Sun Valley Bus Lines, Inc.

844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although the oil companies, to which most of the Employer's services are rendered and almost all of its sales are made, are multi- state operations, the record does not demonstrate that any of the service stations for which the gasoline pumps are furnished or instal- lation services performed sell goods out of the State of Minnesota in the amount of $25,000 annually. On the basis of the above facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the operations of this Employer do not meet any of the applicable standards set up by the Board to determine the assertion of jurisdiction 3 Accordingly, although the Employer does not contest our jurisdiction, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert it in this case, and we shall dismiss the petition herein. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 Redfern Sausage Company, 98 NLRB 6. SUN VALLEY Bus LINES, INC." and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 1223 , PETITIONER SUN VALLEY Bus LINES, INC1 and SALES DRIVERS & HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 274, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEIVIEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER SUN VALLEY Bus LINES , INC.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 49, PETITIONER . Cases N08. 11-RC-2469, 1?1-RC-1461, and 21-RC-1476. Jtme 20,1959 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed, a. consolidated hearing was held before Martin Zimring, hearing officer. 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 99 NLRB No. 134. SUN VALLEY BUS LINES, INC. 845. 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2.. The labor organizations named below claim` to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units : The Employer is engaged in the business of a public carrier, trans- porting passengers, express, and mail. It operates 2 bus lines, 1 from Phoenix, Arizona, to Las Vegas, Nevada, and the other from Phoenix, Arizona, to and through the Williams Field Army Air Base in Arizona. The Employer services and repairs its own busses and, in addition, has been servicing the busses of Continental Trailways, Inc., on a contract basis 2 All the Employer's operations are carried on at 1 garage, in Phoenix, Arizona, where its maintenance and repair work is done and out of which its busses operate. The Employer has approximately 19 employees, consisting of 13 bus drivers, 4 me- chanics,3 and 2 servicemen, all of whom work under common supervi- sion. With one exception, the bus drivers spend all their time driving and perform none of the duties of the Employer's other employees. The mechanics perform all types of mechanical work, inspect the busses regularly, and, when necessary, perform ordinary service- man's work, such as greasing and washing the busses. The service- men, in addition to their regular duties of washing and lubricating vehicles and cleaning, assist the mechanics when necessary. The Petitioners in these cases, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach' Employees of America, Division 1223, herein called the Amalgamated ; Sales Drivers & Helpers, Local Union No. 274, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F.' of L., herein called the Teamsters; and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 49, herein called the I. A. M., seek to represent separate units of bus drivers, servicemen, and mechanics, respectively. The Teamsters and the I. A. M. indicated, however, that, if the Board should find a broader unit appropriate, they wish to appear on the- 2 At the time of the hearing , the Employer was not performing any work for Continentar Trailways , Inc., as the employees of the latter company were on strike Although the- Employer formerly employed four mechanics who worked only on Continental's equipment, these employees had been laid off at the time of the hearing A representative of the- Employer testified that, as the Employer's contract with Continental was on an oral, "day- to-day" basis, and as there was some doubt as to whether the Employer would resume this servicing work for Continental , these four employees had been permanently, rather than temporarily, laid off. S Excluding the four mechanics who formerly worked on the equipment of Continentar Trailways , Inc. See footnote 2, supra. * There is one employee who, although employed primarily as a driver and classified as such, spends part of his time painting the Employer's busses S46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ballot jointly and to represent jointly the employees in this larger unit.5 The Employer contends that, in view of the small size of its operation and the fact that all its employees work together and under the same supervision, only a single unit of all these employees is ap- propriate. There has been no bargaining history with respect to the Employer's operations. In the bus transportation industry, the Board has held that either :a unit of drivers and maintenance employees or separate groupings of these employees may be appropriate for collective bargaining pur- poses." In the instant case, however, no union is seeking to represent the Employer's employees in the more comprehensive unit and there is no prior bargaining history affecting these employees. Under these circumstances, and in view of the absence of any interchange of duties or close working relationship between the bus drivers and the maintenance employees, it would appear that the Employer's bus drivers ° and its maintenance employees 6 may each constitute a sepa- rate appropriate unit. However, as already indicated, the Teamsters and the I. A. M. would further subdivide the maintenance department into separate groups of servicemen and mechanics. The record shows that there is a close working relationship and a close community of interest between the Employer's mechanics and its servicemen. Thus, al- though the mechanics are more highly skilled and receive higher wages than the servicemen, all these employees work at the same place, under the same supervision, and all are engaged in the maintenance of the Employer's busses. Moreover, although there is a difference in the regular duties of the mechanics and the servicemen, as reflected by the difference in the degree of skills they possess, there is some interchange of duties between these two groups and all these em- ployees perform both repair and servicing work at times. On the basis of all these facts, we believe that the Employer's mechanics and servicemen are inextricably part of the Employer's maintenance de- partment and that a separate unit of either the mechanics or the servicemen would constitute only an arbitrary segment of this de- partment. Furthermore, there is no indication that the employees in either of these groups possess any special skills acquired by long training or through apprenticeship programs which would permit a finding that either the mechanics or the servicemen constitute a separate craft group which could be found to be an appropriate unit. 6 As the Amalgamated did not join in this request and expressed a strong preference for separate representation of the Employer's bus drivers, we construe this request as limited to a combined unit of mechanics and servicemen. Tennessee Coach Company, 88 NLRB 253, and cases cited therein. Gastonia Transit Company, 91 NLRB 894; Union Bus Lines, Inc., 85 NLRB 10T; Gate City Transit Lines, Inc., 81 NLRB 79. 3 Auto Interurban Company, 73 NLRB 214, and cases cited therein. FRANK BUICK COMPANY, INC. 847 Accordingly, as no basis, either craft or otherwise, exists for establish- ing a separate unit of either the mechanics I or the servicemen,10 we find such units to be inappropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following groups of employees con- stitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All bus drivers employed by the Employer," excluding .mechanics, servicemen, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All mechanics and servicemen and all other employees per- forming maintenance and repair work for the Employer, 12 excluding bus drivers, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the, Act. ([Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this -volume.] 9 Vevoda Motor Sales, 86 NLRB 573; Butte Motors, 85 NLRB 1336, and cases cited therein. '0 Navajo F,eight Lines, Inc., 96 NLRB 156; Greyhound Garage of Jacksouvalle, Inc., 95 NLRB 902 "As it appears from the record that , the one bus driver who spends part of his time doing painting work is regularly employed as a driver for a substantial number of hours each week , he is included in the unit and is eligible to vote. The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 884, Columbus-Celina Coach Lines, et at., 97 NLRB 777. 1' As stated above, there is one bus driver who also performs some painting work for the Employer. The record does not reveal , however, how much time this employee regu- larly devotes to painting If he is regularly engaged in such painting work for a sub- stantial number of hours each week, he is included in this unit , as well, and is eligible to vote The Ocala Star Banner, footnote 11, supra. FRANK BUICII COMPANY, INC. and LODGE 131(, INTERNATIONAL Associ- ATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-$90. June .'0, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Kyle, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 99 NLRB No. 125.