NLRB v. Pony Trucking, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1041.,73-1041. |
| Citation | 486 F.2d 1039 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 428, etc., Intervenor, v. PONY TRUCKING, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Marshall J. Conn, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent; Clifford A. Weisel, Weisel, Xides & Conn, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief.
Robert C. Knee, Jr., Dayton, Ohio, for intervenor; Knee, Snyder & Parks, Sorrell Logothetis, Dayton, Ohio, on brief.
Before McCREE and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and NEESE,* District Judge.
This is an application for enforcement of an N.L.R.B. order dated August 3, 1972 against the respondent, Pony Trucking, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Company).
The proceedings in this case originated on November 1, 1971 with the Union's (General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 428, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America) petition for certification as bargaining representative of the truck drivers of the Company. A hearing was held and the only issue involved was whether the truck drivers were employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3).
The Regional Director found that the drivers were employees of the Company and directed that an election be held. The Company submitted a request for review of the Director's decision to the Board and it was denied. The election was held and the Union won. The Union was subsequently certified.
Following certification the Union requested the Company to bargain collectively and the Company refused on the ground that the drivers were independent contractors and not employees of the Company. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Company on March 8, 1972 and the Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing to the parties. The Company's answer reiterated its position that the drivers were not employees but independent contractors. General Counsel then filed a motion for summary judgment. The Company failed to file any response and summary judgment was granted in favor of the Union. The Board found that the Company had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to bargain with the Union, thus agreeing with the Director's finding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
...In some instances prohibiting subleasing has been considered significant in the determination of employee status, NLRB v. Pony Trucking, Inc., 486 F.2d 1039 (6th Cir. 1973), See also Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co. v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1972).41 JA 12a, 13a.42 Restatement (Second)......
-
Local 814, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffuers, Warehousemen v. N.L.R.B.
...1024, 1027 (6th Cir. 1974); Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co. v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 190, 194 (6th Cir. 1972). See also NLRB v. Pony Trucking, Inc., 486 F.2d 1039, 1040 (6th Cir. 1973); Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., 194 N.L.R.B. 740, 741 (1971) (Miller, Member, concurring).10 29 U.s.C. § 157 (1970) (......
-
In re Pacific Homes
... ... In re Craig, Reed & Emerson, Inc., 46 F.2d 811 (D.Mass.1931). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ... ...
-
NLRB v. Cement Transport, Inc.
...supervision exercised pursuant to ICC requirements." 462 F.2d at 194. Ace Doran was reaffirmed by this Court in N. L. R. B. v. Pony Trucking, Inc., 486 F.2d 1039 (6th Cir. 1973). Cement Transport's operations are quite similar to those of Ace Doran, entailing both government-required superv......