Jordan Bus Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1551 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

JORDAN BUS CO. AND DENCO BUS LINES, INC. 1551
Lawrence, Lexington, Lowell, Maynard, Methuen, Newburyport, Pep-
perell, and Woburn, Massachusetts; and Derry, Manchester, and
Nashua, New Hampshire, excluding professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petitions of Amalgamated Meat Cutters
& Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, filed in Cases No.
1-RC-8263, 1-RC-8264, and 1-RC-8265.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion, Order, and Direction of Election.
Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc. and Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-2Pd1.
July 23,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 2, 1965, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent each filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
as herein modified.'
'Although we agree with the Trial Examiner 's findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions, we find merit in the General Counsel 's exceptions and note that in the earlier
representation preceding , Case No. 16-RC-3736, the Acting Regional Director , although
taking judical notice of an earlier decision in Jordan Bua Company and Denco Bub Lines,
Inc., 107 NLRB 717, nevertheless relied on facts developed at the hearing in Case No
16-RC-3736, to find that the Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines , Inc., con-
stitute a single integrated enterprise.
153 NLRB No. 140.
1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondent, Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
On January 4, 1965, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , AFL-CIO, herein-
after sometimes referred to as the Union filed the charge of unfair labor practices
in this proceeding . Under date of January 27, 1965, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Board,
by the Regional Director for Region 16 issued the complaint and notice of hearing
herein. It alleged the commission of unfair labor practices on the part of the above-
indicated Respondents , hereinafter sometimes called Jordan and Denco , within the
scope of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and contained a notice of hearing on
March 9, 1965. In essence the complaint alleged a refusal to bargain following
certification of the Union in a representation proceeding under Section 9 of the Act.
Thereafter Jordan and Denco filed their answers admitting some and denying other
allegations of the complaint.
The General Counsel filed various motions to strike portions of the answers and
for judgment on the pleadings , to amend the complaint and the notice of hearing
and for summary judgment, to some of which motions Respondents filed objections.
On March 2, 1965, Trial Examiner William J. Brown was designated as Trial
Examiner in the case and on that date issued and served on Respondents an order
to show cause why General Counsel 's motion for judgment on the pleadings should
not be granted without further hearing for taking of evidence . Respondents were
allowed 12 days to respond and an indefinite postponement of the hearing scheduled
for March 9 was ordered . Under date of March 27 Respondent Jordan filed its
response asserting that the Regional Director erred in ruling that employees of
Jordan and Denco constituted a single bargaining unit and Respondent Denco filed
its response asserting that the Regional Director erred in holding that it had been
properly served in a precedent representation case .1
From the complaint , answer, motions, and responses herein it appears that there
is no genuine issue of fact presented to me and that all questions of law and relevant
mixed questions of law and fact have been adjudicated in a precedent representation
case. The notice of hearing in the instant case is therefore quashed.
On the basis of the complaint , answers, motions , and responses herein, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jordan is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware and has at all material times been engaged in the intrastate and interstate
transportation of passengers and baggage express by motor bus pursuant to certificate
issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission . Its principal office and place of
business is located at Hugo, Oklahoma. During the year preceding issuance of the
complaint herein, a representative period, it derived revenues in an uncertain amount
from its interstate operations . The Board has found in the representation case that
during the calendar year 1963 Jordan's gross volume of business exceeded $ 160,000
and during the first 6 months of 1964 its gross operating revenue was slightly in
excess of $69,000 , of which an amount slightly in excess of $53,000 represented
revenue from interstate operations.
Denco is and has been at all material times a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware and/or Oklahoma with its principal place of business and
main office at Hugo , Oklahoma. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers
and express by motor bus pursuant to certificate issued by the Interstate Commerce
Commission.
In Case No. 16-RC-3736 the Union filed a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of
the Act on which hearing was held before a Hearing Officer of the Board. At the
hearing the petitioner moved to include employees of Denco in the unit which motion
'Case No . 16-RC-3736.
JORDAN BUS CO. AND DENCO BUS LINES, INC. 1553
was opposed by the attorney representing Denco at the hearing. Following the
hearing the Regional Director decided that the bus operators at Denco should be
included in a single unit together with those of Jordan, on the basis of official knowl-
edge of the Board's earlier decision in Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines,
Inc., 107 NLRB 717.
Under date of September 4, 1964, the Regional Director ordered an election
within a unit consisting of all bus operators employed by Jordan and Denco exclud-
ing all other employees, maintenance employees, ticket agents, porters, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. Thereafter Jordan and Denco petitioned the Board to
review the Regional Director's action in directing the election with specific reference
to the alleged impropriety of including employees of both corporations in a single
unit. Under date of October 1, 1964, the Board denied the requests for review of
the Regional Director's decision and direction of election on the ground that they
raised no substantial issue warranting review.
On or about October 19, 1964, the election herein in the representation case was
held, the official tally of ballots showing 11 valid votes in favor of the Union and 1
vote cast against the Union, out of 12 eligible voters. Thereafter Jordan and Denco
filed their separate objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, again
with specific reference to the alleged impropriety of including employees of the two
companies in a single unit as those of a single integrated employer. Under date of
October 28, 1964, the Regional Director issued his supplemental decision and
certification of representative overruling the objection of Jordan and Denco and
certifying the Union as the exclusive representative under Section 9(a) of the Act
of employees of Jordan and Denco in the unit found appropriate in the precedent
representation proceedings. Neither Jordan nor Denco requested the Board to review
the Regional Director's supplemental decision and certification of representative.
Jordan and Denco have admitted the allegations of the complaint as amended,
to the effect that from and after November 17, 1964, and at all material times, the
Union has requested Jordan and Denco to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the unit found appropriate in
the representation proceeding. Jordan and Denco specifically admit that they have
refused to bargain at all times since November 17, 1964, with the Union as repre-
sentative of employees in the unit found appropriate and in which the Union was
certified, contending that the unit in which the Union was certified was not appro-
priate and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over Denco and Jordan.
In accordance with the facts summarized above, appearing from the pleadings
and moving papers herein, I find that Respondents are refusing to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Union as the duly certified representative of employees
in an appropriate unit and thereby are engaged in unfair labor practices defined in
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
On the basis of the above findings and conclusions to the effect that Respondents
have engaged in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act it will be recommended that they be required to cease and desist there-
from and take such affirmative action as appears necessary and appropriate to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc, constitute a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in commerce, within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All bus operators employed by Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines,
Inc., excluding all other employees, maintenance employees, ticket agents, porters,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times from and after October 28, 1964, the Union has been and con-
tinues to be the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the afore-
mentioned unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
796-027-66-vol. 153-99
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. By refusing from and after November 17, 1964, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in the aforesaid unit, Respond-
ents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondents, Jordan Bus Com-
pany and Denco Bus Lines, Inc., their officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concerning wages, rates of pay,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of employees in the unit here-
inabove found appropriate.
(b) Interfering with efforts of the Union to bargain collectively on behalf of
employees in the said appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found necessary and appropriate
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive
representative of employees in the appropriate unit described above and, if under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed memorandum of
agreement.
(b) Post at their office in Hugo, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by representatives of Respondents, be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Ordei, what steps they have
taken to comply herewith .3
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
3In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondents has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit set forth below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, we will
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is
All bus operators employed by Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus
Lines, Inc., excluding all other employees, maintenance employees, ticket
agents, porters, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
JANSEN ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING, INC. 1555
WE WILL NOT interfere with efforts of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,
AFL-CIO, to negotiate for or represent as exclusive bargaining agent employees
in the bargaining unit described above.
JORDAN Bus COMPANY,
Employer.
DENCO Bus LINES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, Mea-
cham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison
5-4211, Extension 2131.
Jansen Electronics Manufacturing, Inc. and Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO and The Em-
ployee Council , Party in Interest. Case No. 18-CA-1976.
July 23,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 18, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the Party in Interest jointly filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief of the Respondent and
the Party in Interest, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner)
1 In the brief filed by the Respondent and the Employee Council jointly, a number of
cases are cited In which courts found no unlawful domination , interference with, or
support of employee organizations by the employer involved. All of these cases are
distinguishable from the instant case, however , in that they did not Involve employee
organizations in which , as in the Instant case, supervisors as members of the Council
and a management official as its chairman participated in negotiations with management
on behalf of the employees so that management was sitting on both sides of the con-
ference table.
153 NLRB No. 143.