Houck Transport Co.

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations, office clericals, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. We shall not place United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, on the ballot because of the absence of any showing of interest by it among the can manufacturing employees who, as noted above, have been found to constitute a separate appropriate unit. However, we shall permit a place on the ballot to the International Association of Machinists as it has submitted an adequate showing of interest among the can manufacturing plant employees. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Houck Transport Company and General Drivers, Local No. 74, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti- tioner. Case No. 18-RC-4532. February 15, 1961 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 Charles J. Frisch, 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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.' 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the Williston,2 North Dakota, terminal of the Employer, acquired by the Employer in April 1960. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract, dated October 31, 1959, which by its terms covers all drivers and helpers employed by the Employer without reference to any geographic area, covers Williston employees. The Employer, which is engaged in shipping commodities by truck, maintains other ter- minals at Glendive and Billings, Montana, 107 and 337 miles distant, i The Intervenor, Local 190, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, was allowed to intervene on the basis of a contractual interest. 2 The petition refers to a unit of employees at the Employer's Minot and Williston terminals , but there is no evidence that the Employer has a terminal in Minot. 130 NLRB No. 32. HOUCK TRANSPORT COMPANY 271 respectively, from Williston, and at Mandan, North Dakota, 240 miles distant. The Employer's headquarters is located at Glendive, where all records are kept and from which all personnel are paid. In March 1960, while the employees herein sought were employed by Westland Oil Company, an election was held and the Petitioner was certified as their bargaining representative. Before any contract was entered into, however, the Employer purchased Westland Oil Company's leasehold interest in trucks owned by another company and used to transport Westland OR Company products, and, in June 1960, it purchased the trucks outright. When the Employer took over the transportation of Westland products in April 1960, it rehired all the drivers employed by Westland, as well as the dispatcher, who is the supervisor at this terminal, and retained the trucks and the repair facilities which were in use at Williston.' The Williston terminal is separately supervised by its own dis- patcher, has its own payroll clerk, retains its own trucks, and main- tains complete facilities for their maintenance and repair. Inter- change of personnel between Williston and the other terminals occurs only occasionally for brief periods. On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is clear that the Williston terminal, newly acquired by the Employer, is a completely new operation and not a mere accretion. We therefore find that the collective-bargaining contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, which was executed prior to the acquisi- ton of the Williston terminal in April 1960, does not cover the Williston employees.4 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Williston terminal does not constitute a separate appropriate unit. As noted above, however, the employees at Williston are newly hired by the Employer, are separately supervised, and the Williston operation is largely autonomous. Furthermore, the Board normally permits em- ployees of a new operation to decide whether or not they wish to be separately represented.5 Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, for the purposes of collective bargaining, the employees at Williston may constitute a separate appropriate unit, or, in view of the centralized control and the bargaining history on a companywide basis, may ap- propriately be included in the multiplant unit currently represented 9 On August 16, 1960, the Petitioner requested the Regional Director to change the designation of the Employer on its certification to "Houck Transport Co ," but, on September 6, 1960, the Regional Director denied this request on the basis that the Employer was in a different type of business and, therefore , not a successor to Westland Oil Company. No appeal was taken from the Regional Director 's ruling, and no issue that the prior certification is a bar was raised in this proceeding 4 See Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc., 124 NLRB 48, 49. 6 See Miratile Manufacturing Company, Inc , supra, at 50; Pacqua, Inc., 124 NLRB 895, 897. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the Intervenor.' We shall, therefore, make no unit determination with respect to the employees at the Williston terminal at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election directed herein. We shall direct an election among the following employees : All over-the-road drivers and drivers' helpers at Williston, North Dakota, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.' If the majority of the employees in the above-described voting group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing unit currently represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballots for neither labor organization, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be unrepresented by any labor organization appearing on the ballot and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761. In view of our findings herein, the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition , made in its brief filed after the hearing, is hereby denied. The Employer and the Intervenor agreed that, in the event the Board directs an elec- tion, these employees constitute an appropriate voting group. J. R. Simplot Co., Food Processing Division , Heyburn Opera- tions 1 and American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-2563. February 15, 1961 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 Dan Boyd, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial 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 Fanning and Kimball]. i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 130 NLRB No. 47.