Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et al.

In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES et al. and THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Case No. R-151.Decided September 14, 1937 Motor Bits Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concern- ing representation of employees-(a) in case of rival organizations: refusal by employer to recognize any organization until certified, by Board ; substantial doubt as to majority status-(b) in case of uncontested organization: refusal by employer to recognize until certified by Board--survival of existing contract between employer and labor organization subject to result of election and cer- tification of 'representatives by Board ; regular procedure required of labor organizations seeking election; unnecessary under Section 9 (c) of Act to show organization to be a "labor organization" ; evidence of company domination of labor organization inadmissible unless charge filed and complaint issued under Section 8, subdivision (2) of Act-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: where other considerations determinative of appropriate unit are evenly balanced, decisive factor is the desire and choice, of employees involved ; deter- mination of dependent 'upon election or other' proof of choice ; employer unit- Elections Ordered-Representtatives: proof of choice: signature of authoriza- tions designating union as collective bargaining agency ; agreements. to apply for membership in incorporated union-Certificatton of Representatives: upon proof of choice other than election. Mr. Malcolm F. Halliday and Mr. A. Norman Somers for the Board. Mr..ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Companies. Mr. A. Lane Cricher, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Samuel Harvey, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Brotherhood. Mr. D. C. Ellis, of Denver, Colo., for the -G. E. U. Mr. Lewis E. Bush and Mr. Richard Lewis, of New York City, for the I. M. C. E. A., Inc. Mr. Charles Ritchie, Mr. M. E. Boiarsky, of Charleston, W. Va., and Mr. E. B. Crossland, of Charlotte, N. C., for the I. M. T. E. U.,- Inc. Mr. David Kaplan and Mr. Paul E. Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Harry Sacher, of New York City, for the T. W. U. of A. Mr. Charlton Ogburn, of New York City, for the Amalgamated. Mr. William L. Wallace, of Lexington, Ky., for the Lexington Association, the Nashville Association, and the Birmingham Association. Air. Allan R. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board. 622 DECISIONS AND ORDERS DECISION DIRECTION'OF ELECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 623 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 13, 1937, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood , filed with - the Regional Director for the Eighth Region ( Cleveland', Ohio ) separate petitions alleging that questions affecting commerce had ' arisen concerning the representa- tion of the bus drivers employed by Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, and Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.,' both of Cleveland , Ohio, and requesting the National Labor Relations Board , herein called the' Board , to conduct investigations and certify representatives, pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat'. 449, herein called the Act. On May 22 and May 24, 1937, the Brotherhood filed similar petitions with the Regional Directors for the Ninth Region ( Cincinnati, Ohio), the Thirteenth Region (Chi- cago, Illinois), and the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) con- cerning the representation ' of the bus drivers ' employed 'by Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc., Charleston , West Virginia ; Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., Lexington; Kentucky ; Richmond` Greyhound Lines, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; and Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. On May 26, 1937, the Greyhound Em- ployees Union , herein called the G. ' E. U., also filed a similar peti- tion with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers, mechanics ; and depot employees of Southwestern Greyhound Lines. On May 22 and May 28, 1937, the Board , acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, authorized the above named Regional Directors 'to conduct investi- gations and provide for appropriate hearings upon the petitions filed by the Brotherhood concerriing 'the representation of the bus drivers employed by the several companies .' On May 28, 1937 , the Board further ordered, pursuant to Article III, Section '10 ^ (c) (1) and Section 10 (c) (2 ) of the Rules ' and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, that the foregoing cases be transferred to the Board and consolidated for all purposes. ' On June 7 and June 10, 1937 , pursuant 'to orders of the Board per- mitting the filing of petitions directly with the Board in Washing- ton, the Brotherhood filed petitions for investigation and certification of representatives of bus drivers employed by Ohio Greyhound Lines, 624 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inc., Chicago, Illinois, and Capitol Greyhound Lines, Inc., Charles- ton, West Virginia. On June 16, 1937, pursuant to a similar order of the Board, the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees' Union, Inc., herein called the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., filed with the Board a peti- tion for investigation and certification of representatives of all the employees of Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc. On June 18, the Board, by appropriate order, directed that the case in which the G. E. U. had filed its petition for investigation and certification be consolidated with the foregoing cases for all purposes. On June 23 and June 26, 1937, the Board issued a notice and amended notice of hearing to be held in Washington on July 1, 1937, copies of which were duly served upon the eight companies, the three petitioning unions, and the Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec- tric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America, herein called the Amalgamated. On July 6, 1937, the Board issued a notice of the adjournment of the hearing to July 12 in Washington, which was duly served upon the International Union, United Automobile Work- ers of America, and the Transport Workers Union of America. On July 19, 1937, the Board issued a further notice of hearing to be held on July 26, 1937, in Washington, which was duly served on the South- eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., the Brotherhood, and the Consoli- dated Coach Operators Association of Lexington, Kentucky, the Nashville Greyhound Coach Operators and Maintenance Employees Association, and the Birmingham Coach Operators and Maintenance Association, herein called, respectively, the Lexington Association, the Nashville Association, and the Birmingham Association. Pursu- ant to the above named notices, a hearing was held in Washington on July 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and again on July 26, 1937, before Robert M. Gates, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing, the Amalgamated moved and was granted leave to intervene in all cases involving the employees of the eight com- panies. The Interstate Motor Coach Employees Association, Inc., herein called the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., which moved to intervene in the cases involving the employees of Central Greyhound Lines, - Inc., Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., was in the first case permitted and in the latter two cases denied leave to intervene. The International Association of Machin- ists, herein called the I. A. M., moved and was granted leave to inter- vene in cases involving the employees of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. The Transport Workers Union of America, herein called the T.W. U. of A., after appearing by counsel at the hearing, moved, but was denied leave to intervene in all foregoing eight cases. The Lexington Association, the Nashville Association, and the Birming- DECISIONS AND ORDERS 625 ham Association filed an Intervening Petition and Answer in the case involving the bus drivers of Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., and were granted leave to intervene. During the hearing, the Brotherhood amended its petition in the case of Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., by moving to exclude' there- from the bus drivers employed by each of the following companies : Eastern Greyhound Lines, a division of Greyhound Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; Canadian Greyhound Lines, Ltd., Windsor, On- tario, Canada; and Illinois Greyhound Lines, Inc., Chicago, Illinois: On July 2, 1937, the Brotherhood filed separate petitions for investi- gation and certification of representatives of the bus drivers em- ployed by each of these three companies. On the same day the Brotherhood, pursuant to leave granted by the Board, also filed peti- tion for investigation and certification' of representatives of bus drivers employed by Union Bus Company, Inc., Jacksonville, Flor- ida, which the Board, by appropriate order, on July 6, 1937, consoli- dated with the foregoing cases. During the hearing, the Brother- hood also moved and was granted leave to have its petition with respect to Union Bus Company be taken to include the bus drivers employed by Southeastern Management Company,. Jacksonville, Florida. On August 5, 1937, after the hearing, the Drivers' Club filed a' petition 1 for investigation and certification of representatives of bus drivers employed by -Southeastern Management Company.2i This petition will be denied, as explained below. On September 1, 1937, the I. A. M. filed a petition for investiga- tion and certification of garagemen and mechanics employed by Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc. This petition also will be denied, as explained below. On August 31, 1937, after the hearing, A. H. Keeler, an organizer for the Brotherhood of Motor Transport Workers, claiming to rep- resent Greyhound employees, filed a letter, in which he asked leave to intervene for the purpose of opposing generally the right of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen to organize bus drivers. On September 9, 1937, the T. W. U. of A. filed a motion to intervene in the case involving the employees of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines for the purpose of requesting an election among all the employees. Both motions will be denied, as explained below. 1 The petition was in the form of a letter dated August 4, 1937, asking to be "ap- pointed" by the Board as the bargaining agency for the drivers or, if an election should be ordered , to be given a place upon the ballot . The letter was accompanied by signed petitions and a number of ballots Copies of this letter were duly served upon the Brotherhood and the Southeastern Management Company 2 The relationship of this company to Union Bus Company, Inc. and the Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc, is described at p 647, infra 626 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the hearing, the Board, the Greyhound Companies,3 the Broth- erhood, the Amalgamated, the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., and the T. W. U. of A. were represented by counsel. The G. E. U., the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., and the I. A. M. were represented by one or more of their offi- cers; counsel for the Lexington, Nashville, and Birmingham Asso- ciations sent a witness to testify at the hearing and filed exhibits by mail. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded, all parties.. Objections to the introduction of evidence were made during the course of the hearing by counsel for the parties, and after the hearing, briefs were submitted on behalf, of the Amalga- mated and the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial, errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT ATLANTIC GREYHOUND LINES 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with Virginia and Ohio subsidiaries,, having, its principal place of business in, Charleston, West Virginia.4. For the purposes of this proceeding, the companies, taken together, constitute one employer, doing business as Atlantic Greyhound Lines, herein called Atlantic.5 Atlantic is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, baggage, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsyl- vania, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida and the District of Columbia. Its consolidated gross revenue for the year ending December 31, 1936, was $4,600,160.55, and on that date its total consolidated assets were $5,210,358.87.11 On May 31, 1937, it operated 186 buses, for the safe and regular operation of. which it, maintains garages and repair shops in various'cities along its routes. On that date it employed a total of 755 employees, of whom 295 were bus drivers and 169 mechanics? 3 Except Southeastern Greyhound Lines 4 For details of corporate control, see the application of Atlantic Greyhound, Lines et at filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission , under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, Board Exhibit No 27. G The interrelationships of these companies are similar to those of the Companies con- stituting Central Greyhound Lines, which we also treat as a single employer unit, for reasons explained at pp 656-659, infra. ° Board Exhibit No. 15. ? Board Exhibit No. 18 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 627 As corporations whose voting capital stock is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, the com- panies in the Atlantic group are closely affiliated with other Grey- hound Systems in the Greyhound, Lines; and by means of joint op- erating, traffic, and facility arrangements. with these Systems, and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines, they operate as a closely coordinated part. of an integrated system of national transportation." . II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED . A. The petitioning unions 1. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen The Brotherhood , which is involved in all of the cases herein, is a nationwide labor organization , founded in 1883, to represent railroad trainmen in the train and, yard service . : Since November 1933, it has admitted motor bus drivers to membership. 2. The Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc. The I. M. T. E. U., Inc., a West Virginia corporation, with its principal place of business in Charleston , West Virginia, was formed shortly after the Supreme 'Court'decisions on April 12 , 1937, uphold- ing the constitutionality of, the Act. The incorporators and other persons active in its formation were committeemen and active mem- bers of the company union , which they understood was outlawed by the Act, but which they wished to continue as the bargaining agency for, all the employees of Atlantic without, as they testified , any fur- ther influence by the,, employer, of, the kind that had existed in the past. It admits to membership ,all, employees who are actively en- gaged as , bus operators , maintenance, traffic, and clerical employees of Atlantic, who are not in supervisory positions .0 One of the,pur- poses of the organization,;as described in its charter, is 5. To act as a bargaining agency for the employees of the At- lantic Greyhound Corporation (sic), or its successors and assigns, when selected by such employees for such purpose, to deal with their employer , concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of pay; hours of employment or conditions of work.10 _ As thus organized , the I. M. T.. E. U., Inc., is a. labor organization 11 8 For a description of ,the Greyhound Systems, see Matter 6f Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, Greyhound Management Company, 1 N. L. R. B. I. U Atlantic Petitioner 's I. M. T E. U. Inc. Exhibit No. 32. 10 Atlantic Petitioner 's I. M. T. E. U. Inc. Exhibit No. 18. "The Brotherhood sought to show that the I . M. T E U., Inc, was company- sponsored . This phase of the proceeding is discussed at p 642, infra. 628 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The intervenors 1. The International Association of Machinists The I. A. M. is a labor organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, which admits to membership machinists of various classifications, including the mechanics and repairmen em- ployed by Atlantic in its various garages and repair shops. The I. A. M. intervened in the cases involving the employees of Atlantic, Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc. 2. The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America The Amalgamated is a labor organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, which admits to membership motor bus and coach operators, garagemen, and certain other employees of Atlantic. Counsel for the Amalgamated filed a brief at the con- clusion of the hearing, but called no witnesses and introduced no evidence in any of the cases herein. ' III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Shortly after the decisions of the Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, the Brotherhood began an organizing campaign among the bus drivers employed by the Greyhound Lines throughout the country. On May 20; 1937, representatives of the Brotherhood conferred with officials of Atlantic in an attempt td secure recognition as the exclu- sive representative of its bus drivers. `' Although the Brotherhood presented authorizations 12 signed by'202 of the 277 bus drivers said to be on the pay roll; officials of Atlantic, upon the advice of counsel, declined 'to review the signed authorizations or to recognize the Brotherhood as the exclusive bargaining agency for the bus drivers until this Board had certified the Brotherhood as such representative. Shortly after the Brotherhood had sought recognition from At- lantic, counsel for the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., also called upon the officials of Atlantic, advised them that the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., rep- resented a majority of the employees, and requested recognition of the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., as the exclusive bargaining agency for all the employees. The officials of Atlantic stated that they had already received a similar request from the Brotherhood, and that they -would refuse to, recognize any organization until it had been certified by this Board. 12 For a description of these authorizations , see p . 629, infra DECISIONS AND ORDERS IV. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY 629 At the hearing, the Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, its as- sistant president, in charge of the Greyhound organization campaign, introduced in evidence 211 "Personal Authorizations for Representa- tion" signed by bus drivers said to be employed by Atlantic.13 These authorizations, most of which bear the signature of an official of the Brotherhood as a witness to the signature of the bus driver, read as follows : I (name and address of employee) hereby authorize THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN through its officers, general grievance committees, and other legal and au- thorized tribunals, to be my representative for the purposes of bargaining collectively with my employer in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, for a period of one (1) year from date. Dated---------------- ----------------------------- Witness-------------- (Signature of Employee) At the hearing, several special organizers for the Brotherhood testified that they had personally witnessed many of the signatures. We have compared these authorizations with Atlantic's pay rolls for the periods ending May 31, and June 30, 1937, respectively, and find that of the 211 bus drivers who signed these authorizations, 189 are listed on the May pay roll of 295 bus drivers, and 190 on the June pay roll of 309 bus drivers. The I. M. T. E. U., Inc., introduced in evidence a number of signed but undated agreements to apply for membership in the I. M. T. E. U., Inc.," and a petition, with 39 signatures, dated April 16, 1937, read- ing, "We the undersigned employees of the Atlantic Greyhound Lines at a meeting called by ourselves at the Charleston garage today, Friday, April 16, 1937, decided by a unanimous vote in favor of an employees association composed only of members of Atlantic Grey- hound Corporation (sic) rather than join an outside union or or- ganization." 15 At the hearing several of the organizers of the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., testified that they had participated in obtaining the signatures to the agreements to apply for membership and to the petition. We have compared the agreements to apply for membership sub- mitted by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., with Atlantic's pay rolls for the 1a Petitioner's Exhibit No 16 14 These agreements were to become applications for membership upon the issuance of a charter by the State of West Virginia, but were to be void if less than 300 employees of the Atlantic Greyhound Lines signed such agreements Atlantic Petitioner's I. M. T E. U. Exhibit Nos. 1-10, 12-17, 31 ,'Atlantic Petitioner's I. M. T E. U. Exhibit No. 11. 49446-38-vol iii-41 630 NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD periods ended May 31 and June 30, 1937, and find that of the 145 names which the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., submitted '16 141 appear on the May pay roll of 295 bus drivers, and the same number on the June pay roll of 309 bus drivers.17 The I. M. T. E. U., Inc. however, claimed that the Brotherhood had employed misrepresentation in obtaining the signatures to its authorizations, and, in support of its position, introduced in evidence petitions 18 signed by 27 bus drivers, said to be employed by Atlantic, revoking their authorizations pre- viously given to the Brotherhood and designating in its stead the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., as their representative for the purpose of col- lective bargaining. Of these 27 bus drivers, 24 appear on the May pay roll, 13 had already signed the previous applications for mem- bership, 11 were new applicants, and two of the 24 had never signed authorizations,for the Brotherhood. If we give the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., credit for each of the 11 new authorizations and deduct 22 from the sum of those introduced by the Brotherhood, the Brotherhood has a total of 168 as against a total of 152 for the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. The Brotherhood, however, introduced in evidence petitions,"' con- taining 24 signatures, revoking previous authorizations given to the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., because of alleged misrepresentation and coercion by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., in securing its authorizations. Of these 24 revocations of, authority from the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., five bus drivers whose signatures appear thereon had never signed authoriza- tions for the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. The result of these revocations and counter revocations is to leave the Brotherhood 168 authoriza- tions as against 133 authorizations for the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. Apart from these contested authorizations, however, 51 bus drivers appear to have signed cards or-petitions authorizing both the Brotherhood and the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, manifestly impossible to find which of the contending organizations is favored by a majority of the bus drivers. The I. A. M., which intervened in this case, did not present any proof of its claim .to represent a majority of the maintenance em- ployees. The I. M. T. E. U., Inc., introduced in evidence agree- ments to apply for membership, including the above-described peti- tion,20 signed by 89 traffic and clerical employees and 104 mainte- nance employees said to be employed by Atlantic. On its pay roll for the period ending May 31, :1937, Atlantic listed 169 mechanics and Atlantic Petitioner's I. M. T. E. U. Exhibit No. 31. 14 Board Exhibit No. 18. "Atlantic Petitioner's I M T. E U., Inc. Exhibit Nos. 21, 25-9 10 Petitioner's Exhibit (Brotherhood) No. 38 21 Atlantic Petitioner's I. M. T. E U. Exhibit No 11. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 631 291 "other employees".21 Thirty-three of the 104 signatures sub- mitted by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., as proof of its claim to represent a majority of the 169 mechanics employed by Atlantic appear on the above-described petition and are listed by Atlantic as mechanical employees. Since the petition does not name the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., or authorize it to represent the signers, we disregard'it. The I. M. T. E. U., Inc., thus can claim a total of 71 of the 169 mechanical employees. Since neither this figure nor its claim to represent 89 of the traffic and clerical employees represents a majority in either group, it is obvious that the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., has not been desig- nated by a majority of the maintenance or the traffic and clerical employees as their representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT Employees of each of the companies involved herein are divided for present purposes into three' main departments : bus drivers, main- tenance employees, and all other employees, including traffic and clerical employees, porters, stewards, and janitors. Employees work- ing as temporary dispatchers who ,hold seniority rights as drivers are classified generally throughout the Greyhound Lines as bus drivers. All the organizations involved in this proceeding participated in the discussion of the question of the appropriate unit, and the fol- lowing paragraphs summarize the contentions of the parties with regard to each of the cases. The I. A. M. contends that maintenance employees constitute a separate and appropriate unit for the purposes of,collective bargain- ing. In support of its position the I. A. M. claimed that maintenance employees have a peculiar community of interest which tends to separate them from bus drivers and clerical employees : they usually work in garages, which are entirely separate from the offices where the clerical employees work and from the buses which the drivers operate; they are paid on an hourly basis, whereas clerical employees are paid on a salary basis, and bus drivers on a mileage basis; they are paid for overtime work, which is not true of bus drivers or clerical employees ; they are required to have an entirely different type of skill from that required of.other types of employees; their peaks of work occur at entirely different times from those of other employees; they usually come from jobs in garages and repair shops, and if they leave the employ of a bus company, they seek similar employment elsewhere, rather than employment as bus drivers or office workers; and in the garages which are jointly maintained by several Greyhound companies, they frequently work on buses belonging to the 21 Board Exhibit No. 18. 632 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD different companies , although employed by the one which operates the garage. The I. A. M., therefore, contended that because of the nature of their work, their grievances are different from those of other em- ployees, and that a unit larger than the craft would be inappropriate to handle their peculiar problems. In addition, the I. A. M. cited a long list of contracts which it had negotiated in the motor bus and other industries covering maintenance employees alone. The Brotherhood contends that bus drivers form a distinct and separate craft and are an appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. In support of this contention, witnesses for the Brotherhood testified to a number of considerations which differ- entiate bus drivers from other employees : bus drivers are paid by the mile rather than by the hour ; their working day is generally less than the eight-hour day which is standard for other employees; their working conditions, wages, and expenses are different from those of other employees, because their duties require them periodi- cally to be away from their homes; they receive specialized training as to tariffs and municipal, State, and Federal regulations; they must meet higher educational standards than other employees and are generally required to have at least a high school education; their work calls for the exercise of extraordinary skill and judgment; they are required under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 to undergo annual physical examinations which are not required of other employees; they have been made subject in many cases to municipal, State, and Federal regulations, have been licensed by many municipalities and States, and are shortly to be licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In addition, the bus drivers regard themselves as a separate unit and associate with one another at the terminals rather than with other employees; and in many instances, they are segre- gated by the employer as a separate unit, particularly in the issuance of bulletins, covering the operation of the employer's business, and in the holding of safety meetings which only bus drivers are required to attend. As tending to show by the history of collective bar- gaining in the motor bus industry that bus drivers are a separate craft, and the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, the Brotherhood introduced in evidence and its witnesses testified to a number of contracts and agreements executed since 1933 between various bus ' companies and unions representing bus drivers as a separate Unit.22 2= Regulations for the government of Bus Operators , Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Agreement between the Employees Association and the Management ) Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5; Agreement between The Santa Fe Trail Stages Inc. of Arizona, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Covering Rates , Rules and Regulations for Motor Coach Operators, Petitioner's Exhibit No 7; Agreement between Cardinal Stage Lines Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, covering Rates , Rules and Regulations for Motor Coach Operators, Petitioner's Exhibit No 8 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 633 The Brotherhood also cited the decision of this Board 21 certifying the, Brotherhood as, the exclusive representative of the bus drivers of the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company. On the other hand, the , I. M. T. E. U., Inc., the I. , M. C. E. A., Inc., and 'the G. E. U. contend that all the employees in the, threw, departments constitute the appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. . Counsel for the I.,M. T. E. U., Inc., in a. brief filed with the Board, and witnesses for the I. M. T. E. U., Inc.,,the G. E. U., and the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., at the hearing sought to show that the services of bus drivers are part of an integrated activity, set up by the management for its entire organization, the safety and efficiency of which depend on the coordinated efficiency of all the employees, and that as between the bus drivers and each of the other groups of employees there exist such interdependence and functional coherence as to require that all the employees be grouped as the appropriate unit. In support of this contention, the I. M. T. .E. U.; Inc., and the aforesaid unions relied on testimony that bus drivers act not only as bus drivers, but also as ticket agents, baggage men, mechanics and clerks, and that in these various capacities, they.must depend upon and cooperate with all other employees. They must be versed in fares and schedules to inform passengers seeking infor- mation necessary in travel and must handle baggage en route ; they seek advancement to the position of dispatcher in the traffic depart- ment, and, some bus drivers act as temporary, dispatchers while•hold- ing seniority rights as drivers; they depend on the maintenance employees not only for the safe repair of their buses, but also for information to enable them to make their own repairs during break- downs en route; in making reports and keeping records of their trips, they cooperate with the clerical employees. Witnesses testis fled that bus drivers frequently ask maintenance and clerical em- ployees to attend the safety meetings held by the employer pri- marily for the benefit of the bus drivers, and that in the event of a. strike by the maintenance employees, the bus drivers would be,un- willing to drive buses which had been repaired by mechanics un- familiar with that type of vehicle. It was also contended that a unit composed of all the employees would be, of greater economic strength than a unit composed of a single craft. , The I. M. T. E. U., Inc., asserts that in the past, Atlantic has bar- gained collectively, not with the bus drivers alone, but with all the employees as a unit.24 Other evidence in the record 25 indicates'that 23 Matter of Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, Case No. R-126, decided March 18, 1937, 2 N. L R B. 767. , . 2' Board Exhibit No. 37. By-Laws of Employees Association of Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Article I, Section I, "All employees who are actively engaged as Bus Operators, Maintenance, Traffic and Clerical employees of the Atlantic Greyhound Lines, who are not In supervisory positions , are entitled to membership in this Association." 2G Board Exhibits Nos. 19 and 22. 634 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Employees Associations of both the Pennsylvania and Central Greyhound Lines represented the employees of all three departments for purposes of collective bargaining.26 Witnesses also testified that the same representatives who negoti- ated the agreement for the bus drivers employed by the Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc.,211a negotiated agreements at the same time for the depot employees and machinists. The record indicates that the Employees Association of the Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., which that company has since disestablished, represented all the em- ployees in the three departments for the purpose of collective bargaining.21 In view of the facts described above, it appears that the bus drivers can be considered either as a separate unit, as claimed by the Brother- hood, or as part of a larger unit composed of bus drivers, main- tenance, traffic, and clerical employees, as claimed by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. The differentiation in skill and duty of the bus drivers from other employees and the history of collective bargaining in the industry cited by the Brotherhood are proof of the feasibility of the former approach. The interdependence of the bus drivers with the other employees and the history of collective bargaining in the indus- try cited by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., are proof of the feasibility of the latter approach. Our decision in Matter of Santa Fe Trails Trans- portation Company (supra), that bus drivers are the appropriate unit, clearly cannot control the determination of this question, since there the decision was based on an express stipulation by the Santa Fe Company that bus drivers should constitute such a unit. For similar reasons the maintenance employees may be considered either as a separate unit, as claimed by the I. A. M., or a part of the larger unit, as claimed by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. It thus appears that any one of the three departments can be considered either as a separate unit or as part of a larger unit including the one department with either or both of the others. Where the considerations which determine these questions are so evenly balanced, the decisive 20 In Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines Inc, Greyhound Management Company, supra, we ordered the company to withdraw all recognition from and disestablish the Employees Association , as a company-dominated labor organization within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision ( 2) of the Act. Cf. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Greyhound Management Company, Re- spondents, ( C. C. A. 3rd ) No. 0007, March Term 1937 The Employees Association of the Central Greyhound Lines has been disestablished. i0a See note 22, p. 632, supra. 27 For a comprehensive description of the bus drivers' job , embodying the facts advanced by the Brotherhood, the I . A. M, and the unions which contend that bus drivers should be grouped in a larger unit, see Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions in the Inter 'City Motor Transport Industries, Part I, Motor Bus Transportation , Section of Research, Sec- tion of Labor Relations , Federal Coordinator of Transportation ( 1936 ), p: 18, et seq, admitted in evidence during the hearings , and incorporated by reference, without an exhibit number. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 635 factor is the desire of the men themselves ' On this point, the record affords no help. Of the 11 unions involved in this proceeding, five which sought to intervene or claimed to represent a majority of em- ployees admit to membership employees of all three departments,29 and five which claimed to represent a majority of the bus drivers admit to membership bus drivers only a° Among the bus drivers of Atlantic there has been a swing toward the Brotherhood and then away from it toward the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., and, as noted in Section IV above, it is impossible to ascertain at the present time which organization is favored by a majority of the bus drivers; the only documentary proof is completely contradictory. As for the main- tenance employees, the evidence is insufficient to prove that a major- ity have chosen either of the contending unions. We shall, therefore, direct that an election be held (1) among the bus drivers employed by Atlantic to determine whether they wish to be represented by the Brotherhood or the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., or neither; (2) among the maintenance employees to determine whether they wish to be repre- sented by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., or the I. A. M. or neither; and (3) among the remaining employees to determine whether they do or do not wish to be represented by the I. M. T. E. U., Inc. Upon the results of this election will depend the determination of the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Such of the groups as do not choose the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., will constitute separate and distinct appropriate units, and such as do choose the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., will together constitute a single appropriate unit. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Atlantic described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSION OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusion of law : Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the employees of Atlantic Greyhound Lines, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 21 See Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Company, Cases Nos. R-178, R-179, R-180, decided August 11, 1937, supra, p. 294. 20 The Amalgamated , the T. W. U. of A., the I. M. T. E. U., Inc., the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., and the G E. U. 3° The Brotherhood , the Drivers' Club, the Lexington Association , the Nashville Asso- ciation, and the Birmingham Association. 636 NATIONAL LA]30R RELATIONS BOARD SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with a Delaware subsidiary,' having its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. For the purposes of this 'proceeding the companies, taken together, constitute one employer, doing business as Greyhound Lines, herein called Southwestern.32 Southwestern is engaged in the bu'sirless of transporting for hire, passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.33 Its consolidated gross revenue for the year ended'December 31, 1936, was $4,630,367.84, and for the first five months of 1937, $1,768,308.99. Its total con- solidated assets on December 31, 1936, were $4,344,038.34.U4 It maintains garages and repair shops in the various cities along its, routes, which are essential for the safe and regular operation of its interstate buses.3" Oil June 30, 1937, it employed a total of 939 employees, of whom 290 were bus drivers and 220 were mechanics and repairmen. As corporations whose voting capital, stock is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, the, com- panies in the Southwestern group are closely affiliated with 'other Greyhound Systems in the Greyhound Lines, and by means of joint operating, traffic, and facility arrangements with these Systems and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines they operate as a closely coordinated part' of an integrated system of national transportation. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The G. E. U. was formed shortly after the 'decisions of the Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. Originally, the organization was to have been known as Greyhound Employees Incorporated, and its constitution, by-laws, and applica- tion blanks for membership so provide.36 As a result, however, of objections from potential members to joining an incorporated union, its promoters, all of whom had been committeemen in the former Em- 81 Southwestern is also the assignee of certain rights to the issuance of a certificate to act as a common carrier, owned by Sedalia-Marshall-Boonville Stage Lines , Inc., a Missouri corporation. as The interrelationships of these companies are similar to those of the companies constituting Central Greyhound Lines, which we also treat as a single employer unit for reasons explained at pp 656-659, tinfra. ss Board Exhibit No. 27. 34 Board Exhibit Nos. 15, 20. 15 The record does not disclose the' number of, buses the company operates. so Petitioner ( Greyhound Employees Union ) Exhibits Nos. 4, and 16-R--22. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 637 ployees Association of Southwestern ,37 abandoned the corporation, and named the organization, the G. E. U. By the terms; of its constitu- tion, 'all employees 'employed by the, Company, except colored em- ployees, who have been in service 90,days or more, who are not in supervisory positions who have executed the application for member- ship in the proper form are eligible for membership." One of, the purposes of the organization,, as described in its constitution, is to bargain collectively on behalf of its members. As thus organized, the G. E. U. is a labor organization.38 . , , The Brotherhood and the I. A. M.,,the only other, organizations involved herein, have already been described, under Atlantic Grey-, hound Lines, Section II. The petition of the I. A. M. for investigation and certification of representatives was filed too late for consideration here because filed after the date of the hearing.39 All questions raised by the petition, however, are in any case rendered moot by the fact that the I. A. M. will be treated as'a party to this'proceeding and, as'a result of its inter- vention at the hearing; will'be given a place on the ballot to be used. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION During the month of May 1937, after securing authorizations from a majority of the bbs • drivers employed by Southwestern , officials of the Brotherhood conferred with P . WTibbets , president and general manager of Southwestern Greybolind Lines, Inc., and with' Ivan Bowen, its counsel, in an attempt to secure an agreement for a schedule of rates of pay and working conditions . Tibbets and Bowen declined to review the Brotherhood's authorizations and statdd that they would refuse to bargain collectively with the Brotherhood until this Board had decided bus drivers to be an appropriate unit and had certified the Brotherhood as the exclusive rei)reseritative of the bus drivers in that unit. Thereafter the Brotherhood filed a charge with the Re- gional Director for the Sixteenth Region , alleging that Southwestern had interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the 'rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of Greyhound Employees, Incorporated, a labor organization ,. and contributing financial and other support thereto , and by refusing to bargain col- lectively with the Brotherhood as the representative in an appropriate unit of a majority of its bus drivers. Later, in ' order to facilitate action upon its petition for investigation and' certification , with Which ' It was testified that the Employees Association was disbanded by a,letter from the president of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc, to these representatives shortly after April 12, 1937. At the hearing the Brotherhood sought to show that the G. E. U.' was 'company sponsored This phase of the proceeding is discussed at p 642, infra. 39 See pp 648, 649, infra 638 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 130ARD the charges of unfair labor practices had been consolidated, the Brotherhood withdrew its charges against Southwestern.40 On May 24, 1937, D. C. Ellis for the G. E. U. wrote to Tibbets, stating that the G. E. U. represented 51 per cent of the employees of Southwestern and asking to be recognized as the bargaining agency for the bus drivers, maintenance and depot employees. On May 26, 1937, Tibbet replied that until this Board had determined whether the three departments represented by the G. E. U. consti- tuted an appropriate unit, he would refuse to bargain collectively with the G. E. U., but that if the Board determined the three de- partments to be such a unit, upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence that the G. E. U. represented a majority of the employees in such a unit, he would enter into negotiations as provided in the Act."' IV. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY The Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence authorizations, similar in all respects to those introduced in the case of Atlantic, which it claimed were signed by 165 bus drivers em- ployed by Southwestern.42 We have compared these authorizations with the list of bus drivers, as of May 31, 1937, and June 30, 1937, furnished by Southwestern, and find that of the 165 bus drivers who signed these authorizations, 163 appear on the list of 285 for May and 163 on the list of 290 for June 1937.45 The G. E. U. also introduced in evidence two sets of applications, one for membership in Greyhound Employees Incorporated, the other for membership in the G. E. U. We have compared these applications with the list of bus drivers for May and June 1937 and find that of the 180 applications submitted, 138 bus drivers who had signed applications for membership in Greyhound Employees Incor- porated and 40 who had signed applications for membership in the G. E. U. appear on the list of 285 drivers in May and 290 drivers in June 1937. Taking the applications for membership in the G. E. U. and Greyhound Employees Incorporated as applications for mem- bership in the G. E. U., we find that the G. E. U. has a total of 178 out of 285 bus drivers in May, and 178 out of 290 bus drivers in June 1937. It appears, however, that 65 bus drivers employed by Southwestern in May and June 1937 who signed applications for the G. E. U. or Greyhound Employees Incorporated also signed authorizations for the Brotherhood. It is therefore impossible to tell which organiza- tion is favored by a majority of the bus drivers. 40 Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Case No. XVI-C-81. 41 Petitioner's (G. E U.) Exhibits Nos. 3 A, B. 42 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. 43 Board Exhibit No. 20. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 639 The G. E. U. also submitted applications which it claims were signed by 87 out of 150 of the depot employees," and 110 out of 189 of the mechanics and repairmen said to be employed by Southwest- ern.45 Southwestern, however, lists 220 mechanics and repairmen as in its employ on June 30, 1937, and 429 "other employees",48 of whom 189 are clerical employees. From these figures it is clear that the G. E. U. does not represent a majority in either or both groups of employees. The I. A. M., which was granted leave to intervene in this case, presented no proof of its claim to represent a majority of the maintenance employees. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The foregoing statement indicates that this case raises precisely the same questions as these involved in the case of Atlantic Greyhound Lines. We shall render a similar decision. The determination of the unit will again depend upon the results of an election to be held among the three departments voting separately. Such of the depart- ments as show a majority for the G. E. U. shall together constitute one unit. Those which show a majority opposed to the G. E. U. shall constitute separate units. VI. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Southwestern described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VII. CONDUCT OF ELECTION Both the Brotherhood and the G. E. U. agree that eligibility to vote should be determined as of May 25, 1937, and that the eligibility list should consist of all employees in service or available for service as of that date who held seniority rights as bus drivers, including dispatchers on temporary duty who held seniority rights as bus drivers, but not including any men employed since that date or holding rights of that date but not yet marked on the working list. CONCLUSION OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusion of law : Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the employees of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 14 Including ticket agents and baggage men, except colored employees 'S Petitioner's (G. E. U.) Exhibits Nos. 1, 2. 41 Board Exhibit No. 20, Board Supplementary Exhibit No 2 640 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and its subsidiary, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. SOUTHEASTERN GREYHOUND LINES 1. TIIE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Southeastern Greyhound Lines is a Kentucky corporation, with Delaware,, Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana subsidiaries, having its principal place of, business in Lexington, Kentucky 47 The Ken- tucky, Alabama, and Tennessee corporations are, operating com- panies; 47a the Delaware and Indiana corporations have no employees. Each operating company carries its own - insurance, registers sepa- rately under the Workmen's Compensation Act, hires its own em- ployees, ' has its own pay roll, and operates its own ' property. The Kentucky company, however, manages the entire system, including the subsidiary corporations, by means of common officers, directors, and agents. In view of the fact that G. •A. Huguelet, president of Southeastern Greyhound Lines and its subsidiaries, testified that' for bargaining purposes the three operating companies, taken together, constituted 6n' employer unit, and in view of other considerations which we discuss below,48 we find that for the purposes of this pro- ceeding, Southeastern Greyhound Lines and its subsidiaries 49 con- stitute a single employer, doing business as Southeastern Greyhound Lines, which group is herein collectively called Southeastern. It is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, express, mail, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs; through the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, West Vir- ginia, Ohio, and Indiana. The gross revenue of the Delaware cor- poration alone is estimated'by its president to be between $300,000 and $400,000 a year. It maintains at least ten garages and repair shops in the various cities along its routes which are essential for the safe and regular operation of its interstate buses.60 As of June 1, 1937, it employed a total of 557 employees, of whom 213 were bus drivers. Although Southeastern is not connected, financially or otherwise, with the other Greyhound companies involved in this proceeding, it nevertheless operates, by means of joint interchange arrangements within the Southeastern area, and with the Southeastern Manage- ment Company and other independent bus lines, as a closely coordi- nated part of an integrated system of interstate transportation. 47 Board Exhibit No. 23 44S Herein called; respectively, the Kentucky company, the Alabama. company, and the Tennessee company. 48 See pp 645, 646, enfra 40 Except Southeastern Management Company See p 647, infra "The record does not disclose the number of buses Southeastern owns and operates. DECISIONS AND ORDERS II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED A. The Consolidated Coach Operators Association 641 The Lexington Association was formed on March 12, 1934, for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of the bus drivers em- ployed by the Consolidated Coach Corporation of Lexington, Kentucky.51 On March 13, this company recognized the Association by an agreement which automatically renews itself from year to year, unless cancelled by the Lexington Association within 30 days of expiration. 52 B. The Nashville Greyhound Coach Operators and Maintenance Employees Association The Nashville Association was formed on March 15, 1934, for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of the bus drivers em- ployed by the Union Transfer division of Southeastern Greyhound Lines. 53 On March 15, 1934, this company recognized the Association by an agreement identical in terms with that of the Lexington Asso- ciation. Originally, the Nashville Association admitted to member- ship bus drivers only and was known as Nashville Greyhound Coach Operators Association . Later, its by-laws were amended to make maintenance employees eligible for membership, and its name was accordingly changed. Since June 1937, it apparently claims to rep- resent bus drivers only.54 C. The Birmingham Greyhound Coach Operators and Maintenance Association The Birmingham Association was formed on April 4, 1934, for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of the employees of the Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Alabama Bus Company Division of Birmingham.55 On April 5, 1934, the company recognized the Asso- ciation by an agreement identical in terms with those entered into 11 Now renamed Southeastern Grayhound Lines of Kentucky. 63 The agreement is discussed in Section VI, infra 11 Now renamed Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Tennessee. ss Counsel for the associations , in an intervening petition and answer, contends that all three associations admit maintenance employees to membership as well as bus drivers. (Intervenor's Exhibit No 1 The constitutions of all three associations, however, state that "all Coach opeiators . . are eligible to membership." ( Intervenor' s Exhibit No. 1 ) The constitution of the Nashville Association alone contains an amendment making maintenance employees eligible for membership ( Board Exhibit No. 23. ) In affidavits filed with the petitions, on which the associations rely for their claim to represent a majority of bus drivers ( see pp 644, 645, enjra), it is uniformly stated of each association that its membership is composed of coach operators . ( Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 4 ) In particular, the Lexington Association, in whose behalf all the petitions were filed, admittedly limits its membership to bus drivers . The petitions read, "We the undersigned coach operators of Southeastern Greyhound Lines . . "Now renamed Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Alabama. 642 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the Lexington and Nashville associations. Originally, the As- sociation appears to have admitted both bus drivers and maintenance employees to membership; at present it apparently claims to repre- sent bus drivers only.54 The Brotherhood, which is the only other labor organization in- volved herein, contends that each of these three organizations was company-dominated and company-supported, and that none is any longer in existence. At the hearing, Ray S. Gaines testified as a witness for the Brotherhood that he had been elected president of the Lexington Association in March 1936 and reelected in March 1937, that the Kentucky company paid all the expenses of the Association, including his, that the Association acted only at the bidding of the company, that on or about May 15, 1937, the Association and the company agreed that "after 51% of the Coach Operators do in good faith affiliate with a labor organization, the Consolidated Coach Op- erators Association will cease to exist",56 and that thereafter, more than 51 per cent of the coach operators joined the Brotherhood and by a majority vote of its membership, the Association was disbanded. Similar testimony. -was given for the Brotherhood by Clay Hardy, who had been elected vice chairman of the Lexington local committee in March 1937. Claude H. Duncan testified for the Brotherhood that, after a ma- jority vote of its members, on or about May 20, 1937, the Nashville Association had been disbanded and the benefit fund distributed among the former members. J. D. Edwards testified for the Brotherhood that the Birmingham Association had been similarly' disbanded, and its benefit fund dis- tributed to former members, but that subsequently a new benefit fund had been begun, to include bus drivers, mechanics, and ticket agents. On the other hand, Henry Morgan, a committeeman of the Lexing- ton Association, testified that although the Association has held no meetings, elected no officers, and collected no dues since the meeting in May 1937 when it was apparently disbanded, a majority of the bus drivers have signed petitions to continue the old Association, change its name to Southeastern Greyhound Coach Operators Asso- ciation and include the entire Southeastern Greyhound System. He also testified that "we haven't any new union . . . only a pro- posal to form one or carry out our old one." Section 9 of the Act speaks not of "labor organizations" but of "representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining." In this proceeding, therefore, we are not concerned with whether the Lex- ington, Nashville, and Birmingham Associations do or do not exist as labor organizations, nor whether, in the absence of a charge filed 11 Petitioner's (B. of R. T.) Exhibit No. 53. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 643 and complaint issued under Section 8, subdivision (2) of the Act, the operating companies in the Southeastern group did or did not dominate or contribute financial support to the respective associa- tions. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On and after May 24, 1937, Stanley Lobred, field supervisor for the Brotherhood, after securing authorizations from a majority of the bus drivers employed by Southeastern, conferred with G. A. Huguelet, president of Southeastern Greyhound Lines and subsidi- aries, in an attempt to obtain a signed recognition agreement. At first Huguelet stated that it was not necessary to sign an agreement, that he conceded the Brotherhood's majority and was willing to negotiate. On June 7, 1937, Huguelet wrote to Phillip G. Phillips, Regional Director for the Ninth Region : "Our coach operators are now affiliating with the BRT. We are cooperating. No other or- ganization is involved. . . . We have advised the representa- tives of the BRT and also these, employees that we are ready at any time, as provided in the National Labor Relations Act, to bargain collectively with representatives of their choosing." 57 On June 15, 1937, petitions were circulated among the bus drivers employed by the company, calling for the continuation with certain changes of the Lexington Association."8 On June 28, 1937, Huguelet wrote Phillips : "We find that when we wrote you .in our letter of June 7, that `no other organization is involved' we were in error. Therefore, we would like for your Board to hold a hearing on our situation and reach a determination." 59 Thereafter, Huguelet notified Lobred that he would refuse to recognize the Brotherhood as the exclusive agency for the purposes of collective bargaining until certified ,by this Board. IV. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY The Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence 175 authorizations, similar in all respects to those introduced in the case of Atlantic, signed by bus drivers said to be employed by each of the three companies.GO Several special organizers for the Brother- hood testified that they had'personally witnessed many of the signa- tures. We have compared these authorizations with each company's list of employees as of June 1, 1937, and find that 79 of the bus drivers who signed these authorizations appear on the Kentucky company's list of 125 bus drivers, 39 on the Tennessee company's list of 45 bus drivers, and 43 on the Alabama company' s list of '43 bus drivers-a 11 Boai d Exhibit No. 23. sa See Section IV, infra. G' Board Exhibit No. 23. 61 Petitioner 's Exhibit No. 12. 644 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD total of 161 authorizations for the Brotherhood of the 213 bus drivers employed by the three companies taken together."' At the hearing there were introduced in behalf of the three associa- tions typewritten lists of names of bus drivers, offered for the purpose of showing employees who were dues paying members of the associa- tions during the months of March and July, 1937.62 No signatures appear on thes6 lists; they were neither notarized nor verified at the hearing. Furthermore, it was testified that the lists show only the names of employees from whose salaries were deducted dues to sepa- rately administered benefit funds. We are therefore justified in refusing to consider these lists as adequate evidence that the employees whose names appear therein had authorized the associations to repre- sent them for the purpose of collective bargaining. At the hearing, there was also introduced an undated petition signed by 29 bus drivers employed by the Kentucky company, in which the signers agreed to continue the Consolidated Coach Operators Associa- tion, with the following changes: (1) Change the name to South- eastern Greyhound Coach Operators Association and include the en- tire system; (2) take over the sick and accident fund and continue it as a part of the Association; (3) charge monthly dues; (4) negotiate a written contract with the company using the same form as labor unions; (5) employ a lawyer, and (6) if the majority desire, apply for a charter in the American Federation of Labor.63 On August 1, 1937, after the hearing, counsel for the associations filed with the Board petitions identical in effect with that described above, signed by 47 additional bus drivers, making a total of 76, whose names appear on the Kentucky company's list of 125 bus drivers for June 1937; 24 bus drivers whose names appear on the Tennessee company's list of 45 bus drivers; and 28 bus drivers whose names appear on the Alabama company's list of 43 bus drivers. Each petition is accompanied by an affidavit of an officer of one of the associations who swears that he personally witnessed the signatures on these and the earlier petition bearing 29 signatures, that the signa- tures thereon are genuine and obtained without coercion, and that they have been collected since June 15, 1937.64 Each petition is alike in that the signer, no matter by which of the three companies he is employed, or to which association he be- longs, agrees to continue the Lexington Association. In the later petitions 65 the signer agrees to change the name of the Lexington Association to Southeastern Greyhound Coach Operators Union, in- stead of Association, as in the earlier petition; in all other respects, "Board Exhibit No 41. A3 Southeastern Intervenor's Exhibit No 1. C3Intervenor's Exhibit No 2. "'Board Supplementary Exhibit No 4 65 Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 4 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 645 the later petitions are identical in terms with the earlier. The effect of these petitions, therefore, is to authorize either the Lexington Association, or a new association, to be called the Southeastern Grey- hound Employees Association or Union, to represent the bus drivers employed by all three companies for the purpose' of collective bar- gaining. The total number of bus drivers who thus appear to have author- ized the Lexington Association (or the new association) to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining is 121 out of 213 bus drivers employed by the three companies. It appears, however, that 47 bus drivers employed- by the' Ken- tucky company, 19 bus drivers employed by the Tennessee company, and 28 bus drivers employed by the Alabama Company-a total of 94-who signed petitions for the Lexington Association (or the new association) have also signed authorizations for the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood introduced in evidence statements signed, and in some cases notarized, by several bus drivers who claimed that they signed the petition for the Lexington Association only because of threats and coercion and because they were afraid that otherwise they would lose their jobs.oa As in the two preceding cases, the only documentary proof is completely contradictory, and it is im- possible to tell which organization is favored by a majority of the bus drivers. We conclude that questions concerning representation of the bus drivers have arisen, which can best be settled by a secret ballot. No question is raised in this case in respect to the represen- tation of any employees other than the bus drivers. No petition for certification as a representative of such other employees has been filed.' No evidence has been introduced to show that a claim to represent such other employees has been made by, any organization or has been denied by any of the companies in the Southeastern group. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above, Huguelet, president of Southeastern, testified at the hearing that the three operating companies, taken together, constitute one employer unit. Furthermore, the effect of the peti- tions introduced in evidence on behalf of the three associations, which had apparently been disbanded, is to authorize either the Lexington Association (or the new association) to represent the bus drivers employed by all three companies for the purpose of collec- 5i Petitioner's (B. of R T ) Exhibits Nos. 54, 57C e'' The absence of such a petition is of , practical importance, since the petition is the original source of information as to the existence of rival organizations in the same unit , which should be notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate therein. 494413-38-vol iii-42 646 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Live bargaining. On the basis of these facts, we conclude that the employer unit in which both the Brotherhood and the Lexington Association (or the new association) claim to represent a majority of the bus drivers is the three Southeastern, operating companies, taken together. As also set forth above,68 we find that where, as here, the considerations which determine the question of the proper unit among the employees of these companies are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. As con- trasted with the previous cases, the record here clearly indicates that the bus drivers have expressed their desire fora unit composed of bus drivers alone, by choosing either the Lexington Association or the Brotherhood, both of which admit only bus drivers to member- ship. In order to insure to the employees the full benefit of their right to self organization t nd collective bargaining and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, we therefore find that all the bus drivers employed by Southeastern constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. VI. THE EXISTING CONTRACTS Counsel for the three associations contends that the contracts en- tered into between the associations and the various companies above described 69 constitute valid, binding, and enforceable -contracts, and prays that the associations be designated "as appropriate units or unions" under Section 9 of the Act. All three contracts state in identical terms that the company "hereby covenants and agrees with the membership of said Association to recognize its duly elected and appointed officers and committees as the representatives of the mem- bers of said Association in negotiations with the Company. 11 70 . Regardless of the status of these contracts prior. to an election and certification by this Board, it is clear that their survival is subject to the outcome of such election and certification. Section 9 (a) of the Act provides that "representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive rep- resentatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining . . ."; and it is well settled that "contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of the Congress." 71 Nothing in the terms of these contracts, therefore, can relieve Southeastern of its duty to negotiate with the representatives 08 See p. 634, supra 60 Section IT, infra 70 Board Exhibit No. 23 ; Intervenor's Exhibit No 1. 71 Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, 294 U. S. 240, 307, 308. "Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them." DECISIONS AND ORDERS 647 of a majority of the bus drivers, duly certified by the Board, as the exclusive representative of all the bus drivers employed by South- eastern. VII. EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of South- eastern described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VIII. CONDUCT OF ELECTION Since the record does not disclose whether the name of the Lexing- ton Association has been changed in accordance with the petitions which were circulated, we will direct that its name, rather than the name of the new association, be placed on the ballot. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. All bus drivers employed by Southeastern Greyhound Lines, including Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Kentucky, Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Alabama, and Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Tennessee, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. SOUTHEASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Southeastern Management Company, herein called the Company, is a non-profit corporation, whose stock is owned 50 per cent by Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Delaware and 50 per cent by Union Bus Company, a Florida corporation having its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.72 Neither Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Delaware nor Union Bus Company is an operating company. Each, however, owns buses, office equipment, cars, station equipment, leases for garages and terminals, and cer- tificates of public convenience and necessity in several states. Each has filed applications, under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, with the 12 Board Exhibit No. 33. 648 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Interstate Commerce Commission. Neither company owns any stock in the other, although officers of each are officers in the Management Company, which operates the equipment of both companies over the routes for which they have certificates of public convenience and necessity, collects monies, pays bills, and gives each company its mileage share of the returns. The employees engaged in the opera- tion of buses belonging to Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Delaware and Union Bus Company are employees of Southeastern Management Company. The Company is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, express, mail and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Ala- bama.73 It has for its use 47 buses in conducting operations over the routes of Union Bus Company and Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Delaware. On June 30, 1937, it employed a total of 214 em- ployees, of whom 76 were bus drivers, 39 mechanics, and 59 clerical employees. Although not connected financially or otherwise with the Grey- hound corporations involved in this proceeding whose voting capital stock is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, the Company nevertheless operates, by means of joint interchange, traffic, and facility arrangements with Southeastern Greyhound Lines and independent bus lines, as a closely coordinated part of an integrated system of interstate transportation. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED On August 5, 1937, after the hearing, the Drivers' Club of the Southeastern Management Company, formed in October 1933 for the purposes of collective bargaining, filed with the Board a peti- tion in the form of a letter 74 stating that all bus drivers have auto- matic membership in the organization and are assessed no dues, that the majority of bus drivers do not want the Brotherhood to repre- sent them, and requesting that the Drivers' Club be "appointed" by this Board as the bargaining agency for the bus drivers, or that an election be held among the bus drivers to determine whether they wish to be represented by the Drivers' Club or the Brotherhood. We believe there is no merit in the contention of this petitioner. As we said in Hatter of American France Lines et al, "Labor organi- zations which desire to compete with others in an election should 73 Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 1. 44 Board Supplementary Exhibit No 3. The letter was accompanied by signed peti- tions, undated , stating that the signers (lid not wish the Brotherhood to represent the employees of Union Bus Company and Southeastern Management Company for the purpose of collective bargaining , and a number of confidential ballots , addressed to C G. Schultz, vice president of the Southeastern Management Company, dated July 27, 1937, in which employees named their choices for officers of the Drivers' Club. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 649 be required to follow a regular procedure."" Here, the Drivers' Club filed its petition ten days after the hearing in this entire case had been concluded, and no regular opportunity was provided for the cross-examination of its witnesses. The evidence filed in sup- port of its petition is clearly not sufficient to warrant a certification. It seeks at most a place on the ballot in an election. Where, as here, the facts regularly presented at a hearing do not warrant the direction of an election, we will not direct an. election on the basis of such a petition or evidence so introduced. We, therefore, deny the petition of the Drivers' Club. The consequences of any other decision are illustrated by the circumstances of this very case. After serving the petition of the Drivers' Club on the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, the Board received another let- ter dated August 30, 1937, signed by A. H. Keeler for the Brother- hood of Motor Transport Workers, claiming to represent employees of one or more of the Greyhound companies and seeking to intervene to oppose generally the right of the Brotherhood to organize motor coach operators. On September 1, 1937, the I. A. M. filed its petition for investigation and certification of representatives of maintenance employees of Southwestern. On September 9, 1937, the Board re- ceived a telegrain from the T. W. U. of A., which had been, denied leave to intervene at the hearing, asking leave to intervene in the case involving the employees of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines for the purpose of opposing the petition of the Brotherhood and re- questing an election to be held among all the employees of Penn- sylvania, including buss drivers, clerical and maintenance employees, porters, stewards and janitors. These petitions are hereby denied. Had they been granted, it is impossible to tell how many more petitions to intervene would have been filed, or how long it would have taken to reach a final determination of the issues in the,cases -%w hich had been regularly presented.76 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On Time 2, 1937, officials of the Brotherhood, after securing au- thorizations from a majority of the bus drivers employed by the Company, conferred with C. G. Schultz, its vice president, in an at- tempt to obtain recognition of the Brotherhood as the exclusive bar- gaining agency for the bus drivers. At that time, Schultz stated that after the bus drivers had organized their lodge, secured a char- ter from the Brotherhood, and elected their committee, he would 76 Amendment to Decision and Supplemental Decision , Case No R-157, decided August 16, 1937, supra. p 64 7e Further reasons for dismissing the petition of the I A M. are stated at p 637, supra. 650 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recognize the Brotherhood, provided it had a majority, without a certification by this Board. Later, on June 24, 1937, after the Brotherhood had granted a charter to the lodge, officials of the Brotherhood again conferred with Schultz, stated that they repre- sented a majority of the bus drivers employed by the Company, and again requested recognition. Schultz, however, declined to enter into any agreement until the Brotherhood had been certified by this Board as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers employed by the Company. As in the case of Southeastern Greyhound Lines, no question con- cerning the representation of any employees other than the bus drivers has arisen. IV. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY The Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence 55 authorizations, similar in all respects to those introduced in the case of Atlantic, signed by bus drivers employed by the Company?7 Several special organizers for the Brotherhood testified that they had personally witnessed,many of the signatures. We have com- pared these authorizations with the Company's pay rolls for the periods ending May 31 and June 30, 1937, and find that, with three duplications, 52 of the bus drivers who signed these applications are listed on the May pay roll of 75 bus drivers, and 52 on the June pay roll of 76 bus drivers.78 V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above, 79 we find that where the considerations which determine the question of the appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here the record clearly indicates that a majority of the bus drivers employed by the Company have expressed their desire for a unit composed of bus drivers alone by choosing the Brotherhood as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. In order to insure to the employees the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, we find that all the bus drivers employed by the Company constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing. We will, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive 77 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. 78 These pay rolls Include three men holding driver's seniority and classified as drivers who were doing special work other than actual driving. Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 1. 79 See p 634 , supra. DECISIONS AND ORDERS ' 651 representative of the bus drivers employed by the Company in that unit.80 VI. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations 'of the'Com- pany described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor 'disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. All bus drivers employed by Southeastern Management Com- pany constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of, the National Labor Relations Act., 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section,9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative,of all.the bus drivers in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. . CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., herein called Central, is a Delaware corporation, with New York and Indiana subsidiaries,81 having its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. For the purposes of this proceeding, the companies, taken together, constitute one em- ployer, doing business as Central Greyhound Lines, herein called Central and Subsidiaries 82 It is engaged in the business of trans- porting for hire passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under 88 In Board Supplementary Exhibit No . 1, Schultz states that "the Company has agree- ments with the Drivers' Club which do not expire until the end of 1937 ." The Drivers' Club, however , does not set up these agreements in its petition or otherwise . Since the agreements are not before us, we do not find it necessary to decide what the effect of these agreements is upon this certification. 81 Central Greyhound Lines, Inc . of New York is herein called Central of New York. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. of Indiana is herein, called Central of Indiana. 82 This phase of the proceeding is discussed at pp 656-659 , infra. 652 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD regularly published tariffs; through the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois. The consolidated gross revenue of Central and Subsidiaries 83 for the year ended May 31, 1937, was $5,022,641.10, and its total consolidated as- sets on; December, 31, 1936, ,were $7,325,546.87.84 On May 31, 1937, it owned.266 buses, and on 'June 30, 265 buses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in the vari- ous cities along its routes. On May 15, 1937, it employed a total of 1113 employees, of whom it claimed 484 were bus drivers and 302 were mechanics, and on June 15, 1937, a total of 1195 employees, of whom it claimed 479 were bus drivers and 288 were mechanics.85 As 'corporations whose voting capital stock is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, the coin- panies 'in the'Central group are closely affiliated with other Grey- hound Systems'in'the Greyhound Lines, and by means of joint oper- ating, traffic and facility arrangements with these Systems and in- terchange arrangements with independent bus lines they operate as a closely coordinated' part of an integrated system of national transportation. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The' I.' M. C. E. A., Inc., a, New Jersey corporation, with its prin- cipal' place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey, was formed shortly after the decisions of the Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. At that time, officials of Central called in, the representatives of the Employees' Association and stated to them that the old organization was no longer in effect. Representatives of the bus drivers and the mechanics, employed by Central of New York, then decided to form a new organization, the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., and directed their efforts, for the most part, to securing membership among employees of Central of New York. Under it's by-laws, however, the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., admits' to full membership any p'erson,88 including operating, maintenance, and clerical'employees, engaged in the operation of an interstate or intra- state motor coach line 87 'One of the purposes of the organization, as stated in its charter, is "to act for the members in negotiating and conferring with the respective employers of the members in order to ss Excluding Canadian Greyhound Lines, Limited . At the hearing, Ivan Bowen, counsel for the Greyhound companies , testified that the Canadian company was not a subsidiary of Central . R. W. Budd , president of the several Central Greyhound Com- panies, stated that it was a subsidiary . Board Exhibit No 22. e4 Board Exhibit No. 15. sc These figures appear in a summary furnished by Central and Subsidiaries By actual count the number of drivers on the alphabetical list of drivers for May and June 1937, also furnished by Central and Subsidiaries , differs slightly from the number given above. Board Exhibit No. 22, Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 2. 8a Supervisory employees are eligible for membership , but may not vote or hold office. 81 Petitioner's Exhibit I. M. C. E. A. No. 6. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 653 secure improved working, employment, and wage conditions ,for. the members".88 As thus organized, the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., is a labor organization. On June 25, 1937, the Brotherhood filed, a, charge with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York) alleging that Central of New York had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (2) of the Act, in that it had "encouraged and promoted the organization, of the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., and has permitted such association•to meet on company property. It has relieved certain employees from duty on their regular jobs to engage in organization work for the I. M. C. E. A." 89 This charge has since been withdrawn; 9e III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On May' 11; 1937, after securing authorizations from a majority, of -bus drivers employed by Central and Central of New York, officials of the Brotherhood conferred with R. W. Budd, president of the several Central Greyhound companies, and Ivan Bowen, their counsel, in an attempt to negotiate a schedule of rates of pay and working, conditions, covering the bus drivers employed by Central and Subsidiaries. Budd and Bowen declined to review the authorizations and stated that they would refuse to bargain collectively with the Brotherhood until this Board had decided bus drivers to be an appropriate unit and had cer- tified the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. • Thereafter, representatives of the I. M. C. E. A., Inc.,, presented to the officials of Central of New York applications for membership in the I. M. C. E. A., Inc.," signed by a majority of all the, employees of Central of New York, with the request that that company sign, a con- tract, which they also presented, with the .I. M. C. E. A., Inc., as the representative of the majority of its employees.. The officials of the company refused to sign the contract, on the ground that the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., had not been certified by this Board, but retained the appli- cations for review. Later, Budd sent the following telegram to. the secretary of the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., a copy of which that organization then issued to all its members : . , From the evidence submitted by your organization it appears that you represent a majority of the qualified employees for collective bargaining with Central 'Greyhound Lines,, Inc.; of New York. Stop. Your evidence will be returned to you upon call.92 18 Petitioner's Exhibit I. M. C. E. A. No 5 89 Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. of New Yot k, Case No. II-C-459. 80 At the hearing, the Brotherhood sought to show that the I. M. C. E. A., Inc. was company sponsored. This phase of the proceeding Is discussed at p 642, supra. 91 See p 654, infra. 02 Petitioner's Exhibit Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen No. 39. 654 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the time of the hearing neither Central nor Central of New York had recognized the I . M. C. E. A., Inc., or the Brotherhood for the purposes of collective bargaining. IV. THE QUESTION OF. A MAJORITY The Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence authorizations, similar in all respects to those introduced in the case of Atlantic, signed by 356' bus drivers said to be employed by both Central and Central of New York.93 Several special organizers for the Brotherhood testified that they personally witnessed the signatures of many' of the bus drivers. We have compared these authorizations with the alphabetical list of bus drivers of both companies for May 15 and June 15, 1937,94 and find that of the 356 bus drivers who signed these authorizations, 156 appear on Central's alphabetical list of 202 drivers for May 15, 1937, and 159 on its list of 226 for June 15, 1937; that 144 appear on Central of New York's alphabetical list of 279 drivers for May 15, 1937, and 145 on its list of 297 drivers for June 15, 1937; and that' 300 appear on both lists of 481 drivers for May 15, 1937, and 304 on both lists of 523 bus drivers for June 15, 1937 .95 The I. - Mr C. E. • A., ` Inc., introduced in 'evidence two sets of applications 'signed by bus drivers, one for membership in thu I. M. C. E. A'., Inc., the other for membership in the Association of Interstate Motor Coach Employees, herein called A. I. M. C. E.95 It was testified that these organizations were one and the same, and that the difference in name was the result of a mistake in print- ing.' We have compared these applications for membership with the May and June 'alphabetical lists of bus drivers for both Central and Central of New York, and- find that of the 156 97 bus drivers who signed these applications, 111 appear on the May alphabetical list of 279 bus drivers for Central of New York, and 123 on its alphabetical list of -297 bus drivers for June. Of the 111 who ap- pear on the May list, 89 signed applications for A. I. M. C. E. and 22 for the I. M. C. E. A., Inc.; and, of the 123 who appear on the June list, 96 signed applications for A. I. M. C. E. and 27 for the I. M. C. E. A., Inc. In addition, four bus drivers who signed applications for membership in A. I. M. C. E. appear on the 'May and June lists of 202 and 226 bus drivers for Central."' ra Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. 94 Board Exhibit No. 22. as No separate figures are given for Central of Indiana . They are apparently included in the figures for Central. Petitioner's Exhibit I. M. C. E. A. No. 3. Board Exhibit No. 22. 91 Board Exhibit No. 22. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 655 Taking the -applications for membership in A. I . M. C. E. and the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., as applications for membership in the I. M. C. E . A., Inc., we find that the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., has a total of 115 applications of the 481 bus drivers employed by both Central and Central of New York in May 1937, and 127 applica- tions of the 523 bus drivers employed by both companies in June 1937. It appears, however, that 26 bus drivers who signed applications for membership in A. I. M. C. E. or the I. M. C. E . A., Inc., and whose names are on the May or June alphabetical list of Central of New York, also signed authorizations for the Brotherhood, and that the four bus drivers who.signed applications for A . I. M. C. E. and whose names appear on the alphabetical lists of Central for May and June also signed authorizations for the Brotherhood. A summary of these conflicting claims appears in the following table: No of Drivers Central 09------------------- May 15 202 June 15 226 Central of New York _-___-_ May 15 279 June 15 297 Central and Subsidiaries___ May 15 481 June 15 523 Authorizations for- Broth- erhood I.M C E. A , Inc. A.I.M. I.M C.E.A, 'C. E. , Inc. (Total) Both the I M. C.-E. A , Inc. and the Brother- hood 156 ( 4) = 4 159 ( 4) = 4 4 144 (22 89) = 111 145 (27 96) = 123 26 300 (22 93) = 115 304 (27 100) = 127 30 ao These figures apparently include figures for Central of Indiana. From these figures, it is clear that the Brotherhood has been selected by a majority, of the bus drivers employed by Central and Subsidi- aries. The I. A. M., which intervened in this case, presented no proof,of its claim to represent a majority of the maintenance employees of Central and Subsidiaries. The I. M. C.,E. A., Inc., introduced in evi- dence applications for membership signed by 137 clerical and 131 maintenance employees said to be employed by Central of New York. The alphabetical lists and summaries submitted by Budd for Central Greyhound Lines, show that on June 30, 1937, Central of New York listed 122 mechanics and 120 clerks as employed on that date. On May 15, 1937, Central and Subsidiaries employed a total of 302 mechanics and approximately 327 clerical employees (including superintendents), and on June 15, 1937, a total of 288 mechanics and approximately 328 clerical employees (including superintendents) 100 101 Board Exhibit No. 22. 656 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is unnecessary, however, to consider these applications. No ques- tion of the representation of any employees other than bus drivers has been properly raised in this instance since no petition has been filed for certification of representatives of such other employees.101 V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Brotherhood contends that Central and Subsidiaries, consist- ing-of Central,-Central of Indiana, and Central of New York, con- stitute a single employer., The-I. M. C. E. A., Inc., contends that Central-of New York i"s a separate company and an employer unit separate from the other Central Greyhound companies. At the hear- ing, the Trial Examiner reserved the question for determination by the. Board on the basis of all the evidence submitted. In support of its position, S. R. Harvey for the Brotherhood testi- fied that at the above described conference with Budd and Bowen on May 11, 1937, he asked for the jurisdiction of Budd as president of several Greyhound companies and was told that Budd represented not only Central, Central of Indiana, and Central of New York, but also the Canadian '112 Illinois,103 and New England companies,104 and that if it should prove later that the Brotherhood was to negotiate working conditions, he desired that the entire line be covered, includ- ing all the above mentioned companies, as one unit. With that un- derstanding, the Brotherhood filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives of the bus drivers employed by Cen- tral, including therein the bus drivers employed by all the foregoing companies. At the hearing, Bowen testified that although from an operating point of view, the Canadian, Illinois, and New England companies were operated by "the Central Greyhound operating or- ganization", from the employer point of view, each of these three companies was a separate employer unit. The Brotherhood then filed separate amended petitions in each of the three cases.10, Bowen also'testified that because Central' and Subsidiaries was one operat- ing unit for management purposes, bus drivers were transferred from one Central Greyhound company to another, and that bus drivers whose names were carried on one division 'of Central and Subsidiaries, often worked on another. The I. M. C. E. A:, Inc., on the other hand, claims that Central of New York has always been considered a separate company, and in the past has had separate agreements. No such agreements were introduced in evidence. On the contrary, it appears from the ex- 101 See Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Section IV, supra. "See, p , 660, infra. 109 Seep. 660, infra. 104 See p . 660, infra 105 See p 661 , infra. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 657 hibits submitted by Budd for Central Greyhound Lines that under the former Employees' Association all the employees of all the Central Greyhound companies , as well as the employees of the Ca- nadian, Illinois, and New England companies, voted as one unit, at the same time, in the eight regions which were joint headquarters for the various Greyhound companies , and that officers were elected for each region in accordance with the highest number of , votes cast by all the employees participating in that region , regardless of which company employed them.105a It appears , further, , that although the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., concentrated its efforts particularly on, the employees of Central of New York, it sought membership also among the employees of Central and the New England company. As pointed out above , the by-laws of the I. M. C. E . A., Inc., do not limit membership to employees of Central of New York, but include any person engaged in the motor bus industry. Most of the applications presented as proof that I. M. C. E. A., Inc., repre- sented a majority of the employees of Central of New York state that the organization is to be formed "for the purpose of improv- ing the conditions of all employees of the Associated Greyhound Lines." 106 The remainder of the applications ' pledge the 'signer to abide by its constitution and by-laws . At the hearing, Lewis E. Bush for the I. M. C. E. A., Inc., testified as follows : Q. Did you limit your corporate organization to the particu- lar group which you are here proposing to limit it .to (em- ployees of Central of New York) ? A. No, it was not, not so stated. Q. Then you could if you desired enlarge it? A. It is made that way specifically for that very reason. Q. And you may want to enlarge it at some time to cover the entire system. A. We may. Q. But you don't desire to do it at the present time. A. We haven't enough membership. Q. And that is the only reason you don't want to enlarge it at the present time? A. That is the only restriction that I know of. From other evidence in the record it further appears that, for a number of purposes , Central and Subsidiaries, rather than the sepa- rate companies , constitute a single unit. In the application of Central Greyhound Lines, et al., filed in Janu- ary 1936 with the Interstate Commerce Commission , under the Motor 105a Board Exhibit No 22. 100 Italics supplied . See Petitioner's Exhibit I M. C E A No 3 658 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carrier Act of 1935, the applicants 1.07 described the interrelationships of the companies as follows : Applicants constitute an Association doing business under the trade name or style of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES .. . CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. owns the entire vot- ing capital stock of each of the other applicants which in so far as interstate transportation is concerned it controls, directs, and operates as its departments, adjuncts and agencies, through com- mon directors, officers and agents appointed and supervised by it in the conduct of its said business, in its sole interest and in ac- cordance with policies determined by it; and which other'agents in so far as intrastate transportation is concerned operate through said proprietary company as their fiscal agent 108 By order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the merger of oper- ations of Central New York, and other applicants, with those of Central has been approved,109 and according to the testimony of Ivan Bowen, counsel for all the Greyhound companies involved in this proceeding,110 they are now operated "as one unit or one corpora- tion." Although Budd submitted separate alphabetical lists of bus drivers, maintenance, and clerical employees for Central and Central of New York, all the employees, including the bus drivers, of Central and Central of New York are listed as employees on the pay roll of 107 Since January 1936 , the five applicants named in the application appear to have been reduced to three: Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. of New York, and Central Greyhound Lines of Indiana. See Board Exhibit No. 22. l01 Board Exhibit No. 27. 109 The Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission , Greyhound Mergers, 1936 , decided December 19, 1936, although not introduced in evidence, is a public document, and we take judicial notice of the following facts stated therein : In the latter connection , the laws of some States provide, as in Ohio, that the operating company must have licensed in its name the vehicles which it operates over the routes in that State. The Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. of New York operates from New York to Cleveland, Ohio, and the Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. of Michigan from Cleveland to Chicago. The New York company may not operate busses, the title to which is in the Michigan company, east of Cleveland, and the Michigan company may not operate busses, the title to which is in the New York company, west of Cleveland, thereby necessitating the change of busses on all routes. According to applicants, the merger of the two companies will permit the operation of through busses from New York to Chicago without change, and thereby avoid in- convenience to the passenger of transferring himself and baggage. In giving effect to the proposed mergers the accounts of the liquidating corpora- tions would be merged with those of the surviving corporations, all intercompany accounts being eliminated . That is to say, the surviving corporations will own exactly the same property , except as previously explained, now owned by the liqui- dating subsidiaries ; debt and stock obligations of the liquidating to the surviving com- panies now in the hands of the public will remain unchanged ; and all liabilities of the liquidating companies will be assumed and at maturity be discharged by the respective surviving companies ; and earnings , revenues , and expenses of the latter will be the same as the combined earnings of the surviving and liquidating companies at the present time , with some savings in expenses due to economies already mentioned. 110 Except Southeastern Greyhound Lines. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 659 Central and Subsidiaries, excluding Canadian Greyhound Lines, Limited 111 On the basis of the foregoing evidence we conclude that for the purposes of this proceeding Central and Subsidiaries, including Cen- tral, Central of Indiana, and Central of New York, is a single em- ployer unit. As set forth above,112 we find that where the considerations which determine the question of the appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here the majority of the bus drivers employed by Central and Subsidiaries have clearly expressed their desire for a unit composed of bus drivers alone, by choosing the Brotherhood as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. In order to insure to the em- ployees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collec- tive bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act, we find that all bus drivers employed by Central and Subsidiaries con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive repre- sentative of the bus drivers in that unit. VI. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Central and Subsidiaries described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. All the bus drivers employed by Central Greyhound Lines, including Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Indiana, and Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New York, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep- resentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all the zu Board Exhibit No. 22. Board Supplementary Exhibit No. 2. 11= See p. 634, supra. 660 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bus drivers in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. ILLINOIS GREYHOUND LINES, INC. CANADIAN GREYHOUND LINES, LIMITED EASTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW ENGLAND 1. THE COMPANIES AND THEIR BUSINESSES Illinois Greyhound Lines, Inc., herein called the Illinois company, is an Illinois corporation, having its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. Under the name of Greyhound Lines it is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. Its gross revenue for the year ended May 31, 1937, was $816,602.89.113 During the month of May 1937 it owned and operated 26 buses, and during the month of June 1937, 28 buses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in the various cities along its routes. On May 15, 1937, it employed a total of 35 employees, of whom 24 were bus drivers, and on June 15, 1937, a total of 31 employees, of whom 25 were bus drivers.114 Canadian Greyhound Lines, Limited, herein called the Canadian company, is a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario, having its principal place of business in Windsor, On- tario. Under the name of Greyhound Lines, it is engaged in trans- porting for hire passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, between Buffalo, New York, and De- troit, Michigan, through the Province of Ontario, Canada." Its gross revenue for the 12 months ended May 31, 1937, was $266,068.29. On May 31, 1937, and June 30, 1937, it owned and operated 26 buses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in the various cities along its routes. On May 15, and June 15, 1937, it employed a total of 21 employees, of whom 15 were bus drivers, three of whom are employed entirely within Canada. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New England, herein called the New England company, a Delaware corporation having its prin- cipal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, is an operating subsid- iary of The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, which directly owns the entire voting stock of the New England company. Under 118 It has filed an application under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 with the Interstate Commerce Commission ( Board Exhibit No. 33). 114 Board Exhibit No. 22. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661 the name of, Greyhound, Lines, the New England company is en- gaged in the business • of transporting for, hire' passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of: Maine; , New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, • and, New, ,York.115 Its gross revenue for the ^ •12 months ended May 31, 1937, was $941,139.34. On May 31, 1937, 'it owned-and, operated 52 buses, and on June 30,4937, 62 buses, for the safe and, regular operation of which it maintains garages and re- pair shops in the, various cities along its routes. 'On May 15, 1937, it e'mployed,a'total of, 115 employees, of whom 51 were bus drivers, and 21 mechanics, and on June 15, a total of 113 employees, of whom 50 were bus drivers and 28 mechanics. As corporations whose voting capital stock is owned directly or -indirectly ' by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, the thre companies are closely connected with other Greyhound Systems in the .Greyhound tines, and by means of joint operating; traffic, and facility arrangements' with these Systems and interchange' arrange- ments with independent bus lines they' operate as a closely coordi- nated part' of an integrated system of national transportation. 'II. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION As set forth above in Central,Greyhound Lines, Section III, R. W. Budd, on behalf of the Canadian, Illinois, and New England Com- panies, as well as, the ,Central Greyhound companies, refused to bargain collectively, with the Brotherhood as the representative of the majority of, the buss drivers employed by each company or by all the companies taken together, until this Board had determined bus drivers to be the appropriate unit, and had certified the Brother- hood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. No petition has been filed in the cases of these three companies for certification of'representatives of any employees other'than the bus drivers. No question, therefore, has arisen in these cases con- cerning the representation of such other employees. III. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY In the Central Greyhound Lines case, the Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence authorizations which it con- tended - were, signed by bus drivers employed by Central Greyhound Lines. After amending its petition in that case to exclude therefrom they bus drivers employed by the Canadian,, Illinois, and New Eng- land companies,,the Brotherhood submitted in these cases a num- ber of the same authorizations as evidence of its claim to represent 115 Board Exhibit No. 33. 49446-38-vol. m-43 662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' a majority of the bus drivers employed by the Canadian and Illinois Companies. In addition, it introduced in evidence similar authoriza- tions signed by bus drivers employed by the New England Company. We have compared these authorizations with the pay rolls sub- mitted by the three companies for the period ended May 31, and June 30, 1937, and find, that of the bus drivers who' signed these authorizations, 23 are listed by Illinois on its'May-and June pay rolls of 26 bus drivers, 10 are listed by the Canadian Company on its May and June 1937 pay rolls of 15 drivers, ;and, 41 are listed by , the New England Company'on its May" and June 1937 pay rolls of 54 bus drivers. . ' I , , . IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above ,^16 we find that, where the considerations which determine the question of the appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here the majority of the bus drivers employed by the Illinois, Canadian, and New England companies, respectively, have clearly expressed their desire, for units composed of bus drivers alone, by choosing the Brotherhood as their representative for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining. In order to insure to the employees of each com- pany the full benefit of their right to self organization and collec- tive bargaining, and ,otherwise to effectuate ' the policies of the Act, we find that all the bus drivers employed by each company constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive representa- tive of the bus drivers employed by each of the three companies, respectively, in the aforesaid units. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF 'REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We' And that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the com- panies described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact,' the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. All the bus drivers employed by' Canadian Greyhound Lines, Limited, Illinois Greyhound Lines, ` Inc., and . Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. of New England,, respectively, constitute units appro- priate' for the purposes of Collective' bargaining 'within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor 'Relations Act. 116 See p. 634, supra. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 663 2. Questions have arisen concerning the representation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid units within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of bus drivers in each of the aforesaid units, is, by virtue of Section 9, (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all the bus drivers in each such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES I. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with Illinois and Indiana subsidiaries, having its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. The Interstate Commerce Commis- sion has granted its application, filed under the Federal Motor Car- rier Act of 1935, for a merger of the operations ' of its various sub- sidiaries, and, for the purpose of this proceeding, the companies, taken, together, constitute one employer, doing business as Penn- sylvania Greyhound Lines, herein called Pennsylvania.117 It is en- gaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, baggage, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, through the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- land, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky and the Dis- trict of Columbia. Its gross revenue for the year ended May 1937 was $6,624,825.80, and its total assets on December 31, 1936, were $6,612,909.76.118 During the months of May and -June 1937, it oper- ated 291 and 301 , buses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in the various cities along its routes. On May 15, 1937,' it employed it total of 1170 employees, of whom 491 were bus drivers and 253 mechanics, and on June 15, 1937, a total of 1276 employees, of whom 533 were bus drivers and 257 mechanics.119, As corporations whose voting.capital stock is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware.120 the' com- panies in the Pennsylvania group are closely affiliated with other Greyhound Systems in the, Greyhound Lines, and by means of joint operating, traffic, and facility arrangements with these Systems and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines they operate as "7 The interrelationships of these companies are similar to those of the companies constituting Central Greyhound Wes which we also treat as a single employer unit for reasons explained at pp . 656-659, supra. W Board Exhibit No. 15. u9 Board Exhibit No. 19. 110 See Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et aZ., 1 N. L. R. B. 1. 664 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a closely coordinated part of an integrated system of national transportation. • H. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On May '12; 1937, officials of the Brotherhood sought to enter into negotiations with officials of Pennsylvania' for a schedule of rates of pay' and working conditions. As proof that it represents a major- ity'of the bus drivers, the Brotherhood' presented 375 signed authori- zations of a total of 450 drivers, its estimate of 'the number of bus drivers employed by Pennsylvania. S. R. Sundstroni, president of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its subsidiaries, refused to examine the authorizations and stated that he would not enter into such negotiations until this Board had determined bus drivers to be the appropriate unit and had certified the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. , - No petition has been filed in the case of Pennsylvania for certifica- tion of representatives of any employees other than bus drivers. No question, therefore, has arisen in this case concerning the representa- tion of such other employees. III. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY At the hearing, the Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence 375 authorizations'121 similar in all respects to those intro- duced in the case of Atlantic, signed by bus drivers said to be em- ployed by Pennsylvania. Several special organizers for the Brother- hood testified that they had personally witnessed many of the signa- tures. We have compared these authorizations with the pay rolls submitted .for the periods ended May 31 and June, 30, 1937, respec- tively, and find that of the 375 bus drivers who signed these authoriza- tions, 357 are listed by Pennsylvania on its May pay roll of 491 bus drivers, and 360 on its June pay roll. of '533 bus drivers.122 In addi- tion, we find that one authorization submitted by the Brotherhood for representation on Ohio Greyhound Lines,' Inc., was' in fact signed by a bus driver listed on Pennsylvania's June pay roll. The Brother- hood,' therefore,' has been selected by 357. out of 491 bus drivers em- ployed by Pennsylvania in May 1937,' or '361' out of 533 bus 'drivers employed in June 1937, as' their representative for the ,purpose of collective bargaining. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above'123 we find that where the considerations which determine the question of the. appropriate unit are evenly, balanced, 121 Petitioners Exhibit No. 15. lrz Board Exhibit No. 19. 123 See p 634 , supra. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 665 the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. , Here, the, record clearly indicates that, a majority of the bus drivers employed by Pennsylvania, by choosing the Brotherhood as, their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, have expressed their desire for a unit composed, of bus drivers alone. In, order to insure, to the employees the full benefit of their right, to self organization and col-, lective bargaining,, and otherwise to effectuate, the policies of the Act, we find that all the bus drivers, employed by Pennsylvania consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive repre sentative of the bus drivers in that unit. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF • REPRESENTATION ION COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Pennsyl- vania described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and' obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS ' OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. All bus drivers employed:by Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its subsidiaries, constitute a, unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning,the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. , 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section, 9 (a), of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all the bus drivers in such unit, for the purpose of collective, bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. , , RICHMOND GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., herein called "Richmond, is a Virginia Corporation, having its principal place of business in Rich- mond, Virginia: Under the'name of Greyhour4Liries; it is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, mail, express, and newspapers, under regularly published tariffs, between the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia. For the year ending Decem- 666' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD her 31, 1936, its, gross revenue was $466,435.87, and on that date its total assets $412,962.15.124 ' In May and June 1937 it owned and oper-' ated' 17 buses, for 'the safe' and regular operation of which it main- tains 'a garage in Richmond, Virginia,' where minor repairs and sere icing'are performed.' It also owns 25 per cent of 'the stock 125 'of the Greyhound Garage of Washington Ine:, where the major part of its repair work is done. ' In May and June 1937 it employed a total of 31 employees; of whom 26 were bus drivers. In its Richmond garage, it ein loys'two mechanics. As one of the corporations whose voting capital 'stock is owned dirrectly or' indirectly by The Greyhound Cor- poration of Delaware, it is closely -affiliated with other Greyhound Systems in the Greyhound Lines, and by means of joint operating, traffic, and facility arrangements with these Systems and interchange arrangements 'with. , independent ,bus lines it operates as a closely coordinated part of an integrated system of national transportation. II. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In the latter part of May 1937, officials of the Brotherhood wrote to 0. S. Caesar, president of Richmond, in Chicago, Illinois, asking him to 'meet representatives' of the Brotherhood there, review the Brotherhood's authorizations, and enter into an agreement for a sched- ule of rates'of pay and working conditions. Mr. Caesar advised the officials of the Brotherhood that S. R. Sundstrom, president of'Penn- sylvariia Greyhound Lines, Inc., and also vice president and general manager of Richmond, was the official of Richmond to conduct these negotiations. Later,- Sundstrom stated to officials of the Brother- hood that negotiations for Richmond should be handled in the way he had suggested for Pennsylvania, and that he would refuse to bargain collectively with the Brotherhood until this Board has determined bus drivers to be the appropriate unit and had certified the Brotherhood as 'the exclusive representative of the bus drivers employed by the company in that unit. No petition has been filed in the case of Richmond for certification of representatives of any employees other than bus drivers. No ques- tion, therefore, has arisen in this case concerning the 'representation of such other employees. III. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY , The Brotherhood introduced in evidence 24 authorizations, similar in all respects to, those introduced in the case of Atlantic, signed by bus, drivers employed by Richmond.126 We have compared these au- 124 Board Exhibits Nos. 15 and 27. its Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines owns the other 75 per cent. tae Petitioner's ,Exhibit No. 11. , DECISIONS AND ORDERS 667. thorizations with the last pay rolls for May, and June 1937,127 and find that of the 23128 bus drivers who signed these authorizations, 23 are listed by Richmond on its May pay roll of 26 bus drivers, and 22 on its June pay roll of 26 bus drivers. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above,129 we find that where the considerations, which determine the question of the, appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive -factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here, the record clearly indicates that a majority of the bus drivers employed by Richmond, by choosing the Brotherhood as their representative for, the purpose of collective bargaining, have expressed their. desire for a unit composed of bus drivers alone. In order to insure to the employees the full benefit of their right to self organization' and col- lective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of ' the Act, we find that all the bus drivers employed by Richmond constitute.a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall. therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS ' OF REPRESENTATION ON 'COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning ,representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Richmond described in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of 'the above findings of fact, the,Board makes the following conclusions of law : . 1. All bus drivers employed by Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) 'of , the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive 'representative of all the bus drivers in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in 127 Board Exhibit No. 21. 1,8 One bus driver signed two authorizations. '-"See p. 634, supra. 668 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES 1. THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Capitol Greyhound Lines is a Virginia corporation, with Indiana and Illinois subsidiaries, having its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.13o The companies, taken together, constitute one em- ployer, doing' business as Capitol' Greyhound Lines, herein called Capito1.13 a It is,engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers,' baggage, mail,, express, and newspapers, under' regularly published tariffs, through the States' of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia, and the District of ,Columbia. Its consolidated gross revenues for' the year ended December 31, 1936, were $517,477.92, and for the first six months of 1937, $225,992.59, and its total consolidated assets on December 31, 1936, were $550;099.18.131 On May 31, 1937, it operated 23 buses, and on June 30, 25 buses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in the various cities along its routes. On May,31 and June 30, 1937, it employed a total of 36 em- ployees, of whom 35 were bus drivers. As corporations whose voting capital stock is owned directly or indirectly by The` Greyhound, Corporation of Delaware, the com- panies in the' Capitol group are closely affiliated with other Greyhound Systems in the Greyhound Lines, and by means of joint operating, traffic, and facility arrangements. with these Systems and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines they operate as a closely' coordinated part of an integrated system of national transportation. II: ;THEQUESTION , CONCERNING REPRESENTATION During the' fatter part of May 1937, after securing authorizations from a majority of bus drivers, officials of the Brotherhood commu- nicated with Mr: A. S. Hill, president of Capitol Greyhound Lines and subsidiariesat Charleston, West Virginia,' in an attempt to nego- tiate an agreement f4 ''a schedule 'of rates of pay and 'working conditions. 'Mr. Hill referred the Brotherhood to Mr. C. E. Graves, vice president and general manager, at'Cincinnati, Ohio, who stated that he would refuse to bargain collectively with the Brotherhood .130 See Application of Capitol ,Greyhound Lines et at. filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 , Board Exhibit No. 27. i5uu The interrelationships , of these companies are similar to those of the companies constituting Central Greyhound Lines which we also treat as a single employer unit for reasons explained at pp 656-659 , supra. 131 Board Exhibits Nos 15, 17. DECISIONS AND ORDERS . 669 until this Board had decided bus drivers to be an,appropriate unit and had certified the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. No petition, has been filed in the case of Capitol for certification of, representatives of any employees other than the bus drivers.- • No question,: therefore, has; arisen concerning the representation of such other employees. III. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY, The Brotherhood introduced in evidence authorizatioDs, similar in all respects to, those introduced in, the case of,Atlantic, signed by bus drivers said to be employed by Capitol.132 We have compia,red these authorizations with Capitol's pay rolls for the period ending May 31 and June 30, 1937,133 and find that of the 25 bus drivers who signed these authorizations, 25 'are listed on 'the May pay roll of 35 bus drivers, and 24 on' the June pay roll of 35, bus drivers. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above'134 we find that where the considerations which determine the question of the appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here, the ma- jority of the bus drivers employed by the, company, by choosing the Brotherhood as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, have clearly expressed their desire, for a unit composed of bus drivers alone.' In order to insure to the employees the' full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act,,we find that all 'the bus drivers employed by Capitol constitute a. unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS OF•REPRESENTATION• ON, COMMERCE We find that the questions of representation ' whichs have thus arisen, occurring in connection with„the 'activities, of Capitol de- scribed in Section I above, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce sand the free flow, of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • ' Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board makes the following conclusions of law : , 1. All bus drivers employed by Capitol, Greyhound Lines and sub- sidiaries constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective 132 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. 1S' Board's Exhibit 17. 434 See p. 634, sup, a. 670 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 12. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit within the meaning .of'Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, having been selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all the bus drivers in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect' to rates of pay, wages, hours, of employment, and other conditions of employment. OHIO GREYHOUND LINES, INC. I.• THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS Ohio Greyhound Lines, Inc.,, herein called Ohio , is an Indiana corporation , having its principal place of business in Chicago, Illi- nois. Under the name of Greyhound ' Lines, it is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, mail, express, and news- papers, under regularly published tariffs , through the States of Michigan , Ohio, and Indiana.135 Its gross revenue for the year ended December ' 31, 1936, was $610,637.61, and for the first five months of 1937, $247,088.25 . During the month of 'May 1937, it owned 20 and leased' 6 buses, for the safe and regular operation of which; it maintains garages ' and repair 'shops in the various' cities along its ' routes. On May 31, 1937, it 'employed a total of 42 em- ployees, of whom 21 were bus drivers and two mechanics.l3° ' As, one of the corporations whose voting capital stock 'is owned directly or indirectly by The Greyhound Corporation of Delaware, Ohio is closely affiliated with other Greyhound Systems ' in the Grey- hound Lines, and, by means of joint operating , traffic and facility arrangements with these Systems and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines, it operates as a closely coordinated part of an integrated system of national transportation. II. THE QIIESTION OF REPRESENTATION During the latter part of May 1937, after securing authorizations from a majority of the bus drivers, officials of the Brotherhood communicated with O. S. Caesar, president of Ohio, requesting that he meet a representative of the Brotherhood , review the authoriza- tions, and , ' if satisfied, enter into an agreement for a schedule of 131 Board Exhibit No. 27. 136 Board Exhibit No. 30. DECISIONS AND ORDERS, 671 rates of pay and working conditions. Mr. Caesar referred the Brotherhood to Manfred Burleigh, general manager of Ohio, at Detroit, Michigan, who stated that he would refuse to bargain collectively with the Brotherhood until this Board had decided bus drivers to be an appropriate unit and had certified the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. No petition has been filed in the case of Ohio for investigation and certification of representatives of any employees other, than bus drivers. No question,- therefore, has arisen in this case concerning the representation of such other employees. III. THE QUESTION OF A MAJORITY The Brotherhood, through S. R. Harvey, introduced in evidence authorizations, similar in all respects to those introduced in the case of Atlantic, signed by 17 bus drivers said to be'employed by Ohio.137 We have compared these authorizations with Ohio's last pay rolls for May and June, 1937, and find that one authorization was signed by a bus driver listed on the June pay roll of Pennsylvania, and that 15 were signed by bus drivers listed on Ohio's May pay roll of 21 bus drivers, and 14 on its June pay roll of 20 drivers.133 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT As set forth above'139 we find that where the considerations which determine the question of the appropriate unit are evenly balanced, the decisive factor is the desire of the men themselves. Here again the record clearly indicates that the majority of the bus drivers em- ployed by the company, by choosing the Brotherhood as their repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining, have,expressed their desire for a unit composed of bus drivers alone. In order to insure to the employees the full benefit of their right to self-organ- ization and collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of the Act,, we find that all the bus drivers employed by Ohio constitute a unit • appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore, certify the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the bus drivers in that unit. V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have thus arisen, occurring in connection with,'the -operations of Ohio described in Section. I above, tend to lead' to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and -the free flow of -commerce. 137 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. 123 Board Exhibit No. 30. 339 See p. 634, supra. 672 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONOLusiONs OF LAW Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board-makes the following conclusions: of law : 1. All. bus drivers, employed by the Ohio Greyhound Lines, Inc., constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. 2..A question affecting commerce has-arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the bus drivers in the aforesaid unit within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmei , having been selected, for the purposes of collective, bargaining by the majority of bus drivers in the aforesaid unit, is, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, the exclusive representative of all the bus drivers in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi- tions of employment., DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amend'e`d, it is ' DIRECTED that,' as part of the investigations authorized by the Board to ascertain' representatives for the purpose of collective bar- gaining with Atlantic 'Greyhound'' Lines, Inc., and its subsidiaries, 'elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction, 'under the direction and supervision of, the Regional Director'for the Ninth Region, acting in this mat- ter as agent, for the' 'National Labor' Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9 of 'said Rules and, Regulations,' among those employees of Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its subsidiaries, who fall within the groups' described below who were on the pay roll of said companies for the period ending May 31, 1937: a. Bus drivers, and temporary despatchers who hold seniority rights as bus drivers, to, determine, whether they desire to be repre- sented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees 'Union, Inc., or neither, for the purposes' of collective (bargaining. b. Maintenance employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the International Association of Machinists, the Inter- DECISIONS AND ORDERS 6,73 state Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining. c. All other'employees, except supervisory employees, to determine whetlier' or not they-desire to be represented by the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining. FURTHER DIRECTED that, as part of the investigations authorized by the' Board to ascertain, representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining with Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its sub- sidiary, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within twenty (20) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the ' Sixteenth Region, act- ing in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to said Rules and Regulations, among those employees of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its subsidiary who fall within the groups described below who were on the pay roll of said companies on May 25, 1937, or available for service on that date : a. Bus drivers, and temporary despatchers who hold seniority rights as bus drivers, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Greyhound Employees Union, or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining. b. Maintenance employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the International Association of Machinists, the Grey- hound Employees Union, or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining. c. All other employees, except supervisory employees, to deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Greyhound Employees Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. FURTHER DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Southeastern Greyhound Lines, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within twenty, (20) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9 of said Rules and Regulations, among all the bus drivers employed by Southeastern Greyhound Lines, including Southeastern Greyhound, Lines of Ken- tucky, Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Tennessee, and Southeastern Greyhound Lines of Alabama, on the pay rolls of each of the three companies, respectively, during the period ended May 31, 1937, to de- termine whether they wish to be represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Consolidated Coach Operators Association, or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 674 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National La- bor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8 of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that The Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men has been designated and selected by a majority of,the bus drivers, employed by each of the following corporations, as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining : 1. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Subsidiaries, 2. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Subsidiaries, 3. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. of New England, 4. Illinois Greyhound Lines, Inc., 5. Canadian Greyhound Lines, Limited, 6. Ohio Greyhound Lines, Inc., 7. Capitol Greyhound Lines and Subsidiaries, 8. Southeastern Management Company, 9. Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., and that, .pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees of each of the above named corpo- rations for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Elections, and Certification of Representatives. [SAME TITLE] AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS September 29, 1937. On September 14, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision, Direction of Elections, and Cer- tification of Representatives in the above-entitled proceeding, the elec- tions to be held within 20 days from the date of Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Directors for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) and Sixteenth Region (Fort 'Worth, Texas)': The Board, having been advised by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region that a longer period is, necessary, hereby amends the Direction of Elections issued on September 14, 1937, by striking therefrom,' wherever they occur, the words "within 20 days from 'the date of this Direction" and substituting therefor the'words "within 35 days from the date of this Direction' ' MR. EDWIN S . SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Amendment to Direction of Elections.