Union Bus Lines, Inc.

In the Matter of UNION Bus LINES, INC., EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY, AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 1142, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 39-RC-74.Decided July 8, 19.1,9 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before Elmer Davis, hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the transporta- tion of passengers by motor bus in the State of Texas. In this connec- tion it operates approximately 60 busses which cover between 350,000 and 400,000 miles and carry approximately 100,000 passengers per month, respectively. The Employer realizes a gross income of approximately $100,000 per month. The Employer purchases all of its equipment locally. All busses owned by the Employer and having a present value of approximately $500,000 were purchased and delivered to it from points outside of the State of Texas. It holds a permit from the Railroad Commission of Texas; it does not operate under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Although the Employer's busses travel only within the State of Texas, it regularly interchanges passengers with several interstate bus 1 The Employer desired to be represented at the hearing by an attorney named Joe M. Kilgore, a member of the Texas House of Representatives . As the Texas legislature was. In session at the time of the hearing and Kilgore was unable to participate , the hearing officer and counsel who was present at the hearing for the Employer agreed that Kilgore would be allowed 2 days from the delivery of the transcript to review the record and if he considered the record inadequate that a motion to supplement the record would be entertained . On May 18, 1949 , the hearing officer received a letter from Kilgore which he construed as constituting such a motion . The hearing officer allowed the motion and by an order dated May 23, 1949, he received the following documents as part of the record : (1) a copy of a petition filed by the Petitioner in a representation case involving Bowen Motor Coaches ; (2) a copy of a contract between the Petitioner and Bowen Motor Coaches ; and (3 ) an affidavit by one Arthur C. House, manager of the Employer . In view of the fact that the Petitioner is not prejudiced thereby, the hearing officer's ruling granting the motion is affirmed. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 16. 107 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lines and provides through traffic over such lines by virtue of arrange- ments whereby a person can purchase a ticket from the Employer to almost any point in the United States. Furthermore, the Employer transports United States mail as part of its normal bus operations. On these facts, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.2 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.3 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's bus operators. The Employer urges that the appropriate unit should consist of all its employees, excluding supervisors. There has been no past bargaining history with respect to the Employer's operations. The Employer's operations are divided generally between operating, maintenance, office, and terminal employees. The operating em- ployees consist of approximately 15 or 20 bus drivers who work out of McAllen, Texas, in which city is located the Employer's home office; and of about 40 operators who live near and operate out of the Em- ployer's other terminals. They are paid on a mileage basis with hourly pay for lay-over and stand-by time. The operators, who are licensed by the Texas State Highway Department, are required by the Em- ployer to take an aptitude test and are not permitted to operate the busses until they have been thoroughly trained by experienced drivers. All operators are apparently under the separate supervision of the Employer's president and general manager. The Board has frequently held that a group of bus drivers as such may constitute a separate appropriate unit 4 The question in the in- stant case is whether the extelit of interchange alleged by the Employer to exist between bus drivers, maintenance employees, office and termi- 2 Cf. Matter of Surburban Transportation System, 82 N. L. it. B. 956; Matter of Chicago Gray Line, Inc., 81 N. L. it. B. 466; Matter of Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company (Red Arrow Lines), 79 N. L. it. B. 448. 2In its brief the Employer made a motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the Petitioner does not now and never had authority to file the.petition on behalf of any of the Employer's employees because such employees only signed application for member- ship cards and none of the employees are members of the Petitioner nor have they author- ized it to file the instant petition. In essence, the Employer's contention goes to the adequacy of the Petitioner's showing. We have repeatedly held that the question of whether or not a Petitioner has made a prima facie showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to direct or collateral attack. Matter of Henderson Lumber Company, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1392. Accordingly, the Employer's motion is hereby denied. 4 Matter of Central Swallow Coach Line, Inc., 82 N. L. R. B. 487; Matter of City Trans- portation Company, 80 N. L. it. B. 270 ; Matter of Maine Central Transportation Co., 80 N. L. R. B. 281. UNION BUS LINES, INC. 109 nal employees destroys the identity of the bus drivers as a separate bargaining unit. Although the record reveals that there have been some transfers of maintenance and office employees to positions of bus operators, the amount of interchange between the employees in all departments has been insubstantial.5 Accordingly, we find that the amount of interchange is not sufficiently great to affect-the identity of the bus drivers as a separate group. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All bus operators of the Employer, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.6 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Union Bus Lines, Inc., McAllen, Texas, 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 supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sec- tions 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were em- ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur- ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily 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 by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1142, AFL for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5 Maintenance and clerical employees have occasionally operated regular and charter busses. Also, during the period of the last 6 months two employees have devoted part of their time to the maintenance department and part to driving busses. 9 The Petitioner desires to exclude dispatchers from the unit as supervisors. The Employer contends that they are not supervisors and should be included in the unit. The record is inadequate to determine the supervisory status of dispatchers . For this reason, we shall make no determination with respect to the exclusion or inclusion of these employees from the unit at this time. If they possess supervisory powers within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act, they are to be excluded from the unit ; otherwise they are to be included. Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 80 N. L. it. B. 334.