Camp Baumann Buses, Inc.

648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' Camp Baumann Buses, Inc. and V.S. Buses, Inc. and Transport Workers Union, Local 252, AFL-CIO; Amalgamated Associa- tion of Street, Electric and Motor Coach Employees of Amer- ica, Local Division 1511, AFL-CIO; Employees Welfare Com- mittee of Camp Baumann Buses, Inc. and V.S. Buses, Inc. Case No. A0-55. May 15, 1963 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed by Camp Baumann Buses, Inc., and V.S. Buses, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, the Charging Parties in a proceeding before the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called NYSLRB, filed a "Memorandum of Law in Reply to [Employer's] Memorandum" urging the Board to issue an Advisory Opinion declining to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. In pertinent part, the petition and memorandum of law in reply allege as follows : 1. The Employer, Transport Workers Union, Local 252 AFIs-CIO ; Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric and Motor Coach Em- ployees of America, Local Division 1511, AFL-CIO; Employees Welfare Committee of Camp Baumann Buses, Inc., and V.S. Buses, Inc., are parties to an unfair labor practice proceeding before the NYSLRB, Docket No. SU-25929. 2. The Employer is engaged in the bus transportation business in and about Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Although it consists of two separate bus corporations, the Employer functions as a single integrated unit. The officers, directors, and stockholders are identical. One garage, maintenance staff, and office service both corporations; and employees and equipment are used interchangeably. The Employer operates buses in Nassau County, New York, and derives its revenue from contracts with local school boards for the transportation of schoolchildren. In addition thereto, a substan- tial portion of its income is obtained by the operation of buses for parochial schools, transportation of children to summer camps, and charter trips which, from time to time, go out of the State of New York. The Employer's services are not available to the general pub- lic, nor does it perform any transportation services pursuant to franchise. 3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer had a gross income of $574,014. During this period, the Employer purchased locally, within the State of New York, gasoline and oil, tubes and tires, and supplies and parts valued at $83,707, all of which originated outside the State of New York. During the recent 3-month period between 142 NLRB No. 79. CAMP BAUMANN BUSES, INC. AND V.S. BUSES, INC. 649 January 1, 1963, and March 25, 1963, such purchases of out-of-State gasoline and oil, tubes and tires, and supplies and parts amounted to $17,124. Further, each year the Employer replaces 6 to 12 buses with the purchase of new equipment in North Carolina. Thus, on January 23, 1963, the Employer made capital expenditures in the amount of $53,550 for six new buses purchased in North Carolina. 4. No findings with respect to the aforementioned commerce data have been made by the NYSLRB. 5. In contending that the Board should assert jurisdiction, the Employer argues that it is either a transit enterprise whose opera- tions satisfy the standard for transit systems established in Charles- ton Transit Company,' or a nonretail business whose operations meet the nonretail standard established in Siemons Mailing Service' On the other hand, the Charging Parties argue that the Employer is not a transit enterprise within the meaning of Charleston but is a local bus company primarily engaged in the transportation of school chil- dren and that, under the precedent in Raybern Bus Service, Inc .3 the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer herein. 6. No proceedings involving the Employer herein are pending be- fore the Board. On the basis of the above, the Board' is of the opinion that: 1. The Employer is engaged in the bus transportation business in and about Nassau County, Long Island, New York. 2. As indicated above, the Employer's revenue is derived from contracts with local school boards for the transportation of school- children and, in addition, from the operation of buses for parochial schools, summer camps, and charter trips. Its services are not avail- able to the general public and are not performed pursuant to fran- chise. As the Employer is a local bus enterprise engaged essentially in transporting schoolchildren, we agree with the Charging Parties that the Raybern precedent, involving a local bus transportation company whose operations were strikingly similar to those of the Employer, is controlling and that the Board would decline jurisdic- tion herein. In declining jurisdiction in the Raybern case, the Board found, as we do here, that the bus company was an essentially local enterprise engaged primarily in aid of the State in the field of educa- tion and that it was not a transit enterprise within the meaning of' the Charleston case. While it may be that the Employer's operations might otherwise meet the Board's standards for transit systems or- for nonretail businesses, we reaffirm the principle of the Raybern case 1123 NLRB 1296. 122 NLRB 81, 85. 128 NLRB 430. 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 panels [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that it would not effectuate the. policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion over local bus transportation companies, such as the Employer herein, which are essentially local in character and which operate primarily in aid of local communities and of the State in the field of education. Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the allegations present herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cog- nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Fred W. Wallace Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Work- ers' Union, Local 705, an affiliate of the International Brother. hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Fred W. Wallace. Cases Nos..13-CA-4774 and 13-CB-1193. May 16, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On December 17, 1962, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain un- fair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. 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 panel1 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations 2 of the Trial Examiner. i The Respondent Employer's request for oral argument before the Board is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 2 Member Rodgers, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716 , would not require the payment of interest on the backpay award provided for herein. 142 NLRB No. 77.