Harry Brown Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of HARRY BROWN MOTOR COMPANY, KRITZLER MOTOR COM3
PANY, INC., GEORGE B. WELSH MOTORS, INC., KINCAID-WEBBER MOTOR
COMPANY, PITTS-PRATT MOTOR COMPANY, SCIILOZMAN MOTOR COM-
PANY, EMPLOYERS and LOCAL LODGE #778, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AND LOCAL UNION #498, AND LOCAL UNION
#41, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONERS 1
Cases Nos. 17-RC-453, 17-RC-455, 17-RC-466, 17-RC-475,
17-RC-482, and 17-RC-538.-Decided October 20, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated 2 hearing vas held
in this case on August 12 and 17, 1949, at Kansas City, Missouri, before
Charles F. McCoy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .3
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employers :
The Employers are separate franchised dealers engaged in the sale
and servicing of new and used automobiles and/or trucks and other
.automotive equipment in Kansas City, Missouri, and vicinity. Each
'The Joint Motion filed by Local Union #41 and Local Union #498, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, to
substitute as party petitioner Local Union #41 for Local Union #498 with respect to
certain Employers in this consolidated matter is hereby granted. The name of Local
Union #41 has accordingly been added to the caption herein.
2 The captioned cases were consolidated for bearing by orders of the Regional Director
dated July 19 and August 4, 1949.
3 The Employers moved to dismiss the petitions on the grounds that joint petitions are
improper and that the Petitioners' showing of interest was not based upon joint designa-
tions by the employees involved. In a companion case, in accordance with our usual
practice, we have held the filing of joint petitions to be proper. Matter of White Motor
Company, 86 N. L. R. B. 380. The showing of interest is a matter for administrative
determination and is not subject to collateral attack. Matter of Stokely Foods, Inc.,
83 N. L. R. B. 795. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 92.
652
HARRY BROWN MOTOR COMPANY 653
Employer purchases motor vehicles and parts amounting to over
$100,000 annually, approximately 90 percent of which represents out-
of-State purchases. Each Employer's sales exceed $100,000 annually,
approximately 10 percent of which represents out-of-State sales.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employers, that each
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 4
2. The Petitioners are labor organizations claiming to represent
employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion, of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 '(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioners are jointly seeking to represent separate units in
the service and parts departments of each Employer involved 5 The
Employers contend that parts department employees should be ex-
cluded from the unit. All parties agree to the exclusion of employees
engaged in the sale of new and used automobiles and trucks and all
office clerical employees. There is no history of collective bargaining
for any of the Employers in this case.
The parts department of each Employer, with unessential differences,
function in the same manner. Parts department employees receive
and catalogue automotive parts, and deliver them to the service depart-
ment employees upon requisition or sell them to the public. The
parts department is physically separate from the service department,
but is almost always immediately adjacent thereto. Parts department
employees are separately supervised.
There is no evidence in this record of any interchange between serv-
ice and parts department employees, but there is necessarily a certain
amount of contact between the 2 groups of employees. All employees
in the 2 departments have substantially the same working conditions.
There are between 10 and 30 employees in the 2-department unit sought
by the Petitioners; in each case the majority of the employees are in the
service department.
The service departments of the various Employers perform the
usual functions involved in automotive repair and maintenance. The
employees in these departments vary in skill from experienced me-
chanics, painters, and lubrication men to wash rack men and porters.
4 Matter of B. B. Burns Co., Inc., 85 N. L. R. B. 1025 ; Matter of Liddon White Truck
Company, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 1181.
5 The petitions, as amended without objection at the hearing , set forth numerous job
classifications in the unit description . It is clear that the employees whom the Petitioners
seek to represent are those in the service and parts departments . As the job titles are
not the same for each Employer, and as the record discloses no problem in the Identifica-
tion of the service and parts department employees for each Employer, we use the simpler
and more general unit description.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has on many occasions, in businesses such as are here
involved, included parts department employees in a single unit with
service department employees. We have done this in cases where the
parties were in agreement on the unit question,6 and where no per-
suasive reason was advanced in opposition to either the petitioner's
or the employer's request for inclusion of parts department employees?
We are of the opinion that where a petitioning union seeks to
represent a unit consisting of service and parts department employees
in an automobile sales and service agency, that such a unit should be
found appropriate unless the record affirmatively shows that there
is no substantial community of interest between the two groups of
employees." The Petitioners and the Employers in this case are in
agreement to exclude from the unit office clerical employees and auto-
mobile and truck salesmen. The remaining employees of these Em-
ployers work in the service and parts departments. It is perfectly
clear that the service departments are heavily dependent upon the
the parts departments and in fact cannot function without efficiently
operated parts departments. It seems proper to us, therefore, that
the employees of these two departments be joined in one unit for
collective bargaining purposes. While the record discloses that the
sale of parts to the general public is a substantial function of the
parts departments of the various Employers, we are not persuaded
that this factor destroys the strong community of interest between
service and parts department employees.
We find that all employees in the service and parts departments of
each of the Employers, excluding office clerical employees, automobile
and truck salesmen, service salesmen,° and supervisors as defined in
the Act,10 constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act-`
9 Matter of Wm. J. Silva Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 573; Matter of The Everett Automotive
Jobbers Association, et at., 81 N. L. It. B. 304; Matter of Midtown Motors, et at, 80 N. L.
It. B. 1679 ; Matter of Adams Motors, Inc., 80 N. L. It. B. 1518.
'Matter of Herboth Tractor Co., et at ., 79 N. L. It. B. 431; Matter of Harrys Cadillac-
Pontiac Company, et al., 81 N. L. It. B. 1 ; Matter of Valley Truck and Tractor Company/,
80 N. L. It. B. 444.
' Compare such cases as Matter of Liddon White Truck Company, Inc., and Matter of
B. B. Burns Co., Inc., supra, where we excluded parts department employees from the unit
of service employees upon a finding that their principal activity was the sale of parts. See
also Matter of Lundahl Motors, Inc., 85 N. L. It. B. 224.
It should be noted that the petitioner in the Liddon case did not seek to represent parts
department employees.
9 The parties agreed, and we find, that service salesmen should be excluded from the
unit.
10 The parties agreed, and we find, that the managers of the service and parts departments
are supervisors.
11 George H. -Welsh Motors, Inc., operates a storage garage. The parties agreed, and
we find, that all full-time garage employees of this company should be included in the unit,
and that part-time garage employees should be excluded.
HARRY BROWN MOTOR COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 12
655
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with each Employer, elections by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
.30 days from-the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
beard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll. period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not:
(1) The employees in each of the units relating to the Employers
listed in Appendix A desire to be represented, for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, by Local Lodge #778, International Association of
Machinists and Local Union #41, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL,
jointly; and
(2) The employees in each of the units relating to the Employers
listed in Appendix B desire to be represented, for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, by Local Lodge #778, International Association of
Machinists and Local Union #498, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL,
jointly.
12 If the petitioners are selected as the collective bargaining representative in any of the
elections directed herein, they will be certified jointly, and the Employer involved will only
be under an obligation to bargain with the Petitioners on a joint basis.