Auto Interurban Co.

In the Matter Of AUTO INTERURBAN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 86, PETITIONER Case No. 19-R-1983.-Decided April 8, 1947 Paine, Lowe c6 Cofn, by Mr. R. E. Lowe, of Spokane, Wash., for the Employer. Mr. C. L. Bentley, of Seattle, Wash., for the Petitioner. Mr. K. C. Tanner, of Portland, Oreg., for the Intervenor. Cllr. Jerry Wohlmiuth, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Spokane, Washington, on November 15, 1946, before David C. Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OE FACT I. 'I IiE BUSINESS OF'1'ITE EMPLOYER Auto Interurban Company is a Washington corporation engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire from Spokane, Washington, to points within the State and outside the State in Idaho and British Columbia.' All the operations of the Employer are subject to the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. During the first 9 months of 1946, the Employer transported approximately 2,430,000 passengers on its busses, of whom a substantial portion were trans- ported across State lines. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. ' The Employer operates in British Columbia, Canada, through a wholly owned subsidiary, Auto Inteiurban Company of British Columbia. 73 N. L. R. B., No. 36. 214 AUTO INTERURBAN COMPANY H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 215 The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1075, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. 'I'IrE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRE SENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit Z' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all the Employer's maintenance employees in the Repair and Maintenance Department. The Inter- venor objects to the exclusion of bus drivers from this unit on the ground that both maintenance employees and bus drivers were in- cluded in the unit covered by its recent contract with the Employer. The Employer takes no position respecting the appropriate unit. We have previously found that bus drivers and maintenance em- ployees may with equal appropriateness constitute separate units or be included in a single unit.3 Under these circumstances, and par- ticularly in the absence of any substantial bargauung history to the contrary,4 we are of the opinion that the finding with respect to the appropriate unit or units should depend, in part, upon the desires of the employees. Accordingly, we shall direct an election anion', the employees of the Employer in the voting',toup described below. 1. All employees in the Repair and Maintenance Department, ex- cluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- 2 In April 1946, a contract was entered into between the Intervenor and the Employer effective until September 1, 1946, and to continue indefinitely thereafter unless terminated upon 30 days' notice by either party. On August 7, 1946, Petitioner demanded recognition of the Employer, and thereafter filed its petition herein. None of the parties contended that the contract is a bar to this proceeding, nor could it be, since it is one for indefinite duration. $ The problem was comprehensively discussed in Matter of Pennsylvania Lilies, et at, 3 N. L. R B. 622, 665 , and the decision in that case was reaffirmed in Matter of Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc, 52 N L R B 1532, 1535 4 As previously indicated, there was no collective bargaining history among the Employer's employees until April 1946 See fn. 2, supra 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action. We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this time. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the election. If the employees in the voting group select the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of the unit currently represented by the Intervenor. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 - As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Auto Interurban Company, Spo- kane, Washington, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as.agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by the International Association of Machinists, Lodge 86, or by The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1055, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. P4 CriArRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. 6 Any participant in the election hei ein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thei eof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.