Dunlap Chevrolet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1115 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of DUNLAP CHEVROLET COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TEAM-
STERS LOCAL No. 789, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,.
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 6-RC-596.1-Decided October 19, 1950
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 Emil E. Narick,
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 business of the Employer :
Dunlap Chevrolet Company is a West Virginia corporation with
a place of business in Fairmont, West Virginia, where it is engaged
in selling and servicing Chevrolet automobiles and used cars. It has
a franchise from the Chevrolet Division of General Motors Corpora=
tion. During the year preceding the date of the hearing, the Em-
ployer purchased more than $498,000 worth of new automobiles, all
of which were shipped to it from points outside the State. During
the same period, the Employer purchased more than $30,000 worth of
automobile parts and accessories, of which approximately 66 percent
was obtained from out-of-State sources. All the Employer's pur-
chases of used cars are made within the State. The Employer's total
sales during the period in question exceeded $835,000 and all were
made within the State.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within, the meaning of the National
Labor.Relations Act.
Inasmuch as the Employer's direct inflow of cars and parts from
out of the State amounts to more than $500,000 annually, in accord-
ance with our policy we find that this warrants the conclusion that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction 2
' This case which was ordered consolidated with Cases Nos . 6-RC-595 and 6-RC-599 for
hearing purposes is hereby severed from those cases for decision. -
2 Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638.
91 NLRB No. 172.
1115
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization named herein claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 composed of all the employees as-
signed to the parts, service, and body and paint departments of the
Employer. The Employer would have the unit also include all its
office clerical employees 'and salesmen.
In addition to general offices, the Employer maintains 5 departments
which are known as sales, used car, parts, service, and body and paint
departments. The latter 3 departments are the departments whose
employees the Petitioner is here seeking. The parts department sells
automobile parts and accessories; the service department repairs and
services customers' cars and prepares the Employer's new cars for
delivery; and the body and paint department does sheet metal work
for automobiles and paints them.3 These 3 departments employ a
total of about 10 employees, of whom 6 are classified as mechanics, 1,
as a body mechanic, 2, as wash boys, and 1, as a parts clerk. These
10 employees together with 5 automobile salesmen and 2 office clerical
employees constitute the Employer's entire working force, exclusive of
supervisors.
It would appear that the Employer's salesmen and office clericals
perform the usual duties of such employees. In the absence of a
compelling argument to the contrary, the Board will not in this case
depart from its practice of excluding office clerical employees and
salesmen from a unit of manual workers.4 Accordingly, we find that
the unit requested by the Petitioner is appropriate.
There remains for consideration the question of whether the body
department manager should be excluded as a supervisor as ,the Em-
ployer contends. This individual Works in the body and paint
department which employs only one other person, viz, the body
mechanic. As previously noted it is the function of the body and
paint department to make repairs on and to paint motor vehicles.
The body department manager divides his time between performing
manual work, estimating the cost of repairs to customers who come to
the department, giving assignments to the body mechanic and rou-
tinely directing the latter in the performance of his duties. The
8 It seems clear on this record that these three departments are an integral part of the
Employer's business. We therefore reject as without merit, the Employer's contention
that the Board does not have jurisdiction of the employees here requested because the
departments in which they work do not engage in activities affecting commerce.
Reslink & Wiggers Motors, 87 NLRB 218; Herboth Tractor Co., 79 NLRB 431, and
cases cited.
DUNLAP CHEVROLET COMPANY 1117
body department manager receives the same hourly rate of pay as
does the body mechanic, but, because he performs extra duties in-
volving a certain amount of responsibility, he is paid an additional
sum each month of between 20 and 30 dollars. The service depart-
ment manager supervises the body department manager. The latter
does not have authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or effect changes
in the status of the body mechanic, and any recommendation he may
make in this respect is subject to an independent investigation and
final determination by Mr. Dunlap, who is apparently the owner of
the business. On the basis of the above facts and the entire record,
we are of the opinion that the body department manager is not a
supervisor within the meaning' of the Act.' We shall therefore in-
clude him in the unit.
We find that all the employees employed in the parts, service, and
body and paint departments of the Employer, including the body
department manager, but excluding office clerical employees, salesmen,
watchmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Gold Medal Dairies, Inc., 84 NLRB 426; The Austin Company, 77 NLRB 938.
11