Raybern Bus Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

43O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
though there might have been valid reasons for these discharges. In the opinion
of the Trial Examiner, the evidence establishes that these discharges were for the
purpose of undermining the Union and stemming the tide of its organizational cam-
paign and that the reasons assigned for these discharges were pretexts to conceal
this purpose . That such is the fact is indicated , inter alia, by the timing of the dis-
charges in relation to the union organizational activities and in relation to the
"faults" assigned , the failure of many of Respondent 's contentions to stand up under
close examination , the conduct and statements by Foreman Jacobs, and the remarks
by Elmer Schott to employee Falcone at the time he was offered reinstatement.
There is no real question herein as to whether Foreman Jacob 's conduct was
violative of the Act. Clearly such interrogations and threats interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Furthermore,
in the context of the unfair labor practices found, the interrogations as to union
membership on the employment application form have a coercive effect and violate
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 122 NLRB 1033,
footnote 3, and case cited there.
Misconduct
Respondent contended at the hearing before the Trial Examiner that some of the
individuals involved herein should be denied reinstatement on the ground that they
engaged in misconduct after their discharges . However , in the light of the oral
argument at the end of the trial and the absence of any reference to these matters in
Respondent's brief, it now appears that Respondent has abandoned these contentions.
Accordingly, no effort will be made herein to outline the evidence with respect to
these matters although the Trial Examiner has considered such evidence in con-
nection with the evidence heretofore outlined and in connection with the remedy
hereinafter fashioned , and has concluded that the conduct involved does not justify
denial of reinstatement.
IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary , the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for
the assertion of jurisdiction herein.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers
of America, Milk & Ice Cream Drivers & Dairy Employees Union , Local 497, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent threatened and interrogated
its employees and thereby interfered with , restrained, or coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent by discriminating in regard
to tenure and conditions of employment and discouraging membership in a labor
organization has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Raybern Bus Service , Inc.' and Division 1511, Amalgamated
Association of S.E.R . & M.C.E. of America, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 2-RC-10470. August 3, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, hearings were held on February 18 before Louis
.A. Schneider; on March 3 and 16 before Harry E. Knowlton; and on
.April 6 and May 4, 1960, before 'I. L. Broadwin, hearing officers of
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
128 NLRB No. 51.
RAYBERN BUS SERVICE, INC. 431
the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officers' rulings
made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer?
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
'The Employer is a New York corporation engaged primarily in
the transportation of schoolchildren in two New York counties. The
Employer's services are not available to the general public along the
routes it traverses in its schoolbus operation; nor does it perform any
transportation services pursuant to franchise. During 1959 its gross
revenue was $370,960, approximately 85 percent of which was income
derived from transportation contracts between the Employer and
three public school districts. Thirteen percent of the Employer's
gross revenue was derived from the transportation of children to
parochial schools within a two-county area in New York. 'The
remaining income was derived from transportation services performed
under charter contracts in the same area. Purchases, which consisted
of gasoline, oil, tires, and parts, were made locally and amounted to
$48,767 in 1959. Capital equipment purchases in 1959, which con-
sisted of 10 used buses, all purchased within the State, amounted to
approximately $70,000.
In view of the fact that the Employer is engaged in an enterprise
primarily in aid of the State in the field of education and which is
essentially local in character, we find that it is not a transit enterprise
within the meaning of the Charleston Transit Company case.3 The
Board will not assert jurisdiction over an employer's business on the
basis of its nonrecurring capital expenditures alone .4
As the Employer's operation does not otherwise satisfy any juris-
dictional standard,5 we find that it will not effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
2 Amalgamated Local Union 355 was permitted to intervene on the basis of its con-
tractual interest
8 Charleston Transit Company , 123 NLRB 1296 . Cf. The McMahon Transportation
Company, 124 NLRB 1092
4 Richter Transfer Company, 80 NLRB 1246, and Magic Mountain, Inc, 123 NLRB 1170.
5 See HPO Service , Inc, 122 NLRB 394, 395