Camptown Bus Lines, Inc.

4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Camptown Bus Lines, Inc. and Local 6, International Federation of Health Professionals , a/w Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, Pe- titioner. Case 22-RC-6622 September 20, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On February 25, 1976, the Acting Regional Direc- tor for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereaf- ter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Acting Regional Director's decision, contending that the Acting Regional Direc- tor erred in asserting jurisdiction over its operations. By telegraphic order dated March 26, 1976, the Board granted the Employer's request for review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review, including the Employer's brief on review, and makes the fol- lowing findings: 1. The Employer is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Newark, New Jer- sey. It is primarily engaged in the transportation of physically and mentally handicapped school children for the Newark Board of Education. The Employer is also engaged in private contract work, including pri- vate charters, school charters, and the transportation of factory employees. In the performance of these contracts during the 1975 calendar year, the Em- ployer received gross revenues of approximately $1,100,000, of which $256,000 was derived from sources other than from the transportation of school children to and from school. Of the latter amount, the Employer derived approximately $168,000 from private charter work; $55,000 from school-related charters; and $33,000 from the transportation of fac- tory workers. We find merit in the Employer's contention inso- far as it argues that its school bus operations for the Newark Board of Education are exempt from the Board's jurisdiction. We disagree, however, with its position that the Board lacks jurisdiction over its pri- vate charter operations because the revenue from that operation does not satisfy the $256;000 gross volume jurisdictional standard for the transit indus- try' A majority of the Board recently held in Roesch Lines, Inc.,2 that the provision of transportation serv- ices for school districts is so intimately related to the school district's function as to warrant the conclusion that such services are, in effect, a municipal function. As such, the employer performing such functions is exempt from the Act? Accordingly, in the instant case, we shall decline jurisdiction over the Employ- er's operations insofar as they involve the provision of school bus services for the Newark Board of Edu- cation 4 With respect to the private charter operation, we recently considered in Mitchell School, Incorporated, and Main Line Day School, Incorporated,' the funda- mental principles applicable to an employer engaged in both exempt and nonexempt operations. We there held that in determining whether the jurisdictional standard has been satisfied for the purpose of assert- ing jurisdiction over the nonexempt operation, we would use the total volume of the exempt and the nonexempt operations. Accordingly, as the total gross revenues of the Employer exceed $1 million, we shall assert jurisdiction over the Employer's nonex- empt operations. 2. The labor organization involved claims to rep- resent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. As a portion of the Employer's operations are exempt from our jurisdiction, the issue remains as to the appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar- gaining. In view of a jurisdictional finding herein, we find that the appropriate unit should be limited to the Employer's employees who are engaged in pro- viding nonschool related charter bus services. The record reveals, however, that the Employer employs a number of regularly assigned school bus drivers who, in emergencies, also operate charter buses. Con- sequently, in accordance with the principles enuncia- ted in Berea Publishing Company,' those drivers should be included in the unit if they perform charter 1 Charleston Transit Company, 123 NLRB 1296 (1959). 2 224 NLRB 203 (1976). 3 Sec. 2(2) of the Act excludes from the definition of "employer" any "wholly owned Government corporation . . or any State or political sub- division thereof " 4 For reasons expressed in We Transport, Inc, and Town Bus Corp., 215 NLRB 497 (1974), Member Jenkins would assert jurisdiction over Employer's entire operations, including Employer's school bus operations 5 224 NLRB 1017 (1976). 6 140 NLRB 516 (1963). 226 NLRB No. 3 CAMPTOWN BUS LINES 5 bus services for sufficient periods of time to demon- strate that they have a substantial interest in the unit's working conditions.' With respect to the mechanics and their helpers who are employed at the Employer's Hunter Street facility, the Employer asserts that these employees should be included in the unit, and the Petitioner is not opposed to their inclusion. Inasmuch as the me- chanics and their helpers have regular contact with the charter drivers and are commonly _supervised with them, we shall include them in the unit. Accord- 7 Roesch Lines, Inc., 224 NLRB 203 (1976). ingly, we -find that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time charter bus drivers, mechanics, and mechanics' helpers em- ployed by the Employer at its 265 Elizabeth Av- enue and its 51 Hunter Street, Newark, New Jer- sey, locations, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior fn. omitted from publication.]