Raybern Bus Service, Inc.

43O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD though there might have been valid reasons for these discharges. In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the evidence establishes that these discharges were for the purpose of undermining the Union and stemming the tide of its organizational cam- paign and that the reasons assigned for these discharges were pretexts to conceal this purpose. That such is the fact is indicated , inter alia, by the timing of the dis- charges in relation to the union organizational activities and in relation to the "faults" assigned, the failure of many of Respondent's contentions to stand up under close examination, the conduct and statements by Foreman Jacobs, and the remarks by Elmer Schott to employee Falcone at the time he was offered reinstatement. There is no real question herein as to whether Foreman Jacob 's conduct was violative of the Act. Clearly such interrogations and threats interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. Furthermore, in the context of the unfair labor practices found, the interrogations as to union membership on the employment application form have a coercive effect and violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 122 NLRB 1033, footnote 3, and case cited there. Misconduct Respondent contended at the hearing before the Trial Examiner that some of the individuals involved herein should be denied reinstatement on the ground that they engaged in misconduct after their discharges . However, in the light of the oral argument at the end of the trial and the absence of any reference to these matters in Respondent's brief, it now appears that Respondent has abandoned these contentions. Accordingly, no effort will be made herein to outline the evidence with respect to these matters although the Trial Examiner has considered such evidence in con- nection with the evidence heretofore outlined and in connection with the remedy hereinafter fashioned , and has concluded that the conduct involved does not justify denial of reinstatement. IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes: 1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for the assertion of jurisdiction herein. 2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of America, Milk & Ice Cream Drivers & Dairy Employees Union , Local 497, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent threatened and interrogated its employees and thereby interfered with , restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent by discriminating in regard to tenure and conditions of employment and discouraging membership in a labor organization has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Raybern Bus Service, Inc.' and Division 1511, Amalgamated Association of S.E.R. & M.C.E. of America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 2-RC-10470. August 3, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held on February 18 before Louis .A. Schneider; on March 3 and 16 before Harry E. Knowlton; and on .April 6 and May 4, 1960, before 'I. L. Broadwin, hearing officers of ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 128 NLRB No. 51. RAYBERN BUS SERVICE, INC. 431 the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer? 2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: 'The Employer is a New York corporation engaged primarily in the transportation of schoolchildren in two New York counties. The Employer's services are not available to the general public along the routes it traverses in its schoolbus operation; nor does it perform any transportation services pursuant to franchise. During 1959 its gross revenue was $370,960, approximately 85 percent of which was income derived from transportation contracts between the Employer and three public school districts. Thirteen percent of the Employer's gross revenue was derived from the transportation of children to parochial schools within a two-county area in New York. 'The remaining income was derived from transportation services performed under charter contracts in the same area. Purchases, which consisted of gasoline, oil, tires, and parts, were made locally and amounted to $48,767 in 1959. Capital equipment purchases in 1959, which con- sisted of 10 used buses, all purchased within the State, amounted to approximately $70,000. In view of the fact that the Employer is engaged in an enterprise primarily in aid of the State in the field of education and which is essentially local in character, we find that it is not a transit enterprise within the meaning of the Charleston Transit Company case.3 The Board will not assert jurisdiction over an employer's business on the basis of its nonrecurring capital expenditures alone .4 As the Employer's operation does not otherwise satisfy any juris- dictional standard,5 we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 Amalgamated Local Union 355 was permitted to intervene on the basis of its con- tractual interest 8 Charleston Transit Company, 123 NLRB 1296 . Cf. The McMahon Transportation Company, 124 NLRB 1092 4 Richter Transfer Company, 80 NLRB 1246, and Magic Mountain, Inc, 123 NLRB 1170. 5 See HPO Service, Inc, 122 NLRB 394, 395