Windolph Pontiac, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1572 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reject the Employer's contention that the Petitioner's showing of
interest is insufficient.
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 new and used automobile sales-
men, excluding all other employees. The Employer contends that
only a unit of all its employees is appropriate, on the grounds that
it is a comparatively small integrated operation and all employees
are intimately connected with its sales operation.
In support of its contention, the Employer points to the fact that
all employees are •urged to secure prospective purchasers of cars and
receive bonuses for securing such prospects, and special bonuses are
paid to service and parts employees for selling additional service and
parts. The Employer also contends that the duties of new-car and
used-car "get-ready" men, and those clerks handling new- and used-
car titles, applications, warranties, etc., are all an intimate part of its
sales operation. The record shows, however, that the Employer con-
ducts a typical retail automobile operation, consisting of salesmen,
office clerical employees, mechanics, service salesmen, and parts and
accessories salesmen, all of whom perform the usual duties of such
employees. Moreover, the salesmen sought herein work solely on
commission unlike any other employees, have different hours of work,
use demonstrator cars, and attend sales meetings not attended by any
other employees. We find that all new- and used-car salesmen 4 at
the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, establishment, excluding all
other employees, and supervisors 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.]
4 The record does not show whether one part-time used -car salesman is a regular part-
time employee . If he is a regular part-time employee , this employee is included in the
unit ; otherwise , he is excluded.
5 See Weaver-Beatty Motor Co., 112 NLRB 60.
Windolph Pontiac , Inc. and Automotive, Garage & Service Sta-
tion Employees , Local 255, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-1t19. November 14,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
On September 19, 1956, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of
Election issued herein on September 7,1956,1 the Regional Director for
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
116 NLRB No. 223.
WINDOLPH PONTIAC, INC. 1573
the Nineteenth Region conducted a secret election among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision. After the close
of the election the Regional Director issued a tally of ballots to the
parties. The tally shows that of 11 or 12 eligible voters, 11 cast bal-
lots, of which 5 were for, and 5 were against, the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the
election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and the
challenged ballot and issued and duly served upon the parties a report
on objections and challenged ballot in which he recommended that the
objections be overruled, the challenge to the one ballot sustained, and
the results of the election certified. Within the time provided there-
for, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation for overruling the objections; it did not file exceptions to
the recommendation for disposing of the challenged ballot.
The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's
recommendations, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
finds as follows :
The Petitioner objected to the election upon the ground that "on or
about September 6,1956," the general sales manager for the Employer
called a meeting of employees in the appropriate unit at which he
polled them regarding their attitude toward the Union. The Re-
gional Director found that the poll took place on September 5, 1956;
that it preceded the date of the issuance of the Decision and Direction
of Election (September 7, 1956) ; and that under the F. W. Wool-
worth 2 decision, this conduct could not be used as a basis for setting
aside the election. In its exceptions, the Petitioner does not question
the factual findings of the Regional Director, but appeals to the
Board to reconsider the policy enunciated in the Woolworth decision.
The policy objected to was reached only after careful and protracted
consideration. Nothing said by the Petitioner in its exceptions con-
vinces us that it should now be changed. In accordance with the Re-
gional Director's recommendations, we overrule the Petitioner's objec-
tions, and sustain the challenge to the ballot of Harry Rexin. As the
Petitioner has not secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for Automotive, Garage & Service Station Employees, Local 255, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor organiza-
tion is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.]
109 NLRB 1446.