Tampa Transit Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TADIPA TRANSIT LINES, INC., EMPLOYER and
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-19,30.-Decided November 22, 1946
Messrs. Ben Franklin and Seth Dekle, both of Tampa, Fla., for the
Employer.
Mr. J. R. Bailey, of Augusta, Ga., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. 0. D. Zimring and Frederic Meyers, both of Atlanta, Ga.,
and Mr. A. F. Steele, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Intervenor.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Tampa,
Florida, on August 14, 1946, before Albert D. Maynard, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The motion to dis-
miss made by Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway ^C
Motor Coach Employees of America, herein called the Intervenor, is
denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FIN DINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Tampa Transit Lines, Inc., a Florida corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of National City Lines, Inc., with common headquarters
at Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the operation of a bus transporta-
tion system serving the metropolitan area of Tampa, Florida. During
the current year 1946, the Employer has purchased, for use in its
transportation system, busses having a total value of $660 ,000, all of
which were obtained front points outside the State of Florida. So far
as other requirements are concerned , the Employer estimated that for
the year beginning August 1, 1946 , it would require , for the operation
of its transportation system, bus tires valued at approximately $36,000,
71 N. L. R. B., No. 125.
742
TAMPA TRANSIT LINES, INC. 743
to be obtained from points outside the State of Florida. Although
the bus transportation system of the Employer does not cross State
lines, the record indicates that it is at present the only comprehensive
system of public transportation in the Tampa metropolitan area con-
taining approximately 170,000 inhabitants., The record further
indicates that the Employer's bus system furnishes transportation to
or connects with numerous interstate travel facilities and manufactur-
ing establishments whose products move in interstate commerce.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.2
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor
Coach Employees of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Intervenor contends that no question concerning representation
has arisen and that the proceeding should be dismissed upon the
ground that (1) the Petitioner has not notified the Employer that it
claims to represent the employees herein concerned; and (2) that the
proceeding is barred by an existing contract with the Intervenor.
With respect to the alleged failure of the Petitioner to notify the
Employer of its claim to representation, the record discloses that,
although the conduct of the Petitioner prior to the filing of the present
petition may not have clearly indicated its claim to representation,'
any ambiguity in this respect was resolved by the filing of the present
petition inasmuch as the certification sought under the Act is predi-
cated upon the Petitioner's majority representation among the em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit., Since the record clearly
indicates that immediately thereafter the Regional Director notified
the Employer of the filing of the petition, we find no merit in the
Intervenor's contention that these facts are insufficient to raise a
question concerning representation.'
1 Although prior to August 1, 1946, the Employer and a concern by the name of Tampa
Electric Company shared the public transportation business of the Tampa metropolitan
area, the latter has since abandoned its transportation interests to the Employer.
2 See Matter of The Louisville Railway Company , 69 N L. R B. 691, and cases cited
therein
3 Although the Petitioner made no express claim to the ,Employer that it represented the
latter ' s employees , it presented to the Employer a petition signed by 73 of the 83 bus
drivers employed by the Employer, requesting the Employer not to negotiate with the
Intervenor on their behalf
* See Matter of Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 68 N L R. B 470
5 See Matter of The Ohio River Company (Illinois River Division ), 66 N. L. R. B. 128
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The further contention of the Intervenor that the present proceed-
ing is barred by reason of an existing bargaining agreement is based
upon the theory that the Employer is the successor of Tampa Electric
Company and therefore bound by a collective bargaining agreement
between the Intervenor and Tampa Electric Company, covering em-
ployees of the type herein concerned.6 Although it appears that the
Employer has purchased certain of the assets of Tampa Electric
Company, the evidence discloses that the Employer did not acquire
all of such assets or assume any obligations with respect to the em-
ployment of employees of Tampa Electric Company. The latter is,
moreover, still in existence and performing its primary function, the
generation and sale of electric energy. Accordingly, we find that
the contract between the Intervenor and Tampa Electric Company
does not constitute a bar to the present proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner, in agreement with the Employer, seeks a unit con-
sisting of all bus drivers employed by the Employer, including street
supervisors, but excluding dispatchers and other supervisory em-
ployees. The Intervenor, although otherwise agreeing with the unit
sought by the Petitioner, contends that street supervisors should be
excluded upon the ground that they are supervisory employees.
The Employer has in its employ three street supervisors whose
duty it is to direct bus drivers in relation to bus schedules, in the
course of which they make factual reports as to the observed operations
of particular bus drivers. Street supervisors on occasion operate
busses and maintain their seniority as bus drivers with respect to
their present employment. Although their factual reports may be
used as the basis for discipline or otherwise may affect the employee
status of bus drivers, such reports are not accompanied by any recom-
mendations on the part of the street supervisors who are not only
without authority to hire or discharge other employees, but also have
no authority to recommend such action.
We are of the opinion that the street supervisors in question have
insufficient authority to warrant a finding that they are supervisory
6 The Intervenor does not contend that there is presently in existence any contract di-
rectly between the Intervenoi and the Employer, it being undisputed at the hearing that
the last contract between the Intervenor and the Employer covering bus drivers in the
latter ' s employ expired on May 31, 1946, following the Employer ' s refusal to sign a new
agreement after it had received notification from a majority of its employees that they did
not desire the Intervenor to represent them in future negotiations with the Employer.
TAMPA TRANSIT LINES, INC. 745
employees within the meaning of our usual definition.' It is difficult
for us to understand the dissenting opinion's reference to "minor
irritants," in view of the fact that the Employer itself accedes to the
inclusion of the street supervisors in the unit. Accordingly, we shall
include them within the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all bus drivers of the Employer, including street super-
visors, but excluding the dispatcher, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Tampa Transit Lines, Inc., Tampa,
Florida, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possi-
ble, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by Brotherhood of
Railway Trainmen, or by Amalgamated Association of Street Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local Division 1344,
A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
Ma. JAMES J. REYNor.Ds, JR, dissenting in part :
I concur with the Decision and Direction of Election herein except
with respect to the three street supervisors whose inclusion within the
unit is an issue.
Evidently these employees function as monitors over the bus drivers
of the Employer-making factual reports relating to the work per-
'' Although it does not appear that street supervisors have been specifically included
under the recently expired contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, one of the
street supervisors has nevertheless permitted the Employer to check off his dues to the
Intervenor throughout the 4-year period in which he has been employed as street super-
visor.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formed by particular bus drivers thereby affording the Employer basin
to discipline the bus drivers for infractions of its various work rules.
In my opinion, the duties of the street supervisors are so related to
management's interests as opposed to those of the bus drivers that their
inclusion in the same unit as the bus drivers, or their representation
by the same union which represented the bus drivers, would not effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, it seems merely to
establish one of the minor irritants which, in the field of labor relations,
impairs and impedes the establishment of friendly effective bargaining
relations between employers and their employees.
I have always assumed that it was immaterial that the petitioning
union rather'than the employer objected to the inclusion of certain
employees within the unit, since the determination of the appropriate-
ness of the bargaining unit is exclusively a function of the Board.