Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers & Upholsters Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 75 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

GREATER ST. LOUIS AUTOMOTIVE TRIMMERS, ETC. 75
Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers & Upholsterers Asso-
ciation , Inc., Petitioner and District No. 9, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO and Automotive , Petroleum
& Allied Industries Employees, Local 618, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 14-RM-212 and
14-RM-213. April 10, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas W. Seeler, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
,of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning -the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
'9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer-Petitioner, an employer association, seeks an election
in a single unit of production employees employed by its members.
In the alternative, it requests separate units for each of its employer
members. The Unions contend that the Board does not have juris-
diction, and that in any event, the petition does not raise a question
concerning representation.
The Employer-Petitioner, Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers
& Upholsterers Association, Inc., is an employer association composed
of nine members who engage in the seat cover and upholstery business
on a combination retail and nonretail basis. The Association was in-
corporated in August 1958. Prior to the incorporation, the individual
employer members had bargained with both Unions jointly for many
years. After incorporation, the Association attempted to bargain
with representatives of the Unions on a multiemployer basis; the
Unions refused. Consequently, the Association and the Unions have
never been parties to a collective-bargaining agreement. In the
131 NLRB No. 11.
76 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
absence of a history of multiemployer contracts, a single multi-
employer unit is not appropriate! Only single-employer units may
be appropriate. Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes the Board
must consider this case as if the nine members of the Association had
filed separate petitions seeking elections in single-employer units.
The Association adduced jurisdictional evidence as to only three of
its employer members-Gravois Auto Top Company, Ollie Auto Top
Company, and Seat Cover Mart, Inc. No attempt was made to prove
that any of these companies had retail sales of $500,000 or more.'
Rather the Petitioner sought to establish that the companies met the
Board's $50,000 inflow and outflow standards for nonretail enter-
prises.' An official of Ollie Auto Top Company testified generally
that the direct and indirect inflow of his company was as high as
$60,000 on an annual basis. On cross-examination, the Unions pointed
out that Ollie's own records showed that at least $15,000 of the
alleged direct and indirect inflow represented purchases from intra-
state manufacturers. The company's witness made no attempt to
reconcile the apparent discrepancy.
The owner of Gravois Auto Top Company testified on direct ex-
amination that his company's combined direct and indirect inflow was
$47,000 on an annual basis .4 The Employer also testified that it did
"most" of its $57,000 wholesale business with a St. Louis automobile
association, which was stipulated to be engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. This fails to inform us whether or not it
did a minimum of $50,000 business with that association.
The owner of Seat Cover Mart, Inc., testified that his company did
$51,000 in wholesale business with the same automobile association.
On cross-examination, however, he testified that the $51,000 figure
included business with dealers who were not members of that
association.
Inasmuch as none of the employer members of the Association
could clearly show that its business met the Board's jurisdictional
standards, the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the petition
for failure of proof.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 Chicago Metropolitan Home Builders Association, 119 NLRB 1184.
3 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88.
3 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
4 On cross-examination, the Employer testified that his total purchases were $57,000.
This figure includes those purchases which did not represent either direct or indirect inflow.
5In view of the above , we find it unnecessary to consider the Union 's alternative argu-
ment for dismissing the petition.