Barber Motors, Inc.

BARBER MOTORS, INC. 193 in favor of the Petitioner which call for modification of the usual contract bar rules in this case. Accordingly, although the April 15, 1952, automatic renewal date of the agreement has passed, we dismiss the petitions herein without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to file a new petition timely with respect to the June 15, 1952, expira- tion date of the contract. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the elections conducted on March 30, 1951, be, and they hereby are, set aside and that the petiti ons filed. herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to file a new petition at any time before June 15, 1952. BARBER MOTORS, INC., BENNETT YURICK BuiCK, INC., B. W. BLAUSHILD MOTORS, INC., BLAUSHILD MOTOR CO., BROADWAY BUICK SALES SERVICE, INC., BROOKLYN CHEVROLET CO., BROWNLEE CHEVROLET, INC., TONY DITZ PONTIAC, INC., DORNER CHEVROLET CO., DOWNTOWN CHEVROLET MOTORS, INC., FORD AND PAE NASH, INC., FRANKEL CHEV- ROLET CO., GEIGER-SIRL, INC., GROFF-TRIPP, INC., GUTHERY- SCHREIBER CHEVROLET, INC., HEWITT CHEVROLET, INC., HIGHLAND OLDSMOBILE, INC., HIGH LEVEL MOTORS, INC., GEO . KEIPER MERCURY, INC., KINSMAN SQUARE CHEVROLET, INC., AL LAMAN MOTORS, INC., MEISEL MOTORS, METROPOLITAN BUICK, INC., MORRISON -BARNHART MOTORS, INC., MURRAY OLDSMOBILE CO., OHIO MOTORS CO., OLEN MOTORS, INC., PACKARD CLEVELAND, INC., SNYDER-GRIEDER BUICK Co., TILLMAN MOTOR CO., KEITH NVEIGLE MOTORS, INC., WEST PARK CHEVROLET, INC., WEST SIDE PONTIAC, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT NO: 54, LODGE No. 1363, AFL, PETITIONER MICHAEL'S INC.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 54, LODGE No. 1363, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 8-RC-1,570 and 8-RC-1571. May 19, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Under petitions duly filed, separate hearings were held before Henry G. Gieser and David C. Finlay, hearing officers. The hearing officers' 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 99 NLRB No. 33. 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. Each of the Employers is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employers. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Case No 8-RC-1570 On August 9, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed an agreement for the employees involved herein effective for the 2-year period ending April 30, 1952, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of a 60-day notice by either party. On March 30, 1951, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement providing for a wage increase and other changes, and effective until April 30, 1953, to be automatically renewed unless terminated by notice of either party .4 The Petitioner contends that the current agreement cannot operate as a bar as it prematurely extended the Intervenor's prior contract. The Intervenor asserts that the premature extension doc- trine should not apply and moves the dismissal of the petition filed on February 1, 1952, because (1) the 1950 and 1952 contracts do not contain the same group of signatory Employers; (2) the current contract is a new agreement rather than an extension of the prior agreement; (3) the current contract should be protected as it was made necessary by the Government's controls program in 'order to include therein a revised wage schedule for the approval of the Wage Stabilization Board. The Employers take no position on this issue. We find no merit in the contentions of the Intervenor. As to 2 The Auto Transportation, New Trailer and Armored Car Drivers , Garagemen, Gas Station and Parking Lot Operators' Union, Local No. 964, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, was permitted to intervene in these cases on the basis of its contractual interest. The hearing officers referred to the Board the motions of the Intervenor in the above- numbered cases that these cases be consolidated . As they involve similar facts and issues, the motions are granted and the cases are hereby consolidated. Herein called the Ranier case. During the hearing the hearing officer himself introduced and received into evidence over the objection of the parties an agreement between the Petitioner and the Employers relating to certain categories of employees not involved in this proceeding . As the hearing officer's purpose was merely to reveal the categories of employees already represented by the Petitioner as distinguished from those it seeks to represent , his ruling is affirmed. BARBER MOTORS, INC. 195 (1), the record shows that four of the dealers, who were parties to the 1950 contract went out of business, and the companies which assumed the franchise of three of the dealers were' signatories to the 1952 contract. Thus, the current contract lists, with the exception of the one dealer whose franchise was`apparently abandoned, the same companies as the earlier agreement. As to (2), the premature exten- sion doctrine applies whether the supplemental agreement makes few or many changes from the original contract. As to (3), while the Board has recognized the necessity for contractual changes because of fluctuating economic conditions, the Board has carefully preserved the right of employees to change their bargaining representative at predictable and reasonable intervals.6 As; the current contract was a premature extension of the original contract, and as the petition was timely filed with respect to the "Mill B" date of the original contract, we find that it is not a bar to a present determination of representatives.e The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition is hereby denied. Case No. 8-RC-1571 Although Michael's Inc., the Employer. in this case, has not par- ticipated in multiple bargaining along with the Employers in the Barber case, it has followed the practice of adopting the contracts negotiated by the parties in that case. Accordingly, on August 9, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor signed an agreement effective for a 2-year period ending April 30, 1952, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of a 60-day notice by either party. And on May 21, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenor. adopted the supplemental agreement reached by the parties in the Barber case. Theo petition was filed on February 4, 1952. , The Petitioner and, the Intervenor advance substantially the same contentions concerning the contract bar question as those described above. For the reasons given in the discussion of the Barber case, we find that the current contract is not a bar to an election. The Intervenor's motion to. dismiss the petition is hereby denied. 4. We find in agreement with the parties that the following em- ployees constitute separate units appropriate for the, purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning' of Section 9 ('b) of the Act : Case No. 8-RC-1570 All lubrication 'men, garagemen, and gasoline station operators of the Employers listed in the caption, ,in Cuyahoga- County, Ohio, but ° National Gypsum Company, 96 NLRB 676. Sprague Electric Company, 98 NLRB 533; A. Siegel & Sons, Inc., 94 NLRB 471. 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excluding all auto mechanics, body men, painters, apprentices and helpers, salesmen, clerical employees, parts department employees, guards, professional employees, service managers, assistant service managers, shop superintendents, foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Case No. 8-RC-1571 All lubrication men and garagemen of Michaels, Inc., in Cleveland, Ohio, but excluding all auto mechanics, body men, painters, ap- prentices and helpers, salesmen, clerical employees, parts department employees, guards, professional employees, service managers, assistant service managers, shop superintendents, foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] ROBINSON AVIATION, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case No. 2-CA-1872. May 20, 1952 Decision and Order On November 9, 1951, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that those allegations of the; com- plaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- 1 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 Murdock and Peterson]. 99 NLRB No. 46.