Pioneer Bus Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerical employees, plant clerical employees , errand boys, delivery men,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
NORTHWESTERN PHOTO ENGRAVING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 176 West
Adams Street , Chicago 3, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Pioneer Bus Company, Inc.' and Transport Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 23-RC-1939. December 10, 1962
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 Kenneth R. Tilley, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their collective-
bargaining contracts, entered into on May 29, 1960, and effective from
February 15,1961, to February 15, 1965, bar the instant petition which
was filed on July 10, 1962. The Petitioner asserts that the contracts
cannot bar an election at this time because, inter alia, they artificially
divide the employees into two separate bargaining units based solely
upon considerations of race.
Pursuant to a consent election held in 1950, the Intervenor was
certified as bargaining representative for all the Employer's bus opera-
tors and shop employees in Houston, Texas. Commencing in 1956,
the parties created a two-unit bargaining relationship. One unit was
known as the "Pioneer Bus Lines" and was composed exclusively of
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
A The Intervenor, Bus Drivers , Dispatchers and Shop Employees Independent Union of
Houston , intervened on the basis of its contractual interest.
140 NLRB No. 18.
PIONEER BUS COMPANY, INC. 55
white bus operators and shopmen. The other was styled the "Trinity
Gardens Bus Lines" and consisted entirely of Negro employees in the
same classifications. However, all are admittedly employees of the
Employer.
In contract negotiations since 1956, the Employer has met sep-
arately with representatives of the two groups and has executed sep-
arate contracts with each. While the contracts were executed on the
same dates, and generally contained identical terms and conditions of
employment, separate seniority lists were maintained within each unit.
This separate representational treatment along racial lines appears in
the contracts here asserted as bars.
Consistent with clear court decisions in other contexts which con-
demn governmental sanctioning of racially separate groupings as in-
herently discriminatory,' the Board will not permit its contract-bar
rules to be utilized to shield contracts such as those here involved from
the challenge of otherwise appropriate election petitions. We there-
fore hold that, where the bargaining representative of employees in an
appropriate unit executes separate contracts, or even a single contract,
discriminating between Negro and white employees on racial lines, the
Board will not deem such contracts as a bar to an election.
We are not confronted in this proceeding with any attack on the
validity of the Intervenor's outstanding certification in consequence of
the separate contracts which it executed on the basis of race. Although
the execution of such contracts is in patent derogation of the certifica-
tion and would warrant revocation of the certification,4 we deem it un-
necessary to take such action at this time in view of the impending elec-
tion which we here direct.
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties agree that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All bus operators and shop employees employed by the Employer at
Houston, Texas, excluding clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
° Brown, et al . v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al, 349 U.S 294 ; Boynton v.
Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 , Bailey, et al . v. Patterson, et al, 369 U S. 31; Burton v. Wilming-
ton Parking Authority, et al., 365 U S. 715.
6 See Hughes Tool Company, 104 NLRB 318 , 319-322.