Cuttingham Buick, Inc.

386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, and upon the record as a whole, we find that only a com- panywide unit is appropriate.4 As the Petitioner does not seek to represent the larger unit, we shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 'Fetzer Broadcasting Company/, 110 NLRB 316 Cuttingham Buick, Inc. and Joseph John Rich, Petitioner and Local 259, UAW-CIO. Cate No. 2-RD-273. April 21, 1955 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 Jacob Lazarus, 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 case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Intervenor, Local 259, UAW-CIO, is no longer the bargaining repre- sentative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Intervenor is the certified and cur- rently recognized representative of the employees in the unit desig- nated herein. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in agreement with the stipulation of the parties, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All service and parts department employees of the Employer at its Tuckahoe, New York, establishment, including mechanics and polishers, but excluding all office employees, salesmen, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer and the Petitioner contend that certain unreplaced economic strikers have been validly discharged and are therefore not eligible to vote in the election directed herein. The Intervenor con- tends that these individuals should be permitted to vote. During an economic strike which was still current at the time of the hearing 112 NLRB No. 52. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC. 387 herein, the Employer sent each of the strikers a letter informing him that because of the lack of business his services were no longer re- quired. The Intervenor filed a charge alleging this to be a discrimi- natory discharge, but shortly thereafter withdrew it on advice of the Regional Director. At the hearing, asked by the hearing officer if its position was that the letters were "tantamount to a permanent discharge," the Employer replied that it was. However, while the Employer's business was in fact severely affected by the strike, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the volume of business will not return to the prestrike level when the strike ends. We cannot, therefore, on the record before us, determine whether the strikers have been permanently discharged or whether they have a reasonable expectancy of reemployment when the Employer's operations return to normal. We shall therefore permit all persons hired since the date of the strike and all strikers to vote subject to challenge.' The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the results of the election, in which case the question as to which of these ballots shall be opened and counted shall await further investigation concerning the employment status of the affected individuals. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 1 Nothing in this direction should be construed as indicating that the Board has pre- judged in any respect any of the questions which may be drawn in issue by a challenge to the eligibility of any voter. Bowman Transportation, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL, Local No. 612. Cases Nos. 10-CA-1950 and 10-CA-1985. April 22,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On November 26, 1954, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, 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 Inter- mediate 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- 112 NLRB No. 55. 369028-56-vol. 112-26