Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.

360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thus, the essential element of encouragement or discouragement of union mem- bership is lacking in both the charge against the Respondent Company and against the Respondent Union. In the absence of proof of that essential element, the Trial Examiner must dismiss the complaint so far as it alleges violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and8 (b) (2) of the Acts As previously noted, there is not one iota of evidence in this record tending to prove that the Company interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the Trial Examiner must dismiss the allegation that the Company violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. So far as the proof that the Union violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, there is the testimony of Mitchell Pierce, noted above, and denied by the union witnesses, that the committee stated that they were retaliating against the Harahan employees because the Harahan union members failed to go on strike in support of the Union's labor dispute with Respondent Employer at Galvez Street on November 17. The Trial Examiner has found above from the unanimous testimony of both company wit- nesses produced by the General Counsel and the union witnesses cross-examined by the General Counsel that this statement was not, in fact, made by the union com- mittee. Furthermore, the facts, as above found, prove that the discrimination was caused not by a desire by the Union to retaliate against the Harahan employees, but in an attempt to clarify the seniority provisions of the existing labor agreement at Galvez Street and, further, that as soon as the interpretation was settled, there was no further discrimination against the Harahan employees. In this state of the record, even assuming that the remark had been made in the hearing of Pierce by the union committee, the Trial Examiner would have to find the statement to be no more than an isolated incident insufficient to require the entry of an order against this Respond- ent of having violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A). Therefore, the Trial Examiner will recommend that this complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Warehouse & Distribution Workers' Union, Local 207 of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, is a labor organization within the. meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.. 2. Waterway Terminals Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Neither Warehouse & Distribution Workers' Union, Local 207 of the Inter- national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, nor Waterway Terminals Corporation has engaged in any unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] ' Local Union No. 6281 U. M. W., 100 NLRB 392. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. and Lodge 1255, International As- sociation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- 2057. June 26,1957 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before J. Howard Stark, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record and briefs adequately present the issues. 118 NLRB No. 40. RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. 361 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. The Union of Transportation Em- ployees, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a current contract which it contends covers the employees involved.' 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's garage located at Amarillo, Texas, in- cluding mechanics, body men, welders, electricians, helpers, trailer mechanics, washers and greasers, and parts men. The Employer and the Intervenor urge the inappropriateness of the unit and allege their existing contract as a bar to this proceeding. The Employer is an interstate common carrier doing business in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas. For a number of years the employees at its various terminals have been bargained for on a systemwide basis.2 The current bargaining contract was exe- cuted in February 1953 by the Employer and several other carriers with the Intervenor. The contract unit covers line drivers, checkers, fork lift operators, pickup and delivery drivers and helpers, stackers, stowmen, loaders, dockmen, servicemen, and mechanics throughout the operations of the several employers. This includes about 150 mechanics located in 8 or 9 different terminals. In November 1956 the Employer took over another carrier, Denver- Amarillo Express Co., called DAE, and has operated that company, the name of which was changed to Denver-Amarillo-Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., as part of its existing line under a management contract and temporary authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Some of the DAE employees had been represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and some of the DAE employees-garage employees- were unrepresented. In December 1956 a consent election, with the Teamsters and the Intervenor participating (Case No. 16-RM-130, I See American Engineering Company, 112 NLRB 14 ; Acme Steel Company, etc., 110 NLRB 913. 'In 1948 the Board found inappropriate units limited to specific terminals of the Em- ployer in view of the integrated nature of the Employer's operations. Brown Express, et al., 80 NLRB 753. 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), was conducted in a unit covering the pickup and delivery drivers and helpers, checkers, fork lift operators, and dockmen of DAE and of the Employer at Amarillo: As a result the Teamsters was certified. Mechanics were specifically excluded from the unit. It is the garage employees at Amarillo, including mechanics originally hired by the Employer and those formerly employed by DAE, whom the Petitioner now seeks to represent. Both the Employer and DAE formerly operated terminals at Amarillo. Since January 1957 only one consolidated terminal has been utilized, and the shop there services all equipment operating in and out of Amarillo whether it is equipment of the Employer or DAE equipment. Garage employees of DAE became employees of the Employer, and have been considered by the Employer as part of its shop and garage group represented by the Intervenor. They were reclassified under the classifications of the existing contract and placed on a systemwide seniority list. They, like all employees of the Employer, are paid from the general office in Dallas where their per- sonnel records are maintained. Policy for the entire system is estab- lished at the central office in Dallas, and all shops and garages are under the supervision of a superintendent in Dallas. Upon these facts we find that the garage and shop employees sought herein are an accretion to the Employer's systemwide unit which includes such employees and do not constitute an appropriate unit for separate representation.' Accordingly, we grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3 See J. IV. Rex Company, 115 NLRB 775 ; National Petro -Chemicals Corporation, 116 NLRB 1197. The C. A. Olsen Manufacturing Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Independent Furnace Workers Union, Local 1167, International Union , United Auto- mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners. Case No. 8-RC-2918. June 26,1957 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 Edward A. Grupp, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 118 NLRB No. 43.