Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 314 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and TRANS-
PORT `ORDERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 155
Case No. R-422 .-Decided March 31, 1938
Bus Transportation Industry-Investigation of Representatives : rival or-
ganizations ; controversy as to appropriate unit-Unit Appropriate for Collective
Bargainung-proposed unit of maintenance men, porters , and baggage clerks,
including or excluding ticket agents , at one point in company 's lines , inappro-
priate because other employees at the same point whose functions and interests
are closely allied to those within the unit are excluded-Order: dismissing
Petition for Investigation and Certification.
Mr. Henry Shore, for the Board.
Mr. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Mr. Charles H.
Young, of New Castle, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the T. W. U.
Mr. Paul R. Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. A. Lane Cricher, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Brotherhood.
Mr. Clyde J. Ringer, of Avalon, Pa., for the M. C. E. U.
Mr. Bernard W. Freund, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 22, 1937, Robert J. Davidson, field representative of
the Committee for Industrial Organization, acting in behalf of the
Transport Workers Union of America, Local No. 155, herein called
the T. W. U., filed with the Regional Director for the Sixth Region
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), a petition alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Pittsburgh Division,' Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. The petition was later amended to state
correctly the name of the employer as Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
Inc., herein called the Company. On October 21, 1937, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to
' At the hearing the T. W. U. defined "Pittsburgh Division" as including only the garage
and terminal operated at Pittsburgh; Pennsylvania, by Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.
314
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 315
Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to
conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On November 22, 1937, the Regional Director granted leave to in-
tervene to the International Association of Machinists, herein called
the I. A. M., a labor organization claiming to represent employees
directly affected by the investigation. On November 24, 1937, the
Regional Director granted leave to intervene to the Brotherhood of
Railway Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood, a labor organiza-
tion heretofore certified by the Board as the representative of all
bus drivers employed by the Company.2
On September 21, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the
T. W. U., and the I. A. M. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was
held on November 26 and 27, 1937, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, be-
fore Albert H. Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. At the commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner
granted leave to intervene to the 'Motor Coach Employees Union,
Inc., herein called the M. C. E. U., a labor organization claiming to
represent employees directly affected by the investigation. The
Board, the Company, the T. W. U., and the Brotherhood were repre-
sented by counsel ; the I. A. M. by its assistant director of research ;
and the M. C. E. U. by its acting organizer. All participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-;
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties.
The Trial Examiner permitted the T. W. U. to amend its petition
during the course of the hearing by substituting Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, Inc., for Pittsburgh Division, Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, Inc., and by restating its allegations with regard to the appro-
priate unit. On the second clay of the hearing the Trial Examiner
refused to admit evidence offered by the M. C. E. U. for the purpose
of proving that it had been designated as bargaining agent by certain
employees of the Company at Pittsburgh. This evidence was rele-
vant to the issue of whether the unit proposed by the T. W. U. was
appropriate, and should have been received. The Trial Examiner's
ruling was not prejudicial, however, in view of our disposition of the
case. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
2 3 N L R. B. 622.
316 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to leave granted by the Trial Examiner, briefs were filed
subsequent to the hearing by the Brotherhood and the I. A. M.
jointly, and by the T. W. U. On February 21, 1938, oral argument
was had before the Board in Washington.
Upon the entire record in the case,. the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
f
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is engaged in the bus transportation business in the
East and Middle West. At a number of points along its lines the
Company operates garages and terminals, among which are a garage
and a terminal at Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , which are here involved.
At the hearing the Company stipulated that it is engaged in inter-
state commerce , that a substantial part of the Company's business in
and out of Pittsburgh is interstate , and that all employees within the
unit claimed by the T. W. U. to be appropriate are engaged in the
operations of the Company. The Board has assumed jurisdiction
over the Company in two previous cases.3 The Company stipulated
that the findings of fact relating to the Company and its business
made by the Board in Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
et al. and The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , Case No. R-151,4
are true and that the record upon which those findings were made be
incorporated as part of the record in this case in so far as relevant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Transport Workers Union of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. Local
No. 155 of the T. W. U., formerly called the United Bus Employees
of America, has been authorized by the T. W. U. to organize em-
ployees of the Company in and about Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The president of Local No. 155 testified that the local admits to its
membership maintenance men, porters, baggage clerks, and ticket
agents employed in the Company's Pittsburgh garage and terminal.
The International Association of Machinists is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
its membership maintenance employees of the Company throughout
its lines.
The Motor Coach Employees Union, Inc., is a recently formed in-
dependent labor organization. It has solicited applications for mem-
bership among maintenance men, ticket agents, information clerks,
telephone operators, and baggage clerks employed by the Company
in Pittsburgh.
8 1 N. L. R. B. 1, and 3 N. L. R. B. 622.
4 3 N. L. R. B. 622.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 317
10
III. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its original petition the T. W. U. alleged that maintenance
men, porters, and ticket agents employed in Pittsburgh constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. During the
hearing the petition was amended in this respect to include baggage
clerks also. Both the I. A. M. and the Brotherhood contend that
the unit proposed by the' T. W. U. is not appropriate because it is
not an employer unit, a craft unit, a plant unit, or a subdivision
thereof. The record does not disclose that either the M. C. E. U.
or the Company takes any specific position regarding the appro-
priate unit.
At the Pittsburgh garage about 90 maintenance men and 3 or 4
drivers' room 'attendants are employed. Maintenance employees
are paid on an hourly basis, with very few exceptions, and receive
time and one-half for overtime. Two and one-half miles away, at
the terminal, the Company has employees variously classified as
starter, ticket agent, desk information clerk, telephone information
clerk, telephone operator, baggage clerk, stenographer, janitor, por-
ter ("red-cap"), ladies' room attendant, men's room attendant, and
ticket office clerk. On September 15, 1937, there were 7 ticket agents,
10 baggage clerks, 23 porters, and a total of 28 employees in the
other classifications with not more than 6 employees in any one
classification. Porters are paid $1 per month, depending on tips for
their livelihood. All other terminal employees work on a monthly
salary, with straight time for overtime. The Company has estab-
lished a seniority system among the maintenance men and among
the ticket agents, but not among the baggage clerks or porters.
Comparison of authorizations from employees submitted by the
T. W. U. and the M. C. E. U. with Company pay rolls for Sep-
tember 15, 1937, pursuant to stipulation by all parties, reveals that
the T. W. U. has been designated as' bargaining representative by
86 of the 90 maintenance men, 16 of the 23 porters, and 1 of the
7 ticket agents employed on that date and that the M. C. E. U. has
been designated by 4 maintenance men, 4 ticket agents, and 1 bag-
gage clerk. Four of these employees gave authorizations to both
the T. W. U. and the M. C. E. U.
The unit claimed by the T. W. U. to be appropriate excludes a
number of classifications of employees of the Company in Pittsburgh
whose functions and interests are closely allied to those of employees
included within the proposed unit. Porters and baggage clerks are
included, but not drivers' room attendants, janitors, or rest-room
attendants; ticket agents are claimed to be properly joined with
maintenance men, porters, and baggage clerks, but not any of the
other white-collar workers. The seemingly arbitrary exclusions
318 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6
from the proposed unit find no justification in the record. The unit
is not based on any craft or similar distinction, or predicated upon
any history of collective bargaining either in the Company's Pitts-
burgh garage and terminal or in the bus transportation industry
generally. We conclude that a unit composed of maintenance em-
ployees, porters, baggage clerks, and ticket agents employed by the
Company in Pittsburgh is not appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
In its brief filed subsequent to the hearing the T. W. U. indicated
its willingness to bargain for a unit composed only of maintenance
men, porters, and baggage clerks, in the event the Board should
determine that ticket agents should be excluded from the unit pro-
posed in the amended petition. In support of this smaller unit the
T. W. U. emphasized the fact that certain of the employees contained
within it work together at the terminal during peak periods to
get busses serviced and ready to leave on schedule. We do not feel
that this fact is sufficiently significant to warrant our setting aside
these three classifications in a separate bargaining unit. The con-
siderations governing our conclusion above that the larger unit pro-
posed by the T. W. U. is not appropriate are equally applicable here.
The I. A. M. and the Brotherhood also contended that no bargain-
ing unit restricted to the Pittsburgh employees of the Company is
appropriate. The I. A. M. states in connection with this position
that it represents maintenance men employed in garages operated by
the Company along its lines outside Pittsburgh. Since we have de-
cided on other grounds that the unit proposed by the petitioning
union is not appropriate, we do not find it necessary to consider the
merits of the contention made by the I. A. M. and the Brotherhood.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The petition in this case, as amended, relates solely to maintenance
men, porters, baggage clerks, and ticket agents employed by the
Company in its garage and terminal at Pittsburgh. We have found'
in Section III above that no proposed unit among these employees
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We there-
fore find, on the basis of the record in this case, that no question
has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Com-
pany in an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of the
Act.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire rec-
ord in the case the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of Penn-
sylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., in an appropriate bargaining unit
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 319
exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the
Petition for Investigation and Certification filed in this proceeding
in behalf of the Transport Workers Union of America, Local No.
155.