Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc.

TUALATIN VALLEY BUSES; INC. 957 local union. The Board, having considered the matter, makes the following finding. It is stated clearly in the, declaration and signature to the petition, as follows : "Southern Conference of Teamsters (As soon as Petitioner has been certified, the International will issue a charter for a local Union, which will be delegated bargaining rights)." As insufficient cause has been asserted by the Employer why the Board should not amend the certification to reflect the new name of the certified repre- sentative, we shall grant the motion to amend.' [The Board amended the Certification of Representatives issued to Southern Conference of Teamsters by substituting therein "Phosphate Workers Union, Local 308, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America" for "Southern Conference of Teamsters."] 2 See Univers¢ty Metal Products Co., Inc, 102 NLRB 1567 ; The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company, 130 NLRB 633. Of Standard Oil Company, 127 NLRB 656; Dickey, formerly d/b/a Ohio Hoist and Mfg. Co. v. NL.R.B., 217 F. 2d 652 (C.A. 6). Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc. and Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No. 281, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., Petitioner 1 Inter-City Buses, Inc. and Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local No. 281, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., Petitioner. Cases Nos. 36-RC-1618 and 36-RC 1621. August 14, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, separate hearings were held before E. G. Strumpf, 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the bearing. At the hearing in Case No . 36-RC-1622 the parties moved that Case No. 36-RC-1618 be consolidated with that proceeding and that the record in Case No 36-RC -1618 be adopted as part of the evidence in that case. We hereby grant the motion and accord- ingly order that the above-captioned cases be consolidated. - 132 NLRB No. 81. 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Tabor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employers.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units : Both Employers are engaged in the bus transportation of passengers, express, newspapers, and mail between points in Portland, Oregon, and its various suburban and outlying areas. In Case No. 36-RC-1618 the Petitioner seeks a unit of busdrivers employed by Tualatin, excluding mechanical and service employees. In Case No. 36-RC-1622, the same Petitioner seeks a separate unit of busdrivers employed by Inter-City. The Intervenor is in substantial agreement with the Petitioner as to the units in both cases, but would include all nonmechanic service employees of Tualatin.4 Alterna- tively, the Petitioner agrees to include the service employees. The Employers allege primarily that the appropriate unit should consist of the busdrivers of four companies, i.e., Tualatin Valley Buses, Inc.; Inter-City Buses, Inc.; Portland Stages, Inc.; and Estacada-Mollalla Stages, Inc. As an alternative, they contend that the drivers of Tualatin and Inter-City should be represented in a single unit. The Employers take no position as to the inclusion of service employees. The record shows that each of the above-named companies operates over a different route, that all four companies are owned and officered by the same individuals, and that these individuals determine labor relations policies. However, each of the four companies has had separate collective-bargaining agreements with the Intervenor cover- ing busdrivers. Each agreement was negotiated separately and pro- vided for separate seniority for each company. Particularly in view of'the bargaining history on a separate employer basis, we find the separate units of drivers sought by the Petitioner are appropriate. Moreover, no labor organization is seeking an overall unit of the bus- drivers in the four companies.5 Accordingly, we find, in Case No. 36-RC-1622, that a unit of bus- drivers of Inter-City at its Portland, Oregon, terminal, excluding all mechanical and service employees, office clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, is appropriate for collec- tive bargaining purposes. 8 Motor Coach Employees , Division 1055, Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of a contractual showing of interest. 4 I.e , tire service men , service station men, washers , cleaners , and greasers 5 Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761. TUALATIN VALLEY BUSES, INC. 959 We likewise find, as sought by the Petitioner in Case No. 36-RC- 1618, that the separate unit of busdrivers of Tualatin, excluding me- chanical and nonmechanic service employees may be appropriate. However, the Intervenor contends, as already noted, that the unit should include all nonmechanic service employees, despite the fact, as the record shows, that the Intervenor has historically represented these service employees and the drivers in two separate units.' As the Board has held such combined units appropriate,' we find that a unit of busdrivers and nonmechanic service employees of Tualatin may also be appropriate.' Accordingly, in Case No. 36-RC-1618 we shall establish the fol- lowing voting groups of the Tualatin's employees, at its Portland, Oregon, terminal, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (A) All busdrivers, excluding all employees in voting group (B) and all other employees. (B) All nonmechanic service employees, including tire servicemen, service station men, washers, cleaners, and greasers, excluding all employees in voting group (A) and all other employees.' In the event a majority of the employees in voting group (A) votes for the Petitioner, we find such unit to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and the Regional Director shall issue a cer- tification of representatives to that effect. In the event a majority of the employees in voting group (A) votes for the Intervenor, the bal- lots in voting group (A) will be pooled with those in voting group (B), and if the Intervenor received a majority of the votes in- the pooled group,1° we find, in the circumstances, that such unit is ap- propriate for collective-bargaining purposes and the Regional Direc- tor shall issue a certification of representatives to that effect. In' all other events, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifica- tion of results of the election as appropriate in the circumstances. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 9 We deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss Case No. 36-RC-1618 on the asserted ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate ' As the Intervenor has demonstrated a contractual showing of interest in each of the separate groups of the busdrivers and the service employees of Tualatin, we treat the Intervenor as a cross-petitioner for the unit it requests. 8 See Safeway Trails, Inc., 120 NLRB 79, 82. B Although the Petitioner indicated alternatively that it would accept a unit of the bus- drivers and service employees, it will not appear on the ballot in voting group (B) as it has made no separate showing of interest for the service employees . See Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109. 30 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : Votes for the Petitioner shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for or against the Intervenor. All other votes are to be accorded their face value.