United Transports, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1150 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under the circumstances, we find that there is no confusion
as to the identity of the bargaining representative recognized
by the Employer. There being no schism or other basis for
avoiding the normal consequences of an existing contract, we
find that the current contract is a bar to an election at the
present time. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC. and AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORT
CHAUFFEURS, DEMONSTRATORS AND HELPERS, LOCAL
604, affiliated with the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 14-RC-2033.
February 15, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER,
AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On November 19, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election ' designating the following group of
employees as a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining: "all dispatchers and the loading supervisor en-
gaged in the transportation of automobiles at the Employer's
St. Louis, Missouri, terminal. . . ."Pursuant thereto, an elec-
tion among these individuals was conducted on December 18,
1952. During the course of the election, all of the six ballots
cast were challenged by the Employer's observer.
On January 16, 1953, the Regional Director issued a report
on challenged ballots, finding that the voters were nonsuper-
visory on the eligibility date, and therefore recommending
that the challenges be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer
timely filed exceptions to that report. On February 12, 1953,
the Board ordered that a hearing be held on the issues raised
by the challenged ballots. Subsequent to a hearing on Ap: it 1
and 2, 1953, the hearing officer concurred in the Regional
Director's finding and recommendation.' The Employer again
filed exceptions. Upon consideration of the record made at the
hearing on challenges, the Board, on July 27, 1953, stated that:
The evidence adduced at the hearing has convinced [us]
that, subsequent to the election, the dispatchers have
'Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
2 The hearing officer's rulings made at that hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.
107 NLRB No. 245.
UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC. 1 151
been granted supervisory authority, and two of those
dispatchers have in fact exercised that authority. Under
these circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that
the dispatchers are presently supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, and by reason thereof, and the
further fact that there remains in the unit but one non-
supervisory employee, the loading supervisor, any result-
ing certification would be contrary to Board policy.
Accordingly, the Board issued a notice to the Union to show
cause why "the Board [should not] amend the appropriate unit
description of its [initial] Decision.. .by excluding therefrom
all dispatchers ... and ... vacate the said Decision ... and dis-
miss the Petition ...."
The Union timely filed its response on August 17, 1953,
alleging, inter alia, that the Employer's reorganization of the
unit subsequent to the hearing on challenges resulted in new job
classifications and new job descriptions. On September 29,
1953, the Board ordered that the record be reopened "for the
purpose of taking additional evidence concerning both the bar-
gaining unit presently appropriate, and the present status of
the challenged voters alleged to be supervisors."
Thereafter, a hearing was held on October 26, 1953, before
John M. Schobel, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Union appeared and
participated. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues, was afforded the parties.
The reopened record shows that subsequent to the hearing on
challenges, on April 7, 1953, the Employer instituted a reor-
ganization of its St. Louis terminal. Job classifications andJob
descriptions were thoroughly revised. A newterminal manager
and assistant terminal manager were appointed.3 The super-
visory status of these classifications is apparently conceded.
Dispatchers were reclassified as dispatcher-checkers and
traffic supervisors." The traffic supervisors were given the
authority "to responsibly direct and assign the work and
activities of drivers" and the duty "to recommend discharge,
discipline, lay-off and transfer when... such action is neces-
sary ...[and] to hear grievances ... and to make or recommend
adjustment of said grievances." The dispatcher-checkers, on
the other hand, were given no indicia of supervisory authority.
There is testimony in the record which indicates that the
traffic supervisors supervise the dispatcher-checkers. More-
over, the reorganization plan treated traffic supervisors as a
part of terminal management to "be paid on a monthly salary
3The men who assumed these posts were formerly dispatchers.
4The Employer maintains that both of these new classifications are supervisory while the
Union maintains that neither is supervisory.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis" as distinguished from dispatcher - checkers who were
considered part of terminal personnel to be paid on the basis
of an hourly rate . Under these circumstances , we find the
traffic supervisors to be a supervisory group within the meaning
of the Act and the dispatcher - checkers tobe a non - supervisory
group.
The loading supervisors were granted the authority "to
responsibly direct all drivers in the proper methods of loading
[and upon a refusal of a driver to follow instructions ]to subject
the driver to suspension or [other ] discipline at [his] discre-
tion" and "to discharge or recommend discharge in cases
where flagrant violations of company rules occur ." In addition,
the loading supervisors , like the traffic supervisors, were
referred to as part of terminal management and were to be
paid a monthly salary . We find that loading supervisors are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
One further classification - -utility men--is mentioned in
the Employer ' s reorganization plan . Prior to the reopened
hearing no mention had ever been made of this group. The
utility men are, according to their job description , an integral
part of the terminal operation in their performance of mis-
cellaneous , unskilled work . Neither party contends that this
group is supervisory.
Upon the basis of the foregoing we find that the following
employees presently constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act 6 :
All dispatcher - checkers and utility men at the Employer's
St. Louis, Missouri , terminal, excluding the terminal manager,
assistant terminal manager , traffic supervisors, loading super-
visors, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Determination of Representatives
The problem here presented is whether the election already
held should stand or whether a new election should be directed.
We are impressed by the unique features of this case. We note,
among other things, the radical change in job classifications
effected by the Employer's reorganization , the new job assign-
ments resulting therefrom and the time lapse (over 13 months)
since the first election . Under these circumstances , we do not
5Our notice to show cause in no way controls, as the Employer seems to argue, our disposi-
tion of this matter, for we were there concerned only with the question of the supervisory
status of dispatchers. We are now confronted by the undisputed fact of new job classifications
created by the Employer itself. We must therefore look to the facts as they presently exist.
6Although our original unit may have become inappropriate due to the fact that, by reason
of promotions to supervisory status, it embraces but one nonsupervisory employee, the
present unit has no such defect. In fact, the present unit includes at the very least three-non-
supervisory employees as the parties stipulated that at all times since April 7 there have
been a minimum of three dispatcher-checkers, a group which we have found to be of non-
supervisory character.
ESSEX WIRE AND ASSOCIATED MACHINES, INC. 1 153
believe that the election already held is sufficiently repre-
sentative to reflect the desires of those in the unit presently
found appropriate . Indeed, to allow the prior election to deter-
mine the choice of a bargaining representative would in effect
disenfranchise those employees who are presently in the unit
but who may not have had the opportunity to vote in that elec-
tion. Accordingly we believe that it would best effectuate the
policies of the Act to vacate the original Decision and Direction
of Election , and direct a new election in the unit presently
appropriate.
[The Board vacated the Decision and Direction of Election
of November 19, 1952.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
ESSEX WIRE AND ASSOCIATED MACHINES, INC. and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.' and ASSOCIATED
MACHINES, INC. COMMITTEE, Party to the Contract.
Case No. .9-CA-673. February 17, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore
issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent , Associated Machines,
Inc., had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices , and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent , Associated Machines,
Inc., each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report , the exceptions and brie s , and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the find ings , conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 1
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, the
1Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers concur in the assertion of jurisdiction in this
case but are not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's present jurisdictional
standards.
107 NLRB No. 250.