United Transit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1047 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

UNITED TRANSIT COMPANY 1047
Since there is no indication that the "changes " were dependent upon the result of the election,
I do not construe the statement , in its context , as necessarily a threat of reprisal.
As to the statements of Haight and Gates , even if they are to be construed as coercive
under the circumstances (and as to this I make no finding ), they were two isolated instances
of such conduct In such circumstances I do not think they warrant a finding of violation.
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
UNITED TRANSIT COMPANY and DIVISION 618 OF THE
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC
RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3258. August 27, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold Kowal,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. i
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three - member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
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 represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
The Petitioner currently represents a unit of the Employer's
operating and maintenance employees . It now seeks to add to
this unit chief inspectors , inspectors , and starters . The Em-
ployer contends that the employees sought by the Petitioner
are supervisors and that the petition should therefore be dis-
missed.
The employees sought work in the Employer' s transportation
department , which is directed by the superintendent of trans-
portation. Under the superintendent are 2 assistant super-
intendents of transportation , 3 division superintendents, and
2 assistant division superintendents , all of whom are conceded
to be supervisors . There are also 2 chief inspectors, 20
inspectors , and 13 starters , who the Employer contends
are _supervisors while the Petitioner' s contention is to the
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss . For the
reasons hereinafter set forth, this motion is granted.
106 NLRB No. 149.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contrary . There are about 650 other employees in the trans-
portation department , 622 of whom are vehicle operators.
The chief inspectors spend 75 percent of their time observing
the work of inspectors and starters and 25 percent of their
time on miscellaneous assignments . They report to, and confer
with, the superintendent of transportation about the work of
starters and inspectors and make recommendations, which
appear to be given great weight , concerning promotions and
disciplinary action . They also guide and instruct starters and
inspectors in the performance of their duties . In view of
these facts , we find'that the chief inspectors are supervisors.
Inspectors work in squad cars patrolling the transportation
routes, and starters work at fixed points along these routes.
In all other respects , both classifications are essentially the
same and are collectively referred to as "street supervisors."
They are charged with the duty of maintaining the Employer's
schedules and service on the routes under their jurisdiction.
In the performance of these duties, they have discretion to
order the operators to alter their usual routes by skipping
stops, turning back short of the terminal , going beyond the
usual terminal , or making some other change in their customary
route . They may also, in their discretion , assign an operator
to a route other than the one to which he is regularly assigned
and may assign overtime.
In case of violation by an operator of the rules and regulations
of the Employer a "street supervisor " has authority to
discuss the matter with the offending operator and warn him
of possible disciplinary action or , in more serious cases, to
file a report , which invariably results in the operator reported
being interviewed by higher management . In cases of flagrant
violation of rules, such as operation of a vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol , the "street supervisor " has the
power to suspend the operator indefinitely, on his own initia-
tive, pending further action by higher management . There are
also specific situations , such as failure of an operator to pick
up passengers , where the inspector is empowered to request
the suspension of an operator . When as a result of any of these
actions on the part of a street supervisor, the offending operator
is interviewed by management , the street supervisor is some-
times called in to provide additional information or to make
recommendations concerning disciplinary action.
In addition to filing "violations reports," the street super-
visors also file "commendation reports" consisting of favor-
able comment on the work of an operator . All these reports
are incorporated in the operator's personnel file and great
weight is given by management to these reports in making
promotions or taking other personnel actions.
In addition to the above factors which tend to establish the
supervisory status of these employees , there is the fact that
to find these employees not to be supervisors would result
in a ratio of 1 supervisor to approximately 70 employees.
The Board will not overlook the impracticality and unreason-
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1049
ableness of such a ratio where the operation , as in the instant
case, is spread over a 400- square-mile area. 2
For the reasons stated above and on the record as a whole,
we find that the "street supervisors" responsibly direct the
Employer's bus operators in their work and that they are,
therefore, supervisors within the meaning of the Act.3 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 See New York City Omnibus Corporation, 104 NLRB 579.
3See New York City Omnibus Corporation, supra.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. and COOS BAY AREA DISTRICT
COUNCIL and JOHN TENVORDE. Cases Nos. 36-CA-317
and 36-CA-318. August Z8, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13, 1953, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway
issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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. 2 The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report , the Respondent's
exceptions , and the entire record in these cases, 3 and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications and additions.
1. The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred
in refusing to grant its motion for dismissal of Case No.
36-CA-317, based on the charge filed by the Coos Bay Area
District Council, because the record establishes that a local
had been formed and was in existence at the time the charge
was filed . As the record contains no evidence that the local
was in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act,
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
2 We find no prejudice in the Trial Examiner's granting the General Counsel's motion to
correct the pleadings and formal papers in these cases to conform to minor matters in-
volving dates in the proof. Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's ruling. Weaver
Wintark, 87 NLRB 351; see also Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc., 84 NLRB 1.
3Because the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the positions of the parties,
the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
106 NLRB No. 171.