Gray Line Tours, Inc.

GRAY LINE TOURS, INC. Gray Line Tours, Inc. and Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Indepen- dent. Case 19-CA-4608 June 9, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS Upon a charge duly filed by Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763 the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Act- ing Regional Director for Region 19, issued a com- plaint dated January 29, 1970, against Gray Line Tours, Inc., alleging that it has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served on the Respondent. The complaint alleges in substance that on December 2, 1969, the Board issued its certifica- tion that the Union had been selected and designated as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of the Respondent's employees. The complaint further al- leges that since December 5, 1969, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent has refused, and con- tinues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly certified representative of its em- ployees . In its answer, dated February 6, 1970, the Respondent admits in part and denies in part the al- legations of the complaint and presents an affirma- tive defense. On February 26, 1970, the General Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment with the Board al- leging that there are no material issues of fact and requesting that the Board issue a decision and order. Thereafter, on March 3, 1970, the Board is- sued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and notice to show cause. On March 19, 1970, the Respondent's counsel, James Magee, filed his affidavit in support of Respondent's posi- tion on the motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its 'Case 19-RC-5196, not published in NLRB volumes 'We have again examined the Decision and Direction of Election in Case 19-RC-5196, have made an independent review of the record in the 153 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following: Rulings on the Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Act by the Union seeking to represent certain employees of the Respondent, a hearing was held on September 26, 1969. On October 8, 1969, the Acting Regional Director for Region 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Election' finding the following unit of employees appropriate and direct- ing an election therein: All employees employed as dispatchers by the Employer at its Seattle, Washington, place of business, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined by the Act. The Respondent's request for review of this Deci- sion was denied by telegraphic order of the Board on November 4, 1969. On December 2, 1969, a certification of representative was issued to the Union. On or about December 5, 1969, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively. The Respondent refused. On December 31, 1969, the Union filed the charge upon which the com- plaint herein was predicated. Respondent 's counsel, James Magee, in his af- fidavit in support of Respondent's position con- tends that the Acting Regional Director erred in not finding that Respondent's dispatchers were su- pervisors and thus could not constitute an ap- propriate unit. Respondent seeks to relitigate the contention previoulsy made and rejected in the Acting Re- gional Director's decision in Case 19-RC-51962 and in the Board's denial of Respondent's request for review of that decision. Since Respondent has already litigated this contention, it has not raised any issue which is properly triable in this proceed- ing.' As all material issues have been previously de- cided by the Board, or admitted by Respondent's answer to the complaint, there are no matters requiring a hearing. Accordingly, the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment is granted. On the basis of the record before it, the Board makes the following: representation case, and conclude that the Acting Regional Director's findings were correct ' E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1380, enfd 395 F 2d 191 (C A 9) 183 NLRB No. 22 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Findings of Fact 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, a Washington corporation with its prin- cipal office in Seattle, Washington, where it is em- gaged in the business of providing sightseeing and charter bus service, boat charters, and chauffeured limousines. During the calendar year 1969, Respon- dent did a gross volume of business in excess of $400,000. Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Transit Cdrporation, a Missouri cor- poration with its principal offices in St. Louis, Mis- souri, which exercises supervisory functions over Respondent. During the calendar year 1969, Amer- ican's gross volume of business exceeded $500,000. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel- pers of America, Independent, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees constitute a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed as dispatchers by the Employer at its Seattle, Washington, place of business, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined by the Act. 2. The certification On November 21, 1969, a majority of the em- ployees in said unit, in a secret ballot election con- ducted under the auspices of the Acting Regional Director for Region 19, designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent, and, on December 2, 1969, the Acting Regional Director certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit and the Union continues to be such representative. B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about December 5, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union has requested, and is requesting, the Respondent to bargain collec- tively with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described unit. Since on or about December 5, 1969, and continuing to date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain col- lectively with the Union as exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of all employees in said unit. Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent in the ap- propriate unit described above, and that the Union at all times since December 2, 1969, has been, and now is, the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find that the Respondent has, since December 5, 1969, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit . By such refusal the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes'burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected representative for the period provided by GRAY LINE TOURS, INC. law, we shall construe the initial year of certifica- tion as beginning on the date the Respondent com- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- propriate unit . See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/bla Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Con- struction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Gray Line Tours, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel- pers of America, Independent, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following unit is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act: All employees employed as dispatchers by the Employer at its Seattle, Washington, place of business, excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined by the Act. 4. Since December 2, 1969, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about December 5, 1969, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise/of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER 155 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Gray Line Tours, Inc., Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay , wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Indepen- dent, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the following ap- propriate unit: All employees employed as dispatchers by the Employer at its Seattle, Washington, place of business , excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an un- derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in Seattle, Washington, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix".4 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Acting Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Acting Regional Director for Re- gion 19, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order Order of the National Labor Relations Board of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Magazine Drivers & Chauffeurs Local Union 763, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent , as the exclusive represen- tative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL , upon request , bargain with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The bargaining unit is: All employees employed as dispatchers by the Employer at its Seattle , Washington, place of business . excluding office clerical em- ployees , guards , professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. GRAY LINE TOURS, INC. (Employer) Dated by (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office , 10th Floor, Republic Building, 1511 Third Avenue , Seattle , Washington 98101, Telephone 206-583-4532.