Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 504 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY, AND MOTOR COACH Em-
PLOYEES OF AMERICA (AFL)
Case No. 8-R-1338.-Decided March 15, 1944
Bowen c i Bowen, by Cllr. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis , Minn., for the
Company.
Mr. E. L. Oliver, of Washington, D. C., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Wayland K. Sullivan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Interstate.
Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America (AFL),
herein called the Amalgamated, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of certain employees
of Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon clue notice before Louis Plost, Trial Examiner-
Said hearing was held at Cleveland, OJ io, on January 18, 1944. The
Company, the Amalgamated, and Interstate Motor Coach Employees
Association, Inc., herein called the Interstate, appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
New York and Indiana subsidiaries, namely, Central Greyhound Lines,.
Inc., of New York, and Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Indiana-
55 N. L. R. B, No. 93.
504
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 505
The Company stipulated that for the purpose of this proceeding it
may be regarded as constituting a single employer. The Company is
engaged from its headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, in transporting
passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, for hire under regularly
published tariffs, through Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois. The consolidated gross reve-
nues of the Company for the year ending October 31, 1943, were in
excess of $9,000,000, and the Company's total consolidated assets on
October 31, 1943, were in excess of $12,000,000. For the safe and regu
lar operation of its busses, the Company maintains garages and repair
shops in various cities along its routes. The Company concedes and
we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVES)
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor
Coach Employees of America is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
Interstate Motor Coach Employees Association, Inc., is an incor-
porated unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership enI-
ployees of the Company.
Ili. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 12, 1943, the Amalgamated requested recognition of the
Company as exclusive bargaining representative of all the Company's
maintenance employees. The Company refused to extend recognition
until the Amalgamated is certified as such representative by the
Board.
For several years the Amalgamated has been the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of drivers and terminal employees of the Company
in a system-wide unit, and for the same period has been recognized
by the Company as representative of its members among the Com-
pany's maintenance employees. The latest contract between the Com-
pany and the Amalgamated covering the employees mentioned above
expired October 31, 1943, and another contract is in the process of
negotiation.
The Interstate has been recognized by the Company for several
years as exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's main-
tenance employees on the New York lines. As of December 1, 1940,
the Company and the Interstate entered into a closed-shop contract
covering such employees. The term of the contract was for 1 year
and thereafter fromyear to year in the absence of notice of termina-
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 60 days prior to any anniversary date. No such notice has been
given; the Company and the Association assert that the contract is
still in effect and constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
The Amalgamated contends that the Interstate contract should not
be given effect so as to bar an investigation of representatives for main-
tenance employees along the New York lines for the reason that the
Amalgamated has actually bargained for such employees with the
Company without protest or exception by Interstate, and that infer-
entially Interstate has abandoned its claim to represent such em-
ployees. The record does not so convince us. The Interstate contract
appears to be still in full force and effect and the record does not
support the allegations of the Amalgamated that it has bargained
for maintenance employees of the New York. lines. Since, as noted
above, the claim of the Amalgamated was made on October 12, 1943,
49 days before the anniversary date of the Interstate contract, we find
that such claim was not timely. When neither the Company nor the
Interstate gave notice of termination 60 days prior to the latest anni-
versary date of the Interstate contract, the contract by its terms was
automatically renewed for another year and under the settled policy
of the Board constitutes a bar to a present investigation of representa-
tives pertaining to the maintenance employees on the Con-mpany's New
York lines
A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Amalgamated represents a substantial
number of employees among the maintenance workers of the Com-
pany.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of maintenance employees of the Company other
than those employed on the New York lines within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT THEY DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
There is no essential controversy among the parties regarding in-
clusions and exclusions from the bargaining unit. Actually the
Amalgamated does not seek certification as bargaining representative
of the maintenance employees in a separate bargaining unit. As noted
above, the Amalgamated has been recognized by the Company for a
period of years as exclusive bargl4i ning representative of the company
drivers and terminal employees in a system-wide unit. The Amalgam-
' See Matter of Hill B, Inc, Division of Irwin if loons, Partners, doing business under'
the assum ed name of Iritrn if Lyons, 40 N L R B 346
2 The Field Examiner stated that the Amalgamated submitted application-foranemhership
cards bearing apparently genuine origi nal signatures m hich indicate that over 65 percent
of the Company' s maintenance employees aie members of the Amalgamated.
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. "O7
ated seeks here to be designated also as exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative for the maintenance employees and, if successful, to in-
clude the maintenance employees in the system-wide unit it already
represents.
We are of the opinion and find that the maintenance employees
may appropriately constitute a part of the unit of drivers and termi-
nal employees already represented by the Amalgamated. In the ab-
sence of any question concerning representation among the employees
in the driver and terminal workers unit, we shall direct an election
among the maintenance employees only. If the maintenance em-
ployees select the Amalgamated as their bargaining representative,
they will have indicated their desire to be included in the unit with
the drivers and terminal employees and will be a part of such unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret
ballot among the maintenance employees of the Company, includ-
ing cardex employees but excluding maintenance employees and cardex
employees on the New York lines and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion. Those eligible to vote in the election which we shall direct shall
be the employees of the Company, as described above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction. The Regional Director is hereby
authorized to conduct the election by mail, either in whole or in part.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Central Grey-
hound Lines, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but, not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Ar-
ticle III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
maintenance employees of the Company in the group below, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
Jog DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election:
All maintenance employees of the Company, including cardex em-
ployees, but excluding maintenance employees and cardex employees
on the New York lines and supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees
of America (AFL), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election,