Frank McCann Corp.

In the Matter Of FRANK MCCANN CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and TAXI- CAB, Bus, FUNERAL DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION $k496, INTERNATIONAL. BROTI4ERI300D OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,. W ARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-11 !9.Decided December 16, 1919 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Leo J. Hal- loran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The business of the Employer The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation with its place of busi- ness in Boston, is engaged in the operation of a private livery service. Automobiles driven by its own chauffeurs are provided by the Em- ployer on both a contract and a direct fee basis for local and out-of- State trips. The Employer does not have an Interstate Commerce Commission license. During the year extending from July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1949, the Employer's income amounted to approximately $104,477, about 90 percent of which was derived from trips within the State, and the remainder from trips into other States. During the same period, the Employer expended $19,463 for new cars, $7,099 for gasoline and oil, and $1,325 for tires. The Employer neither admits nor denies that it is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. While we do not find that the operations of the Employer are wholly unrelated to commerce, we find that these operations are essentially local in character, and that the assertion of jurisdiction in this par- ticular case would not effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.' ' Cf. Hertz Drie-Ur-Self Stations, Inc., 78 NLRB 422. 87 NLRB No. 11.5. 577359-50-vol. 87-68 1057 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting : We would assert jurisdiction here because the Employer is partly engaged in transportation that crosses State lines. We believe that the operations of an employer directly engaged in such transporta- tion cannot be termed essentially local in character. Earlier decisions of the Board asserting jurisdiction over taxicab companies, sightseeing bus companies, and small bus lines support our position here.2 2 See Taxicabs of Cincinnati, Inc., 82 NLRB 664 (taxicabs) ; Bussard Taxi and Bus Service, 81 NLRB 1181 ; Chicago Gray Lines, Inc., 81 NLRB 466 (sightse[eing busses) El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, 79 NLRB 1069; Amarillo Bus Company, 78 NLRB 1103.