Homer Chevrolet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

HOMER CHEVROLET COMPANY 825
on which he applies for reinstatement,' to the date of the Respondent 's offer of rein-
statement . Loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289; N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up
Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S. 344.
It is further recommended that the Board reserve the right to modify the back
pay and reinstatement provisions herein if made necessary by circumstances not
now apparent.5
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in
the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America , CIO, was on December 14, 1953, and has
been at all times thereafter the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act in the following appropriate unit : All production and main-
tenance employees employed at the Respondent 's Akron, New York, plant, including
timekeepers, inspectors , leadmen , and lead inspectors , but excluding office clerical
employees , guards, professional employees , the chief inspector , inspector foreman,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
3. By failing and refusing at all times since December 14, 1953, to bargain collec-
tively with the Steelworkers as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
foregoing appropriate unit the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
5 Ruben Brothers Footwear, Inc., supra, p 16.
HOMER CHEVROLET COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 376, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 7-RC-2463. November 9,
1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas,
hearing officer. 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:
The Employer argues that because its business is local in charac-
ter, the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction herein and should
dismiss the petition. In opposition, the Petitioner contends that the
Employer, as a franchised automobile dealer, is an integral part of
it national distribution system. We find merit in the Employer's
position.
The Employer is a franchised dealer of,the Chevrolet Motor Divi-
sion of General Motors Corporation and is engaged at Detroit,
1 The name of the Employer, Don Homer Chevrolet Company, appears as set forth in
the record.
110 NLRB No. 133.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan, in the sales and service of new and used automobiles and
trucks.. During 1953, the Employer made, purchases valued at
$3,737,000, all of which were made locally in the State of Michigan.
During this same period, the Employer made sales and rendered serv-
ices in the amount of $5,450,000, all locally in the State of Michigan.
Of its wholesale sales of used cars in the amount of $339,000, $230,000
worth were made to out-of-State dealers who accepted delivery at
the Employer's local used car lot in Detroit. The record does not
indicate what disposition the out-of-State dealers made of the
$230,000 worth of cars-whether sold in or out-of-State. As we no
longer use the "franchise yardstick" to assert jurisdiction over auto-
mobile dealers,2 and as the Employer's commerce data does not meet
any of the other Board-established criteria for the assertion of juris-
diction, we grant the Employer's motion and dismiss the petition .3
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON, dissenting :
We disagree with the dismissal of the petition in this case. It is
clear from the record that $230,000 worth of the Employer's whole-
sale sales of used cars were made to out-of-State dealers who accepted
delivery at the Employer's local used car lot in Detroit. In these
circumstances, we would assert jurisdiction over the instant Em-
ployer under the Board's direct outflow standard set forth in the
Jonesboro case 4 because, so long as $50,000 worth of cars crossed
State lines, we find no substantial difference between the out-of-State
dealers picking them up at the Employer's lot and the Employer
delivering them outside the State 5 In our opinion, a distinction
drawn on this basis would be more illusory than real. Accordingly,
we would process the petition herein.
@ Wilson-Oldsmobile, Inc., 110 NLRB 534.
3 In view of the decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the other conten-
tions of the Employer.
4 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.
,6 For the same reasons given above , we would have dissented to the refusal to exercise
jurisdiction in Down River Chevrolet, Inc., Case No . 7-RC-2435, issued September 30,
1954 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ), if we had par-
ticipated in that case.
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION and UNITED GAS, COKE, AND
CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-
RC-1095. November 9,195.11
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 Paul A. Cassady, hearing
110 NLRB No. 129.