Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Greenwich Taxi Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1964 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS v. GREENWICH TAXI COMPANY, Inc. GREENWICH TAXI COMPANY, Inc. v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Alphonse C. Jachimczyk, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., for appellant (plaintiff in the first case and defendant in the second).
Robert C. Bell, Jr., New Canaan, for appellee (defendant in the first case and plaintiff in the second).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY and ALCORN, JJ., and HOUSE and BOGDANSKI, Acting Justices.
These two cases, which arise under the Connecticut Labor Relations Act (General Statutes, c. 561, §§ 31-101-31-111), were tried together and argued together on appeal. In one, the state board of labor relations which we shall call the board, petitioned the Superior Court to enforce an order of the board directing the Greenwich Taxi Company, Inc., which we shall call the company, to cease and desist from an unfair labor practice and to take certain affirmative steps in connection with that order. General Statutes § 31-109. In the other case, the company petitioned the Superior Court, under the same section of the act, to modify or set aside the order. The single issue in the two cases is whether the board correctly concluded that three dispatchers were employees of the company within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 31-101(6) and (7) 1 so that the company was obliged to bargain with the union bargaining representative of the company's employees concerning wages, hours, and terms or conditions of employment of the dispatchers. General Statutes § 31-105(6). 2 The court found against the board in each case, and the board has appealed.
The evidence before the board may be briefly summarized. The company employs three dispatchers and about thirty-five drivers. Its office is at the Greenwich railroad station. The only officer of the company who exercises any direction over the operation of the business is its president. He spends an hour or an hour and a half a day at the office, or about 10 percent of the 126 hours a week during which the office is open. For the rest of the time the business is operated by the dispatchers. The dispatchers communicate with the drivers by means of two-way radios. The dispatchers do not drive taxis. In general, the dispatchers' duties are to receive and record telephone calls for taxi service, dispatch drivers, assign particular drivers to serve the requirements of customers, receive and record the daily cash receipts collected by the drivers preparatory to deposit by the company president, institute disciplinary action when necessary against drivers and release surplus drivers or call in extra drivers as the volume of business requires. They do not have the absolute authority to hire or discharge drivers, but their recommendations in this respect are considered and acted on by the company. The dispatchers are paid an hourly wage, and the drivers receive a minimum of sixty cents an hour plus a percentage of their gross receipts and their tips.
The union, which is the bargaining representative of the company's drivers, filed with the board a charge that the company had refused to bargain concerning the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the dispatchers, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-105(6). Following a hearing, the board decided that the dispatchers were employees for whom the union was entitled to bargain. Contrary to our suggestion in Bisogno v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, 149 Conn. 4, 8, 174 A.2d 797, the board has refrained from making a finding of subordinate facts. Its only factual findings are the conclusions that the company is a Connecticut corporation with a principal place of business at the railroad station in Greenwich, that the union is a labor organization existing and constituted for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining with employers and that the company failed and refused to engage in collective bargaining with respect to the dispatchers. While the board is not required to make a finding of subordinate facts; L. Suzio Construction Co. v. Connecticut State Board of Labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haft v. Dart Group Corp.
...(Tex.Civ.App.1965); Thibodeaux v. Parks Equip. Co., 185 So.2d 232, 243-44 (La.Ct.App.1965); Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Greenwich Taxi Co., 151 Conn. 573, 200 A.2d 712, 714 (1964); Alldritt v. Kansas Centennial Global Exposition, Inc., 189 Kan. 649, 371 P.2d 181, 185-86 (196......
-
Town of Windsor v. Windsor Police Dept. Emp. Ass'n, Inc.
...is aggrieved and then appeals or if the board petitions for enforcement of its order. See Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Greenwich Taxi Co., 151 Conn. 573, 200 A.2d 712. There is no In this opinion the other judges concurred. ...
-
City of Cabool v. Missouri State Bd. of Mediation
...indirectly in the interest of their employer in relation to another employee." Id., quoting Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Greenwich Taxi Co., 151 Conn. 573, 200 A.2d 712, 714 (1964). The city construes this holding to exclude "supervisors" from the scope of covered employees......
-
Barrette v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...and the insurer so far as obligations relative to compensation benefits are concerned. Cf. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Greenwich Taxi Co., 151 Conn. 573, 577, 200 A.2d 712. The imposing of these duties upon the insurer by this merger of identities carries with it the corre......