Safeway Transit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1359 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SAFEWAY TRANSIT COMPANY 1359
rSAFEWAY TRANSIT COMPANY and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION or
STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES, AFL
(DIVISION No. 708), PETITIONER. Case No. 11-RC-579. March 31,
1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel. [Chairman Farmer and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer, a North Carolina corporation, operates passenger
buses entirely within the State of North Carolina and in and around
the city of Wilmington. Its routes connect with or are proximate
to the Atlantic Coast Line Railway, Seaboard Airlines Railway,
Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Queen City Coach Co., the Carolina Coach
Company, the Seaboard Transportation Company, National Air Lines
and Piedmont Air Lines, all of them interstate carriers. During 1953
its motorbuses carried approximately 4,750,000 passengers for which
it received revenues amounting to approximately $485,000. During
the same period it received $2,200 for charter operations and approxi-
mately $23,000 for maintenance services performed for other carriers.
The Employer denies that it is engaged in commerce. The Peti-
tioner, on the basis of the above facts, asserts that it is so engaged.
It also contends that the Employer is part of a multistate transit
enterprise over which the Board should assert jurisdiction. It asserts
that the officers and directors of the Employer are stockholders, officers,
and directors of certain Virginia local transit corporations and of the
Virginia Pepsi-Cola Company, which is the owner of all of the stock
of the Employer. In addition, Virginia Pepsi-Cola owns all of the
stock of other transit companies, at least one of which is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in this
contention as the record does not show that the Employer is operated
either as part of or in conjunction with other local or interstate transit
systems. The record shows that the Employer is operated as a single
enterprise under the direction of a general manager who, among other
things, directs labor relations of the Employer.
1 After the hearing, the Petitioner made a motion to consolidate the instant case with
Charleston Transit Compennj , 111 NLRB 1214 , for the purpose of oral argument on the
question of jurisdiction This motion is denied as the record and the briefs , in our opinion,
adequately set forth the position of the parties.
111 NLRB No. 198.
1360 DECISIO NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the whole record it is clear that the Employer is a
local transit system. In the Greenwich Gas case 2 the Board stated
that in future cases it would assert jurisdiction over local transit sys-
tems affecting commerce whose gross value of business is $3,000,000
or more per annrun. As the Employer's operations do not meet this
standard, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I dissent from the dismissal of the petition herein. I do not agree
with the majority's conclusion that "the Employer is operated as a
single enterprise under the direction of a general manager who, among
other things, directs labor relations of the Employer."
I am persuaded that the Safeway Transit is an integral part of a
multistate enterprise, which among other operations, operates pas-
senger buses in interstate commerce. It is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Virginia Pepsi-Cola Bottling Corporation, hereinafter referred
to as Virginia Pepsi-Cola. Virginia Pepsi-Cola also wholly owns
three other transit companies : Roanoke Railway and Electric Com-
pany (Roanoke, Virginia), Lynchburg Transit Company (Lynchburg,.
Virginia), and Safety Motor Transit Company (Roanoke, Virginia).
These companies, like the Employer are engaged in providing public
bus transportation service in the cities where they are located. The
president of Virginia Pepsi-Cola, S. A. Jessup, is also president of
each of the subsidiary corporations. His son, C. A. Jessup, is vice
president of Virginia Pepsi-Cola and of each of the subsidiaries.
C. A. Jessup and two other sons of S. A. Jessup, own 39.6 percent of
the stock of Virginia Pepsi-Cola. The four Jessups referred to above,
also own 38.2 percent of the stock of Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., a
Virginia corporation, operating under Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion permits, in the States of North Carolina and Virginia and in the
District of Columbia. S. A. Jessup is the president of Virginia Stage
Lines, Philip Jessup, his son, is vice president, and C. A. Jessup is
secretary and general manager. In addition to his holdings in Vir-
ginia Pepsi-Cola and Virginia Stage Lines, C. A. Jessup owns 100
percent of the stock of the Charlottesville & Albermarle Bus Company
of Charlottesville, Virginia, of which he is president and his brother,
Philip Jessup, the vice president. From the foregoing, it is clear that
the Jessups' ownership in the above transit companies, is sufficient to
give them complete control over the policies of all the companies.
It seems abundantly clear to me that the Safeway Transit is oper-
ated as an integral part of the multistate enterprise outlined above-
2 Greenwich Gas Company and Fuels, Incot porated, 110 NLRB 564
SAFEWAY TRANSIT COMPANY 1361
Its day-to-day operations are conducted under the general supervision
of a general manager, Baird. However, it is apparent that the real
control of the operations of Safeway Transit is lodged in the Jessups,
who direct its operations from their Charlottesville offices. This is
especially true of labor relations. Though Baird generally conducts
the collective-bargaining negotiations and signs the final contract, he
does so subject to the control of C. A. Jessup. Baird testified that any
"major question of labor relations" would be referred to Charlottes-
ville. In many instances he consults with Charlottesville when first
apprised of union demands, and acts in accordance with whatever ad-
vice he receives. Indeed in the instant proceeding, when first con-
fronted with the Petitioner's demand for recognition as representa-
tive of the maintenance employees, he stated it was "OK" with him,
but that he would have to call Charlottesville, and he later informed
the Petitioner that the management in "Charlottesville did want an
election." The latest contract between the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer contained a grievance procedure clause which gave employees
the right to process their grievances all the way up to the president of
Safeway Transit whose office is in Charlottesville. C. A. Jessup has
actively intervened to settle grievances, and has also participated
directly in collective-bargaining negotiations and made the final set-
tlement. Baird testified that he would never overrule a decision made
by C. A. Jessup. C. A. Jessup testified that naturally he would ex-
pect Baird to consult with him as to any thing which would affect the
general economy of the Company such as pay increases, and the like.
The record also contains evidence that C. A. Jessup exercises the
same authority over the labor relation policies of the other subsidiary
corporations of Pepsi-Cola, and of Virginia Stage Lines, of which he
is the general manager.
Finally the record shows that the centralized control of Safeway
Transit operations is not limited to its labor relations policies, but ex-
tends to other aspects. Thus the buses owned by Safeway Transit were
purchased by C. A. Jessup in Charlottesville. During the past year
two of Safeway Transit's buses were sold to a Maryland corporation
and later repossessed, without the participation or concurrence of
Baird, the general manager. The advertising carried on the Safeway
Transit's buses is sold by someone in Charlottesville, and the general
manager has nothing to do with it. Checks are made up for all the
corporations mentioned herein, in Charlottesville, although signed by
local management officials. Safeway Transit services buses of the
Virginia Stage Lines, daily.
In summary it appears that Safeway Transit's operations are car-
ried on as an integral part of a multistate transit enterprise, which
operates local transit companies in two States, and an interstate pas-
senger bus service. The labor relation policies of all the component
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
companies are conceived and formulated by C. A. Jessup, an officer
in all of the companies. Though Jessup depends in part on local
managers for the execution of the policies, it is clear that he does not
hesitate actively to intervene; and that he has the final word on all
matters of importance. This, together with the common ownership
and control of the component companies by the Jessups, is sufficient to
establish that Safeway Transit is not operated as an independent
enterprise.'
Accordingly, I find in disagreement with the majority that Safeway
Transit and the other companies named above constitute a single em-
ployer for purposes of determining the question of the Board's juris-
diction herein. That being true, this case should be remanded to the
Regional Director for purposes of reopening the hearing in order to
ascertain whether considered as a single Employer the Board's present
jurisdictional standards are met. It is quite possible that the amount
of revenue derived from the interstate operations of the Virginia Stage
Lines, Inc., might itself be sufficient to meet the Rollo Transit test.4
a Cf Rollo Tiansit Coi poration, 110 NLRB. 1623, Modern Linen & Laundry Service, 110
NLRB 1305, Youngstown Tent & Awning Co, 110 NLRB 850
*Though the present record does not show that the Employer 's operations considered
separately meet the Boaid ' s new j urisdictional standards for either a local or an interstate
transportation enterprise , announced in Greenwich Gas Co., Charleston Transit, and Rollo
Tiaasit, I would nevertheless be disposed to assert iuusdiction herein, for the reason set
forth in my dissenting opinions in these cases.
SANTEE PRINT WORKS and MACHINE PRIN'ITRS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER. Case No. 11-RC-648. March
31, 1955
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 Harold X. Summers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims 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 Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of 10 machine printers and
their apprentices (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as
printers) from an existing unit of the Employer's production and
111 NLRB No. 209.