El Paso-Ysleta Bus Co., Inc.

In the Matter of EL PASO-YSLETA Bus COMPANY, INC.' and DIVISION 1256, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAYS AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. L. Case No. 33-CA-45.Decided September 08,1950 DECISION AND ORDER On July 26, 1950, Trial Examiner Allen MacCullen issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached. hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, El Paso-Ysleta Bus Com- pany, Inc., El Paso, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Division 1256, Amalga- mated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Em- ployees of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all its x This appears to be the correct name of the Respondent rather than the name in the caption of the Intermediate Report. 91 NLRB No. 84. 590 EL PASO-YSLETA BUS COMPANY, INC. 591 employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment; and (b) In any other manner interfering with the effects of Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., to negotiate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Bargain collectively with the Division 1256, Amalgamated As- sociation of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described in the Intermediate Report attached hereto; (b) Post in conspicuous places at its terminal in El Paso, Texas, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in- sure that said notice shall not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the said Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with DIVISION 1256, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAYS AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following bargaining unit with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi- 2In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words : "Decision and Order" the words : "Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement : All bus.drivers, including relief drivers and the night man, employed by Respondent, but excluding the manager, super- intendents, office employees, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. EL PASO-YSLETA Bus LINE, INC., Employer. Dated -------------- By -------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER Mr. Joseph A. Butler, for the General Counsel. Burges, Scott & Hulse, by Mr. J. F. Hulse, of El Paso, Tex., for Respondent. STATEME\T OF THE CASE Upon a charge dated May 22, 1950, duly filed by Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L. (herein called the Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ( called herein respectively the General Counsel and the Board), by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region ( Fort Worth , Texas ), issued a complaint dated July 6, 1950, against El Paso-Ysleta Bus Line, Inc . ( herein called Respondent), alleging that Respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (5) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), 61 Stat. 136. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that on or about December 1, 1949, and thereafter , Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the Re- spondent's employees in an appropriate unit. Respondent's answer, while admitting its refusal to bargain with the Union, denied that its business affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in El Paso, Texas , on July 19, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner , Allen MacCullen, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent were repre- sented by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence upon the issues was afforded all parties. Both parties elected to stipulate all of the facts, and waived oral argument and the filing of briefs. E,L PASO-YSLETA BUS COMPANY, INC. Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT 593, Respondent is a Texas corporation, maintaining its principal office at El Paso, Texas, and is engaged in the transportation of passengers by motor bus between El Paso and Ysleta, Texas, and intermediate points. Respondent owns and operates approximately 13 busses and transports approximately 62,000 passengers a month. During 1947 the total revenue for all passengers transported was. $84,052.27, and during the first 6 months of 1948 the revenue was $48,428.35.' Respondent's operations are not licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion, and there is no exchange of passengers with any other transportation sys- tem. Respondent regularly transports to and from work employees of several national enterprises over which the Board has asserted jurisdiction in other proceedings. These include The Phelps Dodge Corporation and two large oil companies. In accordance with the Board's decisions in the representation case2 and in the unfair labor practice case' both involving Respondent, I find, contrary to Respondent's contention, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The parties stipulated, and I find that following a representation proceeding before the Board, the Board found that all bus drivers of Respondent, including the relief drivers and the night man, but excluding the manager, superintendents, office employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act; that following such representation proceeding an election by employees in said unit was held, and thereafter pursuant to the result of said election the Union was certified by the Board as the bargaining representative of the said employees; that on or about October 14, 1949, the Union requested Respondent to bargain collectively in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment with the Union as the exclusive representative of all of the employees of Respondent in the said unit, and that the Respondent did refuse and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union, and by such conduct has violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 1 At the hearing the parties stipulated that the commerce facts offered and received at prior hearings involving Respondent in a representation proceeding , 79 NLRB 1068, and unfair labor practice case, 85 NLRB 1149 , be considered in the present case the same as if incorporated in the present record as reflecting the business being conducted by Respond- ent for the period material to the issues in this case, and I find that during the year 1949 and the first half of 1950 , the nature and volume of Respondent's business remained sub- stantially the same as shown for 1947 and 1948. 2 El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, Inc., 79 NLRB 1068. ' El Paso-Ysleta Bus Line, Inc., 85 NLRB 1149. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and territories, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent on or about October 14, 1949, and thereafter, refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All bus drivers, including relief drivers and the night man, employed by Respondent, but excluding the manager, superintendents, office employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. On October 14, 1949, Division 1256, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. L., was, and at all times since, has been, and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on October 14, 1949, and at all times thereafter, to bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]