Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1337 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

DON ALLEN MIDTOWN CHEVROLET, INC . 1337
Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet , Inc.' and Automobile Salesmen's
Union Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner
Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet , Inc. and West Side Employees'
Association3 Cases Nos. 2-RC--8635 and 2-RC-87925. September
10,1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Max Dauber, 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
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
The labor organizations involved claim to represent eertain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged, at its New York, New York, showroom,
in the sale of new Chevrolet and Pontiac cars, Chevrolet trucks, and
used cars. Local 868 seeks a unit of Chevrolet car salesmen only. The
Employer and West Side contend that the appropriate unit should
comprise all salesmen, including Pontiac salesmen, truck salesmen, and
fleet salesmen.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
Herein called Local 868.
Herein called West Side.
' Local 868 objects to the hearing officer's rulings with respect to (1) its examination
into the status of West Side as a labor organization ; ( 2) its request for a continuance;
and (3 ), the failure to afford it an opportunity to state its position with respect to the
larger unit sought by West Side.
As to ( 1), the hearing officer would not permit questions designed to show that West
Side is a dominated or assisted organization . It is well settled that the Board will not
permit litigation of an unfair labor practice allegation in a representation case. (But
see section 5, infra. ) As to ( 2), the record shows that this hearing had been continued
once before at the request of Local 868 , that nothing developed at the hearing was
alleged to be a surprise to it, and that it was permitted extensive examination on the
unit issue . The record does not support Local 868 's statement in its brief that it sought
a continuance to either April 9 or 10. The record shows only a request for continuance
to April 10, which was denied by the hearing officer after Local 868 was able to give no
idea of what it expected to produce or what witnesses it intended to call . As to (3), we
are affording Local 868 the opportunity to appear on the ballot in the election directed
herein . ( See also footnote 5, infra.)
We therefore find that, in all these circumstances , the rulings of the hearing officer
were not prejudicial to Local 868, and we deny the motion to remand the. case to the
Regional Director.
118 NLRB No. 174.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer conducts all its sales operations in one building,
where it has separate salesrooms for Chevrolets, Pontiacs, and used
cars. Although salesmen are assigned primarily to one major division
of the Employer's operations, any salesman is permitted to sell any
product the Employer offers.
All salesmen (other than fleet salesmen) are paid entirely on com-
mission. The same policies, the same benefits, the same method of
computing commissions, apply to all. All salesmen are expected to
sell used cars. When the Employer recently obtained its Pontiac
franchise, it staffed the Pontiac salesroom by transferring some of its
Chevrolet salesmen. In at least one instance a salesman was trans-
ferred from sale of cars to trucks. All salesmen attend the same sales
meetings and compete in the same sales contests.
In these circumstances we perceive no reason for limiting a unit
to Chevrolet salesmen only. The above-described similarity of in-
terests far outweighs, in our opinion, any differences in the conditions
of the salesmen's employment. Accordingly, we shall dismiss Local
868's petition, and direct an election in the broader unit sought by
West Side.'
Accordingly we find that all salesmen engaged in the sale of new
cars, used cars, trucks, and fleet sales at the Employer's New York,
New York, salesroom, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, watchmen, 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.
5. Local 868 filed charges in Case No. 2-CA-5354 alleging violation
by the Employer of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2). Those charges have
been disposed of by a settlement agreement directing the Employer
to post a 60-day notice. Posting began on July 5, 1957. Accordingly,
the Regional Director is directed not to conduct the election provided
herein until after expiration of the posting period.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 2-RC-8635.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 As Local 868 has made an adequate showing in this larger unit we shall accord it a
place on the ballot in the election directed therein. However , if Local 868 does not
desire to proceed to an election in this larger unit, we shall permit it to withdraw upon
notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from issuance of this decision.
Ertel Manufacturing Corp . and Local 135, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 35-RC-1437. September 11,
1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labors Relation Act, a hearing was held before Ralph A. Dunham
118 NLRB No. 178.