Pacific Greyhound Lines

In the Matter of PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY- AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYES OF AMERICA - In the Matter Of PACIFIC GREYHOUND. LINES and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Case. Nos. R-926 and RD27, respectively.Decided October 29, 1938 Motor Bus Industry-Invcstigation of Pcpi esentatites: controversy concern- ing representation of employees- controversy concerning appropriate unit; rival organizations-Pi ocedure: notice of hearing : notice that Board will investigate question whether assistance by Company to one labor organization, it party. or effects thereof, found by Board in a prior decision, continued, and whether Company established, maintained, or' assisted 'such organization by unfair labor practice-Conti act: closed-shop, no bar to investigation under -circumstances: question concerning representation not precluded by closed- shop contract where doubt exists whether labor organization executing same was free choice of its members, mere lapse of 4 months between previous decision finding assistance and execution of closed-shop agreement, incon- clusive as proof of dissipation of effects of assistance, where no showing that any remedial action was taken to remove effects, and outstanding contracts 'between Company and labor organization provided for recognition of organiza- tion by Company and for closed shop upon approval of majority of employees ; Board election among bus drivers alone, held less than 6 weeks prior to -execution of closed-shop agreement covering substantially all employees in- cluding bus drivers with labor organization receiving a plurality of votes counted, insufficient to establish labor organization a free choice of substantially all employees when agreement executed, inasmuch as employees other than 'bus drivers were substantial in number ; petitions filed, notice of hearing served, and proceedings had prior to date of giving notice of termination under automatic renewal clause ; closed-shop provision of, previously unenforced by Company because of possible infringement of Circuit Court order, directed, with consent of Company, to remain executory pending close of case-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaming• considerations evenly balanced as to .appropriateness of unit limited to bus drivers and of unit including them with other employees ; either unit feasible ; appropriate unit or units to be resolved by desires of employees in elections, prior determination of, not res judicata: finding by Board in previous decision in representation case, involving bus- drivers, that bus drivers are not an appropriate unit but are to be merged into a larger unit, not conclusive on same issue in subsequent representation proceed- ing; Section 9 (b) of Act construed; said prior finding unpersuasive since based in part upon desires of bus drivers as expressed in an election which resulted in no selection of exclusive bargaining representative; election necessary among bus drivers because of confusion as to the desires of a majority of them since a majority are members of both labor organizations ; separate 9 N. L. R. B., No. 51- 557 558 NATIONAL LABOR I{ELATIONS BOARD election also necessary among employees other than bus drivers within larger unit although majority of them members of proponent of that unit , because of doubt whether their membership is result of a free choice ; dissenting opinion as to : bus drivers alone an appropriate unit in view of history of collective bargaining and doubt as to status of labor organization representing larger unit as freely chosen representative-Elections Ordered Mr. Johnathan H. Rowell, for the Board. Brobeck, Phleger cC Harrison, by Mr. Gregory A. Harrison, and Mr. Robert H. Walker, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Company. Mr. San A. Ladar, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Amalgamated. Mr. Clifton Hildebrand, and Mr. Charles McLeod, of Oakland, Calif., for the Brotherhood. Mr. James A. Cobey, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 7, 1938, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America,, herein called the Amalgamated, filed with the Regional Director for the Twen- tieth Region (San Francisco, California) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Pacific Greyhound Lines, a corporation, San Francisco, California, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Sec- tion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 13, 1938, Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men, herein called the Brotherhood, the labor organization referred to in the petition of the Amalgamated as claiming to represent cer- tain of the employees of the Company directly affected by the ili- vestigation, likewise filed a petition for an investigation and certifi- cation of representatives. The petition of the Brotherhood alleged in part that the Company's "policy is to make all bus drivers join Amalgamated and to assist the officials of said Union in obtaining members and to exert undue influence upon the bus drivers in its employ in making them join said Union." On June 14, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, Herein called 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, ordered an investigation 1 The name of the Amalgamated as subscribed to its original petition is inaccurately stated DECISIONS AND ORDERS 559 upon the petitions and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice; and acting pursuant to Article III,' Section` 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the two cases be consolidated for the purposes of hearing.2 Thereafter, the Amalgamated and the Brotherhood each filed an amended petition identical in provi- sion with the original petition respectively filed by each but making a correction in the name of the Company as set forth in'the orig- inal petitions.3 The Board, thereupon, issued nunc' pro tunc,' as of June 14, 19.38, an order of consolidation and direction of investiga- tion anti hearing similar to its order of June 14, 1938, setting forth the name of the Company, however, in style and manner as coil- tained in the amended petitions.- The order likewise made a cor- rection in the name of the Brotherh'ood.4 On June 15, 1938,, the Regional Director issued a notice of 'con- solidated hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Com- pany, upon the Amalgamated, arid` upon the Brotherhood. Among other things the notice stated : YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that at such. time and place testi- mony. or other evidence will be received on the matter of whether the' encouragement of membership in Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America. or any other labor organization, or the discouragement of membership in Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, or any other labor organization, found by the National Labor Relations Board to have been committed by Pacific Greyhound Lines (in Case No. R-195, December 16, 1937, 4-N. L. R. B. 72),' or the effects thereof, has continued down to and including the present time, and on the matter of whether Pacific Greyhound Lines has established , maintained or assisted, by any action, defined in the National- Labor Relations Act as an unfair labor practice, any labor, organization of its employees. 9 On June 9, 1938, the Board acting pursuant'to Section 9 (c) of the Act find Article III, Section 3 , of the , Rules and Regulations , had ordered the Regional Director to conduct an investigation and hearing upon the petition of the Amalgamated The original petitions incorrectly stated the name of the Company as Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc The amended petitions vary somewhat from the original petitions in stating the name of the Amalgamated - 4 The of igiiial of dei of consolidation incorrectly designated the Brotherhood as Brother- hood of Railwa} Trainmen The proceedings in that case are entitled Matter of Pacific (7,eyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Etgineinen, Case No. R-195. A Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board- in that matter on December 16, 1937, is reported in 4 N. L R B 520 An Amendment to Direction of Election was issued on December 23, 1937, and is reported in 4 N . L. R B 540. - An Amendment to Decision and Second Amendment , of Direction of Election was issued ;on January 22, 1938 „ and is reported in 4 N L R . B 541. A Supplemental Decision and Oider Issued March 25 , 1938, is currently reported as'4'i N ' L. R. B. 163. 560 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on June 23, 24, 25, and 27, 1938, at San Francisco, California, before Jesse E. Jacobson, the Trial Examiner duly designated. by, the Board. The Board, the Company, the Amalgamated, and the Brotherhood were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing and again at the close of all proof the Amalgamated by its counsel orally moved to dismiss the amended petition of the Brother- hood as failing to present a question concerning representation upon the ground that the evidence showed that on April 15, •1938, and at all times since there existed a certain contract between Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway. and Motor Coach Employees of America, Pacific Greyhound Division No. 1114, herein called Division No. 1114, and the Company providing among other things for recognition by the Company of Division No. 1114 as collective bargaining representative of all employees of the Company who were members of the Amalgamated, and for a closed shop on and after May 15 as to all employees except those who belonged to other affiliates of the American Federation of Labor. This motion the Trial Examiner denied. In accordance with the decision hereinafter set forth this ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed. Dur- ing the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rul- ings on objections to the admission of evidence:' The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. These rulings are hereby affirmed. Subsequent to'the close of the hearing all parties requested of the Board and were granted leave to file briefs. Such briefs have been filed. Upon, the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a California corporation, having its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. It operates an inter- state motor bus transportation system in the western section of the country; and thereby transports for hire passengers, baggage, mail; express, and newspapers under regularly published tariffs in or through the States of Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Texas. For the year ending December 31, 1937, the Company carried 7,636,365 passengers a total of 34,372,762 passenger miles fora total- transportation revenue of $9,131,266.85. During the same period it expended $2,622,217:17 in wages' and salaries, in addi- tion to -a management fee of $7,200--which it paid to the Greyhound Corporation, a Delaware corporation, the holdei of'a piajority of its outstanding stock. .-DECISIONS,AND ORDERS - , 561 As of December 31, 1937, the Company had total- consolidated as- sets of the value of , $15,141,804, including 455 busses of which 453. were in operation. It employed 1,534 persons consisting of 672 bus drivers, 387 shop workers, 247 station employees, 174 office- employees, and 54 miscellaneous workers. The Company through stock ownership controls, two, subsidiaries. California Parlor Car Tours Company and Pacific Southland Stages, Incorporated. By means of interchange agreements with independ- ent motor bus companies and of operating traffic and facility ar- rangements with other so-called Greyhound companies,.the Company and its subsidiaries operate as a coordinated part of an integrated' System of national motor bus transportation. - - We find that the Company is engaged in traffic, commerce, anct transportation among the several States and that the employees of the Company are directly engaged in. such traffic, conunerce, and. transportation. II. '[HE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership all employees of the Company with the exception of executive and supervisory employees and of employees already members of a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes' of America; Pacific Greyhound ' Division No. 1114, is a local division of the Amalgamated, comprising employees of the Company who are members of the Amalgamated. _ Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is one of the "Big Four" rail- way brotherhoods and is not affiliated with any other labor organi- zation. All persons employed by the Company as bus drivers are admitted to its membership. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Some .time prior to April 21, 1937, the Amalgamated commenced organizational activities among employees of the Company. On April 21 the Company and Division' No. 11141 of the Amalgamated entered into a contract which in substance provided for recognition by the Company of Division No. 1114 6 "as representative of the awhile this and subsequent contracts between the Company and Division No. 1114 provide for iecogmtion of- Division No 1114 as collective bargaining representative; the record shows that the parties by conduct and express undertaking contem- plated that the Company meet and deal- with the Amalgamated as an accredited repre- sentative of its local division The Master Agreement, hereinafter referred to, provided in Section I (C) thereof that, the Company "agrees to" meet and deal with the duly accredited representatives' of . . [Division No 1114] on all matters covered by this Agreement." .562 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company's employees employed as drivers, station forces, mechanics and other employees, who are not already represented by an affiliate ,of the American Federation of Labor," for purposes of collective bar- ,gaining with the `Company; provided,'with'two exceptions, for the ;maintenance of existent wages and working conditions foi' employees covered by the contract; and 'further provided that the parties on or before June 30, 1937, would negotiate a "complete and revised" con- tract concerning wages, hours, and other working conditions of such employees to be effective until May 31, 1938, and thereafter from year to year unless otherwise changed by the parties. On September 7, 1937, the Company and Division No. 1114, pur- suant to and in cancelation of the April 21 contract, executed 'as ,of June 1, 1937, an agreement hereinafter termed "Master Agree- ment," 7 which provided for recognition by the Company of Division No. 1114 as "the duly authorized and sole representative of all of its members in negotiating with the Company;" for hours of service, rates of pay, and other working conditions of all persons employed 'by the Company as bus drivers, station employees, and office em- ployees; 8 and for the duration of the agreement until and including December 31, 1938, and from year to year thereafter, unless termi- nated by one party giving written notice to the other of its desires so to terminate 60 days prior to December 31, 1938, or December 31 of any succeeding year. The Master Agreement was approved by a majority of the bus drivers, of the station employees, and of the office employees.9. , On,September 7, 1937, the Company and Division No. 1114 also executed a Supplemental. Agreement which provided that upon approval thereof by a majority of all the employees affected thereby there be inserted in the Master Agreement certain additional paragraphs with respect to a check-off and closed shop. Specifically these paragraphs provided that the Company when authorized by any member of the Amalgamated, Division No. 1114, would deduct from his or her wages the amount of membership dues owing to the Amalgamated, Division No. 1114, and transmit this sum to it, and would continue so to do so long as satisfactory to both the Com- pany and the Amalgamated, Division No. 1114; that "Within thirty (30) days after the date of approval hereof, it is agreed that' all employees covered by this agreement shall be members in good stand7 4 While the record makes no reference .to this agreement as Master Agreement, such reference is here made because of similar terminology used in referr ing to this agreement when discussed in our previous decision i n Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 4 N L R. B 520 8A resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on August 17, 1937, authouzing execution of the Master Agreement, describes the employees covered by the agreement as "Drivers, station forces , general office clerks and all other employees not now affiliated with the American Federation of Labor." See also Decision and Direction of Election , as amended , 4 N L R B 520. DECISIONS AND -ORDERS 563 ing of, the- Amalgamated,10 and that hereafter any ,new employee within the classifications covered by this agreement shall within thirty (30) days after the date of his or her employment become .a member of the Amalgamated." The. Supplemental Agreement was circulated among the employees for their approval. There is no satis- factory showing, however, that a majority of the employees involved, in fact, approved the agreement, and, accordingly, that its,terms be- came operative. The agreement, nevertheless, continued' as the agreement of the parties, as stated below, until April 15, 1938. Whether the Amalgamated, as well as Division No. 1114, at the time of the making of the afore-mentioned contracts was the freely chosen representative of the employees in respect to whose represen- tation recognition was accorded in the contracts, was drawn into issue in certain proceedings concerning the representation of em- ployees of the Company heretofore had before this Board in the Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Case No. R-195,11 herein called Case No. R-195. The Amalgamated and the Company were parties to those proceedings. In the Decision and Direction of Election, issued by the Board in that matter on December 16, 1937, we found that the Com- pany during the period commencing about April 14, 1937, and con- tinuing thereafter, by various acts assisted the Amalgamated in its organizational activities among the employees of the Company and discouraged membership in a competing labor organization known as Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; that the undertaking of the Company in the April 21 contract to recognize Division No. 1114 as bargaining representative of all employees, ex- cept those represented by other affiliates of the American Federation of Labor, was made when the Amalgamated neither claimed to rep- resent nor actually did represent a majority of such employees. We therefore found, in view of this encouragement of membership by the Company, that the Amalgamated, and accordingly Division No. 1114, did not constitute an unfettered choice of bargaining representative of the employees purported to be represented. We there said: From the record it thus clearly appears that the Company and its officials in utter disregard of the * * * rights of its employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act actively en- couraged membership in the Amalgamated * * * both be- fore and after the agreement of April 21, 1937, was signed. * * -* Under these circumstances, the Amalgamated cannot be considered the free choice of a majority of the employees of the Company * * *.12 to As used in the Supplemental Agreement , "the Amalgamated " means the Amalgamated, Division No '1114. - - - - 11 See footnote 5. 12 Decision and Direction of Election , 4 N. L. R. B., p..533. 134065-39-vol. ix-37 564 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .Similarly, because we considered, among other things, that the effect of the assistance rendered to the Amalgamated by the Com- pany was existent at the time of the execution of the Master Agree- ment on September 7, 1937, we refused to find in such execution, or in the approval by the employees at that time of the agreement, proof that the Amalgamated then constituted a free choice of representa- tives. We denied a motion of the Amalgamated, made September 13, 1937, after the close of the hearing in those proceedings, to reopen the case and introduce in evidence the Master Agreement and a list of the employees who signed a written' approval theieof,'pointing out: In the light of the Company's continued activities in encourag- ing membership in the Amalgamated * * * we cannot in any event consider that those employees who signed the Master Agreement thereby expressed their free and untrammelled choice or ratification of representatives." The decision indicated that by reason of the discrimination of the Company in favor of the Amalgamated neither the contract of April 21 nor the Master Agreement, which was "subject to the same vices," and the employees' approval thereof, satisfactorily resolved any ques- tion concerning the representation of employees of the Company. Between January 24 and February 4, 1938, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to the above-mentioned Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, conducted an election by secret ballot among bus drivers in the employ of the Company to determine whether they desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Amalgamated, by Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine- men, heretofore referred to, or by neither, the outcome of the election, however, to depend in part upon a determination concerning an ap- propriate bargaining unit which the votes cast would express. Under the conditions governing the election, if the bus drivers chose the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the drivers alone would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit and that or- ganization would be certified by the Board as the exclusive representa- tive for collective bargaining purposes of all such employees. If they chose the Amalgamated, they would be considered as having expressed their preference for a single larger unit consisting of all employees of the Company including bus drivers.14 In the election held, no employees of the Company other than bus drivers voted, nor were they afforded opportunity to do so. The number of drivers eligible to vote was 697. Of 658 ballots, counted, that is, all ballots cast except those found void or challenged, 332 were for the Amalgamated, 309 for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and 17 for neither. There were seven chal- ' Ibid., p. 539. 14 Ibid., p. 536. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 565 lenged ballots and one void ballot. However, under the conditions of the election above mentioned, and as found by the Board in the Supplemental Decision and Order issued in those proceedings, the results of the ballot in so far as the selection of a representative was involved, did not determine that the Amalgamated was the chosen representative of a majority of the employees of the Company in an appropriate unit. The only matter concluded in that regard by the election was that Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and En- ginemen did not represent a majority of. employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. As pointed out in the Supplemental Decision and Order the Amalgamated had assumed' the position throughout the proceedings that all employees of the Company, including bus driv- ers, constituted a unit appropriate for collective bargaining pur- poses; and under the conditions of the election, above stated, votes for the Amalgamated were taken as indicating that the bus drivers so voting expressed their preference for the single larger unit. In view of the circumstance, among other things, that the election, for reasons stated in the Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, was not conducted among all employees but only bus drivers, and it appearing that the number of employees other than bus drivers was substantial, it is apparent that the Board did not determine whether the Amalgamated had been designated by a majority of the em- ployees in the larger unit. Indeed, it appears from the Supplemental Decision and Order that the Amalgamated did not petition in those proceedings for a certification of itself as,representative of employees in any unit. The Supplemental Decision and Order issued on March 25, 1938.15 On March 31 Division No. 1114 of the Amalgamated notified the Company by letter directed to W. E. Travis, its president, that the Amalgamated was granted authority by a majority of all the employees of the Company, except those who were "members of other American Federation of Labor unions in San Francisco and Los Angeles," to represent such employees in collective bargaining. The Company further was informed that in the opinion of the Amal- gamated "the recent decision and order of the National Labor Rela- tions Board in the Matter of Pacific 'Greyhound Lines and B. of L. F. & E.; Case No. R-195, did not disturb the provisions of, nor affect the legality of, that certain contract made and entered into between the Company and [Division No. 1114] * * * on Sep= tember 7, 1937:'' The Company on March 31 acknowledged in writ- ing receipt of this letter. A: few days later the Company and Divi- sion No. 1114 made a comparison of their respective records which showed that of 1,027 employees of the Company eligible to member- ship in the Amalgamated 923 ,were members in good standing. 25 See footnote 5. 566 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD On April 15 Division No. 1114 and the Company executed an instrument in writing which provided that the parties "do hereby reaffirm the execution of said [Master Agreement of September -7, 1937] and recognize the said agreement to. be- and to have been valid, subsisting and enforceable at all times and that all the terms, condi- tions, and covenants therein, and rights duties and obligations there- under have been at all times and now are in full force and effect." On the same day the parties executed a "Supplemental Agreement," hereinafter called the, Supplemental Agreement of April 15, provid- ing for the cancelation of the Supplemental Agreement executed September 7, 1937, and for the incorporation in the Master Agree- ment of paragraphs regarding a check-off and closed shop identical in language with those contained in the Supplemental Agreement of September 7. The operation of the new supplemental agreement was not conditioned upon approval of its terms by the employees. The provision for closed shop was to become effective in accordance with its provisions on May 15. At the time of the execution of these documents a majority of the employees of the Company were mem- bers of the Amalgamated, Division No. 1114. On April 16 all employees of the Company including bus drivers, station employees, and office employees, who were not members of the Amalgamated or of another affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, were advised by Division No. 1114 of the terms of the closed- shop and check-off addendum, and directed to make application for membership in the Amalgamated, Division No. 1114, by midnight of May 15. On May 16 Division No. 1114, through its president and business agent Holly Schofield, by letter to Travis, requested the Company that all of these employees who were not at that time mem- bers of the Amalgamated "be removed from service at once." On the same day, May 16, the Company upon receipt of this request, advised all such employees by special delivery registered mail of the closed- shop provision and informed them that they would be discharged unless the Company received evidence of their membership in the Amalgamated within 7 days. On May 21 the Regional Director notified the Company both orally and in writing that this Board was of the opinion, "that the closed- shop proviso to the [Master Agreement] * * * is in violation of the Board's order and the mandate of the- Circuit Court; and that if the Company gives any effect to such closed-shop proviso, the Board intends to proceed against them for contempt." 16 The man- date thus referred to was an order of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered on April 6, 1938, in certain proceedings 34 The notification also stated that the Company might work out with the assistance of agents of-the Board a contract which would not be violative of the Board's order and mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals. - ' - Dr CISIONS AND ORDERS 567 entitled National Labor Relations Board V. Pacific Greyhound Lines,. Inc., Cause No. - 845311 in which the Board, was petitioner and the Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 18 the respondent; t ordering said re- spondent, in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the-United States theretofore rendered in said case, to cease and de- sist 'from engaging in- certain specified • conduct ' constituting unfair labor practices under the Act.1° Thereafter, and at all times since,. 17 National Labor Relations Boaid V. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 91 F (2d) 45& C. C. A. 9th) granting enforcement of a portion of the order of the Board Issued in Matter of Pacn /lc Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 2 N.•L. R . B. 431 ( 1936 ) Including those paragraphs which provide that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices ( see footnote 19). This deci- sion of the Circuit Court of Appeals issued on or about July 16, 1937; accordingly, said cease and desist provisions have been granted enforcement by court order ever since that time. The Supreme Court of the United States in proceedings on writ of certiorari directed that the order of the Board be granted enforcement in full. See National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. 303 U. S. 272. 18 It appears that in 1936 and prior thereto Pacific Greyhound Lines , Inc , was a wholly owned operating subsidiary of and controlled by Pacific Greyhound Corporation, a Dela- ware corporation , which in turn was a holding company subsidiary of and controlled by The Greyhound Corporation, a holding company at the vertex of a pyramid of affiliated corporations known as The Greyhound System. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., and California Parlor Car Tours Company, another wholly owned operating subsidiary of Pacific Greyhound Corporation, operated the Greyhound bus routes in Oregon, California, Nevada , Arizona , Utah, New Mexico, and Texas. It also appears that in 1936 Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, and seen non-operating subsidiaries of the afore-mentioned Pacific Greyhound Corporation were liquidated and their assets transferred to and liabilities assumed by their erstwhile parent, Pacific Grey- hound Corporation . On December 30-31, 1936 , the name of California Transit Company, a corporation which theretofore had functioned as another non-operating subsidiary of Pacific Greyhound Corporation, was changed to Pacific Gieyhound Lines, and the said Pacific Greyhound Corporation was merged into Pacific Greyhound, Lines, herein called the Company. The Company thus acquired both the operative rights which Pacific Grey- hound Corporation formerly had held, and , through Pacific Greyhound Corporation, the stage and truck equipment which Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., had owned prior to its liquidation . Contemporaneously therewith , on December 30-31, 1936, the articles of incorporation of the Company were amended so that the issued and outstanding capital stock of Pacific Greyhound Corporation continued as the issued and outstanding capital stock of the Company. The Greyhound Corporation thereby became the majority stock- holder and obtained the controlling interest in the Company, and the Company in turn secured control of California Parlor Car Tours Company. By virtue of this absorption of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc , by Pacific Greyhound Corporation , and the latter's merger into the Company, the Company is the successor corporation to Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., and is in fact but a continuation of that business enterprise subject to the sane ownership and control as that which owned and controlled Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. 11 The unfair labor practices proscribed , as set forth in the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals, are in part as follows : 1. Cease and desist: (a) From discouraging membership in * * * any other labor organization of its operators, or encouraging membership in * * * any other labor organization of its operators , by discriminating against its operators in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ; (b) From dominating or interfering with the * * * formation or administration of any other labor organization of its operators, and from contributing financial or other support to * * * any other labor organization of its operators * * * (c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its opera- tors in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join , or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 568 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD performance; and, hence, the operation, of the closed-shop proviso was and has been suspended, and the Company has discharged no employee for failure to join the Amalgamated. On or about April 19 the Brotherhood began its organizational activities- among the bus drivers of the Company. At the hearing it` claimed that a majority of the bus drivers had designated it their representative for purposes of collective bargaining, and that accord- ingly it was the exclusive representative of all bus drivers for such purposes. However, the Amalgamated likewise claims that a major- ity of the bus drivers, as well as of all the employees of the Company, excluding members of other affiliates of the American Federation of Labor, are members of Division No. 1114 of the Amalgamated and thereby have designated the Amalgamated, and Division No. 1114, their bargaining representative; that, therefore, the Amalgamated is the exclusive representative of all the employees of the Company, including the bus drivers, for collective bargaining. These conflicting claims of the two labor organizations, the Broth- erhood contends, have given rise to a question concerning the repre- sentation of bus drivers of the Company which the Board should determine. The Amalgamated, however, by its motion to dismiss the amended petition of the Brotherhood, heretofore set forth, assumes the position that no such question here cognizable could have arisen or is presented ; that any question relating to the representation of bus drivers as well as of all employees of the Company excluding members of other American Federation of Labor affiliates, arising subsequent to April 15, 1938, was and is effectively disposed of by the provisions for recognition and a closed shop contained in the contract outstanding between the Company and Division No. 1114. As stated above the Company undertook in the Master Agreement, as amended on April 15, 1938, for the duration thereof, to recognize Division No. 1114 of the Amalgamated as the sole bargaining representative of employees who were or thereafter became members of the Amal- gamated and to require on and after May 15 membership in the Amalgamated as a condition of employment of all employees except those already members of other American Federation of Labor affili- ates. Undoubtedly the intent of these provisions, so long as they remain effective, is to accord by contract Division No. 1114 and the Amalgamated recognition as sole bargaining representative of the bus drivers and of all other employees except members of other American Federation of Labor affiliates to the exclusion of any labor organization such as the Brotherhood, and to perpetuate the exclusive character of such representation for the life of the contract through the effect of the closed-shop requirement. We are unable, in view of the circumstances of this case, to acquiesce in the contention of the Amalgamated that the provisions DECISIONS AND ORDERS 569 for recognition and closed shop, thus interpreted, preclude or resolve any question concerning representation. The 'facts cast- doubt upon- the validity of these provisions. In Case No. R-195 this -Board found, as above set forth, that the Amalgamated at the time of the, execution of the initial contract on April 21, and the Master - Agree-ment on September 7, 1937, was not, because of assistance by the Company, the freely chosen representative of the employees pur- ported to be represented. In the record before us there is no showing that at any time since September 7 the effects of this assistance were removed or dissipated. Indeed, after the issuance of the Decision and Direction of Election on December 16, 1937, instead of steps being taken to establish conditions for the- exercise of a free choice of representative by the employees'21 the relations between the Com- pany' and the Amalgamated continued as theretofore.', The- main- tained recognition accorded Division No. 1114 in' the successive contracts of April 21 and of September 7, 1937, and- the declaration on the part of the Company in the Supplemental Agreement of September ' 7 of a willingness to grant the Amalgamated a closed shop and check-off, alone would tend, in the absence of remedial action 22 -by the Company or otherwise, to perpetuate until April 15, if not beyond then, the influences originally engendered by the Company's conduct. In this circumstance we are' not satisfied that the effects of'the Company's assistance did not 'continue after Sep- telilber 7 and were not existent on April 15 when the execution of the Master Agreement was reaffirmed and the closed-shop addendum executed.23 The mere lapse of time between December 16, when the findings of assistance issued, and April 15 cannot itself be considered as proof of the dissipation of such effects. Nor can the secret ballot taken by the Regional Director from January 24 to February 4; 1938, above set forth, be deemed to have remedied, the situation. 'While the election held may have been "necessarily free from any taint of company influence," as the Company in its brief suggests, the vote taken, under 'the conditions of the election, did not deter- mine that the Amalgamated was the free choice of a majority of 'the employees of the Company excluding members of other American- Federation of Labor- affiliates. Some. 300 or more 24. employees other 20 Case No R-195 involved a question concerning representation. 21 Among other things , upon Division No. 1114 indicating , as heretofore stated, that the decision in Case No. R-195 "did not disturb " the provisions of the Master Agreement, the Company and Division No. 1114 signed the instrument of April 15, 1938, acknossledging its terms to "have been at all times and now aie in full force and effect." 22 See footnote 20. 21 We do not consider here whether the execution of the closed-shop addendum or any discharge of an employee pursuant to its terms constituted or would constitute an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section S (1) or ( 3) of the Act , or would afford the basis for contempt proceedings under the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals. 24 The record shows that the number of such employees among whom an election will be held, as herein directed , is 408. 576 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than bus'drivers were afforded no opportunity to express their desires by secret ballot; yet in the -light of the election returns such an expression would be essential l to a conclusion that the Amalgamated in fact constituted a free choice of the employees covered by the closed-shop addendum. .Mere membership of these employees at that time in the Amalgamated would not necessarily remove the doubt as to the freedom of their choice of that organization. We accordingly cannot find, on the record presented, that on April 15, 1938, when the execution of the Master Agreement was re- affirmed and the closed-shop addendum executed, the Amalgamated and Division No. 1114 were the freely chosen representative of a majority of the Company's employees, excluding members of other American Federation of Labor affiliates. It follows, under these circumstances , that the Amalgamated is not entitled to avail itself in these proceedings of the grant of exclusive recognition accorded it by the provisions for recognition and a closed shop therein con- tained, as precluding a determination of the question concerning representation raised by the Brotherhood's amended petition.25 Moreover, the outstanding contract between the Company and Division No. 1114 terminates according to its own provision on December 31 in the event either party thereto gives written notice to the other of its desire so to terminate at least 60 days prior to Decem- ber 31. The amended petitions of the Amalgamated and of the Brotherhood were filed on June 14 and 15, respectively, and notice of hearing thereon was served upon the Company and upon the other parties on June 16, 1938, all of which days were more than 60 clays prior to the renewal date. The proceedings herein have since been pending. These circumstances afford additional grounds for hold- ing 26 the contract no bar to an investigation and determination of the question concerning representation of bus drivers alleged by the Brotherhood.27 We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. We further find that this question, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company, de- 25 See Matters of Federal Knitting Mills Company and Bamberger Reinthal Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, 3 N. L. R B 257 , 262; Matter of Friedman Blau Farber Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , Local No. 295, 4 N L. R. B. 151, 155-6 2E See Matter of Unit Cast Corporation and Steel Waiters Organizing Committee, 7 N. L. R. B. 129; Matter of Pressed Steel Car Company, Inc. and Steel Workers Organiz- ing Committee, 7 N L R B. 1099; Matter of Utica Knitting Company and Aanesiean Federation of Labor, Local No. 21500, 8 N. L. R B. 783; see also Matter of American France Line, et at (Shepard Steamship Company ) and International Seamen's Union of America, 7 N. L R. B. 79; Cf. Matter of American France Line , et at, et seq and International Seamen's Union of America, 3 N. L. R. B 64, 71. 27 That the determination in Case No . R-195 ( Supplemental Decision and Order, see footnote 5) to the effect that the bus drivers of the Company alone do not constitute an appropriate unit, is not controlling here , and, therefore , is not conclusive upon the question conceining representation of bus driveis . see succeeding section on the appropriate unit. DECISIONS AND ; ORDERS 571 scribed in Section I above, tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing traffic, commerce, and transportation and the free flow of traffic, commerce and transportation. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT , Employees of the Company may be classified as bus drivers, office employees, depot employees, and shopmen. The Brotherhood con- tends that the bus drivers, wlio comprise approximately three-fifth's of the total number of employees, constitute by themselves a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Com- pany. However, the Company and the Amalgamated take the posi- tion that the drivers alone are not an appropriate unit, that they are a constituent part of a larger bargaining unit composed of all em- ployees, exclusive of executives and supervisors and of shop employees in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.28 Bus drivers form a group separate and distinct from the other em- ployees of the Company in ,many respects. Their work is of the very essence of the industry not only because of the functions served but because the goodwill of the business enterprise largely depends on their personal relations with the public. The operation of motor busses calls for the exercise of extraordinary skill and sound judg- ment. Large and heavy equipment must be driven at a high and sustained road speed over all types of roads in all kinds of weather through congested as well as rural traffic areas in scheduled times without endangering passengers or vehicle or the life and limb of other users of the highway.29 The ability required for such work is reflected in the various standards and qualifications prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission and State regulatory bodies which drivers must meet. The drivers are accorded a special status by the Company itself in its organization and operation. They are paid by the mile rather than by the *week or the month; they are required to purchase and wear special uniforms while on duty; a manual and bulletins, are issued for their guidance; rooms are pro- vided in the terminals where they must remain while in the station; seniority and demerit systems applicable to them are not interchange- able with those of other employees. Lastly, the drivers have been the subject of separate organization by several labor organizations in the history of labor relations at the Company.3° On the other hand, the Amalgamated and the Company urge in support of their position that while the work of the drivers is of 28 Employees other than bus drivers divide themselves, so far as here material, into station, clerical, and shop employees. as Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions in the Intercity Motor Transport Industries, Part I, Motor Bats Transportation, Federal Coordinator of Transportation, Section of Re- search, Section of Labor Relations, pages 18-19. See Brotherhood Exhibit No. 33. 81 See the decisions cited in footnote 5. 572 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD considerable importance, nevertheless, the services of all employees are essential to the conduct of the business, and their common interest in work should outweigh considerations favoring any class of em- ployees. There is interdependence and functional coherence between the various classes of employees, and the Amalgamated has intro- duced evidence by which it endeavored to show that where such ,condition obtains, organization on an industrial basis would afford greater bargaining strength to all employees than other forms of or- ganization. , . The Amalgamated also stressed that the special status of the drivers should not -be given undue importance in a determina- tion of the question for the reason that employees elsewhere in the street railway and motor bus industry have been organized success- fully on an industrial basis.- - These considerations appear to us to be evenly balanced-a fact demonstrated by the success of both the Brotherhood and the Amal- gamated in securing a large number of contracts in the industry which reflect their respective views.31 In the Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, issued in Case No. R-195, the Board. had occasion to consider the question of the separability of bus drivers as a bargaining unit. We there stated that "bus drivers can be con- sidered either as a separate unit * * * or as part of a large unit composed of bus drivers, mechanics, station and office employees * * *. The differentiation in skill and duty of bus drivers from other employees and the history of collective bargaining by the Com- pany, as well as the history of collective bargaining in the industry at large, * * * are proof of the feasibility of the former ap- proach. The interdependence of the bus drivers with the other em- ployees, the greater economic strength claimed for the industrial form of organization, and the history of collective bargaining in-the industry, are proof of the feasibility of the latter approach." 32 The Amalgamated and the Company contend, however, that any issue here raised as to whether the bus drivers by themselves con- stitute an appropriate bargaining unit must be deemed concluded by what was finally determined in the proceedings had, including the election, in Case No. R-195; that the decision there is res judicata upon such issue. Reference is made to a statement in the Supple- mental Decision and Order issued in those proceedings to the effect that "the bus drivers alone do not constitute an appropriate unit but are to be merged in a larger unit." From the Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, issued in those proceedings it appears that Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, above referred to, made claim that the bus 81 Both unions introduced lists of their present contracts The Amalgamated introduced copies of seven contracts, and the Brotherhood introduced copies of eight. a' Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, pp. 535, 536. See footnote 5. .DECISIONS. AND ORDERS 573 -drivers of the Company alone constituted an' appropriate ' unit for 'collective bargaining purposes, whereas the Amalgamated, the only other labor organization there involved, contended, as it does here, that the bus drivers were part of a larger bargaining unit consist- ing of all employees. In the Decision and Direction of Election, as amended, this Board found' upon the evidence before it that either contention as to appropriate unit could be sustained; that, accord- ingly, the determination in those proceedings as to whether the bus drivers alone did or did not constitute an appropriate unit would be resolved by the preference expressed for either labor organization in the election there directed. As heretofore set forth, that election resulted in no' establishment of an exclusive bargaining representative for the bus drivers or for airy other employees. Neither labor organization emerged as an exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit. In so far._as the ballot indicated the preference of the bus drivers on the matter of appropriate unit apart from the question of representa- tion, the votes disclosed that only a minority of the bus drivers in .the election favored a unit limited to drivers, a fact which was taken by the Board as showing that a majority favored a larger unit.93 We find nothing in the Act which requires or supports the appli- cation of a principle analogous to that of the judicial doctrine of res judicata in matters involving a determination of the appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes. Section 9 (b) of the Act empowers the Board to "decide in each case" the appropriate unit, and its guide in so doing, as therein stated, is "to insure to em- ployees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of this Act." A prior decision in regard to whether a certain unit of em- ployees is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining is a circumstance, but not a decisive one, which the Board in the exer- cise of a sound discretion will consider should such question again present itself in a subsequent proceeding involving the representa- tion of such employees. The finding in Case No. R-195 to the effect that the bus drivers alone did not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit should not, we think, foreclose a decision of the question here. That finding rested, as stated, upon a preference expressed in an election, a prefer- ence, however, of no positive consequence, for no exclusive repre- sentative was chosen as a result of the election. The Brotherhood here claims, and its claim finds some support in the record, that a majority of the bus drivers have changed their preference as to the 33 Supplemental Decision and Order, 6 N. L. R. B. 163. Z74 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriate unit and wish to be represented separately, with the Brotherhood as their exclusive representative. A prior determination as to appropriate unit based upon the will of employees necessarily loses persuasive force when, as here claimed, the preference of the employees as to unit has changed; and this is particularly true if, as here, the prior determination in regard to unit was made without an exclusive representative for such unit then being known or established. Nor is the closed-shop provision in the agreement between the Com- pany and Division No. 1114 determinative of the question of appro- priate unit here presented. The reasons expressed in Section III above as indicating that such provision constituted no bar to a determination of the question concerning representation equally support the conclusion that it affords no obstacle to a decision on the issue of the appropriate bargaining unit. We have stated above that the evidence before us would sustain the claim of either the Brotherhood or the Amalgamated as to the appropriate bargaining unit. Under these circumstances we see no reason for departing from what has become an established policy in a conflict of this nature; that is, we will allow the desires of the employees concerned themselves to determine the issue. On this mat- ter, however, the record is not conclusive. As stated in Section V below, we are not satisfied that the Brotherhood has been designated as bargaining representative by a majority of the bus drivers, nor are we satisfied with the showing of the Amalgamated as to its rep- resentation of a majority of the bus drivers, and of the other em- ployees exclusive of executives and supervisors and of shop employees in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Accordingly, upon the results of the elections directed below will depend the determina- tion in this proceeding of the unit or units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Board, the Company, the Amalgamated, and the Brotherhood stipulated at the hearing in substance as follows, and we find that at the time of the hearing the Company employed, exclusive of execu- tives and supervisors, 1,090 persons, including 682 bus drivers; that the Amalgamated has 992 fully paid-up members among the 1,090 employees, including 651 members among the 682 bus drivers; that the Brotherhood was designated in writing as bargaining representa- tive by 373 of the 682 bus drivers; that of these 373 bus drivers 355 were members of the Amalgamated at the time they so designated the Brotherhood. It is apparent that confusion exists as to which of these rival labor organizations has been designated as bargaining representative DECISIONS AND ORDERS 575 by a majority of the Company's 682 bus drivers: 651 are members of the Amalgamated; 373 named the Brotherhood as their repre- sentative, 355 of these doing so subsequent to their becoming mem- bers of the Amalgamated. The Brotherhood urges that the large and sustained membership of the Amalgamated among the bus drivers is attributable solely to the existence of the closed-shop provi- sion in the outstanding contract between Division No. 1114 and the Company, and that therefore the Brotherhood's designation by a majority of the bus drivers subsequent to their becoming members of the Amalgamated should be held to express their true desires and be decisive. The fact that a substantial number of the bus drivers retained their membership in the Amalgamated 'after designating the Brotherhood their collective bargaining representative lends' weight to the Brotherhood's contention. On the other hand, the closed-shop proviso has never been enforced. Moreover, the majority of bus drivers are, as a matter of fact, in an ambiguous position with respect to their choice of representative. We 'accordingly •are unable upon the evidence before us to find either that the Brotherhood or the Amalgamated is the bargaining representative of a majority of the bus drivers. An election by secret ballot will be necessary to resolve this question concerning representation. The facts heretofore set forth indicate that the Amalgamated has a substantial membership in excess of a majority among employees of the Company other than bus drivers ill the unit it claims to be appropriate. Nevertheless, we feel that all of these employees should be given an opportunity to express their choice of representative in an election by secret ballot.' We previously have stated in Section III that we could not find the Amalgamated the freely chosen repre- sentative of these employees when the closed-shop addendum was executed, and it follows that if the Amalgamated was not at that time their free choice the force of the closed-shop proviso would have prevented any ' remedy of the situation thereafter. We have already pointed out that none of these employees was permitted to vote in the election of January 24 to February 4, 1938. Under all the circumstances they are entitled to an opportunity to establish their desires under conditions removed from any suggestion or sus- picion of coercion. To this end the closed-shop provision should remain executory pending the outcome of the election and the con- clusion of these' proceedings. The Company in its brief indicates that such is its proposal.34 The brief states that "the company refrained from performing its contract . . - pending the outcome of this proceeding before the Board." 576 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we will direct two separate elections by secret ballot. The first election shall be conducted among the bus drivers alone, and therein these' employees will be afforded an opportunity to vote for either the Brotherhood, the Amalgamated, or for neither of these labor organizations. The second election shall be among the station, clerical, and shop employees of the Company, -exclusive of the shop- men at Los Angeles and -Sam Francisco, of, executives, and of super- visors, these' comprising ally the' employees apart from bus drivers in the unit contended'for by the Amalgamated: They will have, the opportunity of voting for or against the Amalgamated. If a ma- jority 35 of the bus drivers vote for the Brotherhood,' we will deter- mine that the bus drivers constitute a'unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, and we will certify the Brotherhood as the duly chosen representative of that unit. Similar treatment shall be accorded to the contentions of the Amalgamated as to unit and representative if it secures a majority vote in each election.. In the event the Brotherhood secures a majority vote in the election among the bus drivers and the Amalgamated does likewise in the election held among the remainder of the employees within the unit alleged by it to be appropriate, by virtue-of this fact, we will certify the Amalgamated as the exclusive bargaining representative of the station, clerical, and shop employees of the Company, exclusive of shopmen employed at Los Angeles and San Francisco, and of the executives, and of supervisors.' We will further direct the elections to be held under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, who shall determine in her discretion the exact times, places, and procedure for giving notice of the elections and for balloting. We expressly authorize the use of the .United States mail for such pur- poses and the use of agents, if feasible, to journey through the Com- pany's various territorial divisions to conduct balloting at' appro- priate places, collecting the votes in sealed envelopes for delivery to the Regional Director. All employees appearing upon the Com- pany's pay roll of June 15, 1938,36 exclusive of 'executives and super- visors, and of-shop-men employed at Los Angeles and San Francisco, and excepting those who 'have since quit or have been discharged for cause, shall be eligible to vote in one or the other of the elections, as the case may be. . 35 All majorities, herein referred to must be such under the rules governing elections laid down in our prior decisions ° The Board introduced into evidence without objection from any of the parties as Board Exhibit No. 11 a typewritten list, prepared by the Company , of "employees [ of the,, Company] on pay roll as of June 15, 1938, excluding those in an executive or supervisory position." 'DECISIONS AND ORDERS 577, On"the basis of the above findings of fact the Board makes the, following : CONCLUSION OF LAW' A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-, sentation of employees of Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Francisco, California, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6Y and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 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 amended, it is hereby " DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with. Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Francisco, California, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted within thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision- of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub- ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees who fall within each of the groups described below : (a) All persons employed by Pacific Greyhound Lines, San Fran- cisco, California, as bus drivers on June 15, 1938, who have not since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America, or by Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; (b) All the station, clerical, and shop employees of Pacific Grey- hound Lines, San Francisco, California, exclusive of those shopmen employed at Los Angeles and San Francisco, who were in the em- ploy of the Company on June 15, 1938, and have not since quit or been discharged for "cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Street; Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting : - In the dissenting opinion in Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines, Case No. R-195,37 I stated that in view of the fact that the Amalga- a Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 4 N L. R. B 520, 540. 578 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mated had been the recipient of the Company's illegal favors I was not disposed to be influenced by its contention that the bus drivers alone did not constitute an-appropriate unit. I also pointed out that the bus drivers had carried on the organizational fight for their own group against strong company opposition, and was of the opinion that under all the circumstances they should, be declared an appro- priate bargaining unit. Subsequent to the issuance of the Board's decision in that case, there is nothing shown,. by way of company action or otherwise, which satisfactorily establishes that the, effects of the Company's influence were removed at the time when the agreement of April 15 for a closed shop was made. If the Amalgamated was not then the freely chosen representative of a majority of the employees, the closed-shop agreement has prevented it from attaining such status since. The temporary suspension by the Company of the closed-shop proviso could not of itself free the employees of the effects of previ- ous company favoritism toward the Amalgamated. Because of the doubt which persists about the Amalgamated's position as a freely chosen bargaining' agency, I adhere to my previous opinion that the bus drivers, for the reasons there stated, constitute the sole appro- priate bargaining unit which the Board is justified in finding at the present time. [SAME TITLE AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS November 10, 1938 On October 29, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Elections in the above-entitled proceeding, the elections to be held within thirty (30) days from the date of the Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California). The Board, having been advised by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, that a longer period within which to hold the elections is necessary, hereby amends the Direction of Elections issued on October 29, 1938, by striking there- from the words "within thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc- tion" and substituting therefor the words "within sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction." 9 N. L. R. B., No. 51a.