Hoster Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.2
4. The following employees at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan,
plant, constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All warehouse employees, including plant clerical employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Union contends that no election should be held at this time
because there is only one eligible worker presently employed. The
record shows, however, that at least three employees, who have been
temporarily laid off, are also eligible to vote as they have a reasonable
expectation of reemployment, in the next few weeks, by the Em-
ployer? Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the Union's
contention and shall direct that an immediate election be held.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
organization to file a decertification petition , provided that it is in compliance with Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) and the Teamsters has effected such compliance . See Philadelphia
Chewing Crum Corporation , 107 NLRB 997.
2 On April 29 , 1953, a collective -bargaining contract was executed between the Employer
and the Union The contract provides that after March 31 , 1954 , either party may termi-
nate the contract by giving 30 days' notice to the other party. As the petition herein was
filed on March 1, 1954, within a reasonable time prior to the end of the original fixed term
of the agreement , we find no merit in the Union 's contention that the contract constitutes
a bar to this proceeding . See The Pure Oil Company , 98 NLRB 139.
3 See Trenton Foods, Inc ., 101 NLRB 1769 at 1772.
HOSTER SUPPLY COMPANY' and GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL 886, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1439. July 26, 19541
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 John C. Crawford,
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
' The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
109 NLRB No. 74.
ROSTER SUPPLY COMPANY 467
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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of the Employer's truck-
drivers and warehousemen. There are 2 warehousemen and 8 truck-
drivers in the proposed unit. The Employer contends that 7 of the
8 truckdrivers are independent contractors and the petition should
therefore be dismissed.2
The Employer is engaged in the purchase and sale of steel products,
farm and ranch supplies, and scrap iron. It purchases steel at steel
manufacturing centers in Illinois, Colorado, and Alabama and trans-
ports it by truck to its warehouse in Oklahoma or directly to its cus-
tomers in that State. It also hauls scrap iron from Oklahoma to the
steel mills or to wholesalers outside the State. For its long-distance
hauling, the Employer uses 7 leased trucks; it also owns 1 delivery
truck which is used for making local deliveries and is operated by
an admitted employee.
The seven trucks used in long-distance hauling are leased from indi-
vidual owners. The lease agreements between these truck owners and
the Employer are effective for 3 years, subject to cancellation by either
party at any time upon 30 days' written notice. By the terms of the
lease agreement, the lessor agrees : "to use" the leased equipment ex-
clusively in connection with other similar equipment owned or leased
by the Employer for the transportation of merchandise exclusively
for the Employer "to and from such points or places and at such times
as may be designated" by the Employer; "to operate" the leased
equipment exclusively to haul merchandise for the Employer and to
"maintain same in good working condition at all times"; that the
leased equipment will be available at all times and will be subject to
the "exclusive management, direction, and control" of the Employer;
that he will maintain the leased equipment at his sole cost and ex-
pense , including all costs of operation not specifically excluded, and
that he will bear the loss occasioned to the leased equipment by fire,
accident, or negligence except gross negligence by the lessee. The
Employer in turn agrees : to pay a given number of cents per mile
"for the use of" the leased equipment, payable at the end of each
month; and to maintain such property damage and public liability
insurance on the leased equipment as may be necessary legally to
qualify such equipment for operation in certain named States. The
lease agreement also provides :
Hoster Supply Company will employ drivers to operate such
equipment, and will make proper deductions and payments of all
2 The Employer made this specific contention in its brief . At the hearing , it contended
only that it was unable to resolve the question of the status of these drivers and requested
the Board to do so.
334811-5,5-vol. 109-31
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
social security, unemployment, old age benefit, witholding [sic]
taxes, and similar taxes on all employees driving and operating
such equipment, as shall be required by law, including even the
lessor, if he shall be so employed by lessee. [Emphasis supplied.]
In practice, all the leased trucks are driven by their owners. The
trucks are used only for hauling merchandise of the Employer and
are subject to the Employer's exclusive direction and control. How-
ever, when the Employer's business is slack, the Employer and the
truck owners may agree on a mutual release from the lease agreement.
In that case, the truck owner is free to do hauling work for other
employers.
The Employer directly supervises the owner-drivers. The Em-
ployer determines driving assignments, but leaves the matter of the
route to be taken to the owner-drivers, although this is discussed
"very often." Also "for the most part" owner-drivers determine their
own times of departure and arrival.
The owner-drivers pay all expenses of operating the leased equip-
ment, including gas, oil, and repair costs, license fees, and taxes.
However, the Employer carries public liability and property damage
insurance, including cargo insurance, as protection against the acci-
dents in which the equipment may be involved, although many, if not
all, of the owner-drivers also carry such insurance in amounts deemed
inadequate by the Employer.
In addition to paying the owner-driver on a mileage basis for the
use of the leased equipment, the Employer also pays the owner-driver
a given rate per mile for driving the leased equipment. The Employer
has workmen's compensation coverage for the owner-drivers and de-
ducts social-security and withholding taxes from the amounts paid
them a
There is no detailed evidence in the record as to the working condi-
tions of the owner-drivers. Neither is there any such evidence of the
working conditions of the driver of the Employer's own delivery
truck, an admitted employee. The Employer's manager did testify,
however, that working conditions for the delivery-truck driver are
different from those for the owner-drivers because the delivery-truck
driver is engaged in a different kind of work. But, he further testi-
fied, if the delivery-truck driver should be shifted to the long-distance
runs in which the driver-owners were engaged, "he would have the
same privileges and get the same rate of pay and be subject to the same
rules and regulations as the other drivers. ..."
8 The Employer asserts that it has been providing workmen 's compensation coverage for
the owner -drivers and making social -security and withholding deductions from their earn-
ings in order to be on the safe side if it should be decided that these individuals are em-
ployees rather than independent contractors.
ROSTER SUPPLY COMPANY 469
To support its contention that the owner-drivers are independent
contractors, the Employer relies very heavily on the Malone case,' in
which the Board held that owner-drivers of leased motor vehicle
equipment were independent contractors rather than employees.
There are certain similarities, but more dissimilarities, between the sit-
uation of the owner-drivers in the Malone case and that of the owner-
drivers in the present case.
As for similarities: In Malone, as in this case, the owner-drivers
were bona fide owners of the vehicle equipment which they leased
exclusively for freight carrying by the lessee. In Malone, as here,
the owner-drivers paid all license fees and taxes on the leased equip-
ment, were responsible for keeping the equipment in good operating
condition, and paid for repairs and upkeep. Also in Malone, as here,
the lessee provided public liability and property damage,5 including
cargo insurance for the leased equipment.
The dissimilarities between Malone and this case are as follows:
In Malone, the lease agreement provided that the lessor was to drive
the leased vehicle and was to bear the expense of labor necessary in
operating the equipment and in loading or unloading freight. He
was also to be responsible for any shortage of cargo. The lessee in
that case also agreed to pay the lessor a percentage of gross receipts
as compensation for the use of the equipment and labor furnished by
the lessor. That was the only form of payment provided for either
by the lease agreement or in practice. In the present case, the lease
agreement covers the use of equipment only; there is no provision
requiring the lessor to drive his truck 6 or to furnish labor for loading
and unloading or to bear any losses resulting from a shortage of
cargo. The compensation provision, too, provides for a fixed fee per
mile and is not geared to a percentage of freight receipts. The owner-
driver is also paid separately for his services as driver: this compen-
sation, determined by services rendered, is not even mentioned in
the lease agreement . In Malone, the lessee did not provide work-
men's compensation coverage for the owner-drivers, or deduct social-
security and withholding taxes from the earnings of the owner-
drivers. All this the Employer agreed to do and does in the present
case. Contrary to the facts in this case, the Malone owner-driver
was not required to be available with his equipment at all times and
could refuse driving assignments, in which case the name of the driver
was removed from the dispatching board until he was ready to haul
again.
4 Malone Freight Lines, Incorporated, 107 NLRB 501, and 106 NLRB 1107.
5 However, the owner-drivers in Malone assumed liability for claims up to $150
9 The lease agreement in this case specifically provides that "Roster Supply Company
will employ drivers to operate such equipment . . "
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has held that the determination of whether an individual
is an independent contractor or an employee depends on the facts of
each particular case and that no one factor is determinative.' As
stated in the Greyvan case," "It is the total situation, including the
risk undertaken, the control exercised, the opportunity for profit from
sound judgment, that marks the driver-owners as independent
contractors."
In the Malone case, the total picture presented was that of a small,
independent-business man, the owner-driver, in partnership with a
large motor freight company, the owner-driver furnishing equip-
ment and labor, including his own, the motor freight company fur-
nishing the business, with the two partners sharing the gross receipts
in certain prefixed proportions. The net return to the owner-driver
was dependent to a large extent upon°good luck and good manage-
ment, the elements determining return in any business enterprise.
The Board therefore found that the owner-drivers in that case were
independent contractors.
The relationship of the owner-drivers to the Employer in this case
is ' very different. The owner-drivers here involved sold the use of
their equipment, but not of their labor, for a fixed period, with com-
pensation determined by the extent of usage of the equipment and not
by the Employer's receipts from such usage. It is the kind of agree-
ment that might be made with any truck rental company. The Em-
ployer has also separately hired the owner-drivers to operate the
leased trucks. It pays the owner-drivers a given rate per mile for
driving the equipment, which is distinct from the money paid for
leasing. It admittedly directs and supervises the work of the owner-
drivers. It furnishes workmen's compensation for them, and makes
social-security and withholding tax payments from their earnings.
These are the usual incidents of an employer-employee relationship.
Although, as stated, the details of working conditions and benefits
of the owner-drivers are not set out in the record, the Employer's
manager conceded that if the driver employed to drive the Employ-
er's own truck were transferred to long-distance hauling, in which
the owner-drivers are engaged, he would get the same rate of pay,
have the same privileges, and be subject to the same rules and regu-
lations as the owner-drivers. We think that the conclusion fairly to
be drawn from all the evidence is that the driver-owners stand in a
dual relationship to the Employer : as lessors of trucks they are inde-
pendent-business men, but as drivers of those trucks they are no dif-
ferent than any other driver-employees. Accordingly, we find that
in their capacity of drivers, the lessors are employees of the Employer
and we shall therefore include them in the unit.
7 Malone Freight Lines, Inc., supra.
8 Greyvan Lines, Inc. v. Harrison, 156 F. 2d 412 ( C. A. 7), affd. sub. nom. United
States v. Silk, etc., 331 U. S. 704.
CAMP MILLING COMPANY, INC. 471
We find that. the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All truckdrivers and warehousemen at the Employer's Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, operation, excluding office employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS PETERSON and RODGERS, dissenting in part :
We disagree with our colleagues as to the inclusion of owner-drivers
in the unit on the ground that their finding that these drivers are em-
ployees of the Employer is based upon a factual situation which ap-
pears to closely parallel that involved in Eldon Miller, Inc.,9 wherein
the Board recently found certain truckdrivers to be independent con-
tractors.
Several additional factors in the instant case tending to support an
independent contractor relationship appear to be even stronger than
those upon which the Board relied in making its independent con-
tractor finding in the Eldon Miller case. As noted by the majority, the
departure and arrival time, as well as the routes to be followed on the
haul, are left to the discretion of the owner-driver. In addition, the
fact that, during slack business periods the Employer and truckowner
may agree on a mutual release from their agreement, thereby leaving
the owner free to haul for other concerns, would indicate that the
status of the owner-driver is that of independent contractor rather
than that of employee.
We regard as not determinative of the issue the fact, heavily relied
on by the majority, that the lease agreement provides for compensa-
tion for the use of the equipment only. In practice, each owner drives
his own truck and receives a total compensation based upon mileage.
In view of the above considerations, we are of the opinion that the
owner-drivers are independent contractors. Accordingly, we would
exclude them from the unit.
9 103 NLRB 1627; 107 NLRB 557.
CAMP MILLING COMPANY , INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN
MILLERS, LOCAL 209, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1352.
July 26, 1954
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion," executed on February 17, 1954, and approved by the Regional
Director on February 25, 1954, an election by secret ballot was held
109 NLRB No. 73.