Motor City Dodge, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MOTOR CITY DODGE, INC.
Motor City Dodge, Inc. and Mechanics Motor City
Lodge 698, of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.'
Cases 7-AC-98 and 7-RM-785
September 11, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon separate petitions duly filed pursuant to Sec-
tion 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Stephen M. Glasser. Following the
hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, these
cases were transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision by direction of the Regional
Director for Region 7. No briefs were filed by the
parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they were
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer with-
in the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons.
In November 1964, the Employer opened an auto-
mobile dealership operation in Detroit, Michigan,
where it engaged in the sale of new Dodge cars
and trucks, used cars, parts, and servicing. The physi-
cal setup included a salesroom, an adjoining service
department, and a bump and paint shop about a
block away. The service department, including the
bump and paint employees, were not represented by
any labor organization.
About June 1969, the Employer contacted the
Dodge regional office concerning the possibility of
' The name of the Union-Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
629
obtaining another dealership because its Detroit
location was to be taken over by a new expressway.
The Employer was advised that Spartan Dodge, Inc.,
Pontiac, Michigan, about 30 miles from Detroit, was
closing and was for sale. The Employer was also
advised that it could retain the Detroit location
through 1970. On July 21, 1969, the Employer signed
a purchase agreement whereby it purchased the assets,
furniture, fixtures, new and used-car inventory, and
parts inventory from Spartan Dodge, Inc. This trans-
action was handled by the Chrysler Real Estate Corpo-
ration, which also employed an interim manager of
the business until the Employer commenced operations
on its own.
At the time of the above purchase, Spartan Dodge,
Inc., employed some 26 employees. Included in this
overall number were four mechanics and two bump
and paint employees, all of whom were represented
by the Union which was certified by the Board for a
service department unit on June 29, 1967, in Case
7-RC-8042. A 3-year contract covering these service
department employees was executed on October 2,
1968, by Spartan Dodge, Inc., and the Union.
Sometime during the middle part of July 1969,
the Employer requested the interim manager to give
employment applications to the employees at this
Pontiac location. By letter, dated July 21, 1969, the
Employer notified 21 of the 26 employees that they
were accepted, which number included all of the
service department employees. Four of the remaining
five employees were deemed unacceptable and the
fifth employee was transferred to the Detroit location.
On August 4, 1969, the Employer commenced oper-
ations at the Pontiac location. At the outset, the
Employer transferred the new-car manager, the used-
car manager, service manager, and assistant parts
manager to the Pontiac location. Also transferred
at this time were two office employees, two used-
car salesmen, a parts driver, and one mechanic. The
new-car manager employed by Spartan Dodge, Inc.,
was retained as fleet and truck manager. Some minor
changes were made in the Pontiac service department,
such as repainting the whole area, installing three
additional lifts, and expanding the parts inventory.
During the latter part of October 1969, the Employ-
er decided to close down the Detroit location as
it was then operating at a loss. Although the Employer
had intended to retain the separate bump and paint
shop because it was operating at a profit, the closing
down of the Detroit salesroom had an adverse effect
on this shop and a few months later the Employer
also decided to close down this operation. The closing
down of the Detroit location resulted in the transfer
of the parts manager, assistant service manager, and
three mechanics to the Pontiac location.
185 NLRB No. 88
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer contends that its takeover of the
Spartan Dodge , Inc., facility was limited only to
the purchase of assets , inventory , and related equip-
ment ; and that an election should be directed among
the service department employees because they repre-
sent a substantially different complement of employees
and are employed by an employer other than the
one to which the contract applies.
The Union contends that the Employer's relocation
of operations from Detroit to Pontiac represents noth-
ing more than a legal successorship with concurrent
accretion to the former Spartan Dodge , Inc., bargain-
ing unit ; and that the Board should make an
appropriate amendment of certification issued in Case
7-RC-8042.
It would appear that the record establishes that
the Employer is a "successor employer " within the
meaning of existing Board law.' A crucial question
in such determinations is whether the employing
industry , as here, remains essentially the same after
a transfer . We find Employer 's contention that it
purchased no accounts receivable, liabilities, nor
assumed the existing contract to be without merit.
It is not the form of transfer which controls, but
rather , it is whether or not the employing industry
remains essentially the same. As indicated above,
the Employer 's operation of the Spartan Dodge, Inc.,
facility appears to have remained substantially the
same . Accordingly, we find that the Employer is
a successor to Spartan Dodge , Inc. In these circum-
stances, we find that no question concerning represen-
tation exists . Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
Employer' s petition.
As to the Union 's petition , we find that the amend-
ment of the certification involved herein would insure
to employees the continuity of their present organiza-
tion and representation . Accordingly, we shall amend
the certification by substituting the name of the
Employer , and further , by changing the name of
the Union to that as amended at the hearing herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Employer 's petition
filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
It is hereby further ordered that the Union's petition
to amend the certification be, and it hereby is, granted,
and that the Certification of Representative issued
in Case 7-RC-8042 be amended by substituting the
name of "Motor City Dodge , Inc." for "Spartan
Dodge , Inc." and by adding "of the" following "698,"
wherever appropriate.
' Valleydale Packers, Inc., 162 NLRB 1486, 1490, and cases cited
in fn 3.