L. C. Beauchamp

In the Matter of L. C. BEAUCHAMP, AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A L. C. BEAU- CHAMP, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1853, PETITIONER In the Matter Of WATTS MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 1853, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 00-RC-605 and 30-RC-606-Decided November 14, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Eugene K. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing of- ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, Chico Automobile Dealers Association, hereinafter referred to as the Association, requested and was granted permission to intervene. The Employer's motion to dis- miss the petitions on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction is denied for the reasons hereinafter set forth. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. L. C. Beauchamp, a franchised Kaiser-Frazer automobile dealer, whose place of business is at Chico, California, is engaged in the sale and service of Kaiser-Frazer automobiles. During the 18-month period ending June 30, 1949, Beauchamp made purchases amounting to $227,273. Of this amount, $121,727 was for new automobiles manu- factured outside the State of California, shipped to a regional dis- tributor at Emeryville, California, and obtained by Beauchamp from the latter; $15,100 was for automobile parts manufactured outside the State of California but shipped to and purchased from the regional distributor at Emeryville; and $70,846 was for used cars and service, purchased wholly within the State of California. The record does not disclose the volume of sales made during this period, but all sales were made locally within the State of California. 87 NLRB No. 4. 2a 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Watts Motor Company, a partnership composed of B. E. Smith and J. Watts, a franchised Nash automobile dealer, whose place of business is at Chico, California, is engaged in the sale and service of Nash auto- mobiles. During the 11-month period ending June 30, 1949, Watt's Motor Company made purchases amounting to approximately $133,- 690, of which $78,877 was for new automobiles manufactured outside the State of California, some of which were also assembled outside the State, but all of which were obtained by Watts Motor Company from the zone distributor at San Francisco; $13,369 was for parts manufac- tured outside the State of California but purchased from the zone distributor within the State. The record does not disclose the volume of sales made during the foregoing period, but all sales were made locally within the State of California. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employers, that each is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act? 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of each of the Employers.2 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units : The Petitioner seeks separate units consisting, of garage mechanics, apprentices, and helpers, employed in the repair shop of each of the Employers. The Employers and the Association agree as to the pro- posed inclusions. The parties also agree that all office clericals, sales- men, parts men, guards, and supervisors are to be excluded from the units. However, the Employers and the Association contend that individual employer units are inappropriate. They assert that, because the sev- eral members of the Association, including the instant Employers, have delegated full authority to the Association to carry on all of their labor relations and because the Association, in the past, acting through its labor committee, had undertaken certain action involving the working conditions of its members'employees, collective bargaining must be conducted through the Association on a multiple-employer basis. 1 Wm. J. Silva Company, 85 NLRB 573; Scott Motor Company, et al., 84 NLRB 129; Harry's Cadillac-Pontiac Company, Incorporated, at at., 81 NLRB 1 ; Midtown Motors, et at., 80 NLRB 1679; Adams Motor, Inc., 80 NLRB 1518. 2 The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that they failed to recite that the Petitioner had requested , and been denied , recognition. However, the record discloses that recognition had been requested from each of the Employers , and denied. Further, the Employers refused to recognize the Petitioner at the hearing. The Employers' motion is denied. Trueman Fertilizer Company, 81 NLRB 72; Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29. L. C. BEAUCHAMP 25 The Association was incorporated in 1923. In 1940, the members of the Association signed an instrument whereby they agreed that they would not, individually, execute any labor agreements. In 1945, the members of the Association executed a new agreement wherein it was agreed that no member would bargain with any union representatives, but would refer all questions of collective bargaining to the labor committee of the Association. The Employers involved herein signed the latter agreement at the time they entered into business. At the present time, all automobile dealers in Chico having repair shops are members of the Association. The record discloses that each of the Association's members has adhered to the agreement, and has referred all requests for bargaining to the Association. However, on only one occasion has the Association received a request to bargain on an association-wide basis. The Association refused. In 1.947, the Association made a survey of the wages being paid by its several members and recommended that a uniform wage scale be adopted by all of the members. The above-described activity by the Association and its several mem- bers fails to constitute such collective bargaining as will establish a multiple-employer unit as the appropriate bargaining unit .3 Inas- much as there is no controlling collective bargaining history on a multi-employer basis, we find that the single-employer units sought by the Petitioner are appropriate. We find that the following constitute units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : (a) All automotive servicemen employed by L. C. Beauchamp, Chico, California, including mechanics, helpers, and lube and storage men, but excluding parts men, office clericals, salesmen, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. (b) All automotive servicemen employed by Watts Motor Company, Chico, California, including mechanics, helpers, and rack men, but excluding parts men, office clericals, salesmen, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with L. C. Beauchamp and Watts Motor Company, respectively, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Scott Motor Company, et al., supra, and cases therein cited. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, 'and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu= lations, among the employees in the units described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections , and also exclud- ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement to deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1853.