Missouri Transit Co., Inc.

156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the gross business of the Employer totaled approximately $431,000, 98 percent of which was realized from the treatment of veterans pur- suant to a contract with the United States Veterans' Administration. During the same period, the Employer's total purchases of materials and supplies amounted to $106,800, of which less than 43 percent was shipped directly to the Employer from the United States. The bal- ance of purchases were made locally in Puerto Rico. We find that the Employer's operations, by reason of the Employ- er's contract with the United States Veterans' Administration, are directly related to the national defense and that, accordingly, it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein 2 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The parties agree, and we find, that all hospital attendants, orderlies, and cleanup and kitchen personnel employed at the Em- ployer's hospital at Hato Tejas, Puerto Rico, excluding all mainte- nance employees, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, execu- tive and administrative employees, professional employees, nurses, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594. Member Murdock concurs in the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer. How- ever, as he believes the Board is bound to exercise plenary jurisdiction with respect to labor relations in the Territories , he sees no need to consider the relationship of the Em- ployer's operations to the national defense as the basis for the decision that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 8 The Employer and the Intervenor would assert as a bar to this proceeding a current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor's local. Inasmuch as the automatic renewal date of the agreement has passed and the original term of the contract will ex- pire on January 1 , 1955, we do not find the contract to be a bar. MISSOURI TRANSIT COMPANY , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL No. 864, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1877. January 6, 1955 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Scott, hearing 111 NLRB No. 7. MISSOURI TRANSIT COMPANY, INC. 157 officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the busdrivers, mechanics, and washboys employed at the Employer's Waynesville, Missouri, terminal. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappro- priate and that only a systemwide unit is appropriate. The major part of the Employer's business is concerned with the interstate hauling of passengers and mail on regularly scheduled runs and by charter. Out of a total of 44 employees, approximately 11 are employed at Waynesville where a shuttle service 12 miles in length is operated within the State of Missouri between the town of Waynes- ville and Fort Leonard Wood, an Army post. Three runs daily are scheduled from Waynesville to the nearest interstate bus terminal of the employer at Moberly, Missouri. Subsequent to the filing of the petition the home terminal for these drivers of interstate buses was changed from Waynesville to Moberly. Therefore, the only employees working out of Waynesville at the present time are employees engaged in the operation of the shuttle service. The remaining employees of the type sought in the petition are scattered throughout the Employer's interstate operations. Al- though seniority is systemwide, there is little interchange between those employees engaged in the interstate operations and those in the shuttle service. The record does reveal whether the pay scale and other conditions of employment are uniform throughout the entire transportation system. An apparent autonomy for the shuttle serv- ice is indicated by the geographic isolation of the latter operation ; Waynesville is a half-day's run from the terminal at Moberly. In addition, it would appear that the duties and qualifications of the shuttle service bus operators are appreciably different from those of the interstate drivers for the reason that the former drive a much shorter distance than the latter who drive under Interstate Commerce regulations.' There is nothing in the record to indicate that the shut- tle service and the interstate operations are so integrated as to preclude a separate unit for employees of the shuttle service. Finally, there is 1 The fact that a driver must qualify under and is subject to Federal Interstate Com- merce regulations has been considered as a distinguishing factor in prior Board decisions. John Morrell & Co., 69 NLRB 1446, at 1448, The Ohio Rubber Company, 74 NLRB 1269, at 1271. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no bargaining history for any of the Employer's operations and no labor organization is seeking a larger unit. On the basis of the foregoing, especially the apparent autonomy of the operations together with the fact that the operation is entirely in- trastate, whereas the other operations of the Employer are interstate, and the further fact that there is no bargaining history or a request by any other labor organization for a broader unit, we conclude that a separate unit for the employees of the shuttle service is appropriate.2 'Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em- ployees of the Employer at its Waynesville, Missouri, plant consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All busdrivers, mechanics, and washboys, but excluding office cleri- cal employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 See Central Wisconsin Motor Transport Company, 85 NLRB 287, at 288; Associated Transport, Inc , 93 NLRB 1564, at 1565 In its brief the Employer asserts that subsequent to the hearing , the shuttle service was sold. The record contains no facts regarding this alleged transfer, and the investi- gation by the Regional Director reveals that the formal registration requirements for such sales of the Missouri Public Service Commission and the Interstate Commerce Com- mission have not been met . On the basis of the foregoing, we see no impediment at this time to directing an election. FRESH'ND-AIRE COMPANY, DIVISION OF CORY CORPORATION, A CORPORA- TION and DISTRICT No. 140, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, A. F. L. Case No. 13-CA-1735. January 7,1955 Decision and Order On September 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the exceptions and the brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- 111 NLRB No. 14.