Ringsby-United

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ringsby Truck Lines, Incorporated and United Buck-
ingham Freight Line Inc., d/b/a Ringsby-United
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca, Local No. 307 , Petitioner. Case 27-RC-4689
June 10, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed on December 27, 1973,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, a hearing was held at Cheyenne,
Wyoming, on January 24, 1974, before Merrell M.
McLaughlin,, Hearing Officer.' Following the hear-
ing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and
by direction of the Regional Director for Region 27,
this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc., a
Nebraska corporation, and United Buckingham
Freight Line, Inc., a South Dakota corporation,
jointly doing business as Ringsby-United. The
Employer is engaged in the transcontinental trans-
portation of commercial freight and annually re-
ceives revenues in excess of $80,000,000 from such
interstate transportation of goods.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. We further find that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
I The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of its contract with the Employer.
2 Pursuant to motions made by both Petitioner and Intervenor, which
the Employer did not oppose, the Board hereby takes official notice of the
records in Cases 27-RC-4453, 27-CA-3543, and 27-RC-4329, involving the
same parties as here, and has considered them in reaching its decision in this
case.
3 Petitioner indicated at the hearing in Case 27-RC-4453 that it would
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Both Petitioner and Intervenor have current
collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer.
(The bargaining history of the parties is discussed
below.) Intervenor contends that the approximately
seven mechanics at the Employer's recently expand-
ed operations at Cheyenne, Wyoming, constitute an
accretion to its contractual unit, and that conse-
quently its outstanding contract is a bar to the
present petition. Petitioner's position appears to be
that the Cheyenne mechanics are not an accretion to
the Intervenor's contractual unit, that they constitute
an appropriate unit by themselves,3 and that the
employees should be allowed to select their collec-
tive-bargaining representative through a Board-con-
ducted election. The Employer's position on the
appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit is unclear
from the record.
Since 1962, Intervenor has negotiated successive
contracts with the Western Empire Operators Associ-
ation, of which the Employer is a member, covering a
unit of mechanics in 11 western States including
Colorado and Wyoming.4 Until the Employer
expanded the Cheyenne terminal in 1972, the only
mechanics the Employer had in the 11-state area
covered by the agreement were located at a facility
the Employer operated at Denver, Colorado. Interve-
nor's contract contains an accretion clause, provid-
ing, in relevant part, that the contract applies to "all
accretions to the bargaining unit, including, but not
limited to, newly established or acquired shops, and
the consolidation of shops in the geographical area
are covered by this Agreement."
Petitioner has also had successive collective-bar-
gaining agreements with the Employer in the same
11-state area, covering over-the-road and local
drivers, automotive shop service and parts employ-
ees, dockhands, and hostlers. Sister locals of the
Petitioner also represent some mechanics of this
Employer outside the 11-state area, at such places as
Rapid City, South Dakota; Sioux City, Iowa; and the
Omaha/Lincoln area of Nebraska. Petitioner does
not contend that the mechanics at Cheyenne are an
accretion to any of its contractual units.
Prior to 1971, the Employer had approximately 200
to 250 drivers operating out of Denver as "sleeper-
teams" with 2 men working together, and approxi-
be willing to represent the mechanics in a unit which included the
automotive shop service employees at Cheyenne.
4 The agreement specifically excludes mechanics who are represented by
other unions or who have not designated a local of the Intervenor as their
representative, and the record shows that there are at least some mechanics
in the 11 -state area-albeit , none employed by this Employer-who are for
those reasons not covered by the agreement.
211 NLRB No. 33
RINGSBY-UNITED 281
mately 45 mechanics servicing their equipment who
were covered by the Intervenor's contract. However,
in January of that year, the Employer converted its
Denver terminal , to a one-man operation and
redomiciled all but 36 of the drivers to other
locations throughout its nationwide system, includ-
ing Albuquerque, New Mexico; Rawlins, Wyoming;
Lincoln, Nebraska; and Salt Lake City, Utah.5 At
the same time , the Employer began laying off
mechanics in Denver.
In January 1972, the Employer decided to expand
its Cheyenne, Wyoming, terminal into a central
transcontinental break-bulk facility. Consequently,
in April of that year, the Employer implemented
another change of operations. It was during this
change of operations that Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc.,
combined its road operations with United-Bucking-
ham Freight Lines, Inc., to become Ringsby-United.
The Employer again redomiciled drivers. It closed
down entirely 2 terminals, reduced its Denver
terminal from 36 to 4 drivers, laid off at least another
15 mechanics, and assigned additional drivers to
some of its other terminals, increasing substantially
those assigned to Cheyennes At Cheyenne, the
Employer hired two mechanics and began construc-
tion of a large maintenance building designed to
maintain and repair the equipment being transferred
in from other terminals.
By early 1973, the maintenance building had been
completed and the Employer placed into effect yet
another change in operations which resulted in still
more drivers being assigned to the Cheyenne
terminal from other locations.? Meanwhile, the
Employer continued to increase its complement of
mechanics and automotive shop service employees,
so that by the time of the hearing in this case, the
Employer had 7 mechanics 8 and 30 to 35 automotive
shop service employees at Cheyenne .9 The record
shows that the repair work being performed by the
mechanics originated from such places as Albuquer-
que, New Mexico; Sioux City, Iowa; Rapid City,
North Dakota; Des Moines, Iowa, as well as from
Denver.10 Prior to the expansion of the Cheyenne
terminal , major repair work was being performed at
Denver and Rapid City, but after implementation of
the various changes in operations, only routine
S The Employer's senior vice president for industrial relations , J. Francis
Trimmer , testified that none of the drivers were transferred to Cheyenne
during the 1971 change of operations.
9 Trimmer testified that prior to the April 1972 change of operations, it
had 36 tractor units in Denver, 25 in Kansas City, 15 in Albuquerque, 60 in
Rapid City . From these terminals, 26 units were transferred to Cheyenne
(The record does not indicate how many units came from each location.)
I
Trimmer testified that 4 of the tractor units came from Denver , 38 from
Sioux City, and 51 from Rapid City.
8 Trimmer testified that none of the mechanics came from its Denver
terminal (which by this time had only one mechanic on active status), but
that two had previously worked for the Employer at other terminals outside
maintenance was being performed at these locations
while the bulk of major. repairs was performed in
Cheyenne.
As noted above, in February 1972, even before it
began construction of its maintenance building at
Cheyenne, the Employer hired two mechanics to
perform some of the repair work that would
eventually be performed in the new building.11
Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner requested that the
Employer recognize it as representative of these
employees. The Employer agreed and a tentative
contract was signed and submitted to the Joint
Teamster-Employer Operational Change Committee
for approval. However, on April 25, the Intervenor
filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Employer in Case 27-CA-3543, charging it with
violations of Section 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(2) of the Act.
The Regional Director refused to issue a complaint
on the 8(a)(5) charge, and eventually approved a
settlement of the 8(a)(2) charge, which required the
Employer, among other things, to withdraw recogni-
tion of the Petitioner, and reimburse the employees
for the amount of the dues paid by them. Intervenor
appealed the Regional Director's dismissal of the
8(a)(5) charge to the General Counsel's Office of
Appeals. That office, however, upheld the Regional
Director's dismissal.
At the same time that the parties were contesting
the 8(a)(2) and (5) charges, as described above,
Intervenor was also proceeding through its contrac-
tual avenues. It first took its accretion contention to
the Teamster-Machinists Joint Automotive Commit-
tee, which is responsible for interpreting a "no-raid"
agreement between the two organizations. A meeting
of that committee was held on March 22, 1972. The
minutes of that meeting indicate that the committee
was in agreement with Intervenor's assertion that the
Cheyenne facility was within the jurisdiction of the
Intervenor.
Thereafter, Intervenor presented its accretion
contention to the Colorado Board of Adjustment.
That forum is responsible for interpreting the
agreement between the Intervenor and the Western
Empire Operators Association for the States of
Colorado and Wyoming, and is composed of three
union representatives and three association repre-
the 11-state area covered by Intervenor 's contract. He further testified that
he did not think that the number of mechanics employed at Cheyenne
would substantially increase in the immediate future.
9 The Employer and Petitioner agreed that these automotive shop service
employees were an accretion to Petitioner 's unit, and applied the contract to
them . The date of the Employer's recognition was not indicated in the
record.
10 The record does not indicate how much or what percentage of the
equipment eventually transferred to Cheyenne originated from Denver.
11 Prior to 1972, some of the mechanics ' work had been subcontracted
out to local repair shops in the Cheyenne area.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives. In an undated decision, the Colorado
Board of Adjustment unanimously found the Em-
ployer to have violated the accretion provision of the
contract, concluding that the Cheyenne maintenance
shop was within the jurisdiction of the Intervenor
and subject to its agreement with the Association.12
Finally, it appears that Intervenor also filed an
action in Federal district court in Denver, Colorado,
under Section 301 of the Act for specific perform-
ance of its contract with the Employer and of the
decision issued by the Colorado Board of Adjust-
ment interpreting that contract. The record does not
indicate the current status of that proceeding.
With regard to the terms and conditions of
employment of the Cheyenne mechanics, the record
establishes that all seven mechanics work in the new
maintenance shop, where they perform major repair
work using the skills of a journeyman mechanic.
Working in the same building with the mechanics
are: 30 to 35 automotive service shop employees,
who perform routine maintenance work such as
changing tires and lubricating the equipment; 2 parts
men who work in a separate room where they
maintain the inventory of parts which they supply to
the mechanics and automotive shop service employ-
ees; a plant clerical and an administrative employee
in a separate office; and 5 foremen and the shop
superintendent who supervise the work of all
employees in the shop.
As noted above, Petitioner represents all of the
automotive shop service and parts employees at the
Employer's Cheyenne facility. In fact, it appears that
Petitioner represents all the employees at that
location except the mechanics petitioned for here,
and the office clericals who are currently represented
by another union. Intervenor appears to contend
that, as a result of the Employer's transfer of drivers,
equipment, and repair machinery from Denver to
Cheyenne, the Cheyenne mechanics are performing
some of the same work, and using the same tools, on
some of the same equipment that had previously
been performed by the mechanics it represented in
Denver; that its contract with the Employer clearly
covers mechanics at the Cheyenne location;13 and,
that therefore, the Board should find that these
employees are an accretion to the Intervenor's
12 It also indicated , however, that it would "continue to hold jurisdic-
tion" since the issue was at that time still under consideration by the
General Counsel 's office in Case 27-CA-3543.
13 Intervenor appears additionally to contend that the Board should
defer to the arbitration award issued by the Colorado Board of Adjustment,
finding the Cheyenne mechanics to be an accretion to Intervenor's contract.
However, the Board has not made it a practice to defer to arbitration
awards which purport to decide representation issues-as opposed to
questions of contract interpretation-especially where, as here, not all the
parties were bound by the arbitrator's award or participated in the
arbitration proceeding . Warm Springs Lumber Co., Inc., 181 NLRB 600;
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., 203 NLRB No. 29.
contractual unit, and that its outstanding contract
with the Employer is a bar to the present petition.
In determining whether a new group of employees
constitutes an accretion to an existing contractual
unit, the Board has traditionally looked to factors
indicative of whether the new employees could
constitute an appropriate unit by themselves, or
could only be properly represented in the contractual
unit. If the employees sought to be accreted
constitute an appropriate unit by themselves, it is the
Board's practice to find no accretion and to allow the
employees affected the opportunity to choose their
collective-bargaining representative through a
Board-conducted election.14
From a review of the facts set forth above, we
conclude that the Cheyenne mechanics do not
constitute an accretion to Intervenor's contractual
unit. In so finding, we rely on the following: (1) The
absence of evidence in the record of any similarity of
terms and conditions of employment, transfer or
interchange, or even of any contact between the
Employer's mechanics within the 11-state area
covered by Intervenor's contract, (2) Denver is the
nearest location of mechanics represented by In-
tervenor and is over 100 miles distant from Chey-
enne, and (3) there is no evidence that separate
representation would be disruptive of existing bar-
gaining relationships, especially since the record
shows that some mechanics at other locations of the
Employer outside the 11-state contract area, and
mechanics employed by other employers within the
11-state area, are represented by other unions or are
not represented.
We recognize that the skills and functions of the
Cheyenne mechanics are similar to those of the
employees covered in Intervenor's contractual unit,
and that some of the work and equipment of the
Cheyenne mechanics originated from the Denver
location represented by Intervenor-and that these
factors arguably favor a finding of accretion.
However, as to the former, beyond the bare fact that
the work is similar, there is no evidence on the record
of any community of interest between the Cheyenne
mechanics and those in the contractual unit. As to
the latter, the record makes it clear that the
Employer's relocation of drivers and work to
14 As the Board said in Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc., and I.D.S.Orchard
Park, Inc., 180 NLRB 107 at 110:
Under certain circumstances , we might have found an overall unit
appropriate, and thereupon given all the employees in the three stores
an equal voice in determining their bargaining representative . We will
not, however, under the guise of accretion , compel a group of
employees, who may constitute a separate appropriate unit, to be
included in an overall unit without allowing those employees the
opportunity of expressing their preference in a secret election or by
some other evidence that they wish to authorize the Union to represent
them.
RINGSBY-UNITED 283
Cheyenne was not merely a transfer of unit work
from one location to another location in the unit.
Instead, the record establishes that the Employer
made a basic change in the organization of its
operations for economic reasons which resulted in
drivers being redomiciled to several locations within
and without the 11-state area covered by Intervenor's
contract. Thus, while some of the repair work at
Cheyenne could be said to have originated from
Denver, the record established that a substantial
amount also originated from other locations, such as
Rapid City, North Dakota (where the mechanics are
represented by the Petitioner), which are outside the
11-state area covered by Intervenor's agreement.
Under all of the circumstances, therefore, we
conclude that there is not present here sufficient
justification for finding these employees to be an
accretion to Intervenor's contractual unit, thereby
imposing representation on these employees not of
their own choosing.15
Turning next to the appropriateness of the unit
petitioned for here, we find the Cheyenne mechanics
do share considerable interests with the automotive
shop service and parts employees represented by
Petitioner. Thus, they work in the same building,
have common supervision, and use the same parts
room. Further, the record shows that on occasion
they assist each other in performing their respective
work. Finally, the very nature of their work is
related, the only difference being that the automotive
shop service employees perform less complex mainte-
nance-type work than that performed by the me-
chanics. Consequently, and because the mechanics
are the only unrepresented shop employees at the
Employer's maintenance facility in Cheyenne, and
their work is similar in nature to that of the
automotive shop service and parts employees pres-
ently represented by Petitioner, we find the mechan-
ics constitute an appropriate residual unit to the
automotive shop service and parts employees at
Cheyenne.16
4. Based upon the foregoing and the entire record
herein we find that the following employees of the
Employer may constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act: All mechanics employed
by Ringsby-United at its Cheyenne, Wyoming, shop,
excluding all other employees and supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group
cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to be included in the
existing multiemployer unit covered by the Western
States Automotive Supplement to the Master Freight
Agreement, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification to this effect. In the event that
a majority of the valid ballots are cast for the
Intervenor,17 the employees will be deemed to have
indicated their desire to be represented by the
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, in a separate, single-
location, unit, and the Regional Director shall then
issue a certification to that effect. If the majority of
the employees in the voting group cast their ballots
for neither of the above-named labor organizations,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
remain unrepresented, and the Regional Director
shall issue a Certification of Results of Election.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
15 Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 208 NLRB No. 138. Election the Intervenor in writing to the Regional Director requests leave to
16 The Halle Brothers Company, 193 NLRB 993 . withdraw from the ballot, the Regional Director is authorized to grant such
17 If within 5 days after the issuance of this Decision and Direction of request and revise the ballot accordingly.