Transcontinental Bus System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

712 DECISIONS OF N 1TiONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Transcontinental Bus System, Inc. and Amalgamated
Transit Union, AFL-CIO, and Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen , AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners.
Case 16-RC-4604
September 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, ZAGORIA, AND
BROWN
Upon a joint petition duly filed under Section 9(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John F.
White. Following the hearing 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 16, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. Briefs have been filed by the Employer
and the Joint Petitioners.
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, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board finds.
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation 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 is engaged in the business of
intrastate and interstate transportation of
passengers, packages. and freight by motor bus. Its
operations are nationwide. Its main office is in
Dallas. Texas. It was created in basically its present
corporate form and organizational structure in 1948,
following acquisition by its promoters of four
existing transportation systems.2 Since then it has
purchased the stock of many other bus systems until
today it consists of 22 wholly owned operating
'During the hearing, the Joint Petitioners requested that the Board take
official notice of the entire transcript in Transcontinental Bus System. inc
119 NLRB 1840 , an earlier case concerning part of the operations herein,
and discussed hereinafter The Employer objected to this request , and the
Hearing Officer referred the matter to the Board for resolution Part of
this transcript , covering testimony of certain witnesses who testified in the
earlier hearing as well as in the instant one, is already in evidence, as are
certain legal documents in the earlier proceeding , including the briefs of
the parties thereto The Board has, of course, taken judicial notice of its
earlier decision and the facts and conclusions contained therein However,
the further request to take official notice of the entire transcript of said
proceeding is hereby denied , as the record and briefs ( augmented as set
forth above ), in our opinion, adequately set forth the testimony and issues
relevant to this case
'The Employer should not be confused with the National Trailways Bus
System, which was established in 1935 by various companies independent
of Greyhound Lines, Inc , to provide effective competition against
Greyhound The Employer 's properties are all members of this system, but
subsidiaries and three operating divisions. The
distinction between subsidiary and division arose in
the manner of acquisition , and is of no practical
significance herein.'
The Joint Petitioners . Amalgamated Transit
Union and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,
hereinafter referred to respectively as the ATU and
BRT, seek to consolidate into a single bargaining
unit all bus operators in all of the Employer's
subsidiaries and divisions . Historically, the
bargaining units have been confined to the scope of
each operating division and subsidiary ° The ATU
represents both bus operators and other employees
in 11 units, the BRT represents bus operators only
in 9 units, and there is no representation in 7 units.`
there are many other independent companies in the system For purposes
of advertising and good will , all members present themselves to the public
under the name of 'Trailways," They often share terminal space , and they
maintain integrated schedules
'Tranvcontinental Bus System . Inc, supra at 1842
'With two exceptions , each bargaining unit has encompassed a division
or subsidiary In the Employer 's Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo Motor
Way, Inc , subsidiary , the Northern Division is represented by the ATU,
and the Southern Division is represented by the BRT See
Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo Motor Wav . Inc, 141 NLRB 701 In the
Employer's Virginia Stage Lines, inc, subsidiary, the Western Division is
represented by the ATU, and the Eastern Division is unrepresented Thus.
although there are 25 divisions and subsidiaries , there are 27 units
'The respective divisions and subsidiaries, the bargaining agent (where
applicable), and the bargaining unit's present composition are as follows.
Central Lines Division
Dixie Lines Division
Western Lines Division
American Buslines, Inc
Arkansas Motor Coaches Ltd
Carolina Scenic Stages, Inc
Coastal Stages, Inc
Continental Bus System Inc
Continental Crescent I ines, Inc
Continental Pacific Lines, inc
Continental Southern Lines, Inc
Continental Tennessee Lines, inc
Denver-C olorado `Wring'.
Pueblo Motor Way. Inc
Northern Dnis„ri
Southern Division
Denver-Salt Lake-Pacific
Stages Inc
Fort Bragg Coach Co
Georgia-Florida Coach Co Inc
Midwest Buslmes, Inc
Queen City Coach Company
Rocky Mountain Division of
Continental Bus System, Inc
Safeway Trails, Inc
Smokey Mountain Stages, Inc
Tennessee I railways. Inc
Trailways of New England, Inc
Union Buslines, Inc
Virginia Stage Lines, Inc
Western Division
Eastern Division
BRT- Operators
BRT- Operators
BRT- Operators
ATL-- All motor coach operators,
station employees . hostesses and
maintenance employees throughout the
employer's bus transportation system
BRT - Operators
Unrepresented
Unrepresented
U nrepresented
ATU- Operators and maintenance
employees
BRT-- Operators
ATU- Operators. terminal and
maintenance employees, each
classification in separate ( sub) units
ATU- Operators and maintenance
employees
ATU- Operators, station and
maintenance employees
BRT- Operators
ATU- Operators
Unrepresented
Unrepresented
BRT-Operators
Unrepresented
ATU- Operators
BRT -Operators
ATU- Operators
ATU- Operators and maintenance
employees
ATU- Operators. Terminal and
maintenance employees
BR r- - Operators
Al U Operators and maintenance
employees
Unrepresented
178 NLRB No. 110
TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM 713
The Employer, Transcontinental Bus System.
Inc, contends that the above separate units, as
established by the parties' bargaining history,
constitute the only appropriate bargaining units.
The bargaining history of Transcontinental's
various properties generally antedates their
acquisition by the Employer. Whatever union
represented a company at the time of its acquisition
became the representing union in the subsidiary or
division, and the pattern of collective bargaining
continued essentially as it existed before.6 In 13 of
the 20 presently represented units, the representing
union at the time of acquisition has continued its
representation to the present.
In four other units, one or the other union was
certified as bargaining representative of the unit's
employees after acquisition by Transcontinental.
Thus. (1) Continental Tennessee Lines was acquired
by Transcontinental in 1953. In 1957, the ATU was
certified as the representative of the subsidiary's
operators, and in 1966 it was certified as the
representative of the subsidiary's garage employees
(2) Tennessee Trailways was acquired in 1966.
Shortly thereafter, the ATU was certified in
separate units of operators and maintenance
employees, and it has continued to_ the present to so
represent these employees. (3) With respect to
Smokey Mountain Stages, the ATU was certified as
the bargaining agent for a unit of bus operators in
1966, shortly after acquisition, but the parties have
not signed a collective-bargaining agreement. (4) In
1949, shortly after acquisition, an independent
union, Southern Association for Transportation
Employees, was certified for separate units (within
the overall unit) of operators and terminal
employees on Continental Southern Lines. In 1960
this union also became the certified representative of
maintenance employees, and in 1966 these three
units merged into the ATU, the certification was
amended, and the ATU has continued to represent
these employees separately
In two subsidiaries there has been a change of
certification since the time of acquisition. In 1948,
at the time of acquisition, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America represented the bus operators
on what became the Rocky Mountain Division of
Continental Bus System. This representation
continued until 1953, when the ATU became the bus
operators' certified representative, which
certification has 'continued to the present. The ATU
represented Union Bus Lines' operators at the time
of acquisition and continued to do so until 1961,
when the BRT became the operators' certified
representative, which certification has continued to
the present. In addition, in Western Lines Division.
the BRT has represented operators since before
acquisition, except for the period from 1958 to 1960,
when they were represented by the ATU.
'Transcontinental Bus System , Inc, supra at 1841.
As noted above, 7 units are unrepresented. Five of
these units are in the "Queen City complex."
Acquired in 1966, these are: Queen City Coach Co.,
Carolina Scenic Stages, Coastal Stages, Inc., Fort
Bragg Coach Co., Georgia-Florida Coach Co., and
Smokcy Mountain Stages. Only Smokey Mountain
Stages has ever been organized, although the ATU
has made repeated attempts to organize Queen City
Coach Co. With respect to Virginia Stage Lines,
inc., Eastern Division, both Joint Petitioners have
participated in elections, which neither union won.
As to Continental Bus System, Inc., the ATU
represented operators and certain terminal and
maintenance employees from acquisition in 1948
until 1958, when, after a strike, it lost its
certification. Neither of the Joint Petitioners has
been able to win an election in this subsidiary since
then, although both have tried.
Thus, there has been a long and extensive history
of collective bargaining on a separate unit basis.
From the record it appears that since its formation
in 1948, there have been three strikes on
Transcontinental's wholly owned properties.' Except
for the three strikes in these many units over a
20-year period, there is little objective evidence in
the record that the separate bargaining units have
produced strife and instability, as alleged by the
Joint Petitioners.
In 1957, the BRT filed a petition seeking to
consolidate in a single bargaining unit the bus
operators it already represented in three separately
certified units of Transcontinental's three divisions,
which petition the Board denied in Transcontinental
Bus Svsteni, Inc., supra. There, after finding that
the petitioned for unit was neither systemwide in
scope, nor an appropriate subdivision thereof, the
Board found at page 1844. that there was a "long
and effective history of' collective bargaining" in the
separate divisions, "each of which on functional
grounds appears to be an inherently appropriate
bargaining group." We find nothing in the present
record to disturb that finding, and we expand it to
include bargaining in both subsidiaries and divisions.
which were and still are the same for our purposes.
Transcontinental is a much larger system today than
it was then, (when it consisted of 8 subsidiaries and
3 divisions), but the record shows that its methods
of operation and control over labor policies have not
changed significantly.
M. E. Moore is Chairman of Transcontinental's
Board of Directors. He was Transcontinental's
President from its formation until 1965. when T. S.
Reece succeeded him. In 1966 Transcontinental
acquired important new subsidiaries in the Eastern
United States. At that time, C. A. Jessup became a
separate president of Transcontinental's eastern
'In 1954, employees of the three divisions represented by the BRT went
on strike In 1958, employees of American Bus Lines , Inc , Continental
Bus System , Inc., and Western Lines Division went on strike under the
ATU In 1967, the ATU struck Tennessee Trailways. Inc , Continental
Tennessee Lines, In(. , Continental Southern Lines, Inc , and Central Lines
Division
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
properties, and Recce became president of the
Western properties. At least one of the above three
men is on each of the various subsidiaries' Boards of
Directors, where such is identifiable, usually as
Chairman of the Board. The parent Board's
members dominate the subsidiary boards.
There are a number of corporate officials.
headquartered in the home office in Dallas, who are
responsible for coordinating certain activities with
the subsidiaries and divisions. There is an official in
each of the following areas rates and traffic,
maintenance, tours, claims, advertising and sales.
These men give advice and assistance to the
divisions and subsidiaries, but from the record it
does not appear thay they direct policy in these
areas. In addition, the various general managers
periodically have meetings to discuss common
problems.
Transcontinental has a separate corporate
subsidiary through which all buses are purchased,'
and through which supplies may, but need not be,
purchased. Certain subsidiaries and divisions
perform maintenance work for other properties and
there are several centralized locations for
performance of accounting functions for groups of
properties.
M. E. Moore testified that, at the time of
Transcontinental's initial organization in 1948. its
parent board of directors considered the matter of
centralvation of control. After much discussion, the
hoard adopted a policy, maintained to the present.
of decentralization of control among the properties.
Each of the divisions and subsidiaries operates
within distinct geographical territories,' and each is
organized along separate administrative lines under
the direction of a general manager. Either the
president or vice-president of each subsidiary is also
the general manager of that subsidiary, and in those
instances where one man is president of several
subsidiaries, the same man is also general manager
for the subsidiaries. Each general manager has
broad discretion in the functioning of his division or
subsidiary, subject only to the general direction of
Transcontinental's president and board of directors.
Although general managers have discussed labor
relations with Transcontinental officers, the record
shows that, in almost all instances,'" each general
manager has conducted labor relations for his area
of responsibility, without direction from or control
by Transcontinental.
There is an obvious similarity of working
conditions among the bus operators in the various
subsidiaries and divisions," but there are also
'Except in the Queen City Group . where buses have continued after
acquisition to be purchased without consultation with Transcontinental
'in a few instances , and for short distances, the routes of two properties
may substantially parallel each other
The few exceptions have involved situations where ( 1) the general
manager was incapacitated because of illness . (2) the general manager was
inexperienced and requested help, or (3) one of the unions involved asked a
Transcontinental official to join the bargaining sessions We do not find
these exceptions significant
"As we noted in Transcontinental Bus System , supra at 1843 "The bus
operators in the divisions and operating subsidiaries perform identical
substantial differences in terms and conditions of
employment among them. Because of local
conditions, what is important to operators in one
section of the country may not he equally important
to operators in another area. Wage rates, and their
means of computation, vary considerably in
different units.12 There is little interchange of
operators between the separate units, and seniority
is maintained on a strictly separate unit basis."
Supervision is on a separate unit basis , except
that when more than one company shares a
terminal , there is limited supervision" by the
terminal manager over employees of another
company using the terminal. The terminal manager
from one company may dispatch employees from
other companies using the terminal. This is true
whether the terminal is exclusively used by
Transcontinental properties, or whether an
independent company uses the terminal or controls
it. This situation predated Transcontinental's
formation, and is common to all members of the
National Trailways Bus System.
In certain transportation cases, where there was a
high degree of integration of services. centralized
control of labor relations, and similarity of working
conditions of affected employees. we have held that
a systemwide unit of these employees was the most
appropriate unit." However, these standards have
not been met in this case, except as they apply to
the divisions and subsidiaries which individually
appear to be appropriate"systemwide" units.
Furthermore, it should be noted that nonoperators
would be excluded from the proposed unit, although
the ATU has effectively represented nonoperators in
the separate appropriate historic units throughout its
bargaining history with many of Transcontinental's
subsidiaries and their independent predecessors, The
Joint Petitioners have only given the vaguest of
assurances as to how the rights of the nonoperators
would be protected in the event of their
disenfranchisement by our approval of the proposed
`init. We find that this unit limited to operators is
an effort to pick one class of employees out of a
functions , wear the same uniforms , use similar reporting and procedural
forms, and are governed by the same operating manual of the Employer'
This is true today, with some minor exceptions in the Queen City group of
companies
"There art many variables For instance , drivers are paid in large part
on a mileage basis In areas where distances are great between terminals.
operators will earn more than where the distances between terminals are
shorter On some properties operators drive only one way in a work day,
and then return on the following work day
"This is true even in the two subsidiaries which have two appropriate
units apiece as set forth in in 4 Sex ; Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo
Motor Way. supra
"However, if the General Manager also manages other properties, as set
forth above , then the terminal manager may fully supervise cinployees of
these other properties
"St Louis Public Service Company. 77 NLRB 749, American Buslines.
Inc. 79 NLRB 329, Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company. 1111
NLRB 1963
"Transcontinental Bus System . Inc . supra Yellow Transit Co . 92
NLRB 538
"Central Greyhound Lines, etc , 88 NLRB 13, American Buslinec, Inc .
supra
TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM
larger class which the ATU has effectively
represented for years.
In the present case. the parties have bargained
effectively for 20 years on the basis of numerous
separate units, and we find no compelling reason to
disturb this pattern of bargaining previously agreed
upon and fashioned by the parties. In view of the
separate bargaining history, the high degree of
autonomy in all matters within each division and
subsidiary, the lack of interchange and separate
seniority among affected employees, the exclusion of
nonoperators from the proposed unit, and the
geographic separation of the separate units. we find
that the proposed single nationwide unit of
operators is not appropriate.'"
In view of the foregoing considerations, we shall
dismiss the petition.
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting
I cannot agree with my colleagues that this petition
for an employerwide unit should be dismissed. The
joint petitioners seek a unit which, in the absence
of any bargaining history on a lesser basis, the
Members of this Board would in all probability
find at least presumptively appropriatc19 for
purposes of conducting a representation election. I
would reach the same result in a situation such as
the instant one, where the incumbent unions are
715
seeking an election among all the bus operators
employed throughout the entire system ,20 thus
placing in jeopardy their current representative
status and facing the possibility of rejection as
the employees' representative . In my view, there
is no reasonable predicate for saying that the
units as they now exist must for all time be the
only appropriate basis for bargaining . This is
particularly so where the pattern of bargaining
has developed by chance and without Board
determination . 21 But the result of the majority
decision herein is to "freeze" the bargaining
units and to establish them as the only appropriate
units in which these employees may bargain. I see
no justification in this record for such action.
"As we conclude that the proposed unit is not appropriate, we find It
unnecessary to consider the Employer' s further contention that the many
contracts outstanding between the parties at the time of the filing of the
petition are a bar to the granting of the petition
it he "employer unit" is the first mentioned in Section 9 ( b) of the Act
"'1 see no reason to assume that the incumbent labor orgamLations
intend to abandon rcpresentatwn of non-operating employees, and hence
find no basis for requiring assurances as to how the rights of such
employees would be protected
"I do not construe the prior decision involving the Western, Central, and
Dixie divisions of the Employer ( 119 NLRB 1840) as finding that the
emploverwide unit may not be appropriate but only as holding that a unit
limited to the three named divisions was inappropitate