Gaylin Buick, Inc.

GAYLIN BUICK 107 Gaylin Buick, Inc. and Local 259, United Automobile Workers, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Petitioner. Case 22-RC-5270 November 7, 1972 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, dated April 21, 1972, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 26, 1972, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 22 among certain employees at the Employer's Union, New Jersey, facility. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed that of approximately 41 eligible voters, 38 cast ballots, of which 22 were for, and 14 against, the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and, on July 24, 1972, issued his Report on Objections, in which he recommended that the Board overrule the objections in their entirety, and certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees stipulated by the parties to be in the unit. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report, and a brief in support thereof. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All shop employees in the service department, including service writers, service clericals, parts employees, porters, lubrication men, car jockeys, body shop employees, polishers, and mechanics employed at the Employer's locations at 2140 Morris Avenue and 2265 Morris Avenue, Union, New Jersey, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, new and used car salesmen, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Employer's objections, the Regional Director's report, the Em- ployer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.' Accordingly, as we have overruled the Employer's objections, and as the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that Local 259, United Automobile Workers, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, has been designated and selected by a majority of employees in the unit found appropriate as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the said labor organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting in part: I find that Employer's Objection 3, alleging threats to Spanish-speaking employees of immigration inves- tigation if they did not vote for Petitioner, raises substantial and material issues of fact and law warranting a hearing. Accordingly, I would, contrary to my colleagues, direct a hearing on this issue to determine whether there was a sufficient effect on the atmosphere in which the election was conducted as to require that a second election be run under more desirable circumstances. i The exceptions of the Employer, in our opinion, raise no material or Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Accord- substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the ingly, the Employer's request for a hearing in this matter is hereby denied. 200 NLRB No. 21