Union Bus Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of UNION Bus LINES, INC., EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY, AND MOTOR COACH
EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 1142, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-74.Decided July 8, 19.1,9
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
Elmer Davis, hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the transporta-
tion of passengers by motor bus in the State of Texas. In this connec-
tion it operates approximately 60 busses which cover between 350,000
and 400,000 miles and carry approximately 100,000 passengers per
month, respectively. The Employer realizes a gross income of
approximately $100,000 per month.
The Employer purchases all of its equipment locally. All busses
owned by the Employer and having a present value of approximately
$500,000 were purchased and delivered to it from points outside of the
State of Texas. It holds a permit from the Railroad Commission of
Texas; it does not operate under a certificate of public convenience
and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Although the Employer's busses travel only within the State of
Texas, it regularly interchanges passengers with several interstate bus
1 The Employer desired to be represented at the hearing by an attorney named Joe M.
Kilgore, a member of the Texas House of Representatives . As the Texas legislature was.
In session at the time of the hearing and Kilgore was unable to participate , the hearing
officer and counsel who was present at the hearing for the Employer agreed that Kilgore
would be allowed 2 days from the delivery of the transcript to review the record and if
he considered the record inadequate that a motion to supplement the record would be
entertained . On May 18, 1949 , the hearing officer received a letter from Kilgore which
he construed as constituting such a motion . The hearing officer allowed the motion and
by an order dated May 23, 1949, he received the following documents as part of the record :
(1) a copy of a petition filed by the Petitioner in a representation case involving Bowen
Motor Coaches ; ( 2) a copy of a contract between the Petitioner and Bowen Motor Coaches ;
and (3 ) an affidavit by one Arthur C. House, manager of the Employer . In view of the
fact that the Petitioner is not prejudiced thereby, the hearing officer 's ruling granting the
motion is affirmed.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 16.
107
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lines and provides through traffic over such lines by virtue of arrange-
ments whereby a person can purchase a ticket from the Employer to
almost any point in the United States. Furthermore, the Employer
transports United States mail as part of its normal bus operations.
On these facts, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that
it is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of
the Act.2
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.3
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's bus operators.
The Employer urges that the appropriate unit should consist of all its
employees, excluding supervisors. There has been no past bargaining
history with respect to the Employer's operations.
The Employer's operations are divided generally between operating,
maintenance, office, and terminal employees. The operating em-
ployees consist of approximately 15 or 20 bus drivers who work out of
McAllen, Texas, in which city is located the Employer's home office;
and of about 40 operators who live near and operate out of the Em-
ployer's other terminals. They are paid on a mileage basis with hourly
pay for lay-over and stand-by time. The operators, who are licensed
by the Texas State Highway Department, are required by the Em-
ployer to take an aptitude test and are not permitted to operate the
busses until they have been thoroughly trained by experienced drivers.
All operators are apparently under the separate supervision of the
Employer's president and general manager.
The Board has frequently held that a group of bus drivers as such
may constitute a separate appropriate unit 4 The question in the in-
stant case is whether the extelit of interchange alleged by the Employer
to exist between bus drivers, maintenance employees, office and termi-
2 Cf. Matter of Surburban Transportation System, 82 N. L. it. B. 956; Matter of Chicago
Gray Line, Inc ., 81 N. L. it. B. 466; Matter of Philadelphia Suburban Transportation
Company (Red Arrow Lines), 79 N. L. it. B. 448.
2In its brief the Employer made a motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that
the Petitioner does not now and never had authority to file the.petition on behalf of any
of the Employer's employees because such employees only signed application for member-
ship cards and none of the employees are members of the Petitioner nor have they author-
ized it to file the instant petition. In essence, the Employer's contention goes to the
adequacy of the Petitioner's showing. We have repeatedly held that the question of whether
or not a Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of interest is an administrative matter
not subject to direct or collateral attack. Matter of Henderson Lumber Company, Inc., 80
N. L. R. B. 1392. Accordingly, the Employer's motion is hereby denied.
4 Matter of Central Swallow Coach Line, Inc., 82 N. L. R. B. 487; Matter of City Trans-
portation Company, 80 N. L. it. B. 270 ; Matter of Maine Central Transportation Co., 80
N. L. R. B. 281.
UNION BUS LINES, INC. 109
nal employees destroys the identity of the bus drivers as a separate
bargaining unit. Although the record reveals that there have been
some transfers of maintenance and office employees to positions of bus
operators, the amount of interchange between the employees in all
departments has been insubstantial.5 Accordingly, we find that the
amount of interchange is not sufficiently great to affect-the identity
of the bus drivers as a separate group.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All bus operators of the Employer, excluding supervisors as defined
in the Act.6
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Union Bus Lines, Inc.,
McAllen, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election and also excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America,
Division 1142, AFL for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5 Maintenance and clerical employees have occasionally operated regular and charter
busses. Also, during the period of the last 6 months two employees have devoted part of
their time to the maintenance department and part to driving busses.
9 The Petitioner desires to exclude dispatchers from the unit as supervisors. The
Employer contends that they are not supervisors and should be included in the unit. The
record is inadequate to determine the supervisory status of dispatchers . For this reason,
we shall make no determination with respect to the exclusion or inclusion of these employees
from the unit at this time. If they possess supervisory powers within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 11) of the Act , they are to be excluded from the unit ; otherwise they are to be
included. Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 80 N. L. it. B. 334.