Transcontinental Bus Sysytem, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1840 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Transcontinental Bus System , Inc. and Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen , Petitioner
Continental Pacific Lines and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 01-RC-4827, 21-RC-4846, and 21-RC-
4870.1 February 28, 1958
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Irving
Helbling, 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in- commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved I claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
In Case No. 21-RC-4846, we find 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 Petitioner seeks to consolidate into a single bargaining unit
the bus operators which it presently represents separately in three
existing certified units coextensive respectively with the Western,
Central, and Dixie divisions of the Employer.4 The Employer takes
the position that the requested unit is inappropriate because (a) it
runs counter to the long-existing pattern of bargaining on the basis
of the separate divisions, and (b) it constitutes neither a systemwide
Case No. 21-RC-4870 was severed by order of the Regional Director on June 14, 1957,
before the bearing herein , upon execution by the parties of a consent -election agreement
2 The Employee 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the briefs,
in our opinion, adequately reflect the issues and the positions of the parties
3 After the close of the hearing , the Board received from Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America , AFL-CIO, herein called
Amalgamated , a motion to intervene in Case No . 21-RC-4846 , involving a request for a
single bargaining unit of bus operators in the Employer 's Western , Central, and Dixie
divisions, together with the advice that Amalgamated , on October 11, 1957, filed a petition
with the Board for a unit of the bus operators confined to the Employer 's Western divi-
sion . The motion to intervene is hereby denied, as Amalgamated failed to show a repre-
sentative interest in the employees involved as of the time of the hearing herein United
Boat Service Corporation , 55 NLRB 671; Virginia-Caro Isna Chemical Corporation, 101
NLRB 1336, 1337.
4 Formally called Continental Western Lines , Continental Central Lines , and Continental
Dixie Lines , divisions of Transcontinental Bus System , Inc In general terms , the Western
division operates buses in the southwest , the Dixie division in the south central, and the
Central division in the central, parts of the United States
119 NLRB No. 229.
TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. 1841
nor a companywide unit, nor does it conform to any existing man-
agerial or operating unit of the company. We find merit in the
Employer's position.
The Employer, Transcontinental Bus System, Inc., was created in
its present corporate form and organizational structure in 1948, fol-
lowing acquisition by Transcontinental's promoters of certain exist-
ing bus transportation systems. From Santa Fe Trail Transporta-
tion Co., the franchises and physical assets were purchased of the
Western and Eastern Lines, which became essentially Transcon-
tinental's Western and Central divisions. The purchase was of the
physical properties rather than of the corporate stock because the
Santa Fe company retained its truck and freight business which it
continued to operate under the original name independent of Trans-
continental. Similarly, the franchise and physical assets of Trans-
continental's Dixie division were acquired from Dixie Motor Coach
Co., which desired to continue its independent corporate existence.
Transcontinental in its formal aspects was organized for the specific
purpose of receiving these physical assets from the Santa Fe and
Dixie companies. There was also purchased at about the same time
in 1948 the entire corporate stock of Continental Bus System. In the
latter transaction, the company was acquired and retained in the form
of a wholly owned subsidiary of Transcontinental. In payment for
these several acquisitions, Transcontinental issued its own stock to
the Santa Fe and Dixie companies and to the stockholders of
Continental Bus System.
Since the initial transactions in 1948, Transcontinental over a
period of time further acquired by stock purchase the wholly owned
subsidiaries specified in footnote below,5 herein with Continental
Bus System called the operating subsidiaries, as well as numerous
partially owned subsidiaries. Additionally, it purchased the fran-
chise and physical assets of an existing bus system which was made
the Rocky Mountain division of the operating subsidiary, Continental
Bus System.
The pattern of collective bargaining concerning the bus operators
continued after the inception of Transcontinental in 1948 essentially
as it existed before. In the case of the Dixie division, the Board had
ordered in 1940 that the predecessor company bargain with Petitioner
in virtually the same unit as exists as present.5 As to the Central
division, Petitioner was originally certified by the Board in 1936 for
B Continental Pacific Lines ( Los Angeles , California ) ; Continental Southern Lines
(Alexandria , Louisiana ) ; Continental Crescent Lines ( Birmingham , Alabama ) ; Conti-
nental Tennessee Lines ( Nashville , Tennessee ) ; Arkansas Motor Coaches , Limited ( Little
Rock , Arkansas ) ; Union Bus Lines ( Dallas, Texas ) ; and American Bus Lines ( Lincoln,
Nebraska ). ( Ownership by Transcontinental over 99 percent )
O Dixie Motor Coach Corporation , etc., 25 NLRB 869
476321-58-vol . 119-117
1842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of a predecessor to the Santa Fe Company; and in
August 1952 it was again certified for this unit. Similarly, as to the
Western division, Transcontinental in 1948 continued the recognition
which the predecessor Santa Fe Company accorded Petitioner; and
in January 1954, Petitioner was certified for this unit. Concerning
classifications of employees other than bus operators (i. e., clerks,
porters, maintenance employees), the pattern of bargaining has sim-
ilarly been on the basis of the separate divisions . Likewise , the his-
torical bargaining unit has been confined to the scope of each operat-
ing subsidiary. In our opinion, the extensive evidence adduced re-
lating to Petitioner's strikes of the Western, Central, and Dixie divi-
sions in 1954 does not alter the character of the bargaining history
on a separate divisional basis, or serve to establish the appropriateness
of the single unit of three divisions sought by Petitioner.
The Western, Central, and Dixie divisions of Transcontinental each
operate within distinct geographical territories, and each is organized
along separate administrative lines under the direction of a general
manager. The general manager has broad discretion in the func-
tioning of his division, subject only to the general direction of the
president and board of directors of Transcontinental. A general
manager or equivalent officer is in charge of each of the operating sub-
sidiaries and exercises the same authority as does the general manager
of a division.
The board of directors of Transcontinental constitutes generally
the same board as provided in the corporate organization of each
operating subsidiary. The general managers and executives of all
the divisions and operating subsidiaries are hired by Transconti-
nental. President Moore of Transcontinental testified that "division
or company [i. e., operating subsidiary], they are the same to us.
It is just a corporate structure situation that distinguishes between
them, but from a practical operating standpoint, they are the same."
Moore testified that his general function is to coordinate the activities
and assist the operating heads of the divisions and subsidiaries alike,
and that all these companies are regarded by the Employer as "the
Continental family."
President Moore of Transcontinental is also president or vice presi-
dent of all but one of the operating subsidiaries. T. S. Reece is vice
president of Transcontinental and of Continental Bus System ; gen-
eral manager of the Dixie division and of Continental Bus System,
and president of Denver-Colorado Springs, Pueblo Motorway Corp.,
and of the operating subsidiary, Union Bus Lines. A. J. Emory,
vice president of Transcontinental, acts as coordinating traffic and
sales officer of all the Employer 's divisions and subsidiaries on a
national basis. The general purchasing agent of Transcontinental
similarly operates for all companies . Buses are purchased on a group
TRANSCONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM , INC. 1843
basis and are frequently transferred between companies by agreement
of the operating heads. Each 6 weeks, general managers and oper-
ating heads of all the companies meet to discuss and attempt to
solve mutual problems. The mechanics and engineers of all the
companies also meet regularly to discuss research and technical
problems.
M. E. Hylton, a Transcontinental vice president, is general manager
of the Western division and is president and general manager of the
Continental Pacific Lines, an operating subsidiary . Both companies
share the same offices and employ , for example , the same local pur-
chasing agent , traffic manager , and director of sales and advertising.
American Bus Lines also shares these offices and performs the main-
tenance work for both the Western division and Continental Pacific
Lines. Central division does payroll and accounting work for
Western division as well as for several of the subsidiaries . Conti-
nental Bus System performs the bulk of the maintenance work for
the Dixie division , also the accounting work for Dixie and other sub-
sidiaries . At various terminals and dispatching points, there are
numerous instances of common supervision over employees of a divi-
sion together with employees of one or more subsidiaries.
The bus operators in the divisions and operating subsidiaries per-
form identical functions , wear the same uniforms , use similar
reporting and procedural forms, and are governed by the same op-
erating manual of the Employer. However, as between the three
divisions sought herein, there is substantially no interchange of
operators , and seniority rights are on a separate division basis.
In the circumstances above, the sole question we need to decide is
whether a consolidated unit of bus operators of the Western, Central,
and Dixie divisions of the Employer which the Petitioner seeks is
appropriate for collective bargaining. We find that it is not. The
mere fact that the three divisions comprise the nominal corporate
structure of Transcontinental cannot be controlling . The record
clearly indicates that from its inception in 1948, Transcontinental, in
its formal outline, was not coextensive with the actual operating
organization of the Employer . Plainly, Transcontinental is not a
mere holding company of the operating subsidiaries . The 8 operating
subsidiaries , at least, are substantially integrated in the Employer's
bus transportation system together with the 3 divisions in question.
These three divisions do not in our opinion constitute the operating
"system" of the Employer so as to raise the question of their appro-
priateness as a systemwide unit.' Nor on the evidence before us do
we regard the three divisions as an appropriate administrative seg-
7 See, e g, St Louis Public Service Company, 77 NLRB 749; Continental Bats System,
Inc., 84 NLRB 670.
1844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of the Employer's operations.8 Moreover, the long and effective
history of collective bargaining has been on the basis of the separate
divisions, each of which on functional grounds appears to be an
inherently appropriate bargaining group.' Furthermore, it is ap-
parent that Petitioner seeks a unit based essentially upon the extent
of its organization of Employer's bus operators, a factor which, under
Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, may not control in the determination of
the appropriate unit.10 We note in this regard the documentary
evidence in the record which indicates the Petitioner's purpose herein
as merely an interim step in achieving an ultimate goal of one bar-
gaining unit encompassing the bus operators in all the Employer's
companies and properties throughout the Nation."
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing considerations, we find the
unit requested to be inappropriate and shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition in Case No. 21-RC-4846.
In Case No. 21-RC-4827, the petition filed with the Board describes
a unit of hostesses employed in the Transcontinental Western division.
So far as the record shows, about 19 hostesses are employed in the
Western division of Transcontinental; 5 in the Central division; none
in the Dixie division; about 8 in the Continental Pacific Lines, and an
undisclosed number in Continental Bus System, both operating sub-
sidiaries of the Employer. Hostesses, assigned only to those bus oper-
ations of the Employer which offers its "Five-Star Service," travel
with the buses for the purpose generally of seeing to the comfort of
the passengers, such as by serving food and drink. The hostesses in
the Western division and in Continental Pacific Lines are supervised
by a chief hostess; however, on neither of these lines do they come in
contact with the hostesses employed in the Central division.
With respect to the hostesses, the Petitioner's expressions of position
in the record and in its brief appear conflicting and ambiguous. The
petition on file specifically refers to the formal demand for recognition
made by Petitioner on the Employer on March 15, 1957. However,
the March 15 demand was for a single unit of the hostesses employed
in both the Western division and Continental Pacific Lines. Prior
to the hearing herein, the parties executed a consent election agree-
ment as to the hostesses of Continental Pacific Lines; the election was
held and Petitioner was certified as representative. It also appears
8 See, e g., Central Greyhound Lines, etc, 88 NLRB 13, 16.
See, Yellow Transit Co, 92 NLRB 538
10 See, e. g., H. P. Hood & Sons , Inc, 114 NLRB 978.
11 A letter dated April 3, 1957, from Petitioner's director of bus department to "All
Continental and American Buslines Employees," states in pertinent part • ". . . it is
anticipated that a petition will be filed with the Board to merge the Dixie, Central and
Western divisions under one contract Anticipating a favorable decision from the Board
on the move, future plans include taking other Continental properties, including the
American Buslines into the unit by due process of the National Labor Relations Act upon
termination of individual existing contracts It is agreed by all concerned that this is the
only course for the Brotherhood to take for the welfare of all Continental employees."
MASON-NEILAN 1845
that on April 15, 1957, Petitioner filed a petition for a separate unit
of the hostesses in the Central division, but on May 2, 1957, withdrew
the same without prejudice. In its brief filed herein, Petitioner states
that it seeks "a systemwide" unit of hostesses.
Since the representation question as to the hostesses on Continental
Pacific Lines was settled by consent of the parties, and since there is
no petition before the Board seeking representation of the hostesses
in either the Central division or Continental Bus System, we must
construe Petitioner's position in Case No. 21-RC-4827 as desiring a
separate unit of the hostesses employed in the Western division.l2 The
Employer indicated in its brief its agreement that such a unit is
appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All hostesses employed in the Employer's Continental Western
Lines, Los Angeles, California, excluding all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 21-RC-4846.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
121f its position has been misconstrued, Petitioner may upon proper notice to the
Regional Director before the election withdraw its petition without prejudice
Mason -Neilan , Division of Worthington Corporation 1 and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft , Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, UAW , AFL, CIO , Petitioner.
Case No. 1-RC-5127. February 28, 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 Joseph C. Barry, 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 Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
1 The name of the Employer appeals as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer 's contention as the adequacy of the Petitioner 's compliance with Sec-
tion 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act involves an administrative matter not cognizable in
this proceeding See Desaulnsers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025 , and Standard Cigar
Company, 117 NLRB 852 Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner
is in compliance Accordingly, we deny the Employer 's motions to dismiss because of
noncompliance.
119 NLRB No. 226.