O'Connor Motor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
O'CONNOR MOTOR, INC. and AuTo MECHANICS LOCAL 1363, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, AND LOCAL No. 964,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 8-RM 71.
September 16,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, hear-
ing 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. On June 11, 1952, representatives of the Teamsters and Ma-
chinists requested the Employer to sign a contract with those two
organizations as joint representatives of its shop employees. Follow-
ing refusal by the Employer to sign such a contract, a meeting was
held several days thereafter at which representatives of the Machinists,
the Teamsters, and the Employer were present. The testimony in-
troduced at the hearing concerning this meeting is ambiguous but
it appears that the Machinists and the Teamsters indicated an agree-
ment between those organizations providing that each would assume
jurisdiction over a portion of the employees in the shop and that the
Employer was requested to sign a separate contract with each organi-
zation. Reference was also made, however, according to the same
testimony, to a "blanket contract." The Board construes the position
of the Machinists and the Teamsters to be, on the entire record, a
request for recognition as joint representative of the shop employees2
in the unit set forth in the Employer's petition. Accordingly, we
find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
1 Auto Mechanics Local 1363 , International Association of Machinists , AFL, herein
termed the Machinists , and Local No 964, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, herein termed the Teamsters , did not
appear at the hearing although served with notice of hearing. We do not, however , regard
such nonappearance as a withdrawal of claims by those unions to represent the employees
of the Employer . See Felton Oil Company , 78 NLRB 1033.
2 Compare Coeur D'Alene Grocers Association, 88 NLRB 44 ; and Ny-Lint Tool ti Mfg.
Co., 77 NLRB 642.
100 NLRB No. 173.
MOYER & PRATT, INC. 1147
sentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all auto mechanics, body men, painters, trimmers,
helpers and apprentices, lubrication and garage men, porters and
regular part-time employees in those classifications at the Employer's
Cleveland, Ohio, automobile sales and service company, excluding
office and clerical employees, salesmen, company officers, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the amended
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
-volume.]
a See Jack Taylor ond"PguCBullard, d/b/a Butte Motors, 85 NLRB 1336 ; George Vevoda
rl/b/a Vei ode Motor Sales;.Sd NLRB 573, and cases cited therein.
MOYER & PRATT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER
MAKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-898. September 16,
1,952
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 3, 1952, in the
above proceedings under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Third Region, among the employees in the stipulated
unit. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which
shows that, of approximately 65 eligible voters, 63 cast ballots, of
which 35 were for the Petitioner, 23 were against the Petitioner, and
5 were challenged.
On April 9, 1952, the Employer filed timely objections to the elec-
tion alleging in substance that the Board agent refused to establish
electioneering limits and that a union official, wno was not an employee
and who conducted the union organizing campaign prior to the elec-
tion, electioneered near the polling place during voting hours, thus
coercing and intimidating employees on their way to vote and inter-
fering with their free choice.
Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on May
21, 1952, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objections.
The Regional Director found that the objections raise no material
issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election and
recommended that they be overruled and that the Petitioner be cer-
100 NLRB No. 190.