Al Laman Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
contention, that the recent amendment does not make the contract,
otherwise lawful, unlawful for purposes of contract bar.3 _
The Petitioner also contends that the following clause, article 5 of
the current contract, discriminates against nonunion employees:
'It is agreed that the Union employees will be paid straight time
pay for the following legal holidays: . . . providing the employee
works every day of the scheduled work week excepting the holiday.
It is further agreed that any,employee required to work'on any of
said holidays shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for all the hours worked in addition to the holiday
pay, and double time for all work performed on Sunday.
(Emphasis added.)
While the reference to "Union employees" in this paragraph raises
some doubt as to its legality, testimony on the record that the use of
this phrase was a scrivenor's error is uncontradicted; and this testi-
mony is further supported by the fact that the record affirmatively
reveals that holiday benefits have been granted to all employees,
regardless of union affiliation. We therefore find no merit in this
additional contention of the Petitioner.4
Accordingly, we find that. this contract is a bar to a determination
of representatives at this time, and we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed. -
a "An interpretation which makes the contract or agreement lawful will be preferred
over one which would make it unlawful ." Williston on Contracts , revised edition,
Sectionr620. . '
4 Cf. Decker Clothes, Inc., 83 NLRB 484.
11
AL LAMAN MOTORS, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, FEDERAL
LABon UNION No . 18671, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 8-RC-1489.
March 18, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Fusco, 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 Styles]..
98 NLRB No. 102.
AL LAMAN MOTORS, 'INC. 725
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that their contract,
which expires on April 30, 1952, constitutes a bar to the instant pro=
ceeding. As this contract will expire in less than a month, we find
that it is not a bar.- We find, however, that no question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to represent the body repair mechanics em-
ployed by the Employer. The Employer and the Intervenor contend
that these employees, together with the other employees of the Em-
ployer, are an unseverable -part of a multiemployer unit currently
represented by the Intervenor.
The Employer, an automobile dealer and repair shop, had originally
performed no body repair work, but subcontracted such work to the
Brooklyn Body Shop. In 1945 the Employer purchased the entire
stock.of the Brooklyn Body Shop. The Employer operated this shop
as a separate corporation under contract with the Petitioner. Such
a contract was in effect when the Employer, in September 1951, dis-
solved the Brooklyn Body Shop as a separate corporation, combined
its facilities under one roof with its automobile sales and repair opera-
tions, and informed the employees of the Brooklyn Body Shop that
they were dismissed but might apply to the Employer for new employ-
ment. All the former employees of the Brooklyn Body Shop made
application and were employed by the Employer. Since then, they
have constituted the body repair department of the Employer under
the supervision of the former manager of the Brooklyn Body Shop.
At the time of the dissolution of the Brooklyn Body Shop, the Em-
ployer was signatory to a collective bargaining contract with the
Petitioner which covered "auto mechanics, body repairmen and/or
painters and trimmers." This contract had been negotiated by R. E.
Burrows on behalf of 35 Cleveland automobile dealers of whom the
Employer was one. Burrows has represented substantially this same
group of Cleveland automobile dealers in negotiations with the Peti-
tioner since 1938. The Employer has been a member of this group
since it began operation of its automobile shop in 1944. Burrows
receives annually from each member of the group an individual author-
ization to negotiate on its behalf. Burrows is empowered to and does
i In view of this finding , we shall not pass upon the other contract bar contentions
raised by the parties.
998666-vol. 98-53-47
726 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appoint an adyisory committee, to whom he submits proposed contracts
for approval. After the advisory committee has approved a contract,
it is submitted to other members of the group, who individually sign
these contracts. With one exception, all contracts negotiated by Bur-
rows and approved by the advisory committee have been signed by all
members of the group. Under all the circumstances, we find that the
Employer has demonstrated a desire to be bound by group rather than
by individual action.2 We further find that the employees sought by
the Petitioner, having become an integral part of the Employer's
working force, are an unseverable part of a multiemployer unit. As
the Petitioner has disclaimed any interest in a unit other than the one
set forth in its petition, and as we have found such a unit to be inap-
propriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
2 Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association , 90 NLRB 374.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, NEW CORNELIA BRANCH and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,' PETITIONER
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, NEW CORNELIA BRANCH and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. B-523,
AFL,2 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 21-RC-2144, 21-RC-.195, 21-RC-
2196, 21-1?0-2197, .1-RC-2198, 21-RC-2199, and. 21-RC-2160.
March 18,1952
Decision , Order, and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearings was
held before Ben Grodsky, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed .4
I Herein called the Steelworkers.
2 Herein called the Electrical Workers.
2 The above -captioned cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing by an order of
the Regional Director , dated November 7, 1951.
4 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Steelworkers ' request to withdraw its
petition in Case No. 21-RC-2144, because the same units therein requested are more
specifically described in its Cases Nos. 21-RC-2195 through 2199 . We shall grant the
request of the Steelworkers and permit withdrawal of the petition in Case No . 21-RC-2144.
Also referred to the Board for disposition were the motions of the Employer to dismiss
the petitions in Cases Nos. 21-RC-2195, 21-RC-2196 , and 21-RC-2160, and the motions
of the Intervenors to dismiss all of the petitions herein. These motions are discussed in
paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, below.
At the hearing, a representative of the painters employed at the New Cornelia branch
stated that the painters signed the Steelworkers ' authorizations at a time when they
98 NLRB No. 107.