Tennessee Coach Co.

In the Matter of TENNESSEE COACH COMPANY and AMALGAMATED Asso- CIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA , DIVISION # 1164, AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. OF L. Case No. 10-R-1110.-Decided March 9,1944 Cllr. Charles D. Snepp, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Company. Mr. C. C. Maples, of Strawberry Plains, Tenn., for the Union. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division #1164, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Tennessee Coach Com- pany, Knoxville, Tennessee, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George S. Slyer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 15, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared, participated , and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Tennessee Coach Company, a Tennessee corporation with its office and principal place of business located in Knoxville , Tennessee, is en- gaged as a common carrier in the transportation of persons between 55 N. L. R. B, No 66 362 TENNESSEE COACH COMPANY 363 various termini located in the States of Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, and West Virginia. In the course and conduct of its business the Com- pany purchased raw materials valued at approximately $650,000 dur- ing the past year, of which about 77 percent was obtained from points located outside the State of Tennessee. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division #1164, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board. A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit composed of all bus drivers of the Company. The Company contends that such a unit is inappropriate, and that the proper unit should include all employees of the Company exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees and dispatchers.2 The functional operations of the Company are divided between a me. chanical department under the supervision of a master mechanic, and a transportation department, which includes the employees whom the Union seeks to represent, under the supervision of a chief dispatcher. Each of these departments has a separate seniority roster, and in the I The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 56 application cards, of which 52 bole the names of persons appearing on the Company's pay roll containing the names of 114 employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate . He further reported that none of the applications submitted by the Union contained names of employees not included within said unit. 2 The Company argues, in support of its contention , that the Union had previously at- tempted to organize employees in the more inclusive unit which it claims as appropriate. We find no merit in this argument, since we are of the opinion that past organizational attempts do not preclude the Union from representing a more limited unit of employees if such a unit is, in fact, appropriate. See Matter of Standard Overall Company, 53 N. L. R B. 960 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD event of a transfer front one to the other, the employee so transferred retains his seniority in his original department, and begins to acquire seniority in the department to which he has been transferred. The Union has endeavored to confine its present organizational activities solely to the Company's drivers, and, as hereinbefore indicated, its rep- resentational claims are restricted to this group.3 We have previously found that a group similar to that sought by the Union constitutes a proper collective bargaining unit 4 In the absence of any prior history of collective bargaining on behalf of the employees of the Company, and in view of the foregoing circumstances, we are of the opinion and find that the unit proposed by the Union is appropriate. We find, therefore, that all bus drivers of the Company, excluding the chief dispatcher, and all other supervisory employees with author- ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, and all other employees of the Company, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. The Regional Director is hereby authorized to conduct the election in whole or in part by mail. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Tennessee Coach Company, Knoxville, Tennessee, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under they 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 Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among 9 See footnote 1, supra 4 Matter of Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 52 N L. R B. 424. TENNESSEE COACH COMPANY 365 the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre- ceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on va- cation 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 or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America , Division #1164, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.