Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc.

In the Matter, of RICI-IMoND GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and ADrALOAM- ATED ASSOCIATION of STREET ELECTRIC R AiI,wAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES , DIVISION 1247, A. F. OF L. Case No. I^-3^^89.-Decided December, 2O, 1941 - ^^ Jurisdiction : motor transportation industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal of Company to accord union recognition on the ground that the unit sought is inappropridte ; election necessary,, Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : notwithstanding the desire of the Company for a unit including employees throughout its entire system, held, that a unit composed of employees in one division of the Company was appro- priate where employees in that division had previously organized and secured a collective agreement with a company which later merged with their present employer, and in view of the fact that their union had not sought to extend membership to other employees of the Company, and no other labor organiza- tion is..attempting organization on a broader basis; all bus drivers, ticket agents, porters, and maintenance men in the Peninsula Division of the Company Mr. Elgin ,Har°dinz, for the Board. Mr: Ivan Bowen, 'of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Company. Mr. Floyd W. Kreisel, of Worthington, Ohio, for the'Union.- Mr. William. H. Bartley, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 30, 1941, Amalgamated Association of Street Elec- tric Railway and Motor Coach Employees,' Division 1247, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, herein 'called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act: On October 24, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein 37 N L R B , No 134. 818 RICHMOND GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 819, called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended , ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon clue "notice. On October 29, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 13, 1941, at Richmond, Virginia, before Malcolm A. Hoffman, the Trial Exami- ner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, and Union were represented and participated in the hear- ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties . During the course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi- dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors' were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Richmond Greyhond Lines, Inc., is a Virginia corporation with, Its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. It is engaged in the business of transporting, for hire, passengers, baggage, mail, and newspapers through and into the States of Virginia and Mary- land and the District of Columbia. Its consolidated net revenues for 1940 amounted to $235,360; and its total assets on December 31, 1940 were $1,234,355. The Company achnits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway . and Motor Coach Employees , Division 1247 is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership em- ployees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Union asked the Company' to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Peninsula Division 1 but the Com- pany refused to grant such 'recognition on the ground that the unit N i See Section V , infra 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sought by the Union was inappropriate. A statement by a Field -Examiner of the Board, which was introduced in evidence, shows that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.2 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON CODIDIERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade,,traflic,.and,,commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT On July 1, 1941, the Company `acquired and merged with its sys- tem the operations of the Peninsula Transit Corporation . For con- venience we. shall refer to' that portion of the ' Company's system which comprises the operations of the Peninsula Transit Corporation as the Peninsula-' The Union contends that the appropriate unit should be restricted to the bus operators, ticket agents, porters, and maintenance men in the Peninsula Division. The Company main- tains that the appropriate unit should include employees throughout 'its entire system. Prior to the merger, the Union had been recognized by the Peninsula Transit Corporation ' as the exclusive representative of its employees. This recognition was contained in a contract between the Union and the Peninsula Transit Corporation which was executed on October 1, 1940, and, by its terms expired, on September 30, 1941, after the Com- pany had acquired the operations of the Peninsula Transit Corpora- ' Lion. Despite the merger, the Unionhas not sought to extend its mem- bership beyond the Peninsula Division . So far as the record discloses; there is no other labor organization now seeking to represent employees of the Company. Under such circumstances, we have repeatedly held appropriate a unit corresponding with the present extent of organiza- tion.4 Moreover, in the instant proceeding, as we have noted, the em- 2 The Field Examiner' s statement shows that the membership and dues records of the Union contain the names of 45 members in good standing Forty-four of these members appeared on the Company 's pay roll of September 1, 1941, for the Norfolk Division, which includes all employees of .the Peninsula Division ( see.Section V,, infra) The entire pay ioll for the Norfolk Division contnmed the names of approximately GO employees ' The Company has, since the merger , two major divisions . The Richmond Division which consists, for the most part , of the operations owned by the Company before the merger, and the Norfolk Division which includes the operations of the Peninsula Transit Corpora- tion and an additional route which was added to these operations after the merger - - } See Matter of Ili own Paper Goods Co. and United Paper, Novelty R Toy Workers Inter- national Union, Local 148 ( C 1 0 ), 34 N L R B ., No. 93 , and cases cited theiem RICHMOND GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 821 ployees in the Peninsula Division obtained, prior to the merger, a col- lective agreement with the Peninsula Transit Corporation. To hold inappropriate at the present time a unit confined to the Peninsula Division would ,withdraw from employees, who have organized and secured recognition, the benefits of collective bargaining. We find, under the circumstances, that all bus drivers, ticket agents, porters, and maintenance men in the Peninsula Division of the Company con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise will effectuate the, policies of the Act.5 VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. We shall direct that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLTSIONs OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All bus operators, ticket agents, porters, and maintenance men in the Peninsula Division of the Company, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized, by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining Our determination herein as to the appropriate unit, however, is no bar to a later revi- sion in accordance with changes in the status of self-organization of the Company s employees. 43'i257-I2-von 37-53 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, an elec- tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Re- gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula- tions, among all bus operators, ticket agents, porters, and maintenance employees ill the Peninsula Division of the Company, who were em- ployed by the Company during the pay-roll period immediately pre- ceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees, Division 1247, A. F. of L., for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. Mr. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.