Lundahl Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 224 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of LUNDAHL MOTORS, INC., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS (IND.) LOCAL No. 1712,
PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-312.-Decided July 15, 1949
DECISION
AN D
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert E. Till-
man, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 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 Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, an Idaho corporation, with its place of business
in Idaho Falls, Idaho, operates a sales and service agency for Lincoln
and Mercury automobiles under a franchise granted by Ford Motor
Company. During the year 1948, the Employer purchased new auto-
mobiles, parts, and accessories valued at approximately $100,000, all
of which were shipped from points without the State of Idaho: Dur-
ing the same period, the Employer made sales of new cars valued at
approximately $200,000 of which approximately 4 percent was sold
to customers located outside the State of Idaho.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees 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.
IMatter of Johns Brothers , Inc., et al ., 84 N. L. R. B. 294 ; Matter of Bell-Wyman
:Company, 79 N. L. R. B . 1424; Matter of LiddonWhite Truck Company, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B.
:1186.
85 N. L. R..B.,.No. 40.
224
LUNDAHL MOTORS, INC. 225
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit including mechanics, body and fender
men, painters, washers, greasers, apprentices, parts men, helpers, and
their leadmen or working foremen, but excluding salesmen , office em-
ployees, and supervisors. The Employer would exclude the body
foreman and the parts men from whatever unit the Board finds appro-
priate.
The Employer's operations are carried on in a single building, the
rear of which houses the shop and body departments. The sales-
room, located in the front of the building, houses the office, sales, and
parts departments. Employees in the shop department, including
three mechanics, a lubrication man, and a wash man, are engaged in
the general servicing and repair of automobiles. The employees in
the body department repair automobile bodies. Together the em-
ployees in the shop and body departments comprise a group of service
employees of a type we have frequently found constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining.2
There remains for consideration the disputed categories-the body
foreman, and the employees in the parts department.
The body foreman manages the body department. He has authority
to hire and discharge employees in that department, to fix their rate
of pay, and to direct their work in all respects. Although at the time
of the hearing only one other person was working in the body depart-
ment, the Employer testified that this was a temporary situation result-
ing from a shortage of competent body men, and that when such
workers become available three or four will be hired. The body fore-
man receives from $150 to $200 per month more than the body man.
His bids on body repair jobs are final, and he receives a percentage of
the labor charges. Under all the circumstances we find that the body
foreman is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall
exclude him from the unit.
The parts department includes a manager and a parts man. The
parts manager is in charge of the department. He orders and cata-
logues auto parts, maintains stock, sells to customers, and supplies
parts to the shop men. The record indicates that his primary respon-
sibility is sales, as he receives a bonus over and above his salary when
sales exceed -a certain quota. The parts man spends a portion of his
time assisting the parts manager in receiving and selling parts and
the remainder performing such miscellaneous tasks as cleaning the
show room, washing windows, receiving payments from customers for
repair jobs, and tallying-daily sales. There is no interchange of em-
See cases cited in footnote 1, supra. The parties agree that the shop foreman who has
authority to hire and discharge employees in the shop department should be ,excluded from
the unit as a supervisor.
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees between the parts department and other departments. Under
these circumstances we find that the functions and interests of the parts
department employees are more closely related to those of the sales
and clerical personnel than they are to the repair workers of the shop
and body departments whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. Ac-
cordingly, we shall exclude the parts manager and the parts lnan
from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
We find, therefore, that all mechanics, body and fender men,
painters, washers, greasers, apprentices and helpers, but excluding
salesmen, office employees, employees of the parts department, the
shop. foreman, the body foreman and all other supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes 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 (late of this Direction , under the direction and
supervision 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's Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph
numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, in-
cluding employees who did not work during said pay -roll period be-
cause 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 election
and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to re-
instatement , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented,
for purposes of collective bargaining , by International Association of
Machinists (Ind.) Local No. 1712.
8 Matter of Liddon White Truck Company , Inc., supra . Cf. Matter of Harrys Cadillac-
Pontiac Company, Incorporated, et al., 81 N . L. R. B. 1 . In that case we included parts men
in a unit with mechanics, where parts men and mechanics were in frequent contact with
each other, and in fact on occasion performed each other's tasks.
4 Two high shoal boys work intermittently about an hour a day after school . They are
paid by the hour for performing miscellaneous odd jobs such as cleaning up the building,
washing windshields of cars , polishing cars , and mowing lawns . Because of the casual
and irregular character of their employment we shall, in agreement with the parties,
exclude these employees from the unit.
S The compliance status of International Association of 'Machinists ( Ind.) Local No.
1712 has lapsed since the healing in this matter . In the event it fails to renew its com-
pliance with Section 9 ( h) within 2 weeks from the date of. this Direction , the Regional
Director is to advise the Board to that effect . No election . shall be conducted unless and
until compliance has been renewed.