Transcript of Record — Boire v. Greyhound Corp.

Supreme Court brief1964

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

3 : ° . ‘

2 8 ie — —

_- Sapreme Court or the United States,

ee “OCTOBER TERM, 1962 e

a“ 92 * | 25 ° * d

? No. 844 rl

= 0 ie e

‘ ° 2 :

*.. HAROLD A. BOIRE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 8

. TWELFTH REGION, NATIONAL LABOR eS ae a

. BOARD, PETITIONER,

x 1

8 ki 55

THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION ;

„ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO.THE UNITED STATES’ es

; COURT oF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT - *

’ ie 1 ‘ad 0

83 9 5 2

* ’ - INDEX 8 , a

1 4.4 5 . Original Pr nur

g Record from the. United States District, Court for ; io

the Southern District of Florida — 5

- « Complaint 5 : . . 21 770

Exhibit A Decision and Direction of Elee— ;

tion innues by. NLRB, paver we of May —

„ 0 5 10 9

“Exhibit R--Letier from Nl AR to e one

— änder E. Wilson. Ir. ted Nas. U. ot —

l N 12 N

“Exhibit (letter from NLRB to Arthur .

. Milam, dated May, Az 1962 ES 48 f 14

f 8 aes * 7 „

in * 4 0 — — —

„„ et of A e ©. Wiles, 32.

; Affidavit of J. W. Cable. 4

N 8 3

8 2 8 88

— ——

8 ont

BSSs RS *

4 Clerk's. certificate (omitted in printing).

ie iy of ee esse (omit vee ey

im printing) —

— —äà—L'̈— ! d¶ 2

Opinion, per curiam a

Judgment sen

Order allowing certiorari.

: *

—

„

—

* Ps

101

; \

e |

ae l E . a . a.

In UNIVE babe mn bor COURT eth

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA hee

sk . 5

Gone 5 ey . f é 5 . ae ae K. 5 ye

HA A. Bom, Regional Director, National Labor

oe a su

ite CompLaint—Filed May 22, 1962.

"THE GREYHOUND Corporiffion, a * organized

Tu GREYHOUND CORPORATION, a i cS

and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State

of Delaware, plaintiff herein; complaining against HAROLD

A. Bome, 48 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TWELFTH REGION,.NA-

‘TIONAL LABOR. 1 Boarb, - respectfully —

Tampa Division of the Southern District

fol. 2 Southern Greyhound Lines Division is a operat-

ing division and not a separate corporation.

- this action is brought in his capacity as, Regional Director

af the Twelfth Region of the National Labor Relations

Board, the principal offices of which Region are located

in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, and the said

defendant is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida.

3. This is a civil action arising under an Act of Con-

gress regulating commerce, to-wit, the Labor Management

wr.

1 ali al 10

be at]

—

tion,

, or (ii)

tive as the

ization acting in

substantial n

11 145 |

e i: i

. 4 —

(4) Sec: 9 (e) (1) of the Act, * r as ea 85

lows:

and that their employer de-

wish to be represented for col-

the individual or labor 9

A) by an employee or group of employees bac

or any individual or labor o

their behalf alleging that a

af employees (i)

resentative defined in section 9 (4)

which has been certified or is being currently

crevognized by their employer as the bargaining

clines to recognize their representa

assert that

rep

in accordance with such regulations as may be pre-

cseribed by the Board : 3

4 : Sig 4 ee ; 5 2 as

4 eS „ 3

(a); or

“«(B) by an employer, alleging that one or

organisations have

| , to be recognized as

the representative defindd in section 9 (a)

the Board shall investigate such petition and if re

(Emphasis added.)

(p) Sec. 2 (3) of said Act, which provides that the

term “employee” shall not include any individual having

the status of an independent contract.

[fol. 4] (e) Sec. 8 (a) (5) of said Act, which provides

. that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer

_ refuse to bargain collectively with the repitsentatives .

of his employees. —s - | .

(d) See. 9 (a) of Act, which provides that rep-

resentatives designated or selected for the purpose of

collective bargaining by the majority of the employees

in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the ex-

elusive representatives of all the employees in such unit

for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to

rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other. con-

ditions of employment. 5 a f

KA. The findings of the Nationa} Labor Relations Board

contained in the footnotes to the Decision and Direction

of Election in case No. 12-RC-1209, attached hereto and

incorporated herein W reference as Exhibit “A”, are in

excess of the National Labor Relations Board's dele-

gated powers and contrary to, the. provisions of the Act,

and the same .are arbitrary and capricious and without

authority in law or fact, and violate plaintiff's rights

under said Act, as hereinabove set forth.

—

rected to direct and supervise an election. withir thirty

(30) days from and after May 3, 1962, wherein certain

National Labor Relations Board case No. 12-RC-1209,

the plaintiff vigorously asserted and adduced evidence in

‘plaintiff received from the office of the defendant a copy

of a letter dated May 11; 1962, addressed to

‘

the persons comprising the unit described in said Decision

15. One or more days subsequent to May 11, 1962, the

support of its contention that it was not the employer of

E. Wilson, Jr., Esquire/ with a carbon copy to ‘plaintiff,

a true and correct copy thereof being attached hereto

incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.

16. The plaintiff ‘received, one or more days subse-

quent to. May 17, 1962, a letter addressed to one of its

- attorneys from the office of the defendant; dated May

17, 1962, a true and correct copy of which letter is at-

Senne incorporated herein by reference as

Exhibit .

17. It is evident from Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C”,

oe the 2 Sty be ‘

If ol. 7) 18.

attached hereto, that the proposed election, of which plain-

tiff complains herein, will be held and conducted by the

ined and enjoined, as herein prayed.

‘plaintiff and Floors, Inc., of Florida, a

wholly owned subsidiary of Floors, Inc., a Georgia cor.

. defendant on about May 28 or May 29, 1962, unless

~ poration, are parties to agreements, true and correct ,

copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated

D “Exhibits D*, Da, “Ds”,

PA“ and “D-5”.

— In Gi Action No. 3047 in the United States Dis-

trict Court, Southern District. of - Florida, Jacksonville

Division, wherein the. plaintiff herein was the plaintift

and the petitioning union in National Labor Nalations

Board case No. 12-RC-1209 was the defendant, the Honor-

able Bryan 8 , United States District Judge, made

and caused to entered an Order and Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law. in support thereof, both dated

July 27, 1955, wherein said Court found Floors, Inc., of

Florida to be. an independent contractor with regard to

the contract between plaintiff and Floors, Inc., of Florida,

attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1”. A certified copy of

‘said Order is attached hereto and incorporated herein ‘by .

reference as Exhibit “E-1”, and a certified copy of said

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is attached

_ hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit

8 20. ‘The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at-law for

3 tie following reasons: a

(a) If the election be held, and the persons com-

prising the unit deseribed in the Decision and Direction

of Election vote in the majority for the proposed union.

representative, plaintiff will have no right of judicial

}

eel

: with and found guilty of committing an unfair labor prac-

. ties bbe such refusal, and a p for enforcement

aa by and prosecuted by Ae National Labor Re-

9 lations Board in the United States Court of Appeals for

[fol. 8] the Fifth Circuit, all of which procedure is con-

tingent and costly and constitutes unconscionable delay i in

the judicial determination of. plaintiff's richts.

(b) If a majority of the persons comprising the pur.

ported appropriate unit as described in the Decision and

Direction of Election vote against being represented by

the union seeking representative status, the plaintiff will

have no recourse to determine its legal rights and status.

(e) So. long as the conclusion of the National Labor

Relations Board, as expressed in the Decision and Divec-

—“B” and “C” attach

election pursuant to the above referred to Decision and Di-

rection of Election of the National Labor Relations Board

in that Board’s case No. 12-RC-1209. 15 5

fol. 91 (b) That this Court issue its rule to show cause,

directed to the defendant, requiring the defendant to be

and appear before this Court on a day certain to show

cause, if any he can, why a temporary injunction should

not issue restraining and enjoining the defendant and all

persons acting in the stead of the defendant-or under the

direction and control of the defendant, from conducting a

representation election pursuant to the above referred to

Decision and Direction of Election of :the~National Labor

Relations Board in that Board’s case No. 12-RC-1209; and

that upon the hearing on said show cause order, a tem-

porary, injunction issue so restraining and enjoining the

defendant. pa Sic 5 *

le) That upon final hearing, this Court issue 4 per-

manent injunction, permanently restraining and enjoining’

i ni 1

/s/

/s/ Wofford H. Stidham

Address:

Pi. 0. Bor 16ů

, 245 South Central Avenue

Bartow, Florida

Attorneys for Plaintiff.

[fol. 10) EXHIBIT “a” 70 o COMPLAINT

23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION (SOUTHERN GREYHOUND

LINES DIVISION ) AND. FLOORS, Ixc. OF. a

| EMPLOYER,

nir n Amsoctinon OF der, R

Rau.] r AND Motor Coach EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO, ‘PETITIONER :

@ Case No. 12-RC-1209

Lae Decision and Direction of Election

Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before

2 hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.

His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial

error and are affirmed. .

3 Upon the entire record, the Board finds:

1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within th

_ Meaning of the Act.

2. The labor organization (s) antl below elaim (s)

to represent certain employees of the Employer. 5

3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the

representation of certain employees of the Employer, with-

i (e) (1) and Seetion 2 (6) and (7) of the

[fol. 111 4. The following onlin of the ‘Employer ;

constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-

tive bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Att: :

All porters, janitors? and maids working at the Grey--

hound Corporation’s bus terminals in Miami, St. Peters-

burg, Tampa and Jacksonville, Florida, excluding ell other

yy Names appear as corrected at the hearing, Herein, they are

referred to as Greyhound and Floors, respectively. .

The Petition was amended at the hearing to include janitors.

employees of the Greyhound Corporation ad Fons Ine. 7

“of Florida.“ Gare ae

3 Petitioner seeks a e unit of all porters, seinen and maids .

employed in the above-described Greyhound terminals, contending

that Greyhound jis the Employer of the employees sought, or at

least their joint employer with Floors, and that the unit is. appro-

' priate as a residual unit of all unrepresented Greyhound employees

at the terminals in issue. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that

even if the Board ‘finds that the employees sought are employed

‘by Floors, and that Floors is an independent contractor, the unit

sought is still appropriate because such employees comprise a

“homogeneous, distinct group. Greyhound and Floors contend that

the porttrs, janitors: and maids are — — by Floors, an inde-

pendent contractor. and Floors further argues that the appropsiate

unit consists of either all its emplovees in the above-deseribed

eities or three separate units of all its employees in (1) Tampa-

St. Petersburg. (2) Miami. and (3) Jacksonville. Petitioner is un-

willing to represent Floors“ employees who do not work at the

above-described terminals: :

: It appears that Floors hires, pays. n transfers, pro-

motes and discharges the porters, janitofs and maids. However, it

also appears that Greyhound’s terminal managers confer with

Floors’ supervisors in setting up work schedules and in determin-

ing tae number of employees required to meet those schedules.

Moreover, it also appears that Floors’ supervisors may visit the

Greyhound terminals on an irregular basis and on occasion may

not appear for as much as tffo days at a time; and that the em-

ployees sought, including ers in handling baggage, receive work

instructions from Greyhound terminal officials. In addition, the

record also shows, that Greyhound, on ‘one occasion, prompted the

discharge of a porter whom it felt to be an unsatisfactory em-

ployee. In view of the common control over the employees sought,

we find. both Greyhound and Floors to be their joint employer. See

: _ Panther Coal Company, Inc., et al., 128 NLRB 409, West Texas

Utilities Company, 108 NLRB 407, 41 , enf’d 218 F.2d 824

(C. A. 5); cert.. denied, 349 U.S. 953. We find further that such a

unit consisting of all — under the joint employer, relation-

ship is appropriate.

PHILIP RAY RODGERS, MEMBER, 1 coe

On the basis. of the record herein, I would find that aie em-

ployees sought are employees of Floors, that Floors is an inde-

pendent contractor, and that the only appropriate unit is ore com-

prised of all of Floors’ employees in the above-described localities...

ae Accordingly, 1 would dismiss the petition.

Philip Ray Rodgers.

Member

255 . National * Relations Board

I 18) __Diveetion-of-Bleetion n

„ An election by secret ballot shall be conducted among

the employees-in the unit found appropriate, as early as

possible, but not later than 30 days from the date below.

The Regional Director for the Region where this cgse was

‘heard shall direct and supervise the election, subject to

the Board's Rules and Regulations. Eligible to vote are

those in the unit who were employed durin © the payroll

period immediately preceding the date below; including

employees who did not work during that period because

they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily laid off. Also

eligible are employees engaged in an economic strike which. .

commenced less than twelve (12) months before the elec-

tion date and who retained their status as such during

the eligibility period.and their replacements. Those in the

military services of the United States may vote if they

appear in person at the polls. Ineligible to vote are em-

: ployees who have quit or been discharged for cause since

oi the designated payroll perfod and employees engaged in

_ ‘a strike who have been dis¢harged for cause since the com-

_ ~-pmencement thereof, and who have not been ‘rehired or re-

fol. 13] instated before the election date. Those eligible

shall vote whether (or not) they desire to be represented

for collective. bargaining purposes, by Amalgamated As-

sociation of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coast Em-

ployees of America, AFL-C1O. ee

ae FRANK W. MCCULLOCH, <«—

Chairman, a

Bow LEEpom,¢

7 ae Member,

5 i JoHN H. FANNING,

: uuember, —

GERALD A. BROWN,

31300 Member, oe

(Seal) National Labor Relations Board.

Dated, Washington, D. C., May 3, 1962.

—

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

| Ross Building, 112 East Cats Street, Tampa 2; Florida

. Tacelepbofe 24 ¼ .

Re: Southeastern G Lines, and Floors, Inc: ’

Case No. 12-RC-1209 15 |

Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Esq. \

615 Rhodes-Haverty Building

— | we propose

dung moe the tuning out of tentative election

arrangements anc your cooperation to that end.

Will you, therefore, please R

‘ _ able to the Petitioner is, of course, i

2. Suggested hours of voting at each. tion ‘which

will afford reasonable 3 or alto vote.

3. Suggested exact location on the remises

i ench terminal where the voto can W con-

* A » last

payroll immediately preceding May 3, 1962\ the

date of the “Decision. 3 rey

sin, enh en ae iy ee ee: a6

\ 3

Keo

— 8 a

= : \

2 ” \ 3

2 : ee

— aS \

©. 15 — — . 8 \

. ¢ Winer — \

0 voting by at least one hour In this

: instance, it can ‘possibly be handled by a central con

ference at this office. If centrally held at this of-

fice or at any other point it must be sufficiently

in advance of the election for to then deliver or

. ‘Shall ballots: be impounded at each ‘poll for bending

(fol. 15] - Your prompt and full cooperation in devoloping

the needed facts relative to this election will be appreci-

1 i

very truly yours,

: 7 é /s/. Norman A. ' le 5 i a

. Assistant to ional Director

cc: Floors, Ine. 5

1 840 DeKalb Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia

Southeastern Greyhound Lines

55260 Peachtree Industrial Blvd. Chamblee, Georgia -

„ Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Rail

way and Motor Coach Employees of Ameriea,

AFL-CIO, 67 Willowood Circle, S.E., Atlanta,

1. J. Gromfing, Esq.

Zimring, Gromfine & Sternstein :

1001 Connecticut Ave., Washington, D. 39 .

P. S. The observations and suggestions of the petition-

ing labor organization are likewise solicited. 3

~ @o:

VVV

5 Exam “C” To CourLANmrr. a

_ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ~~

TWELFTH REGION -

Rows Building 112 East Cass Street, Tampa 2, Florida

Telephone 223-4623

May 17, 1962 oid

Ne: The Greyhound Corporation (Southern |

Greyhound Lines Division) and Floors, ”

Ine. of Florida Case No. 2 pve

Arthur W. ‘Milam, Esq. aes

1200 Greenleaf Building : Ge

Jacksonville, Florida ee

Dear Mr. Milam: a

.d ie eae eta Hh

Mr. Wilson was not sent to you as counsel for The Grey-

[kol. 16] hound Corporation (Southern Greyhound Lines

Division), but it is enelosed herewith. However, possibly

Mr. Wilson, as counsel for Floors, Inc. of Florida, may

have been in touch with you already relative to the facts

. contained therein. 15

pee As you know, Mr. Wilson; in behalf of Floors, Inc. of

Florida, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. How-

a eleetion arrangements.

a Since 1 believe the terminals are under the control of

„ doubtless your client is in position to furnish

us with most, if not all, of the information requested i

our letter of May 11. ius eee e f

possible haste in working out these election arrangements,

please note that I will telephone you Friday afternoon,

May 18, by which time I hope you may be able to have

answers to at least some of the questions for us.

The thought occurs that possibly the baggage room.

mighs be suitable as a plaée for the election, Te

possibly other even better space may be available It

: - daienitaititiantiaiieiinds ahaa tbiate strad-

dle the afternoon shift change which I understand. is at

8:00 p.m. in all four terminals involved herein. If it is

“necessary to hold ‘an additional early morning

voting session at about 7:00 a.m. to cover the few who

Be poral repay pen „

d us. ae

; We. A that your ‘uals aie and willing to 8

make the usual posting of election notices at the terminals

at such time as we mail them direetly to such points for

posting. It is suggested you may wish to so instruct the

terminal managers in advance, so that when the notices

are mailed there will be no delay in such posting.

ere As of now, we are thinking in terms of possibly

ae 2

you will unde

W with — arrangements.

= . | Very tly yours, |

Fas ‘NorMAN Coen B

i : Assistant to Regional Director

ARMAL ate

- Enclosure - 8

. ec: The Greyhound 9 a

(Southern: Greyhound Lines Division)

5260 Peachtree Industrial Blvd:

_ Chamblee, Georgia . Ls ag

The Greyhound Corporation ee

(Southern Greyhound ante. Division) -

1352 Vega Street „ Nae, e

Jacksonville, Florida * 3 85 5

; Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Esq. 28

615 Rhodes-Haverty Building 7

9 Atlanta, Georgian 1

Floors, Ine. of Florida

840 DeKalb Avenue Mei ae ON

Atlanta, Georgia 5

nd, therefore, that we must move along ae

8 |

Exnmrr “Da” TO ComPLAINT

STATE OF FLORIDA L |

Moi: COUNTY OF .

rn keene eotered info this fith day gt No

the First Part, and FLormA GREYHOUND LINES (BI

[fol. 18] SION Ur THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION) “of

| WITNESSETH:

ü For and in“consideration of the premises and of the

: Se e

V on ghe

28th day of N , 1954, at 12:01 o clock A. M., it will

provide and perform ‘twenty-four (24) hour daily jani-

and loading serviees at the Greyhound Bus Ter-

204 West Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida, in ac-

cordance with the description and definition of work set

out in the supplementary ule “A”, initialed by rect

parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof ö

Party of the First Part further agrees that all 8

provided for herein shall be performed on schedule to the

satisfaction of the terminal management, except when pre-

vented by strike, act of God, aceidents or other circum-

stances beyond its cofitrol. A joint inspection of all service

„ Schedules and of all work performed will be made at least

once each month.

1 N

Party of the First Part further agrees to furnismh

bonded labor and supervision, together with such materi-

als and equipment as may be necessary to satisfactorily

perform its obligations under this contract, and to comply ©

furnish to Party of the Second Part certificate which shall

„ this insurance carried * this ee

5. ae Be, ,

Part) of ‘the ‘Second Part 3 *

„ First Part an annual sum of Fifty-three Thousand Seven

Hundred and Sixty-Eight Dollars ($58,768.00) for all

, Services performed hereunder. This contract amount shall

de payable in equal weekly installments of One Thousand

5 Thirty-Four Dollars ($1,034.00) payable within seven

(7) days after receipt of billing

‘Party of the First Part agrees to reduté the .

weekly dilling of One Thousand and Thirty-four Dollars

($1,034.00) proportionately for all reductions in: man

hours per week below seven hundred and:sixty-five (765)

man hours, such adjustments to be applied beginning the

first whole work week following the ween in which the re-

vision was made.

Party of the First Part agrees’ to anit detailed cost

records of services performed and after the figures for the

[fol. 20] first — (90) days of operation under this

contract are available will promulgate an hourly rate for

_ Services Performed and offer it for consideration by Party

ai ay: | it a 21 He 1. i

1 , e

jig f sae ne

he alll fap Gat ga 3

„ lage aint A

„ jis

i 1

ells 10

151

11 a Hane a:

Florida

(Di

reyhound

Greyhound Lines

President

vision of the G

Corporatign)

By /s/ P. G. Howe

ö hs,

Dany SERVICES: 7

: SCHEDULE “a”

Ss ae PART I 1

Ng CLEANING SERVICES SCHEDULES - hig

die. Entire building of Greyhound Bus Terminal,

fou r hours’ de omer 1 —

* —

———f—

RESTROOMS: "(with exception of White Mews)

yA FLooRs will be soap mopped and rinsed.

2. URINALS, Comaones, BASINS will be sedured and dis

infected.

[fol. 22). 3. STALL PARTITIONS will be wiped down.

4 Tomer Tissue, TowELs, Soar, ete, will be replaced

as heeded in prope roper dispensers from stocks of same

items provided by Greyhound Terminal’.

_ INTERIOR GLASS will be waslied as needed. 125

FLoORS, all all types, entire building, ‘will be swept and/

or dust mopped.

TRASH and Dennis will be collected and removed to ex- .

"terior collection.

ASH TRAYs, SAND Urns, ete., will be emptied and

washed, individually.

Cusrmons will be emptied and cleaned and refilled

ae wie water.

Han Lepces, Sis, Rais, Pires, Ducts, STEAM

RADIATORS, LOUVRES, etc., will be dusted and/or vacu-

umed ONCE MONTHLY. .

ö WALLS will be dry dusted ONCE MoNTHLY.

CONCOURSE PAVEMENT will be scrubbed and scoured

*QNcE MONTHLY, as needed.

WINDOWS, SECOND FLOOR Colored Waiting Area, will

be washed, both sides, ONCE MONTHLY. Also windows in

f 5 offices, ONCE MONTHLY.

‘MINoR PLUMBING REPAIRS as 1

LIGHT BULBS and FLUORESCENT TukEs will be 0

as needed, from stock provided by Greyhound Terminal.

SPECIFICS, Cleaning:

EMERGENCY CLEANING, at all times, will be attended

per occurrence within normal agreements of this contract.

Dau SERVICES, outlined herein, will be repeated, as

needed, for the daily and nightly cleaning best needed for

proper results and proper appearances at all times; by

diseretion of contractor, contractar’s supervisory staff ‘and

in “agreement with The Terminal Management.

ee eae

o ae „„ Se tee

‘[fol.24) SPECIAL EXcLUusioNs:

1. It is not the intention of the contractor to attempt

No WALL WASHING will be accomplished whatso-

ever where it is found that such cleaning will will fur-

F os ie pean, ee a

preciate.the painted surface

Normal cleaning will be observed in keeping finger

INC., as contractor, agrees to furnish supervised labor, in

uniform approved by the Terminal Management, in total

amounts of man-hours daily to accomplish all the nor-

- mally practiced — gg So aetna, capers e

Jacksonville, Florida, as follows:

: 1. For handling all baggage and express shipments;

loading and unloading buses.

2 For thecking the lovel of ful oil, water, etc., and Ae |

replenishing as needed on all pooled buses.

. 8. For cleaning pooled buses, interior, windshields, rear

view mirrors, also windows when needed.

4. For convenience duties. 5

. Froors, INc., agrees to furnish not less than the ma”

seven hundred and sixty-five (765) weekly man hours

shown in the following schedule of assignments except

that schedule revisions including. increases or decreases

in total weekly man hours may be made from time to

time / subject to the approval of the Terminal Management.

tool. 28] Sch A a

. Days off: 5

1. 12:30 AM_4:00 AM dune) 5:00 AM :

—10:00 AM Mon.-Tue.

2. 2:45 AM_7:15 AM (lunch) 8:45 AM—

12:15 PM Sat.-Sun.

3. 6:00 AM—10:30 AM (iuneh) 12 noon— .. a

4:00 PM: : Thurs.-F ri.

4. 6.45 AM —11:00 AM (lunch) 11 80 AM

3:45 PM Tue. -Wed.

5. 10:00 AM—3:30 PM (lunch) 4300 PM”

—7:00 PM Sun.-Mon.

6. 2230 PM 7:00 PM (lunch) 8:30 PM— es.

12:30 AM Wed.-Thurs.

7. 4:45 PM 9:15 PM (lunch) 10: „

—2:15 AM . Sun.-Mon. -

8. 5:00 PM—9:30 PM (lunch) 10 30 PM

—2:30 AM - * §at.Sun/

9. 9:45 PM—4:15 AM (lunch) 4:45 AM— 55

„ le .: Tue.-Wed.

10. Relieves 28 Fri.; #2 Sit- Sun. i

(AM) Mon.-Tue. | Wed.-Thurs.

Relieves #8 Sat.-Sun.; #7 Mon.; #9. 5

Tue.-Wed. Thurs.-Fri.

Relieves #7 Sun.; #15 Mon. Tue.; F #6 Ree?

a Wed.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat.

13. Relieves #5 Sun. Mon.; #4 Tue.-Wed.; ss

8 Thurs. — Fri.-Sat.

14. 7:00 AM—8:80 PM daily except Wed. & ae

.. Thurs. (relief days). Relief Wed. &

Thurs. by 2 15; 8:00 AM—1:00 PM

(lunch) 2:00 PM—§:30 PM

15. 5:00 PM—1:30 AM, daily except Wed.

& Thurs. Relieve 2 14 as shown with

schedule #14. Off Mon.-Tues. by #12.: 8 ‘

„ 2 ' | |

Lol. 26 Schspülz B

1. Monday through Friday 5:00 AM—11:00 AM (lunch)

12 noon—2:30 PM; Saturday 1:00 AM—5:30 Au

(lunch) 6:00 AM—10:00 AM; Sunday 6:30 AM— ‘

ee (lunch) 12 noon—4:00 PM. :

Days off: Sun.-Mon.

2. S through Thursday: 4:30. PM—9:30 PM

(lunch) 10:00 PM—2:00 AM; Friday, 3:00 PM— —

9:30 PM (lunch) 10:00 PM—12 midnight; Saturday,

8:00 PM 2:00. AM Nera 3:00 AM—5:00 AM.

: Days off : Thure.-Fri.

3 3 Schedule 1 8

Friday; Saturday only, extra; 10:30 AM—3 :30. PM i

. 4:00 MP—7 :30 PM.

Days off: Tue.-Wed. .

-c ((

traet that these Services Schedules are intended to main- i

tain the highest standards of efficiency under existing

“circumstances at all times., All suggestions and helpful

cooperation on the part of FLORIDA GREYHOUND LINES

and TERMINAL MANAGEMENT considered by -the gontractor -

as obligatory and same shall be reciprocal in the event

of additions to or deletions from these Services *

‘EXHIBIT P. 2 70 Courrulker 5

233-56

A REVISION OF. THE ketene tisivere N FLOOoRS,.

INC., AND FLORIDA. GREYHOUND — (Division of The

Greyhound Corporation): THE AGREEMENT OF NOVEM-

BER 11, 1 WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE AUGUST 21st, -

1955, Is HEREBY ALTERED AND REVISED THIS DATE, |

Manon 3, 1956, as follows:

I. Floors, Ine., as the contractor for all eae and

porter services in the Jacksonville Ureyhound Ter-

1 fol. 27] minal (as all were defined in agreement of No-

vember 11, 1954), will now perform the identical

services with only the following specific . in

the nn

hundred and gy sabe 67650 Work eee

pe Mons, D8) is hereby made null ‘and void

hundred and erde (723) work hours in ful -

Z ð ew ante

by the Terminal ee of the Jacksonville Grey-

A b hours-total of 723

* of 715 work

hours to fulfill the terminal schedule and an addi-

tional total of 8 work hours above this terminal

"schedule, which shall be used in terminal cleaning.

B. It is further. agreed --that=the-original per annum

(fred) charge of $53,768.00 is hereby made null and

void and that the agreed per annum charge is now

made $56,645.00 for all services agreed to (by. agree- .

ment of November 11, 1954), all services now being

performed (excepting : tered work hours totals), and

all er dees agreed to pperformed from this date for.

C. . e e e ben dell bs Werse ‘

or decreased by direction of the Terminal Manager,

only. The alteration of these total hours (715 actual

terminal schedule hours, only) shall be at the hourly

rate, for detrease or increase, of $1.506¢ per hour.

These added or decreased charges shall apply, weekly,

as altered upwards or downwards, to the weekly in-

voicing to Florida Greyhound Lines by n Ine. f

for the services rendered.

1. (The hourly rate of $i. 506¢ for inerease to, or

deerease from, the fixed weekly invoicing price

[fol. 28] of $1,089.38 shall have been obtained by a divi-

sion of the total per annum fixtd agreement price

of $56,645.00 by the per annum total of 37,596 total

work hours involved in ee schedule fulfill-

ment.)

D. An hours of overtime work involved in the proper

handling of all porter services to baggage handling

tin

per each overtime hour, net.

fol. 29]

— ; 8 4

nee 25

ons,

work hours, shall be directed to be used, affected

and operated as such by the Jacksonville Greyhound

1. Suck direction to increase the work hours use-

—

age, at an overtime rate, based upon the particular

worker or workers’ hourly rate, over and above the

present terminal schedule of 715 work hours, shall

be the sole and only authority for Floors, Inc. to

charge such directed overtime hours used to Florida

Greyhound Lines, over-and-above the regular week-

rates as applicable:

(a) All workers employed by Floors, Inc. in. the

Jacksonville Greyhound Terminal at the hour-

d a

ly rate of $1.00 per hour shall be paid at the

asd ‘bonis operations, above the guaranteed total of

b invoicing of 31,089.33, at the following agreed

rate of. $1.50 per each overtime hour by .

Floors, Inc. Each overtime -hour used at the

rate of $1.50: per hour shall be charged and

. invoiced to Florida Greyhound Lines as $1.75

per each overtime hour, net.

(b) All. workers employed by Floors, Inc, in the

Jacksonville Greyhound Terminal at the hourly

rate of $1.25 per hour shall be paid at the

rate of $1.875¢ per each overtime hour by

Floors, Ine. Each overtime hour used at the

rate of $1.875¢ per hour shall be charged and

‘ invoiced to Florida Greyhound Lines as $2.10

E. No overtime hours (for holiday traffic in-

creases, emergencies, rush“ and/or “peak” periods),

[will be charged] “[initialed by JDS and ARA] wit .

out authorization of the Jacksonville Greyhound Ter-

minal Manager. The Terminal Manager shall: sign,

or initial each order for overtime to be used by

Floors, Inc. A duplicate copy. of each overtime order

made up and signed by the Terminal Manager shall

be furnished to Florida Greyhound. Each order of

- authorization by the Terminal Manager for usage of

‘overtime hours by Floors, Inc. , inelude the work- |

aoe YO as

ats name, the de base hourly pay rate, the

worker’s overtime hourly pay rate and the net charge

4 PF

Floors; Inc. \

. These si denen, revisions and changes from

the ori t of November 11, 1954, con-

tain and all stipulations and agreements and

.. thamiete tee-qyesetares

for handling all services and operations and the pro-

oedures for making all charges therein, the original

6— Seliy: ta ab eer serrate.

FLo0RS, INC.

/ A. R. Andrews | gg

Vice President and Sales Manager 7 0

Fon GREYHOUND LINES

(Division of The Greyhaund en ;

7 J. D. Segal b

. e e ee

4°

N —

—

| is 8 :

Ng | {fol 80} Exam “D.3” To COMPLAINT

* An AMENDMENT 10 THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED AGREE-

INc., ENTERED INTO THIS 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1956,

WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. AND ALTERATIONS:

I. For the sole purpose of expanding services in ther new

_ Jacksonville Greyhound Bus Terminal. :

II. For alteration of the methods previously used . in⸗

: voieing and charging all work in the agreements to

ne ee ' FLORIDA GREYHOUND LINES by FLoors, INC. © :

o III. For the purpose of providing extra cleaning labor

over and above the normal daily, maintenance pro-

gram, for the initial heavy clean-up which is ex-

. to be required for good quality appearances

oe iin the new terminal building. |

IV. For the purpose of providing: proper supervision and

| additional labor for bus loading as ern 85

Ir 18 AGREED AS FoLiows: ae

I. Expansion of eleaning services:

A. To permit FI OORS, INC. to increase e its labor

cotals for expanded cleaning services by a

total of 138.0 man hours over and above hy

present totals of hours presently being used

in cleaning. The increase to be paid to work-

erg by ‘FLoors, INC. at $1.00 per hour and

leaving a net increase, for labor only, as fol-

lows: pee Sos ee.

B. To permit FLoors, INC: to increase its super- .

vision over the new expanded cleaning serv- :

[fol. 311

ices by au addition of one 00 full-time

supervisor, ag follows:

; Per week $ 85.00

. D : 5 : C cae, an e 2

C. To permit Flons, INC. to increase, a8 a di-

rect result of the increment in basic labor

and supervision, the correct accompanying

overhead (which is 28% of total cost in- 3

a voice, over the total of increased labor and er dy. Oe:

. supervision) as follows: f 5

Per week i — 3 86.72 :

TOTALS OF ALL INCREASES © . —= $809.72 7

II. “Alteration of invoicing methods:

A. It is. that Fl bons, INC. will invgice

all work in the agreements to

FTA GREYHO LINES under a n

plus arrangement, as follows :

1. Tne complete break-down of percentages _

progressions for arriving at the weekly. 1

total of invoice is hereby attached as Ex- 25

. Hipit “A” and made part of this amend-~

ment by signatures of both parties. ie

2. The maximum gharanteed weekly total

iuvoice charge is — stipulated, as

follows: a

„ present total weekly firm price $1,209.80

"Total inereased weekly labor ete. 309.72

* e e is $1,519.52

3. The maximum 8 83 invoice

_ charge is hereby made part of this Sty

amendment and new. method for pricing 2

— all total work invoice N as: me -

2 519.52. f ARES.

“[fol. 32) 5 Gs

III. Provision of extra 4 labor x initial cleaning) :

A. To permit FLoors, INc. to perform extra and

ee heavy and ' initial cleaning in the new ter-

: , minal. for work that is expected to be required to

é — nese best = appearances, during the

2 ~

SPE

rie

881

bia

111

aft

F *

771

1445

1255

Alz

the cost-plus method at no more,

‘hes $1,644.52, which is the maximum guaranteed

ee eee

: IV. Special considerations :

FLoors, INC. guarantees that only a pro-rata part

of this. supervisor’s salary wages be applied

to the total of payroll labor- supervision. It fur-

; Z ů Lacs tee if

a sizeable part of this supervisor’s total work

week hours are utilized by FLocas, INC. elsewhere

than in the new termnial, that that part of his

wages will be charged to FLoors, INC. only: 8

B. It is recognized by both parties that the new ter-

minal is intended towards an attraction of new

and added passenger volume to the present volume

of business of such nature, now being enjoyed by

| [fol. 33] the JACKSONVILLE GREYHOUND Bus e

in all itss facilities for such handling

It is now agreed that if this prone volume

inerease occurs to the point of burdening the

present bus-loading schedule, by addition of other

bus-handling ‘or added baggage handling duties

and/or convenience duties, that Floors, INC. may

be sas the — of additional man hours,

135 5

| Bla

1 1

all other respects.

‘This amneudenpat

ve on the first day the 75

ecti

becomes eff

5 8 1

services are required at the

Froons, INC.

8 3

- [fol 20 BXHIBIT “A”

I. DEFINED Cost-PLUs BREAK-DOWN- or bea

I. All labor and attendant zuper-

vision (permanent on-job su- 5 a :

pervision) | . 72.0 % of total cost

II. Obligatory taxes to labor

- (Federal & State) including . +e

insurance on labor wages 5.2 % of total cost

III. Expendable materials for all he ht

nightly cleaning, only . 6.3 % of total cost

“Machinery, placement & useage 2.1. % of total cost

Clerical handling all payrolls wie '

general guper vision, transpor- i +.

tation and all equipment other 1 us

than expendable materials for | — ir

cleaning, only 8.4 % of total cost

5 VL Gross operating fee 6.0 % of total cost

> Weekly, monthly 100.00 % ——

or per annum 50 .

total net ene f e

kol. 35 | 5

Nor: Weekly invoicing to include; totals of 8 and

1 supervision; names of personnel ineluded and to-

tal wages paid, weekly, these — . —.

From h B

—

5 FLORIDA ‘GREYHOUND. LINES

( Division of The Greyhound Corporation)

9 President

„

—

EXHIBIT “D-4” 10 COMPLAINT

Division ‘of The Greyhound Corporation

1352 Vega Street „Jacksonville, Florida

November 13, 1957 i

Dear Mr. Martin:

Vou also state in your letter that you anticipate pay- -

ing employees an average of $1.20 per hour and super-

visors 3100.00 per week, but in the event you are able

to hire émployees at $1.00 per hour and supervisors at

less money than the

— he \

$100,00 this savings, of course, would

—

33 „

J ian

e e cost - plus basis. :

you an extra copy of this letter and ask

shat you Nan dign on the tine provided ab that we, may

have a record in our files that you have insurance cover-

ing Workmen’s Compensation and liability with a clause

showing that Greyhound will be held harmless in the

event of any. claim arising in connection with your serv-

ices.

ements

either party for any reason whatsoever on 30 day written

notice, the same as the Jacksonville contract. |

05 Prog Very truly yours,

J. W. Cantz, Reg. Mgr.

This i. to cavlity that Greyhound will be fully hs

as outlined in the above letter. This insurance will be-

oe 12:01 AM December 1, 1957.

34 :

lol. 877 krumm “D-5” To COMPLAINT

She January 24, 1958

Mr. Larry p. Martin, President fi

Floors, Inc. 5

840 DeKalb Avenue, N. E. e ost ies

Atlanta, Georgia ,

Dear Mr. Martin: eee

-This will confirm. our conversation of . 15, at

_ which time I asked that you make arrangements to fur-

3 us janitorial and loading service at our Tampa and

etersburg Terminals on the same basis that we have

with you on our Miami Terminal. This service to become

effective 12:01 A.M. February 1, 1958. 5

If possible, we would like for Southeastern 6

hound Lines to be named as co-insured on the insurance

poliey covering Tampa and St. Petersburg for liability.

It is agreeable with us for you to separate the payroll

for lodders and divide this amount by 1 80 to * the

Sere. |

Very tly yours,

- | JWC:um

EXHIBIT “E-1” TO ComPLanvt N

order Gresting Plaintiff's and 8 Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, and Summary .

6 Declaratory Judgment e

hes July 27, 1066.

After es) notice 1 ‘counsel for the sfteciad partion,’

this cause was heard on plaintiff’s motion for summary

[fol. 38] judgment (filed February 28, 1955) with affi-

davit of P. G. Howe attached, and upon. defendant’s

motion for summary judgment (filed March 2, 1955)

„ ith affidavit of H. A. Phillips attached, and upon. the

entire record and file herein; thereafter, briefs and

ye ae reply briefs were filed by counsel for the respective

85 parties, with leave of Court; the Court has this day

filed its Findings of Fact and Conelusions of 8

ne herein;

' Whereupon, upon consideration of the foregoing it is

—

7 ORDERED and Ab upp: *

= | 1. The defendant’s motion for summary 1 is

— denied.

2. The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment *

granted and judgment is here entered for the plaintiff

and against the defendant in accordance with the Find-

ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law this day filed by the

Court.

3. The Court there C

and duties of the plaintiffs and defendants under the col-

lective bargaining agreement. of August 19, 1953 and in

the controversy stated in the plaintiff’s complaint and de-

fendant’s answer thereto to be as follows:

(a) Said collective bargaining agreement, 1 ex-

pressly nor impliedly restricts the plaintiff from sub-

contracting the services covered by its contract of Novem- ,

ber 11, 1954 with Floors, Inc.

e The plaintiff is entitled to ended into and to. put

into effect said contract with Floors, Ine. of November

* 1964. N 2

* VA

(e) Said contract of November 11, 1954 is not a

breach of the collective | bargaining agreement between

[fol. 39] plaintiff and defendant and the defendant is not

entitled to prohibit or interfere with the plaintiff’s exer-

cise of its inherent rights of management invelved: in 8 :

aid contract of November 11, 1954.

: DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, Juby 27,

1955. ii . 0

/s/ Bryan 0

United States Distriet Judge.

aine, Carroll & ade

ee & Coffee

I certify the labo | te be a true and correct copy

of the . *

* ULIAN 4 seca

Clerk, United States District :

Court, Southern ba ;

of — | :

. 5 (

‘By: Davip_ 4 PELLICER.

LP “Deputy Clerk

° g

ie “E-2” To CourLuher

wos

"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

(Filed July 27, 1955.)

In support of the order this day filed “denying 1

fendant's motion for summary judgment, ‘granting plain-

tiff's motion for summary judgment and entering sum-

mary , wea | judgment, I make the following

FINDINGS OF Fact.

ae The plaintiff (hereinafter, the Company) is a cor-

‘ poration incorporated under the laws of the State of

Delaware, and is a common carrier by motor vehicles en-

* gaged in the transportation of persons for compensation

in interstate and intrastate commerce within the State of

[fol. 40] Florida and elsewhere, pursuant to authority :

granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and The

Florida Railroad and Public Utility Commission

feet since August. 19, 1953, and by its terms shall remain

in effect until June 30, 1956, and each year thereafter un-

2. The defendant (hereinafter, the Union) is a vol-

untary unincorporated. 174 rganization and maintains

its local offices in the city of e City, Florida, and each

member of the defendant association is a citizen of a state

other than the state of Delaware. +4)

3. On August. 15 1953, the Company and Union

entered. into a written collective bargaining agreement

| wherein the Company recognized the Union as a bargain-

ing representative for Company’ s operators (bus drivers)

and te al employes in various terminals, including.

Company termina! employees in the J acksonville, Florida

terminal. Said agreement has been continuously in ef-

less terminated by at least 60 days’ written notice by

either party to the other prior to the date of initial ter-

mination or the date of termfnation of any annual renewal

thereof. 5

4. On November 11, 1954, the Company * into

_ a contract with Floors, Inc., a corporation incorporated

under the laws of the State of Georgia and authorized to

do business in Florida, whereby Floors, Inc., and inde-

pendent ‘contractor, specializing in maid, janitorial and

porter services, eit to perform * services in n the

Company’s Jacksonville, Florida terminal, to-wit: clean- .

ing and maintaining rest rooms and generally providing:

_ +, janitorial service for the terminal building, furnishing

- supervised personnel for handling baggage, express, load-

ing ‘and unloading buses, checking oil, gas and water in

buses, cleaning buses and providing other convenience

kol. 41) dation and services. These services have hereto-

fore been performed and are now being performed by

Company employees in the Jacksonville terminal, who are

members of the Union and represented by it as Bargain-

-ing Agent, and (as found in Paragraph 3 above) a class |

of employees whose wages, hours and working conditions

are. covered by the collective bargaining agreement of

August 19, 19538.

— = Subsequent to the execution of said contract with

Floors, Inc., the Company caused to be served upon its

said employees engaged in maid, janitorial and porter

_ services, a notice of furl on account of a reduction in

~ forces effective November 28, 1954, the date Company's

contract with ie oe ee whereupon

representatives of the Union informed the Company that

> if its contract with Floors, Ine. was implemented, result-

ing in the furlough of maids, porters and janitors as

aforesaid, the Union would treat the furlough of employ-

pret and the subcontracting of work as a breach of the

agreement of August 19, 1953, which breach by the Com-

pany would justify the Union in treating such breach as

a release of it from the No Strike“ provision of the

contract and that under such circumstances a strike of the

- operators and terminal employees would occur, forcing a

suspension of the Company’s entire motor bus operations.

6. Because of the serious economic consequences to

both the Company and its employee members of the Union

of such a strike, should it occur, the Company on Novem-

ber 22, 1954 agreed with the duly qualified representa-

tive of the Union, H. A. Phillips, its President, that the

effective date of furlough a effective date of its con-

tract with Floors, Inc. be temporarily postponed pending

an investigation and determination of the legal rights and

responsibilities of the asians as fixed by Save: Bar-

0 8 „ — :

: 39

_. [fol. 42 gaining Agreement of August 19, 1953, cur-

rently binding on the respective parties.

7. The Company advised the Union that its contract

with Floors, Inc. was made under its reserved powers of

management and for reasons of efficiency, convenience to

the public and economy in operations and that under the

contract with Floors, Inc. the Company would achieve

an operational savings of $10,125.44 per Near.

8. The Company further advised the Union that the

said contract and notice of furlough were made in

faith and in the exercise of the sound principles of man-

agement imposed by regulatory. agencies as due the travel-

ing public and without intent to harm the Union or to im- .

pair its status as Collective Bargaining Agent; the Com-

-, pany further advised the Union that said contract was

made pursuant to the Company’ s inherent rights to man-

age the affairs of the Company which have not been sur-

rendered by the said ugreement of August 19, 1953, and

under the law respecting ‘operation of public utilities could

not have been surrendered or impaired by that’ agreement.

9. The Union advised the Company that it deemed

the proposed contract with Floors, Inc. in violation of the

agreement of August 19, 1953 and that the threat of a

general strike against the Company's operation would

continue and a strike occur if that contract were acti-

vated.

10. The Company's contract with Fiera, Inc. was

made in good faith and in the exereise of sound principles

of management. a

11. The Company's contract with Floors, Ine. was

ey pursuant to the Company’s inherent right to man-

ge the affairs of the Company. :

(fol. 43] 12. The Company’s contract’ with Floors, Ine.

will enable the Company to save $10,125.44 in ann

costs per year.

ee There is no express prohibition in ay collective

bargaining ‘agreement between the Company and the

Union dated August 19, 1953, against the Company sub-

contracting work of the nature involved in the contract

with Floors, Ine.

From the ee facts, I make the. following

ee)

10. “The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will

be granted in conformity with the above expressed find-

ings and defendant’s motion for summary judgment will

be denied, and summary declaratory judgment entered

7e Bryan Simpe rn

United States District Judge

¢ —

ville, Florida

July 27 1955

e BRS:

Coffee & Coffee ee

— .

Meng the foeguing tobe a tre and correct en.

- of the original.

Juin A. BLAKE,

Clerk. Uni States District

Bont District

Court,

ot Fords si

By /s/ David A: Pellicer -

Deputy Clerk

(Seal) 3 |

; 42 2

ie [fol. 46

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE -

"SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

7 ‘Personally appeared before the PR ery officer

authorized by law to administer oaths; ALEXANDER E.

_ WILSON, JR., who first being duly sworn, deposes and |

says as follows:

ane ern Wilson, Jr., and I am an at-

torney at law, with offices in the: ‘Rhodes-Haverty Build-

ing, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Floors employed a total of 384 persons in the State of

Florida at the time of the hearing in the above referred

to National Labor Relations Board case, Floors now em-

ploys substantially in excess of 500 employees in the State

of Florida. Only 63 Floors e employees work part or full

time at Greyhound bus terminals in Florida. 26 Floors

employees are based in Tampa, of whom 12 are employed

[fol. 46] full or part time at the Tampa Greyhound ter-

minal and 6 at the St. Petersburg Greyhound terminal.

Floors employs 17 persons who work at the Miami Grey- .

. 5

—

0 6

35 2

hound terminal, and 28 Who work at the “Jacksonville

_ Greyhound terminal. es ;

Floors contracts to perform services for its customers .

for a fixed price, the price usually being determined on

a cost-plus basis, and agrees to ‘provide to customers a a

certain number of man hours of. work per week to per-

form the work contracted for by the customers. A Floors

"supervisor is then instructed by Floors. to supervise the

Work of such employees. 1 5

I have been attorney for Floors, Inc., the® Georgia

corporation, since 1950, and have been attorney for Floors,

Inc., of: Florida, since its inception, and thus know all f

the matters referred to in this affidavit. :

With reference tc all of the employees of Floors, Inc.,

of Florida, only Floors has the right to hire, discharge

and discipline such employees. This is specifically true

with reference to the Floors employees: assigned to work

at the Greyhound terminals at Jacksonville, Tampa, St.

Petersburg and Miami, Florida. Floors trains all of its

remove such employee from such premises but would have

no responsibility to the customer whatsoever to discharge

such employee. 5 .

The wages of Floors employees assigned to work at

Greyhound terminals are paid by Floors, the pay checks

being made up at Floors majn office in Atlanta and dis-

tributed to. the employees through Floors supervisors. —

Floors determines what to pay its.employees and the only -

(fol. 47] interest which customers of Floors have as. to

such wages is the fact that most Floors contracts are on

a cost - plus basis. Typical of this situation is the fact

that all janitors and maids employed by Floors in the =

Tampa area, working on the premises of various. Floors

customers, including Greyhound, receive the same. wage

kate. Floors has the right to fix fringe benefits. for its

employees and to establish and maintain working condi- ~

tions for its employees. Greyhound representatives do

not. supervise or instruct Floors employees on the job,

501

— * > ea \

rte E . a os \ 2

7 44 ra 9 bak e* \

except in extremely rare instances 3 „ energencles

may necessitate such instruction. Any complaints that

Greyhound may have as to the work of any of Floors em- 2

ployees must de made to Floors ‘supervisors and not to

the employees. Floors is the sole supervisor of the day

to day activities of its employees assigned to work on

Greyhound premises.

Floors also determines the hours of work of its em-

ployes. Floors also at any time may transfer an employee

- from. work being performed for one customer of Floors °<

to work being — — for another customer of Floors.

Floors proyjdes a highly specialized service to its custo-

mers and retains the right to rotate its employees and to

interchange its employees among customers as. it sees fit,

in order to give all customers the most skilled and efficient

result obtainable. Floors exercises'this right of rotation.

Floors handles withholding taxes of its employees;

Floors controls fringe benefits and pays workmens’ com-

pensation, unemployment compensation and social security

on its employees; Floors provides supervision of the day

to day activities of its employees; Floors owns and furn-

ishes all supplies and equipment used by its employees;

Floors determines the hours of work of its employee8; and

Floors retains and exercises the right to use its employ-

ees on whatever job it desires at any time.

[fol. 48] The petitioning Union in sen me La ——

lations Board case No. 12-R ng to represent

only those employees of Floors who are employed at the ;

four Greyhound terminals located at Jacksonville, Miami,

Tampa and, St. Petersburg, Florida. Such employees con-

stitute substantially less than one-sixth (1/6) of meee

employees employed in those four areas.

The Greyhound Corporation is in no way the em-

ployer or nnn of Floors employees. S

558 a 78 Alexander E. Wilson, Ir,. |

: SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before. me this 21st day of

. 1962.

: / 8 ‘Gladys I. Plembeck sa

: : Notary 3 Fulto: ton County,

My Commission Expires February 1

U eee ee

W UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ThE

3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

| Arrmavrr oF J. W. CaBLe—Filed May 24, 1962.

‘STATE OF FLORIDA 15 sine i

CouNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 4 N

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer

_ authorized by law to administer oaths, J. W..CABLE, who

first being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

if Ne ee My name is J. W. Cable, and I am Regional Manager

Vith offices in Jacksonville, Florida. Southern Greyhourid

ration, a corporation org and existing under and by

A PA virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. The Grey-

4 (fol. 49] hound Corporation operates passenger buses and

terminals, and my duties constitute direct responsibility

en for the operation of the. lines’ and the terminals in the

4 State of Florida, including those terminals located at

: Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida.

A few. days after May 3, 1962; The Greyhound Corpo-

ration (Southern Greyhound Lines Division l, hereinafter

e Direction of Election in National: ioe Relations

Board case No. 12-RC-1209, a true and exact copy of

wich is attached to the ‘Complaint in the above state

cause as Exhibit “A”. Shortly after May 11, 1962, the

ntiff received a copy of a letter referring to said

National Labor Relations Board case No. 12-RC-1209,

addressed to Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Esquire, 615

Rhodes-Haverty Building, Atlanta, Georgia, an exact copy

of which is attached to the Complaint in\ the above stated.

cause as Exhibit B“. : ö

One or more days subsequent to May 17, 1962, Grey-

hound received a letter addressed to one of its attorneys

from the office of the Twelfth Region, National Labor Re-

lations Board, Tampa, Florida, dated May 17, 1962, a true

and correct copy of which letter is attached to the Com-

plaint in this cause 4s Exhibit “C”. as

On November 11, 1954, the predecessor to the plaintiff,

Florida Greyhound Lines (Division of The Greyhound

—— 3 — 2 — 2

. t

—— ——2ö

4 2

39 85

referred to as the plaintiff, received a copy of the Decision

Corporation), entered Wia an a with Floors, Inc.,

(hereinafter referred to as Floprs), whereby Floors was.

8 perform certain janitorial And loading services at the

rey hound bus terminal in Jacksonville, Florida, which

8 Aid was altered and revised by a revision dated

March 3, 1956, and a later revision dated September 28,

1956, an exact copy of said contract and said revisions

; being attached to the Complaint in the above stated cause

_ as Exhibits “D-1”, “D-2” and P- 3“.

[fol. 50] By letter dated November 13, 1957, the plaintiff.

and Floors entered into a like agreement covering the

Miami Greyhound terminal, and by oral agreement of

January 15, 1958, confirmed by letter of January 24,

1958, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff

and Floors, covering the Tampa and St. Petersburg Grey-

hound terminals. True and exact copies of the last re-

ferred to letters are attached to the Complaint in the

— — — styled cause, respectively, as Exhibits * and

The agreements ween plaintiff 250 Floors were in-

terpreted and mutually applied by the parties thereto as

ereating Floors as an independent contractor, and it was

mutually understood and agreed that the plaintiff would

have no 3 whatsoever over the employees of

Floors. To knowledge, only a small number of the

‘ employees of N rs in Florida are employed by Floors for

services at the plaintiff's terminals, Floors having num

erous ‘contracts with other businesses, such as office bad \

‘ings and airports, for example. 5

t the life of the contracts at J acksonville,

ia Miami, Tampa and St. Petersburg Greyhound terminals

‘the supervisors of Floors have supervised the employees

of that corporation who have worked at said terminals,

the employees being porters, janitors, and maids, and the

employees and supervisors of the plaintiff have had no au-

Fa to direct, control or discipline x employees of

oors.

Ihe said employees of Floors are paid 5 Floors, and

only Floors has authority to prémote and demote said em-

ployees. Floors hires, fires and selects its own employees

and assigns them to. work at such location as Floors may

determine; Floors determines the number of hours worked

during the day by each of its employees; with respect

„% ice ae tN 7 ee

to such: employees, Floors keeps payroll records, dis-

- ciplines, furnishes supplies and working equipment, pays

fol. 51 workmen’s compensation, pays social security

wai tax, pays unemployment compensation, withholds for Fed-

8 ve: income tax purposes, determines vacations and holi-

ays, and grants leaves of absence. Floors employee inter- .

* changes as to work. or duties with any employee of the

RS + plaintiff. Floors maintains a supervisor of its employees

in Jacksonville, a supervisor in ‘Tampa who has charge of

both Tampa arid St. Petersburg, and a supervisor of its

employees at Miami. These supervisors are paid solely

by Floors and report solely to Floors. Any complaints

—

Which the plaintiff has with regard to the performance

of work by any of the employees of Floors are made di-

rectly to the supervisors employed by Floors.

that they were not to supervise or attempt to supervise

the employees of Floors, that they were not to give in-

structions to thc employees of Floors, and that all com-

plaints about the work of the employees of Floors were

to be directed to and handled by the supervisors of Floors.

Every terminal manager and every supervisory employee

Tampa, and St. Petersburg, has repeatedly received such

The plaintiff is a party to a collective bargaining agree-

America, AFL-CIO, Which covers only the employees of

plaintiff and not any of the employees of Floors. 3

| cause, and the samé are true and correct.

Complaint.

day of May, 1962. Wears 8

i a ° s, Agnes D. Nores N Ser

5 - ‘. -. Notary Public, State of Florida

(Seal). c at Large e

My commission expires: December 5, 1965.

—ͤ—äI—4—ũ 2 ä —ͤ

I have directed the terminal managers in my. region

„of Greyhound at the terminals in Jacksonville, Miami,

fal. 52 SwoRN 10 AND SUBSCR before’ me this 23

ment with certain divisions of Amalgamated Associaton o

Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of ©

I have read the allegations in the Complaint in this

This affidavit is given for the purpose of being used

in support of the relief sought by the plaintiff in said

"yay J. W. cable .

— .

“a

mat 48 2 , |

| IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

‘TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND Guam SETTING

HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION—

7 May 24, 1962.

The Complaint in the above styled cause having been

3 presented. to the Court by an attorney for the plaintiff, ex

parte and without notice to the defendant, and said Com-

plaint having been duly considered, together with the af-

. fidavits in support thereof, and it clearly appearing from

the specific facts shown by the affidavits, one of which

verifies the Complaint, that immediate and irreparable in-

. jury, loss or damage will result to the plaintiff before no-

tice ean be served and a hearing had thereon, and the

Court finding that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable in-

jury unless a temporary: restraining order be granted,

such irreparable injury being the deprivatibn of rights

granted to plaintiff by the Labor Management Twlations

Act, 1947; as amended, that is to say, the right not to be

held to be an employer jointly and together with an inde-

pendent contractor with respect to the employees of said

independent contractor in a representation proceeding

under said Act, and that the injury suffered will further

be irreparable because plaintiff has no other adequate

remedy at law, all as set forth jn the Complaint herein,

and the Court further finding that this temporary re-

‘straining order should be and is granted without ‘notice

to the defendant, because the defendant, unless so re-

fol. 58] strained, proposes’ tor hold the representation

election hereinafter referred to within such a short period

of time that notice is not feasible, the defendant now

planning and putting into operation a plan to hold the

said representation election on May 28 or May 29, 1962,

and to take steps preliminary thereto, the said proposed

ntation election varisit

Board’s case No. 12-RC-1209, wherein the petitioner i

Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway ad

Motor Coach a of. America; AFL-CIO, it is here-.

—

by i ‘

ng out of the Decision and

Direction of the National Labor Relations Board in th ;

—— tt A OLE —

— — — — Tem,

—

eee

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

1. Pending hearing upon plaintiff’s prayer for prelim-

inary injunction, as hereinafter provided, the defendant,

Harold A. Boire, as ional Director of the Twelfth Re-

gion, National Labor lations Board, his successors or

designees, and all persons acting in his stead or under his

direction or eontrol, be and they hereby are temporarily

restrained from conducting or causing to be conductéd a

representation election of all porters, janitors and maids

working at The Greyhound Corporation’s bus terminals in’

Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa and J acksonville, Florida,

pursuant té the Decision and Direction of Election of the

National Labor Re‘ations Board in that Board’s case. No.

12-RC-1209, issued May 3, 1962, wherein The Greyhound

Corporation (Southern Greyhound Lines Division and

Floors, Inc., of Florida are alleged to be the employer and

Amalgamated Association of Street, Eléctric Railway and

Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL-CIO, are ‘alleged

to be ghe petitioner.

2. temporary restraining order shall become ef-

fective upon the Biving of security by the jaintiff in the

sum of $1,000.00 for the payment of such Sats and dam- |

(fol. 54] ages as may be incurred or suffered. by any per-

son who is found to have been wrongfully restrained

dy this order, such security to be approved by the Clerk

of this Court. ah, 5

3. This temporary restraining order shall expire 10

days from and after the date of the entry of this order.

unless within such time and for good cause shown the, same

be extended for an additional such period.

4. That plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction 5

is hereby treated and deemed to be a motion for prelim-

inary injunction, and the same will come on for, hearing

before this Court in Chambers, in the Federal Building,

Tampa, Florida, at 9:30 o’clock aim., on the 4th day of

„ June, 1962.

5 : | . o

AND * in chambers, at Tampa Florida,

‘this 24th day of May, 1962.

/s/ Joseph P. Lieb

__ United States District Judge

—

(fol. 57] g

(Dilly e to t e 88

jñurat omitted in printing]

(all i in italics) —

(fo 58] 8 a . :

: IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR mer

: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF. FLORIDA,

eren or Fe ebw.

. i

THIS cer eame on to be Heard upon ide

to extend the er.,

— 5 Pv fag se huang ae the 24th — 1

fol. 59 e is to expire · on this date; and at the

rab, *

0 28 ; > : 2 et

Be " OnpERED, ADSUDGED and DECREED? — | ae

That the oral motion to extend Ihe temporary re-

a 5 / : 9

| 3

„

furnished the Court with authorities and. an extensive

We brief in support of the position ef the respondent, and the

cCounsel for the petitioner also submitted further legal.

briefs in support of its position, and inasmuch as the

Court is currently engaged in trying civil jury cases and

would not be in a position to ¢ ider the matter in-

volved in this cause prior to the fxpiration date hereto-

fore set; and it further appearing the Court’s satisfae-

N of the status quo in this cause

is well justified and highly desirable; it is, therefore,

upon consideration, „ „

tion that the maintenance of

— *

straining order issued by this Court on the 24th day of

May, 1962, be, and the same is hereby, granted, and the

temporary restraining order be, and the same is hereby,

extended until the 14th day of June, 1962. It is further

/ Warren E. Hall; ir.

Attorney 8

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

“SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

“ORDER EXTENDING «TEMPORARY, RESTRAINING: ORDER—

: June 4, 4962

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: ° 8 |

That the bond heretofore posted by the petitioner, The

Greyhound Corporation, in compliance with Rule 65 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall remain in full

force and effect until the expiration of this extended

period of time, to-wit, June 14, 1962.

day of June, 1962. 5

. . Is, Joseph P. Lieb,

Pigs

Biter:

[fol 60] DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 4th

—

/ ) Judge of United States District eee

Court.

52 5 es 7 er 8 7 .

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE.

. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FINAL DECREE. FOR PERMANENT INJUNGTION. AND

_ MEMORANDUM Opinion—June 11, 1962

Las, District Judge

5 THIS CAUSE came on to be · heard upon the plaintifrs fs

Prayer for Preliminary Injunction, said hearing having

been provided in the Court’s Temporary Restraining

Order and Order Setting Hearing for Preliminary In-

‘junction entered May 24, 1962. Prior to the hearing, the

defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and, in the alterna-

tive, a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff presented

its Complaint and exhibits attached thereto, together with

an affidavit of an officer of Floors, Inc., of Florida, and an

affidavit of the regional manager of plaintiff, the latter:

affidavit, in part, swearing to the allegations of the com-

plaint. No affidavits were presented on behalf of the de-

fendant nor were any sworn pleadings filed on behalf of

said defendant. :

After considering the matters hereinabove referred

to and hearing argument of counsel for the respective

parties, the Court is of the opinion t there are no

material issues of fact, and the issues of law as. resolved

herein make it unnecessary and undesirable for the Court

to issue/ a temporary aaa but that a permanent in-

2 is warranted by the findings hereinafter set

“A 1101 8 61]. The plaintiff contends that a Decision iad Di-

rection of Election of the National Labor Relations Board

in that Board's case No. 12-RC-1209, issuing certain.

directions to the defendant herein, is contrary to the ex-

press provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as,

amended, and is beyond the statutory powers vested in.

the National Labor Relations Board. This contention is

predicated upon the fact that in said Decision and Di-

rection of Election, the Board found that a corporate

entity. other than plaintiff, viz., Floors, Inc., of Florida,

hires, pays, disciplines, transfers, promotes and dis-

charges the porters, janitors and maids who are alleged

—

to N an e unit for the n of 07 5

Z 2 ee pikes 53,

lective bargaining; but nevertheless also found that the

said Floors, Inc., and the plaintiff, were joint employers

of the employees in the‘ said unit. The findings of the

Board, all y in support of a joint employer relation-

ship, are that the plaintiff's terminal managers confer .

with Floors’ rvisors in setting up work schedules

and in determifiing the number of employees required

to meet those schedules; that Floors’ supervisors may.

visit the plaintiff’s terminals on an irregular basis,

and on occasion may not appear for as much as two days

at a time; that the employees receive work instructions

From plaintiff's terminal officials; and that. on one occa-

sion the plaintiff prompted the discharge of a porter whom |

it felt to be an unsatisfactory employee. The Court is

of the opinion that the findings of the Board, as recited,

are, as a matter of law, insufficient to create a joint em-

BARN

‘ployer relationship with res to the employees in said

unit; but that, on the contrary, said findings establish

as a matter of law that Floors, Inc., is an independent

‘contractor and, for the purposes of collective bargaining,

gard to representation proceedings thie Board is prohibited

. [fol. 62] by the_provisions of the National Labor Rela-

having the status of an independent ebntractor- is ex.

pressly excluded from the term “employee”, as defined

in that Act. As a matter of law, the employees of an in-

@ependent: contractor do not stand ins the relationship of

e principal who em-

: is no eniployer-employee relationship; as-between the per-

; 7. 2

Aet would be patently absurd. One can readily see that

the prime object of the compulsory bargaining feature of -

the Act is to bargain on wages and working conditions.

It is impossible to compreliend how an employer could

bargain in good faith about wages with employees. who

Dare not paid by said employer and over whom the said

loyer cannot exercise the power of hiring or firing.

Court further finds that this case is controlled by

a the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States

in Leedom v. Kyne (1958), 358 U.S. 184, 3 L.Ed.2d 210,

79 Sup: Ct. 180, and that this Court has jurisdiction-of the

action under Section 24(8) of the Judicial Code, 28

U.S. C. A., f 1337, because the action arises under an Act

of Congress regulating commerce. The Court further finds

that in its said Decision and Direction of Election the

kol. 63] Board has attempted to act in excess of its

delegated power, particularly in view of the legislative

‘history of the portion of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947

which amended the definition of the word “employee” 80

as to expressly exclude independent contractors”.

In further support of the Court's finding that ais

ELN are affidavits

which are challenged by counter-affidavits in this

ease, ting conclusively that, with aby to the

said 2mployees,: Floors, Inc., and only Floors, pa

social. security taxes and unemployment — 1

surance, withholds Federal income taxes, determines rates

of pay and hours of employment, provides day to day

supervision, furnishes all supplies and equipment used

by its employees, and retains and exercises the right to

use its employees on whatever job it desires; and that

the employees in the purported unit constitute only a

relative few of Floors“ emp in the areas involved,

such other employees being gaged in activities wholly

unrelated to the plaintiff.

The defendant’s contention: is that this Court is with-

out jurisdiction of the subject matter, first, because the

subjeet matter is Fan within the competence and

jurisdiction of the by virtue of the National Labor

Relations Act, and as amended by the Taft-Hartley- Act,

and second,.even if this Court is not deprived of jurisdic

fro Rt

tion because of the Acts cited above, it lacks equity juris-

diction because of the availability of other adequate reme-

dies which exist before the Board and before the Court

Sof Appeals through the enforeement proceedings provided

for in the At. 5 ö

With regard to the first contention, it is the opinion

of the Court that the Subject matter involved in. this liti-

fol. 64] gation is not the subject matter which is within

the exclusive jurisdiction and competence of the Board,

and the matter involved in this cause does not involve a

review of an erréneous decision of the Board but rather

involves an attack on the action taken by the Board which

it was not authorized to take under the statute. Repre-

sentation orders of the Board have not been vested with

complete immunity from injunction, either by inferences

from the National Labor. Relations Act or-on the principle

of Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, 303

U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). (See Em-

presa Hondurena- de Vapores, S. A., v. Ivan C. McLeod, |

_ Regional Director, etc, (2 Cir. 1962), 300 F.2d 223.)

Whether or not this (Wurt is authorized to intervene in

a @ representation proceeding depends ultimately on the

Aacts presented to it; and if it appears that the Board

exceeded its delegated: powers, either by acting contrary

to a ‘mandatofy prohibition of the Act (see Leedom v.

Kyne, supra) or by acting clearly. contrary. to the over-all |

spirit of the Act and the manifested intention of Congress

(see Empresa Hondurena de Vavores v.. McLeod, supra),

ten this Court cannot fail to exercise its equity powers.

to prevent a wrong. 2 13

g With regard to the second contention that this Court

‘Jacks equity jurisdiction because of the availability of

. . other: remedies, it: is the opinion of the Court that this

oöpen to the plaintiff to contest. the Board’s decision is

as follows: The plaintiff can refuse to bargain with the

Union involved in this case when it is.certified, and there-

by plaintiff is open to an unfair labor practice charge. (29

U.S.C. 8 158 a) (5).) As an incident to the hearing of

such charge by the Board, and upon review by a United

States Court of Appeals, the certification of the Union can

be inquired into. (29 U.S.C. §159(d), 160.) The de-

.- J *

i . * > j 5

„ ; 85

fol. 681 fendant further contends in this Wee that

eden under Leedom V. Kyne, supra, it is only the Union

charge. Second, it presupposes that, upon the filing of

duch an unfair labor charge by the Union, the Board wil!

institute an enforcement proceeding. These presupposi-

tions are patently without foundation. The likelihood that _

the Union will resort to the use of the powerful. weapon g

of picketing, and thereby tie up with a handful of piekets

the entire transportation system of the plaintiff, is far

greater and more real than the likelihood that the Union

will resort to filing an unfair labor charge with the Board. .

Assuming, but not admitting, that the Union will file

an unfair labor charge upon the plaintiff's refusal to

. bargain, the determination of the unfair labor charge by

the Board, , and the enforcement proceeding, are known to

be prolonged and very time-consuming; and picketing of

the plaintiff by the Union while the-case is being decided

by the Court of Appeals could mean complete «economic

ruin to the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff would ultimately

prevail, its victory would, indeed, be a pyrrhie one. In

the light of the foregoing, one is compelled to conclude

that the said method of review, allegedly available to the

plaintiff, is not an adequate remedy.

; With regard te the contention that aer Leedom v.

EKyne, supra, only the Union. can invoke the equity juris-

dietion of the Distriet Court, it is the opinion of the Court

that nothing in the Leedom case indicates the proposition

urged here by the defendant. This. contention was re-

[fol. 66] jected by the Court in Worthington Pump and

Machinery Corporation v. Douds, et al., (1951, D. C, N. V.),

97 F. Supp. 656, and this Court is in “full agreement with

the J. inciples expressed in said case.

The defendant also contends that the Court lacks juris-

. diction of the members of the National Labor Relations

Board who are > indispensable parties’ to this’ action. This

» Regional Director (see Empresa Hondurena de Vapores

v. McLeod, supra; Williams v. Fanning (1947), 332 US.

490, 92 L. Ed. 95; and Bradley Lumber Co., etc., et al. 3

dete Court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of

Finally the defendant contends that the Complaint

fails to state a claim warranting relief. The Court finds

z matter and the contention that the action is premature.

For the reasons hereinabove assigned, the defendant’s

Defendant moves, in the alternative, that a Summary

: Judgment be entered in his favor on the basis of the .

Oar fol: 67] Complaint, and exhibits attached thereto, and the.

Motion, and exhibits attached thereto. . The exhibits at-

tached to the Complaint consist of the Deeision and Diree-

tion of Election, which is the subject matter of the Com-

plaint, together With letters from the assistant to the Re.

gional Director, defendant herein, advising plaintiff of “ a

‘the immediacy of the proposed election, copies of agree-

ments between the plaintiff and Floors, Inc., with respect

to the services involved herein, and 4 certified copy of an

order of the United States District Court of the Southern

District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, in an action

between plaintiff and the pétitioning Union in the instant

case, wherein the Honorable Bryan Simpson, United

States District Judge, found thé contract between the.

plaintiff and Floors, Inc., to constitute an independent

. „%% ĩ ò . ,

ak ; 7 f Pes 7 . ‘ Le

. N ans . ö is 25 8

A 5 é

' ’

J 58 2

. : . 2

Board, dated April 17, 1961, wherei the — in o

the unit proposed by the-National Labor Relations Board

- ° gard to their employer, Floors, Inc.; an Amended Peti-

196 1, naming Southeastern Greyhound

Lines and Floors, Inc., as the “employers”; a copy of the

Decision and Qirection of Election, which is also.attached

as an exhibit to the Complaint; a copy of an Order dated

May 25, 1962, denying a Motion for Reconsideration in

case No. 12-RC~1209, filed by Floors, Inc.; and a Mem-

orandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the

Compla and for Summary Judgment. The Memoran-

dum in rt of the Motions will not be construed as

evid in the ease but merely as a legal memorandum

or b of the defendant.

[fol. The plaintiff filed with the Court, and served

upon the “defendant, an affidavit of the secretary f

s which constitute Floors, Inc., as the sole em-

of the employees in the proposed unit. The plain-

tiff filed and served upon the defendant the affidavit

of J. W. Cable, Regional Manager of the plaintiff for

. covering the State of Florida, identifying

rin

sen Inc., of Florida, setting forth in detail all of the,

el ts

oath’ the various attachments to the Complaint,

. g to the allegations of the Complaint, and setting

forth in substantial detail the relationship between the

plaintiff and Floors, Inc., demonstrating a pure indepen-

dent contractor relationship. ea

Inasmuch as the Motion for Summary Judgment of 2

the defendant raises no issue of fact, and inasmuck as

said Motion for Summary Judgment does not refute the

allegations of the Complaint or of the affidavits in sup-

port thereof, but relies upon the same contentions of law

hereinabove ‘referred to with rd to the” Motion to —

eee. contentions g found by the Cou

be merit. the said Motion for Summary —

will likewise bé deniec.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has a statutory right

not to. be held to be an — ye and together with

ah * contractor respect to the employees

of said independent contractor in a representative proceed-

ing under the Act, and that the violation of the Act on the

part of the National Labor Relations Board and the depri-

vation of said right of the plaintiff will cause the plaintiff

to suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction prayed

for be granted. The Court finds that the. plaintiff has no

SS en at law. It is therefore; upon considera-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: Db ae

1. That the defendant, Harold A. Boire, as Regional

Director of the Twelfth Region, National Labor Relations

(fol. 69] Board, his successors:or designees, and all per-

sons aeting in his stead or under his direction or control

be, and they are hereby,, permanently enjoined from con-

- ducting, or causing to be conducted, a representation

election of all porters, janitors and maids. working at

The Greyhound Corporation’s bus terminals in Miami, St.

Petersburg, Tampa and Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to

the Decision and Direction of Election of the National

Labor Relations Board in that Board's ease No. 12-RC-

1209, issued May 3, 1962, wherein the Greyhound Cor-

poration (Southern Greyhound Lines Division) and

Floors, Inc., of, Florida, are alleged to be. the employer,

and Amalgam Association of Street, Electric Railway 7

and Motor Employees of America, AFL-C10,. is’

alleged to be the petitioner. . :

2. That defendant Motion to Dismiss be, and the same

is hereby, denied. : 8 :

3. That defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

be, and the same is hereby, denied. a as

4. That the defendant was not wrongfully’ restrained

by the Tempofary Restraining Order heretofore issued in

this case and, therefore, that the bond given by. the plain-

tiff as security required by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure may be dissolved, and no other or

Further security need be given by the plaintiff in this

cause. . a

; DoNE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 1ith day

of June, 1962. .

_/s¢ Joseph P. Ih „ f

25 United. States District Judge

| len 70), APA ces

A 1962"

„mt gg STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 FOR THE

SOUTHERN.

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA a

2 —

. peals to the United

further proceedings in Case No.

— —

12-RC-1209 on m the docket of the National Labor Rela

. Order was entered on June 11, 1962.

2 National Labor Relations Board

. 1

„ ae and 1 > . N.

10 f ga tor Sherr

; 12th Region, NLRB

: 112 Cass Street’ :

Tampa, secon

‘Dated at Washington, b. 0. this’ 15th day of. June, .

| a

4 ,

ete., in the entitled case and respectfully

2 a? | | 4

(fol. 71] that the be trarismitted forthwith do the -

_ -Gjerk of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

8 . O

1962.

pbDated at Washington, D. C., this 15th day of June,

tcertiteste of Service ‘omitted in printing]

— 2 2 iy

oy Se

a7 ee

et :

Beg „

(fol. 72] e

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE

55 a ey , :

May 23 Complaint filed. 3

— May 24 Affidavit of Alexander E. Wilson, Ir

' 8 3＋—— 6

9 29 Pitts. Bond in the sum of $1,000.00 filed

29 Plaintiff’s Certificate of Service, of copies

June.5 Order that Temporary Restraining Order is Ex-

eis, tended until June 14, 1962; Bond heretofore

posted by petitioner shall remain in*full foree

and effect until the expiration of June 14, 1962

(furnished mailed -attys.

12 Final Decree Permanent - Injunction and

: a

attys. 4

18 Defendant’s Notice of Appeal.

18 Defendant's Designation of Record on Appeal

18 Defendant’s Certificate of Service.

. { cerity the foregoingtobe a true and core: copy of

. the original. g

Jun A. BLAKE, -

; Clerk, United States District

‘\ $4 Court, Southern District of

outa, Mo sity, or that te om

plaint herein be dismissed. bees : :

la) This is without jurisdiction of the subject

matter of e action:

(b). This Court lacks jurisdiction over ‘the members =

the National Labor Relations Board, we are indispensa-

‘ble parties to the action; aay

6 00 The complaint fails to ¢

er Eid complaint f state a damn ‘warranting

2. In the alternative, defendant moves that summary

judgment be entered in his favor, pursuant to Rule 56

of the F Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis of

the Complaint, attached exhibits, and 3 motion 12 5 ex-

hibits — — a

4 te

9 *

\ S

B\ 5

E <

. W

6 85

a —

badted at Washington, D. C,, this 29th day of May, 1962.

SHA,

' 34

8 8 7

. “ 2

es @ —

9. — —

4 fe

E 5

2 *

i 8

a 4? 4 9

. 5 0

I. :

9 r

j ¢

* *

& a as * A

52 * > 2

a ie ¢

5 4 05 5

/ i ite 3

‘| 0

‘

. Tie

„ 5

05 :

Py ° é :

he 222 7

i 2 “i 2

fe 1 we * 5 yee

ceyuered fer ae, cme tem atte —— — — — ordagly

SS SS —̃ꝛ i

rr i Sore

1 5 — SS

c 9... — 22 2 — —

ene thes „

D Lern rer 2— by

an agreement briwern thew ‘ane caghore ond 0 her exgeascsten aire that wc’ aotherty be

on rate Sey

: i= a e oar

a ——ů =

o : eee 2 — Be CET PERL R, ROBUT 08 HEEVICE 8

. \

(f = — 3 ote { ean OF

eed =

= a

* tte apne eee ae e| oot

bad

* —

7 2 — = 1A ehee, chock anid complete stom 7a or 7, : ra 7 ; 8 1

Brin me „„ „eee

6— — — of chew... — nee 169

FFB 77 d e eee

0 ond — : N ROM OF AGREEMENT GRANTING EON SNOP ( Memeh dnp cad reer)

‘ , ©: 8

hc. v seas GSE PRCRETED OY C8 Ore BBM OF - — 3

— ome 4

2 * N 7 *

ont. 2 .

f — 22 —

12. ue 08 IMDIIDUALS A (AND OTHER THOSE NAMED I FTEmS @ AND | 1x), WHICH RAVE GLAND RECOGNITION AS SOPR

— =.

enen seer 2

2 :

4 _ Batt OF Clam

— . ° — .

0 . om „ Banptorer

> 8 — ras

~ 5 ¢ 0

. — 1

wo steere

“oe

„

5 7

—

”

* 1

* 8

2 '

8 — —

° ~

’

‘

* - be *

“ . a *

5 "

* *

2 $

e , <

8 >

: —

. 1 —

A 8

—

2 1

a >

. 5

eo}

. b *

—

2 . I. Se

4 — 7 phe

* — *

4 5

. * i

‘

o 2 :

y ~*~ 8 5

4 ?

8 .

a 9 R

| ; :

8 —

\ *

as 7

8 5

—

‘

. 0 „

. 5 .

* e i

| E

e 8 a

N 1

— ——ñ Ü—

. ae = :

K ͤ ᷣ—-— 222 : 2

a — — — A wi .

7 8 ie

— — 8 8 N 22

1 - eee Oe caves & begun d cabs . 328 i Jiaitno<*

e 2 —.—.— . — eee 3 wat 85 8852

RD—Daces twa „ — Currently . berganag

* 0 — —— — 2 ’ —

| NOTE —W steep pte ses Bj?) of the ——————

bcs ö 5a 8 4 | a —

04 ——— cud Sense; 5 288 Sues ae

3 Descrpron of Lan involved Af more space us aaedrd. continue on oncthe: sheet ) 2 — oF

— 5 — + GROVER we

* — — we

au 2 ee) 3

—

D S d —-— — nad

veep ra. C) request tor cognition as Bargaining Rep = was made on...... W eee

8 — 4 . . ;

x declined fecegnition ¶ about... ,, Uf veply recewed: je staie) *

“a. j ining Agent (if there 13 none, s0 state) “Be rs

———— 1 C ö a

— * 8 — sa OOS — 7 f

— reer * 8 , 7 TOM OF AGREE MENT GRADES UNCON SHOP (Meath dey cad reer

— —— 090 : 2

LE. „„ C8 OR MRAP OF a eee nen gteneneeencnnnnnnennnnnal frais beat ee a usce

— —

0 . . R 5 1 '.

. * . 2 * 3 .

is 2 8

i 2 — i declare that | have read the above petition and that the statements therein are true to the best of my knowledge aad belief |

83133 of manet, — — „

0 7525 5

* .. A ; ops ig — 9 1 — — is in ev

2 .

* * 5

8 5 4

„

. *

1 2

a 5

Pie

° .

„

5 4

8 0

* — z

. *

8 ce

5 Vis

1 *

ees

3 5 .

75 *

. > *

. . *

1 9 .

‘

2 °

Sat 7 ° 2

. > —

45 „

“

es bbe

53 0

: .

„* —

a .

‘ 72 2

7 e

e 9

* * °

— Nee n. AE reren r

„

2444444 —— ain

2 -

un 10 ae _ Exum B 10 Moon i abit

- (6-61) 5 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 5)

_ ‘BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -

BOARD |

_ THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION - (SouTHERN GREYHOUND Me

F n

and a

A e th Sina, Wace

- RAILWA¥ AND Motor Coach EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAS

Case No. 12-RC-1209

. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

: Upon a pe duly filed, a hearing was held ‘before a

1 2 r of the National Labor Relations Board-

His rulings made at the hearing are 1 from —

> affirmed. .

+ © oY “ones:

‘Upon the 4 record, the Board finds:

4, me employer is engaged in commerce within the

meaning of the Act.

2. The labor organization named below Gaim (e) .

represent certain employees of the Employer. ö

3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the

3 of certain employees of the Employer,

within Section 9. (e) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of 8

the Act.

4. The following 3 of the Employer constitute

a unit appropriate for the purposes of collectiye bargain-'

ing within Section 9 (b) of the Act:

All porters, janitors * and maids working at the Grey-

- 1 Names appear as corrested. at the ‘hearing, hires, they. are

referred to as Greyhound and Floors, respectively.

The Petition was amended at the hearing to inelude janitors.

tends that even if the Board finds that the employees sought are

an independent contractor, and Floors further argues that the ap-

propriate unit consists of eher all ita employees in the above-

described cities or three seperate units of all its employees in (1)

ployees sought, ine porters in handling baggage, receive

work instructions from terminal ls. In addition.

the record also shows that Greyhound, on one , prompted

the discharge of a whom. it felt to be an unsatisfactory

sought, we find both Greyhound and Floors to be their joint em-

-ployer. See Panther Coal Company, Inc, et al., 128 NLRB 409,

West Teras Utilities Company, 108 NLRB 407, 413-414, enf’d. 218

F. 2d 824 (CA. 5); cert. denied, 349 U.S. 953. We find further

that such a unit consisting of. all employees under the joint em-

ployer relationship, is appropriate.

PHILIP RAY RODGERS. MEMBER, dissenting:

: On the basis of the record herein, I would “find that the em-

ployees sought are ees of Floors, that Floors is an inde-

pendent contractor. a at the only appropriate unit is one com-

prised of. all of Floors’ in the‘nbove-described | 0

Accordinety, 1 would diemies the —

. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

; . ¢ linz 9122725

cause

been .

Those

to be

Amal-

and

AFL-CIO. ee

FRANK W. MCCULLOCH,’ Chairman

Electric. Railway

Member

JoHN H. FANNING, Member

GNA A. BROWN, Member

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

Bow LEEDOM,

* Association of Street,

Coast Employees of America,

[SEAL]

gamate

- Motor

. A ny Rey

Dated, Washington, D. C. May 3. 1962.

2 #4

Esky

or .

TAs

ae,

Say

1 /

. 5 5

n . oe Te ae

: "(fol 720), | Exim c 10 Moron |

UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA’ ee N

. rr THE NATIONAL ABR RELATIONS

id BOARD 7 75

A Oe No, 12. RC-1209

‘THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION (SOUTHERN GREYHOUND

de dee an Nau Nor Rane gene

5 _AMALGAMATED A en ap Suna, ELEcTRIG—— —ͤ—

e ae Moron Coaoy EMPLovens e

é _. AFL-CIO, PevivioneR .

"ORDER DENYING MOTION 53535

on May 3, 1962, the Board issued

of Election in the Above- entitled

— 1, 88, Pry Man

= in which it moved the Board to

grant its motion that the aforesaid Decision and Direction

of Election be vacated and the Petition dismissed, On N

May 16, 1962, the Petitioner filed a statement in oel.

on. The Board having duly considered the matter,

Ir Is HEREBY ORDERED that the said Motion for Re-

: eee

nothing not previously considered by the Board.

- Dated, Washington, D. C. May 25, 1962.

e : ee

oft quence. A. User

Associate Executive Secretary

lan me! ose

lun en $

"MINUTE ENTRY-OF ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION — 0

: 2 Oetober 10, 1962. ne

[Omitted in Printing] mere:

lia 96) ee ie: fe

. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

on THE FIFTH CIRCUIT: |

4 ; 2

No. 19766

a Twelfth Region,

0 ‘

. *

THE omen Conronarin, ai

7% :

‘etre Jone and BLL Creat Jug, and ce.

District Judge.

- OPINION—November 21, 1962.

PIR Curiam: The questions in this

were carefully considered by the district

‘cussed by the judge to whom the case

Greyhound Corporation v. Boire, 205 F.

find ourselves in agreement with the principles there

the district court is

b A 8

\ U 0 0

L : A ; 2 4

* Nee CCP 5 r SSN na

ie, a.

8 5

0 | a!

ie ate

deren from the United States Distict Court for the

stated and the decision there reached. ‘The judgment al

: a — d 8 - a 0

¢ é 8 wt ae J ae

fo 90) es goss S

„ „ Fon THE FIFTH cincr

IN UNITED STATES COURT o APPEALS te

Ne 19,785

7 D. C. Docket No. adler. i

mae f. ge Twit Ragin,

} _ Mationst: Lahey awn grag neni ;

Tun GREYHOUND ‘CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Apel from th United Staten Dies Gur for te

Southern Distriet of Florida.

: 1

ae a g

[Clerk’s: Certificate. yo foregoing.

e omitted in ——

Pe a a a el err ee Ie

2 *

1 *

; | V 73°

[fol 11 „ oe

“SUPREME COURT OF THE: UNITED STATES J a

: No. 844, October Term, -1962 a

: Hance A. Bünde est Director, Twelfth Region,

National e Relations Board, PETITIONER

g * v8. 7 3 7 5 5

THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION =

;

Oben ALLOWING Cenrionani—April 15, 1963

_ "The petition herein for “a writ og certiorari: to the

ef United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is

granted, and the case is placed on the summary calendar.

oAnd it is further ordered that the duly certified. copy

of the transcript of the proceedings below which accom-

—— ee ene ee ee

; eS

„ 8. éovenwutar paintine orrice; 1963 ' @89236 1230

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.