Southern Truck Line

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 615 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SOUTHERN TRUCK LINE 615
the Employer and the Intervenor would exclude them from
the unit. Truckdrivers make both local and over-the-road
runs , and are paid on a trip rather than an hourly basis.
They help load their trucks at the plant, although they have
no regular duties there. The Board specifically included
them in a plantwide unit found appropriate in an earlier
proceeding involving the Employer and the Petitioner.' No
other Union is presently seeking to represent them in a
separate unit . We believe that, despite the disagreement of
the parties, the truckdrivers may appropriately be included
in a unit of production and maintenance employees. We
shall, therefore , include all truckdrivers in the unit.4
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's cathode ray tube plant in Passaic , New Jersey,
including truckdrivers , shipping and receiving clerks, and
factory clerical employees , but excluding salesmen , office
clerical employees , professional employees , guards, watch-
men, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3Case No. 2-RC-4329 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions). The Petitioner
lost the election directed in that case.
4Tell City Furniture Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 284. Insofar as Woodlin Metal Products
Company, 106 NLRB No. 50, and Boro Wood Products Company. Inc., 88 NLRB 886, are
inconsistent herewith, they are here overruled.
E. E. MCNEAL AND JOHN MARSHALL d/b/a SOUTHERN
TRUCK LINE and TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,HELPERS&
TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL , Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-2525. December 29, 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 David L.
Trezise , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
107 NLRB No. 131.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of truckdrivers and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Fayetteville, Tennessee,
terminal. The Employer contends that the only unit appropriate
here is a systemwide unit that would include the Employer's
only other terminal at Jacksonville, Florida. Jacksonville is
approximately 564 miles from Fayetteville. There is no history
of collective bargaining at either terminal.
The Employer employs a total of 16 individuals; 6 truck-
drivers, 2 maintenance employees, and 1 supervisor, all of
whom live in Fayetteville; and 4 drivers, 2 maintenance em-
ployees, and 1 bookkeeper, who live in Jacksonville.
The Employer's principal place of business and only office
if located at the Jacksonville terminal, where the payroll is
made up, checks are signed, and all records are kept. The
partner who manages the Employer's business spends most of
his time at Jacksonville. He formulates the labor-relations
policies for the entire business and exercises general super-
vision over both terminals. He is alone responsible for hiring,
discharging, promoting, and transferring all the employees at
both terminals.
The truckdrivers have no set routes and regularly make
deliveries out of either terminal. The duties of the maintenance
employees are to repair and maintain the trucks as well as
load and unload them, and also to perform general tasks in the
terminals. They frequently interchange between the two ter-
minals. Seniority for both the truckdrivers and the maintenance
employees is on a systemwide basis, and the rates of pay are
the same at each terminal. Other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, such as vacation and insurance benefits, are the same
for both terminals.
In view of the foregoing, including the centralized control of
labor relations and company operations, the uniformity of wages,
working conditions, and interests of the employees, and inter-
change of employees between the two terminals, we find that
the proposed unit is too limited in scope and that only a system-
wide unit is appropriate here.'
We find that the following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All truckdrivers and maintenance employees at the
Employer's terminals at Fayetteville, Tennessee, and Jackson-
1 Groendyke Transport, Inc., 92 NLRB 1332.
The Petitioner has made the necessary showing of interest in the larger unit which we
have found appropriate, and we shall therefore direct an election in the systemwide unit.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 617
ville, Florida , excluding the bookkeeper ,: and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2In accord with our usual practice, we shall exclude the bookkeeper , as she does not have
a sufficient community of interest with the other employees . Preferred Oil Company, 77
NLRB 770.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED and JAMES E. ELSEA
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON
SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL; DIS-
TRICT LODGE 57 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL; LOCAL 679 INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL; LOCAL 363 INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and JAMES E. ELSEA.
Cases Nos. 14-CA-940 and 14-CB- 188. December 30, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 31, 1953, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices , and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set
forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondents'
exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifi-
cations:
1. The Trial Examiner found that the 1950 Agreement be-
tween Respondent Ebasco and Respondent International Union
was invalid ab inito and is presently violative of the Act. We
agree.
1The Respondents ' request for oral argument is denied because the record and the Re-
spondents ' exceptions and briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties.
107 NLRB No. 143.