Bangor Auto Body Shop

In the Matter of PHILIP N . KORITZKY D/B/A BANGOR Auix BODY SHOP, EMPLOYER and LODGE 1713 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-793.Decided April 1, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are- hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : The Employer, operating in Bangor, Maine, as a sole proprietor- ship, is engaged in the repair of motor vehicles and in the sale of auto parts and accessories, used cars, Gar Wood Dump Bodies, and Indian motorcycles. The Employer has no exclusive agency or franchise agreement with the suppliers or manufacturers of products which he sells or uses in his repair work, nor are his sales privileged in or re- stricted to any particular territory by contractual agreement., The total value of sales during a representative 11-month period was $156,469. All these sales were made within the State of Maine. Purchases during the same period amounted to $81,537, of which approximately $36,080 represented purchases made outside the State.2 Most of the Employer's repair work is done for individual car owners and garages. Some of the body repair work, however, which is the Employer's specialty, is referred to him by local offices of national insurance companies, although in each instance, the owner of the damaged vehicle makes the choice as to whether or not to utilize the Employer's services in accordance with the insurer's recommendations. 2 The Employer, who took no position with respect to jurisdiction, testified at the hearing ". . . name everything that is sold in automobiles, and I will say , `yes, I sell them.' No agency, I sell them." 2 Of the purchases made outside the State, $27,587 represent purchases from Gar Wood Industries, and $3,693 represent purchases from Indian Motorcycle Company. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 76. 688 BANGOR AUTO BODY SHOP 689 The Employer has about 15 employees, all of whom appear to be includable in the proposed unit. The instant case appears to us readily distinguishable from cases involving the automobile sale and service business, in which we exer- cised jurisdiction. In the Toev-mend case's for example, a substantial portion of the Employer's business consisted of the sale of new Hudson automobiles under a franchise from the Hudson Sales Corporation. In the McMillian case,4 the employer had an exclusive franchise from the Ford Motor Company to recondition engines for Ford dealers in a specified territory. By such agreements, these employers, although their operations were for the most part local, were integrated into national systems for the distribution, sale, and service of motor vehicles and parts. The operations of this Employer are not so integrated, but constitute an essentially local enterprise whose effect on commerce is insubstantial. We therefore do not believe it would effectuate the poli- ,cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 Matter of M. L. Townsend, 81 N. L. R. B. 739. 4 Matter of Earl McM3lltan Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 639.