Norfolk Southern Bus Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1591 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of NORFOLK SOUTHERN Bus CORPORATION and
BROTHERIIOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN
Case No. 5-R-1776
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 29, 1945
On March 8, 1945, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Board herein on February 15, 1945,E an election by
secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland).
Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows that of the approximately 75 eligible voters, 64 cast
valid ballots of which 34 were for the Brotherhood of Railroad Train-
men, herein called the Union, and 30 against. Three votes were chal-
lenged, but since they cannot affect the results of the election no
determination with respect thereto is necessary.
On March 13, 1945, the Company filed objections to the conduct of
the election, alleging in substance (1) that the Union forced employees
to vote for it by the use of coercion, undue influence and false repre-
sentation, particularly by circulating false rumors among prospective
voters to the effect (a) that all bus operators would lose their jobs
unless they joined the Union prior to the election and voted for it at
the election; (b) that if the Union won the election the Company
would operate as a closed shop and all employees not in the Union
before the election would either have to quit or pay large initiation
fees to get into the Union; (c) that the action of the Regional Director
in permitting one Sheppard L. Fulgham to vote, showed the strength
of the Union with the Board and that, therefore, the Union could not
help but win the election; (2) that the Board improperly used- the
January 16-31, 1945, pay roll in determining eligibility to vote,
thereby depriving four employees who were hired subsequent thereto
of the opportunity to participate in the election; and (3) that the unit
determination is incorrect.
1 60 N. L. R. B. 630
61 N L. R B., No. 245.
1591
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 25, 1945, the Regional Director issued and duly served
upon the parties his Report on Objections, recommending that the
Company's objections be overruled and the Union certified as the col-
lective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit. Subsequently, the Company filed Exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report. On May 4, 1945, the Regional Director issued and
served upon the parties a Supplemental Report on Objections and
Exceptions thereto filed by the, Company. To this Supplemental
Report, the Comany also filed Exceptions.
We have considered the Company's Objections, the Regional Direc-
tor's Report on Objections and Supplemental Report on Objections
and Exceptions thereto filed by the Company, and the Company's
separate Exceptions to said reports. With respect to the first ob-
jection, the allegations of which the Union denies, the Company sub-
mitted no evidence to the Regional Director, although invited several
times to do so, in substantiation of its charge. In the absence of such
evidence, the Regional Director was not required to interview the
Company's employees or to hold a formal hearing, as contended by
the Company, on the unsupported allegations of misconduct made
against the Union.2
As to the second objection, the Decision and Direction of Election
herein was issued on February 15, 1945. The Direction of Election
specifically limits eligibility to vote to those employees in the ap-
propriate unit "who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, . . ." [Italics
supplied.] The Company pays its employees semimonthly, its pay-
roll periods ending on January 31 and February 15, respectively.
Since February 15, 1945, was the last day of a pay-roll period, the
last full pay-roll period "immediately preceding the date" of the
Direction was of necessity that for January 16-31, 1945. It is clear,
therefore, that the proper pay-roll list was used in determining eligi-
bility to vote and that employees hired subsequent to January 31,
1945, were properly excluded from the balloting.
The third objection directed to the appropriateness of the unit
merely reiterates contentions which were disposed of in our Decision
and Direction of Election.
We find, in accord with the recommendation of the Regional Di-
rector, that the Company's objections do not raise substantial or
material issues regarding the conduct of the election. Accordingly,
the objections are hereby overruled. Since the Tally shows that a
majority of all the valid votes counted have been cast for the Union,
2 Matter of National Rose tpring h Mattress Company, 15-R-1178, decided January 1.
1945; Matter of Rowe Manufacturing Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 63; Matter of Thompson
Products , Inc, 43 N L. R. B 1379.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN BUS CORPORATION 1593
we shall certify the latter as the collective bargaining representative
of the Company's employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
has been designated and selected by a majority of all bus drivers and
conductors employed by the Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, Nor-
folk, Virginia, in its Virginia division, excluding bus cleaners, me-
chanics, transportation clerks, road men or inspectors, dispatchers,
bus masters, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such .action, as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that
pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the
exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. JoHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.