Karr Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 675 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

BREWSTER MOTORS, INC. 675
the conclusion, in this instance, that only the over-all production
and maintenance unit is appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Edmonds, Washington, plant, excluding
the crane operator, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors within the meaning of 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.]
BREWSTER MOTORS, INC. and EDWARD E. KARR, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A
KARR MOTOR COMPANY 1 and Roy OWENS, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A
OWENS & GILL MOTOR Co.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 14-RC-12124, 14-RC-1225,
and 14-RC-1230. March 5,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon consolidated petitions duly filed, a hearing was held on De-
cember 19, 1950, before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hear-
ing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-inember panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. All three of the Employers conduct similar operations. They
are engaged in the sale of new and used automobiles, and in the repair
of automotive equipment, at Herrin, Illinois. Each contends that
its business, viewed separately, does not affect interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
Each Employer holds, for that city and its environs, an exclusive
franchise from a multistate automobile manufacturer (Brewster
Motors. Inc., with Ford Motor Company; Karr Motor Company with
Chrysler Motor Company; and Owens & Gill Motor Co. with Nash
Motor Company). During the year 1949, each Employer purchased
automobiles and automotive equipment valued in excess of $143,000,
all of which was received from points outside the State of Illinois.
' The names of the Employers appear as amended at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 95.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the same period, all of the Employers' sales were made within
the State.
As the Board has recently held, franchised automobile dealers op-
erate as integral parts of a multistate enterprise, and the Board will
therefore exercise its jurisdiction over them.2 We find that each of
the Employers is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over each of them.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
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.
4. The Petitioner requests three separate units, each comprising
essentially the garage employees of one Employer. Except for a
question concerning the inclusion of a single employee of Owens &
Gill Motor Co., who does greasing and washing, the only dispute
between the parties concerns the scope of the proposed units. The
Employers contend that separate units are inappropriate because of
a bargaining history on a multiemployer basis, and that the em-
ployees here involved may be properly represented only in a single
over-all unit embracing the employees of all employers in the Herrin
Garage Owners Association, of which these Employers are members.
The earliest concerted activities among those employees occurred
in the summer of 1949 when District 50, United Mine Workers, started
to organize the garage employees in Herrin. For the purpose of
dealing with that union, the garage owners formed the Herrin Garage
Owners Association. Bargaining negotiations resulted in a 1-year
contract, effective August 1, 1949, and covering in a single unit the
employees of all members of the Association. On September 30, 1949,
the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges; thereafter, the As-
sociation, on November 22, 1949, withdrew recognition from that,
organization.
In August 1950, the Petitioner entered into a consent election agree-
ment with the Association for an association-wide unit. No election-
pursuant to this agreement was ever held.3 There has been no other
collective bargaining among the employees here involved.
Thus 'it appears that the only bargaining history upon which the
Employers rely for justification of a multiemployer unit is limited to
a single instance of a short-lived and aborted contract. We consider
such a brief bargaining history to be too insubstantial to be con-
2 Baxter Bros, 91 NLRB 1480
1
On August 31, 1950, the Petitioner withdrew the representation petition, upon which
the consent agreement was based.
WILLIAM S. FRAZIER 677
trolling now.4 Certainly, it cannot be said to have stabilized, or to
have contributed to the stabilization of, labor relations between these
Employers and their employees.5 Accordingly, we find that separate
units for each of the Employers are appropriate.
As to the greaser and washer employed by Owens & Gill Motor Co.,
his Employer would exclude him and the Petitioner is noncommittal.
The record shows that each of the units-including auto mechanics
and repairmen, together with their helpers and apprentices-is all
inclusive of garage operations. Therefore, because the greaser and
washer does ordinary garagemen's work, we shall include him in the
bargaining unit.
We find that the following employees of each of the Employers,
Brewster Motors, Karr Motor Company, and Owens & Gill Motor
Co., constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of,collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All auto
mechanics, body, fender, metal men, their helpers and apprentices,6
excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, salesmen,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association, 90 NLRB 374; Butte Motors, 85 NLRB
1336; Scott Motor Company , 84 NLRB 129.
5 Retail Merchants Association of Terre Haute, Indiana, 83 NLRB 112.
B Including the greaser and washer at Owens & Gill Motor Co. The other Employers
have no employees in this category.
WILLIAM S. FRAZIER and NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE
POTTERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONEI. Case No.
21-R, C-1150. March 5, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Direction
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated April 25,
1950, an election by secret ballot was held on May 11, 1950, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit
heretofore found appropriate.
At the close of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that there were approximately 32 eligible voters
and that 39 voters cast ballots. Of these ballots, 14 were for the
Petitioner, 11 were against the Petitioner, 1 ballot was void, and 13
were challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were
filed within the time provided therefor.
I Unpublished.
93 NLRB No. 94.