Everett Auto Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 3, 1954107 N.L.R.B. 1449 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation EVERETT AUTO COMPANY 1449 Thomaston , Georgia , branch distribution plant : While opposed to the inclusion of any driver - salesmen, the Employer con- tends that if the driver - salesmen at Columbus are included in the unit , the driver - salesmen who work out of the Thomaston branch distribution plant should also be included . As we have determined to exclude the driver - salesmen at Columbus, and as the Petitioner does not seek any employees at Thomaston, there would now seem to be no request before the Board by either party that any of the Thomaston employees be included. In view of this fact , as well as the distance between the two plants and the lack of interchange of personnel , we find that the Columbus plant constitutes a separate appropriate unit. We find that the following employees constitute aunit appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Columbus , Georgia , plant , including shipping and delivery employees , laboratory employees , and the truckdriver, but excluding office clerical , technical and professional employees, retail store employees , driver - salesmen and their helpers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Members Rodgers and Beeson took no part in the consider- ation of the above Decision and Direction of Election. EVERETT AUTO COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 69, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 19 - RC-1382. March 3, 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 Rachel Storer, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. i Howell Chevrolet Co. v. N. L. R. B., 346 U. S. 482. Member Rodgers joins in this decision but is not to be deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's present jurisdictional standards 107 NLRB No. 299. 1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer contends that a current bargaining agreement between the Petitioner and the Snohomish County Automobile Dealers Association,2 of which the Employer was formerly a member , is a bar to this proceeding . The Petitioner contends that the agreement is not a bar inasmuch as the Employer resigned from the Association before the effective date of the current agreement , which is a renewal of a preceding contract. The record reveals that the original contract between the Petitioner and the Association was executed during July 1952, at a time when the Employer was an association member, and was made effective retroactively for a period of 1 year from May 1, 1952, to May 1, 1953. The contract contained a clause providing for automatic renewal for an additional 1-year period unless either party, at least 60 days prior to May 1, 1953, gave written notice of desire to modify or terminate. On December 31, 1952, the Employer sent a letter of resig- nation to the Association . 3 Thereafter , as neither party gave the requisite notice at least 60 days prior to May 1, 1953, the Association ' s contract with the Petitioner was automat- ically renewed . On September 24, 1953, after the contract was renewed , the petition herein was filed. The Employer does not deny that it resigned from the Association but argues , in support of its contract -bar contention, that because its resignation from the Association did not terminate the Employer ' s obligations under the original contract , the renewal of that contract automatically extended the Employer ' s obligations for the renewed term. We find the Employer' s contention to be without merit. While we agree with the Employer that it could not alter the course of its bargaining from joint to individual action during the term of the original agreement between the Petitioner and the Association ,4 there was no restriction on the Employer's freedom to abandon participation in group bargaining at a proper time .5 Where, as here, the contract contains an auto- matic-renewal clause, the proper time for withdrawal from participation in group bargaining would be before the renewal takes effect. Any other view would render it virtually impossible for an employer who participates in group bargaining to disassociate itself therefrom , even though such an employer individually desires to terminate or modify a contract which the group sees fit to retain for an additional term. Therefore, by withdrawing from the Association prior to the Mill B date 2 Herein called the Association. 3 Aside from its formal parts the letter read;'Please accept my [the Employer ' s) resignation from your Association . After due consideration , I believe because of personal factors this action is desirable at this time." 4Engineering Metal Products Company, 92 NLRB 823 5 Economy Shade Company, 91 NLRB 1552. MAURICE EMBROIDERY WORKS, INC. 1451 of the contract, the Employer prevented the renewed contract from becoming a bar as to him. 6 4. The following employees 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 engaged in the repair, maintenance, and servicing of automotive equipment at the Employer's Everett, Washington , plant, excluding new- and used - automobile sales- men, office clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Chairman Farmer and Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 6Nor do we find merit in the Employer 's contention that the resignation was not effective with regard to withdrawal from group participation in collective bargaining because the resignation did not specifically mention collective bargaining . We find that a resignation of the type herein involved constitutes an effective withdrawal for all purposes unless an intention to continue in some phase of group activity is expressed therein. Moreover, the Association ' s president testified without contradiction that the Association had never bargained on behalf of nonmembers. 7 The unit is substantially as agreed upon by the parties, MAURICE EMBROIDERY WORKS, INC. and UNION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA DE LA AGUJA INDEPENDIENTE. Case No. 24-CA-390. March 4, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On November 13, 1953, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued, his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended a dismissal of those allegations. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudici4l error was com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. I I In the absence of an exception thereto, we adopt, without passing thereon, the Trial Exam- iner's conclusion that the Respondent did not engage in surveillance, and his subordinate finding that, as a matter of law, the agency of Balines had not been established by competent proof. 107 NLRB No. 296. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation