Bearing & Rim Supply Co.

BEARING & RIM SUPPLY CO 101 a supervisor. The record establishes that Bertoniere assigns work to other employees and has the authority effectively to recommend hiring and discharging employees. Accordingly, we find that he is a supervisor and shall exclude him. The sole problem in McKoy Lincoln-Mercury Company relates to the propriety of including Pearce, an employee who regularly works not only in the parts department but also as the payroll clerk and as a part-time salesman. We note that the performance of such multiple functions by a single employee is persuasive evidence in support of our finding that all employees constitute the appropriate unit. In Magic City Motors, the parties disagree as to the inclusion or exclusion of Stone, the head mechanic in the repair shop, and Hopkins, the son-in-law of the owner. The Employer would include both. The Employer admitted that Stone can transfer other employees to different tasks but contends that such transfers can be effected bynonsupervisors. However, the Employer also admitted that Stone can effectively recommend that a probationary employee be made permanent or released. We therefore find that Stone is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude him. Like the Employer, we think the relationship between Hopkins and A. E. Knight, Sr., insufficient, in the absence of a showing that he is accorded disparate and preferential treatment, to warrant his exclusion. 14 We find that all employees of each of the Employers at its Bogalusa, Louisiana, establishment, excluding guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute separate units, appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 14lbid. BEARING & RIM SUPPLY CO. and CECIL SALING, M. F. SCHOENBERG, ARLO L. MC FARLAND, CLYDE ENGLUNG, and DONALD W. LINDQUIST, Petitioners and WAREHOUSE- MEN, GARAGE and SERVICE STATION EMPLOYEES' LOCAL UNION NO. 334, A. F. of L.1 Case No. 19-RD-64. November 18, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene R. Ormsbee , hearing officer. The hearing 1 The name of the Union appears as corrected at the hearing 107 NLRB No. 34. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officer ' s rulings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the Union is no longer the representative , as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is the currently recognized representative of the Employe-'s employees in a unit which includes the employees designated in the petition. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.1 4. The appropriate unit: The Union moves to dismiss the decertification petition on the ground that the proposed single-employer unit is inappro- priate in view of the Employer's 7-year history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis. The Petitioners and the Employer contend that the proposed unit is appropriate because the Employer has withdrawn from multiemployer bargaining with the unequivocal intention of pursuing an individual course of action with respect to its labor relations. The Employer, a wholesale distributor of'automotive parts, is a member of Associated Industries of the Inland Empire, an association of employers engaged in a variety of industries in the Spokane, Washington, area. For the past 7 years, the Employer, jointly with other employers, and as a member of the Parts Houses Automotive Jobbers Group, a bargaining group within the Association , participated in the negotiation of successive multiemployer collective - bargaining agreements. On July 16, 1953, while negotiations for a new contract were in progress , the Employer was notified that the instant de- certification petition was filed. Immediately thereafter the Employer resigned from the Parts Houses Automotive Jobbers Group, notified the Association to discontinue bargaining on its behalf, and advised the Union of its action. At the hearing the Employer stated that it desired henceforth to bargain as an individual firm.I The Union contends that the Employer's purported with- drawal from multiemployer bargaining is a temporary ex- pedient designed to support the Petitioners ' decertification request and does not amount to a true abandonment of multi- employer bargaining . We find no merit in this contention. The Employer by its statements at the hearing and by its =In view of our determination that the unit in which decertification of the Union is sought is appropriate, we find, contrary to the Union's contention, that a sufficient showing of interest therein has been made. 3The Employer has retained its membership in the Association solely for the purpose of receiving legislative, advisory, and business services which the Association offers. BEARING & RIM SUPPLY CO. 103 affirmative acts has evinced an unequivocal intention to abandon group bargaining and to pursue instead an individual course of action with respect to its labor relations . 4 Whatever reason it might have had for so doing is immaterial.5 In view of the foregoing , we find , that a single - employer unit is appropriate . Accordingly , we will deny the Union's motion to dismiss. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All countermen, order pickers, shipping and receiving clerks, pickup and delivery men, motorcycle riders, and parts room helpers at the Employer ' s Spokane, Washington , plant, ex- cluding all other employees , office clerks, salesmen , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Murdock , dissenting: I dissent from the conclusion of the majority . In my opinion the facts do not establish an unequivocal intent by the Employer to abandon group bargaining . The Employer withdrew from the group during contract negotiations only after learning of the filing of this petition, and notified the Union that it was "withdrawing from collective bargaining until the National Labor Relations Board had determined with whom I may legally bargain." Under these circumstances , even though the Employer stated at the hearing its intent to bargain on an individual basis, I am persuaded that its action was taken only to accede to its employees' wishes 6 and does not independently evince an unequivocal intent to bargain alone . I would therefore dismiss the petition on the ground that the single -employer unit sought is too limited in scope in view of the bargaining history on a multiemployer basis.7 4Cf. P. E. Ashton Company. 93 NLRB 1286; Kindy Optical Company, 85 NLRB 940; Air Conditioning Company of Southern California , 81 NLRB 946 5 Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 696; Laris Motor Sales , Inc., 104 NLRB 1106. 6The majority states that an employer 's motive for withdrawal is immaterial . I agree. But that motive may, and here I am persuaded it does, negate the expressed intent. 7See Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc. , et al., 106 NLRB 562 ; Washington Hardware Com- pany, 96 NLRB 1001 ; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB 1808.