Valley Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1416 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent, United Mine Workers of America, District 2, and Re-
spondents Clarence Mosier, Owen Slagle, Joseph Feist, and John Kosik, as.
agents of the Respondent Union, by restraining and coercing the employees
of Mercury, Ziros, Pine Hill, and Gaiser in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
VALLEY MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE 1506, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 36-RC-
640. November 13, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Patrick H. Walker,
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer corporation is engaged in Salem, Oregon, in the
business of buying and selling Ford automobiles, trucks parts, ac-
cessories, and equipment. It operates under a franchise agreement
with the Ford Motor Company designating the Employer as the ex-
clusive Ford dealer in the Salem area. The Employer's business also,
embraces the repair and servicing of new and used automobiles and
trucks. During the last fiscal year, the Employer's purchases ex-
ceeded one million dollars, of which approximately 90 percent was
shipped to the Employer from points outside the State of Oregon. In
the same period, the Employer's sales also exceeded $1,000,000 of
which $50,000 represented sales and deliveries to persons outside
Oregon. Upon these facts we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer .2
1 Baxter Bro8 ., 91 NLRB 1480; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB
618
2 General Teamsters , Local 324, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor , was permitted
.to intervene at the hearing.
96 NLRB No. 217.
VALLEY MOTOR COMPANY 1417
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.3
4. The Employer's plant covers half a city block. In the main
building are the salesroom, offices, parts department, the mechanical
repair shop, and the service department. Across an alley from the
main building is the body repair shop, which, with the mechanical re-
pair shop, makes up the repair department. The parts department
consists of 7 employees who unpack, sort, and store parts, which they
dispense on order primarily for use on repair work in the Employer's
own plant. The repair department consists of 33 employees who re-
pair engines, automobile electric systems, body damage, and who per-
form other closely associated tasks. The service department embraces
14 employees who lubricate, wash, and fuel vehicles and who repair
and change tires. There is little, if any, interchange among the em-
ployees, though the nature of their tasks and the proximity of the 3
-departments frequently brings them in contact with one another.
There is separate immediate supervision over each department, though
the repair supervisor seems to exercise a limited supervisory authority
throughout the plant. In short, the Employer's repair and servicing
facilities are substantially the same as those ordinarily found in auto-
mobile sales and service businesses. For approximately the last year
and a half, the Employer has recognized the Petitioner as the bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the repair department and the
Intervenor as representative of the parts and service employees. Both
unions have current contracts with the Employer.
The Petitioner seeks in this proceeding a unit consisting not only
,of the employees in the repair department which it already represents,
but also of the parts and service employees, currently represented by
the Intervenor. The Intervenor contends that the petition should
be dismissed because the requested over-all unit is inappropriate, con-
tending that (1) the repair department and (2) the parts and service
departments constitute separate appropriate units.
We find that the over-all unit sought by the Petitioner may be ap-
propriate.4 However, in view of the history of separate bargaining
for the parts and service employees, it would not be consistent with
Board policy to permit the requested merger of the parts and service
B Intervenor claims that its contract with the Employer covers certain employees which
Petitioner seeks and , thus, bars an election among those employees at this time . Section
1 of that contract provides that all employees within its scope must be members of the
union and that "new men will be required to make application within ten (10) days to
become a member of the Union after going to work and if satisfactory to the Employer and
found worthy by the Union after four weeks' employment, he or they will be admitted to
full membership in the Union." We find that this section of the contract exceeds the per-
missible union -security limits of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and that the contract can-
not, consequently , operate as a bar to an election at this time.
4 Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105; Valley Tractor and Equipment Company, 92
NLRB 344.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees with the repair employees without affording to the former
group an opportunity, by means of a separate election, to express its
desire on the question b However, as the Petitioner has failed to es-
tablish the necessary showing of interest among the parts and service
departments employees whom it seeks to merge with its present unit
of repair department employees, and in view of its apparent lack of'
desire for an election confined to the latter group alone, we shall
dismiss the petition without prejudice to filing a new petition at such
time as the required showing of representation can be made.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,.
dismissed without prejudice.
5Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.
S & L Co. OF PIPESTONE 1 and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND,
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 18-RC--120f. November 13, 1951
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 Erwin A. Peterson,.
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-
mem-ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer owns and operates two retail dry goods and
apparel stores in Minnesota, the Fergus Falls store herein involved
and a store at Pipestone. The Employer is a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of Salkin & Linoff, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation
with principal offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Two of the Em-
ployer's 3 directors are also directors of the parent corporation. In
addition to ownership and direct operation of a retail store in
Wyoming, Salkin & Linoff wholly owns 36 or 37 separately incor-
porated retail stores located in several States. The volume of retail
sales for the last fiscal year by the Fergus Falls store was approxi-
mately $268,000 and by the Pipestone store approximately $214,000.
All but approximately 1 percent of these sales was to local customers.
The cost of the products sold by these stores amounted to 35 or 40
1 The Employer' s name Is amended to conform to the record.
96 NLRB No. 214.