Local Transit Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 623 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of W. C. KING D/B/A LOCAL TRANSIT LINES, EMPLOYER
and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND
MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No.10-RC-957.-Decided October 3, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Morgan C.
Stanford, 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 requests a determination by the Board whether
it is engaged in interstate commerce or in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the business of hauling passengers by
bus between Knoxville, Tennessee, and various other points within
the State. He has 22 employees and uses 15 busses. During 1949, the
Employer's gross revenue exceeded $100,000.
During 1949 the Employer purchased 3 busses, of a total value of
$31,500, from the Fitz-John Co. of Muskegon, Michigan, whence the
busses were delivered to the Employer. The tires used on the busses
are leased by the Employer from the B. F. Goodrich Company of
Atlanta, Georgia, at an annual cost of $6,000. Thus, the Employer's
direct interstate imports during 1949 totaled $37,500
The Employer's busses operate on 5 routes covering a total of 83
miles, and carry daily an average of about 1,061 passengers. Of
these, 552 are transported each day between Knoxville and Oak Ridge,
the site of the atomic energy plants. A substantial number of these
552 passengers are employed at these plants.2 In the majority of
their trips to Oak Ridge, the Employer's busses use the same terminal
as do busses operated by interstate motor carriers, including Ten-
nessee Coach Lines, Greyhound-Bus Company, and Central Trail-
ways Bus Company.
1 The Employer buys annually from a local supplier $21,000 worth of Pan-Am gasoline,
which presumably originates out-of-State.
2 Of the Employer 's 24 round trips per day between Knoxville and Oak Ridge , 8 include
stops at the entrances to the plants operated by Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation,
under contract with the Federal Government . The Board has repeatedly taken juris-
diction over these plants . Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 88 NLRB 1095, 79
NLRB 83, 79 NLRB 932.
91 NLRB No. 96.
623
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing facts, we find that the Employer is engaged.
in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, and that a stoppage of the Employer's operations as.
a result of a labor dispute would result in a substantial interruption.
to, or interference with, the free flow of commerce.3
The question remains whether it would effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. Our experience has shown.
that public utilities, including public transit systems of the type here
involved, have such an important impact on commerce as to warrant
our taking jurisdiction over all cases involving such enterprises, where
they are engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce,.
subject only to the rule of de ininimis. Accordingly, we will assert
jurisdiction in this case and will hereafter assert jurisdiction in v1l
other cases involving public utilities and public transit systems of the
type here involved, subject only to the foregoing limitation.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain.
employees of the Employer.
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all the Employer's driv
ers, mechanics, mechanic helpers, cleaners and washers, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors.
The Employer objects only to the inclusion in the unit of the
cleaner, who spends two-thirds of her time cleaning the busses and
one-third of her time in cleaning the Employer's office. We find that
this employee's interests are sufficiently identified with those of the
other employees to warrant her inclusion in the unit sought.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All drivers, mechanics, mechanic helpers, cleaners and washers,
excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
a See N. L. R. B. v. Baltimore Transit Co ., 140 F. 2d 51 ( C. A. 4), cert. den . 321 U. S. 795.