Embree Buses, Inc.

714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Embree Buses, Inc.' and Chauffeurs Union Local 640, International Brotherhood- of Teamsters, -Chauf- feursi, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pe- titioner.' Embree Buses, Inc. and Benson Reed, Petitioner, and Embree Bus Drivers' Association.' Cases 31-RC- 3428 and 31-RD-354 November 1, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear- ing was held before Hearing Officer Noel Shipman. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Acting Re- gional Director for Region 31, this case was transfer- red to the National Labor Relations Board for deci- sion.' 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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds: 1. Petitioner Teamsters petitioned for a unit con- sisting of all schoolbus drivers and charter bus driv- ers employed by the Employer, and indicated that it has no interest in representing any unit found appro- priate by the Board which does not include school- bus drivers. The Employer contends that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over what is an essen- tially local enterprise engaged primarily in aid of the state and local communities in the field of education. The Employer further claims that the school district, with which the Employer has a contract to provide schoolbus transportation, exerts such extensive con- trol over the Employer's operations as to preclude the Employer from engaging in meaningful bargain- ing without the approval of the school district, which i The names of the Employer and Petitioner Teamsters appear as amended at the hearing. Petitioner Teamsters intervened in Case 31-RD- 354. 2 Subsequent to the transfer of this case to the Board , an order was issued remanding the case to the Acting Regional Director for the purpose of reopening the record to receive further evidence regarding the appropriate- ness of including certain charter bus drivers in the unit found appropriate. 3 Embree Bus Drivers' Association intervened in Case 31-RC-3428 is exempt from the Board's jurisdiction. Assuming that the Board does assert jurisdiction, the Employer contends that the unit sought by, Petitioner Team- sters is inappropriate. Both the Employer and In- tervenor Embree Bus Drivers' Association claim that a contract between them bars the instant petition. The Employer is a California corporation engaged in both school and charter bus transportation. Pur- suant to contracts with the Pasadena Unified School District, the Employer provides schoolbus services for that district. During the preceding 12-month pe- riod, total gross revenues-from both school and char- ter bus operations exceeded $250,000. Gross reve- nues from the charter bus operations alone exceeded $250,000. The Employer purchased goods directly from ' outside the State of California in excess of $50,000. For the reasons expressed in Boesch Lines, Inc.,4 we shall decline to a;sert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations nsofar as they involve the provision of schoolbus services to the school district. However, the Employer is engaged in transit opera- tions other than schoclbus operations which affect commerce, and which produce annual revenues in excess of $250,000. Accordingly, we find that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations only in- sofar as they involve the provision of nonschool-re- lated charter bus services.' 2. The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: Having determined that it would be appropriate to assert jurisdiction based solely upon the Employer's nonschool-related charter bus service, the nonexempt aspect of the Employer's operations, the question re- mains as to what constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and whether any election is warranted.6 In light of our jurisdic- tional finding, we further conclude that an appropri- 4224 NLRB 203 (1976). 5 Boesch Lines, supra, In 4 For reasons expressed in We Transport, Inc and Town Bus Corp, 215 NLRB 497 (1974), Member Jenkins would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's entire operations , including the Employer's schoolbus operations 6 We find no merit to the contention that an election herein would be barred by the contract between the Employer and the Embree Bus Drivers' Association, which expired on February 29, 1976 The Teamsters filed its petition on March 1. A new contract between the Employer and the Associ- ation was ratified by the employees on March 4, and signed by the parties on or about March 15 , although the parties' signatures were dated March 4. In order for a contract to bar an election, the contract must be signed by all the parties before a rival petition is filed Appalachian Shale Products Co, 121 NLRB 1160 (1958) In the present case, the contract was signed after the petition was filed, and, therefore, could not serve as a bar to an election herein. 226 NLRB No. 116 EMBREE BUSES, INC. 715 ate unit herein should be limited to employees of the Employer who are engaged in, nonschool-related charter bus services? But,_ Petitioner Teamsters does not wish to participate in an election in a_unit which does not include schoolbus drivers. Intervenor Em- bree Bus Drivers' Association is opposed to an elec- tion in any unit. Furthermore, the- RD Petitioner has given no indication-that it seeks an election in a unit confined to the Employer's charter bus operations, which is but a-segment of the existing broader unit 7 Roesch Lines, supra, fn. 4 upon which it based its.,petition.8 Therefore, since no party-appears-to seek an election in the unit we deem appropriate, we shall dismiss the petitions herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases 31-RC-3428 and 31-RD-354 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 8 There are presently approximately 115 schoolbus drivers and 25 charter bus drivers.