Grand River Chevrolet Co.

690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GRAND RIVER CHEVROLET COMPANY ; ED RINSE CHEVROLET; VER HOVEN WOODWARD CHEVROLET, INC.; DICK CONNELL CHEVROLET, INC.; JIM ADAMS SALES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 376, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 7-RC-2504, 7-RC-2505, 7-RC-2506, 7-RC-2517, and 7-RC-2518. October 29, 1954 Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this consolidated proceeding, the Board finds : 1. All of the Employers are located in the State of Michigan where they are engaged in the buying and selling of new and used motor cars, parts and accessories, and the servicing and repair of motor cars. During the calendar year 1953, each of the following Employers, Grand River Chevrolet Company, Ver Hoven Woodward Chevrolet, Inc., and Dick Connell Chevrolet, Inc., sold products in excess of $100,000 which were shipped to points outside the State of Michigan. We find that each of the aforementioned Employers is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and we further find, in ac- cordance with the jurisdictional standards recently established in Hogue and Knott Supermarkets 2 and Wilson Oldsmobile,' that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. With respect to Employers Ed Rinke Chevrolet and Jim Adams Sales, Inc., we find that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over these Employers as the interstate volume of the flow of goods of each Employer does not meet the requirements established in the above cases. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti- tions in those cases. 2. The labor organization involved claims 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. 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employers' motion to dismiss the peti- tions on the grounds that the cases were improperly consolidated and that the hearing officer improperly granted the Petitioner's amendment to petitions which corrected the name of one Employer and the address of another Employer. As the record shows that none of the Employers has been prejudiced by the consolidation of the cases and the amendments to the petitions, we hereby deny the motion to dismiss. 1110 NLRB 543. 110 NLRB 534. 110 NLRB 690. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 691 4. In accord with the stipulation of the respective parties : We find appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act, separate units composed of the fol- lowing employees, excluding in each case all office clerical employees, garage employees, parts and service personnel, porters, guards, assist- ant sales managers, sales managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act : Case No. 7-RC-,0504: All new and used car salesmen of Grand River Chevrolet Company employed at 5133 Grand River Avenue and 6421 W. Warren Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. Case No. 7-RC-2506: All new and used car salesmen of Ver Hoven Woodward Chevrolet, Inc., employed at 16350 Woodward Avenue, Highland Park, Michigan. Case No. 7-RC-2517: All new and used car salesmen of Dick Con- nell Chevrolet, Inc., employed at 12240 Joseph Campau and 15350 Gratiot Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 7-RC-2505 and 7-RC-2518.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF SAN ANGELO and GENERAL TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL No. 583, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-691. November 2, 1954 Decision and Order On April 27, 1954, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case. The Board finds that it will not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and shall, for the reasons hereinafter stated, dismiss the complaint in its entirety. 110 NLRB No. 106.