Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines

MILLER & MILLER MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 581 MILLER & MILLER MOTOR FREIGHT LINES and GENERAL DRIVERS, WARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AFL, PETITIONER. Ca 8e No. 16 RO-1157. November 25, 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 James P. Wolf, 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 Styles and Peterson]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain 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. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of the office and clerical -employees of the Employer at its Dallas, Texas, terminal office. The Employer asserts that the only appropriate unit is one which would include all its office and clerical employees on a system-wide basis and, in support of this contention, points to the inclusion of its over-the-road drivers and its pickup and delivery employees in units for which there has been a multiemployer bargaining history. There has been no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's office .and clerical employees. The Employer operates a motor freight line, with approximately 10 terminals at points throughout the northern part of Texas and 1 -in Oklahoma. A separate manager is in charge of each terminal, and there are also office managers who are responsible to the terminal managers at Amarillo, Dallas, and Fort Worth. Over-all direction of the Employer's operations is exercised by a "policy committee" located at the Employer's principal office and terminal in Wichita Falls. All field data from the terminal offices are correlated, and all disbursements are made, from the office at Wichita Falls. The terminal managers possess authority to hire and discharge em- ployees, subject to approval by the policy committee. There is a substantial difference in pay scales as between the various terminals, 101 NLRB No. 101. 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the office employees in Dallas being the highest paid.' The Dallas clerical employees, however, appear not to have participated in the Employer's group hospitalization plan. Although there have been some employee transfers, mostly on a permanent basis, among the various terminals, these have not included the Dallas office. For the reasons stated in the Board's recent decision in the Seagram case,2 we find the bargaining history for the Employer's over-the- road drivers and pickup and delivery employees not to be determina- tive of the appropriate unit, or units, for its office and clerical em- ployees. In view of the substantial degree of autonomy at the local terminal level, the geographic separation of the various terminals, and other facts above set forth, we believe that a unit confined to the office and clerical employees at Dallas may be appropriate .$ Accordingly we find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, terminal office, excluding all other em- ployees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] I The Employer asserts, in explanation of this differential , that many employees perform work outside the scope of their nominal classifications , as, for example, several types of clericals at Dallas who, in addition to their regular tasks, do filing, which is normally the function of file clerks. 2 Joseph E. Seagram d Sons, 101 NLRB 101. a Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 60 NLRB 1403; Associated Transport, Inc., 93 NLRB 1564. PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY and Om WORHffiis INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO AND ITS LOCAL 227, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORHF.RS, LOCAL UNION 716, AFL, INTERVENOR.1 Case No. 39-RC-524. November 25,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before a 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 'The Intervenor appeared at the hearing only for the purpose of protecting its con- tractual interest as representative of the Employer's electricians . It does not wish to appear on the ballot in any election directed herein. 101 NLRB No. 100.