Norfolk Southern Bus Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 488 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of NORFOLK SOUTHERN Bus CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAT, ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 11, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 5-R-3026.-Decided March 2, 1948
Messrs. S. Burnell Bragg and A . J. Winder , both of Norfolk, Va.,
for the Employer.
Mr. Jerome Y. Sturm, by Mr. Alan F. Perl, of New York City,
Mr. Claude W. Fairfield, of Baltimore , Md., and Mr. 0. H. Dye, of
Norfolk, Va., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Norfolk,
Virginia, on November 18, 1947, before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer
moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds. The hearing officer
referred this motion to the Board. For the reasons hereinafter set
forth, the motion is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation,' a subsidiary of the Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, is engaged in the motor transportation
of freight and passengers between the States of Virginia and North
Carolina. We are concerned in this proceeding only with the Em-
ployer's vehicle maintenance shop at Norfolk, Virginia. During the
year 1946, the Employer transported 4 million passengers, about 800,-
000 of whom were carried across State lines.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this ease to a three -man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston , Murdock, and Gray]
2 The name of the Employei appears as amended at the hearing.
76 N. L. R. B., No. 76.
488
NORFOLK SOUTHERN BUS CORPORATION 489
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.3
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
At the hearing the Employer questioned the adequacy of the Peti-
tioner's showing of interest. In this connection, the Employer sought
to introduce testimony to show that the Petitioner's designation cards
were procured by misrepresentation and by conduct in the nature of
unfair labor practices. The hearing officer refused to admit such
evidence and the Employer made an offer of proof. The hearing offi-
cer's ruling was proper. We have repeatedly held that the matter of
showing is one of administrative expediency only and, as such, is not
subject to collateral attack.' As to the other proffered testimony, we
have frequently pointed out in analogous situations, that the Board has
found it to be convenient and practicable for the most part rigidly to
exclude evidence as to unfair labor practices in a representation
proceedings
The Employer sought to attack the adequacy of the Petitioner's
showing in another respect. It l •ged the dismissal of the petition
on the ground that the authorization cards designate as bargaining
representative, not the Petitioner, but its international. We reject
' The Employer challenged the competency of the Petitioner to represent the employees
herein and urged the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds • (1) the Petitioner
is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act; (2) the Petitioner has not com-
plied with the filing requiiements of the amended Act; and (3) the Petitioner does not
admit to membership certain of its employees with respect to the latter contention, the
Employer sought to adduce testimony in support thereof, but the hearing officer refused to
admit such evidence, whereupon the Employer made an otter of proof
We find no merit in the Employer's position As to the first ground urged, we find that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it exists for
the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining with employers with respect to wages, hours
and other conditions of employment As to the contention that the Petitioner has not
complied with the filing requirements of the amended Act, we are administratively advised
to the contrary. With respect to the Employer's last ground, we have uniformly rejected
such contentions where, as in the instant case, there is no showing that the Petitioner
will not accord adequate repiesentation to all the employees whom it seeks to represent
Matter of Frying Paper Mills, 64 N. L R. B 1509, and cases cited therein ; see also Matter
of Wichita Falls Foundry