Open Taxi Lot Operation-San francisco International Airport

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Open Taxi Lot Operation-San Francisco Interna-
tional Airport and Office and Professional Employ-
ees Union, Local 3, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-
RC- 14598
February 16, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS.
MURPHY. ANI) TRLESDAL.E
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on May 2, 1978, before Hearing
Officer Pamela T. Hoffman. Following the hearing,
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, the acting Regional Director for Region
20 transferred this case to the Board. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed a brief.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record on this proceeding, the Board
finds:
I. The Employer is engaged in the operation and
maintenance of a taxi dispatch system which pro-
vides for the orderly flow of taxicabs through San
Francisco International Airport. The operation is
conducted pursuant to a written agreement between
the Airports Commission of the city and county of
San Francisco (the Commission) and Robert Zbi-
kowski, the "operator" of Open Taxi Lot Operation
(Open Taxi Lot). This agreement, dated January 4,
1977, was by its terms effective for a period of 90
days, but remained in effect at the time of the hear-
ing pursuant to a provision allowing the director of
the Commission to extend the agreement on a day-
to-day basis.
The agreement, and its subsequent written and
oral modifications, provides that the taxi dispatch
system shall function as follows: The system operates
daily between 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. Taxi drivers holding
permits from the city and county of San Francisco
enter the airport through a taxi lot, situated on city
property, adjacent to the airport. While on this lot,
the taxis wait in either the "Short Haul" or the "Long
Haul" line to be dispatched. When they reach the
collection booth and control gate, at the entrance to
the airport, the taxi drivers pay a $1.50 fee and re-
ceive three parts of the four-part ticket. The taxis
then proceed to the Pan Am terminal or are forward-
ed to the United Airlines terminal to pick up passen-
gers. When a taxi driver picks up a passenger. two
240 NLRB No. 115
parts of the four-part ticket are time stamped, and
one part is returned to the driver. If, after delivering
passengers to their destinations, the taxi driver re-
turns to the taxi lot within a specified time, he is
allowed to enter the "Short Haul" line and, in some
circumstances, to pass through the control gate with-
out paying the $1.50 fee.
The agreement provides that fees collected from
the taxi drivers at the collection booth become, im-
mediately upon collection, the property of the Com-
mission. Each day the funds collected are deposited
in a city of San Francisco Treasury bank account,
and daily accounting records, which are maintained
by Open Taxi Lot employees, are delivered to the
Commission's accounting office at the airport. The
agreement requires that Zbikowski make monthly
and annual reports to the Commission of revenues
derived from Open Taxi Lot's operations. Addition-
ally, Zbikowski is required to obtain liability insur-
ance, to maintain a faithful performance bond, and
to keep the city and the Commission free from harm
of any liability incurred in the operation of the taxi
dispatch system. Open Taxi Lot is not required to
pay the Commission for its use of the property on
which the taxi lot and collection booth are located.
Open Taxi Lot employs approximately 12 employ-
ees, including 6 "supervisors" or loaders, 3 collectors,
and 3 regular part-time employees. Although the
written agreement provides that Zbikowski hire a
manager "responsible for the smooth and efficient
functioning of the System," no manager has been
hired, and Zbikowski himself serves as manager. The
loaders are positioned at either the Pan Am or the
United Airlines terminal where they assist in loading
passengers, collecting and time stamping tickets, and
radioing the collection booth when taxis are request-
ed. The collectors work in the collection booth where
they receive the $1.50 fees, dispatch taxis through the
control gate, and keep daily accounting records. The
three regular part-time employees work in the taxi
lot, keeping the taxis in their respective lines and as-
suring that the taxis do not overflow into the street.
On a semimonthly basis, Zbikowski submits ex-
pense vouchers to the Commission and is reimbursed
for actual expenses incurred in the operation of Open
Taxi Lot. A budget appended to the written agree-
ment sets forth the categories and maximum
amounts of expenses for which Zbikowski is reim-
bursed. This budget provides for reimbursement of a
total of $10,821 per month for salaries.' and $950 per
The written budget provides that Zbikowski be reimbursed a maximum
of $235 per week for each of the three collectors. $245 per week for each of
the six supervisors and $350 per week for the manager. An oral modifica-
tion of the agreement changed the weekly amounts to maximum hourly
wage rates of $5.85 for collectors and $6. 10 for supervisors. This adjustment
OPEN TAXI LOT OPERATION 809
month for other expenses, including such items as
insurance and bookkeeping. Thus, the Commission
reimburses Zbikowski more than $140,000 a year for
the operation of Open Taxi Lot. In addition, under
the written agreement, Zbikowski receives I percent
of the total fees collected from the taxi drivers at the
collection booth. According to Zbikowski's testi-
mony Open Taxi Lot collects total fees of approxi-
mately $487,000 a year.
The Employer's operations are under the direct
control of Zbikowski, who interviews, hires. fires.2
schedules hours, authorizes time off, and generally
supervises the employees' work. The employees are
not required to take a civil service exam, the Com-
mission does not maintain their personnel files, and
they receive none of the fringe benefits provided em-
ployees of the city of San Francisco. Zbikowski testi-
fied that he has attempted to obtain the
Commission's approval for health insurance and va-
cation benefits for Open Taxi Lot employees. The
record is clear, however, that the Commission does
not prohibit Zbikowski from granting such benefits.
Rather, Zbikowski merely must get Commission ap-
proval in order to be reimbursed by the Commission
for expenses incurred in the granting of such bene-
fits. The Commission does not prevent the Employ-
er's use of funds from other sources to cover expendi-
tures which will not be reimbursed by the
Commission.' Zbikowski testified that he. in fact, has
granted Open Taxi Lot employees at least one bene-
fit not contemplated in the budget; namely, he has
distributed to the employees, in the form of bonuses,
a portion of the I percent of the total fees collected
from taxi drivers, which he received pursuant to the
written agreement with the Commission.
On the basis of these facts, we find that the Em-
ployer, which is not itself a government entity, re-
tains sufficient control over the employment condi-
tions of its employees to enable it to bargain with a
labor organization as the representative of its em-
ployees. Therefore, we find that Open Taxi Lot is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act. 4
The record further shows that Open Taxi Lot is
was made to accommodate employees who began working excess of 4)
hours per week when Open Taxi Lot increased its hours of operatiion from
16 to 20 hours per day. he total salary figure of $10,821 In the original
budget does not reflect thls increase Nor does the original budget reflect the
amount which Zbikowski is reimbursed for the salaries of the three regular
part-time employees who work a total f 25 hours per week and receise
$5.85 per hour.
On occasion airport police have observed Open Taxi Lot emploees
violating the terms of the written agreement, by. for example. selling "Shorl
Haul" tickets. On such occasions. the police insisted that Zbikowski dis-
charge the offending employees and he did so
The only limitation on the Employer's use of funds from sources other
than the Commission is a clause In the agreement which requires that funds
received from a governmental agency for participation in gosernmelt
sponsored program are to be deducted from the budget
essential to the furnishing of taxicab service from
San Francisco International Airport to the city of
San Francisco and the surrounding area. Under such
circumstances, we find that the service provided by
Open Taxi Lot is an essential link in the transporta-
tion of passengers in interstate commerce. The
Board will assert jurisdiction over an enterprise
which functions as an essential link in the transporta-
tion of passengers or commodities in interstate com-
merce if that enterprise derives in excess of $50,000
gross revenues per annum from such operations.' As
the Employer, through its operator Zbikowski, de-
rives in excess of $50,000 gross annual revenues from
the operation of the taxi dispatch system, we find
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)( I) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. During the course of the hearing, the Employer
asserted that the requested unit is inappropriate on
the ground that all of its employees are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. Although the six em-
ployees who are generally assigned to work at the
terminals are referred to in the agreement as "super-
visors," the record shows that they have no authority
over the collectors or any other of the Employer's
employees. Rather, their function is to assist in load-
ing passengers, to collect the tickets issued at the col-
lection booth, and to request that taxis be dispatched
from the taxi lot. The record also discloses that the
collectors and part-time employees have no authority
over any of the Employer's employees. We therefore
find no merit in the Employer's assertion. We find
that the following requested unit constitutes a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer at
its Open Taxi Lot Operation-San Francisco In-
ternational Airport, excluding guards. supervis-
ors, and confidential employees as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
4See %\itvnal Iraminpirltatin Seriei, Inc. 240 NiRB (1978). Mem-
her Murphs. ,who dissented in that case. finds this case distinguishable on its
facts, In that the taxi services prosided are not closely connected to the
airport operations and hence the "intimate connection" test is inapplicable.
She agrees that the facts herein reveal hat the Airport does not exercise
such "control" over the Emploer as to) require this Board to decline to
assert urisdiction here.
Sec ( o/ Boreion ( Cabh .socilion, 177 NLRB 64 (1969).
I P (7 Seril. Ilt. 122 N RB 394 ( 1958.
OPEN TAXI LOT OPERATION
.. . _ . . . ... . . .