Babb Motors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
share equally in the benefits of collective bargaining and in the
opportunity to select representatives."
Accordingly, as I am convinced that the Waterous doctrine
is the best means of carrying out the mandate of Congress "to
assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the
rights 'guaranteed by this Act" in cases such as this, I would,
in this case , direct an election in the overall appropriate unit,
including the fringe employees.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
F. L. BABB, d/b/a BABB MOTORS' and LODGE NO. 1157,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
AND LOCAL NO. 236, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioners. Case No.
9-RC-2094. May 27, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M.
Kennedy, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer has a nonexclusive franchise from the
Dodge division of the Chrysler Corporation for the sale of
Dodge and Plymouth automobiles , parts, and accessories.
Based on its most recent 9 months' business , the Employer
annually purchases from points outside the State of Kentucky,
automobiles , trucks, parts , and accessories valued atapproxi-
mately $166,000, and annually sells within the State of Kentucky,
merchandise valued at approximately $389,000. In view of
the foregoing, we find contrary to the Employer's contention,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act,' and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.3
2. The labor organizations involved jointly claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
iThe name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
Z N L R. B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 346 U. S 482.
3 The Bordon Company, 91 NLRB 628. For the reasons stated in his dissent in Klinka's
Garage, 106 NLRB 969, Chairman Farmer would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer.
Members Rodgers and Beeson join in this decision but are not to be deemed thereby as agree-
ing with the Board's present jurisdictional standards as a permanent policy.
108 NLRB No. 154.
BABB MOTORS 1141
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioners seek a unit of service department employees
at the Employer's Paducah , Kentucky , establishment , including
mechanics , helpers , the parts manager,4 and wash and lubrica-
tion man, but excluding the salesman and office clerical em-
ployees . The Employer contends that the salesman , the office
clerical employees , and the service manager should also be
included in the unit. The Petitioners, however, would exclude
the service manager as a supervisor.
The salesman and office clerical employees : The Employer
employs a salesman , a bookkeeper , and an office clerk. They
perform their respective duties in the main part of the Em-
ployer's establishment in a separate area from the service
department and have little or no contact with service depart-
ment employees .' The Employer contends , however, that
because of the small size of his establishment the employees
in question should be included in the unit . A similar contention
was made in Bogalusa Motors6 and was found to be meritorious
by a majority of the Board .' We have reexamined the Board's
decision in Bogalusa Motors and conclude that the size of the
Employer's establishment should not be controlling in deter-
mining the unit placement of salesmen and office clerical
employees. It is our opinion that there is a marked difference
in the duties and working conditions of salesmen and office
clericals from those of the service department employees.
In the absence of a contrary agreement by the parties, they
will be excluded from a service department unit.
In the present case , it is clear that the duties and interest
of the salesman and the office clericals are dissimilar from
those of service department employees . In these circum-
stances, and in accordance with the policy herein adopted,
we will exclude the salesman and the office clerical employees
from the unit.'
The service manage!: The service manager performs the
duties of a mechanic. He also writes up job tickets on automo-
41 he Employer originally objected to the inclusion of the parts manager, but later took
the position that the parts manager should be included in the unit along with the salesman and
office clerical employees. The parts manager is the only employee in the parts room and is
admittedly not a supervisor . He works in the service department area where he distributes
parts to the mechanics. Additionally, he sells parts and accessories to retail customers. As
the work of the parts manager is closely related to the duties performed by the service de-
partment employees and in view of the common interests enjoyed by the parts manager and
the service department employees, we will include him in the unit. 0 Z. Hall Motors, Inc.,
94 NLRB 1180, 1182.
5 The only evidence relating to contact between the office clericals and the service depart-
ment employees concerns the office clerk who, in addition to her other office duties, main-
tains a perpetual inventory of parts stored in the parts department.
6Bogalusa Motors, Inc., et al , 107 NLRB 97; cf Tom Zweifel, Incorporated, 108 NLRB
102
7Meniber Murdock disagreed.
'Insofar as Bogalusa Motors and Tom Zweifel, supra, are inconsistent with this decision,
they are hereby overruled.
1 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
biles requiring repair , and assigns work to available mechan-
ics. The record discloses that the service manager does not
have authority to hire or discharge and that any recommenda-
tions he might make would be afforded the same weight as the
recommendations of other service department employees. In
these circumstances , we find , contrary to the Petitioners'
contention , that the service manager does notpossess the super-
visory authority defined in the Act.9 Accordingly , we will
include him in the unit.
We find that all service department employees at the Em-
ployer ' s Paducah , Kentucky , establishment , including me-
chanics, helpers, the parts manager, the wash and lubrication
man, and the service manager, but excluding office clericals,
the salesman , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9Cf. Wm . J. Silva Company , 85 NLRB 573, 575 . The record discloses that F. L. Babb, the
proprietor of the establishment , is the sole person exercising supervisory authority.
JULIUS HALPERN , ALFRED HALPERN, GEORGE HALPERN,
IRVING HALPERN AND BERNARD HALPERN, PARTNERS
d/b/a J . HALPERN COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, Petitioner . Case No.6-RC-1363.
May 27, 1954
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election ,' an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted on March 18 , 1954, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Sixth Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate
by the Board . Upon conclusion of the election , a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties . It appears from the record that of
approximately 130 eligible voters , 121 cast ballots , of which
53 were for the Petitioner , 40 were for the Intervenor ,2and 28
were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election , the Regional Director investigated
the challenges , and on April 15, 1954 , issued and duly served
upon the parties his report on challenges , in which he recom-
mended that the challenges to 16 of the ballots be sustained,
iNot reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Local 872, AFL.
108 NLRB No. 158.