Dodge City Of Wauwatosa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1986

289 N.L.R.B. 459 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

DODGE CITY OF WAUWATOSA
'Dodge City of Wauwatosa, Inc. and Teamsters
"General" Local Union No. 200, Affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case 30-RC-4363
16 December 1986
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANsEN, BABSON , AND STEPHENS
On 18 May 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 30 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found' appropriate for collective bargaining the Pe-
titioner's requested unit of all service technicians
(mechanics) including the after-market installer'
employed by the Employer at its Wauwatosa, Wis-
consin facility.
In accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's deci-
sion, contending that the only appropriate unit was
an overall unit of all of its service department em-
ployees. By mailgram dated 13 June 1984 the
Board granted the Employer's request for review.
Pursuant to the Board's procedures, the election
was conducted as scheduled on 13 June 1984 and
the ballots were impounded pending the Board's
decision on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case and concludes , in agreement with the Re-
gional Director, that the petitioned-for mechanics
constitute a craft unit and, thus, may be represent-
ed in a separate unit for collective bargaining.
The Employer is engaged in the retail sale and
servicing of new and used automobiles. Its service
department is divided into three sections: (1) the
service shop area, where the mechanics repair and
maintain cars and trucks; ' (2) the body, shop, locat-
ed in a separate building approximately 50 to 60
feet from the main facility, where employees repair
dents and body damage and paint vehicles; and (3)
the parts department, where clerks maintain an in-
ventory of spare parts, issue parts to mechanics,
sell parts to retail and wholesale customers, and de-
liver parts to certain wholesale customers and to
the Employer's body shop.
The Petitioner contends that the Employer's me-
chanics constitute a separate appropriate craft unit;
the Employer contends that the only appropriate
a The Petitioner did not seek to represent the after-market installer,
however , the Regional Director found that inasmuch as this employee re-
ceives the same training as the mechanics and performs the same work,
he should be included in the unit found appropriate . No request for
review was filed concerning the Regional Director's inclusion of the in-
staller.
459
unit must include all employees , in its service de-
partment. There is no history of collective bargain-
ing for any of these employees.
The record shows that the service department is
under the overall supervision of the Employer's
service director. Each of the department's three
constituent sections, however, function in separate
work areas under the separate immediate supervi-
sion of the body,shop manager, parts department
manager, and service manager-each of whom the
parties stipulated to be supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The Employer does not require that its mechan-
ics be certified when hired; however, the record
shows that 15 of the Employer's mechanics are
certified by the National Institute for Automotive
Service Excellence, and another has passed the In-
stitute's examination but needs an additional year of
experience in order to become certified. Of the
Employer's two uncertified mechanics, one has
been a mechanic for 34 years and the second has
worked for 10 to 12 years as a line mechanic in
Chrysler Plymouth garages . Also, the Employer
pays for Chrysler-sponsored periodic training at
the Milwaukee Technical College and the Wauke-
sha Technical College for all of its mechanics, and
it requires that they attend 2 days of classes every
2 months.2
The record shows that many of the mechanics
have specific specialities such as transmission,
tuneup, electrical, truck, front-end, lube and oil,
and warranty repairs. They are required to provide
most of the tools they use, and one mechanic testi-
fied that his tool set cost $6500, which he stated
was about average. Although the mechanics punch
a timeclock, their wages are determined by multi-
plying their assigned hourly' rates by the number of
hours allocated to the particular job they are work-
ing on, as set out in the "Chilton" flat-rate hand-
book. The body shop employees are paid on a simi-
lar flat-rate basis,4 while the parts department em-
ployees and service writers are paid a base wage
with an incentive measured by the shop's gross
profit for a particular month.
The mechanics enjoy, the same benefits as the
Employer's other service department employees;
2 At the time of the hearing , in addition to its approximately 15 to 16
journeyman mechanics , the Employer had 1 trainee (apprentice) who was
under training to be a tuneup mechanic. The Employer's general manager
testified that the training was "in the dealership" and lasted for about 3
months.
8 The hourly rate for the Employer's "full" mechanics is 36 percent of
the hourly rate charged to customers by the Employer, or $11.50 per
hour. Two of the mechanics are considered somewhat less skilled and
have been assigned a lesser hourly rate , with the lowest hourly rate being
$9.
n Body shop employees receive $10 per hour, which is 50 percent of
the hourly rate charged to customers by the Employer.
289 NLRB No. 71
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
however, they contribute a lesser amount to the
group health insurance plan than the other employ-
ees. Further, the mechanics perform virtually all of
their work in the auto shop, and have only limited
or casual contact with the rest of the service de-
partment employees, such as going to the parts de-
partment for parts necessary for repairs or attend-
ing the ' monthly "master service technical meet-
ings" where the Employer reviews recent develop-
ments in automotive technology. Unlike parts de-
partment employees, the mechanics have no sales-
related function or contact with customers. Lastly,
the record shows that there have been only two
transfers into and one transfer out of the mechanic
classification since 1969.
There is no evidence in the record to show that
any of the other service department employees per-
form automotive repairs (although body shop em-
ployees may have to remove such things as power
steering pumps and radiators in order to complete
the body repairs to a damaged vehicle) and the
lines of demarcation between employee classifica-
tions are clear, unlike the situation in Austin Ford,5
relied on by the Employer for its contention that
the only appropriate unit must include all service
department employees.
We agree with the Regional Director that the
Employer's mechanics constitute a craft unit for
purposes of collective bargaining . The record
shows that these mechanics are a distinct and ho-
mogeneous group of ^ highly trained and skilled
craftsmen who are primarily engaged in the per-
formance of tasks that are not only different, from
the work performed by the other service depart-
ment employees, but that require the use of sub-
stantial specific craft skills, as well as specialized
tools and equipment. In addition, they all have had
either extensive training or experience before being
hired by the Employer, who thereafter requires
them to attend periodic training on a regular basis,
and they share a community of interest apart from
the other employees of the Employer's service de-
5 136 NLRB 1398 (1962). There, the petitioner sought a unit of line
mechanics employed in one of the employer 's four subdepartments into
which its service department was divided . Although these line mechanics
were the Employer's most skilled mechanics, other mechanics also hired
on the basis of their skills and prior experience were employed in the re-
maining three subdepartments , which enabled the employer ' temporarily
to shift mechanics between subdepartments as needed . In addition, parts
department employees, whom the petitioner would have excluded from
the unit, dismantled engines and transmissions and fabricated parts, and
the employer considered all service department employees when filling a
vacancy in the line mechanic classification. Based on these facts, the
Board ' concluded that the line mechanics did not constitute a distinct and
homogeneous group that could constitute a separate appropriate unit on
either a craft or departmental basis. Rather, as all employees in the serv-
ice department possessed and exercised the skills of automobile mechan-
ics, and the functions they performed were related to automobile repair,
the Board found that the unit should include all service department em-
ployees.
partment. See Taylor Bros., 230 NLRB 861 (1977);
International Harvester Co., 119 NLRB 1709 (1958).
See also Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB
387 (1966); E. I du Pont,.162 NLRB 413 (1966).
Contrary to the Employer, the Board has not de-
termined per se that the only appropriate unit in
this industry must include all the employees of an
employer's service department.6 Rather, the Board
has stated that when the mechanics have not been
shown to be a distinct and homogeneous group of
craftsmen (unlike the situation here) and when "all
employees in the service and, parts department of
an automobile sales and service establishment have
and exercise in various degrees the skills of auto-
motive mechanics, and the functions they perform
are related to the service and repair of automobiles,
... they should all be included in the same bar-
gaining unit." Austin Ford, supra at 1400 (footnote
omitted). Although we recognize that the functions
performed by all of the Employer's service depart-
ment employees are similar to the extent they are
all related to customer service and repair of the
product sold by the Employer, we find that the
training and skills that 'must be and are possessed
by the Employer's mechanics set them apart from
the rest of the service department employees as
craftsmen who appropriately may be represented in
a separate unit.?
B The Employer contends that it is the Board's consistent policy to
find that the only appropriate unit in service departments of automobile
dealerships is one that encompasses all of the different jobs and services
within that service department , relying on language in Graneto-Datsun,
203 NLRB 550 (1973). See also Gregory Chevrolet, 258 NLRB 233, 238
(1981), and W. R. Shadoff, 154 NLRB 992 (1965). Although such state-
ments are overbroad and not entirely accurate, unfortunately certain de-
cisions have contained such general language. Those decisions failed to
distinguish or otherwise consider other cases in which the Board consist-
ently has found ' that mechanics possessing skills and training unique
among other employees constitute a group of craft employees within an
automotive or motor service department , and therefore may, if requested,
be represented in' a separate unit, excluding other service department em-
ployees. See, e.g., Trevellyan Oldsmobile Co., 133 NLRB 1272 (1961)
(automobiles); Taylor Bros., 230 NLRB 861 (1977) (farm equipment). See
also Overnight Transportation Ca v NLRB, 327 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1963),
enfg. 141 NLRB 384 (1963). Moreover, in Gregory Chevrolet the peti-
tioned-for unit included all service department employees and was not
limited to mechanics, and the unions involved in Graneto-Datsun similarly
petitioned for such a unit and thereafter alleged that the respondent re-
fused to bargain with them concerning that unit. See 203 NLRB at 550
fn. 2. In W. R Shadoff, supra, the petitioned-for unit included employees
whose skills were much more limited than those possessed by that em-
ployer's line mechanics and, insofar as the record shows, by the mechan-
ics sought herein , and who were not certified ; in short, employees who
could not appropriately be included in a craft unit of mechanics
"Compare Indianapolis Mack Sales & Service, 802 F .2d 280 (7th Cir.
1986), denying enf. and remanding 272 NLRB 690 (1984), where the
court found that the Board had failed to explain its deviation from what
the court viewed as the established rule that employees in parts and serv-
ice departments should be included in the same bargaining unit unless
there is an affirmative showing of no substantial community of interest
between the two groups of employees . In the instant case , we find that
the craft status of the Employer's mechanics warrants their being repre-
sented in a separate unit , apart from the Employer's other service and
parts department employees . See fn. 6, supra.
DODGE CITY OF WAUWATOSA 461
Accordingly, the Regional Director's Decision
and Direction of Election is affirmed, and the case
is remanded for further appropriate action, includ-
ing the opening and counting of the impounded
ballots.
ORDER
This proceeding is remanded to the Regional Di-
rector for further appropriate action.
_ MEMBER JOHANSEN, concurring.
I agree that the unit of auto shop employees is
an appropriate unit based on general community-
of-interest principles . The auto shop employees
must learn and exercise specialized mechanical
skills, they work in a separate location , and enjoy
limited work contact with employees of other de-
partments . In concluding that the auto shop em-
ployees possess a distinct community of, interest, I
need not rely on a specific finding that the auto
shop constitutes a "craft unit."