Yellow Transit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 424 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of YELLOW TRANSIT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DALLAS
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , LOCAL 765,
PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-2128.-Decided April, 16, 1947
Mr. Theodore E. Dean, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Employer.
Mr. L. N. Wells, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. L. Mulholland, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Jerry Wohlmuth, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Dallas,
Texas, on January 13, 1947, before Elmer Davis, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Yellow Transit Company is an Oklahoma corporation engaged in
the transportation of commodities by common motor vehicles into
and through the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, and Missouri. The Employer's operations in Dallas, Texas,
are solely involved in this proceeding. Approximately 80 percent of
the commodities transported by the Employer are delivered from
points in one State to points in another State. The Employer oper-
ates pursuant to a certificate issued by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission. The Employer operates more than 400 vehicles, which
annually travel more than 7,000,000 miles.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and
Helpers, A. F. L., claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
73 N. L. R. B, No. 83.
424
YELLOW TRANSIT COMPANY 425
The International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 1015,
herein called the Intervenor , is a labor organization , claiming to repre-
sent employees of the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION- CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Petitioner orally requested recognition as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative for certain of the Employer's employees 1 in
the latter part of October 1946, and again renewed this request orally
on November 13 and by letter on November 21, 1946. The Employer
refused to recognize Petitioner until it had been certified by the Board.
Following a consent election in September or October 1945, the
Intervenor entered into a contract with the Employer covering the
employees involved herein, effective December 1, 1945, and containing
the following duration clause:
This agreement shall become effective December 1, 1945, and
shall remain in full force and effect -until December 1, 1946, and
thereafter from year to year until either party shall give the other
party thirty (30) days written notice of a desire to change or for
termination. If during the thirty (30) day period conference shall
be held by and between the parties hereto with a view of arriving
at further agreement. If no mutual agreement is arrived at prior
to the expiration of this (30) day period negotiations shall be
continued and when concluded the agreement arrived at shall
become retroactive to the date preceding the expiration of the
(30) day notice. Said notice shall state the change desired.
Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives, inasmuch as by its language after the
expiration of 1 year it can be terminated by 30-day notice.2 Inter-
venor contends to the contrary that the instrument constitutes the
usual year-to-year contract.
We find merit in the Intervenor's contention. Although the auto-
matic renewal clause departs somewhat from customary language,
we are of the opinion that the clause of the contract set forth above
is sufficiently clear to sustain a finding that it was the intention of
the parties to execute a contract automatically renewable from year to
year. Under this construction, on December 1, 1946, the contract
renewed itself for another year, since neither party gave notice of
a desire to terminate prior to the automatic renewal date. Although
the claim of Petitioner was made prior to the automatic renewal
i These employees are employed in the Employer ' s Maintenance shop in Dallas , Texas.
2 Petitioner thus contends that the contract is of indefinite duration and under the
decisions of the Board cannot bar an election.
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date, its petition was filed more than 10 days thereafter .3 Conse-
quently, under established principles of the Board, the contract con-
stitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives 4 We
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.5
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above finding of facts, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Yellow Transit
Company, Dallas, Texas, filed by Dallas General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Welders, Local 745, A. F. L., be, and it hereby is
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideiation of the above
Decision and Order.
'Petitioner did not file its petition herein until November 26, 1946, more than 10 days
after the first assertion of its informal claim to representation
4 Henry d Allen, Inc, 68 N L R. B 724
"Petitioner also contends that the contract should not constitute a bar inasmuch as after
July 1946 the Intervenor had ceased to function as collective bargaining representative
under its contract This contention is based upon the alleged failure of the Intervenor
to negotiate in respect to a work week reduction in July and the fact that no meetings
of the employees had been held since that date In addition, a petition dated December 4,
1946, signed by all the employees then in the unit petitioned for, stated that they were not
members of the Intervenor and did not desire it to represent them However, such facts,
phrticulaily in view of the short period of time during which the Inteivenor is alleged
to have become inactive, do not approximate situations where the Board has oideied elec-
tions due to the defunct status of the contracting labor organization, or to the existence
of a serious doubt as to its identity. (Matter of U. S Rubber Co , 62 N L R B. 795 ;
Matter of The Ellis Canning Company, 67 N L. R. B, 384; Matter of Irwin Auger Bit
Company, 68 N L R B. 447. Cf Matter of Perfection Spring and Equipment Company,
72 N L R B 590, Matter of Koppers Company, Inc, Wood Preserving Division, 72
N L R B. 31)