Luper Transportation Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1178 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of LUPER TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER AND
EMPLOYER and TULSA GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 523, AFL, UNION
Case No. 16-RM-37.Decided January 3, 1951
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Evert P. Rhea,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds,
and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is engaged in interstate motor freight haulage, main-
taining terminals in seven Oklahoma and two Texas cities. The only
employees of the Employer involved in this proceeding are those of
its main office and terminal at Tulsa, Oklahoma. The terminal cleri-
cal employees are concerned mainly with the' movement of freight
and the preparation of freight bills and bills of lading, whereas the
main office employees are engaged in administrative and clerical duties
pertaining to all terminals, including the Tulsa terminal, and the
over-all operations of the Employer.'
The Union has represented the Employer's terminal clerical em-
ployees along with those of other motor freight companies in Tulsa
' There are approximately 13 general office and 6 terminal office employees.
92 \\LRB No. 172
1178
LUPER TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. 1179
and vicinity which are members of a multiple-employer group, for
approximately 10 years. The most recent contract, effective from
November 1, 1949, to November 1, 1951, purports to cover "Local
Freight Forwarding Office and Clerical Workers." On May 15, 1950,
the Employer transferred its general office from Oklahoma City to
Tulsa. , On October 13, 1950, the Union claimed that the general office.
clerical employees were subject to its current contract as "Office and
Clerical Workers for Tulsa and Vicinity." The Employer refused to
apply the union-security provisions of the existing contract to the
transferred office employees, denied that they were included in the
current contract, but offered to consent to an election for a separate
unit consisting of all general office clerical employees 2 The Union
refused to consent to an election and claimed that the general office
clericals were covered by the contract. Thereupon, the Employer filed
the present petition for a determination of the representative for the
general office clericals.
The Union asserts that no question concerning representation exists
as the dispute is one over contract interpretation. It further asserts
that the contract is a bar, and the general office clericals do not con-
stitute a separate unit, but are part of the existing area-wide office
and clerical unit.
An examination of the contract, and particularly the language of the
coverage clause, fails to disclose any intent upon the part of the con-
tracting parties to make the contract applicable to transferred offices
,of the Employer 3 or to "general" as well as "local freight forwarding"
offices. Moreover, the history of the 1949 negotiations shows that
general office clerical employees were not considered under the coverage
of the contract. Accordingly, we find that the general office clerical
employees are not part of the present contract unit.
As we have held,4 a question of representation may be brought to the
Board's attention by the Employer's filing a petition, but the question
is raised only by an affirmative claim of a labor organization that it
represents a majority of employees in an appropriate unit.5 In the
present case, the Union's claim has been. that the general office cleri-
cals are included with terminal office clericals under its contract. We
have found that they are not, and the Union has not sought to repre-
sent the general office clericals in a separate unit, as an alternative
2 The Board has recognized the propriety of such a unit. Rutherford Freight Lines,
Inc., 74 NLRB 1302 ; see also Central Wisconsin Motor Transport Company, 85 NLRB 287.
1 See Scanlon -Morris Division of The Ohio Chemical & Mfg . Co., 71 NLRB 903.
A Librascope, Incorporated, 91 NLRB 178.
5 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Walla Walla , Washington, 80 NLRB 1063.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position.. Therefore, no further question of representation exists.6
We shall accordingly dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition of the Employer filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Librascope, Incorporated, supra.