Hallam & Boggs Truck and Implement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1339 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter Of HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL No. 9, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 3O-RC-31i3.Decided January 15,1951
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 Clyde F. Waers, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a partnership, is a retail distributor of farm and
truck equipment in Grand Junction, Colorado. In 1949 its total
business amounted to approximately $430,000, substantially all to
local customers. Its purchases aggregated approximately $321,000,
including $67,000 worth of motor trucks, $37,000 worth of farm equip-
ment, and $55,000 worth of repair parts, all purchased from the Inter-
national Harvester Corporation. Some of these purchases were made
from the International Harvester Company's Denver office, but all
of the merchandise was manufactured outside the State of Colorado.
The record demonstrates that the Employer has five dealer sales-and-
service agreements which authorize it to handle International Har-
vester Company products. These agreements provide that the Inter-
national Harvester Company is to retain a substantial degree of con-
trol over the operations of the Employer. The controls extend in
varying degrees to such elements as price, the sufficiency of the sales-
and-service facilities, statements of the Employer's earnings and his
financial position, the Employer's insurance coverage, and his use of
International Harvester's name and advertising materials. We find
that the Employer here is engaged in commerce. We further find,
that by virtue of its sales-and-service agreements the Employer oper-
ates as an integral part of a multistate enterprise,' and that pursuant
to our recently announced policy,2 it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
l International Harvester Company, Fort Wayne Works , 90 NLRB No. 143.
z See Banter Bros ., 91 NLRB 1480 , in which the Board asserted jurisdiction over an
automobile dealer who operated under a franchise from the manufacturer.
92 NLRB No. 202.
1339
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 alleges that a unit composed of all of the Em-
ployer's shop employees including the shop mechanics, mechanic
trainee, and set-up men, excluding the shop foremen, is appropriate..
The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the set-up men should,
not be included in the unit because 'most of their time is spent setting
up and servicing new equipment prior to delivery to customers and-
that when so engaged they work directly for the sales manager rather
than under the shop foreman. Although in determining an appro-
priate unit we do consider the supervision of the employees involved,,
we do not consider this factor to be solely determinative of the issue.3
The record shows that the set-up men are employed to assemble and.
service new farm equipment and to recondition used farm equipment.
that is taken in trade by the Employer. They work in the shop with.
the other employees when reconditioning equipment, and when so
engaged in repair work come under the supervision of the shop fore-
man. There also appears to be some interchange of shop mechanics to
the set-up work. Under the circumstances, it appears that the set-up,
men have sufficient community of interest with the shop mechanics.
.to be included within the unit petitioned for.
We find, therefore, that all of the Company's shop employees in--
eluding the mechanics, mechanic trainee ,4 and set-up men, but ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, partsmen, janitor, guards, 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 in this.
volume.]
See The Rollman & Sbns Company, 90 NLRB No. 1.
4 There is only one employee in this category and the record indicates that there is
reason to anticipate his permanent employment as a rank-and -file employee on completion.
of his training period.