Allbritten Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ALLBRITTEN MOTORS, INC., DEPENDABLE MOTORS,.
PACKARD KANSAS CITY COMPANY , ALLIED MOTORS , INC., FADDIS
MOTOR COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYERS and LOCAL UNION #41, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURG , WAREHOUSE-
MEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL , PETITIONER 1
In the Matter of ALLBRITTEN MOTORS, INC., ALLIED MOTORS, INC.,
ARMACOST MOTORS, INC., FRANK BALL PONTIAC, INC., BRACE MOTOR
COMPANY, CENTRAL PONTIAC, INC., CON FRAZIER BUICK COMPANY,
DAVIS MOTOR COMPANY, DEPENDABLE MOTORS, DOWNTOWN BUICK
COMPANY, FADDIS MOTOR COMPANY , INC., BILL GODDARD CHEVRO-
LET COMPANY, GREENLEASE MOTOR CAR COMPANY, GREENLEASE-
O'NEILL MOTORS , INC., JACKSON MOTORS, INC., LAWLER NASH COM-
PANY, NEWMAN Fox MOTOR COMPANY, PACIZARD KANSAS CITY
COMPANY, PERRY MOTOR COMPANY, ROST CHEVROLET COMPANY,
SIGHT BROTHERS MOTOR COMPANY , UNION CHEVROLET COMPANY,
HALL-WARE MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and LOCAL LODGE #778,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER 2
Cases Nos. 17-RC-152, 17-RC-454, 17-RC-457, 17-RC-481, 17-RC-
547, 17-RC-199 through 17-RC-503,17-RC-505 through 17-RC-
521, and 17-RC-5W.-Decided November 21, 1949
I)ECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated 3 hearing was
held in this case on August 15, 22, 23, and 24, 1949, at Kansas City,
Missouri , before Charles F. McCoy, hearing officer. The hearing
1 The original petitions in these five cases were filed by Local Union #498 , affiliated with
the same international union as the captioned petitioner . On September 30, 1949, Local
498 and the captioned petitioner filed a joint motion to substitute the captioned petitioner
for Local #498 as the petitioner in these five cases . This motion is hereby granted. This
Petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as the Teamsters.
Hereinafter referred to as the Machinists.
All the captioned cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director
dated August 8, 1949 . Case No. 1T-RM-30, filed by Bill Goddard Chevrolet Company, was
withdrawn with the approval of the Regional Director on August 15, 1949.
87 NLRB No. 37
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock,
and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employers :
The Employers are separate franchised dealers' engaged in the
sale of new and used automobiles and/or trucks and other automo-
tive equipment in Kansas City, Missouri, and vicinity. Each Em-
ployer purchases motor vehicles and parts amounting to over $100,000
annually, approximately 90 percent of which represents out-of-State
purchases. Each Employer's sales exceed $100,000 annually, approxi-
mately 10 percent of which represents out-of-State sales.
We find that each Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain eln-
ployees of the Employers.6
3. The question concerning representation :
The Intervenors, International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, AFL, and its affiliate, Local Union No. 447, herein referred
to as Local 447, contend that separate contracts entered into by the
Employers and Local 447 constitute a bar to this proceeding. The
Petitioners claim that they have taken over the membership of Local
447 and that Local 447 is defunct. The Employers take a neutral
position on this issue. As the record reveals that a substantial doubt
exists as to the identity of the labor organization which the employees
involved herein desire to represent them, the existing contracts are
no bar to a present determination of representatives.7
We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
* Greenlease Motor Car Company, the Employer in Case No. 17-RC-512 , is also a dis-
tributor of motor vehicles . Its retail sale and service operations , however, are not different
from those of the other Employers here involved.
5 Harry Brown Motor Company , at al ., 86 NLRB 652 , and cases there cited.
6 At the hearing , the Petitioners moved to amend their petitions in the five cases in which
both filed petitions , 2,,iz, Allbritten Motors, Inc., Dependable Motors, Packard Kansas City
Company , Allied Motors , Inc., and Faddis Motor Company , Inc., so that they be permitted
to act jointly as the bargaining representative of the employees of these companies. This
motion is hereby granted . See Harry Brown Motor Car Company , at at ., supra, footnote 3.
7 See Fruehauf Trailer Company , at al., 85 NLRB 1509, where the same issue was
resolved by the direction of elections.
ALLBRITTEN MOTORS, INC. 195
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioners seek to represent separate units combining the
service and parts department employees of each Employer involved.8
The Employers contend that parts department employees should not
be included in the same unit with service department employees. The
Intervenors, who urge the appropriateness of the existing contract
units, would include some but not all service department employees
and exclude parts department employees.
All parties stipulated that testimony submitted in the Harry Brown
case ° with respect to the operations of motor car dealers in that case
would be applicable to all the Employers in this case?° In the Harry
Brown, case, which involved other motor car dealers in the Kansas
City area, we found appropriate units combining service and parts
department employees for each of the employers. The Petitioners
and the Employers further stipulated that the appropriate unit de-
termination by the Board in the Harry Brown case would be equally
applicable in this case to all Employers other than Allied Motors,
Inc.ll
The Intervenors did not join in the last mentioned stipulation. As
stated above, they contend that the unit description in Local 447's
current contracts with the Employers is appropriate. The Inter-
venors offered no reasons in support of this contention; they intro-
duced no evidence at the hearing on, nor referred in their brief to, the
unit problem. The bargaining history between the Employers and
Local 447, including Local 447's predecessor, as shown in the record,
indicates that no definite pattern of a collective bargaining unit has
ever been established. Not only has the unit description in such con-
tracts as were negotiated varied considerably from year to year, but
the unit itself has not conformed to any departmental or divisioral
operation of the contracting companies. An instance of this incon
sistency appears in the current contract, which covers service depart
went employees but excludes certain employees who are clearly in that
8In its original petitions filed in this case, the Machinists requested a unit consisting
of a portion of the service department employees . The Teamsters' petitions described a
unit consisting of other service department employees and parts department employees.
At the close of the hearing , the Petitioners , who were and are jointly represented by the
same counsel , moved to amend the unit descriptions in all the petitions to cover a combined
service and parts department unit for each of the Employers . The Employers objected to
the amendment and the hearing examiner referred the motion to the Board . The Peti.
tioners' motion is hereby granted as the parties have had full opportunity to litigate all
unit issues raised by the amended petitions . United States Time Corporation, 86 NLRB
724.
9 Footnote 5, supra.
"Additional evidence was offered at the hearing as to the functioning of the parts
department at Allied Motors , Inc. The unit question at this company is considered
separately below.
11 See footnote 10, supra.
877359-50-vol. 87-14
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department. The contract also excludes parts department employees,
although such employees have been included in the past. Because the
current contract unit it not based upon any definite historical bar-
gaining pattern we do not regard. it as a controlling factor in our
present unit determination.
We find, in accordance with our decision in the Harry Brown case
and upon the entire record before us, that all employees in the service
and parts departments 12 of each of the Employers listed in Appendices
A and B, including any storage garage employees and employees con-
cerned with the care and servicing of used cars, but excluding office
clerical employees, automobile and truck salesmen, service salesmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act,13 constitute separate units 14
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Allied Motors, Inc.-As indicated above, the stipulation between
the Petitioners and the Employers leaking relevant here the unit de-
termination in the Harry Brown case does not apply to this Employer.
In the case of the latter, the additional evidence introduced at the
hearing shows that Allied Motors, Inc., a parts wholesaler of Chrysler
products, has a parts department different from that of any other
dealer in Kansas City. This difference arises particularly from the
general functioning of the parts department within Allied's organiza-
tional structure and the relationship between Allied's parts and service
departments. The parts department furnishes parts to Chrysler
dealers in the western half of Missouri, the eastern third of Kansas,
and small sections of Nebraska and Oklahoma. Of the approximately
52 employees in Allied's part department,15 only 2 are engaged in
furnishing parts to the service department. The parts department is
located on a different floor than the service department. The em-
ployees in Allied's parts department have different working conditions
than have employees in the service department, as shown by, the fact
that the parts department employees have their own credit union and
12 It is clear from this record, as it was in the Harry Brown case, that job classifications
and titles differ from dealer to dealer . As we said in that case, we see no problem in
identifying service and parts department employees ; it would serve no useful purpose , there-
fore , to describe such employees in the detailed manner employed by the Petitioners.
13 Excluded as supervisors are the managers of the service and parts departments, and
control tower operators.
14 In the last paragraph of their brief , the Petitioners contend that the bargaining history
of the Employers here involved establishes the appropriateness of a multiple-employer unit.
This issue, which is not referred to by any of the other parties, was not litigated at the
hearing . The record before us will not support a finding that a multiple -employer unit
is appropriate in this case.
15 This is a substantially higher number of employees than there are in the combined
service and parts unit at any of the other Employers of whom 15 have less than 20 employees
and 7 have between 20 and 40 employees in the appropriate unit covering both service
and parts departments.
ALLBRITTEN MOTORS, INC. 197
participate in a profit-sharing bonus plan which is applicable only to
this department.
We are of the opinion that the record in this case affirmatively shows
that there is no substantial community of interest between the em-
ployees in Allied's service and parts departments. We shall, there-
fore, find separate appropriate units for the employees in the service
and parts departments of this Employer.10
We find that all employees in the service department of Allied
Motors, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, including any storage garage
employees and employees concerned with the care and servicing of used
cars, but excluding office clerical employees, automobile and truck
salesmen, service salesmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,17 con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We further find that all employees in the parts department of
Allied Motors, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, excluding office clerical
employees, automobile and truck salesmen, outside parts salesmen,
industrial engine salesmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,L5
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 19
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with each Employer, elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the units found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are
not entitled to reinstatement to determine whether :
See the Harry Brown case, 86 NLRB 652, at pp. 653 and 654.
Excluded as supervisors are the service department manager and control tower
operators.
11 Excluded as a supervisor is the parts department manager.
1' Any participant in the elections directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) The employees in each of the units relating to the Employers
listed in Appendix A desire to be represented, for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, by Local Lodge #778, International Association of
Machinists and Local Union #41, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL,
jointly,20 by Local Union No. 447, International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, AFL, or by neither;
(2) The employees in each of the units relating to the Employers
listed in Appendix B desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by Local Lodge #778, International Association of Ma-
chinists, by Local Union No. 447, International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, AFL, or by neither; and
(3) The employees in each of the units relating to Allied Motors,
Inc., desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by Local Lodge #778, International Association of Machinists and
Local Union #41, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, jointly,21 by Local
Union No. 447, International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, AFL, or by neither.
APPENDIX A
Allbritten Motors, Inc. Packard Kansas City Com-
Dependable Motors parry
Faddis Motor Company, Inc.
APPENDIX B
Armacost Motors, Inc.
Frank Ball Pontiac, Inc.
Brace Motor Company
Central Pontiac, Inc.
Con Frazier Buick Company
Davis Motor Company
Downtown Buick Company
Bill Goddard Chevrolet Com-
pany
Greenlease Motor Car Coil-
pany
Greenlease-O'Neill Motors,
Inc.
Jackson Motors, Inc.
Lawler Nash Company
Newman Fox Motor Company
Perry Motor Company
Rost Chevrolet Company
Sight Brothers Motor Com-
pany
Union Chevrolet Company
Hall-Ware Motor Company
20 If the Petitioners are selected as the collective bargaining representative in any of the
elections directed herein, they will be certified jointly, and the employer involved will only
be under an obligation to bargain with the Petitioners on a joint basis.
21 See footnote 20.