Braswell Motor Freight Lines

BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 983 rate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All production and maintenance employees at the South Fork , Pennsylvania , foundry and machine shop of E. W. Louder and C. E. Dunmire, d/b/a South Fork Foundry and Machine Company, excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All production and maintenance employees at the Johns- town , Pennsylvania , Job electrical repair shop of Universal Electric and Manufacturing Company, excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) All production and maintenance employees at the Johns- town , Pennsylvania , bar and restaurant equipment plant of National Booth and Lounge Corporation , excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (4) All production and maintenance employees at the Johns- town , Pennsylvania , brass foundry and machine shop of Flood City Brass and Electric Company, excluding office clerical em- ployees, professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (5) All production , maintenance , and service employees in the manufacturing and repair department at the Johnstown, Pennsylvania , manufacturing and repair plant of Westinghouse Electric Corporation , including group leaders , drivers, store- room clerks , shippers, and receivers , but excluding all office clerical employees , guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PASS CITY LODGE 730, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-429. May 14, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Byron E. Guse, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motions to dismiss the petition on the ground, among others, that a contract with the Union of Transportation Employees, herein called the UTE, the terms of which were orally agreed to on February 14, 1953, is a bar to this proceeding . On December 23, 1952, in Case No. 39-CA- 163 (Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 101 NLRB 1151), the Board found that the Employer dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the UTE and contributed to its support in violation of the Act, and ordered the Employer to cease and desist from these activities , from recog- nizing the UTE, or any successor, as the representative of any of its employees, and from giving effect to its then current contractor to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof, 104 NLRB No. 127. 984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Member Houston , Styles, and Peterson ],, Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to mechanics , painters, body repairmen , helpers, and apprentices at the El Paso, Texas , terminal of the Employer.' The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate and that only a unit of all employees in the Texas division , excluding clerical and supervisory employees , is appropriate. The Employer is engaged in the business of transporting freight by truck. It maintains offices, loading docks, and terminals in various cities in Texas, New Mexico , Arizona, and California. Its operations are organized into two divisions, the West Coast division with terminals at Tucson , Phoenix, Yuma, and Los Angeles , and the Texas division with terminals at El Paso , Odessa , Abilene , Fort Worth , Dallas , San Antonio, and Houston. These divisions function separately and are distinct from each other . Each operates its own equipment , does not interchange employees or equipment , and is separately super- vised, and the West Coast division has been separately represented for purposes of collective bargaining apparently on a divisionwide basis.6 As stated above , the employees sought by the Petitioner are the mechanics , painters , body repairmen , helpers, and ap- prentices confined to the El Paso terminal of the Texas division. Major repairs of all equipment are made at this terminal , and the employees sought work in a single building, or any other contract or agreement . As the contract in question had not been reduced to writing and signed before the present petition was filed , and in view of the Board's deter- mination in the complaint proceeding , we find that the contract is not a bar to this proceed- ing. Brown Express, et al., 80 NLRB 753. However, for other reasons hereinafter stated, the motions to dismiss are granted. ' The UTE did not participate or intervene in this proceeding. 'The Petitioner also sought to include welders . However, there are no employees so classified. The body repairmen do all the necessary welding. 4The Employer's general manager and assistant general manager , respectively, super- vise the Texas and West Coast divisions. 5 Although it appears that bargaining for the West Coast division has been on an essentially divisionwide basis, the contracts appear to have covered separate functional groups of employees. The UTE has represented the employees in the Texas division on a divisionwide basis since 1950. However, in view of our finding in Case No. 39-CA-163 that the UTE is company dominated, this bargaining history is without controlling significance . See Albert's in- corporated, 91 NLRB 522. LITTLE CHAMP MANUFACTURERS. INC. 985 about I block from the loading docks and business office, in areas separated by partitions. However, the Petitioner does not seek to represent other employees at this same terminal such as servicemen who wash trucks, grease equipment, change tires, and pack wheel bearings and progress to mechanic, third class. Also, although separately classified, all employees at the terminal, including those requested by the Petitioner, are utilized to meet other needs of the Em- ployer. Thus, for example, first-class mechanics, who perform the most difficult repair work, perform whatever work is on hand, including the washing of trucks usually performed by servicemen. The Petitioner also does not seek to represent the hookup or dock men at other Texas division terminals in Dallas, Fort Worth, San 'Antonio, and Houston.6 These employees also do some bodywork and painting and spend 2 or 3 hours daily on other duties usually performed by the mechanics in El Paso.7 All employees in the Texas division are subject to the same conditions of employment, enjoy divisionwide seniority, have the right to transfer between terminals, and are under the same general overall supervision. Under all these circumstances, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is too limited in scope to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.6 We shall therefore dis- miss the petition.' ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in the instant case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 The Employer has no employees at its Odessa and Abilene terminals as its operations at these points are limited to dropping freight which is delivered by a local commission agent. 7There are no employees in the specific classifications sought by the Petitioner presently employed in any of the other terminals of the Texas division, although the Employer is currently making plans to hire full-time mechanics for the Dallas and Fort Worth terminals and for the Houston and San Antonio terminals. 6Baggett Transportation Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 1093; cf. Sun Valley Bus Lines, Inc., 99 NLRB 844. 9 In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to rule upon other issues raised by the Employer in its motions to dismiss. DANIEL AMINOFF, RUTH AMINOFF, GARY AMINOFF and MELANIE AMINOFF, a partnership , d. b. a. LITTLE CHAMP MANUFACTURERS, INC. and LOS ANGELES JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA. Case No. 21-CA-1522. May 14, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 17, 1953, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding, finding 104 NLRB No. 130.