Safeway Trails, Inc.

SAFEWAY TRAILS, INC. 79 -unit appropriate for the ,purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. - 6. The Petitioner has filed charges against the Employer in Case No. 7-CA-1694, alleging, among other things, that the Employer, by ,executing the aforementioned contracts, violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. The Petitioner nevertheless desires to proceed to an election at this time, and it appears that the alleged violation of Section 8 (a) '(2) is related at least in part to the unresolved question concerning the representation of the Employer's employees. Under these circum- stances, we find that direction of an immediate election at this time, without requiring withdrawal of the Section 8 (a) (2) charges, will effectuate the policies of 'the Act. Such direction is, however, without prejudice-to, and any certification resulting therefrom shall be spe- cifically conditioned upon, any determination which may be made concerning the status of the Intervenor here in the pending Case No. 7-CA-1694.° [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication. MEMBERS RoDGERs and BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. - 6 See New York_f&hnpping Assoolation, eto., 107 NLRB 364, 876; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 63 NLRB 941, 944, and cases cited therein. -Safeway Trails, Inc. and Division 1112, Amalgamated Asso- ciation of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em- ployees of America, AFL--CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4RC-3490. March 10, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Zurlnick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Jenkins and Fanning]. 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 em- ployees of the Employer. Lodge No. 1023, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, hereinafter referred to as BRT, intervened on the basis of a contractual interest in the Employer's drivers. Lodge 447, Dis- 120 NLRB No. 13. $U DECISIONS OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD trict 15, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein- after referred to as IAM, and Local 317, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,' hereinafter referred to as Teamsters, jointly intervened at the hear- ing on the basis of a contractual interest in the Employer's New York maintenance employees. 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 (6) and (7) of theAct.2 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all drivers and maintenance and terminal employees employed in the Employer's Quaker City Division. In the alternative it seeks to represent all such employees on a systemwide basis. The Employer and BRT contend that only a systemwide unit of drivers is appropriate, and TAM and Teamsters contend that a separate unit of maintenance employees in New York is appropriate. Prior to November 1957, the Employer operated buses over several different routes. These included express routes between Washington, D. C., and New York City; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York City; and between Washington, D. C., and Atlantic City, New Jersey, as well as local service between Washington, Baltimore, Phila- delphia, and New York and other intermediate points. In addition to drivers, most of whom were based in Washington, the Employer employed a number of terminal employees in Baltimore and New York City, as well as maintenance employees in New York City. The Em- ployer's drivers were represented by BRT in a systemwide unit, the maintenance employees in New York were represented jointly by the IAM and Teamsters, and the Employer's remaining employees were unrepresented. Prior to November 1957, Quaker City Lines operated buses be- tween Philadelphia and New York City and intermediate points and between Philadelphia and Atlantic City. In addition to drivers, most of whom were based in Philadelphia, Quaker City employed terminal and maintenance employees in both Philadelphia and New York, as well as terminal employees in Camden, New Jersey. All drivers, : The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' cer- tificate of affiliation revoked by convention action , the identification of this Union is hereby amended. The Intervenors eontend that the petition, which was filed September 19, 1957, was premature with respect to their contracts expiring April 1, 1958, and April 30, 1958. However, as both contracts contain 60-day automatic renewal clauses, and the decision herein is not issuing more than 30 days before the Mill B date of either contract, the Board will not dismiss the petition as premature See- Home Curtain Corp., at at., 111 NLRB 1253. The Intervenors also contend that the petition was prematurely filed in that a merger of Quaker City Lines with the Employer, anticipated by the petition and on which the unit sought in the petition depended, had not yet occurred at the time of the hearing. However, as the merger subsequently took place, we find no merit in this contention. SAFEWAY TRAILS, INC. 81 maintenance employees, and terminal employees of Quaker City were represented by the Petitioner. Following approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission and State utilities commissions, during November 1957 the Employer pur- chased and took over the assets and operating rights of Quaker City Lines. A condition attached to the transaction by the ICC was that the operating rights and property of Quaker City be merged with those of the Employer concurrent with the acquisition of control of Quaker City by the Employer. In support of its primary unit request, the Petitioner contends that following the merger of the two lines, the Employer will operate a separate Quaker City Division embracing essentially all the former operations of Quaker City Lines plus the former Safeway route between Philadelphia and New York. In this connection the Peti- tioner relies on testimony presented to the ICC by the Employer and the ICC findings. In the testimony, the Employer's general manager stated that following the merger, it would establish and maintain a division of its operations to be known as the Quaker City Division to extend between Philadelphia and New York; New York and Fort Dix, New Jersey; and between Philadelphia and Atlantic City, New Jersey, in which drivers formerly employed by Quaker City would retain their seniority acquired as Quaker City employees. Except for the effect of the creation of such a division upon the former Quaker City employees' seniority and continued employment, the testimony does not indicate in which other respects, if any, the Quaker City Divison would be separated from other operations of the Employer. The ICC findings only reiterate this testimony. Apart from this the Petitioner also relies upon statements contained in a letter distributed to the employees of both companies to the effect that Philadelphia office employees of Quaker City will continue on with the Employer and will be talked to "pertaining to doing the envelopes for the entire division between Philadelphia and New York," and that the Employer will continue to operate from two separate terminal locations in both Philadelphia and New York for an indefinite period.' While the above evidence tends to establish that the former Quaker City routes plus the former competing Safeway route are regarded as a separate division for some purposes, in our opinion the record fails to establish that the Quaker City Division is a separate district oper- ating division which would be entitled to separate representation for purposes of collective bargaining. Thus, the Quaker City Division is not geographically separated from the remainder of Safeway's opera- tions, but its terminal cities are also terminal cities of routes outside the Quaker City Division. The record indicates that at Philadelphia, s In New York both locations are in the Port Authority terminal. 483142-59-vol. 120-7 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD there will be one area supervisor, the former operating head of Quaker City Lines, who will be in charge of all operations and em- ployees in Philadelphia,4 and there is no evidence that there will be separate control of labor relations or management policies in the Quaker City Division. While the record contains no evidence as to interchange of employees between the Quaker City Division and the remainder of the system, due to the fact that the merger had not yet occurred at the time of the hearing, the Employer's proposed seniority plan would permit interchange of drivers between the Quaker City Division and the remainder of the system. In addi- tion, while the Employer will maintain separate terminal locations in New York and Philadelphia for an indefinite period, the record fails to indicate whether the division between terminals will be based upon the lines of the present Quaker City Division or upon the lines of the former corporate identities. Likewise, the record does not indi- cate that the maintenance functions for the Quaker City Division will be separated from those of the rest of the system. On the contrary, the Petitioner's position in its brief that both the Philadelphia and New York garages are part of the Quaker City Division either would leave the Employer with no garage facilities for its buses outside the Quaker City Division, or would imply that one or both of these garages work on buses for the entire system. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any other evidence which would establish the appro- priateness of a unit confined to the Quaker City Division, we find that such a unit is inappropriate. The Petitioner's alternative request would include all drivers and maintenance and terminal employees of the merged operations on a systemwide basis. The Board has often found such units appropri- ate s and, accordingly, these employees may constitute an appropriate unit herein. However, the Board has also found in the past that drivers have sufficient interests apart from maintenance and terminal employees to permit them to constitute a separate unit,e and the record contains no evidence to warrant a different result in this case where BRT seeks to represent such a unit. Accordingly, we find that a systemwide unit of drivers may also be appropriate and shall establish a voting group of drivers to permit them to determine whether they desire inclusion in an overall unit or wish to constitute a separate appropriate unit. As for the maintenance employees in New York, whom the IAM and Teamsters wish to continue representing as a separate unit, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that there has been any change # The record fails to indicate the nature of supervision in New York following the merger. " See Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 107 NLRB 1621 ; Central Greyhound Lines, 88 NLRB 13. Union Bus Lines, Inc., 85 NLRB 107. SAFEWAY TRAILS, INC. 83 in their working conditions or that their functional distinctness as a group has been altered as a result of the merger. Accordingly, in the absence of any bargaining history for these employees on a broader basis, we will establish a separate voting group of maintenance employees in New York to permit them to determine whether they wish to be included in an overall unit or to constitute a separate appro- priate unit' Accordingly, we shall establish the following voting groups of employees of the Employer : A. All bus drivers employed throughout the Employer's system, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. B. All maintenance employees employed at the Employer's New York garage, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. C. All terminal and maintenance employees employed throughout the Employer's system,8 excluding maintenance employees at the New York garage, all drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the event that a majority of the employees in voting group A vote for BRT, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate unit which under the circumstances the Board finds appropriate, and the Regional Director shall issue a certification of representatives to that effect. In the event that a majority of the employees in voting group B vote for representation by TAM and Teamsters, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate unit which under the circumstances the Board also finds appropriate, and the Regional Director shall issue a certification of representatives to that effect. In the event that,the employees in both voting groups A and B vote for separate representation and a major- ity of the employees in voting group C vote for the Petitioner, the Regional Director will issue a Certification of Representatives for such group which the Board finds under the circumstances constitutes an appropriate unit. In the event that a majority of the employees in voting group A do not vote for BRT or in the event that a majority of the employees in voting group B do not vote for TAM and Team- sters, the votes of either or both groups so voting will be pooled with those of the employees in voting group C, and if a majority of the employees in the pooled group vote for representation, the Regional ' See Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 112 NLRB 1014. 8 Prior to the merger, Quaker City operated a maintenance garage at Philadelphia em- ploying 31 maintenance employees , who were included in the unit represented by the Petitioner. At the hearing, the Employer indicated that following the merger, this garage would be taken over by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Employer. However, the record does not Indicate whether the Employer and its subsidiary will constitute a single employer for unit purposes after the merger. Accordingly, we will make no final determination as to the status of the garage employees as employees of the Employer, but will permit them to vote subject to challenge. i 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director will issue a certification of representatives for such group which the Board finds under the circumstances constitutes an appro- priate unit. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Company and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 391,1 Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC- 104f'. March 11, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on December 5, 1957,2 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on December 18, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 30 eligible voters, 30 ballots were cast, of which 14 were cast for the Petitioner, 11 against the Petitioner, and 5 were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the eligibility of those individuals whose ballots were challenged. Thereafter, on January 23, 1958, the Regional Director issued a report on challenges in which he recom- mended that the challenges to the ballots cast by Raymond C. Chandler, Billy Janey, and Jerry Hartsell be overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of Wilbert James and Lloyd Cox be sus- tained. The Employer thereafter filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. No exceptions were filed by the Peti- tioner. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. In its exceptions the Employer contends that prior to the election the Petitioner examined and approved a list of employees eligible to vote. It contends that this approval is final and binding upon the parties insofar as the voting eligibility of employees is concerned and urges the Board, in making its determination of whether or not to overrule the challenges to the ballots of employees James and Cox, to give great weight to the fact that their names appeared on the 1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters ' certifi- cate of affiliation revoked by convention action , the identification of the Petitioner is hereby amended, 9 Unpnhltshed 120 NLRB No. 11.