F. L. Roberts & Co., Inc.

In the Matter of F. L. ROBERTS & COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 404, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUS- MEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No.1-RC-733.Decided January 10, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 1 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The petition states that the unit requested is composed of "truck drivers on hauling and delivery of petroleum products," excluding garage mechanics, clerical and supervisory employees, and employees the Petitioner classifies as "oil-burner service men." At the hearing, however, the Petitioner indicated that it seeks to represent only the five employees who drive trailer trucks. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing inasmuch as it does not include all employees who drive trucks and handle petroleum products. The Employer is engaged in the sale and distribution of petroleum products and in the incidental installation and servicing of oil 1 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 -man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members. [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 11. 829595-50-vol 81 6 67 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD burners.2 It employs 21 individuals and operates 16 trucks 3 and a garage. All 16 trucks are used in some over-the-road delivery of petroleum products.' There are 13 employees who drive tank trucks and 1 mechanic. These employees have a common supervisor, the same working conditions, and the same employee benefits, and are in frequent association with each other. The five employees in the unit as defined by the Petitioner at the hearing are the only drivers who operate the trailer trucks. These drivers, however, also drive tank trucks, although they are never re- quested to service burners. The so-called oil-burner service men drive tank and other trucks and deliver petroleum products. They also install and service oil burners, but more than 50 percent of their working time is devoted to truck driving in hauling and delivering petroleum products. There is no effective history of bargaining by the Petitioner for the oil-burner service men. The Petitioner has apparently confined its organizational activities to the five employees it now seeks to represent.,' We fail to perceive any persuasive reason for distinguishing these five truck drivers from the other truck drivers employed by the Employer-' Under all the circumstances, we conclude that a unit confined to trailer truck drivers is too limited in scope and not sufficiently autonomous to be appropriate for collective bargaining; and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.7 2 Only 10 percent of the Employer 's revenue is derived from the installation and servicing of oil burners 2 The Employer operates 5 trailer, 6 tank, 1 dump , 1 21/2-ton , 1 pick-up, and 2 panel trucks. The trailer trucks have a special brake and weigh 25 tons when loaded. The tank trucks weigh 5 tons unloaded . Employees qualify for driving trucks by "try-outs" and recommendations. 4 The trailer and tank trucks are used for the bulk delivery of fuel oil , gas, and solvents ; the panel trucks are used for the delivery of cases of motor oil and solvents. We have held that the arbitrary grouping of employees by a labor organization be- cause it has limited its organizational activities to such grouping does not justify a finding of an appropriate unit on that basis. Matter of Hull-Rodell Motors, Inc, 79 N L. R B 1408 To accept such a basis would be to make the extent of organization controlling, which we may not do. Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, as amended . Matter of Westbrook Enterprises, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 1032. 6 The difference in the size of the trucks is immaterial . See Matter of Merchants Delivery, Inc, 72 N. L. It. B. 28 (pick-up and deliver ) , Matter of Thompson Products, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B 64, 67 ( heavy and panel ) ; Matter of Roane-Anderson Co., 77 N. L. R. B 953 ( truck and passenger car). The slight difference in and method of pay are immaterial. See Matter of Merchants Debtery, Inc, supra ; Matter of Chas. W. Bauermeister Co., Inc., 59 N. L. R B. 1127 . The additional duties of the "oil-burner service men" are not as important as the fact that they spend a good part of their time driving trucks. Matter of Standard Oil Co. ( Ohio ), Cleveland Division , 63 N. L. It B. 1248 (bulk station agents included with truckers on the basis of part-time driving ). The "farm truck operator" whom we separated from other truck drivers in Matter of Kallaher and Mee, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 802, was a service man who did not deliver any products. That case is clearly distinguishable from the instant situation in which all the so -called service men also deliver products 7 See Matter of Nolde Brothers, Inc., 79 N. L. It. B. 1245 (driver-salesmen unit too limited ) ; Matter of Roane-Anderson Co , 77 N. L. It. B. 953 (chauffeurs, too limited) ; Matter of Pryor Braun Transfer Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 1412 ( household movers, too limited). F. L. ROBERTS & COMPANY, INC. ORDER 69 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of F. L. Roberts & Company, Inc., filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No. 404, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.8 8 The language of the petition is broad enough to cover the unit we would find ap- propriate and we could , therefore, direct an election See Matter of Goodall Company, 80 N. L. R. B 562 . We are dismissing this petition , however, because the Petitioner failed to make substantial showing of interest in the larger unit. Matter of Raybestos Division of the Raybestos -Manhattan Company, Inc, 74 N. L. It. B. 1321.