Cambridge Taxi Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 22, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CAMBRIDGE TAXI COMPANY and CHARLES W. SHERMAN, PETITIONER and TAXICAB, Bus, FUNERAL DRIVERS & CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION 496, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 1-RD- 109. December 09, 1959 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney A. Coven, 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 this case the Board finds : The Employer is a Massachusetts corporation licensed by the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to operate a taxicab service in that city. This license entitles the Employer's cabs to take on passengers only within the Cambridge city limits. The Employer holds no li- cense, franchise, or contract, either exclusive or concurrent with others, permitting it to operate outside the State, or to pick up and deliver passengers at any depot or terminal of any interstate bus line, airline, or railroad, or granting it the right to maintain taxi stands in or near any depots or terminals. It does deliver passengers to terminals in Boston, but not pursuant to any special grant or privilege. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition herein, the Employer did not make any direct purchases outside the State. Local purchases of cabs, gas, oil and spare parts, and rental of tires totaled approximately $65,000. All of these items originated without the State. During the aforesaid period, the Em- ployer operated an average of 62 cabs, employing the services of an average of 114 employees, and did a total gross business of $450,000. An analysis of the drivers' waybills, for a concededly representative 13-day period, revealed that during that period 29,085 trips were made, of which 576, or only about 2 percent, were made to depots or terminals of instrumentalities of commerce. Upon consideration of the foregoing facts, it appears that this is essentially a local operation, interruption of which by a labor dispute would have only a remote and insubstantial effect on commerce. In recent years, we have asserted jurisdiction in some cases of this kind solely on the ground that taxicab operations constitute an essential link in the services performed by instrumentalities of commerce.- The Board on the basis of intervening experience believes that this stand- ard alone should no longer be determinative in assessing the need for 1 Red Cab, Inc., 92 NLRB 175 (1950), which overruled Yellow Cab of Cailfornia, 90 NLRB 1884. The Yellow Cab case remains distinguishable from the instant one. 101 NLRB No. 217. STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1329 the exercise of our jurisdiction. There are numerous taxicab com- panies whose operations, although not entirely unrelated to commerce in that they serve depots or the terminals of interstate carriers, do not have so close or so substantial an effect on commerce as to warrant our asserting jurisdiction. In view of this, and upon reconsideration of the Board's more recent decisions, we have concluded that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over taxicab companies, except in those instances where both of the following fac- tors are present: (1) The employer is either the sole taxicab com- pany operating in the area served by its cabs, which service instru- mentalities of commerce, or is the holder of a contract, license, or fran- chise from some instrumentality of commerce, granting to the em- ployer the privilege or right to serve, either exclusively or concurrently with others, a depot or terminal of such instrumentality; and (2) the employer derives a substantial portion of its total revenue directly from carrying passengers to and from terminals or depots of these instrumentalities of commerce.2 Because the operation of this Employer fails to satisfy the fore- going requisites, the Board will not assert jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein by Charles W. Sherman be, and same hereby is, dismissed. 2 However , these standards do not alter the Board's policy of asserting jurisdiction where the taxicab company is found to constitute a single employer with another company over which the Board asserts jurisdiction. See, e. g. Ca8hman Auto Co., 98 NLRB 832. STANDARD OIL COMPANY and OFFICE, ENGINEERING AND NON-CRAFT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2924. December 22,195 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. M. Lieberman, 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 this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 101 NLRB No. 204.