Transway, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

TRANSWAY, INC. 885
APPENDIX A-Continued
Case No.
Rego Maintenance Corp., et al_________________ ________ 29-RM-35
(Formerly 2-RM-1388)
Star Maintenance Corp., et al_ ________________________ 29-RM-36
(Formerly 2-RM-1389)
Cross Country Taxi Service , Inc., et al__________________ 29-RM-37
(Formerly 2-RM-1390)
Essex Maintenance Corp., et al________________________ 29-RM-38
(Formerly 2-RM-1391)
Eden Maintenance Corp., et al________________________ 29-RM-39
(Formerly 2-RM-1394)
Rodney Maintenance Corp., et al______________________ 29-RM-40
(Formerly 2-RM-1396)
Dynamic Operating Corp., et al_______________ ________ 29-RM-41
(Formerly 2-RM-1397)
Level Maintenance Corp., et al______________ __________ 29-RM-42
(Formerly 2-RM-1398)
Willow Maintenance Corp., et al______________________ 29-RM-43
(Formerly 2-RM-1399)
Terminal System , Inc., et al___________________________ 29-RM-44
(Formerly 2-RM-1400)
Haso Maintenance Corp., et al_________________________ 29-RAI-45
(Formerly 2-RM-1401)
Ilex Operating Corp., et al____________________________ 29-RM-46
(Formerly 2-RM-1402)
Helen Maintenance Corp., et al________________________ 29-RM-47
(Formerly 2-RM-1403)
Margol Operating Corp., et al_________________________ 29-RM-48
(Formerly 2-RM-1404)
Checker Garage Service Corp ., et al -------------------- 29-RM-49
(Formerly 2-RM-1406)
Tedmar Service Corp., et al___________________________ 29-RM-50
(Formerly 2-RM-1407)
Transway, Inc. and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers , Local 270, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Ind., Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-3024.
June 29,1965
DECISION ON REVIEW
On February 25, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 15 issued a
Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding,
153 NLRB No. 79.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finding appropriate a unit of all driver-loaders, and driver-night dis-
patch-loaders, excluding drivers and all other employees. Thereafter,
the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relation Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with
the Board a timely request for review of such Decision and Direction
of Election on the ground that the Regional Director departed from
officially reported Board precedent by excluding the drivers from the
unit. On March 31,1965, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the
request for review.
The Board 1 has considered the request for review and the entire
record in this case with respect to the Regional Director's determina-
tion under review, and makes the following findings :
The Employer is engaged in specialized motor transportation, the
essence of which is speed and reliability. Most of the business involves
the pickup and delivery of motion picture film between exhibitors and
distributors. A small portion of the business is the expedited handling
of certain kinds of U.S. mail, air freight, and magazines. The Employ-
er's central facility for distributions is located in New Orleans, Louisi-
ana. Its deliveries and pickups are made within the city and in the
surrounding area, extending into parts of four States. Its film dis-
tribution operations are generally performed during the night after
theatres are closed.
The Employer has some 70 employees, about 44 of whom are engaged
in driving and loading operations. The rest are mechanics and clerical
employees, not here involved. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit
of employees whom it characterized as warehousemen, comprising the
Employer's 7 driver-loaders and 3 loaders, and would exclude 2 employ-
ees classified as driver-night dispatch-loaders, 32 classified as drivers,
and all other employees. The Regional Director, as above indicated,
found appropriate a unit confined to the driver-loaders, loaders, and
driver-night dispatch-loaders excluding the 32 drivers and all other
employees. The Employer contends that under the principles of E. H.
Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 1006, the drivers have such a
community of interest with the employees sought as to require their
inclusion. We agree.
The record reveals that all employees in the classifications of driv-
ers, driver-loaders, and driver-night dispatch-loaders are engaged in
the functions of both driving and loading trucks. The employees in
the loader classification do no driving because of physical disabilities.
The employees in all four classifications are under the same supervi-
sion and all share the same benefits, such as profit-sharing plan, pen-
sion plan, medical program, insurance, and vacations. All but 2 of
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown , and Jenkins].
ARDUINI MANUFACTURING CORP . 887
those classified as drivers own their own trucks and are paid a fixed
amount for expenses in operating their vehicles. All in the driver
classification are paid a monthly salary. Those in the other classifi-
cations are paid an hourly rate, except when relieving a driver. Most
of the drivers reside in the areas they service. Some of them reside in
New Orleans and service the city and communities in immediately sur-
rounding areas. These drivers occasionally perform loading functions
at the central facility. The driver-loaders and driver-night dispatch-
loaders make deliveries and pickups in the New Orleans metropolitan
area and relieve or supplement the drivers when necessary because of
sickness, vacations, emergencies, overflow business, or for any other
reason. More than half of the drivers previously worked in other
driving and loading classifications.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record herein, especially the
fact that drivers and driver-loaders spend a substantial portion of their
time performing identical functions under common supervision and
the degree of integration existing in the Employer's distribution oper-
ations, we conclude that the drivers have such a close community of
interests with the other employees engaged in driving and loading
functions that they may not be excluded from a unit of the latter
employees. We find, therefore, contrary to the Regional Director, that
the drivers are included in the appropriate unit.
Although the unit found appropriate herein is larger than that
sought by the Petitioner, in accord with our practice, we shall not dis-
miss the petition but shall direct an election in the appropriate unit
conditioned upon the Petitioner's demonstrating, within 10 days from
the date of issuance, that it has made an adequate showing of interest
in such unit. In the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate
in an election in the unit found appropriate, we shall permit it to with-
draw its petition upon notice, in writing, to the Regional Director
within 5 days from the date of this Decision.
Accordingly, the matter is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 15 for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to
his Decision and Direction of Election, as amended herein, except that
the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immedi-
ately preceding the date of issuance.
Arduini Manufacturing Corp . and Sheetmetal Workers Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4593. June 30,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 27, 1965, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
153 NLRB No. 72.