MacIntyre Motor Co.

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lion in the speech to the employees to discuss questions with Kerin. Accordingly, the Petitioner contends that the Board should find that, as these individual talks continued until the 23d hour before the election, they violated the Peerless Plywood rule. Essentially, the Petitioner would have us treat as an integral part of a -speech to a massed assembly of employees any conversations by an employer with individual employees at their work locations which follow, and are proposed in, the speech. However, we do not believe that we should extend the Peerless Plywood rule to the extent urged by the Petitioner. - Accordingly, we find no merit- in Petitioner's exceptions. As the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the votes cast in the election, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union 345, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] MacIntyre Motor Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 190; affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Local No. 622, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioners Ryan Oldsmobile and Teamsters Local Union No. 190, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO and Local No. 622, affiliated with the International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioners. Cases Nos.197-RC'-2021,19-RG'- 2025, 19-IBC-2022, and 19-RC-2024. October 21, 1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of , the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing ' was-held before Howard E. Hilbun, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board, has-delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean]. -- Upon the entire record in this case , the Board fords : .1. Maclntyre Motor Company and Ryan Oldsmobile , the Employers herein, are automobile dealers engaged in selling new cars, used cars, 119 NLRB No. 15. - - MACINTYRE MOTOR COMPANY 55 parts, and the repair of vehicles in Billings, Montana. Maclntyre Motor Company made purchases of approximately $1,200,000 for the past calendar year of which approximately 98 percent was received directly from out of the State, whereas only 7 to 8 percent of its total volume of sales of approximately $1,800,000 was made out of the State. The purchases of Ryan Oldsmobile for the past calendar year amounted to approximately $806,000 of which 95 percent was received from directly outside of the State; approximately 1 percent of its sales of $1,500,000 was delivered out of the State. Under the Board's policy, the same jurisdictional standards are applied to franchised automobile dealers as are applicable to local retail establishments.' From the above facts, it is obvious that Ryan Oldsmobile does not meet the standard of $1,000,000 direct out-of- State purchases, but that Maclntyre Motor Company does .2 There- fore, we shall dismiss the petitions relating to Ryan Oldsmobile, Cases Nos. 19-RC-2022 and 19-RC-2024. As we find that Maclntyre Motor Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and meets the Board's jurisdictional standards, we shall assert jurisdiction in Cases Nos. 19-RC-2021 and 19-RC-2025. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, Maclntyre Motor. Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. In Case No. 19-RC-2025, the Petitioner and the Employer agree to the requested unit consisting of mechanics, body builders, welders, painters, helpers, apprentices, and working foremen, excluding all other employees. In Case No. 19-RC-2021, the Petitioner and the Employer agree generally to the requested unit composed of washers, lubricating men, tire repairmen, partsmen, receiving and shipping clerks, pickup and delivery men, servicemen, and janitors, excluding all other employees. They differ only as to whether or not the parts manager and the 18ee Wilson-Oldsmobile, 110 NLRB 534; Kenneth Chevrolet Company, et al., 110 NLRB 1615. 2 See The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732. 8 The Employer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that no evidence was presented as to the Petitioners' showing of interest and compliance . Showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation and we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioners' showing of interest is adequate . O. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. As to the adequacy of compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), or (h), such determination involves administrative matters not cognizable in this proceeding. We are presently administratively satisfied that the Petitioners are in compliance. See Desaulniers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025, and Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852. The Employer's motions to dismiss are denied. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assistant parts manager are supervisors and as to whether or not Thomas Maclntyre, son of the president and majority stockholder of the Employer, should be included in the unit. The manager of the parts department supervises the partsroom, orders parts and officially receives them, waits on the counter and performs numerous other routine functions in the department. He is salaried and has the authority to hire and discharge employees in the department. The assistant parts manager, in the absence of the parts manager, has general supervision over the department. The assistant manager on his own initiative orders stock as frequently as the manager. He can effectively recommend hiring and firing although it appears that the actual hiring and firing is done by the manager. We find, on the basis of the above undisputed facts, that both the parts manager and the assistant parts manager are super- visors within the meaning of the Act. Thomas Maclntyre, son of the Employer's president, works full time during the summer months, on Saturdays and after school during the school term. He is paid by the hour and does any jobs that are assigned to him by any of the supervisors, but principally works under the direction of the shop foreman. As there is no evidence in the record that Thomas Maclntyre enjoys any special status which allies him with management by virtue of his father's majority stockholdings and official status, we shall include him in the unit.4 Substantially in accordance with the agreement of the parties in both cases, we find that the following employees at the Employer's retail automotive sales and service operation located at 3520 1st Avenue, North, Billings, Montana, constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: In Case No. 19-RC-2021: All washers, lubricating men, tire re- pairmen, partsmen, receiving and shipping clerks, pickup and delivery men, servicemen, and janitors, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In Case No. 19-RC-2025: All mechanical employees including working foremen, mechanics, body builders, welders, painters, helpers and apprentices, and Thomas Maclntyre, excluding guards, watch- men, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 19-RC-2022 and 19-RC-2024.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] * See American Steel Buck Corporation, 107 NLRB 554.