Louis Rose Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 690 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it.
hereby is, dismissed.
Louis ROSE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO &o--
BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA.
(UAW-CIO). Case No. 7-CA-633. June 13, 19 52
Decision and Order
Upon a charge duly filed August 13, 1951, and an amended charge
filed November 5, 1951, by International Union, United Automobile,.
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO), herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, issued a complaint dated
December 19, 1951, against Louis Rose Company, herein called the
Respondent, alleging inter alia that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. Copies of the-
complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practice, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that on or about July 27, 1951, and on numerous occasions
thereafter, the Respondent refused, and now refuses, to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as a representative of an appropriate unit of
its employees. On December 31, 1951, the Respondent filed an an-
swer admitting, among other allegations, the allegation that it re-
fused, and refuses, to bargain. In further answer the Respondent
alleged that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and is therefore not subject to the Act.
Thereafter all parties entered into a stipulation which set forth an
agreed statement of facts. The stipulation provides that the parties
thereby waived their rights to a hearing and to the taking of testimony
before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board.
The stipulation further provides that, upon such stipulation and the
record as therein provided, the Board may make findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and may issue its Decision and Order as if the
same facts had been adduced in open hearing before a duly author-
ized Trial Examiner of the Board.
The aforesaid stipulation is hereby approved and accepted and
made a part of the record in this case. In accordance with Section
203.45 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
99 NLRB No. 105.
LOUIS ROSE COMPANY 691
this proceeding was duly transferred to and continued before the
Board.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, and the entire record
in this case, the Board, having duly considered the briefs filed by the
Respondent and the Union, makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Michigan corporation having its principal office
and place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Respondent is principally
engaged in selling new and used motor vehicles and motor vehicle
parts and accessories and in servicing and repairing motor vehicles.
It is an authorized Chrysler dealer and sells, under a sales agreement
with the Chrysler Corporation, De Soto and Plymouth automobiles
and parts and accessories. During the fiscal year of September 30,
1951, it purchased from the Chrysler Corporation new motor ve-
hicles valued at approximately $325,711.76 and parts and accessories
valued at approximately $233,538.69. During the same fiscal period
Respondent also purchased used motor vehicles valued at approxi-
mately $650,747.71. It sold new and used motor vehicles valued at
approximately $3,509,693.88 and parts and accessories valued at ap-
proximately $208,059.07. All such sales and purchases were made
within the State of Michigan.
Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its general
offices located in Detroit, Michigan, manufactures automobiles and
their parts and accessories. It has plants located in the States of
Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and California. Chrysler Corporation an-
nually purchases raw materials and fabricated parts valued at over
$250,000,000, of which approximately 45 percent is shipped to its
Michigan plants from points outside the State of Michigan. It annu-
ally sells automobile products valued at over $600,000,000; approxi-
mately 75 percent is shipped to customers outside the State of Michi-
gan. Its products are distributed almost exclusively through dealers,
of whom the Respondent is one, located in various States of the United
States and throughout the world. Chrysler Corporation controls and
to a large extent determines, through exclusive sales agreements with
its dealers including Respondent, the suggested price, schedules of dis-
count, and terms of purchases for which the Chrysler Corporation
products handled by said dealers are sold, and the general method
and geographical area in which the entire businesses of its dealers
are conducted.
On the basis of these facts, we conclude that the Employer functions
as an essential element in .a Nation-wide system devoted to the manu-
{692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facture and distribution of automobiles. We find, therefore, that under
the Board's well-estah]ished doctrine the Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondent."
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organization
as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The appropriate unit and representation of a majority therein
In accordance with the Board's certification, the parties stipulated,
and the Board finds, that a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
consists of :
All mechanics, partsmen, washrack men, bumpers, and painters
employed at the Respondent's establishment located at 5454 Cass
Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, excluding salesmen, office and clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The stipulation recites that on May 3, 1951, pursuant to the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 7-RC-1266, a majority
of these employees of Respondent in the bargaining unit described
above, in an election by secret ballot, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Re-
spondent. The stipulation further recites that on May 15, 1951, the
Board issued its certification of representatives, copies of which were
duly served upon the parties, certifying the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the afore-mentioned unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining. In view of this stipulation we find,
contrary to the Respondent's denial in its answer to the complaint,
that the Union at all times since the Board's certification has been
and is now the exclusive representative of these employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
B. The refusal to bargain
The stipulated facts show that on or about July 27, 1951, the Union,
by its duly authorized representative, requested the Respondent to
recognize the Union as the exclusive representative for the employees
in the certified bargaining unit and to meet with the Union for the
IN. L. R. B. v. Ken Rose Motors , Inc., 94 NLRB 868, 193 F. 2d 769; N. L. R. B. v.
Conover Motor Co., 93 NLRB 867, 192 F. 2d 779; Avedis Baxter and Ben Baxter, d/b/a
Baxter Bros ., 91 NLRB 1480.
LOUIS ROSE COMPANY 693
purposes of negotiating a collective bargaining contract. On August
11 1951, Respondent, through its attorney, advised the Union by letter
that it, would refuse to bargain with the Union because Respondent is
not engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent has continued its refusal to bargain and asserts that it
will so` continue unless and until an appropriate court of appeals of
the United States orders it to bargain with the Union.
In view of our finding in Section I, above, that the Respondent is
engaged in interstate commerce and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act for the Board to take jurisdiction in this case, we find that
the Respondent, in refusing to bargain with the Union, violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (5) and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations as described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the representative of the majority of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, we shall order that the Respondent,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
statutory representative of all the employees in the unit herein found
appropriate.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organi-
zation as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By refusing on or about July 27, 1951, and thereafter, to bargain
collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
215233-53-45
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the
Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Louis Rose Company, De-
troit, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO) as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in the above-described appropriate unit.
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW-CIO) to negotiate for or represent the,
employees in the aforesaid unit as their exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO) as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, and embody any understanding
reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Detroit, Michigan, establishment, copies of the no-
tice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of such no-
tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon- receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Order
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
F. H. McGRAW AND COMPANY
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL E1rPr.OYEES
695
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW-CIO) , as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein,
with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All mechanics, partsmen, washrack men, bumpers, and
painters at the Employer's establishment located at 5454 Cass
Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, excluding salesmen, office and
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interefer with the efforts-
of INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLE11)ENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW=-CIO), to
negotiate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as
their exclusive bargaining agent.
Louis ROSE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By --------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
F. H. McGRAW AND COMPANY and ALBERT G. HENRY
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L. AND ITS
LOCAL 181 and ALBERT G. HENRY. Cases NOS . 9-CA-380 and
9-CB-108. June 13, 1952
Decision and Order
On November 23,1951, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents, F. H. McGraw and Company and International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL, and 'its Local 181, had engaged in and
99 NLRB No. 116.