Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et al

In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES et al (ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION) and THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN I , Case No. R-151 it, SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, AND DIRECTION AND ORDER' August 1.2, 1940 On January 25, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Supplemental Direction of Elections in the above-entitled proceeding 1 which, nunc pro tunc as of January 19, 1940, directed that separate elections by secret ballot be conducted among employees of Atlantic' Greyhouiid Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia, herein called the Company, within the groups described below: (a) Bus drivers, and temporary dispatchers who hold seniority rights as bus drivers, to determine, whether they desire to -be represented 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 de- termine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Interstate Motor Transportation, Employees Union, Inc.,,for the purposes of collective bargaining. , Pursuant to the Supplemental Direction of Election, elections' by secret ballot were conducted during the period from Feb`ruary' 21,' 1940, to February 29, 1940, under the direction and supervision of' the Regional Director for the Ninth'Region (Cincinnati, 'Ohio)*.- On' May 21, 1940, the Regional Director, acting pursuant' to Article III',' 1 19 N. L R B 694. See also order revoking prior Supplemental Direction of Elections , 19 N L R B. 693, Supplemental Direction of Elections , 19 N L R B 692, and Decision , Order, and Second Direction of Elections, 11 N. L. R B 738 , 26 N. L. R. B., No. 53. 538 PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES 539 'Section .9, of National Labor Relations.Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an Election,Report, setting forth the results of the elections. As to the results of the balloting, the Regional Director reported as follows: 'GROUP A• ELECTION 'Numbei'of alleged eligible voters-- -------------------- 411 Number'of ballots placed in ballot box------------------- 345 Number of unchallenged ballots for Interstate Motor'Trans- portation• Employees Union, Inc------------------------ 68 Number of unchallenged ballots for The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen---------------------------------- 103 )!`t' Number of unchallenged ballots for neither--------------- 174 Number-of challenged ballots--------------------------- 0 Number of blank ballots-------------------------------- 0 k Number of spoiled ballots------------------------------ • 0 GROUP B ELECTION Number of alleged eligible voters------------------------ 208 Number of ballots placed in ballot box------------------- 180 Ntimber of unchallenged ballots for Interstate Motor Trans- portation Employees Union, Inc----------------------- 48 f., Number of unchallenged ballots for International Associa- tion of Machinists, A. F. L--------------------------- 46. Number of unchallenged ballots for neither--------------- 32 Number of challenged ballots ----__------------------ 54 Number of blank ballots-------------------------------- 0 Number of spoiled ballots -----------------------' ------------------------------- 0 GROUP C ELECTION Number of alleged eligible voters------------------------ 345 Number of ballots placed in ballot box------------------- 221 Number of unchallenged ballots for' Interstate Motor Trans- portation Employees Union; Inc----------------------- 88 Number of unchallenged ballots against 'Interstate Motor Transportation Employees Union, Inc------------------ 131 Number of challenged ballots--------------------------- 1 Number of blank ballots-------------------------------- 1 Number of spoiled`ballots------------------------------ 0 As 'to' the ' Group A Election, the Regional Director also reported that, after the balloting but prior to the counting of the ballots on March 1, 1940, both labor organizations stated that they had no objections to offer, with respect to, the conduct of the election, but that on March 15,.1940, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the Brotherhood, filed unfair labor practice charges with the Regional Director alleging that,the Company had interfered with the freedom of choice of its employees in the election. The Regional Director further reported, that as of the date of his Report, no evidence 540 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of a substantial nature had been filed in support of said charges, and recommended that the Group A petitions be dismissed. On May 31, 1940, the Brotherhood duly filed objections to the Election Report, alleging certain specific acts of interference on the part of the Company with its employees' freedom of choice, alleging that Board agents conducting the election had declared illegal the use of sample-marked ballots by the Brotherhood, and requesting that the Election Report be set aside, and that this proceeding be consolidated with the charges of unfair labor practices pending for investigation. The Brotherhood further requested leave to present oral argument before the Board. On July 10, 1940, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objec- tions, copies of which were duly served on the parties, in which he reported that as of that date no additional evidence had been offered in support of the charges alleging unfair labor practices by the Com- pany, and further reported that his investigation revealed that Board agents had not declared illegal the use of sample ballots but had refused to give the Brotherhood representatives advice as to, election strategy; and that in his opinion the objections of the Brotherhood were without merit. The Board has considered the Election Report, the objections, and the Report on Objections to the Election Report, and finds that the objections relating to the Election Report do not raise any substantial or material issues. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the rulings, findings, and recommendations of the Regional Director in his Election Report and in his Report on Objections and deny the request of the Brotherhood for oral argument. As to the Group B Election, the Regional Director reported that the International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M., objected to the conduct of the balloting on the ground that supervisory employees and other employees entitled to participate in voting were permitted to act as watchers at the polls. The Regional Director reported that no employees of supervisory authority over employees eligible to vote in the Group B Election served as observers, that no employees in the B group acted as observers for the Company, and that none of the Company observers conducted himself improperly. The Regional Director also reported that the I. A. M. had agreed to the presence of two Company observers at the polls, that every employee in the Company's employ, except supervisors, was eligible to'vote in one of the three simultaneously conducted elections, and that the I. A. M. was aware of these facts when it agreed to the presence of Company observers at the polls. On June 1, 1940, the'I. A. M. duly filed its Objections to the Election Report, in which it alleged that it received insufficient notice of the individuals selected by the Company to act as observers, objected "to the policy of the Board to allow representatives designated by the PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES 541 Company, to be present, as observers or watchers during Board con- ducted elections," and restated its objection to the conduct of the balloting ,as set forth above . The Regional Director in his Report on Objections indicated that any delay in notification to the I. A. M. of the names of individuals designated by the Company as observers did not prejudice the I . A. M., since its objections were addressed to the class of observers selected ,rather than to specific individuals . We find, no substantial merit in the contention of the I. A. M. that the presence of Company observers at the polls is prejudicial to the interests of the labor organizations involved, and that the Board should change its policy in this regard. The Board has considered the Election Report, the Objections, and the Report on Objections to the Election Report and finds that the objections of the I. A. M. relating to the conduct of the balloting do not raise any substantial or material issues. Accordingly , we hereby sustain the rulings, findings , and recommen- dations of the Regional Director in his Election Report and in his Report on Objections. The I . A. M. challenged the eligibility of 42 voters on the ground that they were , not properly included within the definition of "mainte- nance employees," as set forth in the Second Direction of Elections, and asserted that this , definition properly included only mechanics„ and repairmen, and excluded washers, greasers, and other garage, employees, among whom the 42 challenged voters are numbered. The Regional Director in his Election Report stated as his opinion that the Board's Decision and Direction of Election contemplate: the' inclusion of such employees within the definition of the term "maintenance employees" and recommended that the ballots so challenged by the I. A. M. be counted as valid in the election. The record of the original hearing in this matter, and statements of the I. A. M. representative testifying ' therein, indicate not only that washers, oilers , greasers, ' and other garage employees were contem- plated by the, Board to be included within the term "maintenance employee 's," but also that the , I. A. M. at the hearing sought their inclusion . -* Accordingly , we hereby sustain the rulings, findings, and recommendations of the Regional Director in his Election Report and shall direct that the '42 ballots challenged, for the reasons set forth above, be counted by the Regional Director. The I . A. 'M. also challenged,,the ballots of C ' R . Byerly, Ralph Ebert, H. L. Hastings, William Johnson, J . L. Swain, and L. G. Williams on the ground that they are foremen and consequently ineligible to vote in the Group B Election . The Regional , Director in his Election Report stated that these employees are foremen, and paid on a salary basis as, distinguished from "maintenance employees" who are paid'by the hour, and that they possess the authority to recom- 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mend 'disciplinary action 'against employees under' their 'supervision.' We shall direct that the ballots of these employees not'be'counted.' ` The T. A. M. also challenged the ballots of E: `J. Ebert, Earlie Williams, J. M. Rierson, M.' M: Beroth, A. D. Morgan; and F. S. Smith, as supervisory employees, and Charles'A. Arthur as an assi'stant' dispatcher, and consequently ineligible to vote in the Group B Elec= tion. We shall direct that the Regional Director not count the'ballots of E. J: Ebert, Earlie Williams, and `J.'M. Rierson who were super-''`` visory employees. We shall direct' that the Regional Director'count the ballots of M. M. Beroth and A.' D. Morgan who 'act as fo'r'emen only -in the absence of regular foremen at infrequent periods and who otherwise perform maintenance duties. We shall also' direct that the Regional Director count the ballots of F. S. Smith, whose name was omitted from the eligibility list because of error, and who was'employed'' as' a painter, and Charles A. Arthur, whose chief duties are those of a' maintenance employee and who acts as a dispatcher only "on such occasions when the regular dispatcher is absent from duty. 'As to the Group C; Election, the Regional Director in his-Election Report recommended that the petition of Interstate Motor Transporta- tion Employees Union, Inc., be dismissed. No objections' of any nature were raised with refeience to the 'conduct or'i'esults of'the' Group C Election. ' " DIRECTION AND ORDER 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, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,'it is hereby 'DIRECTED THAT, as a part of the investigation directed by the' Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar- gaining with Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, Charleston, West' Virginia, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, Cincinnati,` Ohio, shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board set forth above, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said R'ules,'within7 ten (10) days from the date of this' Direction, open and count the ballots of M. M. Beroth, A. D. Morgan, and F. S. Smith, whose votes were challenged because they wei e allegedly" supervisory employees,. . and Charles A. Arthur, whose vote was challenged because he was, { allegedly an assistant dispatcher,' and shall open and count the ballots of the 42 employees in the Group B'Ele'ction whose votes were chal- lenged on the ground that their functions are not included" within the term "maintenance employees," and shall thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties in this case a Supplemental Elec PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES 543 tion Report embodying his findings thereon and his recommendations as to the results of the secret ballots, and it is further DIRECTED THAT, the Regional Director shall not open or count the ballots of C. R. Byerly, Ralph Ebert, H. L. Hastings, William Johnson, J. L. Swain, L., G. Williams, E. J. Ebert, Earlie Williams, and J. M. Rierson IT, IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions herein for Investigation and `Certification of Representatives of'Atlantic Greyhound Corpora- tion, Charleston, West Virginia, insofar as they pertain to the Group A Election, be and they hereby are dismissed. IT IS HEREBY'ORDERED that the petition' herein for Investigation and Certification of Representatives of employees of Atlantic Grey- hound Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia, insofar as it pertains to the Group C Election, be and it hereby is dismissed. .MR.'WILLIAM:M.:LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction and Order.