Extract
Thomas Cadillac, Inc., 884 (1968)
Thomas Cadillac, Inc. and Automotive, Marine,
Production Finishers, Equipment Maintenance and Public Service Painters , Local Union 1798,Brotherhood of -Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, AFL-CIO Lou Ehlers Cadillac and Automotive, Marine,Production Finishers, Equipment Maintenance and Public Service Painters, Local Union 1798,Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, AFL-CIO Thomas Cadillac, Inc. and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94, AFL-CIO Lou Ehlers Cadillac andInternational Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94, AFL-CIO. Cases 31-CA-83-2, 31-CA-83-3, 31-CA-84-2, and 31-CA-85-2March 29, 1968 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSFANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On May 17, 1966, Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs; the Charging Parties filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision; and the General Counsel filed a Memorandum in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and a statement of position.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts only those findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner consistent with this Decision and Order.The Trial Examiner found that Thomas Cadillac,Inc., herein referred to as Thomas, and Lou Ehlers Cadillac, herein referred to as Ehlers, were successors to the Cadillac Motor Car Division, General Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Branch, herein referred to as GM, and thus were required to recognize and to bargain jointly with -the Automotive,Marine, Production Finishers ,- Equipment Maintenance and Public Service Painters , Local Union 1798, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Painters, and the International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94,AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Machinists. He based his finding of successorship upon the factual determination that the 'employing industry'' as it existed before the acquisition by 'Thomas and Ehlers of GM's Los Angeles sales locations remained the same ; namely, the sale of Cadillac motor vehicles, parts, and accessories, and the service of such vehicles by former GM employees. He did not find controlling the facts that the transfers of operations were bona fide business transactions carried out at 'arm 's length,' or that only a minority of GM's service unit employees were hired by Thomas and Ehlers. Nor did he place any significant weight on the special factual situation that Thomas' and Ehlers' predecessor was GM , a large corporate enterprise , or that two separate and competing franchise dealers took over locations of a prior multibranch unit.The Respondents contend , in pertinent part, that they are not successors to GM , and are in effect new and independent business entities, markedly different from the former GM operation . Ehlers and Thomas contend that they have no obligations to deal with the Unions, or to assume the Unions' contract with GM, and in no way led GM, the Unions, or the employees to believe that they had such obligations. All employees, they argue, including former GM employees, were hired on the basis of merit without regard to prior union membership, and they assert that the contract unit no longer exists. For the reasons discussed below , we find merit in the Res...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
