Key Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Key Motors Corp. and Local 215, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 25-CA-
8174
September 20, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 7, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Key Motors
Corp., Evansville, Indiana, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Evansville, Indiana, on February 10,
1977, pursuant to a charge filed on August 13, 1976,1 by
Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein referred to
as the Union), and a complaint issued on September 29.
The complaint alleges that Key Motors Corp. (herein
referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
referred to as the Act), by refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
All dates referred to are in 1976 unless otherwise stated.
2 Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby
granted.
3 The Charging Party did not submit a bnef.
232 NLRB No. 146
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit by
canceling a scheduled bargaining meeting and withdrawing
recognition from the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of those employees in the unit
and by thereafter failing and refusing to meet and/or
bargain with the Union, notwithstanding the Union was
the designated representative of the employees and that
Respondent had executed a Board settlement agreement
requiring it to bargain with the Union.
Respondent, in its answer filed on October 12, denies
having violated the Act. Its asserted defenses for withdraw-
ing recognition were that it had a good-faith doubt of the
Union's majority status and that a reasonable time for
bargaining had elapsed.
The issues involved are whether Respondent, by with-
drawing recognition from and refusing to recognize and
bargain with the Union, violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record2 in this case and from my
observations of the witnesses and after due consideration
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respon-
dent,3 I hereby make the following: 4
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, an Indiana corporation with its principal
office and place of business located at Evansville, Indiana,
is engaged in the business of the retail sale, service, and
distribution of automobiles and related products. During
the 12-month period preceding September 29, 1976, a
representative period, Respondent's gross volume of
business exceeded $500,000 and it received goods valued in
excess of $50,000 at its Evansville facility directly from
States located outside the State of Indiana.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and the Bargaining Unit
Respondent, with its principal office and place of
business located at Evansville, Indiana, is engaged in the
business of the retail sale, service, and distribution of
automobiles and related products. Its president is D.
Patrick O'Daniel. 5
Since about 1964, the Union has been the collective-
bargaining representative of and has had successive
collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent cover-
ing the employees in the following bargaining unit:
4 Unless otherwise indicated, the findings are based on pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit.
5 President O'Daniel is a supervisor under the Act.
214
KEY MOTORS CORP.
All mechanics, bodymen, and painters, and their
apprentices, all used-car and predelivery mechanics, all
partsmen and their apprentices, and all general labor-
ers, including all greasemen, runners, porters, car-
washers, and used-car lot men employed by Respon-
dent at its facility, exclusive of all office clerical
employees, all salesmen, all professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 6
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the parties expired on April 30, 1975. Negotiations
for a new agreement began about the latter part of March
1975 and continued through January 26, at which time
approximately 35 issues still remained unresolved. On May
1, 1975, following an impasse in negotiations, Respondent
implemented its final offer which was made to the Union
on April 30, 1975, and rejected, and the employees
thereafter worked without an agreement. Although both
sides continued to present proposals, there was little, if any,
change in their positions subsequent to Respondent's final
offer.
On June 17, 1975, the employees went out on strike.
The Union filed a charge against Respondent in Case
25-CA-7651 on January 1, which was amended on
January 23, and, on March 8, it filed another charge
against Respondent in Case 25-CA-7651-2.
On March 17 and April 14, the General Counsel issued
complaints against Respondent in those cases alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act7 by
unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning the
Union; suggested the employees file a petition to decertify
the Union; ordered its employees to remain in Respon-
dent's employ and vote against the Union in an upcoming
Board election and threatened employees with unspecified
reprisals if they refused; assisted the decertification efforts
of employees; promised employees they would not be
terminated if they refrained from becoming or remaining
union members or assisting or supporting it or if they filed
a petition to decertify the Union; offered and promised
employees wage increases to refrain from becoming or
remaining union members or assisting or supporting it or if
they voted the Union out, or in order to induce them to do
so; permitted antiunion employees to remain in Respon-
dent's employment in order to permit them to vote in the
Board election; discriminatorily discharged John Denham
and denied him reinstatement to prevent him from voting
in the Board election and because of his union and
concerted activities; and that the strike was prolonged by
Respondent's unfair labor practices.
On May 14, the Regional Director for Region 25
approved an informal settlement agreement between
Respondent and the Union 8 in Cases 25-CA-7651 and 25-
CA-7651-2 which provided, inter alia, that Respondent
would, upon request, bargain with the Union. Contempo-
raneously with the execution of the Board's informal
settlement agreement, Respondent and the Union entered
into a settlement agreement between themselves providing,
inter alia, that the Union would call off its strike against
I The unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act.
7 There was no violation of Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act alleged.
" The settlement agreement contained a nonadmission clause.
Respondent; strikers making unconditional applications
for reinstatement would be placed on a preferential hiring
list and be recalled as positions became available; the
decertification petition in Case 25-RD-455 would be
handled in accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended; 9
they would enter into a stipulation for an entry of dismissal
with prejudice of an action pending in the Vanderburgh
superior court and execute mutual releases; they would
execute the Board's informal settlement agreement in
Cases 25-CA-7651 and 25-CA-7651-2; and that the
parties would engage in bargaining for a collective-bargain-
ing agreement.
B. Respondent's Withdrawal of Recognition from the
Union and the Refiusal To Bargain
Following the execution of the settlement agreements,
the Union, by letter dated May 20, requested Respondent
for a meeting to begin negotiations for a collective-
bargaining agreement. Respondent replied, by letter dated
May 29, and suggested because of certain reasons that they
schedule the meeting after the third week in June, which
would also enable both parties to have time to study past
events and to develop proposals. Thereafter, the parties
subsequently reached a mutual agreement to meet on June
17 at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
office.
The negotiation meeting was held on June 17 as
scheduled. Acting as chief spokesmen were Attorney
Arthur Rutkowski for Respondent and Attorney Gary
Gerling for the Union.10 Both individuals had approved
the settlement agreements discussed supra. Neither Re-
spondent nor the Union submitted any proposals at this
meeting although they did agree that all the items in
dispute were either open or on the table. After the meeting
opened, Gerling indicated while he was representing the
Union, he did not know for how long since they could
terminate him. Rutkowski then mentioned that in any
further negotiations they would have to consider the
permanent replacements, who basically comprised the
entire work force, because they were adamant against
belonging to or being represented by any union, particular-
ly the Teamsters Union, because of picket line harassment.
When Gerling later suggested the Union's obligation was
to represent and negotiate for all the employees and
questioned Respondent's legal obligation to represent
them, Rutkowski's response was as an employer they had
the obligation to their employees and would negotiate,
taking into consideration what the employees wanted.
Gerling, who had not previously participated in the
negotiations and indicated later during the meeting he was
not very familiar with contract negotiations, raised such
questions as the status of the negotiations; when the last
session was held; what Respondent was paying the
employees; whether they had always paid them an hourly
wage rate; and whether there was a pension plan in the old
contract. Rutkowski responded to Gerling's questions by
9 A withdrawal request in Case 25-RD-455 was filed by Michael
Andrews on May I I and contained an attached list of 18 names.
'° The Union's chief spokesman up until May 1 I had been D. Kluemper.
215
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informing him the last negotiation meeting was held on
January 26; they were paying employees based on
Respondent's final offer implemented on April 30, 1975,
and were then implementing the second year salaries; that
the employees had originally been paid on a 50-50 plan
about 1972; and that while the Teamsters pension plan was
in the old contract, Respondent felt the NADA " plan they
had proposed to the employees was better and they had
made an allowance and would pay into the Teamsters plan
for those employees retiring under the next contract.
Rutkowski agreed, pursuant to Gerling's request, to
furnish him with the actual NADA plan rather than a copy
which Rutkowski indicated the Union already had.
When Cecil Houchins, who was one of the employees
listed on the preferential hiring list, entered the meeting
late, Gerling brought him up to date on the meeting.
Houchins, upon being asked by Gerling whether there was
anything further that should be discussed, mentioned they
had not been paid for their last year's vacations whereupon
Rutkowski replied some employees were paid but others
were not because they had not fulfilled a 60-percent work
requirement because of the strike. The meeting, at which
there was also some discussion regarding the settlement
agreements and rehiring certain strikers, lasted from
approximately 10 to 11:15 a.m., with the parties mutually
agreeing to meet again at 2 p.m. on June 30 at the same
place. Houchins also mentioned the only thing he knew
about the meeting was through the grapevine, stating he
had called the Union's office and he and other people
could not find out anything about it.
On June 28, President O'Daniel found a petition
containing the names of 17 employees on his desk
captioned "We the undersigned mechanics have decided to
not have the union as our bargaining agent. This includes
partsman & cleanup." The next day O'Daniel found
another petition containing the names of five employees on
his desk captioned "We the undersigned employees of Key
Ford who work in either the body shop, mechanics, parts,
or cleanup have decided to not have the union as our
bargaining agent."
Among this group of 22 names of employees on the
petitions, the names of 17 of them were attached to the
withdrawal request in Case 25-RC-455 and the remaining
name attached to the withdrawal request was illegible.
During the period June 28-30, Respondent actively
employed 28 employees in the bargaining unit and the
names of 9 other employees were included on the May 11
preferential hiring list resulting from the settlement
agreements.
President O'Daniel,' 2 after receiving the two petitions,
consulted with Attorney Rutkowski who advised him, after
the signatures on the petitions had been compared with
employees' signatures on the W-4 withholding forms and
appeard to O'Daniel to be identical,13 that based on the
petitions a majority of the employees in the unit did not
want the Union to represent them and that Respondent
could be charged with an unfair labor practice for
bargaining with a minority union and recommended that
'1 NADA refers to "National Association of Automobile Dealers."
12 President O'Daniel had also participated in the settlement agreements
discussed supra.
Respondent withdraw recognition from the Union. Ac-
cording to O'Daniel, his decision to withdraw recognition
was based solely on the advice of counsel.
On the evening of June 29, Attorney Rutkowski
contacted Attorney Gerling by telephone and informed
him Respondent was withdrawing recognition from the
Union and they would no longer bargain and negotiate
with the Union.
On June 30, Attorney Rutkowski, accompanied by an
associate, Attorney Frank Hahn, met with Attorney
Gerling at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
office, at which time Rutkowski handed Gerling the
following statement which he also read to him:
THE COMPANY IS WITHDRAWING RECOGNITION FROM
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 215, AS WE HAVE OBJECTIVE FACTS
WHICH SHOW THAT A MAJORITY OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN
THE UNIT INVOLVED DO NOT WANT YOUR UNION TO
REPRESENT THEM.
THE COMPANY CANNOT BARGAIN WITH YOU AT THIS TIME,
AS IT COULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND
ILLEGAL FOR US TO BARGAIN WITH YOU, NAMELY, A
MINORITY UNION.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)( 1) and (5) of the Act by withdrawing
recognition from and refusing to bargain collectively with
the Union as the bargaining representative of the unit
employees following the execution of the Board settlement
agreement. Respondent denies having violated the Act and
asserts its defenses for withdrawing recognition were
because it had a good-faith doubt, based on petitions
received from its employees, that the Union no longer
represented the employees and, in addition, that a
reasonable time for bargaining had elapsed.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
while Section 8(a)(5) of the Act prohibits an employer from
refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of
its employees.
The law is well settled that where an employer enters into
a settlement agreement requiring it to bargain with a union,
the employer is obligated to continue bargaining for a
reasonable time after the execution of the agreement
without questioning the representative status of the union,
even if the employer has a good-faith doubt as to such
status. See Yellow Front Stores d/b/a Sel-Low Discount, 205
NLRB 449 (1973); Stant Lithograph, Inc., 131 NLRB 7
(1961), enfd. 297 F.2d 782 (C.A. D.C., 1961); and Poole
Foundry and Machine Company, 95 NLRB 34 (1951), enfd.
192 F.2d 740 (C.A. 4), cert. denied 342. U.S. 954. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in
enforcing the Board's decision in the Poole case, observed
"If a settlement agreement is to have real force, it would
seem that a reasonable time must be afforded in which a
13 None of the employees whose names appeared on the petitions were
called as witnesses to identify their signatures.
216
KEY MOTORS CORP.
status fixed by the agreement is to operate. Otherwise,
settlement agreements might indeed have little practical
effect as an amicable and judicious means to expeditious
disposal of disputes arising under the terms of the Act."
The findings supra establish that the Union has repre-
sented Respondent's employees since about 1964 and has
had successive collective-bargaining agreements covering
them. Even though the last agreement had expired, a
rebuttable presumption exists of its continuing majority
status. See Bartenders, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employ-
er Bargaining Association of Pocatello, Idaho and its
Employer-Members, 213 NLRB 651 (1974). Not only did
Respondent fail to rebut this presumption but acknowl-
edged through execution of the Board's settlement agree-
ment its obligation to bargain with the Union and it
continued recognizing the Union up until June 29.
The findings supra further establish that after Respon-
dent had executed an informal settlement agreement
approved by the Board on May 14, disposing of the
outstanding charges and complaints against it and notwith-
standing that it was required by the settlement agreement
to bargain with the Union, Respondent, after only one
negotiation meeting, withdrew recognition from and
refused to bargain with the Union about June 29 on the
grounds it had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status because of two petitions it had received from a
majority of the employees indicating they no longer wanted
to be represented by the Union.
Applying those legal principles enumerated supra relat-
ing to the effect of settlement agreements to the findings in
the instant case, I am persuaded and find that Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union for a reasonable time in
which to conclude a collective-bargaining agreement after
the execution of the Board's settlement agreement and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In
rejecting Respondent's defenses, Respondent could not
properly question the Union's majority status at that time
because of the settlement agreement nor can it reasonably
be argued that holding only one negotiation meeting
lasting about an hour in which neither side presented any
proposals between the date of the execution of the
settlement agreement and the withdrawal of recognition
constitutes a "reasonable time," especially when the parties
had arranged for the next negotiation meeting. Respon-
dent's contention, contrary to the General Counsel's
position, that the holding in the Poole case is inapplicable
because Respondent had never been charged with a refusal
to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act is not
persuasive since such argument tends to ignore the very
terms of the Board's settlement agreement which Respon-
dent entered into whereby it agreed to bargain with the
Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent, de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Key Motors Corp. is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All mechanics, bodymen, and painters, and their
apprentices; all used-car and predelivery mechanics, all
partsmen and their apprentices; and all general laborers,
including all greasemen, runners, porters, car-washers and
used-car lot men employed by Respondent at its facility,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, all salesmen, all
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been and
is now the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective-bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy Respondent's unlawful withdrawal of recog-
nition from and refusal to bargain with the Union, I shall
recommend that Respondent recognize the Union and,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
217
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER 14
The Respondent, Key Motors Corp., Evansville, Indiana,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment:
All mechanics, bodymen, and painters, and their
apprentices; all used-car and predelivery mechanics, all
partsmen, and their apprentices; and all general
laborers, including all greasemen, runners, porters, car-
washers, and used-car lot men employed by Respon-
dent at its facility, exclusive of all office clerical
employees, all salesmen, all professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively
with Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the terms of each understand-
ing in a written, signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility located at Evansville, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1
Copies of said notices, on forms furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 25, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative; be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not specifically found herein.
lo In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
s1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NoXncE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively with Local 215, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
our employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights of self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(aX3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain with
Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in
the bargaining unit described below with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All mechanics, bodymen, and painters, and their
apprentices; all used-car and predelivery mechan-
ics, all partsmen, and their apprentices; and all
general laborers, including all greasemen, run-
ners, porters, car-washers, and used-car lot men
employed by Respondent at its facility, exclusive
of all office clerical employees, all salesmen, all
professional employees, guards, and all supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
KEY MOTORS CORP.
218