Key System Transit Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 526 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
likewise man the Employer ' s tugs. We find that these employees
have a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions of
employment to be included in a unit of shop employees.4
It is clear , therefore , that the employees in the proposed
unit are not a readily identifiable and homogeneous group
apart from the other employees . The only basis for finding the
requested unit to be appropriate would be the extent of the
Petitioner ' s organization among the employees , which we are
forbidden to do by Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act: As the Peti-
tioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest for a unit
of shop employees that would include the employees in the scow
as well as those who occasionally man the Employer's
tugs,6 we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4Ocala Star Banner . 97 NLRB 384 Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc , 100 NLRB
1351
5Breman Steel Company, 93 NLRB 720.
6As stated in footnote 2, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon other disputed cate-
gories
KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE NO. 1546, AFL,
Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-1721. June 11, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held on November 17
through 20, 1952, before Robert V. Magor, hearing officer;
thereafter , pursuant to a remand order of the Board , a further
hearing was held before him on March 26 and 27, 1953. The
hearing officer ' s rulings made at the respective hearings are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case , 2 the Boardfinds:
1. The Company is licensed by the Public Utilities Com-
mission of the State of California to operate a public transporta-
tion system in the Oakland - San Francisco Bay area , carrying
passengers by motorbus and electric train, which includes an
appreciable amount of service to and from military installations,
railroad stations , an airport , and plants of other employers
heretofore found by the Board to be engaged in commerce. We
find , upon these facts and the record generally , that the Em-
1 The Petitioner objects to a ruling of the hearing officer which required the Petitioner to
conform the evidence presented at the reopened hearing to the Board's order of remand, con-
tending that this ruling imposed an undue burden upon the Petitioner in the presentation of
relevant facts. In our opinion the ruling was proper and not prejudicial as it merely precluded
repetition of evidence adduced previously at the initial hearing. Viewing both hearings to-
gether, we are satisfied that the Petitioner had full opportunity to present all relevant facts
necessary for resolution of the issues herein.
2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the briefs,
adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
105 NLRB No. 68.
KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES 527
ployer operates a public transportation system having an
important impact upon commerce , and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.6
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.4
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act,5 for
the following reasons:
In the operation of its public transportation franchise, the
Company employs approximately 1,625 employees , of whom
some 350 maintain and repair vehicles , and the remainder of
whom are engaged in various phases of operating vehicles,
clerical work, supervision , and maintenance of fixed property
assets. The Employer' s entire operation is divided into 7
departments , namely, instruction and safety , employment,
purchasing and stores , ways and structures ( also called
track ), electrical , operating , and equipment maintenance (vehi-
cle maintenance ). Since 1948, Division 192 of the Intervenors
has represented , in a single unit, the Employer ' s operating
and maintenance employees ( roughly equivalent to the employees
in the operating , purchasing and stores , ways and structures,
and equipment maintenance departments ).6 The Petitioner
seeks specifically to sever the equipment maintenance em-
ployees and some purchasing and stores employees from the
existing unit and leaves the severance of several employees in
ways and structures to the discretion of the Board . As alter-
native instruments for effecting severance , the Petitioner
proposes 3 different types of units , namely, an overall mainte-
nance unit , 3 separate departmental units ( encompassing
roughly all the motorcoach maintenance employees , the train
maintenance employees , and the employees of purchasing and
stores, respectively), or 10 individual craft units ( encompassing
all the vehicle maintenance employees , and including some
purchasing and stores employees ). The Petitioner also seeks
any other unit, or units, which the Boardmay find appropriate.
We shall consider first the Petitioner ' s request for severance
on a craft basis. The Petitioner proposes the establishment of
the following 10 craft units : ( 1) Automotive machinists, their
SHazel M. Cluff, an individual d/b/a Columbus-Celina Coach Lines, et al., 97 NLRB 777;
W C. King d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623
4The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America , Division 192, currently represents the employees sought by the Petitioner and appears
herein as an intervenor in conjunction with its International affiliate; both of these organiza-
tions are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Intervenors
5 The Employer and the Intervenors contend that a contract, to which they are parties and
which relates to the employees here involved , is a bar to this proceeding . In the light of the
findings hereinafter set forth , we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the merits of this con-
tention.
6 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245 , AFL, represents 36
employees in the electrical department , and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Drivers,
Local No. 70 , represents approximately 5 employees in the purchasing and stores depart-
ment. None of the employees so represented are involved in this proceeding, and neither
of these unions has entered an appearance.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
helpers and apprentices; (2) automotive mechanics, their
helpers and apprentices ; ( 3) auto body , fender, and radiator
repairmen , their helpers and apprentices ; ( 4) automotive up-
holstery men, their helpers and apprentices ; ? (5) parts men,
their helpers and apprentices; (6) all machinists , their helpers
and apprentices ; ( 7) all painters , their helpers and apprentices;
(8) all blacksmiths , their helpers and apprentices ; ( 9) all sheet-
metal men, their helpers and apprentices ; and (10 ) all residual
classifications in the Company ' s vehicle maintenance depart-
ments.8
The Employer ' s vehicle maintenance work is performed at
5 different shops, and the employees in the Petitioner ' s respec-
tive units work at 1 or more of these 5 geographically separated
maintenance shops . There are separate lines of supervision
for rail and automotive work, although all maintenance em-
ployees are under a single seniority system and have sub-
stantially identical working conditions and privileges . The Em-
ployer informally trains the majority of employees for special-
ized tasks, but at the present time has no formal apprentice
program.9 Notwithstanding the similarity of skills required in
the larger proposed craft units , such units conform generally
to the type of vehicle under repair . Thus , automotive machinists,
mechanics , and body men work exclusively on buses, while
machinists and sheet - metal men work generally on trains; the
blacksmiths and painters , consisting of personnel from both
rail and automotive shops, work on both types of vehicles.
Personnel in each of the proposed units, regardless of the
vehicle involved, perform only limited and specialized portions
of the total maintenance work on the particular vehicle under
repair.
On the basis of the entire record , including the above-related
facts, we are not persuaded that the alleged appropriate units,
or any combination of the individual employees included therein,
constitute readily indentifiable and homogeneous craft groups
of employees possessing the skills ' or characteristics whichthe
Board recognizes as indispensable for severance from an
operating and maintenance unit.
With respect to the overall maintenance unit or three depart-
mental units which the Petitioner seeks, we find , in view of the
established bargaining history on a broader basis, that such
limited bargaining units are inappropriate. it
7This unit consists of one employee, and for this reason, irrespective of other factors, we
find this unit inappropriate Warren Paper Products Co , 93 NLRB 1187
s The Board's records disclose that the Petitioner represents an insufficient number of the
employees in this unit to warrant an election, and for this reason, apart from any other cir-
cumstances, the petition with respect to this unit must be dismissed.
9In 1946 the Company instituted an apprentice program in cooperation with the California
State Apprenticeship Council, but this plan was discontinued in 1949 and only 3 of the ap-
proximately 15 persons who entered the program completed the full indenture
ioKimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 NLRB 478; Mt Hood Stages, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Trail-
ways, 91 NLRB 559.
FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION 529
Having found that none of the units sought is appropriate for
severance , we shall, accordingly , dismiss the petition."
[ The Board dismissed the petition].
Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
itln view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other issues raised
by the Employer and the Intervenors in their motions to dismiss.
FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CORPORATION and FEDERATION OF
ARSENAL ENGINEERS , Petitioner . Case No. 18 -RC-1908.
June 11, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence A.
Meter, hearing officer . The hearing officer's ruling made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of small arms
ammunition at its Brightwater , Minnesota , plant.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of professional
employees of the Employer consisting of production engineers,
quality control engineers , engineers II and III, chemists I, II,
and III , senior process engineers , senior planning engineers,
section heads in the planning division, excluding maintenance
contact men , guards , all other employees , and supervisors as
defined by the Act. The Employer agrees that production
engineers , quality control engineers , engineers II and III, and
chemists I can appropriately constitute a unit of professional
employees . It contends , however, that the contact maintenance
men are also professional employees and should be included in
such a unit . The Employer further claims that the senior
planning engineer should be excluded from the unit because he
is a managerial employee and that the chemists II and III, the
105 NLRB No. 62.