Yellow Cab Co. of Daly City

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 4, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 141 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

YELLOW CAB COMPANY
Yellow Cab Company d/b/a Yellow Cab Company of
Daly City and Office and Professional Employees,
Local 3, Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
20-RC-1 1541
January 4, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBFRS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On September 7, 1973, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above -entitled proceeding, in which
he found that the three assistant managers (formerly
dispatchers) constituted a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act. Thereafter , in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision , asserting error in
failing to find the assistant managers to be supervi-
sors.
By telegraphic order dated October 17, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the Em-
ployer's request for review and stayed the election
pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review, and finds
as follows:
The Employer, a Nevada corporation, operates a
fleet of 18 taxicabs in Daly City, San Mateo County,
California , where it also maintains an office under
the control of a manager . The office remains open 7
days per week except for certain early morning
hours, thus resulting in 19 work shifts per week.
During 5 of these shifts the manager runs the office;
the remaining 14 shifts are divided among the 3
141
assistant managers who perform the duties of the
manager for a substantial portion of their respective
shifts without any other employer official present.
The assistant managers who testified stated that
they had physically received a copy of their job
description enumerating their responsibilities. It
provides that the assistant manager is "vested with
the authority to layoff or send employees or drivers
home if reporting unfit for duty, or violation of
company rules." The job description further states
that assistant managers have the "authority to
effectively recommend discharge of an employee
under his [their] supervision for gross misconduct or
rule violation. Such disciplinary action shall be
subject to review by the manager." Moreover, each
of the assistant managers testified that in performing
their duties they had either "pulled a driver off the
street" or refused to dispatch drivers on certain calls
because of their improper conduct. Prior to May 13,
1973, the assistant managers were classified as
dispatchers and the record shows that also during
this period they had the authority to send drivers
home for violating the Employer's rules, such as,
excessive lateness, refusing to dispatch, taking too
long for lunch, or reporting to work under the
influence of alcohol.
On the basis of the foregoing, including the fact
that on many shifts the assistant managers are the
only representatives of management responsible for
the Employer's operation and the fact that they have
effectively exercised certain authority specified in
their job description so as to affect the employment
opportunities and status of drivers, we find that the
assistant managers herein are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, and, therefore, the unit found by
the Regional Director is inappropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
208 NLRB No. 21