Pacific Greyhound Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 14, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 659 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and AMALGAMATED ASSO- CIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM- PLOYES OF AMERICA In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and BROTHERHOOD OF- RAILROAD TRAINMEN Cases Nos. R-926 and R-927, respectively SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS December 14, 1938 On October 29, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein- called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Elections i in the- above-entitled proceedings. On November 10, 1938, the Board issued- an Amendment to Decision and Direction of Elections 2 amending the- Direction of Elections in certain particulars here immaterial. On or about November 2 and again on November 29, 1938, Inter- national Association of Machinists, a labor organization affiliated with- the American Federation of Labor, by its acting international presi- dent, H. W. Brown, informally protested to the Board the conduct of the election directed in the Direction of Elections among employees- within the group therein described as group (b), for the reasons,- among others, as asserted by it, that it claims exclusive jurisdiction over certain, if not all, of the shopmen of Pacific Greyhound Lines,, herein called the Company, a party herein, employed by the Company elsewhere than at Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, that it represents such employees for collective bargaining purposes, and has so represented them in negotiating collective bargaining contracts with the Company. Thereafter, on December 12, 1938, Amalgamated Association of- Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America, herein called the Amalgamated, the petitioner in Case No. R-926,. one of the consolidated cases in the above-entitled proceedings,- lodged with the Board its verified and duly acknowledged Amended_ Petition for Investigation and Certification of Representatives pur-- 1 9 N. L . R B. 557. 29 N. L. R. B. 578 10. N. L . R. B., No. 62. 650 660 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the second amended petition of the Amalgamated. Said second amended petition is hereby ordered filed instanter. The second amended petition alleges that there now exists a dis- pute within the American Federation of Labor between the Amal- gamated and the said International Association of Machinists "con- cerning jurisdiction over certain of the employer's shop employees, [in] the election directed in Paragraph (b) of the Board's Direction of Elections of October 29, 1938, as amended November 10, 1938," and requests "certification in a unit excluding the shop employees as to which the dispute" exists. In the amended petition filed herein by the Amalgamated before the hearing, the Amalgamated claimed to represent, among other employees of the Company, all shopmen except shop employees at San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. Moreover, the Amalgamated claimed in said amended petition and at the hearing that said shopmen, with the exception noted, come within the larger single unit which the Amalgamated then con- tended was appropriate for bargaining purposes. From the allega- tions of the second amended petition of the Amalgamated, however, it appears that a jurisdictional dispute exists between itself and said International Association of Machinists as to shop employees of the Company other than those in the two mentioned cities. The Board does not resolve such jurisdictional disputes.3 However, since the Amalgamated by virtue of its second amended petition neither makes claim to represent shopmen nor contends that they are part of an appropriate bargaining unit or units, the Board will by its amendment hereinafter exclude them from these proceedings. Such exclusion does not affect the interest of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood, a party herein, nor of the Company, adversely. The second amended petition of the Amalgamated sets forth, among other things, that the "Description of the bargaining unit which petitioner claims as appropriate," is as follows : Unit 1: All employees except those in executive and super- visory capacities, shop employees and bus drivers. Unit 2: All bus drivers. During the hearing herein, and in the amended petition filed by the Amalgamated prior to the hearing, the Amalgamated claimed that all employees of the Company,4 except those in executive and supervisory capacities and shopmen in San Francisco and Los 8 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America and Aluminum Workers Union No 1910, 1 N. L R B 530; Matter of Curtis Bay Towing Company and Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Association No 5, 4 N L R B 360, and cases therein cited. 4 This was interpreted in the Decision and Direction of Elections as meaning bus drivers, and station , clerical , and shop employees DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661 Angeles, constituted an appropriate bargaining unit. In view of the above allegations of the second amended petition, construed together with the first amended petition and in the light of the record, it appears that the Amalgamated now advances the claim that several units could be found by the Board to constitute appropriate bar- gaining unit or units, viz : (a) a unit composed of bus drivers, alone; (b) a unit composed of bus drivers, station employees, and clerical employees, exclusive of executives and supervisory em- ployees; and (c) a unit composed of station and clerical employees ex- clusive of bus drivers, executives, and supervisory employees. In the Decision and Direction of Elections, the Board found that unit (a) above, now advanced by the Amalgamated as a possible appropriate unit, could be found to constitute an appropriate bar- gaining unit; 5 and upon the principles set forth in said Decision and Direction of Elections, unit (b) above, which differs from the larger unit there found appropriate only with respect to the exclu- sion of shopmen, a matter immaterial herein, likewise could be found to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Concerning unit (c) the Decision and Direction of Elections indicates merely that such a unit, the exclusion of all shopmen being immaterial, only could be found appropriate upon the contingency that the Brotherhood suc- ceeded in polling a majority of the votes. in the election directed among the bus drivers, and the Amalgamated secured a majority in the other election among employees in the residual group. For present purposes, however, it is unnecessary to determine whether unit (c) also could be found appropriate, upon the record here pre- sented , apart from the occurrence of such contingency. In the Decision and Direction of Elections the Board stated that the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections directed would determine whether the bus drivers alone constitute an appro- priate unit or, whether they comprised part of the larger unit. The Board also indicated, as discussed below, that upon a certain con- tingency certification: could be had in a residual unit. - The prin- ciples there announced would be applicable, under the circumstances of this proceeding, to a determination of the various units which the Amalgamated now advances as constituting appropriate units. We note only one difference. Inasmuch as the Amalgamated now agrees with the Brotherhood that the bus drivers could constitute alone' an appropriate bargaining unit, we are of the opinion-that if the Amalgamated failed to secure a majority. vote in an, election conducted among employees,in the residual group, i. e., unit (c) This was the unit contended by the Brothl rhood to be appropriate. 147841-39-vol. 10-43 662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD above, a majority vote in its favor in the election among bus drivers nevertheless should be deemed to determine that a unit composed only of bus drivers was appropriate for collective bargaining. In other words, a vote for the Amalgamated in unit (a), would be interpreted as expressing a preference for the larger unit (b) if the Amalgamated polled a majority in unit (c), but if the Amalga- mated acquired no such majority in unit (c), then for the unit com- posed only of-bus drivers, i. e., unit (a). In this manner the Amal- gamated may, if it obtains a majority in both the bus driver and the residual group, be certified for the single larger unit as origi- nally requested; on the other hand if it obtains a majority in the bus-driver group alone it may, in the same manner as if the Brother- hood obtains a majority among the bus drivers, be certified for that unit alone. In this connection it 'is unnecessary to decide, and we express no opinion concerning, the appropriateness of the above units where another labor organization is involved which claims that a company-wide unit is the only appropriate one. The Amalgamated in its second amended petition makes applica- tion to the Board as follows: The undersigned requests that pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations ,Board investigate such controversy and certify to the parties the name or names of the representatives that have been desig- nated or selected by said employees. The undersigned further requests in the alternative either that the Board amend its Di- rection of Election herein so. as to provide for two simultaneous elections amongst the employees in the respective units described above . (Units 1 and 2), or that the election amongst the bus drivers now scheduled to commence December 15, 1938, be or- dered postponed until your Petitioner has had an opportunity to be heard by the Board, both orally and by brief. By "simultaneous" we presume the Amalgamated means at about the same time. Its above requests,for an investigation and certifi- cation and for elections must be read in the light of its amended petition filed before the hearing, and with regard to what has been set forth above as to its present position concerning the three` possible appropriate units. The Board is of the opinion that the, requests or applications thus understood, or such part thereof as the case may be, should be granted, in manner hereinafter set forth. The Brotherhood is disinterested in such an allowance, and the Company would not be adversely affected. In so far as the second amended petition contains any other applications or requests inconsistent with the, DECISIONS AND ORDERS 663 Decision and Direction of Elections, as heretofore and herein amended, such applications and requests are denied. Accordingly, the Board hereby amends the Direction of Elections, as amended, by striking from the paragraph therein contained relat- ing to the election to be conducted among employees in group (b), the following words : All the station, clerical, and shop employees of Pacific Grey- hound Lines, San Francisco, California, exclusive of those shop- men employed at Los Angeles and San Francisco, and by substituting therefor the following words : All the station and clerical employees of Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Francisco, California, exclusive of executives and supervisors, The Board will ascertain and determine the appropriate' unit or units and representative or representatives upon the basis of the results of the elections directed, in accordance with the following principles, anything in the Decision and Direction of Elections to the contrary notwithstanding : If a, majority ° of the bus drivers vote for the Brotherhood in the election directed in the Direction of Elec- tions, as amended heretofore and herein, among the employees in group (a) therein, the Board will determine that the bus drivers of the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, and the Board will certify the Brotherhood as the duly chosen representative of that unit. If a majority of the bus drivers vote for the Amalgamated in said election directed among em- ployees in said group (a), and if a majority of the employees in the election directed in the Direction of Elections, as amended hereto- fore and herein, among employees in group (b) therein, vote for the Amalgamated then the Board will determine that the bus drivers, and station and clerical employees, exclusive of executives and super- visors of the Company constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, and the Board will certify the Amalgamated as the duly chosen repre- sentative of that unit. In the event the Brotherhood secures a ma- jority vote in the said election among bus drivers and the Amalga- mated does likewise in the said election conducted among the re- mainder of the employees, by virtue of this fact, the Board will certify the Amalgamated as the exclusive bargaining representative of the station and clerical employees, exclusive of executives and supervisors. Lastly, if a majority of the bus drivers in the election directed among them vote for the Amalgamated, but a majority of All majorities herein referred to must be such under the rules governing elections laid down in our prior decisions. 664 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the remaining employees in the other election directed do not vote for the Amalgamated, the Board will determine that the bus drivers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, and the Board will certify the Amalgamated as the duly chosen representative of that unit. It is hereby ordered that a copy of this Second Amendment to Decision and Direction of Elections be served upon International Machinists of America. And, the Board having been advised by the Regional Director that a longer period within which to hold the elections directed is neces- sary, hereby further amends the Direction of Elections, as amended, by striking therefrom the words "within sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction" and substituting therefor the words "within ninety (90) days from the date of this Direction." The Board also hereby amends the Decision and Direction of Elections by striking from footnote 6 thereof the words "of its members." MR. EDWIN S . SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Second Amendment to Decision and Direction of Elections.