Lynchburg Transit Co.

In the Matter of LYNCIIBURG TRANSIT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TEXTILE•WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 5-RC-18.-Decided Septeir„ber 9; 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held at Lynchburg, Vir- ginia, before John J. A. Reynolds, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds : 1. Lynchburg Transit Company is a public carrier providing bus service for the city of Lynchburg, Virginia, and environs. The Em- ployer transports approximately 10,000 individual passengers or 33,000 fares daily, an unspecified number being employees of com- panies engaged in interstate commerce.' None of the Employer's busses or drivers are licensed for interstate service. During the first 9 months of 1947, the Employer purchased busses costing $166,000 and other equipment and supplies at a cost of $50,971.19, all outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. During the same period, the Employer's total operating revenue was $545,906 of which $2,345 represented income from transit advertisements,' $46,340 from bus rentals, and $2,938 from charter and special bus services. The Employer does not carry any mail. During the first 9 months of 1947, the Employer received $81,000 to cover expenses incurred in servicing and repairing busses of Vir- ginia Stage Lines, Inc., an interstate carrier, and $25,000 to cover ' The record discloses that in 1944, the labor force of Lynchburg numbered 21,000 workers. The Employer , Red Bus Lines , Greyhound Bus Lines, Virginia Stage Lines , and other carriers share the transporting of these workers , the percentage each carries not being shown. 2 A survey of transit advertisements showed that 9 out of 13 are advertisements of local merchants. 79 N. L. R. B, No. 72. 546 LYNCHBURG TRANSIT COMPANY 547 similar services rendered to Trailways Service, Inc.,, and Safeway Transit Company.' -Under all these circumstances, and contrary to the contention.of the Employer, we find that the Employer is engaged. in-commerce with- in the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.4• 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. ' . 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section •9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees engaged in the opera- tion and maintenance of Lynchburg Transit Company busses, exclud- ing office and clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer asserts that this unit is inappropriate, contend- ing that the bus operators and the maintenance employees do not have common interests and therefore should not be joined in the same unit. We find no merit -in this contention. We have previously held that bus operators and maintenance employees may with equal appropriate- ness constitute separate units or be included in a single unit.5 - The Employer further contends that, in any case, the unit should not in- clude mechanics and mechanics' helpers, as they constitute a craft. The record does not disclose the degree of skill possessed by the me- chanics and their helpers. However, even assuming that they con- stitute a skilled craft group, we have heretofore held that, although such a group may function as a separate unit, it also may constitute part of a larger units As no labor organization is here seeking to represent the bus operators, or the maintenance employees, or the mechanics and their helpers, in a separate unit, we shall include all these employees in a single unit. The parties disagree on the status of four bus operators.7 The Employer would include them in the unit, but the Petitioner contends that they are supervisors and therefore should be excluded. The four a The record discloses that the principal officers and controlling stockholders of the Employer also occupy similar positions in Virginia Stage Lines, Inc, Safeway Transit Co , Charlottesville and Albemarle Bus Co., Roanoke Railway and Electric Co ., and several other ,carriers. 4 Matter of Safety Motor Transit Corp , 78 N. L. R . B. 831 ; Matter of Wichita Transportation Corp., 73 N. L R.' B. 1070 ; ' Matter of Tampa Transit Lines, Inc., 71 N. L. R. B 742. While Board Member Gray would not assert jurisdiction for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Matter of Amarillo , Bus Company, 78 N. L. R B. 1103, he considers himself bound by the decision of the majority in that case 5 Matter of Auto Interurban Co , 73 N. L. It. B 214 ; Matter of Pennsylvania Lines, et al, 3 N. L. R B. 622, 665. 6 Matter of Norge Division, Borg Warner Corp , 72 N L. R B 1020 7 The parties agree to exclude O. S. Ryan, a former bus driver who is now a permanent safety instructor 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bus operators in question have at various times acted as safety instruc- tors. The duty of the Employer's safety instructors is to conduct classes for newly employed bus operators, giving them instructions -from texts in bus operation and safety precautions, and practical work in actual driving with the instructor present. The record discloses that an instructor may recommend the discharge of a driver if he is not proficient. The record is not specific as to the frequency with which these operators serve as safety instructors, other than that it is "occasionally, on a temporary basis." As these four bus operators thus exercise supervisory power only infrequently, and spend the greater part of their time performing the usual functions of a bus operator, we find-that those bus operators who serve as temporary safety in- structors are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall accordingly include them in the unit. We find that all employees of the Employer engaged in the opera- tion and maintenance of its busses, including the bus operators who act at times as temporary safety instructors, but excluding office and clerical employees, and all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, 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, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for the purposes of collective bargaining, by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. . 8 Matter of Electric Auto-Late Co., 76 N. L R. B. 1189.