Howell Chevrolet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of HOWELL CHEVROLET Co., EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACI3INISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 727, PE-
TITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1146.-Decided May 5, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Jack R.
Berger, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' The
hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's request that he
be disqualified because his attitude was prejudicial to the Employer.
The motion is denied for the reasons stated in Angelus Chevrolet Co.,
.88 NLRB 929, and in Masters Pontiac Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 932, in both
of which cases the same attorney who represents the Employer herein,
made similar motions with respect to the same hearing officer. The
hearing officer also referred to the Board the Employer's motion to
,dismiss the petition because of an alleged failure to establish that the
Employer was engaged in interstate commerce. The motion is hereby
denied for the reasons given in paragraph numbered 1, below.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Stylesl.
I At the written request of the Petitioner the Regional Director served subpoenas on the
Employer and on Jackson Howell, an officer of the Employer . Before the hearing was
scheduled to open each of these parties filed a petition with the Regional Director addressed
to the Board , to revoke the subpoenas . The Regional Director referred the petitions to the
bearing officer for a ruling at the hearing . The Employer 's attorney contended, during the
proceeding, that the Regional Director alone could rule on petitions which were filed before
the hearing was opened , and that the hearing officer therefore had no authority to rule
thereon. The hearing officer found that he was authorized under Section 203.58 (c) of
the Board ' s Rules and Regulations to rule on the sufficiency of the petitions , and denied
them. We affirm his rulings for the reasons stated in Bill Heath, Inc., 89 NLRB 67.
89 NLRB No. 142
1189
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer and Jackson Howell refused to respond to the-
subpoenas requiring them to testify and to produce books and records.
with respect to the Employer's business. The record establishes,
however, that the Employer operates under a standard form of dealer
agreement with the Chevrolet Motors Division of General Motors.
Corporation," and that it has been incorporated in the State of Cali-
fornia to own and operate an automobile agency and dealership dealing
primarily in the sale and distribution of new Chevrolet automobiles
and trucks and to acquire licenses, permits, and franchises in connec-
tion therewith. We are satisfied from the testimony of the witnesses,
who are employees of the Employer that the Employer receives a
substantial number of new Chevrolet cars from the Chevrolet assembly
plant at Van Nuys, California. In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, we take cognizance of the normal practice in the automobile
industry that a direct factory dealer who operates under a franchise
receives new cars for the purpose of selling them. No testimony was.
offered with respect to the specific value of the purchases and sales.
made by the Employer either within the State or outside it, but we-
find, nevertheless, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act because it is a franchised dealer of General
Motors Corporation.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain 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 9i
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests a unit of all employees of the Employer
at its establishment at Glendale, California, excluding salesmen , officer
and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors. The Employer would limit the unit to those of its employees
who are supervised by its service manager. These are the mechanics
who prepare new cars for delivery and repair cars brought in for serv-
ice, lubrication men, body men, tune-up men, upholsterers, painters,
3 Although the agreement itself was not introduced in evidence nor its existence stipulated
to by the Employer, we rely, for our finding on a telegram in the record from the generaF
counsel of General Motors Corporation to the Regignal Director for the Twenty-first Region
of the Board stating that the Employer does operate under such an agreement . Further-
more, a witness called by the Employer testified that he was given to understand that the
Employer operates under a nonexclusive franchise agreement with the Chevrolet division.
We also note , in support of our conclusion, that a large sign across the street from the
Employer' s main place of business displays a Chevrolet emblem with the following words
directly beneath it, "Howell Chevrolet Factory Direct Dealer."
3 Bill Heath, Inc., supra ; Wray Bros., 89 NLRB 592 ; Angelus Chevrolet Co., supra;
M. L. Townsend, 81 NLRB 739.
HOWELL CHEVROLET CO. 1191
-radio men, and polishers. The partsmen and the mechanics who work
,on used cars offered for sale by the Employer are supervised by others
-than the service manager and would therefore be excluded from the
unit suggested by the Employer as appropriate. A unit composed only
of the employees supervised by the service manager would contain both
auto mechanics and employees of lesser skills, who perform duties not
.requiring familiarity with the mechanical operation of automobiles.
It would exclude those mechanics who are under the supervision of the
used car sales manager, although their duties and skills are comparable
to those mechanics included in the unit. We perceive no reason for
;such an arbitrary delimitation of the unit. We have frequently held
that all employees of an automobile dealer who are engaged in physical
production work have interests sufficiently similar in character, aris-
ing out of their common employment, to warrant their inclusion in a
single over-all unit .4
We find that all employees of the Employer at its establishment in
Glendale, California, excluding salesmen, office and clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, 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.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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
.heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
,employed durhig the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who- have since quit
-or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by In-
ternational Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727.
4 Wray Bros., supra; R. B. Burns Co., Inc., 85 NLRB 1025 ; Adams Motors, 80 NLRB 1518.