Clelland Bus Lines, Inc.

In the Matter of CLELLAND Bus LINES, INC., EMPLOYER and AMAL- GAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 1314, A. F. OF L., PETI- TIONER Case No. 10-RC-56.9.Decided July d1, 194.9 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing w<as held before M. A. Prowell, 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. 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, an Alabama corporation, furnishes bus transpor- tation over 13 established routes in, and within a radius of 45 miles from, Birmingham, Alabama. Twenty-six of its 43 busses are in regular operation over these routes. During 1948, the Employer's total revenue exceeded $200,000; during the past 12 months its expendi- tures exceeded $100,000. Of the latter figure $65,000 represents ex- penditures for gasoline and tires, purchased locally, but originating. from without the State. The Employer's busses pass by, or within a few blocks of, the plant sites and mines of nine companies whose businesses affect commerce and over which this Board has in the past exercised jurisdiction. The Employer's busses transport a few employees of some of these coin- panies to and from work. With respect to at least one of these routes, the Employer's busses are in competition with those of a competitor. We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the Employer is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of 85 N. L. R. B., No. 59. 306 CLELLAND BUS LINES, INC. 307 the Act, and we accordingly deny the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition.' 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 Employer and the Petitioner agree that all bus drivers and maintenance employees, excluding office and clerical employees, pro- fessional employees, guards, and supervisors, constitute an appropri- ate unit. The parties disagree as to the unit placement of the head mechanic, the extra board driver, and casual drivers, whom the Em- ployer would include and the Petitioner would exclude. The head mechanic, employed at the Employer's garage, instructs four to five assistants in repair work; he also performs some of the re- pair work himself and occasionally drives the Employer's busses. He receives higher pay than his assistants . He does some of the hiring for the garage and can effectively recommend discharges. We find that the head mechanic is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. The extra board driver and casual drivers are employed for a few months of the year, carrying school children and driving for special trips and during emergencies. The extra board driver, who has been in the Employer's employ longer than the casual drivers, is entitled to the first call for extra `work, and for this reason he maintains daily contacts with the Employer. The casual drivers, on the other hand, await the Employer's call for their services. Since the extra board man has established substantial rights with the Employer, we shall include him in the unit. Since the record indicates that the casual drivers have little opportunity or expectancy for work, we shall ex- clude them from the unit. We find that all drivers 2 and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer's bus company in Birmingham, Alabama, including the extra board drivers, but excluding office and clerical employees, casual em- ployees, professional employees, guards, the head mechanic, and other supervisors, constitutea unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 1 Matter of Cate City Transit Lines, Inc., 81 N. L. It. B. 79; Matter of El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, Incorporated, 79 N. L. A. B. 1068. 2 Included among the drivers and eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed are Douglas Lewis and Cecil Lewis, who are first cousins of the Employer's president. This relationship does not militate against their inclusion in the unit or their eligibility to vote in the election. 857829-50-vol. 85-21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit de- scribed 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 dis- charged 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 purposes of collective bargaining, by Amal- gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1314, A. F. or L.