Butte Motors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1336 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of JACK TAYLOR AND PAUL BULLARD, D/B/A BIITTE
MOTORS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LOCAL LODGE No. 1577, PETITIONER
Case No. 29-RC-544.-Decided September 15, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clayton O.
Rost, hearing officer. The hearing 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 Employer :
The Employer, an automobile dealer and franchise holder for the
sale of Studebaker automobiles and trucks, is engaged in sale, service,
and repair work at its sole place of business in Oroville, California.
During.the year 1948, it purchased Studebaker automobiles and trucks
of a value of approximately $246,900, of which approximately 30
percent was shipped from points outside the State of California.
During the same period, sales, all of which were made within the State,
totaled $445,900. We have previously held that where an employer's
operations are for the most part local in character, we will, neverthe-
less, assert jurisdiction when these operations are integrated by a fran-
chise agreement into a national system for the sale and service of motor
vehicles.,, We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization, International Association of Machinists,
Local Lodge No. 1577, claims to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
'Matter of Johns Brothers , et al., 84 N. L . R. B. 294; Matter of Kaljian Chevrolet
Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 978; Matter of M. L. Townsend , 81 N. L . R. B. 739.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 221.
1336
BUTTE MOTORS 1337
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all mechanics 2 engaged in the
.repair, maintenance, and mechanical servicing of automobile equip-
ment, their helpers and apprentices, but excluding parts men, car
washers, lubrication men, janitors, salesmen, office and clerical em-
ployees, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act .3
The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on two
.grounds : (1) That the single-employer unit sought by the Petitioner
is inappropriate, as only a multi-employer unit on an association-wide
basis is appropriate; and (2) that the unit is inappropriate in that it
floes not include all employees in its service department. Its position
is that the parts men, the lubrication man, and the car washer should
be included in the unit. The Petitioner would accept the parts man
in the unit but contends that the lubrication man and the car washer
should be excluded. Its principal reason for their exclusion is on the
:ground that another labor organization is organizing these employees.
The alleged multi-employer unit
On April 9, 1947, the Employer, together with other automotive
-dealers in Oroville, California, organized the Oroville Automotive
Dealers Association. Its purpose, among others, is to negotiate agree-
ments pertaining to labor relations 4
On April 22, 1947, at a special meeting of the Association' s execu-
tive committee, the Petitioner presented its first claim for representa-
tion of all mechanics in Oroville, and of its desire to negotiate a
-contract. The meeting was adjourned with the understanding that
the committee would discuss the claim with the other association mem-
bers and give the Petitioner an opportunity to present its plan to the
total membership. Subsequently, on July 21, 1947, at a special meeting
-of the Association, the members decided that "since no contract exists,
each dealer go on as he has in the past." On August 25, 1947, another
meeting was called to discuss the Petitioner's claim together with a
letter it sent to the' Association regarding rates of pay and other
-conditions of employment. The Association decided to ignore the
2 Included in this category is the body and paint man.
3 The unit description appears as amended at the hearing.
* Paragraph 3 of the Preamble of the Articles of Association provides : "In the event
,of certification of any Union as representing a majority of the employees employed by such
-owners, to work with such Union or other bargaining agent lawfully designated by the
employees of said businesses in order to secure fair, equitable and mutually satisfactory
.adjustments of any dispute, 'question or grievance involving terms and conditions of
.,employment and to negotiate necessary contracts to define terms and conditions of employ-
.ment."
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request on the ground that they did not know whether the Petitioner
represented any of the mechanics locally employed. About 14 months
later on October 13, 1948, although neither party ever reached an agree-
ment, the Association adopted in part certain of the Petitioner's "craft
rules" pertaining to hours of employment, rates of pay, and other con-
ditions of employment.
On these facts, the Employer contends that a history of collective
bargaining has been established on a multi-employer basis. We do
not agree.
In a recent decision 5 we had occasion to examine the bargaining
history of a group of automotive dealers in Reno, Nevada, who had
associated for the purposes of collective bargaining on a similar basis.
There, as here, the association was empowered to negotiate collective
bargaining agreements and other related matters. And there, as here,
the union had met with the association, although no unit was agreed
upon and no contract was ever signed. In that case we held, inter alia,
that the isolated instances of dealings between the employer-a.ssocia-
tion and the union did not constitute a determinative history of col-
lective bargaining on a multiple-employer basis. We find no basis in
this record to justify a different conclusion. Accordingly, as there is
no controlling collective bargaining history on a multi-employer basis,
we reject the Employer's contention that the multi-employer unit is
appropriate and find that the single-employer unit sought by the
Petitioner is appropriate.
The appropriate unit
As previously indicated the Petitioner would accept the parts man
in the unit of automotive mechanics, but would exclude the car washer
and the lubrication man on two grounds : (1) That another labor or-
ganization. is seeking to organize these employees, and that to include
them might tend to create jurisdictional problems; and (2) that the
inclusion of these employees within the unit would be inconsistent
with the craft character of the unit sought.
We find no merit in either contention. The Board will not cus-
tomarily predicate the exclusion of employees- from an appropriate
unit 6 solely on jurisdictional grounds when the employees sought to
be so excluded do not themselves constitute an appropriate unit. In
the present case, all of the employees in the Employer's service depart-
ment are under the same supervision and are subject to the same
personnel policies with respect to wages, hours, vacation plans, and
5 Matter of Scott Motor Company, 84 N. L. it. B. 129.
6 See Matter of Muskogee Dairy Products, 85 N. L . R. B. 520; Matter of Beatrice
Foods Company, 84 N. L. R. B. 512.
BUTTE MOTORS 1339
other conditions of employment. We have previously held that auto-
motive mechanics do not constitute a eraft.° We have, however, estab-
lished units composed of employees similar to those of the Employer's
service departments Accordingly, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
All employees in the Employer's service department, including
mechanics, their helpers and apprentices, the body and paint man,
parts man, car washer,9 and the lubrication man, but excluding office
and clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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 unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, 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 dis-
charged 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 or not they desire
to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 1577.
4 Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B. 1274 ; and cases cited therein. Cf.
Matter of Columbia Pictures Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 1381, wherein a unit of automotive
mechanics was established on other grounds.
8 See Matter of Scott Motor Company, supra; Matter of Kaljian Chevrolet Company,
supra; Adams Motors, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1518. See also, Matter of Charles Smith Nash
Company, 83 N. L. R. B. 511 ; and Matter of Hull-Rodell Motors, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B.
1408; wherein we have refused to grant a unit composed of only a portion of the employees
in a particular department.
° The employee in this category also performs janitorial duties.
11 If the Petitioner does not desire to participate in the election, we shall permit it to
withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days after the issuance
of this Direction, and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election.