Edwards Motor Co., Inc.

372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fested thereby are related to other unfair practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) of the Act and danger of commission in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 (a) _of,the Act is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order herein is coextensive with the threat In order, there- fore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist, not only from the unfair labor practices herein found, but also from in any other manner interfering with, restraining-, or coeicing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and that Re- spondent take certain athrmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designated representative of its employees, it will be recommended that Respondent be required, upon request, to engage in good faith collective bar- gaining with the Union. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] s EDWARDS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-12/3. May 9, 1951 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 John S. Patton, hearing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, an Alabama corporation, is engaged in the sale and servicing of new and used cars and trucks, and the sale of parts and accessories for automobiles and trucks. It operates under a sales agreement with General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Division. During the calendar year 1950 the Employer made purchases in excess of $1,300,000. Over $1,000,000 worth of these purchases were shipped indirectly to it from points outside the State of Alabama. All of the Employer's sales were made within the State of Alabama. On the basis of the foregoing facts we find that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.' 11 ' Cf Dorn's House of Miracles, Inc, 91 NLRB 632, Baxter Bros , 91 NLRB 1480; Conover Motor Company, 93 NLRB 867 11 NLRB No 31. EDWARDS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 373 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all of the Employer's automo- tive mechanics, radio repairmen, lubrication men, used car repairmen, service salesmen, body, fender, paint, and trim men, janitors, battery men, washers, polishers, helpers, greasemen, porters, tiremen, laborers, and the towerman, excluding all parts department employees, technical and professional employees, office and clerical employees, salesmen, guards, watchmen, and all other employees, and all executives and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should include the employees sought by the Peti- tioner together with its parts department employees, its office and clerical employees, its salesmen, and the two employees who operate its service station. Parts department employees.-The employees sought by the Peti- tioner constitute the mechanics, skilled repairmen, and unskilled la- borers employed in its service department, located in its main building, together with those employed in its body, fender, and paint depart- ment which is located in another building across the street. Adjacent to the service department in the main building is the parts department. The wall between the service and parts department contains two large windows through which parts are delivered to mechanics from the service department and to the general public. Although mechanics are required to obtain their parts through the windows, to facilitate the proper charging of the parts against the customer who will receive them, they often enter the parts department and pick out the parts themselves. Five of the parts department employees spend all of their time at the parts windows delivering parts to mechanics and customers. One employee acts as a stockman who also distributes parts at the windows. One employee acts as the parts department cashier who keeps a record of all parts distributed and sees that they are billed to customers who obtain them through the service depart- ment. Another parts department employee does all of the purchasing of parts, checking them as they come in, and approves the payments for the parts. In addition this employee helps operate the service station when the regular attendant is at lunch. The only other em- ployee in the parts department acts solely as a truck driver, picking up parts and also making deliveries to any outside customers who may wish to have the parts delivered. The parts department is under the supervision of an acting manager who in turn is at present respon- sible to the service department manager. Although vacation benefits differ between the parts department employees and some of the service 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department employees because of a different method of payment, all other, benefits such as sickness and hospitalization payments and bo- nuses apply equally. On the basis of these facts we find that the parts department employees, including the stockman, the cashier, the purchaser, and the truck driver, have substantial interests in common with the service department employees who work in a related depart- ment, and we shall therefore include them in the unit .2 Service station employees.-The Employer maintains a service sta- tion which is operated just outside the parts department. The station is separated from the parts department by a glass wall. Be- cause of this connection the acting parts department manager is able to supervise both operations at the same time. The filling station at- tendant and his helper perform the usual functions of employees engaged in such an operation.3 Cars of both the employer and the general public are serviced at the station. In view of the interrela- tionship of the interests of the service station employees with those of the parts department and service department employees, we shall include the service station employees in the unit found appropriate.' Salesmen.-The Employer has 14 salesmen engaged in new and used car sales. Although the Employer sought to show that the sales- men introduce their customers to the service department personnel in order to keep them returning to the Employer for service, and that the salesmen work closely in conjunction with the service department per- sonnel, we find that the salesmen have relatively little contact with the service and parts department personnel and few interests in com- mon. In accord with usual Board practice we shall exclude the sales- men from the units Clerical employees.-The Employer has 11 clerical employees in its employ. This group consists of clerks, bookkeepers, a telephone oper- ator, and a secretary. Although most of the work of these clericals is devoted to service and parts department work, it appears that all of them are located in the Employer's second floor offices, separated from the service and parts departments. The employees in the office are all under the supervision of the office manager,6 and have little or no con- tact with the service and parts department employees. For these reasons we find that the clerical employees have no substantial interests 2 Harrys Cadillac-Pontuac Company, 81 NLRB 1; Ivy Russell Motor Go, 90 NLRB No. 260; Earl McMillian, Inc, 90 NLRB No. 250; and Valley Tractor and Equipment Com- pany, 92 NLRB 240. 3 The service station attendant apparently has no authority to hire, discharge , or effec- tively recommend such action with regard to his helper, and is therefore not a supervisor, as defined in the Act. Cf. Vetoda Motor Sales, 86 NLRB 573. Cf. Recht-Froelich Chevrolet Company, 92 NLRB No. 228. This includes two clerical employees, designated by the Employer as numbers 83 and 87, who we find , contrary to the contention of the Employer, are also under the supervision of the office manager. WILLIAM S. FRAZIER 375 ,in common with the employees in the unit found appropriate and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.' We find that all of the Employer's automotive mechanics, radio repairmen, lubrication men, used car repairmen, service salesmen, body, fender, paint, and trim men, janitors, battery men, washers, polishers, helpers, greasemen, porters, tiremen, laborers, the towerman, parts department employees, and the two service station employees,8 but excluding all professional and technical employees, office and clerical employees, salesmen, guards, watchmen, and all other employees, and all executives and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 Cf. Gastonia Weaving Company, 91 NLRB 899 ; The E. J. Kelly Company, 90 NLRB No. 239. 8 It appears that the Employer may employ several apprentices or learners in some of the categories of employees included in the unit. Learners or apprentices in these cate- gories are included in the unit. WILLIAM S. FRAZIER am,d NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF OPERATIVE POT- TERS, A. F. L. Cases Nos. 21-CA-710,01-CA-755, and 21-CA-791. May 10, 1951 Decision and Order Upon charges duly filed on February 23, April 18, and June 5, 1950, by National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, A. F. L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued a consolidated complaint' dated December 4, 1950, against William S. Frazier, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136. Copies of the charges and the consolidated complaint, together with notice of hearing, were duly served upon Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the Respondent discharged Mary Plainer and Marion Fausett on April 13, 1950, Howard Koller, Virginia Sanders, 'The above-numbered cases were consolidated by an order of the Regional Director dated December 4, 1950. 94 NLRB No. 68.