Overnite Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 723 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 723
Overnite Transportation Company and Truck Drivers and Help-
ers Local Union No. 728, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-4625. August
19, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. Jackson Jones,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.
Pursuant to 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree that a unit comprised of the city drivers and
helpers, warehousemen, and checkers at the Employer's Atlanta,
Georgia, terminal is appropriate, except that the Employer would
also include, and the Petitioner exclude, "local" and over-the-road
drivers, O.S.D. employees, and certain employees who Petitioner
contends are supervisors.
We include in the unit the "local" ("peddle-run") and over-the-
road drivers whose unit placement is in dispute and who are not
sought separately by another labor organization, as we find that their
interests are sufficiently related to those of the other drivers and
employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit.' We exclude from
the unit the O.S.D. employees who perform various types of office
work and other work connected with straightening out claims made
against the Employer for shortages, overages, and damaged goods,
as we find that their interests are different from those of the em-
ployees in the unit .2
We resolve as follows the parties' further dispute as to the super-
visory status of the employees named below : Dispatchers Jones and
Chastain, the city and "local" dispatchers, relay instructions by radio
to drivers working in fixed areas. As it does not appear that they
have or exercise any supervisory authority, and as they have sufficient
1 See Mead-Atlanta Paper Company, 123 NLRB 306.
2 See Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761, 762.
128 NLRB No. 89.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interests in common with the employees sought, we include them.'
Dispatcher Lee, the over-the-road dispatcher, works primarily at
night, makes independent choices in assigning work to 13 over-the-
road drivers, may excuse drivers who request time off, and admittedly
possesses more authority than the other dispatchers. On these facts,
we find that Lee responsibly directs the work of the over-the-road
drivers, and we exclude him from the Unit .4 Night Warehouse Fore-
man Chester is in sole charge of the operations of the warehouse and
of 10 to 22 employees between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. He does no manual
work and can discipline employees for insubordination and other in-
fractions. We find that he is a supervisor and we exclude him from
the unit. Assistant to the Day Warehouse Foreman, Martin, helps
direct the operations of the warehouse and, further, works "a little
different" hours than his superior. As we cannot determine on this
record if his direction of the work of others is "responsible" direc-
tion or if he is regularly in charge at times when no foremen are
present, we permit him to vote subject to challenge. We need not
resolve the alleged supervisory status of Simmons, who is excluded
above as an O.S.D. department employee.
The parties agree to include in the unit the garage service employees
who, as the Petitioner pointed out, were expressly included by the
Board in a 1954 decision, Case No. 10-RC-2788 (unpublished). How-
ever, that decision was revoked and, although an election was subse-
quently held pursuant to a consent agreement, no bargaining history
resulted. On the record now before us, we find no reason to depart
from our usual policy of excluding garage employees from a terminal
unit 5 Accordingly, and as the parties agree to exclude the garage
mechanics and helper whose interests are closely allied with those of
the garage service employees, we shall, notwithstanding the agree-
ment of the parties to include them, exclude the garage service em-
ployees from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All drivers, warehousemen, helpers, and checkers at the Employer's
Atlanta, Georgia, terminal, including the city drivers, "local" and
over-the-road drivers, and the city and local dispatchers, excluding
the O.S.D. employees and all office clerical employees; the garage
service employees and the garage mechanics and helper; guards and
watchmen; the over-the-road dispatcher, the night warehouse fore-
man, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act; and all other
employees.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Standard Trucking Company, supra, at 763.
A See Fredrickson Motor Express Corporation, 121 NLRB 32, 34-35.
6 Helms Motor Express, Inc., 107 NLRB 132, 134.