The Rams Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lumbia held that the Board does not have such authority and perma-
nently enjoined the Board from conducting any such investigation.
The Board having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that the petition herein must be, and it
hereby is, denied.
By direction of the Board:
OGDEN W. FIELDS,
Executive Secretary.
THE RAMS MOTORS, INC. and LOCAL 649, UAW-AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 2-RC--5291. January 30,1953
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 Samuel M. Hacker, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulinus 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 Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in the pur-
chase and sale of new and used automobiles in Hoboken, New Jersey.
In connection with its business the Employer operates an automotive
repair shop, a parts and accessory department, and a parking lot.
The Employer conducts its business under the terms of a sales agree-
ment with the Chrysler Corporation, Dodge Division. During the
13-month period ending October 31, 1952, the Employer purchased
from the Chrysler Corporation, Dodge Division, new automobiles
valued at $785,265, all of which were shipped to the Employer from
points outside the State of New Jersey. Purchases of parts, acces-
sories, and miscellaneous items during this period amounted to $39,586,
about 95 percent of which was made within the State of New Jersey,
but originated outside the State. During this same period, the
Employer's sales of new and used cars, all of which were made within
the State, totaled $983,844; its over-the-counter sales of parts, acces-
sories, and miscellaneous items amounted to $25,192; and its repair
work was valued at $17,699. Upon the basis of the foregoing, and
the entire record, we find, contrary to the Employer, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act 1
1 N. L. R. B. v. Ken Rose Motors, Inc., 193 F. 2d 769 (C . A. 1) ; Louis Rose Company,
99 NLRB 690 ; Conover Motor Company , 99 NLRB 867 , enfd . 192 F. 2d 779 (C. A. 10) ;
Baxter Bros., 91 NLRB 1480.
102 NLRB No. 84.
THE RAMS MOTORS, INC. 879
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. A 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.
4. The parties agree that the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees, including mechanics, mechanics' helpers, lubrica-
tors, car washers, parking lot attendants, partsman (Gordon Shaw),
and motorcycle drivers and porters, but excluding front office clerical
employees, new and used car salesmen, plant guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit. They
disagree, however, regarding the unit placement of the individuals
discussed below, all of whom, except Nobile, the Employer would
include in the unit and the Petitioner would exclude. The Employer
would exclude Nobile as a supervisor whereas the Petitioner seeks his
inclusion as a mechanic. There is no history of collective bargaining
for any of the employees involved herein.
Marcello D. Nobile spends virtually all his time working as a me-
chanic in the service department. He works the same hours and under
the same supervision as the service department mechanics who are
agreed unit inclusions and, like them, is hourly paid. In the absence
of the service manager, as during lunch periods and when the service
manager is ill or on vacation, Nobile takes his place. It appears that
on these occasions Nobile's duties are limited to discussing repair jobs
with customers, filling out repair orders, and making routine assign-
ments of work to mechanics; he receives no extra compensation for
this work. Under all the circumstances, we find that Nobile is not a
supervisor, and we shall therefore include him in the unit.
Robert Schmehl is employed as a service sales representative and
works under the general supervision of the service manager. His
primary duty consists of soliciting work for the service department.
He spends most of his time during the morning at his desk in the
service department office making telephone calls and writing letters
for the purpose of soliciting business, and in assisting the service man-
ager in making out repair orders. His afternoons are generally spent
away from the Employer's place of business and are devoted to visiting
customers of the Employer for the purpose of adjusting complaints
and soliciting car repair and service work. Schmehl performs no
mechanical work. In emergencies, he may pick up and deliver cus-
tomers' cars sent to the Employer for servicing. Unlike the mechanics
in the service department, who are paid on an hourly basis and work
5 days a week from 8 a. in. to 5 p. in., Schmehl is a salaried employee
2 The Petitioner has waived any right to object to any election which may be directed
in the instant proceeding on the basis of any acts alleged as unfair labor practices in Cases
Nos. 2-CA-2846 and 2-CA-2847.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and works 6 days a week from 8 a. m. to 8 p. m. In view of all the
foregoing, we find that Schmehl has significantly different interests
from the employees in the unit found appropriate, and we shall accord-
ingly exclude him from the unit.
Clara Dietrich is a salaried employee who works in the parts de-
partment under the supervision of the service manager. Her duties
in the parts department are substantially similar to those of the parts-
man who is included in the unit by agreement of the parties and consist,
for example, of maintaining the parts department inventory, making
over-the-counter sales, and issuing parts to the mechanics in the serv-
ice department. In addition to her parts deparment duties, Dietrich
operates a switchboard for about 20 minutes a day and works as a
porter for a total of about 2 months during the year. Contrary to,
the Petitioner, we find that Dietrich's interests are more closely aligned
with the interests of employees within the unit than with those of the
front office clerical employees. We shall therefore include her in
the unit.
Lewis Asmussen spends about 80 percent of his time working in
the parts department under the supervision of the service manager.a
His duties in that department, like Dietrich's, are substantially similar
to those of the partsman who is an agreed unit inclusion 4 On frequent
occasions Asmussen takes cars from the showroom to the service de-
partment for servicing and then delivers the cars to customers. When
not engaged in the aforementioned duties, Asmussen is authorized to,
act as a salesman in the showroom. On the basis of all the foregoing,
we find, contrary to the Petitioner, that Asmussen has duties and
interests which link him more closely with employees in the unit than
with the salesmen. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.
Angela Fiore is employed as a clerk in the service department. She
is a salaried employee and works under the supervision of the service
manager in an office located in the service department area. Her
working hours are the same as those of the service department me-
chanics. Fiore's duties consist mainly of assisting the service manager
in writing up shop orders, receiving payment from customers for
repair work, and performing clerical duties pertaining to the service
department. From time to time she is called upon to handle personal
correspondence of the president of the Employer. As it appears
that Fiore is a plant clerical whose interests are directly aligned with
those of other employees in the unit, we shall include her .5
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Hoboken, New Jersey, place of business, including all
mechanics, mechanics' helpers, lubricators, car washers, parts depart-
$ Although designated as parts manager , Asmussen has no duties of a supervisory nature.
* Shaw, Dietrich , and Asmussen are the only employees assigned to the parts department.
5 See Hanna Motor Company, 94 NLRB 105 ; 0. Z. Hall Motors, Inc., 94 NLRB 1180.
GEORGE D. AUCHTER COMPANY 881
ment employees, parking lot attendants, motorcycle drivers and
porters, and service department clerk, but excluding front office
clerical employees, new and used car salesmen, plant guards, service
sales representative, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
GEORGE D. AUCHTER COMPANY AND NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA CHAPTER
OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE 112
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF JACKSONVILLE AND VICINITY AND
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE 112.
Cases Nos. 10-C.4-1251 and 10-CB-104. February 2, 1953
Decision and Order
On March 21, 1952, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents, George D. Auchter Company, Northeastern Florida
Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, and Car-
penters District Council of Jacksonville and Vicinity, had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the complaint
was improperly issued under the proviso to Section 10 (b) of the Act
as to a fourth Respondent, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, and he recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed as to this Respondent.' Thereafter joint exceptions and a
joint brief were filed by the Respondents George D. Auchter Com-
pany, Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Con-
tractors of America, and Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville
and Vicinity.2
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
I As no exceptions have been taken to the Trial Examiner 's finding and recommendation
concerning the Brotherhood , we shall adopt them.
2 Unless otherwise indicated the term "Respondents " when used below refers to these
three Respondents jointly.
102 NLRB No. 79.