Carriage Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 620 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carriage Oldsmobile Cadillac , Inc., Employer-Petition-
er and District Lodge No. 140 , International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO" and Automobile Mechanics Local No.
701 International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner and
Mel Babel , Petitioner . Cases 13-RM-1090,
13-AC-28, and 13-RD-930
May 13, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On July 27, 1973, the Regional Director for Region
13 issued a Decision and Amendment of Certifica-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
granted Local No. 701's request for amendment of
the certification issued in Case 13-RC-11704, by
designating it in place of District Lodge No. 140 as
the representative of the employees involved, and he
dismissed the petitions filed in Cases 13-RM-1090
and 13-RD-930.3 Thereafter, in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions , Series 8 , as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the grounds, inter alia, that in granting
the requested amendment, he made erroneous
findings of fact and departed from reported preced-
ent.
By telegraphic order dated December 10, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review and accordingly stayed the amendment to
the certification pending decision and review.
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.
In its request for review the Employer contends (1)
that Local No. 701's request that its name be
substituted for District Lodge No. 140 as representa-
tive of the employees involved may be resolved only
in a Section 9(c)(1) election proceeding, and, there-
fore, the petition for amendment of certification
should be dismissed; and (2) that, in any event, the
Board's requirements for amendment of certification
have not been met, as the members of District Lodge
No. 140 involved herein were not given an opportu-
nity to vote on the requested change in their
representation.
District Lodge No. 140 was certified on January 7,
1969, as the collective-bargaining representative of
the "service, body shop and parts department"
employees of Spero Motor Sales, Inc., at its automo-
bile sales and service establishments at Waukegan
and North Chicago, Illinois. On January 1, 1973, the
Employer became successor owner of the operations
and, after negotiations on January 31, it executed a
contract with District Lodge No. 140 for a 1-year
term covering the service employees at Waukegan.4
During the negotiations in January 1973, the
officers of District Lodge No. 140, which then
encompassed in its jurisdiction employees of indus-
trial plants as well as automobile dealers, determined
that the members who were employees of automobile
dealers would be better represented by a sister local,
Local No. 701, all of whose members were employees
of automobile dealers. To that end, discussions were
held among officials of District Lodge No. 140,
Local No. 701, and their parent organization,
referred to herein as the IAM, and on January 24,
1973, they agreed that Local No. 701 would assume
jurisdiction over the automobile dealer employees
who were then represented by District Lodge No.
140.
In February, representatives of Local No. 701 and
the IAM visited the dealerships whose employees
were represented by District Lodge No. 140, includ-
ing the Employer, spoke to the employees about the
planned transfer of jurisdiction, and said it would go
into effect in approximately 1 month. On March 6,
officials of District Lodge No. 140, Local No. 701,
and the IAM apprised the Employer of their plans,
and informed it that the transfer of jurisdiction
would be effective April 1, 1973, and that the
contract would remain the same. The Employer
stated it would not recognize Local No. 701 unless a
majority of its employees voted for it. Later that day,
officials of Local No. 701 and the IAM went to the
Employer's shop and asked District Lodge No. 140's
steward to notify the employees that a meeting would
be held that evening at the union hall to discuss the
issues concerning the transfer of jurisdiction. The
steward notified the employees of the meeting.
The meeting took place that evening, and was
attended by 9 of the 10 employees in the bargaining
unit and the involved officials of District Lodge No.
140, Local No. 701, and the IAM. The employees
were told of the decision to transfer jurisdiction and,
I Referred to herein as District Lodge No 140 the request
2 Referred to herein as Local No 701 4 Apparently the North Chicago operations were either sold or
3 The Employer filed a motion for reconsideration of the Regional discontinued at some point in time , as the only operations involved herein
Director 's decision On August 14, 1973, the Regional Director issued a are those at Waukegan
Supplemental Decision on Motion for Reconsideration in which he denied
210 NLRB No. 98
CARRIAGE OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC, INC. 621
after a question and answer period, membership
applications and dues deduction cards in favor of
Local No. 701 were distributed. One employee asked
why the cards had to be signed. The Local No. 701
representative said it was a requirement so the
employees could "be transferred into 701." The
employees were not told that by signing the cards
they were signifying their choice on the question of
transfer of jurisdiction over them. All nine employees
in attendance signed the cards.
Thereafter, the Employer was again informed by
the IAM of the transfer of jurisdication effective
April 1. On March 26, District Lodge No. 140 wrote
the Employer requesting that it meet with Local No.
701 for the purpose of expediting the transfer of
representation rights. The Employer, on March 30,
filed its petition for an election based on Local No.
701's claim for recognition. On April 20, Local No.
701 filed its petition seeking amendment of the
certification issued to District Lodge No. 140 and, on
May 11, the instant decertification petition was
filed.5
Upon the foregoing we find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that the requirements for amend-
ment of certification have not been met. We are not
satisfied that the steps taken by officials of the IAM,
District Lodge No. 140, and Local No. 701 to obtain
the approval of unit employees to their representa-
tion by Local No. 701-after informing them that the
decision to transfer jurisdiction over them had already
been made -meet the requirement of participation
by unit employees in the decision to change their
5 On April 19, Local No 701 filed unfair labor practice charges in Case
13-CA-12308, alleging violation of Sec 8(a)(1) and (5) in the Employer's
refusal to recognize it On May 11, the Regional Director dismissed the
charges and issued an order consolidating cases and rescheduling hearing
on the instant petitions An appeal from the dismissal of the charges was
denied by the General Counsel
6 Member Kennedy, in reliance upon Gulf Oil Corporation, 135 NLRB
184, would dismiss the petition solely on the basis that the requested
amendment to reflect the transfer of jurisdiction from District Lodge No
140 to Local No 701, especially where the former continues in existence,
would result in the substitution of a new and different union as
representative from District Lodge No. 140 to Local
701. For this reason, we shall dismiss the petition for
amendment of certification .6
As District Lodge No. 140's contract terminated
January 31, 1974, and would no longer bar an
election, as the Employer's petition in Case
13-RM-1090 asserts that Local No. 701 claims to
represent the employees involved, and as the Peti-
tioner in Case 13-RD-930 asserts that District Lodge
No. 140 is no longer their representative, we find that
a question concerning representation exists herein
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(l) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the
following unit, which we find, in accord with the
parties' stipulation, is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees who
work with the tools of the trade at the Employer's
Waukegan , Illinois , establishment , excluding all
office, salaried, supervising employees, service
managers, parts managers, body shop managers,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case
I3-AC-28 be, and it hereby is , dismissed.
[Direction of Election 7 and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
representative of the employees in the unit for which District Lodge No. 140
was certified
7 At the hearing, District Lodge No. 140 and Local No. 701 indicated
that if an election were directed in these consolidated proceedings, both
wished to appear on the ballot , subject to withdrawal by one of them before
the ballot is printed . We are therefore including both of them on the ballot
in the election , subject to a withdrawal request by either of them to the
Regional Director within 7 days of the date of issuance of this Decision. In
the event District Lodge No. 140 withdraws from the ballot, Can
13-RD-930 shall be dismissed by the Regional Director.