Stevens Chrysler Plymouth

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1984

272 N.L.R.B. 907 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

STEVENS FORD 907
Stevens Ford, Inc , and Stevens Lincoln Mercury,
Inc , also d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plymouth and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), Local 376 Cases 39-CA-1384
and 39-CA-1621
23 October 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER AND
DENNIS
On 8 March 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Harold B Lawrence issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief \
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge s rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order 1
Our dissenting colleague would dismiss the corn
plaint because he found a procedural defect in the
unit clarification proceeding on which the judge
relied to determine the scope of the Respondent's
bargaining obligation We find no fault with that
proceeding and affirm the judge's reliance on it
The Regional Director s decision in the unit clar
ification case shows that the Respondent received
due process Thus, as the Regional Director noted,
despite the denial of the Respondent's request for a
continuance of the hearing because of the unavail
ability of its owner its counsel as well as other of
ficials supervisors and representatives attended the
hearing The Respondent s counsel had the oppor
tunity to present evidence and examine and cross
examine witnesses, he chose not to do so Nor did
he claim that the owner s presence was necessary
for the presentation of the Respondent s evidence
When the Respondent requested Board review of
the Regional Director s denial for a continuance,
the Board with Member Hunter dissenting denied
review We see no reason now to reach a different
conclusion or to permit relitigation of that issue
here 2
' We deny the General Counsel s motion to strike the Respondent s ex
ceptions and brief
2 We also note that the Respondent had an opportunity to raise this
Issue in another unfair labor practice proceeding (Case 39-CA-362) and
chose not to do so In that case which was predicated on the same unit
clarification determination the Respondent withdrew its answer to the
General Counsel s complaint the Board adopted the judge s decision
which found the violations as alleged and the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals enforced the Board s Order
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Stevens
Ford, Inc , and Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc also
d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plymouth, Milford, Con
necticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall take the action set forth in the Order
MEMBER HUNTER, dissenting
In the unit clarification proceeding on which the
judge and my colleagues rely to find that the Re
spondent was obligated to bargain with the Union
for a unit of employees which included employees
working under the Respondent s Chrysler Plym
outh franchise, I dissented from the Board's deci
mon to deny the Respondent s request for review
The hearing in that proceeding took place as ongi
nally scheduled, notwithstanding the Respondent s
requests for a continuance based on the unavailabil
ity of the Respondent s owner William Stevens, to
appear and testify In dissenting from the Board s
denial of the Respondent s request for review, I in
dicated that I would have granted that request and
remanded the case for a reopened hearing In view
of this procedural defect in the underlying unit
clarification proceeding, I place no reliance on the
decision reached therein and would dismiss the
complaint allegation of a general refusal to bargain
with the Unioa regarding the Chrysler Plymouth
employees
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HAROLD B LAWRENCE Administrative Law Judge
These consolidated cases were tried before me on June
22, 23 and 24 1983 at Hartford Connecticut The
charges were filed on October 21 1982 and April 20
1983 by International Union United Automobile Aero
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) Local 376 (the Union) The complaint in Case
39-CA-1384 was served on December 1 1982 and an
amended complaint was issued on March 2 1983 The
complaint in Case 39-CA-1621 was issued on April 21
1983 and an order consolidating it with Case 39-CA-
1384 was made on May 27 1983
The amended and consolidated complaint alleges that
the Respondent Stevens Ford Inc and Stevens Lincoln
Mercury Inc also d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plymouth
which constitute a single integrated business enterprise
and employer engaged in the sale and servicing of new
and used automobiles notwithstanding the fact that they
are legally distinct corporate entities violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by
refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union and re
fusal to furnish information to which the Union was ent
tied Stevens Ford Inc is located on the property
272 NLRB No 141
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
known as 717 Bridgeport Avenue Milford Connecticut
Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc is located on the adjoin
ing property known as 737 Bridgeport Avenue Milford
The crux of the case is the contention that the Union
represents a bargaining unit which as clarified in a
Board clarification proceeding embraces employees of
both corporations working at the service facilities at both
locations who do the unit work including employees
who perform work which is in the shops under the
Chrysler Plymouth franchise The Respondent had re
fused to recognize the Union as the representative of
these employees and it is alleged that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by such refus
al and by refusal to negotiate with the Union while one
of them served on the Union s negotiating committee and
by refusal to supply data which the Union requested
concerning them 1
The Respondent denies having committed any wrong
doing or having in any manner violated the Act
The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard
to call examine and cross examine witnesses and to in
troduce relevant evidence Postheanng briefs have been
filed on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respond
ent
On the entire record and based on my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which
they gave their testimony and after consideration of the
briefs submitted I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent s answer to the amended consolidated
complaint admitted that during the 12 month period
ending November 30 1982 the two corporations had
been engaged in the sale and servicing of new and used
automobiles and that each had derived gross revenues in
excess of $500 000 and that each had purchased and re
ceived at its respective facility products goods and ma
tenals valued in excess of $50 000 directly from points
outside the State of Connecticut It was admitted that the
Union has been at all material times and is now a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act The answer denied the allegation that at material
times alleged the corporations had been employers en
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2)
(6) and (7) of the Act This denial in the face of other
concessions in the answer appears to have reflected the
reference in the complaint to the two employers jointly
as the Respondent in the singular 2 On the basis of the
admitted allegations of the complaint and evidence ad
duced during the hearing as to the nature of the business
operations carried on at 717 Bridgeport Avenue and 739
Bridgeport Avenue which I shall refer to as the 717 fa
1 An allegation that a stnke began on February 15 1983 was pro
longed by Respondent s unfair labor practices was withdrawn at the
hearing
2 Par 4 of the complaint denied by the Respondent refers to the cor
porations as Stevens Ford Inc and Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc also
d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plymouth hereinafter collectively called Re
spondent [which] constitute a single integrated business enterpnse and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act
cility and the 739 facility respectively I find that Ste
yens Ford Inc and Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc have
each been employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act at all ma
tenal times The issue of their status as an integrated en
terpnse and as a single employer is dealt with below
The Union s status as a labor organization was admitted
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background3
The basic issues of the case are whether the two cor
porations constitute an affiliated and integrated business
enterprise and whether the appropriate collective bar
gaining unit of service and maintenance employees in
cluded those employees working at the 739 facility (Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury) who service vehicles under the
Chrysler Plymouth franchise
I The business operations
The two corporations are owned by William Stevens
and do business in Milford Connecticut at premises
owned by Stevens Realty which is solely owned by Wil
ham Stevens Stevens Ford Inc occupies the portion of
the property known as 717 Bridgeport Avenue and Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury occupies the portion known as
739 Bridgeport Avenue under separate leases from Ste
yens Realty An individual named Malcolm Chapman
who reports directly to William Stevens acts as the gen
eral manager of both enterprises and fixes policy relating
to wages working hours and working conditions deal
ing directly with the employees without regard to which
company they happen to work for He governs the sales
policies of the two franchises He appears to divide his
time between the two premises as the needs of the busi
nesses dictate In addition to having the same general
manager the two corporations also have the same person
as controller
A deliberate effort is made to give the public the im
pression that the Stevens operations are a single integrat
ed enterprise and the Respondent cannot evade the con
sequences of holding itself out to the public in this fash
ion This is the typical situation in which the question of
single employer arises whose two entities each have
their own work force but are nonetheless interrelated 4
A large sign bearing the legend Stevens Auto Super
Market is mounted in front of the used car lot which
occupies the space between the 717 facility and the 739
facility The sales policy established by Chapman author
izes salesmen on the payroll of either corporation to sell
any automobile displayed at either 717 Bridgeport
Avenue or 739 Bridgeport Avenue or on the used car
lot Their business cards identify them as sales represent
atives for all of the makes of vehicles sold under any of
the franchises (Lincoln Mercury Ford Dodge Chrys
ler and Plymouth) Joint advertising is run in the news
3 The facts of the case as set forth in this section are a narrative corn
posite of the undisputed and credited testimony admissions in the an
swers and data contained in the exhibits
4 Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit 240 NLRB 206 215 (1979) enfd mem
626 F 2d 865 (9th Cm 1980)
STEVENS FORD

909
papers in the name of Stevens Auto Super Market 717-
739 Bridgeport Avenue and carries pictures of person
nel who are on both corporate payrolls Advertisements
which have been placed in the newpapers for sales help
have referred to the selling of all of the lines carried by
both corporations
The appearance of unified consolidated operation
which is presented to the public merely reflects the reali
ty of a considerable measure of internal integration of the
business operations both administratively and with re
spect to the work of the bargaining unit Automobiles
sold by Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc at the 717 facility
are serviced at the 739 facility The Chrysler Plymouth
line is sold and serviced at the Stevens Lincoln Mercury
Inc premises at 739 Bridgeport Avenue notwithstanding
the fact that Chrysler Corporation had stipulated that an
independent service facility must be maintained for war
ranty service on its franchised products
The employees servicing the vehicles under the Lin
coln Mercury franchise are all on the payroll of Stevens
Ford Inc All employees selling and servicing the
Chrysler Plymouth franchise are on the payroll of Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury Inc
The evidence establishes very clearly that as in the
case of advertising and sales in getting the servicing
work done full advantage is taken of the opportunities
afforded by close proximity and combined operation of
the respective facilities The 717 facility includes a serv
ice department a body shop and a parts department
which stocks Ford and Lincoln Mercury parts The 739
facility contains a service and parts department which
stocks all Chrysler Plymouth and Dodge parts The serv
ice departments at both facilities work on all makes of
vehicles The 739 facility includes a carwash which serv
ices vehicles from both facilities The body shop at the
717 facility handles all types of vehicles including
Chrysler Plymouth and Dodge vehicles from the 739
facility Though Respondent insists that warranty work
is restricted to the appropriate location at the manufac
turers insistence it is conceded that there is interchange
of assistance between the mechanics at the two facilities
and that they occasionally cross over to the other facility
to work on a vehicle
New cars whether delivered to Stevens Ford Inc or
Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc are checked in by the
same employee who happens to be one of the group of
employees working under the Chrysler Plymouth fran
chise New car check in procedure is performed by one
person in order to save money for both companies An
employee working under the Ford franchise does the
rust proofing work for all vehicles regardless of make
The same maintenance and utility employees routinely
perform the same work at both the Stevens Lincoln Mer
cury Inc and the Stevens Ford Inc premises at 739
Bridgeport Avenue and 717 Bridgeport Avenue respec
tively without regard to which company is technically
their employer During the period from 1980 through
early 1982 there was substantial interchange of employ
ees between the franchises located at the respective fa
cilities and the corporations made purchases from each
other in amounts which greatly exceeded purchases from
other sources
These circumstances conclusively established by the
evidence in the record demonstrate common ownership
common management and centralized control of labor
relations to a degree which requires a finding of joint or
single employer status under the Act 5
This was the conclusion of the Regional Director
Right on the first page of his Decision and Clarification
of Bargaining Unit he stated
The Petitioner claims that Stevens Ford Inc and
Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc are joint employers
of the employees involved herein Although it does
not deny joint employer status Stevens Ford Inc
claims that the two entities are separate corpora
tons Furthermore it is clear that both
dealerships have functioned in a joint and integrated
matter [manner] Accordingly notwithstanding the
fact that both entities are separate corporations and
that they have always maintained separate payrolls
and separate sales staffs and sales functions I find
that Stevens Ford Inc and Stevens Lincoln Mercu
ry Inc are operating as a single integrated enter
pnse and constitute a single employer of the em
ployees involved herein
2 The bargaining unit
On a petition filed by the Union an election was held
among the employees of Stevens Ford Inc at the 717 fa
edit)/ on March 27 1979 On the basis of the results of
that election the Union was certified on August 18
1980 as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
employees in a unit described as follows
All service and maintenance employees including
mechanics service workers partsmen bodymen and
drivers employed by the Employer at its 717
Bridgeport Avenue location but excluding office
clerical employees professional employees sales
persons dispatcher confidential employees guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act
However between the date of the election and the
date of certification a process of intermingling of busi
ness operations between Stevens Fords Inc and Stevens
Lincoln Mercury Inc was alleged by the Union to have
commenced or accelerated Accordingly the Union filed
a petition for clarification of the certified bargaining unit
contending that an expanded overall unit had been cre
ated by the merger of the two companies or their oper
ations
While the clarification proceeding was pending
Chrysler Corporation granted a Chrysler Plymouth fran
chise to Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc and that corpora
tion began selling and servicing Chrysler and Plymouth
vehicles By letter dated July 1 1980 William P Stevens
accepted the agreement in his capacity as president of
Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc which then began using
the name Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc d/b/a Stevens
Chrysler Plymouth In all documents executed by it
5 Electrical Workers Local 1264 v Broadcast Service of Mobile 380 U S
255 (1965)
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under that name its address continued to be set forth at
739 Bridgeport Avenue Milford Connecticut
According to the Respondent several employees who
had formerly worked in the Ford and Lincoln Mercury
franchises were transferred to the Chrysler Plymouth
franchise i e they were put to work in a Chrysler
Plymouth service department which was established at
the 739 facility where sale of Chrysler and Plymouth
automobiles had commenced I think it is important to
understand precisely what did and did not occur at this
juncture The Respondent s characterization of the event
as a transfer of employees to the Chrysler Plymouth
franchise can be misleading It is more accurate to state
that some of the mechanics and maintenance employees
who had formerly serviced the Ford Lincoln and Mer
cury vehicles were shifted to work on the Chrysler and
Plymouth vehicles Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc
d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plymouth is a trade name No
new corporate entity was established No existing corpo
rate entity was modified There is no evidence that even
the corporate name of Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc
was changed Employees working under the Chrysler
franchise continued to be employees of one or the other
of the two existing corporations on the same corporate
payroll they had been on before or on whichever payroll
suited Chapman There had been two corporate entities
operating an integrated enterprise before the Chrysler
franchise was awarded to William P Stevens There
were still only two corporations and one integrated en
terpnse afterwards The same employees were involved
as had been involved formerly they had merely been
shifted around to accommodate the new business from
Chrysler Corporation
This was the state of affairs when a hearing was held
on the certification petition on October 23 1981 Though
the concern of the Union respecting the merger of oper
atonal functions between employees of Stevens Ford
Inc and Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc in handling vehi
cies under the various franchises had been inevitably lim
ited to the franchises existing at the time the petition was
filed the enlargement of its concern to include the
Chrysler Plymouth work is reflected in the transcript of
the clarification proceedings
Russell See the union representative testified that
when the certification petition was filed the entities in
volved had been Stevens Ford and Stevens Lincoln Mer
cury at 717 Bridgeport Avenue and 739 Bridgeport
Avenue respectively that changes had occurred with
the passage of time while Respondent was appealing the
decision certifying the Union that William Stevens had
acquired an additional dealership which was being
called the Stevens Chrysler Plymouth dealership
The operations pursuant to the Chrysler franchise
were gone into at some length The Milford Connecticut
Telephone Directory was put in evidence and showed
listings for both Stevens Lincoln Mercury and Stevens
Chrysler Plymouth sales and service at 739 Bridgeport
Avenue Milford Testimony was taken with respect to
whether Chrysler repair work was done at Stevens Ford
Inc 717 Bridgeport Avenue Testimony was adduced to
the effect that employees in various categories worked
on all types of vehicles including the Chrysler and
Plymouth automobiles Thus the cleanup man from Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury Inc did the cleanup for Chrysler
and Plymouth vehicles and no one else was assigned to
that chore The make ready man who was on the Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury Inc payroll did that work for the
Lincoln Mercury Chrysler and Plymouth vehicles The
Chrysler Plymouth warranty work was done at the 739
facility The clerical work for both the Lincoln Mercury
dealership and the Chrysler Plymouth dealership was
done by one person in the office of Stevens Lincoln
Mercury Inc The man who had acted as the Ford parts
counterman was promoted to parts manager of Ste
yens Chrysler Plymouth The Ford service worker was
transferred to the Chrysler Plymouth dealership where
he became assistant service manager
The hearing officer noted that the petition for clanfi
cation referred to all service and maintenance employees
including mechanics service workers partsmen body
men and drivers employed by employer at 717 Bridge
port Avenue and 739 Bridgeport Avenue Milford Con
necticut and put the following question to See Now
that s the address of the Plymouth Chrysler dealer so
are you looking for those in your amendments 9 His re
sponse was clear Yes I am I m looking for all employ
ees that fall within the realm of the bargaining unit in
both buildings
On November 23 1981 the Regional Director made
the following findings
Based upon the above and the record as a whole
I find that the Lincoln Mercury service and mamte
nance employees have accreted to the certified unit
and I shall clarify the certified unit to include these
disputed employees See e g Massey Ferguson Inc
202 NLRB 193 (1973) and Pacific Intermountain
Express Co 145 NLRB 805 (1964)
3 Accordingly the unit certified in Case No 1-
RC-16 152 is hereby clarified to specifically in
dude therein all service and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at its 717 Bridgeport
Avenue and 739 Bridgeport Avenue locations
The meaning of this clarification which the Re
spondent professes to find unclear is obvious semantical
ly as well as from the foregoing survey of the operations
of the Respondent and the history of the clarification
proceeding the transcript of which is studded with refer
ences to the employees servicing vehicles pursuant to the
Chrysler franchise The correctness of this conclusion is
apparent if one merely keeps in mind the precise nature
of the legal relationship involved The Regional Director
quite properly refused to buy the language of either the
Respondent or the hearing officer in their various refer
ences to the Chrysler Plymouth dealership or to Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury Inc d/b/a Stevens Chrysler
Plymouth as though these constituted discrete legal en
tities The former is nothing more than the designation of
a contractual relationship the latter is nothing more than
a trade name employed by a corporate entity The use of
these terms should not be permitted to distort the true
nature of the employment relationships between the cor
porations and the men who were servicing the automo
STEVENS FORD

911
biles At times involved in this case there were two cor
porate employers which between them employed all of
the service and maintenance men servicing all vehicles in
either shop regardless of which franchise was involved
There was no such category as a Chrysler Plymouth
employee separate and apart from the other employees
Since all of the men worked for either Stevens Ford
Inc or Stevens Lincoln Mercury Inc and worked
either at the 717 facility or the 739 facility they were all
covered by the Regional Director s order I therefore
hold that the unit was clarified so as to embrace all serv
ice and maintenance employees employed by Respond
ent which consists of both corporations at its 739
Bridgeport Avenue location and its 717 Bridgeport
Avenue location and that that group includes the em
ployees servicing vehicles pursuant to the Chrysler fran
chise
B Refusal to Meet with the Union Negotiating
Committee
The Union and the Respondent commenced collective
bargaining negotiations in May 1982 and it quickly
became apparent that an insurmountable difficulty was
being created by the' Respondent s insistence that em
ployees working under the Chrysler Plymouth franchise
were not included in the bargaining unit The General
Counsel contends that in the first sessions the Respond
ent s counsel conceded that they were included in the
bargaining unit but I do not believe that Respondent s
counsel was conceding anything more than that a ques
ton existed which it fully intended to litigate The Re
spondent s counsel took the trouble to try to obtain clan
fication from the National Labor Relations Board office
at Hartford Connecticut an action which hardly corn
ports with a concession of the gsue However this is of
slight import for the determination of whether the em
ployees working under the Chrysler franchise were
members of the unit rests on the facts and circumstances
of the case as found herein and the terms of the unit
clarification order as construed herein and cannot be af
fected by the opinions of Respondent s counsel or of any
employee of the Board
In April and May 1983 the Union included in its ne
gotiating committee an employee who was working on
the Chrysler line at the 739 facility The Respondent re
fused to negotiate while he was at the bargaining table
and so notified the Union The Union was adamant about
including that employee on its negotiating team As a
result no negotiations could be conducted in April and
May 1983
I cannot accept the Respondent s contention that it
properly refused to negotiate while an employee who
was not a member of the bargaining unit sat with the
Union s negotiating committee In the first place he was
a member of the bargaining unit In the second place his
inclusion as a member of the union negotiating commit
tee was warranted because at some point assuming that
the employees on the Chrysler line were not in the unit
the terms of their employment would be a relevant con
sideration in the Union s negotiating position relative to
the employees in the bargaining unit Third assuming
that they were not recognized as integral members of the
bargaining unit they would still be entitled to have a
representative on the negotiating committee to assist in
negotiation of matters of common interest among the em
ployees working on Chrysler franchise vehicles and the
employees working on the vehicles franchised by Mercu
ry and Ford 6
Finally it is well settled that each party in the collec
tive bargaining process may choose its own representa
live in formal labor negotiations and that the other party
has a correlative duty to negotiate The extremely rare
exceptions to this rule have involved situations infected
with such extreme ill will as to preclude good faith bar
gaining In those rare instances when a bona fide doubt
of the right of a designated appointee to sit in negotia
tons exists the burden is on the party objecting to estab
lish that his or her presence will subvert the collective
bargaining process 7 The Respondent certainly has made
no such showing in this case
Accordingly I find that the Respondent s refusal to
negotiate while the employee who was a member of the
group working on vehicles under the Chrysler Plymouth
franchise sat with the union negotiating delegation con
stituted a refusal to tiargain in violation of the Act
C Refusal to Negotiate with Respect to Employees
Assigned to Work Under the Chrysler Plymouth
Franchise
It is the Respondent s argument that the issue of the
inclusion of the employees assigned to work under the
Chrysler franchise in the bargaining unit was the subject
of a court appeal pending which the Respondent stood
ready able and willing to negotiate with the Union with
respect to the employees whose inclusion in the unit was
not questioned The General Counsel concedes that the
refusal to bargain was limited as stated by the Respond
ent and further that the Respondent was willing to ne
gotiate with the Union for the inclusion of the disputed
employees in the unit In my view that does not alter
the basic proposition that all of the employees were al
ready in the bargaining unit and that the Regional Three
tor had said so in language whose meaning was not at all
obscure
The Respondent was not entitled to ignore the Re
Donal Director s order during the pendency of the court
appeal No stay of enforcement was in effect An existing
appropriate unit is not a mandatory subject of bargain
ing The Board has already rejected contentions raised
by the Respondent herein Thus a refusal to bargain is
not excused by the fact that a party is seeking clarifica
tion of a unit or is demanding that a change from the
Board certified unit be negotiated 8 Neither can the Re
6 Indianapolis Newspapers 224 NLRB 1490 (1976)
7 Harley Davidson Motor Co 214 NLRB 433 437 (1974)
8 Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co 236 NLRB 1637 (1978)
enfd 602 F 2d 73 (4th Or 1979) Preterm Inc 240 NLRB 654 (1979)
By holding itself out as ready to bargain with respect to the balance of
the employees Respondent apparently hoped to avoid a result such as
obtained in Preterm Inc in which a conceded ambiguity existed with re
spect to inclusion in the unit of certain trainees and part time employees
but in which a refusal to bargain with respect to the remaining employees
was nevertheless found to constitute a lack of good faith However as in
Continued
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent relitigate the outcome of that proceeding in this
complaint proceeding 9
Moreover the fact that in the present instance there is
no real ambiguity in the clarification order and the fact
that its intent and construction are in any case apparent
from the course of the proceedings on which it is based
which were attended by Respondent s counsel lead me
to the conclusion that the refusal of the Respondent to
bargain collectively was not the result of a bona fide mis
apprehension but was intended to impede the bargaining
process i
I find that the refusal to negotiate with respect to the
Chrysler employees violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
t D Refusal to Furnish Information
The conclusions which I have ,reached with respect to
the constitution of the collective bargaining unit and the
obligation of the Respondent to negotiate with the Union
with respect to all of its maintenance and service em
ployees also require a finding that the Respondent violat
ed the Act when it refused to make available to the
Union the name wage rates and labor grades for all bar
gaining unit employees at the 717 and 739 amities The
evident lack of sincerity in the Respondent s position is
apparent from the fact that initially the Respondent did
comply with the Union s request for the information
However when the Union requested an updated list of
all service employees at the facilities on February 4
1983 including job descriptions titles and wage rates
the Respondent furnished it only for the employees
working on the Ford Lincoln and Mercury lines and re
fused to supply it with respect to the employees working
on the Chrysler line Since the latter were members of
the bargaining unit the refusal to furnish the information
was a violation of the Act
The result would not be different if the employees
working on the Chrysler line were not members of the
bargaining unit since they were doing work similar in
nature to the work being done by the members of the
bargaining unit and because of the intermingling of the
operations in some situations they could have been
doing work that belonged to the bargaining unit The re
quest for information thus related to data respecting
wages and wage related information relevant to the
needs of the Union in negotiating a contract with the Re
spondent and needed by the Union to police wfiatever
collective bargaining agreement was finally achieved and
the present case a unit clarification order was made dunng the pendency
of negotiations so that thereafter the subject was a nonmadatory subject
of bargaining (240 NLRB at 672)
9 See Lamar Hotel 140 NLRB 226 229 (1962) enfd 328 F 2d 600 (5th
Cu 1964)
perform its duties as a collective bargaining representa
tive 1 ° The probable need for the data is apparent
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES)
ON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respond
ent 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 oh
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i
1 Respondent Stevens Ford Inc and Respondent Ste
yens Lincoln Mercury Inc also d/b/a Stevens Chrysler
Plymouth constitute a single employer engaged in corn
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean
mg of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1 1 and (5) of the Act
by
(a) Refusing in and after April 1983 to engage in nego
nations with the Union for a collective bargaining con
tract because the bargaining committee designated and
selected by the Union to represent it in such negotiations
included an employee performing work pursuant to the
Chrysler Plymouth franchise operated by the Respond
ent at 739 Bridgeport Avenue Milford Connecticut, and
refusing to resume negotiations with the Union unless it
confined its negotiating committee to union officials and
employees performing work pursuant to the Ford Mer
cury or Dodge franchises operated by the Respondent
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its
employees employed in performance of work pursuant to
all of its franchise as required in the appropriate bargain
ing unit e
All service and maintenance employees including
mechanics service workers partsmen bodymen and
drivers employed by the Employer at its 739
Bridgeport Avenue location and its 717 Bridgeport
Avenue location but excluding office clerical em
ployees professional employees sales persons dis
patcher confidential employees guards and supervi
sors as defined in the Act
(c) Failing and refusing to furnA the Union with in
formation requested by it on February 4 1983 which
pertained to the names grades and job classifications of
employees in the above described bargaining unit and
1 ° Temple Eastex Inc 228 NLRB 203 (1977) enf denied 579 F 2d 932
(5th Or 1978) (on due process grounds unrelated to the point for which
the case is cited) General Electric Co 199 NLRB 286 (1972) Curtiss
Wright 145 NLRB 152 (1963) enfd 347 F 2d 61 (3d Cu 1965) Holly
wood Brands 142 NLRB 304 (1963) enfd 324 F 2d 956 (4th Cu 1963)
cert denied 377 U S 923 (1964) (information sought respecting nonunit
employees at another plant) Associated General Contractors of California
242 NLRB 891 (1979) enfd as modified 633 F 2d 766 (9th Cu . 1980)
r " See Westinghouse Electric Corp 239 NLRB 106 107 (1978) enfd as
modified 648 F 2d 18 (DC Cir 1980)
STEVENS FORD

913
specifically employees working on vehicles pursuant to
Respondent s Chrysler Plymouth franchise
4 The unfair labor practices herein found to have been
committed affect commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
5 The Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor
practices other than those hereinabove enumerated
THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices I recommend that the Respondent be directed
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act These are
specified in the recommended Order hereinafter set
forth
Because of the extended interruptions of collective
bargaining negotiations by reason of the Respondent s
violations of the Act it will be recommended that the
certification year be extended for a period of 1 year from
the date of commencement of new collective bargaining
negotiations
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
edi2
ORDER
The Respondent Stevens Ford Inc and Stevens Lin
coln Mercury Inc also d/b/a Stevens Chrysler Plym
outh Milford Connecticut its officers agents succes
sors and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union
United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Imple
ment Workers of America (UAW) Local 376 by declin
ing to meet with the selected negotiating committee of
that Union for the purpose of negotiating a collective
bargaining agreement because the bargaining committee
includes an employee working pursuant to the Chrysler
Plymouth franchise operated by the Respondent and
conditioning its meeting with the negotiating committee
on a requirement that the Union confine its negotiating
committee to union officials and employees working pur
suant to the other franchises operated by the Respond
ent
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural
Workers of America (UAW) Local 376 as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit which includes employees
working under the Chrysler Plymouth franchise operated
by the Respondent
All service and maintenance employees including
mechanics service workers partsmen bodymen and
drivers employed by the Employer at its 739
Bridgeport Avenue location and its 717 Bridgeport
12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
Avenue location but excluding office clerical em
ployees professional employees sales persons dis
patcher confidential employees guards and supervi
sors as defined in the Act
(c) Failing or refusing to furnish the Union with rea
sonable promptness information duly requested by it
concerning wages ,hours or terms or conditions of em
ployment of all employees in said unit employed at either
of the locations mentioned in the above description of
the unit including employees working under the Chrys
ler Plymouth franchise
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) On request bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay hours of employment and other terms and condi
tions of employment with International Union United
Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) Local 376 as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of all the employees
in the appropnate unit described above at both locations
and regardless of which automobile dealership franchise
they are working under and if an agreement is reached
embody it in a signed contract The certification year
shall extend 1 year from the date such new bargaining
negotiations begin
(b) Furnish the Union with reasonable promptness in
formation duly requested by it concerning wages hours
or terms and conditions of employment of all employees
employed at either location identified in the description
of the bargaining unit regardless of which automobile
dealership they are working under
(c) Post at its facilities at 717 Bridgeport Avenue and
739 Bridgeport Avenue Milford Connecticut copies of
the attached notice marked Appendix 13 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Officer in Charge for
Subregion 39 after being signed by the Respondent s au
thonzed representative shall be posted by the Respond
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by
any other material
(d) Notify the Officer in Charge for Subregion 39 in
writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
13 If 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 Na
tional Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International
Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) Local 376 by
declining to meet with the selected negotiating commit
tee of that Union for the purpose of negotiating a collec
tive bargaining agreement because the bargaining corn
mittee includes an employee working pursuant to the
Chrysler Plymouth franchise operated by the Respond
ent and/or condition our meetings with the negotiating
committee on a requirement that the Union confine its
negotiating committee to union officials and employees
working pursuant to the other franchises operated by the
Respondent
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union United Automobile Aerospace and
Agricultural Workers of America (UAW) Local 376 as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit which in
eludes employees working under the Chrysler Plymouth
franchise operated by the Respondent
All service and maintenance employees including
mechanics service workers partsmen bodymen and
drivers employed by the Employer at its 739
Bridgeport Avenue location and its 717 Bridgeport
Avenue location but excluding office clerical em
ployees professional employees sales persons dis
patcher confidential employees guards and supervi
sors as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to furnish the Union with
reasonable promptness information duly requested by it
concerning wages hours or terms or conditions of em
ployment of all employees in said unit employed at either
of the locations mentioned in the above description of
the unit including employees working under the Chrys
ler Plymouth franchise
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL on request meet with the said Union and
bargain collectively concerning rates of pay hours of
employment and other terms and conditions of employ
ment with International Union United Automobile
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) Local 376 as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of all the employees in the ap
propnate unit described above at both locations and re
gardless of which automobile dealership franchise they
are working under the Chrysler Plymouth franchise and
if an agreement is reached embody it in a signed con
tract The certification year shall extend 1 year from the
date such new bargaining negotiations begin
WE WILL furnish the Union with reasonable prompt
ness information duly requested by it concerning wages
hours or terms and conditions of employment of all em
ployees employed at either location identified in the de
scription of the bargaining unit regardless of which
automobile dealership they are working under and in
cluding those working under the Chrysler Plymouth
franchise
STEVENS FORD INC AND STEVENS LIN
COLN MERCURY INC ALSO D/B/A STE
VENS CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH