Associated Grocers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Associated Grocers and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, Local No. 310, Petitioner. Case 28-
RC-3174
January 7, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On July 30, 1976, the Regional Director for Region
28 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding. The Petitioner had sought
a unit of drivers and warehousemen working for the
Employer's Baird's Bakery Division at its 1748 South
Fourth Avenue, Tucson, Arizona, depot. In accord
with the apparent position of the Intervenor' and
Employer, the Regional Director broadened the
requested unit to include "all drivers and warehouse-
men of the Employer employed in the State of
Arizona in its Baird's Bakery Division." Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
grounds, inter alia, that in failing to find the peti-
tioned-for unit appropriate the Regional Director
made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated September 8, 1976, granted the request
for review and stayed the election pending decision
on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and makes
the following findings:
The Employer is an Arizona cooperative engaged in
the wholesale warehousing and distribution of gro-
cery items at various locations in the State of
Arizona. On April 17, 1976, the Employer acquired
Baird's Bread Company, an enterprise which includ-
ed a Phoenix bakery and distributing stations located
in Tucson, Flagstaff, Safford, Benson, Prescott, and
Douglas, Arizona. Baird's goods were also distributed
in Nogales, Arizona, through an independent con-
tractor.
Baird's Bread was wholly integrated into the
Employer's business as its Baird's Bakery Division
without significant operational changes. All payroll,
personnel, and financial records for the Baird's
division are centrally maintained in Phoenix. Em-
ployee seniority continues to be determined on a
divisionwide basis. Driver-salesmen previously em-
ployed on a commission basis by Baird's Bread
applied and were hired as hourly salaried employees
of the Employer. There is no history of bargaining for
Baird's drivers and warehousemen.
The managerial hierarchy of Baird's likewise re-
mained intact after its takeover by the Employer. The
two senior officials of Baird's, General Manager
Clark Rorbach and his general sales manager, Don-
ald Collins, are located in Phoenix. The Phoenix
operation's sales manager reports directly to Collins
and directs the work of 4 supervisors and approxi-
mately 35 drivers. The Tucson depot sales manager
also reports directly to Collins and is vested with
authority over 1 supervisor, approximately 10 drivers
in Tucson, plus 1 driver in each of the cities of
Safford, Benson, and Douglas. A supervisor in
Flagstaff reports to Collins and directs three drivers
in Flagstaff and one in Prescott.
The Regional Director's conclusion that a division-
wide unit of drivers and warehousemen is appropriate
was predicated upon his findings that: (1) Baird's
bookkeeping functions are centralized in Phoenix; (2)
General Sales Manager Collins exercises day-to-day
control in Phoenix over drivers at all locations; and
(3) divisional employees share a community of
interests represented by uniform working conditions,
wages, and seniority. On the other hand, the Petition-
er contends that factors of local functional autonomy,
absence of significant intradivision employee trans-
fers, and geographic separation between Baird's
Phoenix plant and its Tucson depot make appropriate
the petitioned-for unit limited to Tucson drivers and
warehousemen. We are in basic agreement with the
Petitioner's position.
Contrary to the Regional _ Director, and notwith-
standing Baird's centralized recordkeeping and Col-
lins' overall responsibility for the entire complement
of drivers, we find from the record that Tucson Sales
Manager Wells and his supervisor are substantially
autonomous in their management of the daily activi-
ties of drivers and warehousemen subject to their
control. In this regard, Collins himself testified that
he merely telephones Tucson daily and tries to visit
the Tucson depot "about every 30 days at least." In
contrast, Collins is personally present each day in
Phoenix and holds regular weekly meetings with the
sales manager and supervisors there. It' is also
uncontroverted that decisions to hire, discharge, and
discipline are effectively made locally in Tucson.
According to Collins, only applicants to divisional
positions in Phoenix are currently screened at the
I Transport and Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. Warehousemen & Helpers of Amenca, will hereinafter be referred to as the
104, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Intervenor.
227 NLRB No. 124
ASSOCIATED GROCERS
Employer's central office in that city. Collins holds a
perfunctory interview with an applicant for employ-
ment in Baird's Tucson facility after the decision to
hire has essentially, been made at the Tucson site.
While he reserves the right to reject such an appli-
cant, he has never done so. Furthermore, the Tucson
sales manager and supervisor are entrusted with the
responsibility for training the newly hired employees.
In addition to the high degree of autonomy vested
in local Tucson management, we fmd that the
geographic distance separating Phoenix and Tucson
is approximately 120 miles, and there has been an
absence of significant employee interchange between
those locations, and only one or two transfer requests
were made by employees each year within the entire
Baird's Bakery Division.
Based upon the foregoing findings, particularly
with respect to local autonomy, geographic separa-
tion, and absence of employee interchange, we
conclude that the drivers and warehousemen subject
to Tucson supervision2 , share such a substantial
community of interest separate and distinct from the
interests they may have as part of a broader division-
2 Based upon common supervision, we include the single drivers in
Safford , Benson, and Douglas, Arizona , within the Tucson unit: We note that
not only are they more geographically remote from Phoenix than from
799
wide grouping of employees as to warrant the
establishment of a separate unit for those employees.
Therefore, we find that under the circumstances of
this case the appropriate unit under Section 9(b) of
the Act is:
All drivers and warehousemen of the Employer
employed in its Baird's Bakery Division who are
subject to common supervision from its 1748
South Fourth Avenue, Tucson, Arizona, depot;
excluding maintenance mechanics, truck mechan-
ics, office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, all other employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the eligibili-
ty payroll period for the election shall be that ending
immediately before the date of issuance of this
Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from
publication.]
Tucson, but their location east and south of Tucson would tend to associate
them with Tucson from a product distribution standpoint.