The Greyhound Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1488 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of Waldbaum, Inc., to accept or select us as their collective-
bargaining representative, where Waldbaum, Inc., has lawfully recognized, in
accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, another labor organization
and a question conceiving representation may not appropriately be raised under
Section 9(c) of the said Act.
LOCAL 378, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORK-
MEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By'-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court
Street, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone No. 596-5386.
The Greyhound Corporation ( Southern Greyhound Lines Divi-
sion ) and Floors, Inc. of Florida and Amalgamated Transit
Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 12-CA-8987. Judy 19, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 12, issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated August 4,
1964, against The Greyhound Corporation (Southern Greyhound Lines
Division), herein called Respondent or Greyhound, and Floors, Inc. of
Florida, herein called Respondent or Floors, alleging that said
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging In unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner
were duly served upon the Respondents and the Union.
On October 5, 1964, a]1 parties to this proceeding entered into a stipu-
lation wherein they waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the
issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision, agreeing to submit the case
directly to the Board for its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
Decision and Order. By order of the Board dated October 9, 1964,
the parties' stipulation was approved by the Board and made part of
the record herein, and this proceeding was transferred to the Board.
Thereafter, Respondents Greyhound and Floors and the Union filed
briefs with the Board.
1 Prior to July 1, 1964, known as Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway
and Mote, Coach Employees of America, AFL-CIO
153 NLRB No. 118.
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, ETC. 1489
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers inconnection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the parties' stipulation, the briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESSES OF THE RESPONDENTS
Respondent Greyhound is a Delaware corporation having its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged
primarily in the business of interstate motor carriage of persons and
freight over routes licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Greyhound operates bus terminals in several States, including the State
of Florida, as integral parts of its system. Southern Greyhound Lines
Division is an operating division and not a separate corporation. Dur-
ing the 12-month period antedating the stipulation herein, Greyhound,
in the course of its business operations, had gross revenues in excess of
$1 million, of which more than $50,000 was derived from bus passengers
traveling across State lines. In view of the foregoing, and, as in the
representation proceeding involving these parties,2 we find that
Respondent Greyhound is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondent Floors, a wholly owned subsidiary of Floors, Inc. of
Georgia, is a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of
business located in Altanta, Georgia. Floors is engaged in the business
of providing cleaning, maintenance, janitorial, and related services to
various customers in Florida, including Respondent Greyhound. Dur-
ing the 12-month period antedating the stipulation herein, Floors, in
the course of its business activities received over $100,000 from Re-
spondent Greyhound for services rendered at terminals operated by
Greyhound in the State of Florida. Accordingly, we find, as we did in
the representation case, Case No. 12-RC-1209, that Respondent Floors
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents admit, and we find, that the Union herein is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election dated
May 3, 1962, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 17,
2 Case No. 12-RC-1209 ( not published in NLRB volumes)
796-027-G 6-vol 153-95
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1964,3 under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 12 among the employees in the unit found appropriate.4
The majority of the persons in the described unit designated the Union
as the statutory representative. On June 30, 1964, the Regional Direc-
tor, on behalf of the Board, certified the Union as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.
Commencing on or about July 7, 1964, and continuing to date, the
Union has requested the Respondents to engage in collective bargain-
ing for the purposes of negotiating a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Since July 1964, Respondents Greyhound and Floors have
consistently refused to engage in collective bargaining with the
Union. Consequently, the complaint herein alleges that the Respond-
ents by their refusal to bargain with the certified Union have engaged
in conduct violative of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
In the stipulation herein, both Respondents interpose by way of
defense to the refusal-to-bargain allegations in the complaint, their
contentions that the Board's joint employer finding in the representa-
tion case 5 cannot be sustained either in law or on the evidence in the
record taken as a whole. More particularly, Respondents aver that
Floors is an independent contractor and is the sole employer of the
porters, janitors, and maids at the subject Greyhound terminals, and,
consequently, the Board was not lawfully entitled to direct an election
in what is patently an inappropriate unit. Thus, Respondents are
presently reiterating positions heretofore taken by them before the
Board and the courts in this proceeding. In addition, Floors still con-
tends that the only appropriate bargaining units herein consist of (1)
either an overall unit of its entire employee complement located in
Tampa, St. Petersburg, Miami, and Jacksonville, or (2) three sepa-
rate units, each composed of all of its employees located in these
communities.
The Supreme Court, in its review of the related injunction case,
found that the question of whether Greyhound possessed sufficient
indicia of control over the work of these employees to qualify as their
3 The election herein was delayed when Respondent Greyhound on June 4 , 1962 , obtained,
as plaintiff , an injunction against the Board ' s Regional Director for Region 12 enjoining
him from conducting the election previously directed by the Board . This injunction was
issued by the U.S District Court, Southern District of Florida, The Greyhound Corp v.
Harold A. Bolre Regional Director, 205 F Supp 686 The U S Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court 's decision on November 21, 1962 , Beira v. The
Greyhound Corp , 309 F 2d 397. The U S Supreme Court granted the Board 's petition
for a writ of cert , and on March 23, 1964, the Court issued its opinion reversing the
Court of Appeals and remanding the case, Bone v The Greyhound Corp, 376 U S 473. On
May 22 , 1964 , the U S district court issued its order dissolving the injunction and the
election was held.
4 The unit found appropriate is as follows All porters , janitors , and maids working at
the Greyhound Corporation ' s bus terminals in Miami, St. Petersburg , Tampa, and Jack-
sonville, Florida, excluding all other employees of The Greyhound Corporation and Floors,
Inc of Florida.
5 Case No 12-RC-1209 supra.
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, ETC. 1491
joint employer with Floors is "essentially a factual issue." 6 The
Court also stated that the resolution of this question is unaffected by
any possible determination as to Floors' status as an independent con-
tractor, since Greyhound has not suggested that "the employees them-
selves occupy an independent contractor status." The Supreme Court,
however, did not pass upon the merits of the Board's joint employer
finding in the representation case, but merely held that the Board's
action did not fall within the ambit of its holding in Boyd S. Leedom
v. William I.Kyne,' President of Buffalo Section Westinghouse Engi-
neers Association, Engineers and Scientists of America. Conse-
quently, the Supreme Court found that jurisdiction was not conferred
upon the district court enabling it to enjoin the conduct of the election
herein. Accordingly, the Court, in effect, ordered the injunction to be
dissolved and remanded the case.
We believe that the record in the related representation case amply
justifies the joint employer finding which established the basis for our
direction of an election in a bargaining unit comprised of porters, jani-
tors, and maids employed at the subject Greyhound terminals.,, The
Board's election was conducted in a residual unit of unrepresented
employees at Greyhound's four terminals. Prior to 1954, before Grey-
hound entered into contracts with Floors by virtue of which the latter
agreed to furnish maintenance and porter services, the subject employ-
ees at the Jacksonville terminal were represented by the Union and were
employed directly by Greyhound. Subsequent to 1954, similar con-
tracts were made between the parties relating to such services as the
Miami, Tampa, and St. Petersburg terminals and the porters, janitors,
and maids at these locations also were transferred to Floors' payroll
and were no longer represented by the Union.
6 376 U.S. 473, supra.
Y 358 U.S. 184, where the Court affirmed the district court's setting aside of a Board
election order because the Board's disposition was found to have been in derogation of
a specific prohibition in the Act.
8 Although for reasons of administrative expediency, the Board issued its so-called "short
form" Direction of Election herein, we shall proceed to explicate more fully the basis
for that Decision, particularly since the entire record in the representation case (Case
No. 12-RC-1209) is again before us Our elaboration of the rationale for our previous
action in the representation case is solely in the inteiest of clarification and does not
imply any reservation as to the correctness of our earlier Decision Moreover, we hereby
incorporate in this Decision and Order, the findings of fact and conclusions of law sup-
porting the Board's prior Direction of Election In Case No. 12-RC-1209, the Board
in holding Greyhound and Floors to be joint employers found as follows.
It appears that Floors hires, pays, disciplines, transfers, promotes and discharges
the porters, janitors, and maids However, it also appears that Greyhound's terminal
managers confer with Floors' supervisors in setting up work schedules and in deter-
mining the number of employees required to meet those schedules. Moreover, it also
appears that Floors' supervisors may visit the Greyhound terminals on an irregular
basis and on occasion may not appear for as much as two days at a time and that
the employees sought, including porters in handling baggage, receive woik instruc-
tions from Greyhound terminal officials In addition, the iecord also shows that
Greyhound, on one occasion, prompted the discharge of a porter whom it felt to be
an unsatisfactory employee
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The joint employer finding herein is premised on the common control
'exercised by Greyhound and Floors over the employees described in
the petition, as exemplified by the following record evidence not dis-
,cussed in the Board's Direction of Election in Case No. 12-RC-1209 :
The agreements: The service agreements existing between these
employers demonstrate the duality of control and their joint employer
relationship. For example, the listing of the cleaning services required
by Greyhound and the very detailed instructions for their accomplish-
ment by Floors are all clearly set out in schedule A, which is part of
the service contract specifically covering the terminal at Jacksonville.
This portion of that agreement was, in effect, adopted by the parties in
relation to the other three terminals. Cleaning services are described
item by item and it is specified which operations are to be performed
daily, weekly, monthly, or "as needed," and whether the operation calls
for scrubbing, scouring, dusting, vacuuming, disinfecting, or polish-
ing. All of these specific cleaning services are to be rendered and
proper result achieved "by discretion of contractor, contractor's super-
visory staff and in agreement with the Terminal Management [Grey-
hound]." Further, the agreements provide that "all suggestions" and
"helpful cooperation on the part of Florida Greyhound Lines 9 and
Terminal Management" are to be considered as obligatory by the con-
tractor. While it is true that Floors is bound to supply such materials
and equipment as may be necessary for the satisfactory performance
of its cleaning and maintenance duties,10 the contracts thus confer
upon Greyhound the right to closely survey and direct the actual means
and methods utilized by Floors to realize a result which must be satis-
factory to Greyhound.
Although the described features of the service contracts reserve to
Greyhound the right to affect substantially the actual work process of
these employees, there are other provisions in them which bear directly
upon the more orthodox terms and conditions of employment ; namely,
straight-time and over-time wages, the allowance of overtime, the
scheduling of hours, and the assignment of employees to specific job
functions. In these persuasive matters, the agreements set forth on a
weekly basis the total hours for which Greyhound will compensate
Floors and even stipulate the precise daily time and shift schedules
which Floors must utilize for performing the work, the total maximum
hours to be worked, and the specification of wages to the nearest
6 Predecessor of Southern Greyhound Lines Division
10 However , not all materials and equipment are required to be furnished by Floors.
Schedule A shows that " toilet tissue , towels, soap, etc , will be replaced as needed in
proper dispensers from stocks of same items provided by Greyhound Terminal." Also,
light bulbs and fluorescent tubes will be replaced from Greyhound stocks
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, ETC. 1493
one-tenth-cent." In this connection, J. W. Cable, Greyhound regional
manager, testified that Greyhound terminal managers indicate to
Floors' suprvisors the exact number of porters, janitors, and maids
needed for any particular shift.
As to wages, the agreements, in effect, provide the specific straight-
time and over-time rates which Floors is permitted to pay these
employees, and permitted Greyhound to recapture a portion of Floors'
profits if employees were hired below the specified rates. For example,
in a letter incorporated in the contracts and dated November 1957,
Greyhound Regional Manager J. W. Cable wrote to L. P. Martin,
Floors' president : "You also state in your letter that you anticipate
paying employees an average of $1.20 per hour and supervisors $100.00
per week, but in the event you are able to hire employees at $1.00 per
hour and supervisors at less money than $100.00 this savings, of course,
would have to be reflected in your weekly statement to us as the whole
operation will be based on a cost-plus basis." In addition, Floors is
further delimited in respect to the imposition of overtime by the fol-
lowing contract proviso : "No overtime hours (for holiday traffic
increases, emergencies, rush and/or peak periods) will be allowed with-
out authorization of the Jacksonville Terminal 12 Manager .... Each
order of authorization by the Terminal Manager for usage of overtime
hours by Floors, Inc. shall include the worker's name, the worker's
base hourly pay rate, the worker's overtime hourly pay rate and the
net charge per this overtime hour to Florida Greyhound Lines by
Floors, Inc." Further, the agreements provide, e.g., that workers at
the hourly rate of $1.25 per hour shall be paid by Floors at the rate of
$1.875 per each overtime hour, and this cost shall be invoiced to Grey-
hound by Floors at $2.10 per overtime hour. It is also provided that
"all hours of overtime work involved in the handling of all porter
services to baggage handling and buses [sic] operations above the
11In a revision of the Jacksonville agreement , paragraph I, C; thereof provides as
follows
C The terminal schedule of 723 hours shall be increased or decreased by direction
of the Terminal Manager, only [Emphasis supplied ] The alteration of these
total hours (715 actual terminal schedule hours, only) shall be at the hourly rate,
for decrease or increase, of $1 506f per hour These added or decreased charges shall
apply weekly, as altered upwards or downwards, to the weekly invoicing to Florida
Greyhound by Floors, Inc., for the services rendered.
1 (The hourly rate of $1506¢ for increase to or decrease from the fixed
weekly invoicing price of $1,089 33 shall have been obtained by a division of the
total per annum fixed agreement price of $56,645 00 by the per annum total of
37,596 total work hours involved in terminal schedule fulfillment )
19 As suggested previously, the record shows that the Jacksonville service contracts be-
tween the parties were successively applied to the other terminals involved herein These
agreements were presented by Greyhound as evidence (Exhibits Nos D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4,
and D-5) before the U.S. Supreme Couit and the lower courts as part of the ancillary
proceedings mentioned supra
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed total of 723 work hours shall be directed to be used,
affected and operated as such by the Jacksonville Greyhound Terminal
Manager only." That these provisions in the agreements actually con-
trol the matter of overtime is disclosed by the testimony of J. F. Bailey,
Floors' supervisor at Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida." Bailey
testified that on one occasion he disciplined two porters for bus-loading
infractions by laying each of them off for 8 hours. As a consequence,
he worked two other porters overtime, each for 8 hours. However,
Floors had to pay for the overtime wages involved, presumably
because their payment was not authorized pursuant to the service
agreement. Although this episode ostensibly tends to support Floors'
contention that it is the exclusive employer of the subject employees,
more significantly, it evidences the rigid control which Greyhound
exercises over their wages in accord with the provisions of the "cost-
plus" 14 service contracts. In view of the foregoing, it is manifest that
Greyhound shares with Floors in a substantial way the power to estab-
lish the wages of these employees-a power which goes to the crux of
any employment relationship.
Composition of the unit: At the time of the hearing in the represen-
tation case, there were approximately 61 employees includable in the
petitioned unit and carried on Floors' payroll. Of these 61 employees,
the record shows that approximately 50 employees functioned as por-
ters at the four terminals. The work of porters generally consists of
loading and unloading passenger baggage and express shipments on
and off the buses so that these items can be expeditiously handled at the
scheduled stops on Greyhound's routes. To fulfill this task effectively,
the porters must possess through knowledge of the bus schedules and
routes. In addition, porters must, of necessity, be in close association
and under the detailed supervision of other Greyhound employees such
as dispatchers, baggage agents, busdrivers, and the terminal manager.
The baggage trucks, baggage forms, waybills, and other supplies or
equipment used in the performance of the porters' duties belong to
Greyhound. As far as Greyhound's patrons are concerned, it is appar-
ent that they consider that their baggage and express resides in the
13Bailey testified , and it is not contradicted in the record, that his narration of his
duties and relationship with Greyhound would apply to counterpart Floors' supervisors
at Miami and Jacksonville. It should be noted that Floors' supervisors in each terminal
area do not merely supervise the porters , janitors , and maids on Greyhound ' s premises,
but they exercise supervisory control over employees working on other Floors' customer
accounts in these areas Consequently, they divide their time between Greyhound and
such other locations, thus making it apparent that these employees at the Greyhound
premises must look to Greyhound for supervision during absences of Floors ' supervisors
14 The service agreements generally provide that Floors will be compensated according
to a guaranteed maximum weekly amount with controlled maximums for each element of
Floors' costs. Added to the several cost elements is a fixed percentage to cover Floors'
overhead and profit . However , this so -called "cost-plus" arrangement varies from the
usual such contract in that Greyhound has imposed strict limitations in the written agree-
ments concerning the various costs and , of course , ultimate control resides in the stated,
total weekly and annual contract sums payable to Floors
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, ETC. 1495
custody of Greyhound rather than Floors,15 and they direct inquiries
and complaints concerning such personal property to Greyhound per-
sonnel. Porters' duties also encompass the fueling of the buses and
some cleaning of the bus interiors, mirrors, and windshields. In view
of the foregoing, we find that the porters' job functions constitute an
integral part of Greyhound's transportation service and are closely
linked to its responsibilities as a public carrier under ICC regula-
tions.16 The record reveals that because of this intimate connection of
the porters with Greyhound's principal enterprise, Greyhound man-
agement of necessity exercises close control over their daily work as a
matter of economic reality.17
Upon our consideration of the record in its entirety, we are satisfied
that the evidence cogently demonstrates that Greyhound and Floors
share, or codetermine, those matters governing essential terms and
conditions of employment of the porters, janitors, and maids herein
in such a manner as to support our finding that their status is that of
joint employers. It is clear from the circumstances of this case that,
whatever Floors' status as an independent contractor with Greyhound,
Greyhound has reserved to itself, both as a matter of express contrac-
tual agreement and in actual practice, rights over these employees
which are consistent with its status as their employer along with
Floors 18 We rely, in sum, particularly upon the following circum-
stances : The Board's findings and conclusions in its decision in the
related representation case; the fact that these employees constitute a
homogeneous, readily identifiable and stable unit by virtue of their
previous bargaining history and their lack of contact and interchange
with Floors' other employees; the nature of the service agreements
which bestow upon Greyhound the right to (1) establish work sched-
ules, and assign employees to perform the work; (2) specify the exact
manner and means through which the work will be accomplished and
It appears that some porters ' uniforms carry the legend Floors , Inc of Florida over
the breast pocket It also appears that other porters at these terminals wear cap badges
or insignia of the Greyhound Corporation
ie Cf San Marcos Telephone Company, 81 NLRB 315, 318
See Deaton Truck Lines, Inc, 143 NLRB 1372, 1377, affd. denied petition to re-
view 337 F. 2d 697 (C.A 5)
i$'Both Employers have strenuously contended and argued in their briefs the premise
that since Floors is an independent contractor vis-a-vis Greyhound, this must, as a matter
of law, preclude any finding by us other than that Floors is the sole employer of these
workers . This contention has been disposed of by the U . S. Supreme Court's decision in
the ancillary proceeding, supra, where the Court held, "that the question of whether Grey-
hound possessed sufficient control over the work of these employees to qualify as a joint
employer with Floors is a question which is unaffected by any possible determination as
to Floors ' status as an independent contractor " Further , we reject Floors' contention
concerning the inclusion in the unit of its other employees in the cities where Grey-
hound terminals are located in the light of our findings herein. In this connection, we
note, in addition, that the Union is unwilling to represent Floors' employees who are not
based at the Greyhound terminals and that no labor organization seeks to represent
Floors' employees upon a broader basis Finally, the record conclusively demonstrates
that there is at most only minimal interchange between the subject employees and Floors'
other employees in these communities
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issue orders or instructions to that effect, especially when Floors' super-
visors are absent from Greyhound premises; and (3) control straight-
time wage rates and overtime hours and pay rates in accord with the
fixed costs, percentages, and total amounts due to Floors for weekly
and annual period, as set forth in the agreements; the role of the por-
ters (who comprise by far the largest group in the unit) as integral
parts of Greyhound's transportation enterprise, and their use of Grey-
hound's equipment and supplies in their work performance, and,
finally, the fact that in the course of their duties the porters are given
detailed supervision by other Greyhound personnel.
In view of the foregoing, we find that Greyhound and Floors are
joint employers of the porters, janitors, and maids sought to be repre-
sented by the Union.'° Accordingly, we also find that Greyhound
and Floors, by refusing to bargain with the Union as the certified
representative of their employees in an appropriate unit, have engaged
in and are engaging in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with their operations described in section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, commerce and transportation among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act,
we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All porters, janitors, and maids working at The Greyhound Cor-
poration's bus terminals in Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Jack-
sonville, Florida, excluding all other employees of The Greyhound
19 Spartan Department Stores , 140 NLRB 608; Panther Coal Company, Inc, et al, 128
NLRB 409, West Texas Utilities Company, 108 NLRB 407, 413-414, enfd 218 F. 2d 824
( C A 5), cert. denied 349 U.S 953.
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION , ETC. 1497
Corporation and Floors, Inc. of Florida, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The above-named labor organization was, on June 30, 1964, and at
all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, since July 1964, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of their
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondents, The Greyhound Corporation (Southern Greyhound
Lines Division) and Floors, Inc. of Florida, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, with Amalga-
mated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
their employees in the following appropriate unit : All porters, jani-
tors, and maids working at The Greyhound Corporation's bus ter-
minals in Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Jacksonville, Florida,
excluding all other employees of The Greyhound Corporation and
Floors, Inc. of Florida.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, on behalf of such employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and -conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at Greyhound's bus terminals at Mianii, St. Petersburg,
Tampa, and Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix.'' 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order".
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for Region 12, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondents' authorized representatives, be posted by the Respond-
ents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Transit Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Amalgamated Transit
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
an understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the
efforts of Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, on behalf of
such employees.
The bargaining unit is:
All porters, janitors, and maids working at The Greyhound Corpo-
ration's bus terminals in Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Jackson-
ville, Florida, excluding all other employees of The Greyhound Cor-
poration and Floors , Inc. of Florida.
THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION ( SOUTHERN
GREYHOUND LINES DIVISION),
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
FLOORS INC. or FLORIDA,
Employer.
Dated-------------- -- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
H. P. WASSON & COMPANY 1499
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Ross Building, 112 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida, Telephone
No. 223-4623, Extension 257, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
H. P. Wasson & Company and Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 25-RC-2484.
July 19, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On October 23, 1963, the Acting Regional Director for Region 25
issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding in which
he dismissed the petition on the ground that the unit requested was not
an appropriate bargaining unit. Thereafter, pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed with the National Labor
Relations Board a timely request for review of the Acting Regional
Director's Decision and Order. On December 2, 1963, the Board, by
telegraphic order, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed a brief in support of its request for review and the
Employer filed a brief in opposition thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, with respect
to the issues under review, including the Acting Regional Director's
Decision and Order, the Petitioner's request for review, and the
briefs,' and makes the following findings:
The Employer operates four retail stores and two warehouses in the
Indianapolis, Indiana, area. The Petitioner seeks a unit of employees
employed at the two warehouses, including a rug cutter and clerical
employees who work in the warehouses, but excluding truckdrivers,
carpenters, painters, electricians, and appliance, repairmen housed at
one of the warehouses. The Employer contends that the only appro-
priate unit includes all employees in its stores and warehouses in the
Indianapolis, Indiana, area.
i The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
153 NLRB No. 132.