Liquid Transport Corp.

376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LIQUID TRANSPORT CORP.,' AND/OR WILLIAM GUENTHER, TROYE HALLO- WELL, ET AL., PARTNERS, D/B/A TROY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, AND/OR WEIMER PIERSON 2 and LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-1003. January 28, 1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing 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 Companies herein contend that they do not constitute a single employer for the purposes of asserting jurisdiction. Liquid, which annually receives income in excess of $200,000 from shipments to points outside the State of Indiana, concedes the Board's jurisdiction over it. However, Troy and Pierson, which annually receive an estimated $31,000 and $99,751, respectively, for services rendered to Liquid and another interstate carrier, contend that the Board lacks jurisdiction over them because their operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. The volume of operations of Troy and Pierson, if considered separately from these Companies, does not meet the Board's present standards as the total revenue of each is less than $100,000.' It is therefore necessary to decide for jurisdictional pur- poses whether Troy and Pierson together or in combination with Liquid are a single employer within the meaning of the Act. Liquid, which is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, is a licensed mo- tor carrier of liquid commodities. Although Liquid's secretary-treas- urer and manager has an interest in Troy, Troy like Pierson is oper- ated as an independent business whose tractors haul Liquid's trail- ers. Thus, Troy and Pierson maintain separate bank accounts and records and have their own employees. While the drivers of Troy and Pierson receive assignments along with Liquid's owner-drivers, there is nothing in the record to indicate that there is any interchange of drivers among the three Companies. Moreover, Troy and Pierson each provide workmen's compensation coverage and deduct social se- curity and withholding taxes for their own drivers. Liquid does not 1 The name of this Company appears as amended at the hearing. 2 These Companies are herein called Liquid, Troy, and Pierson , respectively. 3 In the event the Board decides there is insufficient evidence to permit a determination favorable to the Petitioner, the Petitioner rquests that the case be remanded for further hearing and enforcement of two subpenas issued by the hearing officer. We find that there is sufficient evidence herein upon which to decide the issues in this case. * See Breeding Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 493; and Edelen Transfer and Storage Company, 110 NLRB 1881. 5 Pierson also performs similar services for Jackson Trucking Co., Inc. 111 NLRB No. 50. SWEE-T-SHIRTS, INC. 377 provide these benefits for its drivers. The latter have their own trac- tors, pay all the expenses of operating them, and carry their own fire, theft, and collision insurance. The working conditions of Liquid's drivers are also different from those of the Pierson and Troy drivers in that Liquid's drivers may refuse to haul particular loads and are not required to be available a set number of hours per day or week. Upon the above facts, we find that Troy and Pierson are not suffi- ciently integrated with each other or with Liquid to constitute a single employer. Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Troy and Pierson because, as in- dicated above, they do not meet the Board's jurisdictional minima. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner takes the position that it would accept a unit of Troy and Liquid drivers and another unit of Pierson drivers but would op- pose two separate units for Troy and Liquid. As we are not assert- ing jurisdiction over Troy and Pierson and the Petitioner does not de- sire a unit limited to Liquid, it is unnecessary to decide whether Liq- uid's owner drivers are independent contractors, as contended by the Employer, or employees as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] SWEE-T-SHIRTS, INC., PETITIONER and JOINT COUNCIL, COTTON GAR- MENT, UNDERGARMENT AND A ccEssoRY WORKERS, AND ITS AFFILI- ATED LOCALS Nos. 266, 482, 496 AND 84. Case No. 21-RM-320. January 28, 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 Irving Helbling, hearing 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. 111 NLRB No. 59.