Grace Motor Sales, Inc.

In the Matter of GRACE MOTOR SALES, INC., EMPLonER and LODGE 698, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-713.-Decided January 31, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hudson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For reasons hereinafter stated, this motion is denied. 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 Reynolds]. Upon the entire record of this case the Board finds : 1. The Employer is a Lincoln and Mercury dealer operating an authorized sales and service business in Detroit, Michigan, under a franchise from the Lincoln-Mercury Division of the Ford Motor Com- pany. The great majority of the products bought by the Employer for resale-automobiles, parts, accessories, tires, and other supplies and equipment-are manufactured or assembled by the Ford Motor Company in its plants in the State of Michigan. In 1948, the Em- ployer made purchases from outside the State in the approximate amount of $41,500. Total purchases for that year were in excess of $1,000,000. Since January 1949, the Employer has made no purchases from outside the State except occasional small purchases of parts and accessories. In 1948, out-of-State sales amounted to approximately $20,200, out of a total of more than $1,100,000. The Employer con- tends that, because it is engaged in business solely within the State of Michigan and because no substantial quantity of the products it buys or sells flows directly across State lines, the Board is without juris- diction in these proceedings. 88 NLRB No. 90. 428 GRACE MOTOR SALES, INC. 429 We find, contrary to the Employer's contention and because of the Employer's relationship to the manufacturer of automobiles, that its operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that our assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.' 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)'(1) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all the Employer's employees, excluding office and clerical employees, new and used car salesmen,, administrative and professional employees, watchmen, superintendents, service managers, shop foremen, and all other supervisors. The Petitioner would also exclude all employees in the Employer's "paint and bump shop." The Employer agrees generally with the composition of the unit sought, but submits the question of exclusion of the paint and bump shop employees to the Board for determination. In September 1949, the Employer discontinued the operation of its paint and bump shop because it was unprofitable. Shortly there- after, the Employer made an agreement with James Parton, who had been foreman of the shop, under which Parton undertook to operate the shop, using *its then existing equipment, but paying for all paint and other supplies and any additional equipment required for its operation. Parton is compensated by receiving 70 percent of the labor cost of all jobs processed through the shop. He is furnished with a $70 per week drawing account and all expenses of the shop are debited to his account. Parton is authorized to hire any employees he may need to assist him, but their compensation is also ' debited to his account. Parton has exercised this authority by employing Ed Pilerski, who receives 50 percent of Parton's compensation. Both Parton and Pilerski are carried on the Company's payrolls for' tax purposes. Parton's agreement with the Employer is. on a week-to- .week basis and may be cancelled by the Employer on 1 week's notice, depending on business conditions. The agreement also provides that Parton shall direct some of the Employer's mechanics in their performance of certain work not con- nected with the normal operations of the paint and bump shop, and be responsible for the assignment of such work among these me- chanics. As it-is clear that Parton performs supervisory functions, we shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor. As to Pilerski, i Johns Brothers Inc., et al., 84 NLRB 294. 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we believe that the conditions of his employment are so distinct from those of other workers that, regardless of whether he may be an em- ployee of the Employer or of Parton, he does not possess sufficient community of interest with the other employees to justify inclusion in that unit. We shall also exclude Pilerski. We find that all employees of the Employer, excluding paint and bump shop employees,2 new and used car salesmen, office and clerical employees, administrative and professional employees, watchmen, su- perintendents, service managers, shop foremen, and all other super- visors 3 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for col- lective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by se- cret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su- pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll 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 rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar- gaining, by Lodge 698, International Association of Machinists' 2 Ed Pilerski. Excluding, as a supervisor, James Parton. The compliance status of Lodge 698 has lapsed since the hearing in this matter. In the event it falls to renew its compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) within 2 weeks of the Direction, the Regional Director is to advise the Board to that effect . No election shall be conducted unless and until compliance has been renewed.