L. C. Beauchamp

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 23 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of L. C. BEAUCHAMP, AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A L. C. BEAU-
CHAMP, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE No. 1853, PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WATTS MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1853, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 00-RC-605 and 30-RC-606-Decided November 14, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was
held before Eugene K. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, Chico Automobile Dealers
Association, hereinafter referred to as the Association, requested and
was granted permission to intervene. The Employer's motion to dis-
miss the petitions on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction is
denied for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
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
Houston and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. L. C. Beauchamp, a franchised Kaiser-Frazer automobile dealer,
whose place of business is at Chico, California, is engaged in the sale
and service of Kaiser-Frazer automobiles. During the 18-month
period ending June 30, 1949, Beauchamp made purchases amounting
to $227,273. Of this amount, $121,727 was for new automobiles manu-
factured outside the State of California, shipped to a regional dis-
tributor at Emeryville, California, and obtained by Beauchamp from
the latter; $15,100 was for automobile parts manufactured outside the
State of California but shipped to and purchased from the regional
distributor at Emeryville; and $70,846 was for used cars and service,
purchased wholly within the State of California. The record does not
disclose the volume of sales made during this period, but all sales were
made locally within the State of California.
87 NLRB No. 4.
2a
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Watts Motor Company, a partnership composed of B. E. Smith and
J. Watts, a franchised Nash automobile dealer, whose place of business
is at Chico, California, is engaged in the sale and service of Nash auto-
mobiles. During the 11-month period ending June 30, 1949, Watt's
Motor Company made purchases amounting to approximately $133,-
690, of which $78,877 was for new automobiles manufactured outside
the State of California, some of which were also assembled outside the
State, but all of which were obtained by Watts Motor Company from
the zone distributor at San Francisco; $13,369 was for parts manufac-
tured outside the State of California but purchased from the zone
distributor within the State. The record does not disclose the volume
of sales made during the foregoing period, but all sales were made
locally within the State of California.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employers, that each is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act?
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of each of the Employers.2
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
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 units :
The Petitioner seeks separate units consisting, of garage mechanics,
apprentices, and helpers, employed in the repair shop of each of the
Employers. The Employers and the Association agree as to the pro-
posed inclusions. The parties also agree that all office clericals, sales-
men, parts men, guards, and supervisors are to be excluded from the
units.
However, the Employers and the Association contend that individual
employer units are inappropriate. They assert that, because the sev-
eral members of the Association, including the instant Employers,
have delegated full authority to the Association to carry on all of
their labor relations and because the Association, in the past, acting
through its labor committee, had undertaken certain action involving
the working conditions of its members'employees, collective bargaining
must be conducted through the Association on a multiple-employer
basis.
1 Wm. J. Silva Company, 85 NLRB 573; Scott Motor Company, et al., 84 NLRB 129;
Harry's Cadillac-Pontiac Company, Incorporated, at at., 81 NLRB 1 ; Midtown Motors,
et at., 80 NLRB 1679; Adams Motor, Inc., 80 NLRB 1518.
2 The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that they failed to recite
that the Petitioner had requested , and been denied , recognition . However, the record
discloses that recognition had been requested from each of the Employers , and denied.
Further , the Employers refused to recognize the Petitioner at the hearing. The Employers'
motion is denied. Trueman Fertilizer Company, 81 NLRB 72; Advance Pattern Company,
80 NLRB 29.
L. C. BEAUCHAMP 25
The Association was incorporated in 1923. In 1940, the members of
the Association signed an instrument whereby they agreed that they
would not, individually, execute any labor agreements. In 1945, the
members of the Association executed a new agreement wherein it was
agreed that no member would bargain with any union representatives,
but would refer all questions of collective bargaining to the labor
committee of the Association. The Employers involved herein signed
the latter agreement at the time they entered into business. At the
present time, all automobile dealers in Chico having repair shops are
members of the Association.
The record discloses that each of the Association's members has
adhered to the agreement, and has referred all requests for bargaining
to the Association. However, on only one occasion has the Association
received a request to bargain on an association-wide basis. The
Association refused. In 1.947, the Association made a survey of the
wages being paid by its several members and recommended that a
uniform wage scale be adopted by all of the members.
The above-described activity by the Association and its several mem-
bers fails to constitute such collective bargaining as will establish a
multiple-employer unit as the appropriate bargaining unit .3 Inas-
much as there is no controlling collective bargaining history on a
multi-employer basis, we find that the single-employer units sought
by the Petitioner are appropriate.
We find that the following constitute units appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act :
(a) All automotive servicemen employed by L. C. Beauchamp,
Chico, California, including mechanics, helpers, and lube and storage
men, but excluding parts men, office clericals, salesmen, professional
employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
(b) All automotive servicemen employed by Watts Motor Company,
Chico, California, including mechanics, helpers, and rack men, but
excluding parts men, office clericals, salesmen, professional employees,
and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with L. C. Beauchamp and Watts
Motor Company, respectively, separate 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 supervision of the
Scott Motor Company, et al., supra, and cases therein cited.
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, 'and subject to Sections
203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu=
lations, among the employees in the units described in paragraph
numbered 4 , above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction , 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 reinstated prior to the date of the elections , and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented , for purposes of
collective bargaining, by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge No. 1853.