99 N.L.R.B. 847 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

Frank Buick Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 20, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 847 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

FRANK BUICK COMPANY, INC. 847 Accordingly, as no basis, either craft or otherwise, exists for establish- ing a separate unit of either the mechanics 9 or the servicemen,10 we find such units to be inappropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following groups of employees con- stitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All bus drivers employed by the Employer," excluding mechanics, servicemen, office and clerical employees, professional 'employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All mechanics and servicemen and all other employees per- forming maintenance and repair work for the Employer, 12 excluding bus drivers, office aiid clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. ![Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this -volume.] 9 Vevoda Motor Sales, 86 NLRB 573; Butte Motors, 85 NLRB 1336 , and cases cited therein. 10 Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 96 NLRB 156; Greyhound Garage of Jacksonville, Inc., 95 NLRB 902. "As it appears from the record that the one bus driver who spends part of his time doing painting work is regularly employed as a driver for a substantial number of hours each week , he is included in the unit and is eligible to vote. The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384; Columbus-Celina Coach Lines, et at., 97 NLRB 777. 12 As stated above , there is one bus driver who also performs some painting work for the Employer. The record does not reveal, however, how much time this employee regu- larly devotes to painting . If he is regularly engaged in such painting work for a sub- stantial number of hours each week, he is included in this unit, as . well, and is eligible to vote. The Ocala Star Banner, footnote 11, supra. FRANK BUICK COMPANY, INC. and LODGE 1317, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCI- ATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-690. Jane 20, 1952 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 Charles A. Kyle, 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 99 NLRB No. 125. 848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 requests a unit embracing all mechanics and their helpers, body men, undercoating and lubricare men, car washers and polishers, and other service employees at the Employer's motor sales and service establishment. The Employer and Louisiana Automobile Workers Association, herein called the Intervenor, contend that only a unit limited to the mechanics and their helpers is appropriate. The employees here involved constitute the usual grouping of auto repairman and service employees found in the conventional motor sales and service business. The employees in the various categories listed perform the ordinary duties which their job titles indicate. Among them, the mechanics are clearly the most skilled ; indeed, the evidence indicates that 2 to 4 years' experience is required for them to achieve maximum ability. Together with their helpers, the mechanics have been represented for a "number of years" by the Intervenor in a unit apart from all other employees. The Board has generally found all-inclusive units appropriate in this type of business.' In this case, the Employer and the Intervenor would establish a separate unit for the mechanics and their helpers, on the ground that they are craftsmen and that their separate bargain- ing history requires continuation of separate representation for them. Established Board policy precludes inclusion of a group of employees who have previously enjoyed separate representation into a broader unit without first ascertaining their desires, whenever the past bargain- ing agent desires to continue to represent them in a separate unit.2 Although the Intervenor did not explicitly request a "Globe" election, we infer that it does seek it from the fact that it requested interven- tion on the basis of its recent collective bargaining contract covering only the mechanics and the mechanics' helpers, and that it tacitly agreed with the Employer's unit position.3 Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct separate elec- tions among the following voting groups, excluding from each group office, clerical, technical, and professional employees, automobile sales- men, used-car manager, service and parts manager, general manager, executives, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act : Group (a) : All mechanics and mechanics' helpers. I Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105. 2Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109. 3In view of our determination , we need not pass upon whether or not the mechanics involved herein are craftsmen. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION 849 Group (b) : All body men, body men helpers, car washers and pol- ishers, undercoating and lubricare lnen, parts, salesmen, the service salesman,4 and the janitor .5 If a majority of the employees in group (a) vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sep- arate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elec- tion herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization for such unit, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. In the event a majority of the employees in group (a) vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented by such union, and, if a majority in group (b) likewise vote for the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for an employer- wide unit, and under such circumstances the Board finds this unit to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 The Petitioner at first desired to exclude the service salesman , but later stated that any Board determination would be agreeable to it. The service salesman sells repair and other automobile services to the customers , and delivers the written service orders to the various employees who perform the work. Like the mechanics and other service employees , he is under the supervision of the service and parts manager . As his interests are similar to those of the service employees , we have included him in this voting group. Hanna Motor Company, supra. S The janitor cleans the offices and the showroom ; when he has time, he also cleans the mechanics ' shop. At the Petitioner 's request, and over the Employer 's 'objection, we have" included this employee . See Roanoke Gas Company, 94 NLRB 1431 ; Caisfornia Spray Chemical Corp ., 86 NLRB 453. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA CORPORA- TION and LEO STURDIVANT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 266-B, AFL and LEO STURDIVANT SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA CORPORA- TION and A. E. ARCHER INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 266-B, AFL and A. E. ARCHER. Cases Nos. 21-CA-963, 21-CB-310, 21-CA-991, and 01-CB-348. June 24,1952 Decision and Order On June 19. 1951, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent Association had engaged in and was engaging in 99 NL1tI1 No. 129.