Hartman Brothers

HARTMAN BROTHERS 711 In its exceptions, the Employer contends that, by causing 19 known ineligibles to appear at the polls and "stand in line during the entire voting period" and submit to challenges and interrogation in the pres- ence of other voters, the Petitioner coerced such other voters. While we do not condone the action of the Petitioner, if, as alleged, it caused persons to vote who were known by it to be ineligible, we do not believe that the mere fact that a disproportionate number of in- eligible persons voted under challenge in the presence of other voters warrants the inference that such other voters were thereby coerced to vote for the Petitioner. Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the Employer's exceptions raise no substan- tial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and we therefore overrule them. Because the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Chemical Workers Union, A. F. of L., as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direc- tion of Election herein.] HARTMAN BROTHERS and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL No. 955, AFL CARRINGTON CHEVROLET COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL No. 955, AFL DOZIER MOTORS, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, LOCAL No. 955, AFL GILBERT MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- CHINISTS, LOCAL No. 955, AFL. Cases Nos. 30-CA-340, 30-CA-346. 30-CA-347, and 30-CA-348. November 3, 1954 Decision and Order On March 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Re- spondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the issue of jurisdiction raised herein and finds, in agreement with the contentions of the Respondents, that it 3 The name of this Respondent was corrected at the hearing as indicated. 110 NLRB No. 111. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in these cases. The Respondents in this consolidated hearing are independent 2 automobile dealers engaged in the business of selling new motor cars, trucks, parts, and accessories, and also in the repairs of motor vehicles, locally in the city of Montrose, Colorado, or within the State. Hart- man deals in Dodge and Plymouth cars and trucks ; Carrington in Chevrolet and Cadillac cars ; Dozier Motors, in Ford vehicles and Gilbert Motor Company, in Pontiacs and Buicks. The purchases of new cars by the first three Respondents for the year ending June 1952, amounted to approximately $200,000 each and for Gilbert Motor Com- pany, the purchases were approximately $100,000.3 Each of the Re- spondents purchases its stocks of nationally advertised makes of cars, which are manufactured outside the State of Colorado, under a non- exclusive dealer's selling agreement with the manufacturer. Although the Board has, in the past, asserted jurisdiction over auto- mobile dealers on the basis of franchise agreements for the distribu- tion of nationally advertised products, we find, for reasons stated in the Wilson-Oldsmobile case,' in which the Board reexamined its policy in this respect, that the existence of a franchise agreement alone is insufficient to warrant a finding that the Respondent's operations have such an impact on interstate commerce as to justify the assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. As no other basis exists under the Board's present jurisdictional standards for asserting jurisdiction, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 2 There is no evidence that the Respondents are members of an employers' association or that they function as a single integrated enterprise. S See Carrington Chevrolet Company, at at., 101 NLRB No. 34 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). There are no ne , additional jurisdictional facts in the instant proceeding. 4 William T. Wilson, etc., d/b/a Wilson- 0ldsmobile, 110 NLRB 534. THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK- ERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 8-CA-880. November 3, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a charge and amended charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW, the General Counsel 110 NLRB No. 112.