H P O Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 394 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cordingly, we shall amend our certification of representatives with
respect to the classifications of employees included in the unit by
specifically including the methods analysts.
[The Board amended the certification of representatives issued
to the Westinghouse Salaried Employees Association at South Phil-
adelphia, affiliated with Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaries Unions, in Case No. 5-RM-64 and . Case No. 4-RC-1293,
specifically to include in the certified unit the methods analysts.]
H P 0 Service, Inc. and Sollie Walker, Petitioner and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 175 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case No. 9-RD-205. December 11, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur P. West,
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 the transportation of mail pur-
suant to contracts with the United States Post Office. It transports
mail by bus on regular routes between the city of Charleston, W. Va.
and the cities of Bluefield, Welch, and Buckhannon, all in West Vir-
ginia, and between Buckhannon, W. Va., and Connellsville, Pa. The
mail transported by the Employer originates within and without
the State of West Virginia. During the past year, the Employer's
gross revenues from such operations exceeded $100,000, of which
over $50,000 was received for the transportation of mail which was
destined for delivery in States other than the State of its origin.
Ever since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in
1935 the Board has consistently held to the position that it better
effectuates the policies of the Act and promotes the prompt handling
of cases not to exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest possible extent
under the authority delegated to it by Congress. For the first 15
years the Board exercised its discretion in this area on a case-by-case
basis. In 1950 the Board first adopted certain jurisdictional standards
designed to aid it in determining where to draw the dividing line
between exercised and unexercised jurisdiction. In 1954 the Board
reexamined its jurisdictional policies in the light of its experience
under the 1950 standards and revised its jurisdictional standards. At
i The name of the Union appears in the caption as corrected at the hearing. The Union
did not appear at the hearing , although served with adequate notice thereof.
122 NLRB No. 62.
H P 0 SERVICE, INC. 395
that time the Board noted that "further changes in circumstances
may again require future alterations of our determinations one way
or another." 2
Consistent with this practice of periodic review of its jurisdic-
tional policies and as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's
decision in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board 3 denying to the
States authority to assert jurisdiction as to enterprises over which
the Board declines to exercise its statutory jurisdiction, the Board
reexamined its existing jurisdictional policies and the standards
through which such policies were implemented. As a result the
Board determined to revise its jurisdictional policies "so that more
individuals, labor organizations and employers may invoke the rights
and protections afforded by the statute." In Siemons Mailing Serv-
ice ' the Board set forth the general considerations which persuaded
it that this could best be accomplished by the utilization of revised
jurisdictional standards as an administrative aid in making its juris-
dictional determinations. The Board has chosen this case to set forth
the revised standards 5 to be applied to enterprises engaged in the
handling and transportation of commodities or passengers in inter-
state commerce, or which function as essential links in such trans-
portation.
The Board has decided that it will assert jurisdiction over all
passenger and freight transportation enterprises engaged in the
furnishing of interstate transportation services, and all transporta-
tion and other enterprises which function as essential links 6 in the
transportation of passengers or commodities in interstate commerce,
which derive at least $50,000 gross revenues per annum from such
operations, or which perform services valued at $50,000 or more per
annum for enterprises as to which the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion under any of its jurisdictional standards. However, jurisdiction
will not be asserted under this standard on the basis of services per-
formed for enterprises as to which the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion under its indirect outflow or indirect inflow standard.7
By lowering the gross revenues test for transportation enterprises
to $50,000, the Board has endeavored reasonably to insure that its
jurisdiction will be exercised over all labor disputes involving such
2Edwin D. Wemyss, an individual, d/b/a Coca- Cola Bottling Company of Stockton,
110 NLRB 840, 842.
3 3,53 U.S. 1.
41.22 NLRB,81.
5 These standards take the place of those announced in Breeding Transfer Company,
110 NLRB 493; Edelen Trans fer and Storage Company, Inc., 110 NLRB 1881; and
Rollo Transit Corporation, et at ,, 110 NLRB 1623.
6 Examples of such enterprises may be found in Breeding Transfer Company, 110
NLRB 493; United Warehouse and Terminal Corporation , 112 NLRB 959; Etiwan Fer-
tilizer Company, 113 NLRB 93; Kenedy Compress Company, 114 NLRB 634 ; Peoria Union
Stock Yards Company , 116 NLRB 263.
7 see Stemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enterprises which exert, or tend to exert, a pronounced impact on
commerce. Keeping in mind the significant increase in its caseload
which may be expected not alone under this standard but under
other standards as well, the Board does not believe it to be adminis-
tratively feasible at this time to extend its jurisdiction further in
this area.
As the Employer derives in excess of $50,000 gross revenues for
the transportation of mail in interstate commerce, we find that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is
the certified bargaining representative of such employees.
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. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All motor vehicle drivers and me-
chanics employed by the Employer at its Charleston, W. Va., termi-
nal, including those employees stationed at Buckhannon, W. Va., but
excluding all guards, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. This is the unit for
which the Union was certified and is currently recognized.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Indianapolis and Central Indiana District Council , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO
and Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO and Mechanical Handling Systems,
Incorporated , Party to the Contract and Hafford B. Carter
and Eiza Stevenson
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO and Mechanical Handling Systems , Incorporated,
Party to the Contract and Hafford B. Carter. 04868 Nob.
35-CB-203, 35-CB-203-1, and 35-CB-220. December 15, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 30,1958, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents, Indianapolis and Central Indiana District Council,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL
122 NLRB No. 51.