Houck Transport Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations, office clericals , guards, professional employees , and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
We shall not place United Packinghouse Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, on the ballot because of the absence of any showing of
interest by it among the can manufacturing employees who, as noted
above, have been found to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
However, we shall permit a place on the ballot to the International
Association of Machinists as it has submitted an adequate showing of
interest among the can manufacturing plant employees.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
Houck Transport Company and General Drivers, Local No. 74,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 18-RC-4532. February 15, 1961
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 Charles J. Frisch, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the Williston,2
North Dakota, terminal of the Employer, acquired by the Employer
in April 1960. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their
contract, dated October 31, 1959, which by its terms covers all drivers
and helpers employed by the Employer without reference to any
geographic area, covers Williston employees. The Employer, which
is engaged in shipping commodities by truck, maintains other ter-
minals at Glendive and Billings, Montana, 107 and 337 miles distant,
i The Intervenor , Local 190, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, was allowed to intervene on the basis
of a contractual interest.
2 The petition refers to a unit of employees at the Employer's Minot and Williston
terminals , but there is no evidence that the Employer has a terminal in Minot.
130 NLRB No. 32.
HOUCK TRANSPORT COMPANY 271
respectively, from Williston, and at Mandan, North Dakota, 240 miles
distant. The Employer's headquarters is located at Glendive, where
all records are kept and from which all personnel are paid.
In March 1960, while the employees herein sought were employed
by Westland Oil Company, an election was held and the Petitioner
was certified as their bargaining representative. Before any contract
was entered into, however, the Employer purchased Westland Oil
Company's leasehold interest in trucks owned by another company
and used to transport Westland OR Company products, and, in June
1960, it purchased the trucks outright. When the Employer took over
the transportation of Westland products in April 1960, it rehired all
the drivers employed by Westland, as well as the dispatcher, who is
the supervisor at this terminal, and retained the trucks and the repair
facilities which were in use at Williston.'
The Williston terminal is separately supervised by its own dis-
patcher, has its own payroll clerk, retains its own trucks, and main-
tains complete facilities for their maintenance and repair. Inter-
change of personnel between Williston and the other terminals occurs
only occasionally for brief periods. On the basis of the foregoing
facts, it is clear that the Williston terminal, newly acquired by the
Employer, is a completely new operation and not a mere accretion.
We therefore find that the collective-bargaining contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor, which was executed prior to the acquisi-
ton of the Williston terminal in April 1960, does not cover the
Williston employees.4
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Williston
terminal does not constitute a separate appropriate unit. As noted
above, however, the employees at Williston are newly hired by the
Employer, are separately supervised, and the Williston operation is
largely autonomous. Furthermore, the Board normally permits em-
ployees of a new operation to decide whether or not they wish to be
separately represented.5 Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, for
the purposes of collective bargaining, the employees at Williston may
constitute a separate appropriate unit, or, in view of the centralized
control and the bargaining history on a companywide basis, may ap-
propriately be included in the multiplant unit currently represented
9 On August 16, 1960, the Petitioner requested the Regional Director to change the
designation of the Employer on its certification to "Houck Transport Co ," but, on
September 6, 1960, the Regional Director denied this request on the basis that the
Employer was in a different type of business and, therefore , not a successor to Westland
Oil Company . No appeal was taken from the Regional Director 's ruling, and no issue
that the prior certification is a bar was raised in this proceeding
4 See Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc., 124 NLRB 48, 49.
6 See Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc , supra, at 50; Pacqua, Inc., 124 NLRB
895, 897.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Intervenor.' We shall, therefore, make no unit determination
with respect to the employees at the Williston terminal at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed
in the election directed herein.
We shall direct an election among the following employees : All
over-the-road drivers and drivers' helpers at Williston, North Dakota,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.'
If the majority of the employees in the above-described voting
group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast
their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be included in the existing unit currently represented
by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification
of results of election to that effect. If the majority of the employees
in the voting group cast their ballots for neither labor organization,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be unrepresented
by any labor organization appearing on the ballot and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761.
In view of our findings herein, the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition , made in
its brief filed after the hearing, is hereby denied.
The Employer and the Intervenor agreed that, in the event the Board directs an elec-
tion, these employees constitute an appropriate voting group.
J. R. Simplot Co., Food Processing Division , Heyburn Opera-
tions 1 and American Federation of Grain Millers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-2563. February 15, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Dan Boyd, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
130 NLRB No. 47.