Houston Cartage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 424 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HOUSTON CARTAGE COMPANY , EMPLOYER a'nd TEXAS
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS (AFFILIATED WITH C. U. A.),
PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-1810.-Decided October 2/, 1046
Messrs. Edward S. Boyles and M. U. S. Kjorlaug, both of Houston,
Tex., for the Employer.
Messrs. David Butler and G. G. Aldredge, Jr., both of Houston,
Tex., for the Petitioner.
Combs cfi Dixie, by Mr. Chris Dixie and Messrs. Murray W. Miller
and I. A. Jester, all of Houston, Tex., for the Intervenor.
Mr. R. S. Craig, of Houston, Tex., for the Association.
2I r. Warren H. Leland, of coulisel,to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Houston,
Texas, on August 1, 1946, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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
Houston Cartage Company, a Texas corporation with its office and
place of business in Houston, Texas, maintains a pick up and delivery
service for the Texas and New Orleans Railroad and for the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company. The Employer picks up less-than-
carload lots of freight from" the freight depots of these two carriers
and delivers the freight to consignees in Houston. The Employer
also picks up less-than-carload lots of freight from various consignees
in,Houston and delivers them to the depots of the two carriers. Each
month the Employer handles in excess of 500,000 pounds of freight,
71 N. L. R. B., No. 64.
424
HOUSTON CARTAGE COMPANY 425
which is either received from, or transported to, points outside the
State of Texas.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Confeder-
ated Unions of America, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer'2
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 968, herein called the Intervenor,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of La-
bor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 14, 1946, the Intervenor requested recognition from the Em-
ployer as the bargaining agent for certain of the Employer's em-
ployees. On the morning of May 25, 1946, the Employer received a
letter from the Petitioner in which the Petitioner also demanded rec-
ognition as exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees
of the Employer. In the afternoon of May 25,1946, the Employer, by
telegram, agreed to recognize the Intervenor. Six days later the Peti-
tioner filed the petition in this proceeding. Negotiations between the
Employer and the Intervenor culminated in a collective agreement
which was signed on July 15, 1946, and which provided that it was to
continue in effect for 3 months, and from year to year thereafter in
the absence of written notice by either party to the other, 30 days prior
to October 15th of any year commencing with 1946, of a desire to
"change or modify."
The Intervenor contends that the telegram of May 25, 1946, in which
the Employer recognized it as collective bargaining agent, and the
contract dated July 15, 1946, preclude a current determination of rep-
resentatives. We do not agree. It is well established that a contract
merely providing for exclusive recognition and containing no substan-
tive provisions, is insufficient to bar an election 3 And it is equally
well settled that a full collective agreement cannot bar a present de-
termination of representatives when a rival claim to representation is
'Although International Association of Motorized Common Carrier Truck Line Em-
ployees, Inc , intervened at the outset- of the,hearing, it subsequently withdrew from the
proceeding, specifically disclaiming any interest in representing the employees here
concerned
' Evidence adduced at the hearing discloses that the Petitioner is c?early a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act 4
See Matter of Standard Oil Company of Indiana, 56 N. L. R. B. 1101 ; and Matter of
Corn P,oducts Refining Company, 52 N L. R. B. 1324
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
advanced before its execution, and a petition is filed with the Board
within 10 days after the claim is made.' Thus, neither the telegram of
May 25, 1946, nor the contract dated July 15, 1946, can serve to bar this
proceeding.,
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.
1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we find that all
drivers and driver helpers employed by the Employer, excluding
clerical employees, the watchman, and all 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.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Houston Cartage Company;
Houston, Texas, 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 Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and RegulatiQns-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit 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 ]aid 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 election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Texas Federation of Independent Union (affiliated with C. U. A.),
or by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local 968, A. F. L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
Cf. Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N L R B 997
As a matter . of fact, here the petition itself,was filed before the contract dated July 15,
1946, was executed This alone prevents the contract from operating as a bar . See Mat-
ter of Ste Genevieve Lime & Quarry Company, 70 N. L. it. B 1259; and Matter of
Fifth Ave Shoe Corporation, 69 N. L. it. B. 400.