Goff-McNair Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 680 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

C80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the plant, interrogated Grutter as to how many employees had signed the petition,
and, in furtherance of a compaign against the Machinists , called a meeting of the
toolroom on July 30 to promote the interests of the Steelworkers.
As appears above , I have found that the petition in question was prepared by
the Steelworkers and that, contrary to Wibiral's testimony , Goff did not ask that
he circulate it among his fellow employees . The facts in connection with the meet-
ing of July 30 have been set forth above ( section III, A). Nothing which Goff
said during this meeting could be construed as beyond the scope of protected free
speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act. The General Counsel urges that at least
the Respondent must be charged with responsibility for the anti -Machinists ' petition
since it was typed on company time and freely circulated during working hours.
On the facts present here , I can not agree with this contention . There was no evi-
dence of any no-solicitation rule at the plant and from the testimony in the record
it is plain that , throughout this period , propagandizing for the Machinists , as well
as for the Steelworkers , went on apace during working hours without any objection
from the Respondent . Nor does it appear that the fact that the petition in question
was typed by a company stenographer who had on various other occasions typed
notices for the union merit any significance.
Goff's query to Wibiral as to who had started the Machinists ' movement and his
subsequent question to Grutter as to how many had signed the petition constituted
unlawful interrogation within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) as the Board has
construed that provision of the Act. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 103 NLRB 377.
(But see, N. L. R. B. v. Arthur Winer, Inc., 194 F. 2d 370 (C. A. 7 ), cert. denied,
344 U. S. 819. ) However , as the Board has also held that an isolated instance of
interrogation does not merit the issuance of a remedial order, (Waffle Corporation
of America , 103 NLRB 895; American Thread Company, 97 NLRB 810; Gazette
Publishing Company, 101 NLRB 1694), and because , as appears above, it is my
conclusion that the Respondent has not violated Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), (3), or (5)
of the Act, in any of the other respects alleged , I will recommend that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety.
On the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case , I have reached
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, William D Gibson Co., Division of Association Spring Cor-
poration, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2 The Steelworkers and the Machinists are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
GOFF-MCNAIR MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL
LYLE BRYAN MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL
P. R. GREEN, D/B/A GREEN CHEVROLET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Cases Nos. 32-CA-276, 32-
CA-368, 32-CA-271, 32-CA-367, 32-CA-275, and 32-CA-369.
October 29, 1954
Decision and Order
On May 6, 1953, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his In-
termediate Report and on April 29, 1954, his Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
110 NLRB No. 104.
GOFF-McNAIR MOTOR COMPANY 681
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaints and recommending that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action. The
Respondents filed exceptions to the original Intermediate Report and
to the Supplemental Intermediate Report and briefs in support of
the exceptions.' The General Counsel filed exceptions to the original
Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing so far as they are pertinent to the jurisdictional issue
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Re-
ports, the exceptions and briefs, and the record in the cases Sand finds
merit in the Respondents' exceptions with respect to the jurisdictional
issue.
There is no dispute as to the jurisdictional facts. The Respondents,
Goff-McNair Motor Company, Lyle Bryant Motor Company and
Green Chevrolet Company are separate companies engaged at Fay-,
etteville, Arkansas, in selling, servicing, and repairing automobiles.
They operate under franchise agreements from different automobile
manufacturers.
During the 12-month period preceding November 1, 1952, Goff-
McNair made purchases exceeding $225.000 in value; Lyle Bryan
made purchases valued at approximately $103,000, and Green Chev-
rolet made purchases exceeding $432,000 in value. Between 82 and
90 percent of the purchases made by each of these companies repre-
sented shipments to their Fayetteville places of business from sources.
outside the State of Arkansas. During the same period, these com-
panies made practically all their sales within the State.
The Respondents are separately owned and operated companies.
The separate cases involving each of them have been consolidated in
this proceeding for the purpose of hearing convenience. There is no.
contention and no evidence that together they constitute a single em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respond-
ents are individually engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. However, we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in view of the essentially local nature of
their businesses.' We shall therefore dismiss the complaints.
[The Board dismissed the complaints.]
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
1 The Respondents also request oral argument This request is hereby denied as the
record and the exceptions and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
2 Wilson-Oldsmobile, 110 NLRB 534.