Autohaus-Brugger, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Autohaus-Brugger , Inc., Petitioner and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No . 1414. Case
20-RM-1100
October 1 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , J EN KINS, AN D ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act,' a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Kenneth N. Silbert. Following
the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, and by the direction of the Regional
Director for Region 20, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction here.'
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space6Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 1414, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
On August 2, 1968, the CAE filed the instant
petition alleging that the Union's picketing of the
Employer had an organizational object and therefore
raises a question concerning representation. The unit
was stipulated.'
I The instant petition was filed by the California Association of
Employers , hereinafter referred to as CAE, for and on behalf of
Autohaus-Brugger, Inc.
2 The parties stipulated that the Employer is a California corpora-
tion engaged in the retail sale and servicing of automobiles , and in the
course and conduct of its business the Employer annually makes
purchases of goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
outside the State of California.
3 At the hearing the parties stipulated that the following unit is
appropriate "All automotive mechanics of the Employer at its Palo
Alto location , excluding salesmen, office clericals, service manager,
assistant service manager , guards and supervisors as defined by the Act."
4 Murattr 's Inc., 132 NLRB 699 , Cockatoo , Inc., 145 NLRB 611. We
find it unnecessary to resolve the legal issue as to whether picketing
173 NLRB No. 32
On July 30, 1968, the Union began picketing the
business premises of the Employer, and such picket-
ing continued at least until the hearing. The type of
signs carried contained the following language
Attention, Public Only Autohaus-Brugger Non-
Union
Please Do Not Patronize
Peinsula Auto Mechanics Local 1414
I.A.M. and A.W., AFL-CIO
The Employer contends that Union representative
King stated to CAE representative Braun that the
Union would picket until the Employer signed a
union contract, this being tantamount to a demand
for recognition. King, while admitting that a conver-
sation with Braun took place, did not recall making
the alleged statement. Other evidence adduced by the
Union showed that prior to the beginning of the
picketing, it had sent a letter to the Employer
denying any claim to represent the employees in
question, and prior to the hearing, it had filed a
disclaimer with the Regional Office of the Board.
In our opinion, it is clear that the picketing
engaged in had as its purpose and effect the notifica-
tion to the public that the Employer's business was
"non-union." In short, we find that the picketing was
not inconsistent with the Union's disclaimer '
Even assuming that the Union has some interest in
organizing the employees in question and in ultimate-
ly representing them, there is nevertheless no basis in
the circumstances for concluding that the Union's
activities were tantamount to a present demand for
recognition. Consequently, and also in view of the
Union's disclaimer and the fact that the Employer has
failed to show that the Union has engaged in conduct
inconsistent with that disclaimer, we find that no
question affecting commerce exists within the mean-
ing of the Act.' We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in this
case be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
outside the protection of the informational proviso to Section
8(b)(7)(C) would require an election under the circumstances presented.
Here, the evidence in support of any claim that the picketing was not of
the lawful informational type protected by Section 8(b)(7)(C) is limited
to a single refusal by a deliveryman to cross the picket line Thus, on the
first or second day of picketing , a driver, employed by an oil company,
refused to make a delivery Thereafter , the Union informed the oil
company that the picketing was informational and not intended to
cause work stoppages of any kind . As there have been no further
stoppages, and the above incident failed to constitute an "effect " within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C), the record clearly indicates that the
picketing conformed to that section's requirements for legitimate
publicity picketing
5 See Raymond F. Schweitzer, Inc , 165 NLRB No. 84