New Deal Cab Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 1838 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has also been found that the Respondent discharged Robert Hoggard on
May 20, 1964, Earl Dean Smith on June 19, 1964, and William Bolles on
May 14, 1964; that it laid off Smith from May 7 through 14 and from May 22
through 25, 1964, Charles Bounds from May 14 through 21, 1964, Bobby Joe
Collins from May 13 through 21, 1964, Cecil Herrell from May 20 through
26, 1964, O. B. Jimmerson from June 22 through 30, 1964, and Richard Hiscock
from May 7 through 14, 1964; and that it transferred to lower rated jobs Cecil
Herrell from May 13 through 19, 1964, and Arthur Childress from May 20
through 22, 1964. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent
offer Haggard, Smith, and Bolles immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights or privileges, and make them and Bounds, Collins, Cecil Herrell, Jimmerson,
Hiscock, and Childress whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of
reinstatement, or in the case of the transfers to the date when Cecil Herrell and
Childress were returned to their old jobs, less his net earnings during such period
in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, together with interest on such sum, such interest to be computed in
accordance with the formula prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union and Employees' Committee of Scotts, Inc., are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the
Employees' Committee, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(20) of the Act.
4. By discharging Robert Hoggard, Earl Dean Smith, and William Bolles, by
laying off Smith, Charles Bounds, Bobby Joe Collins, Cecil Herrell, O. B. Jimmer-
son, and Richard Hiscock, and by transferring Cecil Herrell and Arthur Childress
to lower-rated jobs, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
-merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
New Deal Cab Company, Inc. and Jason Whittaker et al., Peti-
tioners and Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local
Union No . 512, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case 12-RD-
110. June 30, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held at Jacksonville,
Florida, on September 23 and October 14 and 15, 1965, before Hear-
ing Officer Robert G. Romano. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
159 NLRB No. 111.
NEW DEAL CAB CO. 1839
The Employer and the Union filed briefs, which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioners are employees of the Employer, and assert that
the Union is no longer their representative as defined in Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
3. The Union is a labor organization which is currently recognized
by the Employer as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of employees as defined in Section 9(a).
4. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of such employees, within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) of
the Act, for the following reasons :
On June 7, 1965, Petitioners filed the present petition seeking an
election to decertify Local 512 as collective-bargaining representative
of a unit consisting of New Deal's cab drivers. New Deal and Local
512 assert that a collective-bargaining contract executed by them on
October 5, 1964, covering these cab drivers and effective until Octo-
ber 4, 1967, is a bar to this petition. Petitioners, however, contend
that the contract should not be permitted to bar this petition because
the contract discriminates against Negro employees. More particu-
larly they contend that the contract treats the Negro drivers of New
Deal unfairly when compared to the treatment accorded to white
drivers who are covered by a contract negotiated by Local 512 with
another taxicab enterprise, Safety Cabs, Inc., a company which, like
New Deal, owns and operates a fleet of taxicabs in the Jacksonville,
Florida, area.
The record discloses the following facts with respect to the rela-
tionship of New Deal and Safety and the history of their labor rela-
tions. In 1934 New Deal commenced its operations with 50 cabs,
similar in type to small buses, for the transportation of Negroes
pursuant to municipal permits which restricted their use to Negroes.
In 1937 New Deal was purchased by Safety, which then owned 50
taxicabs of the smaller, more usual, type engaged in the transporta-
tion of white persons pursuant to municipal permits prescribing such
racial restriction. Safety then had a collective-bargaining contract
covering its cab drivers with Local No. 613 of the Teamsters, but at
that time the cab drivers of New Deal were unrepresented. Later, in
1938, New Deal entered into a contract covering its drivers with
Teamsters Local No. 674. In 1953 racial restrictions were removed
from all cab permits issued by the city of Jacksonville, at the request
of officials of Safety, but the two taxicab enterprises continued to
1840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deal separately with the two local unions for separate units of cab
drivers of the two companies, the unit at Safety consisting entirely
of white taxicab drivers and the unit at New Deal entirely of Negro
drivers. In 1962 the separate local unions merged into a single local,
the present Local 512, which has continued to bargain with Safety
and New Deal for the two separate units of drivers employed by
these companies.,
The record discloses that at the present time the stock of the two
companies, Safety and New Deal, is commonly owned by a trust
established by the will of one Guy Marvin, deceased. The directors
and officers of both companies are the same. Marion Marvin, a
nephew of Guy Marvin and trustee of the trust estate, is vice presi-
dent and general manager of both companies and, by his own admis-
sion, has practical management control of all aspects of the opera-
tions of both companies, including their labor relations. Thus it is
evident that, though separately incorporated, these two companies
not only are engaged in a substantially identical business enterprise
but are subject to completely common ownership and control.
We have examined the separate contracts entered into by Local 512
with Safety 2 and with New Deal, and' while they are not identical in
all respects, in substance they are largely similar. However, we find
it unnecessary to determine whether there is any difference between
them of a nature which might indicate discrimination against the cab
drivers of New Deal and whether, for that reason, the New Deal
contract could not serve to bar this proceeding, for in any event we
do not find it to be appropriate to conduct an election in a unit
limited to the cab drivers of New Deal alone. Our reasons for this
are as follows :
It is apparent from the facts above set forth as to the relationship
between Safety and New Deal, i.e., their identity of ownership, con-
trol, and management, and especially their common direction of
labor relations policies, that these two enterprises constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act. Here there has been a his-
tory of bargaining for separate units of the Safety and New Deal
cab drivers, extending over a substantial period of time, such as the
Board ordinarily might recognize as demonstrating the appropriate-
ness of units limited to each of the separate enterprises. It is clear
from this record, however, that the bargaining pattern here disclosed
has principally resulted from racial factors which cannot be accepted
'Local 512 sought to obtain contracts having a common termination date for these two
groups of drivers, but the companies ' management objected and this objective was not
achieved
2 Safety also controls and operates a wholly owned subsidiary known as Yellow Cabs, and:
the Yellow Cab drivers are included within the Safety contract
NEW DEAL CAB CO. 1841
as appropriate. Thus it is apparent that the separation of bargain-
ing units was rooted originally in representation by separate segre-
gated local unions, a situation which was fostered by the, local
government's issuance of separate permits to .the separate enterprises
for divided operations based essentially on lines of racial segregation.
And the pattern of separate bargaining thus established on a racial
basis has continued to exist upon such predicate to the present time.3
Throughout its entire history this Board has refused to recognize
race as a valid factor in determining .the appropriateness of any unit
for collective bargaining.4 For this reason, we find that the bargain-
ing history based on those separate units is not one which the Board
may recognize in its determination of the appropriate unit in this
proceeding. We conclude, therefore, that the only appropriate unit
for cab drivers of New Deal and Safety (including Yellow Cabs) is
one which includes such employees of both these firms.5
Since on the present record the unit which we find appropriate
should include the drivers of Safety as well as New Deal, and is sub-
stantially different from the limited New Deal unit requested by the
Petitioners, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board,dismissed the petition.]
It is true , as noted above , that as long ago as 1953 racial restrictions were removed
from cab permits issued by the city of Jacksonville . And the separate unions have since
merged into a single local . These facts , however, have not resulted in elimination of
separate bargaining , which still appears to be essentially based on race.
* See, for example : American Tobacco Company, Inc., 9 NLRB 579; Union Envelope
Company, 10 NLRB 1147; Aetna Iron & Steel Co., 35 NLRB 136; D.S. Bedding Company,
52 NLRB 382; Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation , 76 NLRB 488 ; Andrews Industries, Inc.,
105 NLRB 946; Pioneer Bus Company, Inc., X140 NLRB 54.
5 See Andrews Industries, Inc., supra.
O