proposed unit possesses
neither geographic nor administrative cohesiveness.
Thus, the sole basis for the regional unit appears to
be the extent of the Petitioner's jurisdiction, a fac-
tor to which the Board does not give effect in deter-
mining what constitutes an appropriate unit.' Ac-
cordingly, we find that the regional unit sought
herein is not appropriate.
Although it appears that there are factors present
herein which could support a finding that a system-
wide unit is appropriate, these factors are not so
compelling as to require a finding that such a unit is
the only appropriate unit. Single terminal units
avoid the problem of wide geographical separation,
and correspond with the Employer's only opera-
tional subdivisions, since there are no intermediate
levels of authority between the individual terminals
and the home office. The terminal managers are
directly responsible to the home office and the
record shows that they have substantial authority in
hiring, assigning , and disciplining drivers and in
controlling the day-to-day work of the drivers. The
record also shows that separate wage adjustments
have been made applicable to individual terminals
and that there is a minimal amount of transfers
between terminals.
On the basis of the foregoing, the single terminal
units involved herein are presumptively appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.5 Ac-
cordingly, we find that the single terminal units
located in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana are ap-
propriates
The parties agree that drivers and owner-drivers
belong in the unit. However, contrary to the Peti-
tioner, the Employer would also include the follow-
ing:
Dispatchers: The dispatchers are under the direct
control of the home office as are the terminal
managers . They receive orders from customers and
at the direction of central dispatch in the home of-
fice. They order the drivers when to leave on a par-
ticular schedule and to wait for a particular time.
They select drivers who are to take particular loads.
They reprimand drivers for tardiness. On these
facts, we find that the dispatchers responsibly direct
the work of the drivers, and we exclude them from
the unit.?
Mechanics, servicemen: The employees perform-
ing these jobs have skills and interests substantially
different from those of the drivers and owner-
drivers included in the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner; we shall therefore exclude them from the
unit.8
Clericals: The employees in these jobs perform
various types of office work. As it is clear that they
are office clericals who lack a community of in-
terest with the drivers, we shall exclude them from
the unit.9
Part-time drivers, part-time owner-drivers: As the
record does not show whether these classifications
of employees are employed on a regular part-time
basis or are employed as casual employees, we shall
permit them to vote subject to challenge.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the follow-
ing employees of the Employer constitute separate
appropriate units for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All drivers, owner-drivers, regular part-time
drivers, regular part-time owner-drivers employed
at each of the Employer' s terminals located in Tex-
as, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, but excluding all ter-
minal managers , dispatchers, mechanics, ser-
vicemen , office clericals, casual part-time drivers,
casual part-time owner-drivers, all other employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Elections10 omitted from publica-
tion. ]
'Building Construction Employers Association, 147 NLRB 222, 224
' Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, 139 NLRB 629, 631; Fredrickson Motor Express
Corp., 121 NLRB 32, 33-34, and Groendyke Transport, Inc, 164 NLRB
231
° As we have found single terminal units appropriate herein , the Regional
Director is instructed not to proceed with an election in any of the terminal
units until he determines that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing
of interest among the employees employed at that terminal
r Overnite Transportation Company, 128 NLRB 723, 724
'Chemical Express, 117 NLRB 29, 30-31.
° Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761, 763
10 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 16 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
Direction of Elections The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236