Courier Dispatch Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

728
311 NLRB No. 72
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Acting Regional Director also found that the Boston-based
mechanic should be included in the unit, and that the courier drivers
are not statutory guards within the meaning of Sec. 9(b)(3) of the
Act. There was no request for review of these determinations.
2 These other facilities are located in Worcester, Massachusetts;
Providence, Rhode Island; Hartford, Connecticut; Nashua, New
Hampshire; and Portland, Lewiston, and Bangor, Maine.
3 At the present time, the Employer employs only one mechanic,
based at the Boston facility.
Courier Dispatch Group, Inc. and Local 25, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO,
Petitioner. Case 1–RC–19801
May 28, 1993
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On June 5, 1992, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election,
of which pertinent portions are attached, in which she
found that the petitioned-for unit of courier drivers em-
ployed at the Employer’s Boston facility was an appro-
priate unit for collective bargaining.1 Thereafter, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.57 of the National Labor
Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Em-
ployer filed a timely request for review of the Acting
Regional Director’s decision, maintaining that the only
appropriate unit must be coextensive with its New
England region, which includes seven other facilities.2
By Order dated July 2, 1992, the Board granted the
Employer’s request for review. The election was con-
ducted as scheduled on July 2, 1992, and the ballots
were impounded.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, includ-
ing the Employer’s supplemental brief, the Board has
decided to affirm the Acting Regional Director’s deci-
sion. The Board, in agreement with the Acting Re-
gional Director and for the reasons stated by her, finds
that the Employer has failed to rebut the presumptive
appropriateness of the petitioned-for single-facility
unit. See Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988).
In affirming the attached decision, we note in par-
ticular that the Acting Regional Director properly con-
sidered the lack of significant employee interchange in
making her determination. While it is clear that a driv-
er based at one facility occasionally may, after his or
her arrival at a second of the Employer’s facilities, be
asked to begin a portion of a route assigned to a late-
arriving driver employed at the second facility, such
brief substitution does not constitute ‘‘interchange’’ or
temporary transfer. See Bowie Hall Trucking, supra at
43 fn. 11; Dayton Transport Corp., 270 NLRB 1114
(1984). Further, although drivers from the Boston ter-
minal occasionally serve as ‘‘backup’’ drivers on
routes served by the Employer’s Worcester facility,
there is no record of the frequency of such occur-
rences, and no evidence of direct supervision by a
local Worcester supervisor at those times. Lastly, the
evidence fails to show any permanent transfers of cou-
rier drivers from the Boston terminal to the Employ-
er’s other facilities, or vice versa.
Contrary to the Employer’s assertion in its brief on
review, the instant case is distinguishable from Amer-
ican Courier Corp., 184 NLRB 602 (1970), and
Purolator Courier Corp., 265 NLRB 659 (1982). Al-
though the Employer’s centralized administrative and
operational functions are similar to those in American
Courier and Purolator Courier, in this case there is
neither evidence of overlapping supervision under
which employees regularly work, nor evidence of fre-
quent transfers (which were found to be ‘‘fairly com-
monplace’’ in Purolator Courier, supra at 662). Com-
pare also Dayton Transport, supra.
Thus, for the above reasons and those set forth in
the attached decision, we agree with the Acting Re-
gional Director’s finding that the Employer failed to
show that the functional integration of its operations is
so substantial as to negate the separate identity of the
petitioned-for single-facility unit.
ORDER
The Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direc-
tion of Election is affirmed. The case is remanded to
the Regional Director to open and count the ballots
cast in the election held on July 2, 1992, prepare a
tally of ballots, and issue an appropriate certification.
MEMBER OVIATT, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I find that the presump-
tive appropriateness of the petitioned-for single-facility
unit in Boston has been rebutted and that such a unit
is not appropriate in this case. Inasmuch as the Union
seeks only to represent a unit of Boston drivers, I
would dismiss the representation petition.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
5. The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in
providing scheduled ground courier services. The Petitioner
seeks to represent a unit of all full-time and regular part-time
courier drivers employed by the Employer at its Boston,
Massachusetts facility, excluding mechanics, managerial em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the only ap-
propriate unit is a multilocation unit consisting of all courier
drivers employed by the Employer at its eight New England
facilities. The Employer would also include in the unit the
classification of mechanic.3 There are approximately 80 em-
729COURIER DISPATCH GROUP
4 The distances between the various satellite locations were not
stated in the record.
5 During the course of the hearing, Mellum resigned his position.
His duties are being temporarily performed by Richard Sheehan.
6 Knowles is a senior operations supervisor, and Operations Super-
visor Bob Sands reports to him. Bangor is the only facility that
makes such a distinction.
7 Revenues are credited, and expenses charged, on a regional basis.
Invoices and payroll are paid by checks issued in Atlanta. England
approves all invoices and purchases for the Region.
8 Occasionally, where a customer has, in the past, dealt with a per-
son at the local facility, the customer will contact the local office
directly.
9 At most facilities, employees report to an operations supervisors.
Since Nashua and Providence do not have operations supervisors,
however, at those facilities drivers report directly to the operations
managers. The term ‘‘local supervisor’’ will be used herein to denote
the first-line supervisors at the various facilities.
ployees in the unit petitioned for, and approximately 250 em-
ployees in the unit proposed by the Employer. The Employer
is in the business of providing scheduled pickup and delivery
of materials and documents. Approximately 70 percent of the
Employer’s workload involves financial documents.
The Employer’s national headquarters is located in At-
lanta, Georgia. The Employer’s New England Region is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and includes the fol-
lowing other locations: Providence, Rhode Island; Hartford,
Connecticut; Worcester, Massachusetts; Nashua, New Hamp-
shire; and Portland, Lewiston, and Bangor, Maine. The dis-
tances from each of the satellite facilities to the Boston facil-
ity are as follows: Bangor, 238 miles; Lewiston, 138 miles;
Portland, 103 miles; Hartford, 93 miles; Providence, 43
miles; Worcester, 40 miles; and Nashua, 38 miles.4
David England is the regional manager for the eight New
England facilities, with overall responsibility for the entire
regional operation. England, who works out of his home in
New Hampshire or his car, does not have an office at any
of the facilities. Instead, he has daily contact by telephone
with the operations managers, who oversee the supervisors at
each facility, and with the other managers named herein. He
also visits each facility at least twice a month. Reporting di-
rectly to England are Operations Managers Richard Sheehan
(Providence), Diane Feeley (three Maine facilities), Mark
Williams (Nashua), and Doug Mellum (Hartford).5 Reporting
to the operations managers are the operations supervisors:
Fern Gravel (Lewiston); Ron Reilly (Portland); Daniel
Knowles and Bob Sands (Bangor),6 Noreen Nolan, Alan
Manly, and Morris Mickie (Hartford); Ronald Houle
(Worcester); and Gilberto Rodriguez, Rick O’Connor,
Wilfredo Barrosso, Santos Toledo, William Despagne, Robert
Moline, Victor Diaz, and Gayle Clarke (Boston). In addition,
Regional Sales Manager Christopher Smith and Regional Op-
erations Analyst John Fortin, both of whom are based in
Boston, report directly to England.
Also reporting to England is Massachusetts General Man-
ager Jeanne King, who oversees the Boston and Worcester
operations. In addition, King has overall responsibility for
the regional personnel, accounting, safety, customer service,
and fleet maintenance departments. Personnel Manager Ber-
nard Val, Accounting Manager Jack Perola, Safety Manager
Lynne Aubertin, Customer Service Manager Joe O’Connor,
and Fleet Maintenance Manager Manny Rodrigues report to
King. King also supervises Operations Manager Larry
Chabre, who is based in the Boston office, but who manages
operations in both Boston and Worcester. The Employer’s
accounting, sales, purchasing, customer service, and vehicle
maintenance functions are centralized. Perola is responsible
for all accounting and bookkeeping for the New England Re-
gion.7 Smith and Account Executive Enrique Calixto, who
reports to Smith, solicit new accounts throughout the Region.
O’Connor and Clarke respond to all customer complaints in
the Region. These complaints are usually received via a toll-
free telephone number which rings in Boston.8 Upon receiv-
ing a complaint, O’Connor or Clarke attempts to contact the
driver involved via two-way radio, or the driver’s immediate
supervisor at the local facility.
Maintenance of the Employer’s approximately 170 vehi-
cles is performed at the Boston facility. Fleet Maintenance
Manager Manny Rodrigues schedules routine maintenance
for all vehicles such that they are rotated through the Boston
facility every 30–45 days. During the course of their regular
routes, drivers from throughout the Region bring their vehi-
cles to the Boston facility for servicing pursuant to a sched-
ule established by Rodriguez. They leave their vehicles over-
night, pick up new vehicles in Boston, and continue their
routes. The next day, those same drivers return to the Boston
facility and exchange vehicles again, continuing their routes
with the same vehicles they left for repair the day before. All
regularly scheduled maintenance is performed by Angel
Rodriguez, the Employer’s only mechanic.
The Employer’s personnel policies are also centralized.
Employee records, including personnel files, job applications,
wage change records, and disciplinary actions for all employ-
ees in the Region are maintained in the Boston office. All
drivers in the Region receive a copy of the same Driver
Handbook, which contains the drivers’ job description, duties
and responsibilities, work rules, and information on per-
sonnel issues.
Employees are primarily supervised by the operations su-
pervisor or operations manager based in the individual facili-
ties.9 Local supervisors work closely with the drivers on a
day-to-day basis. When drivers report to work the local su-
pervisors distribute to them keys to the vehicles, and to the
various customer facilities that require keys for access. Local
supervisors may receive calls from drivers who are having
difficulties with their routes. They also perform drivers’ eval-
uations, and make recommendations to England about pay
increases and disciplinary actions. In its posthearing brief,
the Employer implies that England, himself, is intimately in-
volved in the supervision of drivers. The record does not
support this suggestion. While the record does not indicate
the exact parameters of the local supervisors’ authority, it is
clear that they, not England, have primary responsibility for
the day-to-day supervision of the drivers.
The Employer presented some evidence of common super-
vision of drivers based at the satellite facilities, particularly
those whose shifts begin during the night. Drivers work var-
ious shifts, which are not fixed within or among the facili-
ties, but begin and end at various times throughout the day
and night. The shift worked by any particular driver depends
on the route he drives. While all the facilities operate 24
hours a day, most do not have supervisors on duty around
the clock. Thus, when a night-shift driver at one of the sat-
ellite facilities reports to work, he reports by telephone to a
730 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boston-based supervisor, who gives him instructions as to
any changes in his route for the day.
The process for hiring new employees is uniform through-
out the Region. When the Employer has an opening for a
driver, Val places an advertisement in those newspapers serv-
ing the area where the available position is located. Appli-
cants for all positions are typically instructed to call a toll-
free number, which rings in Boston. Val conducts screening
interviews over the telephone and sets up personal interviews
with selected applicants. If the position is in the Boston facil-
ity, Val conducts the personal interview. If the position is at
one of the satellite facilities, Val arranges a time for the ap-
plicant to meet with one of the supervisors at that facility.
He occasionally conducts interviews of candidates for posi-
tions at the satellite offices himself, but, usually, he directs
an on-site supervisor to meet with the candidates that he has
selected for interviews. The interviewer makes a rec-
ommendation to England, who has the ultimate authority to
make hiring decisions. The record does not disclose whether
England has ever rejected the recommendation of a super-
visor.
England testified at the hearing that local supervisors can
recommend wage increases to employees. England reviews
the supervisor’s recommendation and decides whether the
employee will receive the increase. The Employer presented
no evidence regarding instances in which England denied a
recommended raise.
Local supervisors have the authority to recommend dis-
cipline and discharge of employees to England, and England
has final authority in this regard. An exception to this prac-
tice would occur in a case of a gross violation of company
policy. In that event, the local supervisor would have the au-
thority to suspend the employee pending an investigation.
England testified that he would review the matter before any
further action is taken. The record is unclear, however, as to
the extent of the independent investigation, if any, England
would perform in such a situation. At the hearing, England
testified about three recent situations in which supervisors
sought England’s approval for discharge. In at least two of
those situations, England disagreed with the supervisor and
overruled the local decision. One situation involved a Provi-
dence supervisor who recommended the discharge of an em-
ployee for use of profanity in front of a customer. England
refused to discharge the employee, and decided to reprimand
him instead.
All drivers in the Region receive the same starting pay,
vacation benefit, and holidays. All receive the same 3-day,
on-the-job training, and all are given the same road test fol-
lowing training. All wear the same uniform. None receives
health insurance or other benefits. Seniority at the Employer
is based on service with the Region.
All drivers in the Region have the same job skills and du-
ties. Each driver has a home facility where he punches a
timecard, reports to his supervisor, and picks up his vehicle
and keys everyday. After conducting a walk-around check of
his vehicle, he begins his route. Ninety to 95 percent of his
day is spent on the road, making deliveries and pickups ac-
cording to his manifest. After his scheduled pickups and de-
liveries have been made, he returns to his home terminal,
hands in his keys and completed manifest, fills out a car con-
dition report and a maintenance report, if necessary, and
fuels up his vehicle. Only Boston and Providence have on-
site fuel facilities. At the other satellite terminals, drivers fuel
up at retail stations with which the Employer has contracted.
Only the Boston fueling station is owned by the Employer;
drivers passing through Boston during the day stop for fuel,
since it is cheaper in Boston than at retail stations.
The Employer’s pickup and delivery service is specialized
and regular, and involves the same roster of customers on a
daily or weekly basis. As a result, the routes covered each
day are generally fixed. Both the Employer and its drivers
know exactly where they will be picking up and delivering
from day to day, and, in most cases, from week to week. Re-
gional personnel in Boston are responsible for the creation
and assignment of routes.
At the hearing the Employer presented evidence regarding
the functional integration of the work performed out of the
various facilities. While drivers report to their home facilities
each day, their routes take them to the areas served by other
facilities. In addition, their routes may take them to cus-
tomers of the Employer who are located closer to a facility
other than their home facility. For example, drivers based at
each of the eight facilities make daily deliveries to
Fleet/Norstar’s Operations Center in Woburn, Massachusetts.
The Employer’s 220 New England routes are not arranged
by state or territory. Boston drivers regularly service cus-
tomers in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and
Maine, and make pickups and deliveries at the Employer’s
facilities in each of those states. England testified that at
least half of the 66 Boston-based routes involve work that
has come from, or is going to, other facilities. For example,
a Hartford-based driver picks up work each morning in
Avon, Connecticut, and transports it to the Employer’s Bos-
ton terminal. When he arrives in Boston, between 7:45 and
8 a.m., about 15 Boston-based drivers are waiting for him so
that they can begin their routes for the day. The packages on
the Connecticut truck are divided among the waiting drivers
according to route, and the Boston-based drivers then deliver
them to various points in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Maine. Packages picked up by a driver based in one fa-
cility are often delivered by a driver based in another facility.
Packages are often relayed through several of the Employer’s
facilities before reaching their destination.
Drivers from the various satellite facilities have frequent
contact with each other. In addition to the type of contact de-
scribed above, contact between drivers occurs when drivers
fuel up at the Boston facility, and when they bring their ve-
hicles in for regularly scheduled maintenance. Drivers also
regularly meet while making pickups or deliveries at the var-
ious customer locations. The schedules of approximately 45
percent of the Boston based drivers result in instances of
scheduled contact with drivers from other facilities each day.
England testified that a driver stopping at one of the Employ-
er’s facilities is likely to be there for 15 to 30 minutes. Dur-
ing this time, the drivers may have formal, scheduled con-
tacts, such as the exchange of packages for delivery. They
may also have informal contacts during this time.
The Employer presented some evidence concerning tem-
porary transfers and employee interchange. Interchange
among employees at different facilities occurs when a driver
calls in sick, has a disabled vehicle, or for some other reason
is unable to complete his route. England testified, for exam-
ple, that lead drivers, who, like other drivers, are hourly em-
ployees, are trained on several routes so that they can fill in
731COURIER DISPATCH GROUP
10 Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement, the Employer’s
Georgia drivers, who work out of various facilities in that State, are
organized in one bargaining unit.
for drivers who call in sick. There is no evidence in the
record, however, indicating whether lead drivers fill in only
on routes originating out of their own facilities, or out of
other facilities as well. He also testified that, when a lead
driver is not available for backup, a driver from another fa-
cility is assigned to begin the route. According to England’s
testimony, the latter situation occurs on a daily basis. Eng-
land also testified about a Providence-based driver who was
in Maine on his regular run when he started to experience
chest pains. He pulled over, called the Boston office, and
was taken to a hospital in Maine. Safety Manager Aubertin
called the Lewiston facility, which sent a driver and a super-
visor to where the Providence driver had left his vehicle. The
Lewiston driver recovered the vehicle and completed the
route. A second Lewiston driver returned the vehicle to Prov-
idence the next day. The Employer did not present evidence
as to the frequency with which this type of interchange oc-
curs.
The Employer did not present any evidence establishing
the percentage of work handled by someone other than the
driver regularly assigned to the route. It also did not present
any documentary evidence showing the frequency or scope
of such temporary transfers. According to England, the Em-
ployer does not keep records of temporary transfers because
they are made on an ad hoc basis.
The Employer also presented evidence of a particular kind
of interchange between Boston and Worcester. Because
Worcester is the smallest facility in the Region, with only six
drivers, Boston drivers are trained on Worcester routes.
There is, however, no record evidence of the frequency with
which Boston-based drivers are actually used to perform
Worcester runs.
England cited other examples of situations where drivers
would be temporarily assigned to routes that originated in
another facility. If a Connecticut driver is delayed on his way
to make a pickup at the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, he
would call the Boston office, which would send a Boston-
based driver to make the pickup.
Another situation giving rise to such temporary transfers
occurs when an employee reports to work late. The driver’s
supervisor would call the Boston office, which would send
someone to make the pickup and bring it to the driver who
was late reporting.
At times the Employer needs to reorganize its services. On
these occasions, the Employer generally makes a permanent
reassignment of routes between facilities rather than transfer-
ring employees between facilities. This practice virtually
eliminates the need for permanent transfers within the Re-
gion. At the hearing, England could not recall an instance of
a permanent transfer of an employee.
None of the employees here petitioned for has been the
subject of previous petitions.10 There is no bargaining history
among the unit employees, and no other labor organization
seeks to represent the employees on a broader basis.
It is well established that, when considering a multifacility
operation, a single facility unit is presumptively appropriate
for collective bargaining. Dayton Transport Corp., 270
NLRB 1114 (1984). This presumption may be overcome by
a showing of functional integration so substantial as to ne-
gate the separate identity of the single facility unit. Globe
Furniture Rentals, 298 NLRB 288 (1990). In deciding
whether the presumption has been rebutted, the Board con-
siders such factors as the centralized control over daily oper-
ations and labor relations; employees’ skills, job functions,
wages, benefits and working conditions; common supervision
of employees and facilities; employee contact and inter-
change; and the geographic proximity of the facilities. Dixie
Belle Mills, 139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962); Sol’s, 272 NLRB
621 (1981).
Here, I find, primarily in light of the absence of substantial
employee interchange, and in view of the geographical sepa-
rateness of the Employer’s facilities, that the presumptive ap-
propriateness of a single location unit has not been rebutted.
Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988); United Artists
Communications, 280 NLRB 1056 (1986).
It is true, as the Employer contends, that the Employer’s
administrative and personnel functions are centralized, and
that the ultimate responsibility for hire, discharge, and dis-
cipline is at the regional level. In addition, there is some evi-
dence of common supervision among employees at the var-
ious facilities. This is especially true for those drivers who
begin their shifts when no local supervisor is on duty, and
who, therefore, report to a Boston-based supervisor in that
circumstance. Generally, however, it is the drivers’ imme-
diate, local supervisor who makes decisions involving mat-
ters which make up employees’ lives and routine problems.
Local supervisors participate in the interview and hiring
process at the satellite facilities, initiate and recommend dis-
ciplinary action at all facilities, assure compliance with appli-
cable rules and regulations, and conduct employee evalua-
tions. The fact that England and other regional personnel are
also involved in these decisions does not negate the signifi-
cant impact that local supervisors have on the day-to-day af-
fairs at their facilities. Penn Color, 249 NLRB 1117, 1119
(1980), and cases cited at footnote 10 therein; Renzetti’s
Market, 238 NLRB 174, 176 (1978). This is especially true
here where there is no evidence that regional personnel con-
duct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding
each incident of discipline.
While the Employer’s evidence establishes some func-
tional integration among its various facilities, it does not
clearly establish the critical factor of employee interchange.
The Employer’s exhibits are ambiguous on both the scope
and frequency of temporary transfers of assignments, and,
thus, do not permit an exact accounting of the total amount
of work interchanged compared to the total amount of work
performed. For example, England estimated that the Employ-
er’s 220 routes amount to approximately 20 stops per day for
each of the 250 drivers, or about 1400 total stops throughout
the region every day. Although he testified that work is tem-
porarily transferred from one employee to another on a daily
basis, there is no record evidence of how many stops or runs
are made each day by someone other than the regularly as-
signed driver. The type of interchange which seems to occur
most regularly involves a driver making one pickup or deliv-
ery for another, not an entire run. Thus, the term ‘‘run’’ does
not accurately reflect the amount of work performed by an
employee on the occasion of an interchange. Because the
Employer did not offer any evidence which would permit an
examination of the frequency with which employees perform
732 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11 Major mechanical work is performed by outside contractors lo-
cated close to the satellite facilities.
work normally assigned to another facility, the ratio of inter-
changed work to total work cannot be determined with preci-
sion. Thus, it is difficult to measure the significance of the
evidence of driver interchange introduced at the hearing.
Therefore, on balance, I do not find the amount or frequency
of the work interchanged to be significant or substantial
when compared to the number of runs and stops performed
every day by the Employer’s drivers. Compare Dayton
Transport Corp., supra. Moreover, the Employer’s witness
could not recall any instances of permanent transfers, either
forced or voluntary. In fact, Employer’s Exhibit 15 suggests
that the Employer takes care to avoid employee interchange
wherever possible, since it has, on many occasions, avoided
the necessity of transferring employees by transferring work
from one terminal to another instead. In these circumstances,
it cannot be said that the separate identity of the petitioned-
for unit has been negated.
The geographical distance between the Employer’s eight
facilities militates against a finding that a multilocation unit
is the only appropriate unit. The Employer’s evidence estab-
lishes that the distance between Boston and any of the sat-
ellite facilities ranges as high as 238 miles. I take administra-
tive notice, however, that the distances between the various
satellite facilities to be included in the Employer’s proposed
unit are far greater. For instance, it is approximately 350
miles from Bangor to Hartford. While geographical prox-
imity is not the controlling factor especially in view of the
nature of the Employers operation, Dayton Transport Corp.,
supra at 1115–1116, it gains significance when other factors
also suggest the appropriateness of a single location unit.
Bowie Hall Trucking, supra at 43.
The unit here petitioned for is presumptively appropriate
even though a broader unit might also be appropriate. This
presumptively appropriate unit assures employees the fullest
freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed under the Act.
Manor Healthcare Corp., 285 NLRB 224 (1987). Accord-
ingly, and relying particularly on the insubstantial inter-
change, the geographical distance, the lack of bargaining his-
tory, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to rep-
resent the employees on a broader basis, I find that the Peti-
tioner’s requested single-facility unit is an appropriate unit.
Bowie Hall Trucking, supra; P & C (Cross Co.), 228 NLRB
1443 (1977).
Mechanic Issue
The parties disagree as to the unit placement of the me-
chanic. The Petitioner contends that the classification should
be excluded from the unit because it is not within the classi-
fication of drivers. The Employer asserts that the mechanic
shares a community of interest with the drivers and should
be included in the unit.
The Employer employs only one mechanic, Angel
Rodriguez, who works in the Boston facility. Until the posi-
tion was created in early 1992, Rodriguez had been a Bos-
ton-based driver for the Employer.
Rodriguez’ primary responsibility is the routine mainte-
nance of all company vehicles. Pursuant to a schedule estab-
lished by his supervisor, Manny Rodriguez, he performs such
tasks as lubrication, oil and filter changes, and antifreeze
changes.11 He also makes minor repairs on vehicles, such as
headlight and tire changes. Rodriguez spends most of his
workday in the fleet maintenance area, which is separated
from the bay area where drivers park, unload, and clean their
vehicles by a wall with a large opening. He has regular con-
tact with drivers, who report any vehicle problems to him.
The drivers fill out written car condition reports, but also
typically discuss any problems with Rodriguez directly. On
occasion, when drivers are stranded on the road, Rodriguez
brings gas, parts, or a new vehicle to them. Rodriguez also
has informal contacts with the drivers, both in the bay area
and in the dispatch office. He also has use of the drivers’
room, where the only coffee machine is located.
Rodriguez works from about 2 or 3 p.m. until about 10
or 11 p.m., 5 days a week. He receives the same benefits as
drivers. He is not subject to the same procedure as drivers
for requesting vacation time, but rather makes his requests
for time off directly to his supervisor. His performance eval-
uations, like those of the drivers, are performed annually.
As a general matter, the Board views the classifications of
driver and mechanic as functionally integrated and finds that
they may appropriately be included in the same unit. Airco,
Inc., 273 NLRB 348, 349 (1984); Carpenter Trucking, 266
NLRB 907, 908 (1983). Here, the mechanic performs func-
tions that are closely related to those of the drivers. He relies
on the drivers’ input in order to make routine repairs on their
vehicles, and has regular, work-related contact with them. He
is physically located next to the area where drivers load and
unload their vehicles, and he shares their break area. The me-
chanic is hourly paid, and although his rate of pay is more
than that of the drivers, that is not a sufficient ground upon
which to exclude an employee from the unit. He receives the
same benefits as the drivers and works under the same set
of personnel policies. Therefore, I find that the mechanic
shares a sufficient community of interest with the drivers
such that he should be included in a unit with the drivers.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that if he were to
be excluded from the unit found appropriate, he would be the
only unrepresented employee of the Employer at this loca-
tion. Private Medical Group of New Rochelle, 218 NLRB
1315, 1316 (1975). Accordingly, I will include the mechanic
in the unit found appropriate.
Guard Issue
The Employer has suggested, without asserting, that its
courier drivers are guards within the meaning of Section
9(b)(3) of the Act. Thus, the Employer’s suggestion con-
tinues, the Petitioner cannot be certified to represent these
employees because Section 9(b)(3) of the Act prohibits a
labor organization from representing guards if, like the Peti-
tioner, it admits nonguards to membership. The Petitioner
takes the position that the employees sought by it in this case
are not guards within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer’s drivers are primarily responsible for the
pickup, transportation, and delivery of financial documents.
They transport payrolls, canceled checks, cash letters and
other time sensitive and valuable items, but not cash. When
they are hired, drivers are photographed, but not
fingerprinted. Their references are checked, as are their
733COURIER DISPATCH GROUP
12 After hours, most drivers have only minimal access to a cus-
tomer’s premises, typically via a hallway just inside the building, or
a security box provided by the Employer for this purpose and se-
cured just outside the building. Drivers are, however, often required
to deactivate customer alarm systems using codes or combinations,
and to reactivate them when they leave the premises.
13 While this fact does not by itself negate an employee’s guard
status, A. W. Schlesinger Geriatric Center, 267 NLRB 1363 (1983),
it may, however, be considered where, as here, the couriers do not
otherwise meet the statutory requirements for guards. Purolator Cou-
rier Corp., supra at 314.
14 To the extent that the Petitioner’s posthearing brief refers to
matters not contained in the record, such references have not been
considered in this Decision.
15 In accordance with the stipulations of the parties and the record
as a whole, the following individuals are found to be supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and are excluded from the unit: David
England, regional manager; Christopher Smith, regional sales man-
ager; Jeanne King, general manager; Larry Chabre, operations man-
ager; Gil Rodriguez, operations supervisor; Rick O’Conner, oper-
ations supervisor; Wilfredo Barrosso, operations supervisor; Santos
Toledo, operations supervisor; William Despagne, operations super-
visor; Robert Moline, operations supervisor; Victor Diaz, operations
supervisor; Gayle Clarke, operations supervisor; Bernard Val, re-
gional personnel manager; Manny Rodrigues, fleet maintenance man-
ager; Jack Perola, regional account manager; Lynne Aubertin, re-
gional safety manager; Joe O’Conner, regional customer service
manager; John Fortin, regional operations analyst; Ronald Houle, op-
erations supervisor.
motor vehicle histories, but not their criminal records. They
wear uniforms, but they are not armed. One of the drivers’
job duties, as described in the employee handbook, is to safe-
guard customer property. However, England testified that the
only means of safeguarding packages are the locks on the ve-
hicles, a fire wall in the vehicles, and the locking bags and
boxes in which packages are secured during transit. Drivers
are instructed to use such ‘‘commonsense practices’’ as lock-
ing vehicles and removing keys from the ignition when the
vehicle is unattended. When their routes require off-hours ac-
cess to customers’ premises,12 drivers carry keys and com-
bination codes. When they find evidence of a break-in at a
customer location, the drivers are instructed to report it to a
supervisor, usually in the Boston office. They do not enter
the building or attempt to secure it, and they do not even call
the police. Drivers are covered under a surety bond held by
the Employer.
The Board has held that in order to be a statutory guard,
the basic duties of a courier must focus on the protection of
customer property. Purolator Courier Corp., 300 NLRB 812,
814 (1990). I find that the Employer’s drivers are not en-
gaged directly and substantially in the protection of customer
property, and, therefore, are not statutory guards. Id. at 814,
citing Purolator Courier Corp., 266 NLRB 384, 385 (1983).
The training and instruction given to the Employer’s driv-
ers regarding the security of customer property is minimal.
Moreover, they are not trained or authorized to use weapons
or force to secure property in their possession. Drivers are
instructed to report evidence of suspicious activity to their
supervisor rather than to protect the customer’s premises or
to notify the police.13 Thus, the couriers’ duties, as actually
performed, merely involve the pickup, transport and delivery
of customer property. Although drivers are sometimes given
keys to customer premises, these keys usually access only
vestibules, hallways, and, sometimes, only the Employer’s
own secured boxes outside the customer’s premises. Finally,
there is no evidence in the record that the Employer holds
itself out as anything other than a pickup and delivery serv-
ice. accordingly, I find that the Employer’s drivers are not
guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, and
that the Petitioner is, thus, not barred from being certified as
their bargaining representative.
Accordingly,14 I will direct an election in the following
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time courier drivers and
mechanics employed by the Employer at its Boston,
Massachusetts facility, but excluding managerial em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors15 as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]