Jerry Cravens, Inc.

JERRY CRAVENS, INC. 875 from inclusion in the unit and from membership in the union, those employees are thereafter limited in their choice of an effective bargain- ingrepresentative. If they elect to join the contracting union, or one found to be acting in its stead, they should be taken to have - sur-rendered their right to seek, through Board processes,, to obtain ,collective-bargaining representation for the duration of the contract. In view of the assistance of the Steelworkers in organizing the employees herein involved for the Petitioner, the speed with which the group transferred from the Steelworkers to the Petitioner, after the Board's dismissal of the Steelworkers' petition, the relationship between the Steelworkers and the Petitioner, the continuity of leader- ship following the replacement of the Steelworkers by the Petitioner, and all the other circumstances of this case, we would find that the Steelworkers is seeking, with the aid of the- Petitioner, to circumvent the Board decision and to "accomplish indirectly what it has agreed not to do directly." 19 Accordingly, we would find that the Steel- workers' contract, which is effective until November 1956,- and which was found to constitute a bar in-Case No. 4-RC-2598, likewise con- stitutes a bar to the, present proceeding, and we would therefore grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition." "Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 NLRB 1270, 1272. ' See dissent of Member Rodgers in Huron Portland Cement Co., 112 NLRB 1465. Jerry Cravens, ,Inc. and Local 850, International Association of Machinists, AFL, and Local Union No. 886, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Petitioner.' Case No. 16RC-1702. Augu$t 19, 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 Lewis A. Ward, hearing ^off'icer. 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, a retail automobile dealer in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, moved the dismissal of the petition on the ground that its 'new-car purchases are indirect out-of-State purchases and do not meet the Board's jurisdictional minimum of $2,000,000. The record shows, that the Employer annually purchases through the Oklahoma City office of the Ford Motor Company approximately $1,900,000 worth of z The names of the parties appear as used in the hearing, 113 NLRB No. 94. 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD new automobiles and trucks which are delivered from Ford's assembly plants in Dallas, Memphis, Kansas City, and Detroit. As these prod- ucts are assembled in and shipped from out-of-State areas, we find that they constitute direct out-of-State purchases. 'We also find without merit the Employer's contention that the procedure of placing its orders through the local office of the Ford Motor Company renders these purchases indirect. Accordingly, we conclude that the Employer meets the Board's standards for retail establishments which require a minimum of $1,000,000 for direct out-of-State purchases.'. We therefore find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The Employer's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. 2. The labor organization-involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find in agreement with the parties that the following em- ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All service department, body shop department, and parts department employees working in the Employer's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, operations, including mechanics, parts men, body men, painters, drivers, service salesmen, porters, lubrication men, service dispatchers, service cashiers, and service clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, car salesmen, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 9 Cf. Wilson Oldsmobtile, 110 NLRB 534; Kenneth Chevrolet Company, 110 NLRB 1615; Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543. General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division, Pittsburgh Plant and Pattern Makers' League of North America, Pitts- burgh Association, A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1566. August 19, 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 Donald J. Myers, hearing 113 NLRB No. 89.