Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 374 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BELLINGHAM AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION,1
EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE
239, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-/:67.Decided June 12, 1950
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 Melton Boyd, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.3
2. The Petitioner, an unaffiliated labor organization, and Team-
sters Local No. 231, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of
the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
' The following Employers, all located in Bellingham , Washington , are involved in this
proceeding : Akin Motor Company ; Charles L . Martin ; Sound Pontiac Co. ; Monahan Garage,
Inc.; Mt . Baker Motors, Inc. ; Hein Motor Co. ; Hillyard Motor Co. ; Diehl Motor Co. ;
Wallace Chevrolet Co. ; Whatcom Motors ; Cornwall Motors ; and Ashe Motor Co.
2 Without objection the hearing officer granted the Petitioner 's motion to amend the
formal papers by striking from the list of dealer members the names of Everett Motors,
Inc., and Standard Auto Company , both of which had ceased business operations, and by
substituting Mt. Baker Motors as successor to Crocker & Gross.
3 Although specific figures for the amount of business done by Cornwall Motors were not
put in evidence , the record shows that this Employer holds a dealer franchise for Kaiser-
Frazier automobiles in Bellingham , Washington , and purchases new cars for resale from
the manufacturer at Willow Run, Michigan . In view of our unit finding below the effect
on commerce of any of the individual employers involved herein is immaterial . Indian-
apolis Cleaners and Launderers Club, 87 NLRB 472. We note , however, that on the basis
of the facts set forth above , Cornwall Motors , like each of the other individual employers
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
90 NLRB No. 59.
.374
BELLINGHAM AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION 375
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties herein agree that any unit found appropriate should
include all service station employees, motorcycle men, pick-up and
delivery men, washers. and cleaners, greasers, sanders, polishers, tire
repairmen, vulcanizers, retreaders, battery and tire servicemen, serv-
ice salesmen, parts, tool, and stockroom employees, parking lot, and
garagemen, excluding clerical. employees, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
The only unit issue presented in this case relates to the scope of
the unit. The Petitioner contends, and the Intervener agrees, that a
single multiple-employer unit consisting of the employees of all em-
ployer-members of the Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association,
herein called the. Association, is appropriate. In the event that the
Board finds that a multiple-employer unit is inappropriate, the Peti-
tioner and the Intervenor seek separate units of the employees of each
of the Employers involved herein. The Association opposes the es-
tablishment of the proposed multiple-employer unit, contending that
collective bargaining has not been conducted on an Association basis,
and that, in any event, such a unit is inappropriate because the Asso-
ciation has beendissolved and no longer exists.
The record shows that since 1937 the Employers, comprising a group
of automobile dealers in the city of Bellingham, have been bargaining
with the Petitioner for the mechanics and body men in their shops.
In that year, the Employers formed the Association, which, from its
inception, operated on an informal basis. The Association had no
constitution or bylaws, collected no dues, and had no treasury funds.
Its only officers have been the president and the secretary. It func-
tioned at the will of its dealer members who met rather infrequently
and irregularly for the purpose of discussing and taking joint action
on matters of common interest, including the matter of collective bar-
gaining with the Petitioner.
However, the record discloses that despite the informal character
of the organization and operation of the Association, collective bar-
gaining since 1937 has been regularly conducted on a multiple-employer
basis. Contracts with the Petitioner have been negotiated through a
committee consisting of three dealers selected by the members of the
Association. During the course of negotiations this committee re-
ceived instructions from and reported back to the Association con-
cerning various proposals or matters under discussion by the parties.
Although the committee had authority to negotiate on behalf of the
Association, it had no authority of its own to bind the individual'
Employers. In each instance, however, after a contract had been
negotiated between the parties and had been submitted to the Asso-
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciation for approval, it was adopted without exception by all dealer
members. The record shows that these contracts have sometimes been
signed in the name of the Association, by its president, and on other
occasions by the individual Employers. The- 1948 contract between
the Association and Petitioner followed the same pattern of negotia-
tions used in connection with previous agreements; this contract, cur-
rently in effect, was signed by the individual Employers without the
name of the Association appearing as a signatory.
In support of its position that the multiple-employer unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate, the Association argues that it has func-
tioned only informally as a "luncheon club," that the contract nego-
tiating committee had no authority to bind individual members, and
that the Association dissolved itself on March 30, 1950,4.and no longer.
exists. We have held, however, that neither the lack of a formal
association of employers 5 nor the fact that the employers have not
given their designated representatives final authority to bind them,
precludes the establishment of a multiple-employer unit.' What is
controlling is the fact that, as here, the Employers through an au-
thorized representative, have participated for a substantial period of
time in bargaining on a group, rather than on an individual, basis,
and have thereby demonstrated their desire to be bound by group
rather than individual action. Nor, in the circumstances of this case,
does the fact that the Employers voted to dissolve the Association
demonstrate that henceforth they intend to pursue individual courses
of action in collective bargaining. There is no evidence that by such
action the former members of the Association intended to abandon
their concerted conduct with respect to labor relations. On the con-
trary, there is uncontroverted testimony in the record that despite the
dissolution of the Association, the Employers involved herein intend
to continue to negotiate collective bargaining agreements on. a ,group
basis.
The Association does not contend that the pattern of collective bar-
gaining with respect to the mechanics and body men is not controlling
with respect to the residual employees involved in this proceeding.
In the light of the foregoing facts and considerations, we are per-
suaded that a multiple-employer unit for these employees, as sought
by the Petitioner and Intervenor, is appropriate.'
This was after the petition in the instant proceeding was filed.
Johnson Optical Company, et at., 85 NLRB 895; Ward Baking Company, 78 NLRB 781.
Epp Furniture Company, et at ., 80 NLRB 120 ; Air Conditioning Company of Southern
California, et at., 81 NLRB 946; The Everett Automotive Jobbers Association, et at., 81
NLRB 304.
1 Columbia Marble Company, 89 NLRB 1482.
BELLINGHAM AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION 377
We find that the following employees of the Employers named
above 8 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all service
station employees, motorcycle men, pick-up and delivery men, washers
and cleaners, greasers, sanders, polishers, tire repairmen, vulcanizers,
retreaders, battery and tire servicemen, service salesmen, parts, tool,
and -stockroom employees, parking lot, and garagemen, excluding
clerical employees,, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su-
pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll 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 rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 239 (unaffiliated),
or by Teamsters Local No. 231, International Brother of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, or by
neither.'
O See footnote 1, supra.
6 Either participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.