Honolulu Rapid Transit Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED,
EMPLOYER and TRANSIT WORKERS UNION (IND.), PETITIONER
Case No. O-R 20.. Decided October 1, 1946
Mr. Thomas M. Waddoups, of Honolulu, T. H., for the Employer.
Mr. Arthur A. Rutledge, of Honolulu T. H., for the Petitioner.
Mr. 0. A. Rowan, of Honolulu, T. H., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in-this case was held at Honolulu,
Territory of Hawaii, on August 27, 1946, before Howard Myers, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the
Amalgamated moved to dismiss the petition on the gounds that the
Petitioner was not a bona fide labor organization and that no question
concerning the representation of the employees herein involved had
arisen. For reasons stated in Sections II and III, below, the motion
to dismiss the petition is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a public utility corporation existing under the
laws of the Territory of Hawaii. Its principal office and place of
business is located at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii. It is engaged
in mass transportation by means of trolley and motor busses within the
city of Honolulu. It operates under the supervision of the Public
Utilities Commission of the Territory of Hawaii. It owns and oper-
ates shops and car houses, stations and substations, and miscellaneous
buildings and structures.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
71 N. L. R. B., No. 21.
172
HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED 173
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Amalgamated seeks to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Petitioner is not a bona fide labor organization. The testimony
reveals that, while the Petitioner does not as yet have a constitution
or bylaws, it does have officers 1 and was organized for the purpose
of bargaining collectively with the Employer with regard to wages,
hours, and working conditions. In view of all of the facts, we find
that the Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1173, herein referred to as the
Amalgamated, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
On or about February 15, 1938, the Amalgamated and the Employer
entered into. a collective bargaining agreement which provided, inter
alia, that it should continue in force and effect until June 30, 1946, and
from year to year thereafter, "provided that either party desiring to
change the terms . . . of this Agreement shall, not later than
sixty (60) days prior to June 30th of any year (beginning with the
year 1946) give written notice to the other party hereto of said party's
desire to secure such change...."
Beginning in May 1946, and continuing through June 1946, the
Employer and the Amalgamated engaged in bargaining negotiations
looking toward a change in their existing contractual relations. These
negotiations broke down in July 1946, due to confusion as to the con-
stituency of the Amalgamated's official bargaining committee. The
Petitioner filed its petition herein on July 22, 1946.
The Amalgamated contends that the contract is a bar to a present
representation proceeding and that the petition should therefore be
dismissed. We find no merit in this contention. Where, as here,
the Employer and the contracting union voluntarily enter into nego-
tiations for modification of- a contract subsequent to its automatic
' It appears that the president and secretary of the Petitioner also claim to be , respec-
tively, the president and secretary of the Amalgamated. Moreover, the Petitioner was repre-
sented at the hearing by an individual who is secretary -treasurer of the General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers , Local 996 , and executive secretary of the Hotel,
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 5, both of which are affiliated with the
Amalgamated ' s parent union , the American Federation of Labor These facts, however,
do not, in themselves , detract from the bona fide nature of the Petitioner as a labor
organization.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
renewal date, the Board has held that the parties thereby evince an
intent to terminate such contract as of its termination date, thus ren-
dering the renewal clause inoperative 2 Inasmuch as the contract was
not automatically renewed, we find that it is no bar to a current deter-
mination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all of the operating and
maintenance employees of the Employer, except the manager, the
assistant manager, superintendents or department heads and their
assistants, inspectors, school loaders and dispatchers, secretaries, stat-
isticians, working foremen, and employees of the personnel depart-
ment. The Employer and the Amalgamated agree that such a unit
would he appropriate. In addition, the Petitioner would set up a
separate unit composed of the office clerical employees. The Company
is agreeable to such a unit, and the Amalgamated, while maintaining
that these employees should be excluded from the unit of operating
and maintenance employees, takes no position with respect to their
inclusion in a separate unit, apparently evincing no interest in these
employees.3
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all
operating and maintenance employees of the Employer, but excluding
inspectors, school loaders and dispatchers, statisticians, office clerical
employees, employees of the personnel department, the manager,
assistant manager, superintendents or department heads and their
assistants, working foremen, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We further find that all office clerical employees of the Employer,
but excluding employees of the personnel department, confidential em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect, changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a sepa-
rate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
0
' Matter of Atlas Felt Products Company, 68 N. L. R B. 1
8 Office clerical employees were not covered by the contract between the Amalgamated
and the Employer.
HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
175
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Honolulu Rapid Transit Com-
pany, Limited, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, elections 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 Twenty-third Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Boara,
and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56 , of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the
bargaining units found appropriate in Section IV, above, 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
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces- of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to
determine, within the operating and niainteiance unit, whether they
desire to be represented by Transit Workers Union (Ind.), or by
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1173 (AFL), for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither; and within the office clerical
unit, whether or not they desire to be represented by Transit Workers
Union (Ind.), for the purposes of collective bargaining.
717734-47-vol 71-13