Jerry���s Chevrolet, Cadillac, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

JERRY’S CHEVROLET, CADILLAC
344 NLRB No. 87
689
Jerry’s Chevrolet, Cadillac, Inc. and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 16–RC–10571
May 23, 2005
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER
On May 5, 2004, the Regional Director for Region 16
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this pro-
ceeding. The Regional Director found appropriate the
petitioned-for unit of service technicians, apprentices,
and lube rack technicians at the Employer’s Chevro-
let/Cadillac dealership in Hudson Oaks, Texas.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Em-
ployer filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. The Em-
ployer argued that a unit limited to service employees at
the Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership was not appropriate.1
The Employer asserted that the appropriate unit should
include all of the service technicians, apprentices, and
lube rack technicians employed at its neighboring Buick,
GMC, Pontiac (Buick/GMC); Nissan (Nissan); and Du-
rant Toyota (Toyota) dealerships. On June 3, 2004, the
Board granted the Employer’s request for review.
After careful consideration of the entire record, we
find, contrary to our dissenting colleague and the Re-
gional Director, that the Employer rebutted the single-
facility presumption and that an appropriate unit must
include service technicians, apprentices, and lube rack
technicians working at all four of the Employer’s Hudson
Oaks dealerships.
I. FACTS
The Employer operates sales, service, and repair facili-
ties for new and used automobiles at its dealerships in
Hudson Oaks, Texas. The franchises, although inde-
pendently incorporated, are advertised as “Jerry’s Family
of Dealerships.” The Chevrolet/Cadillac, Buick/GMC,
and Nissan facilities lie contiguously within 1000 feet of
each other at the corner of State Highway 80 and Inter-
state Highway 20. The Toyota dealership is situated di-
rectly across the state highway from the Chevro-
let/Cadillac location.
The Employer’s central office is located at the Toyota
dealership, where its President Jerry Durant, Vice Presi-
dent Donald Ray Allen, and Human Resources Manager
Dan Patton, oversee the operations and administration of

1 As indicated below, the term “service employees” includes service
technicians, apprentices, and lube rack technicians.
the business.2 The central office performs accounting,
payroll, billing, and title work for all four dealerships.
Personnel files for all of the dealerships’ employees are
kept at the central Toyota location.
Durant owns virtually all of the stock of the four deal-
erships.3 He is on their premises 4 out of 5 days a week.
Allen handles the day-to-day operations for the facilities.
He also holds mandatory monthly management team
meetings for all managers. Patton is involved in the hir-
ing, firing, and disciplinary processes for employees at
all of the dealerships. He also conducts safety and sexual
harassment training for employees.
The dealerships share one parts facility, where one parts
manager oversees that department’s operation. The four
facilities use one onsite collision center for body shop re-
pair work. Cars to be sold at any of the four dealerships
are initially dropped off at the Nissan facility, washed at a
common car wash, and then delivered to the proper dealer-
ship. The dealerships also share two lot attendants who
are responsible for the vehicles in the lots. There is one
preowned (used) car dealership where all car lines sit on a
common lot. All cars getting state inspections pass
through the Buick/GMC premises, because it is the only
facility that has a special piece of equipment for measuring
emission outputs. In addition, all of the facilities utilize
the same phone system, computer system, employment
applications, and job descriptions.
There is a sales manager and service manager at each
dealership,4 and they report to President Durant and Vice
President Allen. Service managers operate their respec-
tive service centers. They do not have the authority to
hire employees, but conduct the initial interviews with
applicants. If service managers wish to hire an applicant,
they contact Human Resources Manager Patton, who
does a second interview with the prospective applicant
and a background check. Service managers have no au-
thority to terminate or discipline employees, but they can
recommend such action, and Patton, Durant, or Allen
generally accept these recommendations.
Service managers at one dealership do not have the au-
thority to go to another dealership and manage employ-
ees there. When service technicians have a question
concerning their job or job performance, they first go to
their service manager. Service managers from the four
dealerships attend monthly service management meet-
ings with Allen. As noted above, every month Allen

2 Patton’s office is actually located on the Chevrolet/Cadillac prem-
ises.
3 Allen is 10-percent owner of the Buick/GMC and Nissan fran-
chises.
4 The Chevrolet/Cadillac and Buick/GMC dealerships also employ
shop foremen.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD690
conducts an all-managers meeting where, among other
things, the managers go over the monthly expenditures
for each dealership and review each individual depart-
ment’s profit or loss.
Service technicians diagnose and repair cars; lube
technicians change oil and wiper blades; and apprentices
are trainees. Cross-warranty work takes place between
the Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership and the Buick/GMC
dealership. Thus, for example, a Chevrolet technician
may perform repair work on a Buick, and vice-versa.
However, Nissan and Toyota technicians do not work on
any other car lines because of, among other things, the
specialized tools utilized.
All service employees work a standard 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
day. They park their cars in a common employee park-
ing lot, where they take a shuttle bus to their respective
service centers. They also wear uniforms, albeit sepa-
rately designed ones for designated dealerships (i.e., pin-
stripes, short sleeves, etc.). In addition, all service em-
ployees are paid a flat-hour rate based on their ability and
training. All service employees have similar pay, shifts,
and benefits, and receive the same employee handbook,
adhere to the same personnel policies, participate in the
same 401(K) plan, are eligible for the same “SPIF” bo-
nuses,5 and attend sexual harassment/safety training ses-
sions with employees from companion dealerships.
With respect to temporary transfers, Vice President Al-
len testified about one instance where a lube technician
temporarily transferred from the Chevrolet/Cadillac deal-
ership to the Toyota dealership for a period of 3 weeks,
and about two Chevrolet/Cadillac service technicians
who transferred to a neighboring dealership for a period
of 6–7 months in 2000. In addition, Allen provided ex-
amples of service writers (not included in the unit) who
transferred from one dealership to another on various
occasions. Allen also provided examples of a used car
manager at the Toyota dealership who once worked at
the Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership; a used car manager at
the “combined stores” who used to work as a used car
manager at Nissan; a service manager at Nissan who was
a service writer at Toyota; and a finance and insurance
manager at Chevrolet/Cadillac who transferred to Toyota
as the sales manager. According to Allen, permanent
transfers take place one or two times a year. Further-
more, Allen testified of one instance where a Chevrolet
transmission technician asked a GMC technician for ad-
vice on a vehicle.6

5 The record does not explain what “SPIF” stands for, but indicates
that SPIF bonuses could be based on any number of factors, such as if a
technician logged over his required number of work hours.
6 Allen testified that there are occasions where a technician at one
dealership asks a technician at another location for advice on a car.
There is no history of collective bargaining at any of
the four dealerships.
II. ANALYSIS
The Board has long held that a single-facility unit is
presumptively appropriate, unless it has been so effec-
tively merged into a more comprehensive unit, or is so
functionally integrated, that it has lost its separate iden-
tity. J&L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993). The party op-
posing the single-facility unit has the burden of rebutting
its presumptive appropriateness. To determine whether
the single-facility presumption has been rebutted, the
Board examines a number of factors, including: (1) cen-
tral control over daily operations and labor relations,
including the extent of local autonomy; (2) similarity of
employee skills, functions, and working conditions; (3)
the degree of employee interchange; (4) the distance be-
tween the locations; and (5) bargaining history, if any.
Rental Uniform Service, 330 NLRB 334, 335 (1999);
J&L Plate, supra at 429.
In finding the single-facility unit appropriate, the Re-
gional Director relied on the lack of employee inter-
change among the dealerships, and the fact that the ser-
vice managers operated with “some autonomy.” Fur-
thermore, the Regional Director found that while the
adjacency of the dealerships was a factor weighing in
favor of a multifacility unit, its significance was dimin-
ished by the minimal employee interchange. Therefore,
he directed an election in the petitioned-for unit of em-
ployees. We disagree.
We start with a salient factor favoring the multifacility
unit—geography. The four dealerships operate within
extremely close proximity to one another. The Chevro-
let/Cadillac, Buick/GMC, and Nissan facilities are con-
tiguously located at the corner of Highway 80 and I-20,
and the Toyota dealership is directly across from the
Chevrolet/Cadillac building, also on Highway 80. There
are no fences or barriers that separate the three contigu-
ous facilities from one another. Customers can walk
from one dealership to the next. Thus, it is clear that the
petitioned-for dealership here is located within feet of its
companion dealerships that are not the subject of the
petition. Thus, geographic proximity is a factor that
clearly supports a finding that the Employer has rebutted
the single-facility presumption.7

According to Allen, the technicians will ride in the car together to diag-
nose the problem. If a technician at one dealership calls in sick or is
out for the day, Allen stated that it is more common to move the techni-
cian’s car elsewhere for servicing, rather than to bring in a technician
from a neighboring dealership to service the car.
7 AVI Foodsystems, 328 NLRB 426 (1999), relied on by our dissent-
ing colleague, is readily distinguishable. There, the Board found a
single-facility unit of cafeteria workers appropriate, excluding employ-
JERRY’S CHEVROLET, CADILLAC 691
The cohesiveness of the dealerships is also reflected in
other factors, such as the highly integrated and adminis-
tratively centralized nature, and the functional integra-
tion, of the Employer’s operations, including common
advertising. All accounting, billing, and title functions
take place at the central office at the Toyota dealership.
All dealerships share a common parts facility, car wash,
collision center, new car dropoff location, state inspec-
tion device, and phone/computer system.8 Chevro-
let/Cadillac service employees occasionally work on
Buick/GMC car lines, and vice-versa. Employees share
uniform wages and benefits, and also use a common em-
ployee parking lot. Furthermore, personnel matters are
centralized, inasmuch as ultimate responsibility for hire,
discharge, and discipline rests with Durant, Allen, or
Patton.
Moreover, we find, contrary to the dissent, that the in-
dividual service manager’s authority with respect to la-
bor relations evinces only minimal local autonomy.
While the local service managers possess authority over
some day-to-day matters of the service centers they man-
age, they lack substantial autonomy over labor relations
and personnel policies and procedures. All policies re-
garding wages, hours, and terms and conditions of em-
ployment, as well as personnel rules, are uniform
throughout the four dealerships. While service managers
conduct initial screenings for applicants, final authority
with respect to hiring rests with Patton, who conducts a
second interview and a background check on the appli-
cant. Furthermore, service managers can only recom-
mend discipline and/or discharge—final authority on
these issues rests with upper management. Thus, we find
that control of labor relations is centralized under the
authority of Durant, Allen, and Patton.9

ees who worked at a cafeteria about a mile away on the same campus,
because of the substantial local autonomy exhibited by cafeteria man-
agers and the lack of employee interchange. The cafeteria managers
there had overall financial and operational responsibility for the cafete-
ria; determined the level of staffing and whether overtime was neces-
sary; evaluated employees semiannually and recommended wage in-
creases; and resolved employee complaints. This significant autonomy,
coupled with the lack of employee interchange, outweighed any factors
that militated towards a multifacility finding. Here, by contrast, there is
no evidence that service managers have similar responsibilities. Fur-
ther, the facilities here are mostly contiguous, unlike the separated
facilities in AVI Foodsystems, supra.
8 The dissent faults our reliance on the fact that the dealerships share
a common dropoff location. The common dropoff location is merely
one example of several that provides us with insight into the highly
integrated nature of the Employer’s business. There are several addi-
tional examples, such as the shared collision center, phone/computer
system, car wash, and state inspection device, which the dissent does
not dispute as evidencing high functional integration.
9 Our dissenting colleague cites New Britain Transportation Co., 330
NLRB 397, 397–398 (1999), to support her finding that the service
Furthermore, there is no dispute that the service em-
ployees at all four dealerships share similar wages, vaca-
tion benefits, holidays, and retirement. They also per-
form identical functions at their respective dealerships,
albeit on separate car lines, and with tools made specifi-
cally for those car lines. Thus, while the petitioned-for
Chevrolet/Cadillac service technicians utilize the skills of
their trade, so do technicians from their sister locations.
Thus, there is little distinction between the Chevro-
let/Cadillac technicians when compared to the
Buick/GMC, Nissan, and Toyota technicians. In addi-
tion, the petitioned-for employees receive the same em-
ployee handbook, adhere to the same personnel policies,
and attend sexual harassment/safety training sessions
with employees from companion dealerships.
We recognize that the service employees work in sepa-
rate buildings under their respective service center man-
agers. We also acknowledge that, despite the close geog-
raphy of the four dealerships, there is little employee
interchange.10 We find, however, that these factors are
overcome by the close proximity of the dealerships, the
centralization of labor relations, the high functional inte-
gration of the dealerships, and the similarity of skills,
pay, and job functions at all locations.
Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, that the only appropriate unit must include service
employees employed at all four of the Employer’s Hud-
son Oaks dealerships. Because the Petitioner has not
indicated a willingness to proceed to an election in the
broader unit found appropriate, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
MEMBER LIEBMAN, dissenting.
The Regional Director correctly decided that the Em-
ployer failed to rebut the presumptive appropriateness of
the petitioned-for, single-facility unit of automotive ser-
vice technicians at its Chevrolet/Cadillac car dealership.
In finding to the contrary, the majority exaggerates the

manager’s authority may not be dismissed as routine or insubstantial.
However, inasmuch as the service managers are supervisors, we do not
suggest that their authority is routine or insubstantial. However, their
authority is far less than that shown in New Britain. In New Britain,
supra, the dispatchers determined the need for and made decisions
regarding employee schedules and assignments, including temporary
transfers. Additionally, they approved time off, short-term vacation,
and sick leave, and also addressed minor disciplinary problems and
carried out the formal discipline. Here, the service managers lack simi-
lar authority.
10 The interchange between the four service centers is not regular or
substantial. The primary interaction between employees of the four
dealerships takes place at social events or on the shuttle bus that trans-
ports employees to and from the employee parking lot.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD692
significance of certain factors, particularly the geo-
graphic proximity of the dealerships. And it unduly
minimizes the significance of other factors, such as the
lack of interchange, differences in skills and duties, and
significant local autonomy, which support the Regional
Director’s finding that the Employer has not met its
heavy burden of rebutting the presumption that the tech-
nicians at this single facility constitute an appropriate
unit. Accordingly, I dissent.
The applicable law is settled. A single facility is pre-
sumptively appropriate. The party opposing such a unit
bears a heavy burden of establishing that the unit has
been so effectively merged into a more comprehensive
unit, or is so functionally integrated, that it has lost its
separate identity. The Board examines: (1) central con-
trol over daily operations and labor relations, including
the extent of local autonomy; (2) similarity of employee
skills, functions, and working conditions; (3) the degree
of employee interchange; (4) the distance between the
locations; and (5) bargaining history, if any. J&L Plate,
310 NLRB 429 (1993). The majority correctly recites
these factors, but errs in applying them.
(1) Central control over operations and labor relations
The Employer’s daily operations and labor relations
are centralized and integrated to a degree. However, it is
settled that centralization of operations and labor rela-
tions alone is insufficient to rebut the presumptive ap-
propriateness of a single-facility unit where there is evi-
dence of significant local autonomy. See New Britain
Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999). Here, the
majority has both overestimated the degree of centraliza-
tion and integration of the Employer’s operations and
underestimated the degree of local autonomy at the
Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership’s service department.
The majority observes that the Employer’s central of-
fice performs payroll functions for all four dealerships.
However, as the Regional Director found, each dealer-
ship has its own office manager stationed within the cen-
tral office. Each office manager performs the payroll
only for his dealership. If a Chevrolet/Cadillac techni-
cian has a payroll issue, he must contact the dealership’s
office manager. The office managers also process new
employee paperwork and benefits enrollment for their
respective dealerships. Each employee’s paycheck bears
a dealership-specific insignia.
The majority also points out that the Employer’s deal-
erships share one parts facility, which is run by a single
parts manager. But the Regional Director further found
that each dealership houses its own parts department
counter, which is staffed by a parts counter person. In
addition, the Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership, alone, em-
ploys an assistant parts manager.
Similarly, the majority erroneously relies on evidence
that the Employer’s dealerships share a common dropoff
location for new cars coming from the manufacturer.
The petitioned-for employees are service technicians, not
new car salesmen. Accordingly, the more significant fact
is that customers needing service work bring their cars
directly to the service drive of a specific dealership. A
service writer at the dealership obtains the necessary in-
formation from the customer and then a dispatcher at the
dealership dispatches the job to a technician at the deal-
ership.
These examples show that the Employer’s operations
are not as highly centralized and integrated as the major-
ity suggests. At the same time, the majority has unduly
discounted the degree of local autonomy at the Chevro-
let/Cadillac dealership.
Each dealership has its own service manager, who su-
pervises the service technicians at the dealership. The
majority dismisses the service managers’ authority as
limited to “routine day-to-day operations” and lacking
“substantial autonomy.” However, the Regional Director
found that Chevrolet/Cadillac Service Manager Charlie
Pace is a statutory supervisor, and the Employer has not
challenged this finding. By definition, then, Pace’s au-
thority may not be dismissed as routine or insubstantial.
See Section 2(11) of the Act; see also New Britain
Transportation Co., supra at 398 (finding that em-
ployer’s characterization of local managers as “supervi-
sors” and “in charge” was a “significant indicator of their
responsibility”).
In any event, the record fully supports the Regional
Director’s finding that the service managers’ activities
demonstrate significant local autonomy. The service
managers participate in hiring and evaluating technicians,
and effectively recommend discipline and discharge of
technicians. This authority evinces significant local
autonomy even though the Employer’s higher-ranking
management officials retain final authority over such
matters. See Rental Uniform Service, 330 NLRB 334,
335–336 (1999); Executive Resources Associates, 301
NLRB 400, 402 (1991); see also Renzetti’s Market, 238
NLRB 174, 175–176 (1978) (emphasizing local supervi-
sion).
(2) Similarity of skills, functions, and
working conditions
The majority’s finding that there is “little distinction”
between the technicians at the Employer’s respective
dealerships is also problematic. Generally speaking, the
technicians are all engaged in automotive service work,
but they are not interchangeable. The technicians at each
dealership work on vehicles made by different manufac-
turers; they complete manufacturer-specific training, and
JERRY’S CHEVROLET, CADILLAC 693
each technician owns a personal set of tools, which may
be manufacturer specific as well. Moreover, as discussed
below, the Employer in fact does not regularly inter-
change technicians between different dealerships. See
Rental Uniform Service, supra at 336 (1999) (unit em-
ployees maintained separate identity, despite similarity
of skills, pay, and job function with other employees,
where there was no interchange or interaction between
the groups). Further, the technicians are separately su-
pervised,1 they receive their work assignments from dis-
patchers at their respective dealerships, they report for
work and clock-in at their respective dealerships, and
they wear distinct uniforms. In sum, although the tech-
nicians are all performing the same general work, the
Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership technicians remain easily
identifiable as a separate contingent of employees.
(3) Interchange and interaction
As indicated, there is little evidence of interchange and
interaction between the technicians at the Employer’s
dealerships, a circumstance conceded but minimized by
the majority. Lack of significant employee interchange
between groups of employees is actually a “strong indi-
cator” that employees enjoy a separate community of
interest. Executive Resources Associates, 301 NLRB
400, 401 (1991).
In addition to a lack of interchange, the Chevro-
let/Cadillac technicians are not even in regular contact
with the technicians at the other dealerships during the
workday. As the majority points out, the Employer’s
dealerships share phone and computer systems. How-
ever, the Regional Director specifically found that the
technicians do not engage in daily work-related interac-
tion by phone or electronic mail.
(4) Geographic proximity
Given the lack of interchange and interaction, the ma-
jority has vastly overemphasized the geographic prox-
imity of the Employer’s dealerships. The Board does not
place great emphasis on geography, particularly where

1 The service manager at each dealership has no authority to super-
vise technicians at other dealerships.
there is separate local supervision and an absence of in-
terchange. For instance, in AVI Foodsystems, 328 NLRB
426 (1999), the Board found appropriate a single-facility
unit of cafeteria workers located on the employer’s cam-
pus, excluding cafeteria workers at a restaurant on the
same campus, observing that “each operation [was] lo-
cated in a separate building with a significant degree of
autonomy.” Id. at 429. See also, e.g., Gordon Mills, 145
NLRB 771 (1963) (finding single-facility unit of produc-
tion employees appropriate, excluding similar employees
located 500 feet away in a separate building, given local
autonomy and a lack of interchange and bargaining his-
tory). Similarly, the geographic proximity of the Em-
ployer’s dealerships carries less weight because the tech-
nicians work for separate dealerships, housed in separate
buildings, under separate supervisors, and without regu-
lar interchange or interaction with one another.
(5) Absence of bargaining history
Finally, the majority acknowledges that there is no his-
tory of bargaining at the Employer’s dealerships, but
then ignores this fact in its analysis. Our cases, however,
establish that the absence of a bargaining history weighs
in favor of the single-facility presumption where, as here,
no union seeks to represent the employees on a broader
basis. See New Britain Transportation Co., supra at 398.
Conclusion
In sum, the record as a whole supports the Regional
Director’s finding that the Employer failed to establish
that the Chevrolet/Cadillac technicians lack a separate
identity from the technicians at the Employer’s other
dealerships. The evidence of substantial autonomy, dif-
ferences in skills and duties, and lack of interchange,
clearly outweighs other factors which might suggest that
the Employer has met its burden of rebutting the single-
facility presumption in this case. Arguably, a unit cover-
ing the technicians at all four of the Employer’s dealer-
ships would constitute an appropriate unit as well. That
possibility, however, does not alter the fact that the peti-
tioned-for single-facility unit of technicians is an appro-
priate unit in this case.