Tulsa Yellow Cab Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TULSA YELLOW CAB COMPANY, INC.
Tulsa Yellow Cab Company, Inc. and Peoples Check-
er Cab Company, Inc. and Cab Drivers Associated
Brotherhood, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-7993
January 24, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Robert Fries of the
National Labor Relations Board on September 5,
1979. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 16, this
proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employers filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
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 proceeding the Board
finds:
Tulsa Yellow Cab Company, Inc., hereinafter called
Yellow Cab, is an Oklahoma corporation providing
taxicab service in and around Tulsa. Peoples Checker
Cab Company, Inc., hereinafter called Checker Cab,
also is an Oklahoma corporation servicing the same
area as Yellow Cab. During their respective fiscal
years ending in 1979 neither Yellow Cab nor Checker
Cab had gross revenues exceeding $500,000. Thus,
neither corporation meets the jurisdictional standard
imposed by the Board with regard to retail businesses.'
At the hearing, however, inquiries were made as to
the relationship between Yellow Cab and Checker Cab
for the purpose of determining whether the two
corporations are integrated enterprises so as to consti-
tute joint employers for jurisdictional purposes of the
Act.' Both corporations contend that no such relation-
ship exists and that the Board, therefore, should not
' The Petitioner contended at the hearing that the gross revenue of the Taxi
Cab Maintenance facility, discussed infra, should be attributed to both Yellow
Cab and Checker Cab on a pro rata basis so as to bring each company above
the jurisdictional minimum. The record reveals, however, that approximately
80 to 90 percent of Taxi Cab Maintenance's operating funds are contributed
by Yellow Cab and Checker Cab on a direct subsidy basis. The additional
revenue generated by Taxi Cab Maintenance comes from the repair of outside
vehicles and the sale of gasoline. Since Yellow Cab has already counted
approximately 14,000 worth of gasoline sales as part of its fiscal 1978
247 NLRB No. 92
assert jurisdiction over either or both of them. We
agree.
Yellow Cab is owned by Thomas White, his wife,
and his brother. These individuals are also the
corporation's officers and directors. The majority
stockholder in Checker Cab is Larry White, Thomas
White's son, who has a two-third share purchased
from an out-of-state seller and financed independently
of his father. Thomas White owns a one-third share of
Checker Cab. However, the two corporations have no
common officers or directors.
With respect to interrelationship of operations, each
corporation files separate tax returns and maintains
separate bank accounts and payroll records. Both
Yellow Cab and Checker Cab share common premises
owned by Thomas White and leased to both corpora-
tions. However, the office space for each company is
physically distinct. Yellow Cab and Checker Cab are
equal partners in a third enterprise known as Taxi Cab
Maintenance. This business is housed in the same
facility shared by the two cab companies. It performs
required maintenance on all lease cabs and is also
available to owner-operators. Taxi Cab Maintenance
also employs the dispatcher utilized by both cab
companies.
Each corporation conducts its business under a
separate telephone number and colors its cabs so that
the public is readily able to distinguish between
Yellow Cab and Checker Cab. The only circumstance
under which the dispatcher will send a cab of one
Company on a call received by the other is when no
cab of the requested Company is available. However,
there is no interchange of drivers between Yellow Cab
and Checker Cab.
As to labor relations policies, the record reveals that
the drivers of each Company are supervised on a daily
basis only by supervisors of the Company for whom
they drive. Other personnel matters are also handled
separately. However, on rare occasions a supervisor of
Checker Cab has investigated accidents involving a
Yellow cab.
The Board often treats separate companies as joint
employers for jurisdictional purposes where it can be
found that the firms, despite their separate legal
structure, are highly integrated with respect to owner-
ship and operations. Though no one factor is control-
ling, those factors which the Board deems relevant to
such determination include not only common owner-
income, this amount may not be counted a second time as income to Taxi Cab
Maintenance. The record does not reveal what additional unsubsidized
income, if any, Taxi Cab Maintenance may have generated. We are thus
unable to find that it would have been sufficient to affect our jurisdictional
finding herein.
I In view of our jurisdictional findings herein, we find it unnecessary to
reach the additional issues raised at the hearing; namely, the employment
status of the leasee-drivers and owner-operators and the labor organization
status of the Petitioner.
577
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship or financial control, but also such indicia of
identify as interrelationship of operations, common
management, and centralized control of labor rela-
tions.'
It is clear that neither of the cab companies alone
meets the Board's jurisdictional standard for retail
businesses. Further, since it is clear that both Yellow
Cab and Checker Cab are, in fact, managed indepen-
dently of each other and in view of the factors
discussed above, we are unable to conclude that their
' See 21 NLRB Ann. Rep. 14-15 (1956); Sakrete of Northern California,
Inc.. 137 NLRB 1220, 1222 (1962), enfd. 332 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1964);
relationship is such as to justify treating them as joint
employers for jurisdictional purposes.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER PENELLO, concurring:
I concur in the result.
Chicago Theatrical Protective Union Local No. 12 I.A. T.S.E (Midwest News
Reel Theatres, Inc.), 151 NLRB 857 (1965).
578