Ashland Body Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1520 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) All metal patternmakers and their helpers and apprentices.
We shall make no final unit determinations at this time, but shall
first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections
herein directed. If, in these elections, a majority of the employees in
either voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that effect to the Regional
Director within 10 days from the date of this Diiection of Elections El 11undo,
93 NLRB No. 125.
STEVE AND WALTER JELLISH, CO-PARTNERS , D/B/A ASHLAND BODY
WORKS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
PETITIONER . Case No. 18-BC-1056. August 31, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued on June
28, 1951, in the above-entitled matter, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on July 18, 1951, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished with a Tally of Ballots,
which shows that, of approximately 10-14 eligible voters, 10 cast bal-
lots, of which 6 were for, and 3 against, the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged.
On July 25, 1951, the Employer filed objections to the election,
alleging that (1) the Board erroneously asserted jurisdiction of the
Employer, (2) the Board improperly refused three brothers of the
Employer-partners permission to vote, and (3) the ballot of George
McBridge was improperly challenged by the Petitioner at the election.
Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the objections and,
on August 1, 1951, issued and duly served upon the parties a Report
on Objections, in which he found that the said objections did not raise
substantial or material issues with respect to the election and recom-
mended that they be overruled. The Employer then filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's disposition of its first two objections.
The Employer, a partnership , sells automobiles , trucks, and farm
equipment under franchises from their manufacturers. During 1950,
it made purchases of approximately $500,000, of which about $367,761,
represented shipments to its place of business in Wisconsin from
1 Unpublished
95 NLRB No. 202.
ASHLAND BODY WORKS - 1521
points outside the State. Substantially all sales were local. On these
facts, the Board asserted jurisdiction and directed an election?
The Employer asserts that the partners, with or without the assist-
ance of supervisors , could do all of the work which is necessary to
handle the marketing and delivery of incoming merchandise and that
a work stoppage resulting from a labor dispute would not affect the
flow of interstate commerce. This argument overlooks the fact that
a labor dispute, with resulting picketing, might bring about a refusal-
to deliver merchandise to the Employer with the resultant adverse
effect on interstate commerce . Accordingly, we reiterate our finding
in the Decision and Direction of Election 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.3
The Employer also objects to the election on the ground that three
brothers of the Employer-partners were denied . the right to vote al-
though employees of the Employer. The Employer argues that the
brothers are not excluded from the definition of "employees" contained
in Section 2 (3) of the Act, and that the Board's exclusion of, those
employees from the unit was therefore improper. The Board did not
exclude the three brothers because of the definition of "employees"
contained; in the Act, but. because their, relationship to ,the Employer
gives them interests different from that of other employees in the
unit.4
As the Employer's objections to the election are without merit; we
hereby overrule them. The Petitioner has secured a majority of the
Totes cast. Accordingly, we shall certify it as, the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists,
AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees
in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion herein, as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the
said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect.to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
MEMBERS MuRDocK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of '
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 Baxter Bros ., 91 NLRB 1480.
3N. L. R. B. v. Townsend, 185 F. 2d 378 ( C. A. 9).
4 Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc., 13 NLRB 66; Belanger, 32 NLRB 1276; Northwestern
Auto Parts Co., 36 NLRB 484.