Pacific Greyhound Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN
Case No. R-195.-Decided December 16, 1937
Motor Bus Industry-Invcsttgatton of Representatives: controversy concerning
representation of employees: rival organizations; substantial doubt as to ma-
jority status; question concerning representation not eliminated by agreement
granting recognition to one organization, where at time of agreement such
organization not the free choice of a majority in the unit alleged to be appro-
priate ; interference, restraint, and coercion by employer in choice of representa-
tives for' collective bargaining ; controversy between rival organizations as to
appropriate unit-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bat gainang: wage differen-
tials, skill ; history of collective bargaining relations with employer ; history of
collective bargaining relations in industry ; where other considerations determi-
native of appropriate unit are evenly balanced decisive factor is the desire of
employees involved ; determination of dependent upon results of election-Election
Ordered
Mr. Bertram Edises, for the Board.
Mr. Gardiner Johnson and Mr. C. P. Randall of San Francisco, Cal.,
Mr. Frederick L. Pearce and Mr. John H. Pratt, of Washington, D. C.,
and Mr. C. V. McLaughlin, of Cleveland, 0., for the Brotherhood.
Mr. 0. H. Rowan of Oakland, Cal., and Mr. Charlton Ogburn of
New York City, for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Allan R. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 25, 1937, Pioneer Greyhound Lodge No. 693, Brotherhood
of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, herein called the Brother-
hood, filed with the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San
Francisco, California) a petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of bus drivers
employed by Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Francisco, California,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 5,
1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3,
520
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 521
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On June 18, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing; on
June 29, a notice of change of place of hearing; and on July 2, 1937, a
notice of postponement of hearing, copies of all of which were duly
served upon the Company, its counsel, the Brotherhood, and the
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, herein called the Amalgamated, a labor
organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the
investigation. Pursuant to the foregoing notices, a hearing was held
in San Francisco, California, on July 12, and 13, 1937, before Clifford
D. O'Brien, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the Brotherhood were represented by counsel and
the Amalgamated by its International vice-president. The Company
failed to appear and was not represented. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the outset of
the hearing, the Amalgamated moved and was granted leave to inter-
vene for the purpose of opposing the holding of an election, and of
being heard with respect to the appropriate unit, in the event that the
Board should direct an election. The Amalgamated further moved
that the proceeding be dismissed for the reason that on or about April
21, 1937, it had entered into a contract with the Company covering
wages, working conditions and terms of employment of its members,
which contract by its terms does not expire until May 31, 1938, or
thereafter. This motion the Trial Examiner denied.
During the hearing, the Brotherhood moved that Lodge No. 97, the
Los Angeles organization of the Brotherhood, be joined with Pioneer
Greyhound Lodge No. 693 as petitioner. This motion the Trial
Examiner granted.
After the hearing, pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was
held on July 29, 1937, before the Board in Washington for the pur-
pose of oral argument. Thereafter, counsel for the Amalgamated
filed a motion with the Board to reopen the case for the purpose of
introducing into evidence an addendum to the contract of April 21,
1937, described as the Master Agreement, made on September 7, 1937,
between Local Division No. 1114 of the Amalgamated and the Com-
pany. The Master Agreement itself was submitted as an offer of
proof in support of the motion. Pursuant to notice duly served, a
hearing on the motion and the answer thereto filed by the Brother-
hood was held on September 28, 1937, before the Board in Washing-
ton for the purpose of oral argument. As explained below, the mo-
tion will be denied.
522 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numer-
ous rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Boarcl
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no,
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Pacific Greyhound Lines is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California,' having its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California.2 It is engaged in the busi-
ness of transporting for hire passengers, baggage, mail, express, and
newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of
Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Texas.
For the year ending December 31, 1936, its predecessor, Pacific Grey-
hound Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Greyhound Lines,
Inc., carried 6,476,537 passengers a total of 30,550,742 passenger miles,
with a total transportation revenue of $8,249,125.05. On December
31, 1936, upon completion of the merger referred to above, Pacific
Greyhound Lines owned 392 and operated 371 passenger cars, and em-
ployed 1,394 employees, of whom 116 were office employees, 529 were
passenger car operators , 229 were station employees, and 329 were
shop employees . On that date its total consolidated assets were $13,-
857,710.27. During the year 1936 its predecessor paid to The Grey-
hound Corporation of Delaware, which holds the majority of its out-
standing stock, a general management fee of $7,200.
As corporations whose voting capital stock is owned by The Grey-
hound Corporation of Delaware and the Southern Pacific Company,"'
1 Through stock ownership , Pacific Greyhound Lines controls California Parlor Car
Tours Co , and Pacific Southland Stages , Incorporated . ( Board Exhibit No. 8 )
2 The Annual Report of The Greyhound Corporation to the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1936, and the Report of the Inter-
state Commerce Commission , Greyhound Mergers , 1936 , decided December 19, 1936,
although not introduced in evidence ,. are public documents and we take judicial notice of
the following facts stated therein : During 1936 , in accordance with the policy of The
Greyhound Corpoiation of simplifying its corporate structure , and pursuant to orders of'
the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing mergers, seven non-operating subsidi-
aries of Pacific Greyhound Corporation of Delaware and one operating subsidiary , Pacific
Greyhound Lines , Inc, which had been the subject of a previous order of this Board
(Case No C-134, decided December 18, 1936, 2 N. L R B 431), were liquidated and their
assets transferred to and liabilities assumed by Pacific Greyhound Corporation One
December 31, 1936, the California Transit Co , formerly an inactive subsidiary of Pacific
Greyhound Corporation , changed its name to Pacific Greyhound Lines, and Pacific Grey
hound Corporation was merged into it. The articles of incorporation of Pacific Greyhound
Lines were amended and the issued and outstanding capital stock of Pacific Greyhound
Corporation continued as the issued and outstanding capital stock of Pacific Greyhound
Lines At the same time Pacific Greyhound Lines acquired the stage and truck equip-
ment and operative rights of Pacific Greyhound Corporation and Pacific Greyhound Lines,
Inc.
3 The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware owns 61 per cent, and The Southern Pacific
Company and its wholly owned subsidiary , Southern Pacific Land Company, own 39 per
cent of the common stock of Pacific Greyhound Lines.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 523
pacific Greyhound Lines and its subsidiaries are closely affiliated
with other Greyhound Systems in the Greyhound Lines, and -d-ith in-
terstate railroads. By means of optional ticket arrangements with
the Southern Pacific Company and the Northwestern Pacific Rail-
way, interchange arrangements with independent bus lines, and joint
operating, traffic and facility arrangements with other Greyhound
Systems, Pacific Greyhound Lines and its subsidiaries operate as a
-closely coordinated part of an integrated system of national trans-
-portation.
We find that Pacific Greyhound Lines is engaged in traffic, com-
merce, and transportation among the several States and that the
employees of the Company are directly engaged in such traffic, com-
merce, and transportation.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, organ-
ized on December 1, 1873, is one of the "Big Four" Railroad Brother-
hoods, unaffiliated with any other labor organization. It has approxi-
mately 900 locals in the United States and Canada, and a reported
membership of approximately 60,886.4 By the terms of its constitu-
tion, all white locomotive enginemen and hostlers in the train and
yard service, except Mexicans and Indians, are eligible for mem-
bership.5 Since 1933, it has also admitted motor bus drivers to
membership.
On April 26, 1937, the Brotherhood issued a charter to the peti-
tioner herein, Pioneer Greyhound Lodge No. 693 at San Francisco,
California. At that time, 241 of the 245 members of Lodge No. 693
were bus drivers employed by the Company.
Lodge No. 97, at Los Angeles, California, is a joint lodge of the
Brotherhood, which admits both motor bus drivers and railroad em-
ployees to membership. The motor bus drivers who are members of
Lodge No. 97 maintain a separate grievance committee, which by
formal action authorized Lodge No. 693 to represent them at the
hearing.
The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and
Motor Coach Employees of America, organized on September 15,
1892, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, having approximately 286 locals in the United States and
Canada, and a reported membership of approximately 100,000.6 By
the terms of its constitution, all employees of street and electric rail-
6 These figures are obtained from the Handbook of American Trade -Unions , 1936 Edi-
tion, Bulletin No 618, an official publication of the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
L Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 18, Article 12, Section 22 (a) and (b).
11 See footnote 5
524 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ways are eligible for membership.' In recent years, it has also admit-
ted to "membership all employees of motor bus companies, including
bus drivers, station, shop, and office employees. On March 28, 1937,
the Amalgamated issued a charter to the intervenor herein, Local
Division 1114, which claims to represent all employees of the Com-
pany who are not already represented by an affiliate of the American
Federation of Labor.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On the morning of April 20, 1937, C. P. Randall, chairman of
Pioneer Lodge No. 693, delivered to L. D. Jones, general manager of
the Company a letter stating that the majority of its bus drivers had
affiliated with the Brotherhood and requesting that a date not later
than April 25, 1937, be set for collective bargaining between the
Company and a committee elected by the drivers.8 On April 21,
1937, Jones replied that he had been instructed by W. E. Travis, presi-
dent of the Company, to advise Randall for the Brotherhood that
"as a result of satisfactory representations by and negotiations had
heretofore with Division No. 1114 of the Amalgamated . . ., a work-
ing agreement regarding wages and working conditions affecting
drivers has already been executed by that organization and this Com-
pany." Jones also stated that Travis would be away for two weeks
but would meet with Randall upon his return.9 On May 3 and 4,
at a conference between officials of the Company and a committee
representing the Brotherhood, Randall offered to show Travis the
records of the Brotherhood for the purpose of proving the Brother-
hood's majority. Travis, however, stated that he had signed a
contract with the Amalgamated and was not interested in seeing the
records of the Brotherhood.
The committee then unsuccessfully attempted to reach some settle-
ment of the entire situation. On May 4, in a final effort to get the
Company's position on record, Randall wrote to Travis formally pre-
senting the question of whether the Company would recognize the
Brotherhood as the bargaining agency of all its drivers.10 On the
night of May 5, Pioneer Lodge No. 693 met and passed a resolution
requesting the International President of the Brotherhood to assign
7 Intervenor's Exhibit No 1, Section 1.
8 Petitioner 's Exhibit No 10. The letter is addressed to L. D Jones as general man-
ager of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc , and states that a majority of the drivers of Pacific
Greyhound Lines, Inc ., have affiliated with the Brotherhood . As set forth in Section I,
sups a, Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, was merged into Pacific Greyhound Lines on Decem-
ber 31, 1936 . L. D. Jones, former general manager of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.. is
general manager of Pacific Greyhound Lines. ( Board Exhibit No. 8.) It is clear from
the record that the Brotherhood in this letter was requesting recognition by Pacific
Greyhound Lines.
Y Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 11.
w Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 12.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 525
a Grand Lodge representative to the Lodge for the purpose of taking
a strike vote." On May 5, 1937, Travis answered Randall's question
by stating that recognition of the Brotherhood would mean the repu-
diation of the contract entered ,into in good faith with the Amalga-
mated and suggesting that the entire controversy be settled by a
secret election to be conducted by this Board.12 Thereafter on May
25, the Brotherhood filed the petition which gives rise to this
proceeding.
The agreement entered into between the Company and Division No.
1114 on April 21, 1937, provides that "the Company recognizes the
(Amalgamated) Association, and agrees to bargain collectively with
it and as representative of the Coinpany's employees employed as
drivers, station forces, mechanics, and other employees who are not
already represented by an affiliate of the American Federation of
Labor." 13 The agreement also provides that upon request the Com-
pany will grant leave of absence to officers of Division No. 1114 for
union business ; that on or before June 30, 1937, Division No. 1114 and
the Company will enter into negotiations for the purpose of drawing
up a complete and revised working agreement, for wages and working
conditions of all employees covered by the agreement; and that the
agreement, and the working agreement to be completed thereunder,
shall be binding on the parties until May 31, 1938, and thereafter
from year to year unless changed by the parties.14
The Brotherhood contends that this agreement was made in vio-
lation of the order of the Board in Matter of Pacific Greyhound
Lines, Inc.," and of the rights of its employees as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and that the Amalgamated was not the free choice
of the majority of the employees. Specifically, the Brotherhood con-
tends that (1) be.fore and after the agreement was made, the Com-
pany actively helped the Amalgamated and hindered the Brotherhood
in obtaining members; and (2) the Company recognized the Amalga-
mated at a time when it did not represent a majority of any class of
employees and denied recognition to the Brotherhood although the
Brotherhood represented a majority of the bus drivers.
The Amalgamated, in its motion to dismiss, and at the hearing,
contended that the agreement is a valid contract which effectively
settles the question of representation. At the oral argument on
"Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17.
12 Petitioner's Exhibit No 13.
13 The Amalgamated has a working agreement with the Auto Mechanics Union, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, to the effect that the Auto Mechanics Union may
represent shop employees of the Company where it has already succeeded in obtaining
their membership . Witnesses for the Amalgamated stated at the hearing that shop em-
ployees of the Company in Los Angeles and San Francisco are subject to this working
agreement,
341ntervenor 's Exhibit No. 4.
i° See pp 527, 528, infra.
526 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 28, 1937, counsel for the Amalgamated argued that a pre-
sumption had arisen that the Amalgamated represented a majority
of the bus drivers and other employees of the Company when the
agreement was made, which the Brotherhood must overcome by a
preponderance of the evidence , before this Board could direct an
election for the purpose of ascertaining the representative selected
by the majority of such employees.
To understand the issues raised by these contentions , it is neces-
sary to review the recent history of the Company 's activities with
regard to the attempts of its employees to join a union of their own
choosing.
Shortly after July 5, 1935 , the Brotherhood , which since 1933 had
attempted with varying success to organize the bus drivers employed
by Pacific Greyhound Lines , Inc., conducted a new and more suc-
cessful organizing campaign. During 1935 and 1936, W. E. Travis,
president of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., and other officials of that
company took drastic and illegal steps to combat these efforts. In
Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.," we found that the re-
spondent therein had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 , subdivisions ( 1), (2), and ( 3) of the Act, by
interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by discriminat-
ing in regard to hire and tenure of employment of its employees,
thereby discouraging membership in the Brotherhood , and by dom-
inating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Drivers' Association, Pacific Greyhound Lines, and by contributing
financial and other support thereto . We therefore ordered the re-
spondent to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, to re-
instate with back pay two employees who had been discharged be-
cause of their activities in behalf of the Brotherhood , and to with-
draw all recognition from and completely disestablish Drivers' As-
sociation , Pacific Greyhound Lines.
On September 2, 1936, shortly after the Trial Examiner filed his
intermediate report finding that the respondent had engaged in the
foregoing unfair labor practices and recommending that the respond-
ent cease and, desist therefrom and take the aforesaid affirmative
action , Travis issued the following letter :
All Drivers :
.. . That you may not be misled as to the effect of the
examiner's report and recommendations , please be advised that
is Case No C-134, -decided December 18, 1936 2 N L R B 431 Cf National Labor
Relations Board , Petitioner v Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, a Corporation, Respondent,
(C C A 9th) No. 8453, decided July 16, 1937, 91 F (2d) 458. The Court ordered the
enforcement of the Board 's older, with the exception of paragraphs relating to the with-
drawal of recognition from and the disestablishment of Drivers ' Association , Pacific
Greyhound Lines.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 527
this report, or any order of the National Labor Relations Board
in conformity therewith, is legally of no force and effect, until
it has been approved by a decision of the United States Court
... until the Supreme Court of the United States passes
upon the constitutionality of the Act, the authority of the Na-
ional Labor Relations Board and its Agents will remain in
question .. .
We trust, therefore, that all employees of Pacific Greyhound
Lines will continue their past loyal cooperation with the com-
pany for the development of highway transportation business
and oppose the efforts of competitors who may desire to curtail
such development.
When a legal order of the National Labor Relations Board
has been finally approved by the courts, so as to be effective, you
will be advised. Until such time, please understand, we con-
sider the report of the Examiner in the Brotherhood of Locomo-
tive Firemen and Enginemen's case, and any similar order of the
National Labor Relations Board, entirely outside the jurisdiction
of the Board and of no effect.
W. E. TRAVIS, President.'7
On December 31, 1936, shortly after the Board issued its decision,
Travis issued another letter to all drivers, repeating in full the letter
of September 2, 1936, and especially reiterating that "until the Su-
prenie Court of the United States passes upon the constitutionality
of the Act, the authority of the National Labor Relations Board and
its agents will remain in question".18
On December 31, 1936, Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., was merged
into Pacific Greyhound Lines, Travis and the officers of the old com-
pany remaining as officers of the new. On January 14, 1937, Travis
and F. W. Ackerman, vice-president of the Company, met with seven
of the eight division representatives of the Drivers' Association in a
conference concerning various conditions of work of the bus drivers.
The minutes of that meeting, transcribed from the notes of D. Grant,
secretary to Travis, reveal a complete disregard for the order of the
Board, and a determination to continue to violate the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act. According to these minutes, introduced
in evidence at the hearing, and verified by C. P. Randall, a witness
for the Brotherhood who attended the conference as a representative
of Division 6 of the Drivers' Association, the following discussion
occurred :
Mr. TRAVIS. The law gives you the right to organize for col-
lective bargaining in any way you see fit. I will work along
with you in any way I can, but I would hate like the dickens to
17 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17.
"Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 16.
528 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
see you close your eyes and "stick your heads into the lions
mouth" with any Brotherhood . . . If I were not connected
with it (the Company) and you came to me for advice, and
that is what I am giving you now, all I could say is that I would
hate like the dickens to see you take any steps that would tend
to retard the growth of this business by putting it into any rail-
road brotherhood . . . I think it would be an awful mistake, it
would be a catastrophe to let the railroad Brotherhood represent
the employees of the bus industry, who are in competition with
the rails ...1°
I don't think you need a damn thing. I took it up east with
some of the Greyhound Companies at the time of the election,
and at the time of the election made the suggestion that there be
an effort made to form some organization that would go clear
across the country, for bus drivers, that would give you protection
and would not be mixing up in strikes such as General Motors
have . . . If you folks are not satisfied with your organization
(Drivers' Association), if it doesn't function, if it doesn't get
results, then I say it is time to do something else, which might
mean giving consideration to the Amalgamated, the C. I. 0. or
the railroad Brotherhood. Since it is functioning properly, and
you are being treated right, and there is a feeling of cooperation,
and you believe in the integrity of the management, and we believe
in the integrity of you boys, I would not disturb it .. .
Coining back to your going into some outside union. It is
your privilege to do it, if you want to. I think the worst selection
you could make would be the Brotherhood by reason of their
representing our competitors, but don't think for a minute that
they are interested solely in you. Their prime consideration is
their own benefit. Whether it is the Brotherhood or the Amal-
gamated, they want your money.
If I were advising the boys I would tell you to get in touch with
the organizations of the other Greyhound Companies and form
some organization of your own .. .
. .. It is so manifestly the right thing for the employees of
different Greyhound Companies to have an organization that
19 In Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, (supra ) we said of similar contentions
of the respondent therein-
It may be that the Brotherhood ,, in its dual capacity of representative for the
engmcmen and firemen employed in the railroad industry and for the motor coach
operators employed in the motor carrier transportation industry , at times finds itself
representing two groups of emplotiees with conflicting interests This cannot, how-
ever, justify the respondent 's conduct toward its operators In any event , the re-
spondent went farther than merely conveying to its operators the idea that the
Brothenccod represented conflicting interests In addition the respondent urged,
persuaded and warned its operators not to join the Brotherhood and threatened
them with discharge if they joined or remained members . By its conduct the re-
spondent has clearly interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 529
deals with their own industry that I think in answer to your
question, the chances are ten to one in favor of forming the or-
ganization . . . My suggestion would be, after you discuss it with
the men and know what you want to do is that some committee
from your organization be appointed and that you have a confer-
ence with similar committees from the other companies . . . 1
would be very glad to give you the names of the representatives
in other companies, as soon as I can secure them, and you fellows
can write your own letters and make the suggestion and have a
conference. I gave you fellows the free service of our attorney
and I would offer it again; but I think because of the criticisms
that were made of that action it would be better to have some one
,on the outside that was not employed by the, company .. .
Mr. WALLACH. We may ask you for help, but whichever way we
decide on, your advice will be very good.
Mr. TRAVIS. Contact the other representatives and go there and
see if you cannot make a national organization, where you would
not be subject to the ills and vissitudes (sic) that might fall on
your shoulders if you became affiliated with an organization that
represents employees of ,in industry that is competitive with
ours. . . .20
Several weeks after this conference, Travis and six elected division
representatives of the Drivers' Association who had attended the con-
ference-Holly Schofield, Clarence Calhoun, Frank Gowie, J. R.
Wallach, George Wilcox, and William Leslie "-proceeded to initiate
that type of "independent" national organization for bus drivers
which Travis had recommended. In the early part of February,
Travis forwarded to Holly Schofield, president of the Drivers' Asso-
ciation, the names of the officers of employees' associations of other
Greyhound units, and Schofield and Calhoun, secretary of the Drivers'
Association, wrote letters to representatives of these other associa-
tions. Just what steps were taken thereafter does not clearly appear
from the record. On April 4, however, printed copies of the consti-
tution and by-laws of a new organization, National Brotherhood of
Motor Carriers, were distributed among the bus drivers employed by
the Company. The six division representatives of the Drivers' Asso-
ciation became the Regional Board of the new organization with the
addition of George Carter and J. Wallis (sic), representing the divi-
sions within the Company formerly represented by Randall and Peter-
son, and from April 4 to about April 14, conducted a wide-spread
campaign to enroll the bus drivers as members. The constitution and
by-laws of National Brotherhood of Motor Carriers indicate that it
20 Petitioner's Exhibit No 5.
21 C P. Randall and one Peterson , the remaining two division representatives, joined
the Brotherhood.
530 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was to be an organization for bus drivers, nation-wide in scope, of the
type suggested by Travis at the conference of January 14, 1937.22
At a meeting in San Francisco on April 14, 1937, two days after the
decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the
Act, the Regional Board members abruptly dissolved the new organi-
zation. Thereafter, Schofield, Wilcox,23 Calhoun, Wallach, and
Wallis transferred their affiliation to the Amalgamated, and with the
addition of Pat James, a Reno driver, became the Executive Board
of Division No. 1114.
An intensive organizing campaign in behalf of the Amalgamated
was immediately begun with the aid of Travis and various local
superintendents of the Company. Warren Macy, a witness for the
Brotherhood, testified that on or about April 15, 1937, one Hodges,
superintendent of drivers in the Los Angeles division of the Company,
advised him to join the Teamsters or the Amalgamated and stated
that "I have always advised the boys against going into any railroad
organization, I'll continue to advise them the same way." Macy also,
testified that on April 17 or 18, Thomas Gustafson, supervisor of
drivers for the Company in Los Angeles, ordered him to stop solicit-
ing members for the Brotherhood on Company property because "You
are just biting the hand that is feeding you and we won't stand for it",
while at the same time he permitted Schofield to solicit members for
the Amalgamated on Company property. During the period from
April to June, nine members of the Amalgamated were granted leave
of absence by the Company and were allowed to solicit membership
for the Amalgamated on Company property, while several members
of the Brotherhood were denied leave of absence for similar pur-
poses.24
On April 16, 1937, the following notice was posted on the Company
bulletin board at Modesto, California :
Attention All Drivers
There will be a meeting held at :
Union Hall 16th and Capp Streets
7:30 P. M., Saturday, April 17, 1937
A condition exists that makes it very important that all drivers
attend. It is to your interest to be there. Division 1114. Amal-
gamated Ass'n A. F. of L.
J. R. WALLACrr.
Mimeo. by Members of Office Employees #13188 A. F. of L.
22 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4.
" Wilcox was also a charter member of Division No. 1114, according to the testimony
of a witness for the Amalgamated.
11 See also Petitioner's Exhibit No. 21 (1).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 531
On this notice appears the following paragraph addressed by A. W,
Bobo, superintendent for the Company of Division 6, South to J. T.
Lamberty and E. F. Curtis, Station Agents at Stockton and Modesto :
Herewith notice that is to be posted conspicuously on your
drivers' bulletin board. , Any men that wish sufficient time off
to attend the meeting mentioned in the enclosure are authorized
to take the necessary time off providing you can spare them.26
On April 20, Travis met driver Hillary H. Head at the Company's
terminal in San Francisco and after discussing the failure of the
"independent organization", asked Head whether he belonged to the
Brotherhood or the Amalgamated. Travis then informed Head that
in his recent visit to Detroit he had made an, arrangement with the
international officers of the Amalgamated whereby "You boys will
have your own organization", and would not be answerable for their
actions to the Grand Lodge or main offices of the Amalgamated.
On April 21, the day after the Brotherhood had requested a con-
ference for the purpose of collective bargaining as the representative
of the majority of the bus drivers employed by the Company, Travis
signed the above-described agreement, recognizing the Amalgamated
as the representative of all of its employees not already represented
by an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor. On the follow-
ing day, Travis wrote to Holly Schofield that recent court decisions
had cast such grave doubts on the legality of the Company's contract
with the Drivers' Association that it might not be binding, that the
Amalgamated had represented to him that it had "sufficient member-
ship to justify the request that it be recognized as the collective bar-
gaining agency for the employees of the Company", and that the
Company had entered into an agreement with the Amalgamated.
The letter concluded as follows :
The American Federation of Labor is therefore in a position
to render needful help, both to industry itself and its employees,
in offsetting the efforts of our competitors in legislative and
other matters throughout the United States.
This probably is the first step in securing for the industry
itself and its employees a national labor organization that has
long been desired.26
Thereafter, the record indicates that on at least two occasions,
the Company continued to lend support and assistance to the Amal-
gamated. On April 27, Holly Schofield and F. A. Hoover, of the
Amalgamated, forwarded a notice of a meeting of Division No. 1114
for April 30, by means of the Company mail, under the Company's
25 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22.
20 Board Exhibit No. 14. Italics supplied.
•532 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"valuable package label", to the Company's agents at Fresno: T The
Company has insisted to its employees who are members of the
Brotherhood that there is a serious United States Postal fine con-
nected with using the company mail for personal correspondence
and that "valuable package labels" are, to be used for company mat-
ters or company station business only.28 On June 8, 1937, Holly
Schofield issued the follo\ving notice, which was posted on the Com-
pany's bulletin board, at its depot in Los Angeles :
All members of Division 1114:
Initiation fees and dues for month of June are now payable
to Holly Schofield or leave with despatcher .29
Under these circumstances of open discrimination by the Company
in favor of the Amalgamated, we could not hold the agreement of
April 21 to be a valid agreement, even if the Amalgamated had been
chosen by a majority of the Company's employees in an appropriate
unit, because of the doubt which the Company's conduct would have
cast upon the question of whether the employees had freely expressed
their choice.31
It appears from the record, however, that on April 21, 1937, when
its agreement with the Company was signed, the Amalgamated
neither claimed to represent nor actually did represent a majority of
the employees of the Company. Clifford W. Van Avery, a special
organizer for the Amalgamated, testified that the Amalgamated has
been trying to organize the employees of the Company since 1935, and
that between 1935 and March, 1937, when Division No. 1114 received
its charter, a total of approximately 20 employees had applied for
membership. Avery further testified, however, that between April
15 and April 21, 1937, a large number of employees had filed applica-
tions for membership in Division No. 1114. Before the Amalgamated
approached Travis for the purpose of signing the agreement, Avery,.
who had arrived in San Francisco on April 15, was informed by
various field organizers for the Amalgamated or knew from personal
observation that there had already signed with the Amalgamated, 95
per cent of all the 90 employees of the Company at Albuquerque,
Phoenix, and El Paso, 80 of the 100 or 120 employees of the Company
at Los Angeles, 115 employees in San Francisco, and between 45 and
60 of the employees north of San Francisco-a total of approximately
340 employees. There were the claims made on April 21, by the
Amalgamated to Travis, on the basis of which the agreement was
21 Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 19 ( 1) and 19 (2).
28 Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 20 (1), 21 (1).
zo Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25.
30 Matter of National Electric Products Corporation, Base Nos C-219 and R-241, de-
cided August 30, 1937, 3 N L R B 475; Matter of Consolidated Edson Company of
New York, Inc, and Its Affiliated Companies . Case No. C-245, decided November 10,
1937, 4 N L. R B 71.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 533
signed. Avery admitted that Travis had never asked for proof of
membership, and that no claim had been advanced to Travis that the
Amalgamated represented a majority of the employees. Although no
Company pay roll or other roster of the names of employees was intro-
duced in evidence, it appears from estimates submitted by the Amal-
gamated itself that in September 1937 the Company employed 986
employees, exclusive of shop employees, eligible for membership in
the Amalgamated.31 From the records submitted by the Company in
its Annual Report to the Railroad Commission of California," it
further appears that the Company employed a total of 1,390 em-
ployees on December 31, 1936, including 1,061 employees in the same
group eligible to membership in the Amalgamated. It is, therefore,
plain that at the time the agreement was signed the Amalgamated
did not represent a majority of all the employees.33
From the record it thus clearly appears that the Company and its
officials in utter disregard of the order of this Board in Matter of
Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. and of the rights of its employees as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act actively encouraged membership
in the Amalgamated and discouraged membership in the Brother-
hood both before and after the agreement of April 21, 1937 was signed.
Aware that the Brotherhood had already claimed to represent a
majority of the bus drivers, the Company nevertheless granted recog-
nition to the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, of all of its employees not already
represented by an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, at a
time when the Company knew that the Amalgamated neither claimed
to represent nor actually did represent a majority of its employees.
Under these circumstances, the Amalgamated cannot be considered the
free choice of a majority of the employees of the Company, entitled
to protection in its right to such recognition under the agreement of
April 21, 1937. Indeed, far from settling the question concerning
representation, that agreement, made under the circumstances de-
scribed, has given rise to serious unrest and the possibility of a strike
among the bus drivers.
Even if we should adopt the contention of the Amalgamated, which
we do not, that the agreement of April 21 raises a presumption that
the Amalgamated represented a majority of the Company's employees
at that time and thus eliminated the question concerning representa-
tion, the presumption has been conclusively rebutted by the evidence
directly to the contrary, indicating that the designation of the Amal-
31 Motion to Reopen Case for Purpose of Receiving Certain Testimony , filed September
13, 1937
33 Boai d Exhibit No. 8
33 C P Randall for the Brotherhood testified that Travis had told him that although
the Amalgamated did not claim to represent a majority of the employees , he was entitled
to recognize a minoiity group provided the majority group had not claimed recognition
534 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gamated as representative was not the result of a free choice by a
majority.
The only petition for investigation and certification of representa-
tives filed in this case concerns the representation of the bus drivers.
No evidence has been presented which would warrant our finding
that a question has arisen concerning the representation of the sta-
tion, shop, and office employees. We find, therefore, that a question
has arisen concerning the representation of the bus drivers only. We
further find that this question concerning representation, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Company, described in Sec-
tion I above, tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Employees of the Company for present purposes are divided into
two main classifications: bus drivers, and all other employees, in-
cluding station, shop, and office employees.
The Brotherhood contends that the bus drivers constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In support
of this contention, witnesses for the Brotherhood testified to a num-
ber of considerations which differentiate bus drivers from other em-
ployees : bus drivers are paid by the mile rather than by the week
or the month; they are required to purchase and wear a, special uni-
form; they are subject to demerit and seniority systems which do not
apply to other employees; their work calls for the exercise of
extraordinary skill and judgment; they must meet the standards set
by the Interstate Commerce Commission as to age and qualifications;
they are required under different State Acts and under the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 to undergo annual and semi-annual physical
examinations not required of other employees. In addition, the bus
drivers regard themselves as a separate craft and associate with one
another at terminals and elsewhere rather than with other employees;
and, in many instances they are segregated by the Company as a
separate unit, particularly in the issuance of rules, regulations and
bulletins,34 applicable to drivers alone, and in the organization of the
business of the Company, whereby drivers are classified as a separate
department and are responsible to different supervisory officials from
those of other employees. As set forth above, the history of labor
relations between the Company and its employees indicates that from
1933 to April 1937, the Company has recognized drivers as a sep-
arate unit, and even sponsored organizations which limit their
membership to bus drivers alone.35 In addition, the Brotherhood
introduced in evidence and its witnesses testified to a number of
81 Petitioner's Exhibit Nos 2, 27.
91 Petitioner 's Exhibit Nos. 1, 4, 5.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 535
contracts in the motor bus industry at large executed between various
bus companies and unions representing bus drivers as a separate
unit.36
The Brotherhood also cited the Decision of this Board certifying
the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as the exclusive representa-
tive of the bus drivers of the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Com-
pany.37
On the other hand, the Amalgamated contends that all of the em-
ployees of the Company, including bus drivers, mechanics, station
and office employees, except employees in supervisory positions or
positions of a confidential nature, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. While not denying the specific
differences in wages, working conditions, and qualifications which
the Brotherhood contends separate bus drivers from other employees
as a separate craft, the Amalgamated rests its claim upon the con-
tention that the industrial form of organization affords all employees
greater economic strength and better protection than separate craft
organization. '
The Amalgamated contends that employees drawing lower pay
constitute a continual menace to the higher standards of the drivers,
that this can be corrected by raising the standards of the other
employees, and that general agreements covering all employees and
providing for arbitration will avoid the stoppages incident to strikes
by dissatisfied minority groups among the employees. Other evi-
dence in the record indicates that there exists such a large degree
of interdependence and functional coherence between the various
classes of employees that it would be reasonable to group all em-
ployees together as the appropriate unit.18 As tending to show by the
history of collective bargaining in the motor transportation industry
as a whole that all the employees of the Company, taken together,
constitute an appropriate unit, the Amalgamated introduced in evi-
dence and its witnesses testified to a number of contracts which it had
negotiated with various bus companies, covering all the employees
of each company."
In view of the facts described above and the conflicting contentions
of the two organizations it appears that the bus drivers can be con-
33 Agreement between The Cardinal Stage Lines Company and The Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen , covering Rates, Rules , and Regulations for Motor Coach Operators,
Petitioner ' s Exhibit No 7 ; Agreement between Santa Fe Trail Stages , Inc of Arizona
and The Biotheihood of Raihoad Trainmen , coveiing Rates , Rules , and Regulations for
Motor Coach Operators, Petitioner's Exhibit No 8
37 bfatter of Santa Fe Trail Transportation Cornpanif, Case No R-126, decided Margin
18, 1937, 2 N L R li 767
33 Cf. Petitioner's Exhibit No 24 passim
3e Memorandum of Agreement between the North Coast Transportation Company and
the Amalsaniated Intervenors Exhibit No 2, Agreement between Interstate Tiansit
Lines, Interstate Transit Lines, Inc. and Union Pacific Stages of California and the
Amalgamated Inteivenoi's Exhbit No 3
57573- 38-vol 1%--35
536 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sidered either as a separate unit as claimed by the Brotherhood or
as part of a large unit composed of bus drivers, mechanics, station
and office employees, as claimed by the Amalgamated. The differen-
tiation in skill and duty of bus drivers from other employees and the
history of collective bargaining by the Company, as well as the history
of collective bargaining in the industry at large, as cited by the
Brotherhood, are proof of the feasibility of the former approach.
The interdependence of the bus drivers with the other employees, the
greater economic strength claimed for the industrial form of organi-
zation, and the history of collective bargaining, in the industry. as
cited by the Amalgamated, are proof of the feasibility of the latter
approach. Our decision in Matter of Santa Fe Trails Transportation
Company (supra) that bus drivers are the appropriate unit clearly
cannot control the determination of this question since, there, the
decision was based on an express stipulation by the Santa Fe Company
that bus drivers should constitute such a unit. In Matter of Penn-
sylvania Greyhound Lines et al. where we considered in detail the
question of the appropriate unit in reference to the employees of
twelve other Greyhound Systems, we held that "where the considera-
tions which determine this question are so evenly'balanced, the de-
cisive factor is the desire of the men themselves." 40 On this point the
record before us affords no help. The Brotherhood claims to repre-
sent a majority of the bus drivers employed by the Company; the
Amalgamated claims to represent a majority of all the employees.
The documentary evidence is so incomplete that neither claim can be
conclusively proved from the record.
As stated in Section V below, we shall direct an election to be held
among the bus drivers employed by the Company to determine
whether they wish to be represented by the Brotherhood, the Amalga-
mated, or neither. Upon the results of this election will depend in
part the determination of the unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. If the bus drivers choose the Brotherhood, bus
drivers alone will constitute an appropriate unit; if they choose the
Amalgamated, they will have expressed their preference for a single
larger unit consisting of all the employees. In the absence, however,
of any evidence which would warrant our finding that a question con-
cerning representation has arisen among the employees other than
bus drivers, and in the absence of a petition requesting a certification
of representatives of all the employees in the larger unit, it will not
be necessary at this time to determine the appropriateness of such
unit or whether the Amalgamated has been designated by a majority
of the employees in that unit.
40 Case No R-151 decided September 14, 1937, 3 N L R B 622; Matter of Globe Ma-
rhine and S'tanijiing Company, Caees Nos R-178, R-179, R-180, decided August 11. 1937.
3 N L R B 294
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 537
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing, the Brotherhood introduced as evidence of its
membership a photostatic copy of its charter, containing the names
of 245 bus drivers admitted to membership in-Lodge No. 693 before
the close of its charter list on April 10, 1937;41 a typewritten list of
69 bus drivers admitted to membership in Lodge No. 693 after April
10, 1937 ;42 and a notarized list, signed by the financial secretary of
Lodge No. 97, certifying that from a check of his records the 59
Pacific Greyhound drivers named therein were members of Lodge
No. 97 as of June 7, 1937.43 The financial secretary of Lodge 693,
the chairman of the general grievance committee of the Brother-
hood, and the chairman of the local grievance committee of Lodge
No. 97 testified that from their personal knowledge and their knowl-
edge of the original records, all of the drivers named in these lists,
were members of the Brotherhood and employees of the Company,
except four members of Lodge No. 693 who were employees of
other bus companies. The chairman of the general grievance com-
mittee of the Brotherhood testified that on April 20, 1937, when it
sought to bargain collectively with the Company, the above-listed
369 bus drivers said to be employed by the Company were members
of either Lodge No. 693 or Lodge No. 97. The Brotherhood claims
that on that day the Company employed a total of 640 bus drivers,
and that therefore the Brotherhood then represented a majority of
the Company's bus drivers. It further claims that as of July 12,
the day of the hearing, the Company employed 680 bus drivers, of
which its membership still constituted a majority, despite the fact
that three bus drivers, members of Lodge No. 97, had recently been
discharged.44
Such proof, if unquestioned, would normally be sufficient for us
to certify the Brotherhood without an election as the exclusive
representative of all the bus drivers for the purposes of collective
bargaining. Here, however, the lack of a Company pay roll or
roster of employees against which to check the Brotherhood's mem-
bership lists, or to ascertain exactly the total number of bus drivers
employed by the Company, the fact that an undetermined number
of the Brotherhood's members are also members of the Amalga-
41 Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 14.
42 Petitioner 's Exhibit No 16.
"Petitioner 's Exhibit No 15.
44 These estimates of the total number of bus drivers employed on April 21 and July 12,
1937 , are admittedly approximations , based on the seniority list of bus drivers employed
by Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, in June, 1936, and an estimate of the number of
drivers hired after April 21, 1937. Since the Company failed to appear at the hearing
and neither this seniority list nor any more recent roster of names of its bus drivers
was intioduced in evidence, it is not possible from the record to ascertain the exact
numbei of the bus drivers employed by the Company either on April 20 or the date of the
filing of the petition.
538 NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mated,45 and the conflicting contentions with regard to the appro-
priate unit make impossible such a certification of the Brotherhood
The Amalgamated, on the other hand, claimed to represent at the
time of the hearing approximately 605 employees of the Company,
of whom 302 were bus drivers. These figures represent only the
estimate of one of its international officers; the Amalgamated sub-
nlitted no list of names ,or records of membership.
On September 13, however, after the hearing, the Amalgamated
filed a motion to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing into
evidence a Master Agreement, completed on September 8 under the
agreement of April 21, 1937. In its motion, the Amalgamated
stated that 481 out of 705 drivers, 112 out of 155 employees on
Station forces, and 112 out of 126 office employees-a total of 705
out of 986 eligible employees-have signed their assent to the Master
Agreement. At the oral argument before the Board on September
28, 1937, counsel for the Amalgamated submitted, as an offer of
proof in support of his motion, a copy of the Master Agreement
containing a 15 page typewritten list of names and a notarized
certification by the secretary of Division No. 1114 that the typewrit-
ten list was a true and a correct list of the employees of the Com-
pai y who have approved the Master Agreement and that the
original signatures are on file in his office.
We hereby deny this motion of the Amalgamated. Since the
Master Agreement itself merely provides that the Company will
recognize the Amalgamated as the representative of its members, the
Amalgamated must show either that a majority of the Company's
employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate are members of the
Amalgamated or that a majority of such employees have in some
other way designated the Amalgamated to represent them for the
purpose of collective bargaining. The offer of proof on the basis of
which it seeks to reopen the case shows neither.
The petition to which the signatures are affixed reads as follows:
We, the undersigned employees of Pacific Greyhound Lines,
having read the proposed agreement between .. . Division No.
1114 and Pacific Greyhound Lines, pertaining to rules and regu-
lations covering rates of pay and working conditions, find the
said agreement in form and substance to be satisfactory and
meeting with our approval.
This is but acquiescence in a fait accompli. It cannot be regarded
as indicating that the employees whose names are attached thereto
are, or intend to become, members of the Amalgamated, or have
otherwise chosen the Amalgamated to represent them for the purposes
of collective bargaining. Further, the Master Agreement, which is
45 The Amalgamated claimed that more than 15 members of the Brotherhood had signed
applications for membership in the Amalgamated The Brotherhood admitted that
between four and 12 of its members had become members of the Amalgamated
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 539
an addendum to the agreement of April 21, is subject to the same vices
as that agreement. In the light of the Company's continued activi-
ties in encouraging membership in the Amalgamated and discourag-
ing membership in the Brotherhood, we cannot in any event consider
that those employees who signed the Master Agreement thereby
expressed their free and untrammelled choice or ratification of repre-
sentatives.
There is, therefore, no conclusive proof before us that either the
Amalgamated or the Brotherhood represents a majority of the bus
drivers employed by the Company, or that the Amalgamated repre-
sents a majority of any other class of employees. In order to insure
to the employees the full benefit of their rights to self-organization
and collective bargaining and otherwise to effectuate the policies of
the Act, we conclude that the question concerning the representation
of the employees of the Company which has arisen can best be
resolved by 'an election by secret ballot, to be held on the terms set
out in Section IV above.
Both Lodge No. 693 and Lodge No. 97 of the Brotherhood agreed
at the hearing that in the event that an election should be directed by
this Board they should be designated on the ballot by the name of the
Brotherhood only, without specifying either Lodge.
We will direct the elections to be held under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, who
shall determine in, her discretion the exact times, places, and pro-
cedure for giving notice of the elections and for balloting. We
expressly authorize the use of the United States mail for such pur-
poses and the use of agents, if feasible, to journey through the
Company's various territorial divisions to conduct elections at appro-
priate places, collecting the votes in sealed envelopes for delivery to
the Regional Director.
In accordance with our usual practice, eligibility to vote will be
determined by employment during the pay roll period immediately
preceding May 25, the date of the filing of the petition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the
following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the represen-
tation of the bus drivers employed by Pacific Greyhound Lines, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
540
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, it is
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigations authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining
with Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Francisco, California, elections
by secret ballot shall be conducted within thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among bus driv-
ers employed by and on the regular seniority list of said Company
during the pay roll period immediately preceding May 25, 1937, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen or Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America
for the purpose of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
The only labor organization free of the influence of the Company
is the Brotherhood. If the Amalgamated were not, in this instance,
the recipient of the Company's illegal favors, I should examine seri-
ously its contention that the bus drivers should be merged in a larger
bargaining unit. As it is, the bus drivers have carried on the organi-
zational fight against heavy company odds for ?their own group.
There are good arguments for separate bargaining by this class of
workers. Under all the circumstances of this case, I think the bus
drivers should be declared to be the appropriate bargaining unit.
[BANE TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
December 23, 1937
On December 16, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
the above entitled proceeding, the election to be held within thirty
(30) days from the date of the Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San
Francisco, California). The Board, having been advised by the
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, that a longer period
within which to hold the election is necessary, hereby amends the
Direction of Election issued on December 16, 1937, by striking there-
from the words "within thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction" and substituting therefor the words "within fifty (50)
days from the date of this Direction."
0
DECISIONS A ND OItDi;ItS
[SAME TITLE
541
AMENDMENT TO DECISION
AND
SECOND AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
January 02, 1938
On December 16, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and a Direction of Election,
and on December 23, an Amendment to the Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding. The Decision and Direction of
Election, as amended, provide that elections by secret ballot be
held within fifty (50) days among bus drivers employed by and on
the regular seniority list of Pacific Greyhound Lines during the
pay roll period immediately preceding May 25, 1937, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Brotherhood of Locomo-
tive Firemen and Enginemen or Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America for the
purpose of collective bargaining, or by neither.
On January 15, the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America filed a motion for
a rehearing and a petition to modify the Decision and Direction of
Election. In its petition the Amalgamated prays that the Board
amend its Decision and Direction of Election (1) by changing the
date by which the eligibility of voters is to be determined from
May 25, 1937, to December 15, 1937, and (2) by striking therefrom,
wherever they occur, the words "or by neither".
On January 21, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen filed with the Board a letter stating that in order to
prevent further delay it would not oppose the change in the date of
eligibility for voters from May 25, 1937, to December 15, 1937. Since
this change is satisfactory to both unions, the Board hereby amends
its Decision, Direction of Election, and Amendment to Direction
of Election by striking therefrom, wherever they occur, the words
"during the pay roll period immediately preceding May 25, 1937,"
and substituting therefor the words "during the pay roll period
immediately preceding December 15, 1937."
In Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local
No. 1657,46 we discussed in detail the problems arising in connection
with the use of the words "or by neither." For the reasons therein
stated, the petition in the instant case to amend the Decision and
Direction of Election by striking therefrom the words "or by neither"
is hereby denied.
Upon consideration, the Board hereby also denies the motion of the
Amalgamated for a rehearing and affirms its decision.
46 4 N. L. R. B. 55.