Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et al.

In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES et al. (ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION 1) and THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN In the Matter of ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION 2 and THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Cases Nos. R-151 and C-981, respectively. Decided February 25, 1939 Motor Bus Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union state- ments : discrediting union ; threats of loss of bonus and raise ; soliciting em- ployees to withdraw from unionInvestigation of Representatives-Prior Elec- tion: held void because of numerous acts of interference , restraint, and coercion engaged in by employer to influence results of election-Election Ordered: time to be set by Board, after compliance with accompanying order. Mr. Malcolm F. Halliday, Mr. A. Norman Somers, and Mr. Oscar Grossman, for the Board. Steptoe & Johnson, by Mr. Chesney M. Carney, of Clarksburg, W. Va., Mr. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Mr. Oscar L. Shewmake, of Richmond, Va., for the respondent. Mr. A. Lane Cricher, of Washington, D. C., Mr. Samuel Harvey, and Mr. B. A. Whitney, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Brotherhood. Mr. James K. Thomas, Mr. Charles Ritchie, and Mr. M. E. Boiar- sky, of Charleston, W. Va., and Mr. E. B. Crossland, of Charlotte, N. C., for the I. M. T. E. U. Mr. W. F. Robinson, of Richmond, Va., Mr. David Kaplan and Mr. Paul E. Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Henry J. Foci,, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 14,1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision , Direction of Elections , and Cer- tification of Representatives 2 in a proceeding involving the repre- 1 and 2 The formal papers in the two cases refer to "Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc," but the record indicates that the name of the Company has been changed to "Atlantic Greyhound Corporation." The latter designation will be used herein. Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et at. and The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 3 N. L. R. B. 622. 11 N. L. R. B., No. 55. 738 PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. 739 sentation of employees of Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, herein called the respondent, and its subsidiaries, and in certain related proceedings. On September 29, 1937, the Board issued an Amend- ment to Direction of Elections.4 The Direction of Elections, as amended, provided, in part, that elections by secret ballot be con- ducted within 30 days, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among those employees of the respondent and its subsidiaries, who fall within the groups de scribed below who were on the pay roll of said companies for the period ending May 31, 1937: (a) Bus drivers, and temporary dispatchers who hold seniority rights as bus drivers, to determine whether they desired to be repre- sented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining; (b) Maintenance employees, to determine whether they desired to be represented by the International Association of Machinists, the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., or neither, for the purposes of collective bargaining; (c) All other employees, except supervisory employees, to deter- mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Inter- state Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining. In its Decision, the Board stated that such of the group as did not choose the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., would constitute separate and distinct appropriate units, and such as did choose the said labor organization would together constitute a single appropriate unit. Pursuant to the aforesaid Direction, as amended, elections by secret ballot were conducted from October 4 through October 11, 1937, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region. On October 16, 1937, the Regional Director issued his Intermediate Report on the secret ballot, which was duly served upon the parties to the proceeding. As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Director reported as follows : A. The blis drivers Total number votes for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen__ 111 Total number of votes for Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc----------------------------------- 162 Total number of votes for neither-------------------------- 10 Total number of challenged votes-------------------------- 6 Total----------------------------------------------- 289 'Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et at. and The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 3 N. L. R. B. 674. 7 40 DECISIONS OL' NATIONAL LABOR RI^,r,ATIONS TOARI) B. The mainLeu: ace employees Total number of votes for International Association of Ma- chinists------------------------------------------------- 32 Total number of votes for Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc---------------------------------- 84 Total number of votes for neither------------------------ 6 Total number of challenged votes-------------------------- 20 Total----------------------------------------------- 142 C. The remaining employees Total number of votes for Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc----------------------------------- 176 Total number of votes against Interstate Motor Transporta- tion Employees Union, Inc------------------------------- 20 Total number of challenged votes -------------------------- 4 Total----------------------------------------------- 200 The Regional Director stated in his Intermediate Report that the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood, had filed with him charges alleging inter alia that the company had caused gross irregularities in the conduct of the election. The Re- gional Director recommended that action with respect to the repre- sentation proceeding be withheld pending an investigation of the charges. Charges and amended charges had been filed by the Broth- erhood with the Regional Director on or about October 15, 1937. On October 20, 1937, the International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M., filed with the Regional Director objections to the conduct of the respondent during the course of the election and requested that any certification be postponed pending an investi- gation. On February 23, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, or- dered that the case involving the representation of employees of the respondent and the case involving the alleged unfair labor practices of the respondent be consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Brotherhood, the Board, by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, issued its complaint dated March 1, 1938, against the respondent,5 alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and a notice of hearing thereon were duly 6 The respondent was referred to in the complaint as "Atlantic Greyhound Lines, Inc." At the hearing, the complaint was upon motion by counsel for the Board amended to read "Atlantic Greyhound Corporation." PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND L,TNI;S ET AL. 741 served upon the respondent; upon the Brotherhood; upon the Inter- state Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., herein called the I. M. T. E. U.; and upon the I. A. M. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, its officers and agents, by threats, propaganda, persuasion, and other means, coerced, intimidated, and influenced its employees to vote in favor of the I. M. T. E. U. and against the Brotherhood and had thereby in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 1, 1938, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued and duly served upon the respondent, the Brotherhood, the I. M. T. E. U., and the I. A. M. a notice of hearing on the objections to the Intermediate Report on secret ballot which he had issued on October 16, 1937. On March 7, 1938, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. On March 8, 1938, the Board granted a petition by the I. M. T. E. U. that it be allowed to intervene in the proceedings involving the alleged unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent. On the same date, the I. M. T. E. U. filed an answer to the complaint. Pursuant to the notices with respect to the complaint and the repre- sentation proceeding, a hearing was held on March 10 through March 24, 1938, at Richmond, Virginia, before John Lindsay, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the Brotherhood, the I. A. M. and the I. M. T. E. U. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues was afforded all -parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 17, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent has engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report which the Board has considered. Although accorded the opportunity, none of the parties have re- quested oral argument before the Board or filed briefs. 164275-39-vol. xi-48 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Atlantic Greyhound Corporation is a Virginia corporation having its principal place of business in Charleston, West Virginia. It is engaged in the business of transporting for hire passengers, baggage, mail, express, and newspapers under regularly published tariffs through the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Flor- ida, and the District of Columbia. Its consolidated gross revenue for the year ending December 31, 1936, was $4,600,160.55, and on that date its total consolidated assets were $5,210,358.87. On May 31, 1937, it operated 186 busses, for the safe and regular operation of which it maintains garages and repair shops in various cities along its routes. On that date it employed a total of 755 employees, of whom 295 were bus drivers and 169 were mechanics. IL THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a Nation-wide labor organization, founded in 1883, to represent railroad trainmen in the train and yard service. Since November 1933, it has admitted motor- bus drivers to membership. Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, is a labor organization, admitting to its mem- bership all employees of the respondent who are actively engaged as bus operators, maintenance, traffic, and clerical employees, exclud- ing employees in supervisory positions. International Association of Machinists is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to its membership machinists of various classifications, including the mechanics and repairmen employed by the respondent in its various garages and repair shops. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Numerous bus drivers of the respondent testified that, during the period immediately preceding the elections, Fred A. Summers, G. H. Fulcher, and Caxl E. Chambers, supervisors, made statements which were clearly designed to discourage the employees from voting for the Brotherhood. ' Fred A. Garvin, a driver, testified that Summers asked, "Why should the men of the Atlantic Greyhound Line want to join up with PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. 743 their most competitive union organization?" and stated to employees that F. C. Martel, manager of the Southern Region, or George S., Engle, the respondent's vice president and general manager, had in- formed him that "if the election went the right way they could feel sure of a big fat bonus and a nice raise." Fred Craig Hunter, Gale Sumner, and Wayne Wright Eubanks, also bus drivers, testified to remarks by Summers of like import. Hunter also testified that shortly before the election Summers asked him to sign a petition which stated that the subscribers thereto were not affiliated with the Brotherhood and that Summers stated that Hunter, by virtue of his seniority, should sign the petition first so that the other employees would follow his example. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Gale Sumner. The testimony of the various drivers relative to the statements made by Summers was for the most part uncontradicted. Clyde W. Caudle, a driver who was active as a Brotherhood organ- izer, stated that shortly before the election Fulcher asked concern- ing the reason for his presence in Asheville and that Fulcher then stated, "You might just as well go back home. I got here ahead of you," and,, "You will not get one vote for the B. of R. T." James Gardner, a field supervisor for the Brotherhood, testified that shortly before the balloting in Columbia he heard Fulcher advise three or four drivers that they "had all better vote for the I. M. T. E. U." This testimony was not refuted. Amos S. Jackson, a driver at Charleston, West Virginia, testified that about 2 weeks prior to the elections Chambers stated that "the Company was all torn up and wasn't like it used to be at all," and that Murphy, a Brotherhood organizer, was the source of the labor trouble. Jackson also testified that Chambers attempted to obtain a promise from him that he would vote for the I. M. T. E. U. and that he would use his influence to obtain other votes for the I'. M. T. E. U. Jackson's testimony was not denied. The uncontradicted testimony of Grover E. Holt, a driver, was to the effect that H. Pierce Brawner, the respondent's traffic manager, stated to him, shortly before the election at Raleigh, North Carolina, that, "We are going to have a hard scrap around here in a few days," and that, "I hope the men have got more sense than that. You can't get into any business these days unless the racketeers get into it." Holt testified that he understood Brawner to employ the term "racketeer" with reference to the Brotherhood. Numerous employees also testified to statements and activities of dispatchers and traveling passenger agents during the period im- mediately preceding the elections. Although the respondent did not 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD deny that the dispatchers and traveling passenger agents made many of the statements and engaged in many of the activities attributed to them, it contended that such persons are not supervisory employees and hence that the respondent is not responsible for their statements or activities. The respondent's Manual of Operating Rules and Regulations, which prescribes the rules governing drivers' conduct, specifies a large number of instances and exigencies when it is incumbent upon the driver to communicate with either the district superintendent or the dispatcher to obtain instructions. Not only does the dispatcher possess authority to permit drivers to make temporary changes in their runs, but he possesses the power under certain circumstances to prevent a driver from taking out his run with consequent loss of pay. The dispatcher, also, can employ his own discretion in selecting driv- ers to take out "doubles" (second sections on busses) whenever the occasion arises. This extra duty, apparently, is prized by the drivers because of the additional compensation therefor. W. F. Geoghan, one of the respondent's division managers testified that the dispatcher "dispatches the buses and handles the drivers and instructs the driv- ers as to their duties and as to what to do along the line in case of overloads, and generally supervises the drivers." Each division possesses but a single traveling passenger agent. His duties are primarily to solicit business and to contact the re- spondent's ticket agents. W. F. Geoghan, division manager, in de- scribing the traveling passenger agents' duties, testified that, "His duties are to call upon the commission agents as well as the agents that are on salary and go over their tariffs and see that they have them in the proper order, to check the windows and make any sug- gestions he can relative to routings, and so on, that they do riot understand, that is, in the tariffs, and check the rest rooms and the station and any irregularities that he finds he is supposed to report to me." Geoghan further testified to the effect that he expects the traveling passenger agent to report anything that would be inclined to reflect upon the quality of the service, as for example, a driver's discourtesy towards a passenger. Although the testimony establishes that the traveling passenger agent has no authority to hire or dis- charge, it is inconceivable that the reports which he furnishes in the course of his duty do not influence the actions of the highest of- ficials with respect to the employees mentioned in such reports. His close contact with the superior officials, as well as his title and duties all combine to project him into a position closely consonant with the management, not only in fact, but in the minds of the rank and file of employees as well. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. 745 We conclude that the respondent's dispatchers 6 and traveling pas- senger agents are supervisory employees and that the respondent is to be deemed responsible for their statements and activities. We shall, therefore, consider the testimony with respect to these persons. John H. Dietz and Spencer B. Wright, drivers, testified that 2 days before the balloting at Raleigh, North Carolina, Jack Funk, dispatcher at Raleigh, handed them a copy of the following telegram which had been sent to John Snyder, coach operator, from Lexington, Kentucky: Our Local Independent Union won labor board election from Brotherhood of Southeastern Greyhound almost three to one. Wish you the same success. CONSOLIDATED COACH OPERATORS ASSN., A. G. LANCASTER, Seety. This action on the part of Funk clearly conveyed the hostile attitude which Funk bore towards the Brotherhood. Charles A. Gum, a driver, testified that approximately 5 days before the balloting at Roanoke, Virginia, S. C. Hampton, dispatcher at Roanoke, told a group of drivers that if the drivers selected the Brotherhood as bargaining representative they would not receive any bonus or raise in pay, but that if they chose the I. M. T. E. U. or re- jected both unions they would get a bonus and a 10-per cent raise in pay. Hampton denied making this statement, but Gum's testimony was corroborated by several other drivers. Under all the circum- stances, we find that Hampton made the statement attributed to him. Gum also testified that he saw Hampton, shortly before the election, post on the respondent's bulletin board a copy of the telegram which has been referred to above and that after the election Hampton ques- tioned him as to whether he had been interviewed by anyone relative to the posting of the telegram. This testimony was not controverted. Peter B. Cohen, traveling passenger agent on the Central Division, admitted his antipathy to the Brotherhood and testified that he had endeavored to influence the drivers against the Brotherhood by state- ments to the effect that if the Brotherhood won the election they would receive no bonus or raise in pay and that if the I. M. T. E. U. won the election the drivers would receive a bonus and raise in pay. Numerous witnesses testified to statements by Cohen against the Brotherhood and in favor of the I. M. T. E. U. 6See Matter of Atlantic Greyhound Corporation and Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men, 7 N L R. B 1189, where the Board held that the respondent had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act in discharging J. Lee, a dispatcher, because of his union membership and activity. In reaching its conclusion, the Board recognized, however, that Lee's position as dispatcher was of a minor supervisory character and that anti-union conduct of supervisory employees was to be deemed proof that the employer had engaged in unfair labor practices. 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There was introduced in evidence at the hearing the following tele- gram which J. P. Hightower, traveling passenger agent with head- quarters at Winston-Salem, North Carolina, sent on October 7, 1937, to Earl Garrant, a driver active in the I. M. T. E. U.: Final edition Columbia Record Carries Associated Press Item as follows : Cleveland, 0., Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen announced today a strike of thirteen hundred Greyhound Bus Line drivers had been ordered, effective five a. in. Sunday. This will cer- tainly indicate to any sane thinking person what the Brotherhood intends doing. A strike of drivers would benefit the railroads more than anyone and shows the bad effect upon our company which can be brought about by Brotherhood affiliation. Check this with Associated Press office in Greenville or Ashville if you want verification. I think the men should be told of this immediately. The cost of transmission of the telegram was charged to the account of the respondent. Although testimony at the hearing was to the effect that employees frequently charged personal messages to the respondent's account and that deduction was thereafter made from the employees' pay checks, it is significant that in the present instance no deduction was made until shortly before the hearing, a date more than 4 months after the sending of the telegram. At the hearing the respondent stressed certain evidence which it contended established the respondent as impartial in the election struggle. Particularly, it pointed to a bulletin issued by respondent's president, A. M. Hill, on June 21, 1937, in which it announced to all its employees that "the policy of the company is that no employee will be required as a condition of employment to join any labor or- ganization, nor will his or her right to belong to any labor organiza- tion be interfered with." It is clear, however, that the respondent is not relieved from responsibility for the statements and activities of its supervisory employees by virtue of the posting of the bulletin. It is to be noted, moreover, that on September 27, 1937, representatives of the Brotherhood met with Hill and Engle, high officials of the respondent, to protest against the statements made by the respond- ent's supervisory employees relative to the effect of the results of the election upon a bonus and an increase in wages and to ask that the respondent clarify the situation. The uncontroverted testimony is that Hill and Engle, "declined to say one way or other. They would not say that the bonus would be paid and declined to say that it would not be paid. They stated nothing had been put out by them regarding the bonus and nothing would be put out." PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. 747 We find that by virtue of the foregoing statements and activities of its supervisory employees, the respondent has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. In order to remedy the effect of the unfair labor practices we shall require the respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to post appropriate notices to that effect. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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 REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING As noted above under the Statement of the Case, the Brotherhood and the I. A. M. filed objections to the outcome of the balloting held in October 1937 pursuant to the Board's Direction of Election as amended. The basis of these objections was that the respondent by certain of its supervisory employees had engaged in activities which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in their free- dom to select their representatives. The testimony at the hearing establishes that the great majority of the incidents we have recounted in Section III above occurred in the interval between the Board's Direction of Election on September 14, 1937, and the balloting which commenced on October 5, 1937. Such activities on the part of respondent's supervisory employees clearly constitute an interference with a free choice of representatives on the part of the employees. Although the I. A. M. was represented at the hearing, it did not actively participate in producing evidence to sus- tain its objections to the election. It is, nevertheless, clear that the respondent's many manifestations of hostility toward an outside union in relation to the Brotherhood would influence those employees who had a choice between selecting the I. A. M. or the I. M. T. E. U. or neither. This same reasoning applies to that group of em- ployees who were given the choice between the I. M. T. E. U. and no union. We, therefore, declare all the elections conducted from Oc- tober 4 through October 11, 1937, among employees of the respondent to be void and shall direct that new elections be held. We shall direct that such elections be held at such time as the Board shall in the future specify and when conditions favorable to a free choice 748 1)19C1SfONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shall appear to exist. Since a considerable time has now elapsed since the eligibility date previously specified, we shall also at such future time specify the pay-roll period to be used in determining eligibility to vote in the elections. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Interstate Motor Trans- portation Employees Union, Inc., and International Association of Machinists are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The election among respondent's employees conducted from October 4 through October 11, 1937, is null, void, and of no effect. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its entire system, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of the posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. 749 (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten` ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Atlantic Greyhound Corporation , Charleston, West Virginia, new elections by secret ballot be conducted at such time as the Board will in the future direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as the agent of the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among those employees of Atlantic Greyhound Corporation , and its subsidiaries, who fall within the groups described below who were on the pay roll of said companies during a pay-roll period to be determined by the Board in the future : (a) Bus drivers, and temporary dispatchers who hold seniority rights as bus drivers , to determine whether they desire to be repre- sented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen or the Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; (b) Maintenance employees, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists or by Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; (c) All other employees , except supervisory employees, to deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Interstate Dlotor Transportation Employees Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining.