Pacific Greyhound Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 659 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and AMALGAMATED ASSO-
CIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM-
PLOYES OF AMERICA
In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and BROTHERHOOD OF-
RAILROAD TRAINMEN
Cases Nos. R-926 and R-927, respectively
SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTIONS
December 14, 1938
On October 29, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein-
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Elections i in the-
above-entitled proceedings. On November 10, 1938, the Board issued-
an Amendment to Decision and Direction of Elections 2 amending the-
Direction of Elections in certain particulars here immaterial.
On or about November 2 and again on November 29, 1938, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, a labor organization affiliated with-
the American Federation of Labor, by its acting international presi-
dent, H. W. Brown, informally protested to the Board the conduct of
the election directed in the Direction of Elections among employees-
within the group therein described as group (b), for the reasons,-
among others, as asserted by it, that it claims exclusive jurisdiction
over certain, if not all, of the shopmen of Pacific Greyhound Lines,,
herein called the Company, a party herein, employed by the Company
elsewhere than at Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, that it
represents such employees for collective bargaining purposes, and has
so represented them in negotiating collective bargaining contracts
with the Company.
Thereafter, on December 12, 1938, Amalgamated Association of-
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America,
herein called the Amalgamated, the petitioner in Case No. R-926,.
one of the consolidated cases in the above-entitled proceedings,-
lodged with the Board its verified and duly acknowledged Amended_
Petition for Investigation and Certification of Representatives pur--
1 9 N. L . R B. 557.
29 N. L. R. B. 578
10. N. L . R. B., No. 62. 650
660 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the second amended petition of the Amalgamated. Said second
amended petition is hereby ordered filed instanter.
The second amended petition alleges that there now exists a dis-
pute within the American Federation of Labor between the Amal-
gamated and the said International Association of Machinists "con-
cerning jurisdiction over certain of the employer's shop employees,
[in] the election directed in Paragraph (b) of the Board's Direction
of Elections of October 29, 1938, as amended November 10, 1938,"
and requests "certification in a unit excluding the shop employees as
to which the dispute" exists. In the amended petition filed herein
by the Amalgamated before the hearing, the Amalgamated claimed
to represent, among other employees of the Company, all shopmen
except shop employees at San Francisco and Los Angeles, California.
Moreover, the Amalgamated claimed in said amended petition and
at the hearing that said shopmen, with the exception noted, come
within the larger single unit which the Amalgamated then con-
tended was appropriate for bargaining purposes. From the allega-
tions of the second amended petition of the Amalgamated, however,
it appears that a jurisdictional dispute exists between itself and
said International Association of Machinists as to shop employees of
the Company other than those in the two mentioned cities. The
Board does not resolve such jurisdictional disputes.3 However, since
the Amalgamated by virtue of its second amended petition neither
makes claim to represent shopmen nor contends that they are part
of an appropriate bargaining unit or units, the Board will by its
amendment hereinafter exclude them from these proceedings. Such
exclusion does not affect the interest of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood, a party herein, nor of the
Company, adversely.
The second amended petition of the Amalgamated sets forth,
among other things, that the "Description of the bargaining unit
which petitioner claims as appropriate," is as follows :
Unit 1: All employees except those in executive and super-
visory capacities, shop employees and bus drivers.
Unit 2: All bus drivers.
During the hearing herein, and in the amended petition filed by
the Amalgamated prior to the hearing, the Amalgamated claimed
that all employees of the Company,4 except those in executive and
supervisory capacities and shopmen in San Francisco and Los
8 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America and Aluminum Workers Union No 1910,
1 N. L R B 530; Matter of Curtis Bay Towing Company and Marine Engineers ' Beneficial
Association No 5, 4 N L R B 360, and cases therein cited.
4 This was interpreted in the Decision and Direction of Elections as meaning bus drivers,
and station , clerical , and shop employees
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661
Angeles, constituted an appropriate bargaining unit. In view of the
above allegations of the second amended petition, construed together
with the first amended petition and in the light of the record, it
appears that the Amalgamated now advances the claim that several
units could be found by the Board to constitute appropriate bar-
gaining unit or units, viz :
(a) a unit composed of bus drivers, alone;
(b) a unit composed of bus drivers, station employees, and
clerical employees, exclusive of executives and supervisory em-
ployees; and
(c) a unit composed of station and clerical employees ex-
clusive of bus drivers, executives, and supervisory employees.
In the Decision and Direction of Elections, the Board found that
unit (a) above, now advanced by the Amalgamated as a possible
appropriate unit, could be found to constitute an appropriate bar-
gaining unit; 5 and upon the principles set forth in said Decision
and Direction of Elections, unit (b) above, which differs from the
larger unit there found appropriate only with respect to the exclu-
sion of shopmen, a matter immaterial herein, likewise could be found
to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Concerning unit (c)
the Decision and Direction of Elections indicates merely that such a
unit, the exclusion of all shopmen being immaterial, only could be
found appropriate upon the contingency that the Brotherhood suc-
ceeded in polling a majority of the votes. in the election directed
among the bus drivers, and the Amalgamated secured a majority in
the other election among employees in the residual group. For
present purposes, however, it is unnecessary to determine whether
unit (c) also could be found appropriate, upon the record here pre-
sented , apart from the occurrence of such contingency.
In the Decision and Direction of Elections the Board stated that
the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections directed
would determine whether the bus drivers alone constitute an appro-
priate unit or, whether they comprised part of the larger unit. The
Board also indicated, as discussed below, that upon a certain con-
tingency certification: could be had in a residual unit. - The prin-
ciples there announced would be applicable, under the circumstances
of this proceeding, to a determination of the various units which
the Amalgamated now advances as constituting appropriate units.
We note only one difference. Inasmuch as the Amalgamated now
agrees with the Brotherhood that the bus drivers could constitute
alone' an appropriate bargaining unit, we are of the opinion-that
if the Amalgamated failed to secure a majority. vote in an, election
conducted among employees,in the residual group, i. e., unit (c)
This was the unit contended by the Brothl rhood to be appropriate.
147841-39-vol. 10-43
662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above, a majority vote in its favor in the election among bus drivers
nevertheless should be deemed to determine that a unit composed
only of bus drivers was appropriate for collective bargaining. In
other words, a vote for the Amalgamated in unit (a), would be
interpreted as expressing a preference for the larger unit (b) if
the Amalgamated polled a majority in unit (c), but if the Amalga-
mated acquired no such majority in unit (c), then for the unit com-
posed only of-bus drivers, i. e., unit (a). In this manner the Amal-
gamated may, if it obtains a majority in both the bus driver and
the residual group, be certified for the single larger unit as origi-
nally requested; on the other hand if it obtains a majority in the
bus-driver group alone it may, in the same manner as if the Brother-
hood obtains a majority among the bus drivers, be certified for that
unit alone. In this connection it 'is unnecessary to decide, and we
express no opinion concerning, the appropriateness of the above
units where another labor organization is involved which claims
that a company-wide unit is the only appropriate one.
The Amalgamated in its second amended petition makes applica-
tion to the Board as follows:
The undersigned requests that pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
,Board investigate such controversy and certify to the parties
the name or names of the representatives that have been desig-
nated or selected by said employees. The undersigned further
requests in the alternative either that the Board amend its Di-
rection of Election herein so. as to provide for two simultaneous
elections amongst the employees in the respective units described
above . (Units 1 and 2), or that the election amongst the bus
drivers now scheduled to commence December 15, 1938, be or-
dered postponed until your Petitioner has had an opportunity
to be heard by the Board, both orally and by brief.
By "simultaneous" we presume the Amalgamated means at about
the same time. Its above requests,for an investigation and certifi-
cation and for elections must be read in the light of its amended
petition filed before the hearing, and with regard to what has been
set forth above as to its present position concerning the three`
possible appropriate units.
The Board is of the opinion that the, requests or applications
thus understood, or such part thereof as the case may be, should
be granted, in manner hereinafter set forth. The Brotherhood is
disinterested in such an allowance, and the Company would not
be adversely affected. In so far as the second amended petition
contains any other applications or requests inconsistent with the,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 663
Decision and Direction of Elections, as heretofore and herein
amended, such applications and requests are denied.
Accordingly, the Board hereby amends the Direction of Elections,
as amended, by striking from the paragraph therein contained relat-
ing to the election to be conducted among employees in group (b),
the following words :
All the station, clerical, and shop employees of Pacific Grey-
hound Lines, San Francisco, California, exclusive of those shop-
men employed at Los Angeles and San Francisco,
and by substituting therefor the following words :
All the station and clerical employees of Pacific Greyhound
Lines, San Francisco, California, exclusive of executives and
supervisors,
The Board will ascertain and determine the appropriate' unit or
units and representative or representatives upon the basis of the
results of the elections directed, in accordance with the following
principles, anything in the Decision and Direction of Elections to
the contrary notwithstanding : If a, majority ° of the bus drivers vote
for the Brotherhood in the election directed in the Direction of Elec-
tions, as amended heretofore and herein, among the employees in
group (a) therein, the Board will determine that the bus drivers of
the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and the Board will certify the Brotherhood as the
duly chosen representative of that unit. If a majority of the bus
drivers vote for the Amalgamated in said election directed among em-
ployees in said group (a), and if a majority of the employees in the
election directed in the Direction of Elections, as amended hereto-
fore and herein, among employees in group (b) therein, vote for the
Amalgamated then the Board will determine that the bus drivers,
and station and clerical employees, exclusive of executives and super-
visors of the Company constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, and
the Board will certify the Amalgamated as the duly chosen repre-
sentative of that unit. In the event the Brotherhood secures a ma-
jority vote in the said election among bus drivers and the Amalga-
mated does likewise in the said election conducted among the re-
mainder of the employees, by virtue of this fact, the Board will
certify the Amalgamated as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the station and clerical employees, exclusive of executives and
supervisors. Lastly, if a majority of the bus drivers in the election
directed among them vote for the Amalgamated, but a majority of
All majorities herein referred to must be such under the rules governing elections laid
down in our prior decisions.
664 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the remaining employees in the other election directed do not vote
for the Amalgamated, the Board will determine that the bus drivers
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and the Board will certify the Amalgamated as the duly chosen
representative of that unit.
It is hereby ordered that a copy of this Second Amendment to
Decision and Direction of Elections be served upon International
Machinists of America.
And, the Board having been advised by the Regional Director that
a longer period within which to hold the elections directed is neces-
sary, hereby further amends the Direction of Elections, as amended,
by striking therefrom the words "within sixty (60) days from the
date of this Direction" and substituting therefor the words "within
ninety (90) days from the date of this Direction." The Board also
hereby amends the Decision and Direction of Elections by striking
from footnote 6 thereof the words "of its members."
MR. EDWIN S . SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Amendment to Decision and Direction of Elections.