Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

TUALATIN VALLEY BUSES; INC. 957
local union. The Board, having considered the matter, makes the
following finding.
It is stated clearly in the, declaration and signature to the petition,
as follows : "Southern Conference of Teamsters (As soon as Petitioner
has been certified, the International will issue a charter for a local
Union, which will be delegated bargaining rights)." As insufficient
cause has been asserted by the Employer why the Board should not
amend the certification to reflect the new name of the certified repre-
sentative, we shall grant the motion to amend.'
[The Board amended the Certification of Representatives issued to
Southern Conference of Teamsters by substituting therein "Phosphate
Workers Union, Local 308, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America"
for "Southern Conference of Teamsters."]
2 See Univers¢ty Metal Products Co., Inc, 102 NLRB 1567 ; The Procter and Gamble
Manufacturing Company, 130 NLRB 633. Of Standard Oil Company, 127 NLRB 656;
Dickey, formerly d/b/a Ohio Hoist and Mfg . Co. v. NL.R.B., 217 F. 2d 652 (C.A. 6).
Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc. and Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local
No. 281 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., Petitioner 1
Inter-City Buses, Inc. and Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No.
281, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Ind., Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 36-RC-1618 and 36-RC 1621. August 14, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, separate hearings were held before E. G.
Strumpf, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the bearing.
At the hearing in Case No . 36-RC-1622 the parties moved that Case No. 36-RC-1618
be consolidated with that proceeding and that the record in Case No 36-RC -1618 be
adopted as part of the evidence in that case. We hereby grant the motion and accord-
ingly order that the above-captioned cases be consolidated. -
132 NLRB No. 81.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Tabor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
Both Employers are engaged in the bus transportation of passengers,
express, newspapers, and mail between points in Portland, Oregon,
and its various suburban and outlying areas.
In Case No. 36-RC-1618 the Petitioner seeks a unit of busdrivers
employed by Tualatin, excluding mechanical and service employees.
In Case No. 36-RC-1622, the same Petitioner seeks a separate unit of
busdrivers employed by Inter-City. The Intervenor is in substantial
agreement with the Petitioner as to the units in both cases, but would
include all nonmechanic service employees of Tualatin.4 Alterna-
tively, the Petitioner agrees to include the service employees. The
Employers allege primarily that the appropriate unit should consist of
the busdrivers of four companies, i.e., Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc.;
Inter-City Buses, Inc.; Portland Stages, Inc.; and Estacada-Mollalla
Stages, Inc. As an alternative, they contend that the drivers of
Tualatin and Inter-City should be represented in a single unit. The
Employers take no position as to the inclusion of service employees.
The record shows that each of the above-named companies operates
over a different route, that all four companies are owned and officered
by the same individuals, and that these individuals determine labor
relations policies. However, each of the four companies has had
separate collective-bargaining agreements with the Intervenor cover-
ing busdrivers. Each agreement was negotiated separately and pro-
vided for separate seniority for each company. Particularly in view
of'the bargaining history on a separate employer basis, we find the
separate units of drivers sought by the Petitioner are appropriate.
Moreover, no labor organization is seeking an overall unit of the bus-
drivers in the four companies.5
Accordingly, we find, in Case No. 36-RC-1622, that a unit of bus-
drivers of Inter-City at its Portland, Oregon, terminal, excluding
all mechanical and service employees, office clerical employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act, is appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining purposes.
8 Motor Coach Employees , Division 1055, Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America , AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of
a contractual showing of interest.
4 I.e , tire service men , service station men, washers , cleaners , and greasers
5 Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761.
TUALATIN VALLEY BUSES, INC. 959
We likewise find, as sought by the Petitioner in Case No. 36-RC-
1618, that the separate unit of busdrivers of Tualatin, excluding me-
chanical and nonmechanic service employees may be appropriate.
However, the Intervenor contends, as already noted, that the unit
should include all nonmechanic service employees, despite the fact,
as the record shows, that the Intervenor has historically represented
these service employees and the drivers in two separate units.' As
the Board has held such combined units appropriate,' we find that a
unit of busdrivers and nonmechanic service employees of Tualatin
may also be appropriate.'
Accordingly, in Case No. 36-RC-1618 we shall establish the fol-
lowing voting groups of the Tualatin's employees, at its Portland,
Oregon, terminal, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(A) All busdrivers, excluding all employees in voting group (B)
and all other employees.
(B) All nonmechanic service employees, including tire servicemen,
service station men, washers, cleaners, and greasers, excluding all
employees in voting group (A) and all other employees.'
In the event a majority of the employees in voting group (A) votes
for the Petitioner, we find such unit to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director shall issue a cer-
tification of representatives to that effect. In the event a majority of
the employees in voting group (A) votes for the Intervenor, the bal-
lots in voting group (A) will be pooled with those in voting group
(B), and if the Intervenor received a majority of the votes in- the
pooled group,1° we find, in the circumstances, that such unit is ap-
propriate for collective-bargaining purposes and the Regional Direc-
tor shall issue a certification of representatives to that effect. In' all
other events, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifica-
tion of results of the election as appropriate in the circumstances.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
9 We deny the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss Case No. 36-RC-1618 on the asserted
ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate
' As the Intervenor has demonstrated a contractual showing of interest in each of the
separate groups of the busdrivers and the service employees of Tualatin , we treat the
Intervenor as a cross -petitioner for the unit it requests.
8 See Safeway Trails, Inc., 120 NLRB 79, 82.
B Although the Petitioner indicated alternatively that it would accept a unit of the bus-
drivers and service employees , it will not appear on the ballot in voting group ( B) as it
has made no separate showing of interest for the service employees . See Illinois Cities
Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.
30 If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : Votes for
the Petitioner shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for or against the Intervenor.
All other votes are to be accorded their face value.