Lownsbury Chevrolet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1752 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production processes, operations at the plant have been confined to
training activities and to limited production of one type of paper cup
in the course of the training program.
It appears that 60 out of a proposed complement of 170 employees in
the unit sought are now employed at the plant. Of the 60 present enl-
ployees, 11 were recruited from various plants of the parent company
to train Anaheim personnel, with the understanding that when the
training phase was concluded they could return to their original
places of work. Some of these 11 individuals, who apparently possess
supervisory authority in their regular positions, are temporarily en-
gaged in production work at the Anaheim plant. Other personnel at
the Anaheim plant perform dual functions in different job classifica-
tions, some of which would be included in the requested unit while
others would not. It further appears that only 18 of the proposed 32
job classifications are currently filled, that 37 of the anticipated 150
machine shifts are in operation, that 2 of the contemplated 3 shifts
are now staffed, and that no appreciable expansion in personnel or
production will be made until the remainder of the machinery is
received.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we conclude
that the petition herein was prematurely filed, as the present number
of employees in the proposed unit is not representative of the group
which will ultimately be employed. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.2
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBER HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 85 NLRB 1519.
LOWNSBtRY CHEVROLET COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 19, AFL, PETITIONER. Cabe No. 8-RC-
1802. December 31,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edward A. Grupp, hearing
101 NLRB No. 243.
LOWNSBURY CHEVROLET COMPANY 1753
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act 2
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 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of salesmen of the Employer. The
Employer contends that a unit of all salesmen employed by the mem-
bers of the Toledo Automobile Dealers Association is alone
appropriate.
The Employer is a member of the Association, which since 1934 has
bargained jointly with the International Association of Machinists
as the representative of the mechanics employed by its members,
including the Employer, and since 1946 has bargained jointly with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as the representative of
other shop employees of its members. Also, in 1937 and 1941 the
Association negotiated 1-year "members-only" contracts, which were
not renewed, with the United Automobile Workers, CIO, and the
Toledo Automobile Salesmen's Union, Local 803, AFL, respectively,
covering the salesmen of the Association's members, including the
Employer. All contracts resulting from the foregoing negotiations
have since 1934 been uniformly adopted by the members of the Asso-
ciation. We do not deem the foregoing pattern of multiemployer
bargaining for the Employer's mechanics and other shop employees
to preclude a finding that the unit of salesmen sought herein is appro-
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's 'motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the statement therein that the Petitioner had demanded recognition was
incorrect . However , as no such demand prior to the filing of the petition is necessary to
raise a question concerning representation , any misstatement on that point in the petition
could not affect its validity . The motion is therefore denied. See Advance Pattern
Company, 80 NLRB 29.
2 The record shows that the Employer , located in Toledo, Ohio , is an automobile dealer,
with a franchise from the General Motors Corporation in Detroit , Michigan , and that it
annually receives out-of-State shipments valued in excess of $500,000 . We find , contrary
to the Employer 's contention , that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case . Federal Dairy, Inc.,
91 NLRB 638; Conover Motor Company , 93 NLRB 867.
1754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate.3 Nor does the remote and sporadic history of multiemployer
bargaining for the salesmen on a members-only basis render the unit
sought inappropriate. Accordingly we find that all salesmen 4 of
the Employer, excluding all other employees, guards, and super-
visors 5 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 101 NLRB 101 ; Miller & Miller Motor Freight
Lines, 101 NLRB 581.
4 The Employer has one "service salesman " whom the Petitioner would exclude from
the unit. The Employer takes no position . Although this employee is primarily employed
in the service department, where he sells repair jobs to the Employer's customers , he also
occasionally negotiates the sale of a car or truck . Like the other salesmen, he is paid, at
least in part , on a commission basis. Under these circumstances , and in view of the fact
that he would otherwise be unrepresented , we shall include him in the unit . See New York
Steam Laundry, Inc., 80 NLRB 1597, 1599.
5 The record shows that the sales leader , whom the Petitioner would exclude, can effec-
tively recommend the hiring and firing of salesmen . We find that he is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude him from the unit.
JACK COOPER TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 778, A. F. L., AND
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AUTOMOTIVE PETROLEUM AND
ALLIED INDUSTRIES, LOCAL No. 552, A. F. L., JOINTLY. Case No.
17 RM-66. December 31,196$
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Margaret L. Fassig, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
101 NLRB No. 231.