Standard Trucking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

STANDARD TRUCKING COMPANY 761
Standard Trucking Company and International Brotherhood- of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Local Union No. 71 , Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1153. Decem-
ber 30, 1958
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 John M. Dyer,
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Bean].
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 employees
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 represent a unit of truckdrivers,
switchers, warehousemen, and checkers employed by the Employer
at its Charlotte, North Carolina, terminal. The Employer contends
that such a unit is inappropriate and that the only appropriate
unit herein is one including all its employees on a systemwide basis,'
excluding certain office employees. There is no history of collec-
tive bargaining for any of the employees of the Employer.
The Employer is engaged in the business of hauling commodities
by motor transport. The Charlotte terminal is the home office of
its business and serves as the bookkeeping and management head-
quarters for the organization. A large percentage of the total
freight handled passes through this terminal en route to its final
destination. Some employees who have worked at the other termi-
nals in the past are now located at the Charlotte terminal. Em-
ployee benefits and management policies are the same for all the
employees. However, the wages paid at the various terminals are
not uniform throughout the system, and each terminal has its own
manager who exercises local supervision.
Although it appears from the record that there are a number of
factors present which could support a finding that a systemwide
1In North Carolina , the Employer also has terminals in Greensboro , Rockingham, and
Raleigh. In South Carolina , it has terminals in Spartanburg , Greenville, Columbia,
Florence , and Charleston.
122 NLRB No. 90.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit is appropriate, these factors are not so compelling as to require
a finding that such a unit is the only appropriate unit. In view
of the above, and the record as a whole, including the facts that
there is no bargaining history for any of the Employer's employees,
that no labor organization seeks a broader unit, that the Employer's
various terminals are geographically separated by substantial dis-
tances, that there is local supervision at each terminal, and that
there is no evidence that the Charlotte terminal lacks autonomy in
the conduct of its day-to-day operations, we conclude that a unit
limited to employees at the Charlotte terminal is appropriate .2
The parties agree that the truckdrivers, warehousemen, switchers,
and checkers, who are directly involved in hauling and loading and
unloading work, belong in a unit of Charlotte terminal employees.
However, contrary to the Petitioner, the Employer would also
include the following employees in the unit :
Rate clerks and billing clerks : The rate clerks bring the bills
from the warehouse to the office where they and the billing clerks
rate and bill the Employer's customers. We find that the rate
clerks and billing clerks are office clerical employees, and, in accord-
ance with our usual practice, shall exclude them from the unit .3
Mechanics and repairmen: The mechanics and repairmen perform
the usual duties incidental to the maintenance and repair of truck-
ing equipment. The majority of their work is done in a repair
shop, although some minor repairs on vehicles may be made at the
warehouse. They neither drive nor load and unload merchandise.
We find their interests different from those of the drivers and
warehousemen, and shall exclude them from the Unit .4
Salesmen: The salesmen solicit business for the Employer. They
are salaried and usually make their contacts with customers by
automobile, but on occasion will ride out with a truckdriver to get
a better idea of the driver's problems. As their interests are dif-
ferent from those of the employees in the unit, we shall exclude
the salesmen from the unit.5
Claimsmen: These employees straighten out all claims made
against the Company for shortages, overages, and damaged goods.
In carrying out these duties which involve daily contact- with
Employer's customers, we find, they do not have sufficient com-
munity of interest with the truckdrivers or warehousemen to be
included in the unit. We shall exclude them.
6 Jocie Motor Lines, 112 NLRB 1201 ; Frederickson Motor Express Corporation, 121
NLRB 32.
8 Helms Motor Express, Inc., 107 NLRB 132, 135; Frederickson Motor Express Company,
supra.
4 Helms Motor Express, Inc., supra, at p. 134; Frederickson Motor Express Company,
supra.
Niagara Beer Distributors Association , 108 NLRB 1571, 1573.
STANDARD TRUCKING COMPANY 763
Night cashier: The cashier has a desk in the office and it appears
that his main duty is to receive the cash and bills from the drivers
as they come in from their runs. We find that this individual is
essentially an office clerical employee, and shall exclude him from
the unit.
Dispatcher: His principal job is to relay instructions by radio to
the drivers. He spends part of each morning on the loading plat-
form familiarizing himself with the day's deliveries. Occasionally,
he makes deliveries. He has the same supervision, employee bene-
fits, and pay basis as employees in the unit. It does not appear that
he has or exercises any supervisory authority. We find that the
dispatcher has sufficient interests in common with employees in
the unit to warrant his inclusion. We shall therefore include
him c
Watchman: The principal duty of the watchman is to protect the
property of the Employer from trespassers and thieves. On week-
ends, he helps load and unload trucks. He is armed with a pistol,
and keeps the keys to the gate. As this employee performs guard
duties in the course of his employment, we find that he is a guard
within the meaning of the Act,,and exclude him from the unit .7
Warehouse maintenance man: This employee is a combination
carpenter, electrician, and painter, and makes the needed repairs
at the terminal. He also helps unload trucks that arrive on week-
ends. We find that this employee is primarily a maintenance man
who does not have a sufficient community of interest with the
drivers or warehousemen to be included in the unit. We shall
exclude him.
Manifest clerk: This clerk works in the office at night preparing
freight manifests. We find that he is an office clerical employee,
and so exclude him from the unit.
In addition to the above employees, the Employer would also
include lease operators, while the Petitioner appears to seek a
Board determination of their unit placement.
Several of the truckdrivers own their own trucks but lease them
to the Employer for a weekly rate, which is determined.on the basis
of revenue earned by each vehicle. These lease operators drive
their own trucks and are responsible for the operating and main-
tenance expenses and license fees of such vehicles. However, the
Employer directs them in their work to the same extent as the
other drivers and they receive the same wages and benefits as the
other drivers. The Employer provides public liability and prop-
erty damage insurance for their trucks. It also makes deductions
for social security, employment benefits taxes, and workmen's com-
E Helms Motor Empress, Inc., supra , at p. 134.
7 The Berkline Corporation, 114 NLRB 375, 376.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pensation, and withholds income tax payments from their pay.
The lease agreement between the Employer and the lease operators
gives the Employer "full and complete right to the exclusive pos-
session, use and control" of the vehicles involved. In these cir-
cumstances., and upon the entire record, we find that an employer-
employee relationship, rather than an independent contractor
relationship, exists herein, and we shall therefore include the lease
operators in the unit.8
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act : All truckdrivers, warehousemen, switchers, and checkers, em-
ployed by the Employer at its Charlotte, North Carolina, terminal,
including lease operators and the dispatcher, but excluding office
clerical employees, salesmen, claimsmen, mechanics and repairmen,
the night cashier, warehouse maintenance man, all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 New Orleans Furniture Manufacturing Co., 115 NLRB 1494, at p. 1497 ; Consolidated
Forwarding Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 357, at pp . 363-365 ; Hughes Transportation, Inc.,
109 NLRB 458, at p. 460-462. Cf. Local No . 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, eto. (A . C.E. Transportation Co., Inc.),
120 NLRB 1103; Chemical Tank Lines, Inc., 115 NLRB 221, at p. 225; Cement Transport
Inc., 111 NLRB 175, at p. 178-179.
Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company and United Glass &
Ceramic Workers of North America , AFL-CIO-CLC and Em-
ployees Council of Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company.
Cases Nos. 15-CA-999 and 15-OA-1084. December 81, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 5, 1958, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
.the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions-to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
122 NLRB No. 94.