Scott Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 129 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SCOTT MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 801, PETITIONER
In the Matter of DIELKS MOTORS, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 801, PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WALDREN MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 801, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 20-RC-415 through 920-RC-417, respectively.Decided
June 10) 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was
held before Eugene K. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the California Employers As-
sociation, herein called the Association and the Reno Employers
Council, herein called the Council, moved to dismiss the petitions on
the ground that the units requested by the Petitioner are inappro-
priate. For reasons hereinafter given this motion is hereby denied-
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 Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Scott Motor Company, a Nevada corporation whose principal
place of business is at Reno, Nevada, is engaged in the sales and service
of Buick and Cadillac motor cars.. During the year ending October
.31, 1948, it made purchases in an amount exceeding $500,000, of which,
approximately 90 percent was shipped from points.outside the State
of Nevada. None of its sales were made to purchasers outside the
,State.
Duelks Motors, an individual proprietorship owned by Jack W.
Duelks, whose place of business is at Reno, Nevada, is engaged in the,
sales and service of Kaiser-Frazer automobiles. During the year 1947.,,
84 N. L. R. B., No. 21. -
129 -
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
it made purchases in an amount exceeding $500,000, of which more
than 90 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Nevada.
During the same period, its sales exceeded $500,000, of which 5 percent
was made to points outside the State.
Waldreii Motor Company, a partnership composed-of Mahlon Frank
Waldren and M. F. Waldren , Jr., whose place of business is at Reno,
Nevada, is engaged in the sales and service of Oldsmobile automobiles.
During the year ending November 1, 1948, it made purchases in an
amount exceeding $200,000, of which approximately 90 percent was
shipped from points outside the State of Nevada . During this same
period, its sales exceeded $500,000, of which approximately 5 percent
involved sales outside the State.
We find that each of the Employers is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employers.
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 certification as representative of separate
units consisting of the employees doing mechanical work in the repair
shop of each of the Employers herein . The Petitioner would include
in each unit all automotive servicemen doing repair , rebuilding,
disassembling , assembling , installing parts and accessories , adjusting,
lubricating, and handling and dispensing of parts, but would exclude
salesmen, office clerical employees , and supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Petitioner would also include the automobile parts man-
agers of Duelks Motors and Waldren Motor Company , but would
exclude the automobile parts manager of Scott Motor Company. The
Association , the Council , and the Employers agree to the inclusion of
the categories requested by the Petitioner , except that the Waldren
Motor Company would exclude its automobile parts manager as a
supervisor.
They contend , however, that individual Employer units are not
appropriate and that the only appropriate unit is a multiple-employer
unit on an association -wide basis, composed of the employees of all
the automobile dealers of Reno, Nevada . They base this contention
upon a delegation of authority by the Employer members to the
Association to bargain for them on a multiple -employer unit basis,
together with an alleged history of collective bargaining on the
broader basis.
11 Matter of Adams Motors , Inc., 80 N. L R B. 1518.
SCOTT MOTOR- COMPANY 131
-.The, three Employers, together with the other automobile ,dealers
of Reno, Nevada, are members of the Automotive Unit of the Reno
Employers Council, which in turn is a branch of the California Em-
ployers Association. It is clear that the Association is empowered to
bargain with - the employee representatives of its members. This
power is granted to it in its bylaws and written authorizations of
its members.' But the fact that the employers have authorized or
designated the Association- as their bargaining agent to represent
them in negotiations with their employee representatives is not in
itself determinative of the appropriateness of a multi-employer unit.3
,-In the support of their contention that the single-employer units
sought by the Petitioler are inappropriate, the Association, the
Council, and the Employers point to two occasions on which the Peti-
tioner has dealt with the Association. In 1940 a strike conducted
by the Petitioner against two of the members of the Automotive Unit
was settled by the execution of an agreement between the Petitioner
and the Association acting on behalf of the Unit. This agreement
also provided for a method whereby future disputes between the
Employers and their employees would be settled. Although the
agreement was one of indefinite duration, the method provided in the
agreement was never used. No other collective bargaining relations
between the Automotive Unit and the Petitioner were established as
a result of this settlement. In 1944 they agreed to hold a consent
election under the auspices of the Nevada State Labor Commissioner,
to determine whether the employees of the members of the Unit de-
sired to be represented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner lost the
election. There have been no other dealings between the two.4
It is clear that the isolated instances of dealings between the Auto-
motive Unit and the Petitioner in 1940 and 1944 do not constitute a
2 Section 2 of Article V of the Association bylaws provides This corporation shall
negotiate for its members in all matters relating -to labor contracts and labor controversies
and shall represent and act on behalf of its members in any negotiations carried on by
the corporation on behalf of its members with unions or workers . Any contracts, com-
mitments or undertakings made by this corporation on behalf of its members with any
union, shall bind the-members of this corporation ; provided that no contract shall be
accepted for any member without the authorized representative affixing his signature to
the written authorization from such member granting the corporation the right to sign
in his behalf. [ Emphasis supplied ] There was dispute at the hearing as to the mean-
ing of the last phrase . The Association contended that this provision did not set up a
procedure whereby each member might accept or reject a contract after its negotiation
by the Association , but merely required the member 's original delegation of authority to
the Association to be approved by the Association ' s representative. In view of our deci-
sion herein , however, we find it unnecessary to determine the exact extent of the delega-
tion of bargaining authority by the members to the Association
3 Matter of Retail Merchants Association of Terre Haute, Indiana, 83 N. L. R B 112.
4 The Automotive Unit as a group during the last few years has unilaterally and volun-
tarily granted several wage increases to all their employees It is clear that such uni-
lateral action on the part of an employer group does not constitute collective bargaining.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determinative history of collective bargaining on a multiple -employ-
er unit basis: The strike settlement of 1940 resulted in no agreement
establishing schedules as to wages , hours of work, or other substantive
conditions of employment.5 The consent election of 1944 did not
lead to certification of the Petitioner or to any subsequent collective
bargaining history. It cannot be considered as determinative of the
unit then agreed upon.6 As there is no controlling collective bar-
gaining history on a multi-employer basis, we find that the single-
employer units sought by the Petitioner are appropriate .7
There remains to be considered the supervisory status of the au-
tomobile parts manager of Waldren Motdr Company. This individ-
ual is engaged primarily in selling automobile parts. Occasionally
he is assisted by some of the shop employees, whom he directs in pack-
ing and unpacking articles of stock. This kind of work, however, is
occasional and sporadic, taking less than 10 percent of his working
time. Although consideration would be given to any recommenda-
tion for hiring or discharge made by the parts manager, the record
does not indicate that substantially greater weight would be ac=
corded such recommendation than to that of any competent employee.
We find that, the parts manager of Waldren Motor Company is not a
supervisor within the meaning *of the Act." 'We shall therefore in-'
elude him in the unit 'of employees of that Employer.
We find that the following constitute units appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
(a) All automotive servicemen employed by Scott Motor Com-
pany, Reno, Nevada, doing repair, rebuilding, disassembling , assem-
bling, installing parts and accessories , adjusting, lubricating, han-
dling and dispensing of parts, excluding the automobile parts man-
ager, salesmen, office, clerical and professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) All automotive servicemen employed by Duelks Motors, Reno,
Nevada, doing repair, rebuilding, disassembling, assembling, install-
ing parts and accessories, adjusting, lubricating, handling and dis-
G Matter of Roane Anderson Company, 71 N L R. B 266
8 Matter of Rocky Mountain Pipe Line Co , 79 N L R B 1119. See also Matter of
Colonial Stores, Inc, 78 N. L R. B. 1254.
'Matter of Retail Merchants Association of Terre Haute , Indiana, supra . But Cf,
Matter of Foreman & Clark, 74 N L R B 77 In that case the Employer had partici.
gated in a long and successful history of collective bargaining on a multi-employer basis
for other categories of the Employer's employees similar to those sought to be represented
in a single-employer unit . The Employers in the present case have not participated in
such a bargaining history.
$Matter of Adams Motors , Inc, supra ; Matter of Electric Auto -Lite Company, 76 N. L.
R B. 1189 , Matter of Adams & Westlake Company, 72 N. L R. B. 726.
SCOTT MOTOR COMPANY 133
pensing of parts, including the automobile parts manager, but ex-
cluding salesmen, office, clerical and professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act;
(c) All automotive servicemen employed by Waldren Motor Com-
pany, Reno, Nevada, doing repair, rebuilding, disassembling, assem-
bling, installing parts and accessories, adjusting, lubricating, handling
and dispensing of parts, including the automobile parts manager, but
excluding salesmen, office, clerical and professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION,OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Scott Motor Company, Duelks
Motors, and Waldren Motor Company, separate elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early) as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the
employees in the units prescribed in paragraph 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 election, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 801.
833396-50-vol. 84-10