City Cab, Inc.

CITY CAB, INC., CHECKER WHITE CAB, INC., ETC. 493 parties acting together pursuant to some design or scheme.13 Nor does it bear any resemblance to a labor dispute. Rather the January 6 letter was a creature born and nursed to maturity in the mind of Mary Akey. The fact that after the "birth" some few smiled approvingly of the "child" cannot in my opinion retroactively make the action concerted. Thus it is clear that Akey's action was not an "indispensable preliminary step to employee self-organization." 14 The Respondent had no reason to believe that Akey's letter writing activity was for or on behalf of anyone other than herself. It is clear from the record in this case that Mary Akey's January 6 letter contained misleading statements, if not deliberate untruths, and when considered in the light of Respondent's action to improve and correct its sanitation facilities some 5 months previously, was only calculated to heap public embarrassment upon Respondent. It might even be properly characterized as the vindictive act of a "scorned woman." I have searched this record for some, scintilla of permissible motive which might have prompted Akey's action or justified the means, but am left wanting. Mary Akey by her chosen course of action removed herself from the protection of the Act. She was attacking the very interest which she was being paid to conserve and develop and the employer was not required to finance such activities.15 For these reasons I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)'(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. 4. The Respondent has not engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] " See Webster's New International Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary for a defini- tion of ",concerted." 14 See Office Towel Supply Company, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 449, and cases cited at footnote 4 therein, enforcement denied 201 F. 2d 838 (C.A. 2). 15 The Patterson-Sargent Company, 115 NLRB 1627. Also see, Harvard Law Review, vol. 66, p. 1321. City Cab, Inc., Checker White Cab, Inc., Skyline Cab, Inc., Town Tops Taxi, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 14149, Party to the Contract. Case No. 9-CA-1883. August 8, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On March 24, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that said complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 128 NLRB No. 64. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, for the reasons set forth below. As found by the Trial Examiner, on February 14, 1958, District 50 won an election conducted by the West Virginia Department of Labor, in which the Teamsters participated, in a single unit encompassing the cabdrivers employed by Checker White, Skyline, and Town Tops. Thereafter, these three companies and District 50 entered into a single contract, with a March 31, 1959, expiration date, covering these drivers. Although this contract was not placed in evidence, the parties stipulated to its existence and expiration date. There is no evidence or contention that the contract was in any manner illegal or improper under the Act or Board rulings. On January 14, 1959, the Teamsters claimed to represent the employees in District 50's unit. On January 27, 1959, District 50's regional director sent a letter to Respondents seeking to reopen the contract for purposes of negotiating certain modifications. This letter was followed by another, dated March 23, requesting that negotiations begin. Thereafter, Respondents bar- gained with District 50 and sometime between March 24 and April 1, 1959, executed a 3-year contract with that union, effective as of April 1. The complaint alleges that Respondents violated Section 8 (a.) (2) and (1) by extending exclusive recognition to District 50 "on or about April 1" and by executing the new 3-year contract. As noted, the Trial Examiner found that Respondents had not -violated the Act as alleged. The General Counsel excepts to this find- ing, basing his claim of violation squarely upon Midwest Piping cC Supply Co., Inc.,' and related cases. In those cases, the Board held generally that "an employer faced with conflicting claims of two or more rival unions which give rise to a real question concerning repre- sentation may not recognize or enter into a contract with one of these unions until its right to be recognized has finally been determined under the special procedures provided in the Act."' The General Counsel argues that since this rule has been held to apply to the situa- tion in which an incumbent union is challenged by an outside union,' and as the representative status of District 50, incumbent herein, was not reestablished in a Board proceeding after the Teamsters made its claim, Respondents' conduct, in dealing with District 50 on and after March 24, falls within the proscription of the Midwest Piping 1 63 NLRB 1060; see also Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1575 ; Scherrer and Davisson Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1587; and Shea Chemical Corporation, 121 NLRB 1027, 1029 2 Novak Logging Company, supra, at 1574 a Shea Chemical Corporation, sup? a, at 1029. CITY CAB, INC., CHECKER WHITE CAB, INC., ETC. 495 doctrine. This would, of course, be true if a real question concerning representation existed at that time. As the Board pointed out in the Shea Chemical case, supra, the Board's contract-bar rules are relevant to the determination of the existence of a real question concerning representation. Those rules provide "a 60-day insulated period immediately preceding and includ- ing the expiration date of an existing contract . . . during which the parties may negotiate and execute a new or amended agreement with- out the intrusion of a rival petition," and further provide that only a petition timely filed before the insulated period is effective to sus- pend operation of the insulated period.4 Here, the insulated period of Respondents' contract 6 with District 50 ran from January 31 to March 31. The negotiations and contract execution, as noted, occurred in late March, or within that insulated period. Consequently, were we to hold, as the General Counsel contends, that Respondents' deal- ings with District 50 at that time violated Section 8(a) (2), we would in effect be holding as a practical matter that a claim unsupported by a timely petition could forestall operation of the insulated period-a result clearly at variance with the expressed intent of the Board's contract-bar rules. We believe that such a result is unwarranted. Under Deluxe Metal, a rival union is clearly apprised of both the time and manner in which it can proceed in an attempt to unseat an incumbent union, while parties to a contract, valid for bar purposes, have been afforded in the 60-day insulated period the necessary opportunity to carry out their bargaining responsibilities free from "the threat of overhanging rivalry and uncertainty." The accommodation thus made between employee freedom to change bargaining representatives and bargain- ing stability, though specifically developed with respect to representa- tion proceedings, cannot serve its proper purpose if it can in effect be nullified through application of the Midwest Piping doctrine in an unfair labor practice proceeding. Consequently, we conclude that where there exists a contract which under the Board's contract-bar rules has an insulated period, the Midwest Piping doctrine is inappli- cable to conduct occurring during that period, unless there is on file at the beginning of that period a petition which raises a real question concerning representation.6 Accordingly, and apart from any other considerations, we find that as the Teamsters failed to file a timely petition, Respondents' dealings with District 50 during the insulated period of their contract with 4 Deluxe Metal Furntiture Company, 121 NLRB 995 , 1000-1001. s The record does not establish that the 1958-59 agreement was in fact no bar. See Stewart Die Casting Division (Bridgeport ) of Stewart-Warner Corporation, 123 NLRB 447, 449 Cf Shea Chemical Corporation, supra, at 1024, Wallaam Penn Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1104, 1105-1106. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD District 50 did not violate Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act. We shall, therefore, adopt the recommendation of the Trial Examiner and dismiss the complaint in its entirety. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBERS BEAN and FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed May 7, 1959, and thereafter amended, by Chauffeurs, Team- sters & Helpers Local Union 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter called the Teamsters or Local 175, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the General Counsel i and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated October 5, 1959, against City Cab, Inc., Checker White Cab, Inc., Skyline Cab, Inc., and Town Tops Taxi, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or individually by the first name of each. The complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent had unlaw- fully assisted District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 14149, herein- after called UMW, by extending recognition to UMW as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the employee-drivers of City, Checker, and Town and by entering into a labor relations contract with UMW covering such employees in face of an adverse claim to majority representation by the Teamsters, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge and amended charges, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Re- spondent, UMW, and Teamsters. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the jurisdiction of the Board and the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 5, 1960, at Charleston, West Virginia, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All the parties were repre- sented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, to present oral argument at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oral argument at the conclusion of the hearings was waived by all parties except the General Counsel. Briefs had been received from all parties by February 15, 1960. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT At all times material herein City Cab, Inc., has been and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of West Virginia, where it is engaged in the operation of taxicabs, having its principal office and place of business at 311 Virginia Street, Charleston, West Virginia. At all times material herein Checker White Cab, Inc., has been and is a corpora- tion, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of West Virginia, where it is engaged in the operation of taxicabs having its principal office and place of busi- ness at 311 Virginia Street, Charleston, West Virginia. At all times material herein Town Tops Taxi, Inc, has been and is a corpora- tion, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of West Virginia, where it is engaged in the operation of taxicabs, having its principal office and place of business at 311 Virginia Street, Charleston, West Virginia. At all times material herein Skyline Cab, Inc., has been and is a corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of West Virginia, where it is en- ' This term specifically Includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing. CITY CAB, INC., CHECKER WHITE CAB, INC., ETC. 497 gaged in the operation of taxicabs, having its principal office and place of business at 311 Virginia Street, Charleston, West Virginia. A stipulation entered into by the parties discloses that the gross revenues from the operation of Skyline alone is sufficient to satisfy the published jurisdictional standards of the Board so that the Board would assume jurisdiction over Skyline. On the other hand this stipulation further discloses that the revenue derived from the operations of the other three corporations, taken either individually or as a group, is insufficient to satisfy the Board's jurisdictional standards. However, General Counsel maintains that in reality these four corporations con- stitute a single employer and that, therefore, the Board should assume jurisdiction of the instant case even though the complaint deals exclusively with the appropriate unit consisting of the driver-employees of City, Checker, and Town. UMW and Respondent Companies are in opposition. Therefore, it is first necessary to determine the contention regarding the single employer theory. The officers of City, Checker, and Town are the same: W. H. Erwin, Jr., presi- dent, Earl H. Mundy, vice president; and Robert L. Hickman, secretary and treasurer. On the other hand, the officers of Skyline are Earl H. Mundy, president, Robert L Hickman, vice president, and W. H. Erwin, Jr., secretary and treasurer. Both the directors and the stockholders of these four corporations are interlocked and constitute for all practical purposes the same persons. In addition Earl H. Mundy is the general manager of each of these corporations and in charge of their personnel and labor relations The four corporations have a common business office and terminal and garage facilities. They share the rent and all other indirect expenses in proportions to the number of taxicabs operated by each of them. In these common offices there are two dispatch boards, one for Skyline, the owner and operator of the largest number of cabs, and the other for the other three corporations. However, on Sundays and from midnight to 8 a.m. daily only one dispatch board is used and one dispatcher dispatches cabs for all four companies indiscriminately. The Skyline drivers are paid on checks made by Skyline while the drivers for the other three companies are paid out of an account of, and on checks drawn by, Town. There is no interchange of drivers between Skyline and the other three corporations although there is such interchange among the other three corporations.2 Because of this interlocking ownership and control of these four corporations and because their personnel and labor relations are under the control of the same general manager, the Trial Examiner finds that these four corporations constitute but a single employer. He also finds that historically the drivers of Skyline have constituted one appropriate unit while the drivers of the other three corporations have constituted a second appropriate unit. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 14149, are each labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts The parties stipulated the following facts: Prior to 1958 Teamsters had a collective-bargaining contract with Skyline. Teamsters also had a separate and distinct collective-bargaining contract with City, Checker, and Town as joint contracting parties. Each of two mentioned contracts were separately negotiated and separately executed. However, both contracts con- tained the same terms and provisions. In December 1957 UMW claimed that it represented a majority of the employees of Town, City, and Checker. Thereafter on February 14, 1958, at the joint request 2 For the past 10 years, at least, Skyline has had a labor agreement with the repre- sentative of the Skyline drivers For the same length of time the other three companies have had a labor agreement covering all their drivers in one appropriate unit with their representative. It was not until after the 1958 contract for Skyline had been negotiated that the present owners secured control of Skyline. 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Teamsters, UMW, and the three companies, the West Virginia Department of Labor held an election for the employees of the three companies to determine whether such employees should be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Teamsters or UMW The employees of the three companies were grouped into one voting unit, and the results of the election disclosed that 18 votes were cast for UMW, 15 for Teamsters, and no votes for "no union." Thereafter, the three companies executed a contract with UMW, which contract was to expire on March 31, 1959. At the same time that the election was held for the three com- panies, a similar election, based on a similar request of the two unions and Skyline, was held for the employees of Skyline. The results of this election showed 72 votes for Teamsters, 9 votes for UMW, and 2 votes for "no union." Thereafter, Skyline executed a contract with Teamsters, which contract was to expire on March 31, 1959. The separation of voting units as between employees of the three companies and of Skyline was a result of the request and insistence of Teamsters that Skyline's employees, on the one hand, and the employees of the three companies, on the other hand, be considered and constitute separate. units for voting and contract pur- poses.3 Initially, UMW objected to this separation of voting units, but finally agreed to Teamsters' demand in this regard. Neither Skyline nor the three companies took any position with regard to whether the voting in these elections should be by all employees of Skyline and the three companies, voting as a unit, or should be by separate voting unit. On January 14, 1959, Teamsters. over the signature of Frank A. Rebhan, its secretary-treasurer, wrote a letter to Town claiming to represent the employees of Town. No mention was made in this letter of either City or Checker, or their employees.4 Teamsters asserts that it had, in fact, by January 14, 1959, collected 23 signed union-authorization cards from taxicab drivers employed by the three companies on that date The total driver payroll of the three companies on January 11, 1959, consisted of 36 individuals. Teamsters never, at any time, displayed any such cards to any of the Respondent Companies or their representatives, nor did Teamsters at any time ever make any statement or assertion to any representative of any of the Respondent Companies concerning the existence of any such cards. Neither the three companies nor Skyline had any knowledge of the existence of any such cards By a letter dated January 30, 1959, Teamsters requested the West Virginia Com- missioner of Labor to conduct another representation election for employees of Town [meaning the three companies, Town, City, and Checker]. The three com- panies made no objection to the holding of such an election by the West Virginia Department of Labor and, in fact, advised the West Virginia Commissioner of Labor that they (the three companies) are agreeable to such an election. UMW, however, objected to the holding of such an election, and the commissioner of labor refused to hold an election on the basis that he should not, and could not, do so, unless agreed to by all parties On March 8, 1959, 22 employees of the three companies (of the total of 36 drivers all on the payroll) submitted notice to Town and Checker, disavowing UMW as the employees' bargaining representative and revoking their union dues checkoff authorization under the contract then in effect.5 'This division was also historical The Town, Checker, and City group did not come into control of Skyline until after March 1956 Until May or June 1956 the Town- City-'Checker group operated out of a separate terminal in the eastern part of the city but about that time were consolidated with Skyline at 311 Virginia Street for reasons of economy 4 All parties agreed at the hearing that this letter was intended to include all driver employees of Town, City, and Checker and was so understood i This notice on plain stationery read as follows. The undersigned employees of Town Top Taxi, Inc, a corporation, and Checker White Cab, Inc., a corporation, and ex-members of the United Mine Workers of America, District 50, Local No. 14149, hereby notify you, and each of you, that as of this date, we do not wish or desire to be represented by the United Mine Workers of America, District 50, Local No 14149, for purposes of collective bargaining, and said union no longer has any authority to represent us for collective bargaining purposes, and we hereby terminate and cancel our membership in said union You and each of you, are hereby notified that, any and all authorizations or assignments previously given by us permitting and allowing union dues to be de- ducted from our wages, are hereby cancelled, revoked and declared to be at an end and terminated Deductions from our wages for union dues are hereby forbidden. Dated this day of March, 1959 CITY CAB, INC., CHECKER WHITE CAB, INC., ETC. 499 On March 21, 1959, 10 of the above-named 22 (of a total of 37 on the payroll of March 22) employees revoked their disavowal of UMW as their bargaining rep- resentatives From January 14 until 30, 1959, Frank A. Rebhan had two or more telephone calls with W. H. Belcher, attorney for the three companies, and, in said calls, Reb- han made it clear that he was demanding recognition for the employees of Town, City, and Checker in one unit. It is agreed that the employees of these three com- panies are commonly referred to as the employees of Town. Said employees are paid by identically styled checks, all drawn on the account of Town. It is stipulated that the three companies considered the letter of Rebhan on January 14, 1959, as being a demand for recognition for the employees of Town, City, and Checker. On March 24, 1959, Belcher sent a letter to the commissioner of the West Virginia De- partment of Labor, which acknowledged this fact Thereafter, the three companies executed a 3-year collective-bargaining contract with UMW, effective April 1, 1959.7 This contract was executed by the three com- panies in the belief, and on the assumption, that UMW still represented a majority of the employees of the three companies. No election was ever held to determine whether or not this assumption and belief was correct. B. Conclusions The General Counsel argued that the evidence in this case proves a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act under the rule known as the Midwest Piping doctrine which forbids an employer to recognize or deal with one of two competing unions after a "real question concerning representation" over the right to represent the employees has arisen and until the Board has determined that question by election or otherwise. In the recent past the Board attempted to tack a number of reservations and exceptions on this doctrine. One such artificial exception made was in the William D. Gibson case, 110 NLRB 660, where the employer was permitted to continue to deal with an "incumbent union" after there had been rival claims, subject, of course, to defeasance in the event that such incumbent was subsequently proved to be the minority union. Subsequently these arbitrary exceptions proved unwork- able and have been overruled. Originally the Midwest Piping doctrine was thought to apply only in the situation where an R petition had been filed with the Board by one of the competing unions. More recent cases, such as the Novak case, 119 NLRB 1573, have, indeed, extended the doctrine to cases where "a real question concerning representation" has arisen even in the absence of the filing of a R petition. This is a reasonable and sensible extension of the doctrine. So the question to be solved here is whether the Teamsters raised a "real" question concerning representation. If it did, then there is no question but that Respondent illegally assisted UMW by entering into the April 1, 1959, contract. If Teamsters did not, then Respondent has not violated the Act. At the outset it is necessary to recognize that the only allegedly illegal act charged against the Respondent in the complaint is that Respondent recognized and entered into an agreement with UMW in the latter part of March 1959 in derogation of the existing claim of Teamsters. The evidence disclosed that the UMW negotiations occurred between March 24 and 31. Thus to determine the legality, or illegality, of Respondent's actions, it becomes necessary to determine the situation as it existed on March 24 when the negotiations began. At that time UMW was the recognized representative of Respondent's employees as a result of the election conducted by the State of West Virginia the previous year. UMW also had an existing contract with Respondent effective until March 31. 1959. On January 14, 1959, Teamsters raised a question concerning representation with its letter claiming majority representation in the Town unit and requesting Respond- ent to bargain with them as a result thereof. 9 This letter on the letterhead of UMW, addressed to Town Tops Taxi, Inc, and signed by 10 employees, read as follows Attention : Messrs Ervin, Hickman. and Mundy Gentlemen : Now that we understand the situation as it actually exists between Town Tops Taxi, Inc, District 50, UMWA, Local Union No 14149 and the Teamsters, we, the undersigned, hereby authorize you to forthwith disregard our previous notice of withdrawal dated March 8, 1959, and declare it of no further force and effect. 7 The negotiation of this contract took place between March 24 and April 1, 1959. 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On January 27, 1959, UMW gave notice to Respondent that it desired to nego- tiate changes in its expiring contract. On March 23, UMW requested the beginning of the bargaining session. Sometime after January 14 Teamsters requested the Department of Labor of the State of West Virginia to conduct another election in the Town unit to determine the question concerning representation which had thus arisen. Respondent agreed to the request as a solution to the dilemma in which it found itself. But, when UMW objected, the department of labor, sometime prior to March 24, refused to hold the election. This action by Teamsters would indicate the existence of a real question concerning representation as of that time. So also would the "Notice" of March 8 signed by 23 of the 36 drivers in the unit to the effect that they no longer desired to be represented by UMW. However, it is to be noted that there was nothing contained in this notice indicating any desire on the part of these 23 to be represented by Teamsters or anyone else. So far as this notice indicated, the question concerning representation lay between UMW and "No Union" at least so far as Respondent could determine. Then, of course, the letter of March 21 on UMW letterhead paper with its reaffirmation of adherence to UMW by 10 of the previous defectors from UMW would appear to justify Respondent in the not unreasonable belief that the strength of "No Union" (or Teamsters) had been reduced to 331/3 percent of the employees in the unit at the most. Thus, if a real question concerning representation continued to exist thereafter, there seemed to be the required 30 percent of the employees in the unit necessary for the filing of an R petition with the Board. Not only was no petition ever filed by Teamsters 8 but Teamsters never displayed nor mentioned the existence of the 23 signed Teamster authorization cards. In fact, Teamsters did absolutely nothing regarding this claimed question concerning repre- sentation until it filed its original charge herein on May 7, 1959. Thus Teamsters, with evidence in its possession to prove the existence of a real question concerning representation, chose instead to permit the other parties involved in the matter to be misled into the reasonable conclusion that Teamsters had raised at most only a bare claim of majority and thereafter to allow them to act thereon to their detri- ment. This would seem to raise a type of estoppel which would prevent Teamsters from maintaining the contrary by filing the charge resulting in this complaint. It appears to this Trial Examiner that labor relations is one business which must be played with all the cards on the table. It seems to the Trial Examiner that it was incumbent upon Teamsters who were attempting to displace the incumbent union to prove to the parties involved that it was in fact raising a "real" question concerning representation and not merely making a naked or bare claim to majority status. The Trial Examiner is, therefore, of the opinion that by March 24 the question concerning representation raised by the Teamsters through their letter of January 14 had been reduced from a "real" question concerning representation to the status of a bare or naked claim and that, therefore, Respondent was justified in arriving at the reasonable conclusion that such was the case so that it could, and did, continue relations with the incumbent union. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts, and upon the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local 14149, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommends that the complaint in the instant matter be dismissed in its entirety. s Teamsters explained this lapse on the ground that the Board's position on assuming jurisdiction over taxicabs was at least uncertain See Checker Cab Co and Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co , Inc, 110 NLRB 688 However, in Carolina Supplies and Cement Co , 122 NLRB 88, the Board served notice that thereafter it would assume jurisdiction over taxicabs again.