Suburban Transit, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1251 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SUBURBAN TRANSIT, INC. 1251
basic contract, such action creates a new contract superseding the
original' Under these circumstances, we find that the Employer and
the Intervenor have in fact established a 5-year bargaining history on
a multiplant basis covering the Terminal Warehouse plant, Fifth
Ward plant, and Clinton plant.5
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
d See The Umted States Finishing Company , 63 NLRB 575 at 576-577 ; Aluminum Com-
pany of America, 86 NLRB 189.
5 Under the circumstances above noted , we find without merit the inference raised by
the Petitioner in its brief that, because the Intervenor has never requested the Board to
consolidate its 3 separate certifications into 1 certification on a multiplant basis, the parties
did not intend to destroy the separate identity of the original single-plant units. See
Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 108 NLRB 947.
SUBURBAN TRANSIT, INC. and DIVISION 824, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIA-
TION OF STREET , ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-124000. March 30,
1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Draper Lewis, Jr.,
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a public bus transportation system in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, and the immediate surrounding area. It is
licensed to do business solely within the State of New Jersey, and
there is no evidence that it is a subsidiary or affiliate of any other com-
pany. In the operation of its six lines it connects with several inter-
state transportation systems such as Greyhound, Trailways, American
Lines, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the Central Railroad. The
Employer's gross revenue in 1953 amounted to $512,253. Its expendi-
tures for tires and tubes amounted to $8,774; for servicing equipment,
$12,519; for fuel, $35,395; for oil, $2,818; for purchased transporta-
tion, $3,470; and for purchasing and store expense, $8,899.
111 NLRB No. 205.
344056-55-vol. 111-80
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record herein, we find that it would not effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert. jurisdiction over the Employer's
operations because it does not meet the $3,000,000 gross receipts
standard for public transit systems.' We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 The Greenwich Gas Company and Fuels, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 564; Charleston
Transit Company, 111 NLRB 1214 . Member Murdock has already dissented from the
adoption of this standard in the Greenwich Gas case and its application in Southwest
Missrossippi Electric, Power Association, 110 NLRB 1884.
DE HART MOTOR LINES , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN , AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, LOCAL 71, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 11-RC-703. March 30,
1955
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis Walberg, hearing offi-
cer. 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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of over-the-road truck-
drivers. The Employer contends that the drivers are not its employ-
ees but either those of another company, De Hart Brothers, from whom
it leases trucks, or employees of various individuals from whom De
Hart Brothers, in turn, leases some trucks.
The Employer, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged in the
transportation of freight by motor vehicles. It is licensed as a com-
mon carrier by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and has ter-
minals in several eastern States.
The Employer does not own any of the trucks that it uses in its
business , but leases them from De Hart Brothers, a partnership, which
in turn leases some of its vehicles from various individuals.' When-
Although the record is not clear , it appears that the Employer may occasionally lease
vehicles from private owners.
111 NLRB No. 201.