Union Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1921 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

UNION CAB COMPANY 1921
been approved by the Federal Communications Commission, and that
its application is being opposed by one or more competing concerns.
We believe it would be premature to determine now whether the Em-
ployer and Arkansas Telecast, Inc., are so related that it is necessary
to consider both operations in determining whether it will best ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer. Accordingly, we reject the Petitioner's second contention.
As the Employer's gross volume of business is less than $200,000
per annum, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion filed herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
8 Hanford Broadcasting Company (KNGS), supra.
UNION CAB COMPANY AND RADIO CAB COMPANY AND YELLOW CAB COM-
PANY, INC. and LOCAL 959, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS , CHAUFFEURS, ^ WAREHOUSEMEN- AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 19-RC-1157, 19-RC-1458, and
19-RC-1459. December 16, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held in these cases before
Oliver E. Kearns, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby are affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
The Business of the Employer
The 3 Employers are in the taxicab business in Anchorage, Alaska.
The Petitioner is seeking 3 separate units composed, respectively, of
each Employer's taxicab drivers and dispatchers. The business of
the Employers is as follows :
A. Union Cab Co.: This company operates 30 pieces of equipment.
Its annual gross business is $250,000. Its annual purchases ("gas, oil,
everything") are $100,000. Thirty-three percent of its purchases is
received directly from outside the Territory; the balance is purchased
locally but also originates outside the Territory. It has a contract
with the company that carries passengers between the International
Airport and the city of Anchorage, to handle overflow business during
peak periods.
110 NLRB No. 259.
338207-55-vol. 110-122
1922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Radio Cab Co.: This company operates 36 taxicabs. Its an-
nual gross business is $250,000. Twenty percent of its business results
from a post exchange concession to operate an intrabase taxicab serv-
ice on the Fort Richardson-Elmendorf Air Force Base reservations.
Approximately 25 to 30 percent of its business results from a second
contract with the Army to supply service between the city of Anchor-
age and the Fort Richardson reservation. Its annual purchases
(automobiles, gasoline, tires, parts) are between $100,000 and $150,-
000. Fifteen percent of its purchases is received directly from out-
side the Territory; the balance is purchased locally, but also originates
outside the Territory.
C. Yellow Cab Company, Inc.: This company operates 30 pieces
of equipment. Its annual gross business is $25,000. Its annual pur-
chases (gas, oil, parts, autos, equipment, radios) are $35,000 to $40,000,
of which between 60 and 70 percent is received directly from outside
the Territory. The balance of its purchases is local, but also originates
outside the Territory.
In the recent H. H. Williams case,' the Board ruled that it would
not assert jurisdiction over taxicab enterprises. We have decided to
adhere to that policy with respect to taxicab enterprises located- in
the Territories, despite the fact that the Act gives the Board plenary
jurisdiction over all business enterprises operating in such places.2
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I dissent from the majority's refusal to exercise plenary jurisdiction
over taxicab enterprises operating in the Territories and the dismissal
of the petitions herein. I have elsewhere set forth in detail the reasons
why I believe the Board is bound to exercise plenary jurisdiction with
respect to labor relations in the Territories,3 citing among other con-
siderations the fact that the statutory definition of the term "com-
merce" embraces all trade "within" any Territory, whereas with
respect to a State, only trade between such State and outside points is
embraced by that term .4 The majority's failure to recognize this dis-
tinction is again illustrated by their action of applying the same juris-
dictional standard to all taxicab enterprises irrespective of whether
they operate in 1 of the 48 States or in 1 of the Territories. For in
the cited H. H. Williams case 8 they state as their reason for declining
1 H H. Williams, d/b/a Checker Cab Co . and Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co . Inc., 110
NLRB 683.
2 Cf. The Virgin Isles Hotel, Inc., 110 NLRB 558.
The Virgin Isles Hotel, Inc., 110 NLRB 558, Sixto Ortega, d/b/a Sixto, 110 NLRB
1917.
See discussion in my dissenting opinion in The Virgin Isles Hotel, Inc., supra.
5 H. H. Williams, d/b/a Checker Cab Co . and Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 110
NLRB 683.
UNION, CAB COMPANY 1923
to assert jurisdiction over taxicab enterprises operating in the 48
States :
Taxicab companies, by their very nature, perform local opera-
tions and are essentially local entities. To assert jurisdiction over
such enterprises would neither comport with the congressional
intent that the Board refrain from extending its activities to
matters of local significance, nor otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act.
In the instant case the majority gives no other reason but merely
states that :
We have decided to adhere to that policy with respect to taxicab
enterprises located in the Territories, despite the fact that the
Act gives the Board plenary jurisdiction over all business enter-
prises operating in such places.
it would appear that the fact that the majority is persuaded that taxi-
cabs are essentially local entities persuades them that the Board
should not exercise jurisdiction over them even though the Board has
plenary jurisdiction in that area. If so, this is a wholly irrelevant and
inadequate reason for a refusal to act in accordance with the clearly
expressed mandate in the Act that the Board should exercise its ple-
nary jurisdiction over enterprises operating in the Territories. The
local character of an enterprise which is not itself directly engaged in
"commerce" might arguably have some bearing on the issue of whether
or not its operations sufficiently "affect commerce" to warrant the
assertion of jurisdiction over it in the United States. But it clearly
does not have any bearing on the question of whether the Board should
assert jurisdiction when the enterprise is in a Territory and by statu-
tory definition is therefore engaged in "commerce" no matter how
local its operations.
I further note that the majority decision, which is the first case
departing from the old policy of asserting plenary jurisdiction in
Alaska, introduces a new note of confusion into a situation already
confused, as to what the present Board's jurisdictional policy is in the
Territories. It issues at or about the same time as the Board's decision
in Sixto Ortega, d/b/a Sixto,6 in which the majority announces it
will apply the new jurisdictional standards which are "specially ap-
plicable" to operations in Puerto Rico. Does the failure to state this
policy with respect to Alaska in this case, carry the implication that
such is not to be the policy with respect to Alaska and other
Territories?
4 110 NLRB 1917.
1924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I also note that just recently the majority asserted jurisdiction over-
a general laundry and dry cleaning enterprise in the Territory of
Hawaii which did not meet any of the Board's new jurisdictional
standards.7 Does the Board now have a plenary policy in Hawaii, a
different policy in Puerto Rico, and a third policy in Alaska? While
I alone would adhere to the plenary policy in Alaska, and therefore
need not consider other bases for asserting jurisdiction in the instant
case, I do not understand, nor does the main opinion explain why the
impact on the national defense does not warrant asserting juris-
diction at least over the Radio Cab Company, as Member Peterson's
concurring opinion suggests. Approximately half of its $250,000
gross business is derived from contracts to supply service between
Army-Air Force base reservations and between the former and the
city of Anchorage. Furthermore, I fail to understand how it effec-
tuates the policies of the Act and the national interest to assert juris-
diction over laundries in the Territory of Hawaii but not over taxi-
cabs supplying the aforementioned service in a sensitive defense area
like the Territory of Alaska.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and' for the reasons more
fully set forth in my dissenting opinions in the Virgin Isles Hotel,
Inc., supra, and Sixto Ortega, supra, I dissent from the majority's
decision not to assert plenary jurisdiction in the Territory of Alaska
and instead to extend the Board's policy of not asserting jurisdiction
over taxicab enterprises operating in the 48 States.
MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
I cannot agree with the action taken herein by a majority of my col-
leagues. For the reasons generally stated in my separate opinion in
the Breeding cases and more specifically explicated in my concurring
opinion in the Maytag case,9 I would exercise jurisdiction in Case No.
19-RC-1458 over the Radio Cab Company because its operations sub-
stantially affect national defense in that it receives more than $50,000
in revenues-the minimum monetary amount I would require for sup-
plying taxicab services for United States Army reservations. With
respect to Cases Nos. 19-RC-1457 and 1459 involving the Union and
Yellow Cab Companies, respectively, I would remand the cases for fur-
ther evidence to ascertain if the commerce data conforms with the rule
announced in the Cambridge Taxi Company case,10 in which event I
would likewise assert jurisdiction over these Employers.
7 American Sanitary Laundry, 37-RM-11, issued October 13, 1954 (not reported In
printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
8 Breeding Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 493.
9 Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594.
10 Cambridge Taxi Company, 101 NLRB 1328