Austin Ford, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1398 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Morris Eskenazi------------------------------------------- $7,233.20
Yolanda Flamio------------------------------------------- 8,816.39
Adelaide Fonagy------------------------------------------ 1,394.68
Fred Franchi------------------------------------------- -- 168.08
Dorothy Gheradi------------------------------------------ 3,795.63
Vernal Gibson Fine---------------------------------------- 1,953.77
Gloria Gonzales De Turo----------------------------------- 287.65
Bernard Greco-------------------------------------------- 283. 16
Evard Green---------------------------------------------- 2,506.10
Louis Hernandez------------------------------------------ 274.81
Lena Maddalena------------------------------------------- 3,042.90
Lillie Maddalena------------------------------------------ 5,228.45
Ralph Maresco-------------------------------------------- 1,468.05
Camille Martone Vaughan---------------------------------- 580.65
Joseph Matera-------------------------------------------- 2,392.39
Agnes Messina-------------------------------------------- 5,456.45
James Miller---------------------------------------------- 1,127.74
Mary Occino Schettino------------------------------------- 1,236.39
Marie Olker Finelli---------------------------------------- 337.74
Jane Pasculli______________________________________________ 1,301.56
Carmine Pastore------------------------------------------ 2,770.52
Henry Paul----------------------------------------------- 10,096.97
Richard Pellay-------------------------------------------- 1,869.10
Elizabeth Petrus------------------------------------------- 5,681.10
Peter Pieroni---------------------------------------------- 75.08
Rafael Prieto---------------------------------------------- 5,095.45
Antoinette Radice Cassanelli--------------------------------- 449.46
Patricio Rivera-------------------------------------------- 2,551.85
William Sandhop------------------------------------------ 610 63
John Saxton---------------------------------------------- 1,181.95
Ruth Shaw----------------------------------------------- 2,916.29
Estelle Sills Sanzano--------------------------------------- 2,044.62
Madeline Smolen------------------------------------------ 231.79
Frank Squillante------------------------------------------ 222.60
Frank Tommarello---------------------------------------- 2,106.64
Leopold Weinberg----------------------------------------- 325.11
Abraham Zimmerspitz ------------------------------------- 1,477.65
Michael Zinzi--------------------------------------------- 2,674.04
I recommend that the Respondent deposit in escrow for the persons named below
the sum opposite each of their names under the conditions as hereinabove provided:
Jose Avalo----------------------------------------------- $3,293.72
Luis Diaz------------------------------------------------ 3,874.50
Peter Golpe ---------------------------------------------- 13,435.43
Isiah Smith----------------------------------------------- 1,196.33
Salvatore Tripolone---------------------------------------- 523.00
Henry Vargas--------------------------------------------- 4,207.46
Katherine Crawford---------------------------------------- 11,405.90
Thelma Delbagno----------------------------------------- 10,914.102
It is further recommended that the Board adopt the foregoing findings and con-
clusions and order the Respondent to pay to the discriminatees the amounts recom-
mended herein.
Austin Ford , Inc. and Freight Drivers , Warehousemen & Help-
ers Local Union No. 390, an affiliate of International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-12441. April 24, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW
On August 3, 1961, the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled pro-
136 NLRB No. 123.
AUSTIN FORD, INC. 1399
ceeding, finding appropriate a unit of all automotive line mechanics
and helpers at the Employer's retail automobile agency. Thereafter,
the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a timely
request for review of such Decision and Direction of Election, on
the grounds, inter alia, that substantial questions of fact and policy
were raised with respect to the Regional Director's unit determination.
The Board by telegraphic order, dated August 25, 1961, granted the
request for review and stayed the election which had been scheduled.
On the same date the request for review was granted, the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, herein called the IAM, filed a
motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae, setting forth its unit
position.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, with re-
spect to the issues raised by the Employer's request for review, and
including the position of the IAM set forth in its motion, and makes
the following findings :
The Petitioner in its amended unit request sought a unit confined
to the line mechanics in the Employer's service department. The
Employer, in opposition, contended that the unit should include all
service employees. The IAM urges a unit of all mechanics regardless
of the department in which they work. The Regional Director in
his Decision and Direction of Election found the requested unit to be
appropriate and we have granted the Employer's request for review
of this determination.
The Employer's service department is divided administratively into
four subdepartments : customer service, new car get-ready, used car
make-ready, and paint and body shop. They are all under the gen-
eral supervision of the service manager. When a customer brings a
car into the shop for service he is received by a service writer who
determines what repairs are required and writes up a repair order,
which is taken by the dispatcher who assigns the work to one of the
automotive line mechanics in the customer service department. The
service writer may himself make minor repairs or adjustments. The
service writers and the dispatcher are experienced mechanics and,
when needed, they assist mechanics.
The automotive line mechanics are experienced and skilled me-
chanics who perform all and any types of repair and service work on
cars . Some of them specialize on transmissions, front ends, and air-
conditioning work. The line mechanics are assisted in their work
by helpers who are hired without experience but who can qualify
as mechanics after at least 2 years' experience. There are also porters
in the shop who perform miscellaneous work for all service depart-
ments, make minor emergency repairs on cars , and at times act as
helpers to mechanics.
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There are also employees who work as mechanics in other sub-
departments of the service department and in the parts department.
Those in the new car get-ready and used car make-ready depart-
ments install power equipment on new cars and repair used cars
preparatory to their sale. Mechanics in the paint and body shop on
occasion repair car bodies and engines that have been damaged in
accidents, and repair and replace complex mechanisms used in auto
hydraulic and electrical systems which operate auto windows and
tops. Parts department employees exercise some mechanical skills
and have frequent contact with service department employees. They
dismantle engines and transmissions to obtain needed parts, fabricate
and improvise parts, and assist mechanics in adjusting substitutes for
unavailable standard automobile parts.
Although the line mechanics appear to be the most skilled me-
chanics in the Employer's shop, all the Employer's mechanics are
hired on the basis of their skills and prior experience as mechanics
and are assigned to any one of the service departments. Because of
their skills, the Employer can temporarily shift its service employees
from one department to another whenever work requirements demand
it. Moreover, when a line mechanic vacancy occurs the Employer
considers all its service employees for the vacancy. All employees in
the service and parts departments have the same opportunity to im-
prove their mechanical ability by attending Ford Motor Company in-
struction schools. All have the same working conditions and receive
generally the same benefits.'
Upon the foregoing, and our review of the entire record, we are of
the opinion that the automotive line mechanics in the Employer's
customer service department are not such a distinct and homogeneous
group which could constitute a separate appropriate unit on either
a craft or departmental basis. Where, as here, all employees in the
service and parts departments of an automobile sales and service estab-
lishment have and exercise in various degrees the skills of automotive
mechanics, and the functions they perform are related to the service
and repair of automobiles, we believe that they should all be included
in the same bargaining unit 2 We find therefore that the following
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
1 The line mechanics and body mechanics are paid on a straight commission basis and
receive a set amount per week for vacation pay Some of the parts department employees
are paid on an hourly rate basis plus a commission on sales. All other employees are
paid on an hourly rate basis and receive vacations with pay.
9 This unit is consistent with the unit of service employees which the Board has long
held to be appropriate in automobile sales and service establishments E g, Norman
Weaver and Harold Weaver, partners , d/b/a Weaver Motors, et at, 123 NLRB 209;
Herman H Brown Service Company , 115 NLRB 1371 ; Tom Zwetifel, Incorporated, 108
NLRB 102; F. L. Babb, d/b/a Babb Motors, 108 NLRB 1140 ; 0. Z. Hall Motors, Inc.,
94 NLRB 1180; Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105.
AUSTIN FORD, INC. 1401
All employees in the service department of the Employer's automo-
bile sales and service agency in Miami, Florida, including mechanics
in the customer service, new car get-ready, used car make-ready, and
the paint and body shop departments, mechanic helpers, porters, and
parts department employees, but excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for the Twelfth Region for the purpose of holding an election in the
unit found appropriate herein pursuant to his Direction of Election,
except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that
immediately preceding the date below.'
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting :
I dissent.
Under the Board's own Rules and Regulations, a request for review
of a Regional Director's decision may be granted only if (1) a sub-
stantial question of law or policy is involved-e.g., the Regional Di-
rector has departed from Board precedent; or (2) the Regional
Director's decision is clearly erroneous; or (3) prejudicial error has
resulted from the conduct of the hearing; or (4) there are compelling
reasons for reconsideration of an important Board rule or policy."
None of these factors is present here. The Regional Director found
that a unit limited to automotive line mechanics is appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining. This finding is not only supported
by the facts as found by him, but accords with established Board
precedent.' Since no issue of reconsideration of Board policy is
involved here, as no contention has been made respecting the conduct
of the hearing, and as it has not been shown that the decision of
the Regional Director was clearly erroneous, but, to the contrary,
followed Board precedent, I would, as I believe the Board's Rules
require, dismiss this request for review.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision on Review.
3 As the unit found appropriate herein is larger than that sought by the Petitioner, the
Regional Director is instructed not to proceed with the election until he shall have
determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the
employees in the appropriate unit who are eligible to vote in the election In the event
the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election for such a unit, we shall permit it
to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the
date of issuance of this Decision and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election.
' Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, Section 102.67(c).
6lnternatsonal Harvester Company , 119 NLRB 1709; Tex Brotherton , Inc, 124 NLRB
1142; Diamond T. Utah, Inc., 124 NLRB 966. See also Kennecott Copper Corporation,
125 NLRB 107, 108-109 , and Trevellyan Oldsmobile Company, 133 NLRB 1272.