Bus Systems, Inc. And Caravan Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1989

297 N.L.R.B. 169 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

, ' BUS SYSTEMS 169
Bus Systems, Inc. and Carivian Transportation, Inc.
and Local 100, Transport Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Road Carri-
ers, Local 707, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.
Case 29-RC-7122
October 26, 1989
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On February 3, 1989, the Regional Director for
Region 29 issued a Decision and Order Dismissing
Petition in the above-entitled proceeding in which
he found that the recognition agreements between
the Employer and Local 707, Road Carriers, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, the
Intervenor, should bar the petition filed by Local
100, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, the Petitioner Thereafter, the Petitioner filed
a request for review of the Regional Director's De-
cision and Order Dismissing Petition urging that a
recognition bar should not be found here On June
1, 1989, the Board granted the Petitioner's request
for review -,
The Board, by a three-member panel, has consid-
ered the entire record in the case with respect to
the issues under review and finds, contrary to the
Regional Director, and consistent with the Board's
recently issued decision in Rollins Transportation
System, 296 NLRB 793 (1989), that there is no rec-
ognition bar and that the petition should be proc-
essed
Briefly the undisputed facts are as follows The
Employer is engaged in providing bus transporta-
tion at its two New York facilities The parties stip-
ulated that Bus Systems, Inc and Caravan Trans-
portation, Inc , are a single employer of the em-
ployees On November 7, 1988, and on several sub-
sequent days that week, organizers for the Petition-
er distributed authorization cards to employees at
the Employer's Archer Avenue facility On No-
vember 9, an agent of the Intervenor gave authori-
zation cards to an employee of Bus Systems for
distnbution to fellow drivers In the next day or
two, the Intervenor's agent learned that all nine of
the Bus Systems drivers had signed cards, and he
sent a telegram to the Employer informing it of the
Intervenor's majority status and requesting bargain-
ing On November 11, the Employer was informed
that the Petitioner was distributing leaflets to the
Bus and Caravan employees On November 14, the
Employer, satisfied of the Intervenor's majority
status, signed a recognition agreement covering the
Bus employees Around November 15, and for a
day or two thereafter, two organizers of the Peti-
tioner distributed cards and a leaflet advertising an
upcoming November 21 meeting to employees at
the Employer's Fountain Avenue facility (Bus Sys-
tems drivers and Caravan drivers worked out of
both of the Employer's facilities ) During this same
period the Intervenor had been organizing the
Caravan employees, and on November 22 the Em-
ployer signed another recognition agreement with
the Intervenor, this one covering the Caravan em-
ployees On December 21 the Petitioner filed a pe-
tition requesting to represent both the Bus and
Caravan employees
The Regional Director relying on Bruckner
Nursing Home, 262 NLRB 955 (1982) (in which the
Board held that an employer does not violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) when it recognizes an unassist-
ed majority union before an election petition has
been filed even though another union may also
have been attempting to organize the employer's
employees) dismissed the petition, finding that it
was barred by the recognition agreements signed
between the Intervenor and the Employer The
Regional Director reasoned that, even though
Bruckner is an unfair labor practice case, the
Bruckner rationale should be applied in representa-
tion proceedings to bar petitions filed after valid
voluntary recognition has been accorded to a com-
peting union The Regional Director concluded
that if an employer does not violate Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) for recognizing a union under Bruckner, the
recognition agreements should be given the effect
of barring the petition Thus, when an employer
has recognized an unassisted majority union pnor
to the filing of a petition by a nval union, the rec-
ognition agreements should bar the petition even
though the nval union's organizing campaign was
contemporaneous with that of the recognized
union
In Rollins, we held that when there are simulta-
neous campaigns and the unrecognized union files a
petition, the recognition is ineffective as a bar and
an election is required' The Board found that the
principles set forth in Bruckner regarding the rule
of strict employer neutrality in an 8(a)(2) setting
are inapplicable in the representation context The
Board concluded that in the representation con-
' The Intervenor has argued that the organizing activities engaged in
by the Petitioner prior to the November 14 recognition agreement cover-
ing the Bus Systems employees and the November 22 recognition agree-
ment covering the Caravan employees were insufficient to constitute
active organizing within the meaning of Sound Contractors Assn, 162
NLRB 364 (1966), and its progeny-the cases that, as our decision in Rol-
lins makes clear, would otherwise govern this case Although there may
well be organizing efforts so minimal that they would not constitute a
cognizable rival campaign, we find that Petitioner's sustained authoriza-
tion card distributions were sufficient to Invoke the rule of Sound Con-
tractors
297 NLRB No 24
170 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
text-as opposed to a situation in which unfair labor
practice charges are filed against an employer-the
emphasis should not be on whether the employer
acts lawfully, but on whether the employees can
freely choose a collective-bargaining representa-
tive Thus, for the reasons fully set forth in Rollins
Transportation Systems, supra, the recognition
agreements signed between the Employer and the
Intervenor shall not be given bar effect and the pe-
tition shall be reinstated Accordingly, we remand
this case to the Regional Director in order for him
to reinstate and process the petition
MEMBER CRACRAFT, dissenting
Contrary to my colleagues, I would affirm the
Regional Director's dismissal of the representation
petition For the reasons stated in my dissenting
opining in Rollins Transportation System, 296
NLRB 793 (1989), I would find that the recogni-
tion agreements signed between the Employer and
the Intervenor should bar the petition for a reason-
able period of time