Exemplar, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 2016

363 NLRB No. 157 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

363 NLRB No. 157
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Exemplar, Inc. and Service Employees International
Union, Local 87, Petitioner. Case 20–RC–149999
March 31, 2016
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
On May 14, 2015,1 the Acting Regional Director is-
sued a Decision and Direction of Election (pertinent por-
tions of which are attached) in which she found that the
petitioned-for multifacility unit of all full-time and regu-
lar part-time janitorial services employees employed by
the Employer within the City of San Francisco, Califor-
nia, is not an appropriate unit for bargaining. The Acting
Regional Director found that the Petitioner was, howev-
er, entitled to seek Board certification of its status as the
collective-bargaining representative of the janitors at one
of the two petitioned-for facilities, where the Employer
had extended voluntary recognition to the Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 87 (the Petitioner).
Accordingly, she directed an election in that unit.2
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Peti-
tioner filed a request for review of that decision, contend-
ing that the petitioned-for multifacility unit is an appro-
priate unit for bargaining. On June 8, the Board granted
the Petitioner’s request for review. The election was
conducted as scheduled on June 8, and the ballots were
impounded pending the Board’s Decision on Review.3
The Petitioner and the Employer each filed a brief on
review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, including
the parties’ briefs on review, we find, contrary to the
Acting Regional Director, that the petitioned-for
multifacility unit of janitorial services employees in the

1 All dates are 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The unit found appropriate consisted of all full-time and regular
part-time janitorial employees employed at 630 Sansome Street and
555 Battery Street, San Francisco, California, excluding engineers,
clerical, trash, and recycling staff, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act. The Sansome Street and Battery Street locations, referred to as
the Sansome Complex, are adjoining buildings that constitute a single
facility.
3 As the instant petition was filed prior to the implementation of the
Board’s Final Rule on representation case procedures (see 79 Fed. Reg.
74308 (Dec. 15, 2014)), the ballots were impounded pursuant to the
Sec. 102.67(b) of the Board’s Rules effective at that time.
City of San Francisco is an appropriate unit for bargain-
ing. Accordingly, we reverse the Acting Regional Direc-
tor’s decision and remand this case to the Regional Di-
rector for further appropriate action consistent with this
decision.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND4
The Employer provides janitorial, landscaping, and
stone-care services to private and government-owned
buildings at various locations throughout the United
States. It currently provides services at two Federal gov-
ernment facilities in San Francisco: the General Services
Administration (GSA) building located at 50 United Na-
tions Plaza (herein UN Plaza) and the Sansome Com-
plex.
The Employer has voluntarily recognized the Petition-
er as the representative of the janitorial services employ-
ees at the Sansome Complex since the Employer com-
menced services there on March 1. As of March 25, the
Employer agreed to provide wages and benefits to the
Sansome Complex employees in accordance with the
terms of the Petitioner’s multiemployer collective-
bargaining agreement, although the Employer has not
signed that agreement.5 The Employer currently em-
ploys 10 full-time and 1 on-call janitor at the Sansome
Complex. One of the full-time janitors is designated as a
site supervisor but is part of the recognized bargaining
unit. All 11 of these employees were employed by the
predecessor janitorial-services provider at that location.
UN Plaza closed for renovations several years ago, and
when it reopened, the Employer won the bidding to pro-
vide janitorial services, to commence on July 1, 2013.
Currently, the Employer employs seven janitors at UN
Plaza—six full time and one part time. One of the six
full-time employees is designated as the site supervisor.
The Acting Regional Director found that the site supervi-
sor is not a statutory supervisor, and this finding is not in
dispute.
The two site supervisors report to Regional Manager
Coleen Trundy, who supervises the Employer’s San
Francisco area operations, which consist solely of the
two facilities at issue. Trundy reports to Employer Pres-
ident Martha Lutt. UN Plaza and the Sansome Complex
are separated by a distance of approximately 2.1 miles.

4 The facts are fully set forth in the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion.
5 The record shows, however, that the Employer has not followed
all of the provisions of that agreement. For instance, under the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, the employees work 7-1/2 hours a day, but
the Employer has them work 7-hour shifts.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
II. THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Acting Regional Director found that the Petitioner
is entitled to seek Board certification as the collective-
bargaining representative of the janitorial employees at
the Sansome Complex, but she concluded that the peti-
tioned-for multifacility unit is not appropriate. The Act-
ing Regional Director found that the Employer’s UN
Plaza employees do not share a sufficient community of
interest with the Sansome Complex employees. She
found that the employees in the petitioned-for unit are
subject to centralized management and supervision, and
have similar skills, duties, and working conditions, but
that the absence of functional integration and interchange
between the two locations and her “fundamental con-
cerns” about the lack of any showing of interest from
among the UN Plaza employees render the unit sought
inappropriate.6 Thus, she directed an election at the
Sansome Complex only.7
The Petitioner argues that the degree of employee in-
terchange should not be the determining factor in analyz-
ing a petitioned-for multifacility unit, because inter-
change is entirely within the control of the Employer and
can be easily manipulated by the Employer to create
smaller bargaining units that must be organized building
by building (which will, in the Petitioner’s view, increase
labor strife). The Petitioner also asserts that the lack of
evidence that UN Plaza employees wish to be represent-
ed is also not determinative, as no UN Plaza employees
testified and there is no evidence that they were opposed
to representation. Finally, it asserts that cases cited by
the Acting Regional Director do not support her findings.
The Employer contends that the Acting Regional Di-
rector analyzed all of the relevant factors in reaching her
decision that the unit is inappropriate and did not just
focus on interchange, as suggested by the Petitioner.
Further, it asserts that the Acting Regional Director
merely evaluated whether employee choice might resolve
a close call with respect to the community-of-interest
issue and did not otherwise elevate this factor. Finally,
the Employer asserts that the Petitioner’s warning that
the Acting Regional Director’s decision will force unions
to organize on a building-by-building basis is unfounded.

6 The Acting Regional Director also found that the geographical
separation between the facilities is not geographically significant and
that the parties’ bargaining history does not bear on the determination
of whether the unit sought is appropriate.
7 In addition, the Acting Regional Director found that the Employ-
er’s voluntary recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees at the Sansome Complex
does not serve as a recognition bar to the instant petition. No party
sought review of this finding.
III. ANALYSIS
In determining whether a petitioned-for multifacility
unit is appropriate, the Board evaluates the following
community-of-interest factors among employees working
at the different locations: similarity in employees’ skills,
duties, and working conditions; centralized control of
management and supervision; functional integration of
business operations, including employee interchange;
geographic proximity; bargaining history; and extent of
union organization and employee choice. Clarian Health
Partners, Inc., 344 NLRB 332, 334 (2005); Bashas’,
Inc., 337 NLRB 710, 711 (2002); Alamo Rent-A-Car,
330 NLRB 897, 897 (2000). We reject the Petitioner’s
suggestion that the petitioned-for unit is presumptively
appropriate. The Board does not apply a presumption in
favor of finding petitioned-for multifacility units to be
appropriate, and instead, as discussed, subjects them to a
multifactor community-of-interest test. For the same
reason, we also disagree with the Employer’s claim—to
the extent it is even properly before us—that the peti-
tioned-for multifacility unit is presumptively inappropri-
ate.
It is well settled that a petitioned-for unit need only be
an appropriate unit, not the only or the most appropriate
unit. See Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center
of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934, 940 (2011) (“But the sugges-
tion that there is only one set of appropriate units in an
industry runs counter to the statutory language and the
main corpus of our unit jurisprudence, which holds that
the Board need find only that the proposed unit is an
appropriate unit, rather than the most appropriate unit
. . . .”) (emphasis in original), enfd. sub nom. Kindred
Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th
Cir. 2013). Further, in deciding whether a petitioned-for
unit is “appropriate” under Section 9(b), “[t]he Board's
discretion in this area is broad, reflecting Congress’
recognition ‘of the need for flexibility in shaping the
[bargaining] unit to the particular case.’” NLRB v. Ac-
tion Automotive, 469 U.S. 490, 494 (1985) (quoting
NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 134
(1944)).
Having weighed all of the factors, we find, contrary to
the Acting Regional Director, that the petitioned-for jani-
torial services employees at the two facilities at issue, the
Employer’s only two in San Francisco, share a communi-
ty of interest and therefore constitute an appropriate
unit.8 As found by the Acting Regional Director, the

8 It is undisputed that the petitioned-for employees are readily iden-
tifiable as a group. See Specialty Healthcare, supra; DPI Secuprint Inc.,
362 NLRB No. 172, slip op. at 4 fn. 10 (2015) (“‘Readily identifiable
as a group’ . . . means simply that the description of the unit is suffi-
EXEMPLAR, INC. 3
petitioned-for janitors at both locations have substantially
similar skills, duties, and working conditions. In addi-
tion, there are no onsite supervisors; all of the petitioned-
for employees are supervised by Regional Manager
Trundy. The requested unit corresponds to a distinct
administrative grouping of the Employer’s employees in
the City of San Francisco under the regional manager’s
supervision. Finally, the geographic distance of 2.1
miles does not limit full employee participation in union
activities.
A. Skills, Duties, and Working Conditions
Here, as found by the Acting Regional Director, the
record shows that the employees at both locations have
similar skills, duties, and working conditions. Thus, all
of the employees at both locations perform janitorial
work in an office building setting.9 Although the em-
ployees at the two buildings use different cleaning prod-
ucts and equipment, the overall skills required are the
same. UN Plaza, unlike the Sansome Complex, is a
LEED10 Platinum-certified building, and as part of main-
taining this certification, the Employer is required to use
low-noise equipment and low-odor, environmentally
friendly cleaning products. UN Plaza also contains his-
torical flooring surfaces that require special cleaning
products and techniques.11 However, as found by the
Acting Regional Director, the special training required to
clean the historical flooring surfaces does not establish a
meaningful distinction in skills between the two loca-
tions, as the training for that task takes only about 2
hours,12 and only two of the seven employees—one full-
time employee and one on-call employee—at UN Plaza
have received that specialized training.13 Similarly, alt-
hough the janitors at UN Plaza, unlike the janitors at the

cient to specify the group of employees the petitioner seeks to in-
clude.”).
9 As found by the Acting Regional Director, the Employer also per-
forms grounds maintenance functions at UN Plaza, but there is no
evidence about the scope of this work, the extent of any special skills or
equipment involved, or how the work is assigned.
10 LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
and reflects environmental standards developed and monitored by the
U.S. Green Building Council, which is a nongovernmental organiza-
tion. See http://www.usgbc.org/leed.
11 The Sansome Complex also has some areas with historical floor-
ing, but those areas are serviced by a separate company operating under
a different service contract.
12 Regional Manager Trundy testified that this training took 2 hours
for the full-time janitor but longer (almost a week) for the on-call em-
ployee because of his lack of experience with floor work and because
he had never been a janitor before. Trundy testified that an employee
could otherwise be trained in all aspects of the work at UN Plaza in
about a day.
13 All UN Plaza employees are trained to avoid damaging the histor-
ical surfaces.
Sansome Complex, receive special training on interact-
ing with tenants because they work during the day, when
the building is occupied,14 this training can be completed
in 30 minutes and thus does not establish a meaningful
distinction in skills.
Further, the employees at the two locations have, with
limited exceptions, substantially similar terms and condi-
tions of employment. Although the two groups of em-
ployees are currently paid at slightly different hourly
rates (the Sansome Complex employees are paid $0.40
more per hour than UN Plaza employees), as found by
the Acting Regional Director, this difference is attributa-
ble to the Employer’s voluntary adoption at the Sansome
Complex of the wage rates spelled out in the Petitioner’s
multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement. The
petitioned-for employees otherwise receive comparable
fringe benefits. The Employer makes health and welfare
and pension contributions to the Service Employees In-
ternational Union (SEIU) General Employees Trust Fund
and the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund on behalf
of the Sansome Complex employees15 and pays an
amount equal to these contributions directly to UN Plaza
employees. Thus, we agree with the Acting Regional
Director that there is no meaningful difference in the
employees’ economic terms and conditions of employ-
ment. With respect to the employees’ noneconomic
terms and conditions of employment, the Employer’s
employee handbook sets rules and policies applicable to
the employees at both locations, except to the extent su-
perseded by the collective-bargaining agreement at the
Sansome Complex.16
Finally, we find that the tighter security requirements
at the Sansome Complex, as compared to UN Plaza, do
not establish a significant difference in the janitors’
working conditions or otherwise negate the shared com-
munity of interest among the janitors.17 See Cal-Central

14 The bulk of the cleaning at the Sansome Complex is during the
evening shift, when tenants are not present.
15 As noted by the Acting Regional Director, the Petitioner repre-
sented at the hearing that the Employer’s health and welfare and pen-
sion contributions had not been accepted because the Employer was not
a signatory to the collective-bargaining agreement. The Employer
attached to its posthearing brief copies of two deposited checks purport-
ing to cover those contributions for March, along with an affidavit from
President Lutt averring to their authenticity. We agree with the Acting
Regional Director that irrespective of whether the checks were accepted
and cashed, the Employer has at the very least tendered fund contribu-
tions on behalf of its Sansome Complex employees.
16 For instance, the employees at the two locations have different
holiday schedules, but the same number of holidays (10 at each facili-
ty).
17 The janitors at the Sansome Complex use digital computerized
fingerprint recognition to enter the facility and are required to carry a
PIV card for identification. No such arrangements exist at UN Plaza.
In addition, several of the floors at the Sansome Complex house gov-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
Press, 179 NLRB 162, 164 (1969) (finding community
of interest among employees with similar working condi-
tions even though some of the employees possessed se-
curity clearances and those who did not had to be isolat-
ed from classified projects).
B. Highly Centralized Management and
Common Supervision
As found by the Acting Regional Director, the man-
agement and supervision of the employees in the peti-
tioned-for unit is highly centralized. The Employer’s
senior manager is President Lutt, and she alone, with the
assistance of her staff, determines the Employer’s labor
policy, vacation, pay, and other terms and conditions of
the employees’ employment. As noted, the employees at
both locations are required to comply with the Employ-
er’s employee handbook, except that any superseding
terms of the Petitioner’s collective-bargaining agreement
apparently apply to employees at the Sansome Complex.
The petitioned-for unit corresponds with the Employer’s
administrative grouping of its janitorial employees in the
City of San Francisco under the supervision of Regional
Manager Trundy. All disciplinary and personnel deci-
sions are made by Trundy, sometimes in consultation
with Lutt and other senior managers. Because the site
supervisors are working janitors, Regional Manager
Trundy, in coordination with President Lutt and her
team, exercises complete management control over the
employees at the two San Francisco facilities. See DPI
Secuprint, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 172, slip op. at 5 (in find-
ing a community of interest, the Board considered that
“the petitioned-for unit ‘conform[s] to the department
lines established by the [E]mployer’” (quoting Bergdorf
Goodman, 361 NLRB No. 11, slip op. at 3 (2014)). See
also Macy’s Inc., 361 NLRB No. 4, slip op. at 9 (2014)
(in finding that other employees did not share an over-
whelming community of interest with the petitioned-for
cosmetics and fragrance employees, the Board found that
the “fact that the petitioned-for unit tracks a dividing line
drawn by the Employer is particularly significant”).18

ernment offices with additional security requirements. The Employer’s
employees who service those areas undergo additional security screen-
ing by the tenant agencies, which decide individually whether to grant
the individual employee access to that area to perform janitorial ser-
vices. The building has public and employee areas, and in order to get
into the employee areas, the employees need to have an electronic
security clearance card and are allowed in only during certain times of
the day. In some cases, an employee may have to be escorted (for
instance, the employee who cleans the rest rooms is not permitted to
enter any of the doors).
18 Cf. Odwalla, Inc., 357 NLRB 1608, 1612–1613 (2011) (Board
found that the petitioned-for unit was a “fractured unit,” in part because
it did not track any lines drawn by the employer, such as a department,
function, or classification, and was not structured along lines of super-
C. Functional Integration/Employee Interchange
It is undisputed that the two locations sought are not
functionally integrated and there has been no interchange
of employees between the two facilities. As found by the
Acting Regional Director, the two locations are serviced
under separate Federal contracts covering different peri-
ods of performance. The employees’ personnel records
are maintained in their distinct locations. Further, no
employee from either location has ever been assigned
work at the other building. If an employee is absent,
only the employees on a preferential list for that location
will be called.19 Further, as noted by the Acting Region-
al Director, the requirement for security-cleared employ-
ees serves to restrict the transfer of UN Plaza employees
to the Sansome Complex.
We disagree with the Acting Regional Director’s
statement that the lack of employee interchange is a par-
ticularly important factor that weighs substantially
against a finding that the employees in the two facilities
share a community of interest. The principal decision
that the Acting Regional Director cited in making this
statement, Jerry’s Chevrolet, Cadillac, 344 NLRB 689,
693 (2005), is inapposite. The Acting Regional Director
relied on the dissent, and the majority holding tends to
support the opposite view: The majority found that the
employer had rebutted the single-facility presumption
and that the appropriate unit had to include all four of the
employer’s facilities even though there was no meaning-
ful interchange among the facilities.20 In the case before
us, moreover, the Petitioner is seeking a multifacility
unit, and the issue is simply whether it is an appropriate
unit for bargaining under the multifactor community-of-

vision or in accordance with the method of compensation); Alamo Rent-
A-Car, 330 NLRB at 898 (The Board found the petitioned-for unit of
two of the employer’s four facilities in the San Francisco area not to be
appropriate where, inter alia, “[t]he proposed unit [did] not conform to
any administrative function or grouping of the Employer’s operations.”
Instead, the Board found the unit of four San Francisco facilities to be
appropriate.).
19 President Lutt testified that when the Employer procures its con-
tracts, it sets up the proposal so that it can support itself and not rely on
the support of employees at other locations.
20 In Jerry’s Chevrolet, the Regional Director found the petitioned-
for unit of automotive service employees at one facility to be an appro-
priate unit. In that case, the service employees worked in separate
buildings under separate managers, and there was little interchange.
The Board majority acknowledged these factors but found that they
were overcome by the close proximity of the buildings (three were
within 1000 feet of each other, and the fourth was directly across the
highway from the rest), the centralization of labor relations, the high
functional integration of the facilities, and the similarity of skills, pay,
and job functions at all locations. Id. at 690–691.
EXEMPLAR, INC. 5
interest test, not whether a single-facility unit would be
inappropriate.21
D. Geographic Proximity
We agree with the Acting Regional Director that the
2.1-mile geographical distance between the two facilities
in this densely populated, high-traffic urban environment
is not significant and find that it would permit full em-
ployee participation in union activities. As found by the
Acting Regional Director, the record does not establish
that the absence of employee interchange and functional
integration is attributable to the distance between facili-
ties or any resultant difficulty in transporting employees
between the facilities. Indeed, the Board has routinely
approved multilocation units of facilities located further
apart. See, e.g., Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc., 340
NLRB 1205, 1205, 1208 (2003) (distances of 10 to 70
miles from main facility did not warrant excluding outly-
ing facilities from unit); Capital Coors Co., 309 NLRB
322, 325 (1992) (distance of 90 miles between facilities
did not preclude finding a community of interest).
E. Bargaining History
We agree with the Acting Regional Director that the
parties’ bargaining history does not bear on the determi-
nation of whether the unit sought is appropriate, and thus
we regard this as a neutral factor. The Petitioner offered
testimony showing that prior to UN Plaza’s being closed
for renovations the Petitioner represented another janito-
rial employer’s employees at the two facilities at issue in
a single unit. As found by the Acting Regional Director,
that evidence of a prior bargaining relationship has little
relevance due to the intervening 4-year period in which
the Petitioner has not represented employees at UN Pla-
za, and because the Petitioner did not present any evi-
dence that the previous employer structured its business
similarly to the Employer in this case. In addition, we
find that the Employer’s voluntary recognition of the
Petitioner and the parties’ fledgling collective-bargaining

21 Similarly, the other cases cited by the Acting Regional Director
for the proposition that lack of interchange is a particularly important
factor that weighs against finding that the employees share a communi-
ty of interest do not involve petitioned-for multifacility units and thus
are distinguishable. See First Security Services Corp., 329 NLRB 235,
236 (1999) (petitioned-for single-facility unit); Executive Resources
Associates, Inc., 301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991) (same); Towne Ford
Sales, 270 NLRB 331, 311–312 (1984) (petitioned-for accretion to
existing unit), affd. 759 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir. 1985). Further, Essex Wire
Corp., 130 NLRB 450 (1961), presented the issue of whether a new
warehouse constituted an accretion to an existing unit, and the Board
found, contrary to the administrative law judge, that the new warehouse
was a completely new or different operation, rather than an accretion to
the existing unit. The fact that there was no interchange between the
new warehouse and the existing unit was one of several factors consid-
ered by the Board in making this finding. Id. at 453.
relationship at the Sansome Complex is not sufficiently
settled or established as to significantly affect the
multifacility unit analysis. Cf. Capital Coors Co., supra
at 325 (declining to rely on bargaining history where
there was an intervening period during which employees
were not represented); Esco Corp., 298 NLRB 837, 839–
840 (1990) (bargaining history not controlling where,
inter alia, the most recent agreement expired over 4 years
prior).
F. Extent of Union Organization and Employee Choice
As found by the Acting Regional Director, there is no
record evidence to show whether the Petitioner has at-
tempted to organize the employees at UN Plaza, who are
fewer in number than the Sansome Complex employees,
and the Petitioner’s showing of interest was based solely
on cards signed by Sansome Complex employees. The
Acting Regional Director expressed “fundamental con-
cerns” about the lack of any showing of interest among
the UN Plaza employees and weighed this factor in favor
of finding that only the employees at the Sansome Com-
plex constitute an appropriate unit. Nevertheless, as
acknowledged by the Acting Regional Director, the Peti-
tioner’s extent of organization, although one factor to be
considered, cannot be given controlling weight. See
NLRB v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 380 U.S. 438,
441–442 fn. 4 (1965). We find that, because this factor
is not controlling and other factors discussed above ulti-
mately favor finding the petitioned-for unit to be appro-
priate, the extent of organization factor does not tip the
balance against the appropriateness of the unit. In addi-
tion, we specifically reject the Acting Regional Direc-
tor’s suggestion that Board policy would foreclose her
from directing an election among UN Plaza employees.
The Acting Regional Director did not cite, and we are
unaware of, any cases that state that when a petitioner
seeks a multifacility unit, a showing of interest must be
demonstrated at each of the facilities, as opposed to 30
percent of the entire unit sought.22

22 We find the cases on which the Acting Regional Director relied in
making this assertion to be distinguishable. In Sperry Gyroscope Co.,
147 NLRB 988 (1964), the Board found the petitioned-for unit consist-
ing of two existing certified units and the unrepresented employees at a
single plant to be inappropriate on any basis, without any reference to a
showing of interest issue. The Board noted that the petitioners had
“declined to take any alternate unit position, and none of the parties
ha[d] requested an election in any alternate unit which might be appro-
priate on a combined or residual basis.” Id. at 955. In a footnote to its
statement about alternative units, the Board merely noted the lack of
showing of interest among unrepresented employees. Id. at 955 fn. 17.
Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 123 NLRB 441, 446 (1959), Hartford Elec-
tric Light Co., 122 NLRB 1421, 1424 (1959), and Montana-Dakota
Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056 (1954), all concerned the showing of
interest necessary to obtain a self-determination election, which is not
the issue here.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
In sum, we find this factor to be neutral.
IV. CONCLUSION
The petitioned-for janitors at UN Plaza and the
Sansome Complex have substantially similar skills, du-
ties, and working conditions; all of the Employer’s man-
agerial and supervisory functions for the two facilities at
issue are centralized; there are no statutory supervisors
stationed at the two sites; all of the employees are super-
vised by Regional Manager Trundy; and the requested
unit constitutes a separate administrative grouping of the
Employer’s employees in the City of San Francisco un-
der the regional manager’s supervision. Further, the ge-
ographic distance of 2.1 miles permits for full employee
participation in union activities.
The lack of functional integration and employee inter-
change is the one factor that disfavors a finding of an
appropriate unit that includes employees at both facili-
ties. Here, that factor is plainly outweighed by the nu-
merous other factors that support a finding of a commu-
nity of interest. See I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. NLRB,
818 F.2d 1108, 1113 (4th Cir. 1987) (community-of-
interest finding affirmed, “[a]lthough certain of the rele-
vant factors, such as similarity of wages, were seemingly
absent as to some if not all of the added employees”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find
that the petitioned-for unit consisting of all full-time and
regular part-time janitorial services employees employed
by the Employer within the City of San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, is an appropriate unit for bargaining. We reverse
the Acting Regional Director’s finding that the peti-
tioned-for multifacility unit is not an appropriate unit for
bargaining.
ORDER
The Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direc-
tion of Election is reversed, and the case is remanded to
the Regional Director for further appropriate action con-
sistent with this decision.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 31, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By its Petition, as amended during the hearing in this matter,
Service Employees International Union, Local 87 (Petitioner)
seeks to represent a multifacility unit of all full-time and regu-
lar part-time janitorial services employees employed by Exem-
plar, Inc. (Employer) within the City of San Francisco. A hear-
ing officer of the Board held a hearing, and Petitioner and Em-
ployer subsequently filed briefs with me.
The parties stipulated, and I find, that Petitioner is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, and that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The parties disagree whether the petitioned-for multifacility
unit is an appropriate unit. The Employer contends that: (1) its
voluntary recognition of the Petitioner as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees at two adjacent
federal buildings located at 630 Sansome Street and 555 Bat-
tery Street in San Francisco (collectively, “the Sansome Com-
plex”)1 should bar the instant petition; (2) the Petition is tanta-
mount to an Armour–Globe self-determination election, which
is inappropriate here because the Employer has extended
recognition to the Petitioner at the Sansome Complex; (3) the
existing single-facility (Sansome Complex) unit of employees
is such an appropriate unit; (4) there is a rebuttable presumption
that a single-facility unit is appropriate; and (5) Petitioner
bears, but has not met, the burden to rebut the presumptive
appropriateness of the existing single-facility unit by demon-
strating that the employees at both facilities share a community
of interest.
The Petitioner argues that where, as here, it seeks a
multifacility unit, the Board’s single-facility presumption does
not apply. In this regard, the Petitioner further contends that
Respondent has not met its burden of showing that the peti-
tioned-for multifacility unit lacks the requisite community of
interest.
I have considered the evidence and arguments presented by
the parties on each of these issues. As discussed below, I have
concluded that the Petitioner is entitled to seek Board certifica-
tion of its status as the collective-bargaining representative of
the appropriate existing single-facility unit, which includes the
site supervisor. However, I conclude that the petitioned-for
multifacility unit is not appropriate because the Employer’s UN
Plaza employees do not share a sufficient community of interest
with the existing single-facility unit and Petitioner has made no
showing of interest among the unrepresented UN Plaza em-
ployees. I shall therefore direct that an election be held at the
Employer’s Sansome Complex, as set forth below.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Employer provides janitorial, landscaping, and stone-

1 The Employer asserted at the hearing and in its brief that its adjoin-
ing service buildings, located at 630 Sansome St. and 555 Battery St. in
San Francisco, constitute a single facility or “complex.” In its brief,
Petitioner agreed that these two facilities are essentially one facility. I
take administrative notice that only a private alley separates the two
buildings. Accordingly, and absent any dispute in this regard, I find that
these two adjoining buildings constitute a single facility.
EXEMPLAR, INC. 7
care services to private and government-owned buildings at
various locations throughout the United States. The Employer
currently has contracts to provide those services at two loca-
tions in San Francisco: (1) at the General Services Administra-
tion (GSA) building located at 50 United Nations Plaza (UN
Plaza); and (2) at the Sansome Complex. The UN Plaza and
Sansome Complex locations are separated by a distance of
approximately 2.1 miles.2
A. The UN Plaza Service Contract
The UN Plaza closed for renovations several years ago, and
when it reopened, the Employer won the initial 1-year service
contract (Service Contract) for janitorial services at that build-
ing, commencing on July 1, 2013.3 The Service Contract, by its
terms, was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014, but the parties
have exercised the 1-year-extension options contained therein.
Currently, the Employer employs seven janitors at UN Plaza;
six full time and one part time.4 One of the six full-time em-
ployees is designated as the site supervisor.
The UN Plaza employees are paid $18.85 per hour, plus a
Health and Welfare contribution of $1,154.31 per month for
full-time employees, along with a pension payment of $1.15 per
hour worked. Both the Health and Welfare and Pension contri-
butions are paid directly to the employees.
The UN Plaza employees work on three shifts, all of which
occur during business hours. The first shift of two employees
begins at 6 a.m. The second shift of four employees begins at
11 a.m. The remaining one-employee shift runs from 2:30-7
p.m. Because they work during the day, while the building is
occupied, the UN Plaza employees receive 30 minutes of addi-
tional training on how to interact with tenants, including role-
playing scenarios.
The UN Plaza location is a LEED5 Platinum certified build-
ing. As part of maintaining this certification, the Employer is
required to use low-noise equipment and low-odor, environ-
mentally friendly cleaning products. The UN Plaza building
also contains historical flooring surfaces that require special
cleaning products and techniques.6 Only one full-time and one
on-call employee at UN Plaza are trained on cleaning the his-

2 For context, the City of San Francisco spans approximately 49
square miles.
3 The record contains inconsistent testimony regarding the date that
the UN Plaza location closed for renovations. One witness placed the
closure in 2006, while Petitioner President Olga Miranda testified that a
signatory employer, American Building Services, operated UN Plaza
and the Sansome Complex as a single bargaining unit until January of
2011. This factual dispute is irrelevant to the issues presented herein.
4 The Employer’s president testified that it employs six full-time
employees at UN Plaza, along with one on-call employee. While the
Employer’s San Francisco regional manager testified that there are six
regular shifts at UN Plaza, including one from 2:30 to 7 p.m., the regu-
larity and duration of the on-call employee’s shift(s) is unclear.
5 LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
and reflects environmental standards developed and monitored by the
U.S. Green Building Council, which is a nongovernmental organiza-
tion. http://www.usgbc.org/leed
6 The Sansome Complex also has some areas with historical floor-
ing, but those areas are serviced by a separate company operating under
a different service contract.
torical floor surfaces, although all UN Plaza employees are
trained to avoid damaging the historical surfaces. The initial
training for cleaning the historical surfaces in the UN Plaza
building takes about 2 hours. The UN Plaza contract also in-
cludes some grounds maintenance, but there was no evidence
adduced at the hearing as to the scope of this work, the extent
of any special skills or equipment involved, or how that work is
assigned.
B. The Sansome Complex Contract
The Employer commenced service under the Sansome Com-
plex contract on March 1, 2015. It currently employs 10 full-
time janitors at this location, all of whom were employed by the
predecessor janitorial services contractor at that location. One
of these full-time employees is also designated as the site su-
pervisor. Four additional predecessor employees whom the
Employer did not hire were placed on a preferential hiring list.
The Employer voluntarily recognized Petitioner as the bargain-
ing representative of the Sansome Complex unit when it ob-
tained the services contract for that location. As of March 25,
2015, the Employer agreed to provide wages and benefits to its
Sansome Complex employees in accordance with the terms of
the Petitioner’s multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement.
The Employer has not, however, signed that collective-
bargaining agreement.
The Sansome Complex employees are paid $ 0.40 more per
hour than the UN Plaza employees. The Employer also pays
Health & Welfare and Pension contributions to the SEIU Gen-
eral Employees Trust Fund and the SEIU National Industry
Pension Fund on behalf of the Sansome Complex employees.7
The Employer pays an amount equal to these contributions
directly to its UN Plaza employees.
The 10 Sansome Complex employees work on four shifts.
One employee starts work at 6:30 a.m. Two employees start
work at 7:30 a.m. Two more employees start work at 10:30
a.m. The remaining five employees start work at 3 p.m. and
end work at 10:30 p.m.
The Sansome Complex has tighter security requirements
than UN Plaza, which has a direct impact on employee access.
For example, employees at Sansome Complex are required to
carry an identification card, called a PIV card, which contains a
computer chip. In addition, several of the floors at the Sansome
Complex house government offices with additional security
requirements. The Employer’s employees who service those
areas undergo additional security screening by the tenant agen-
cies, which decide whether to grant the individual employee
access to that area to perform janitorial services.

7 At the hearing, Petitioner represented that the Employer’s Health
& Welfare and Pension contributions had not been accepted because it
was not a signatory to the collective-bargaining agreement. The Em-
ployer attached to its posthearing brief copies of two deposited checks
purporting to cover those contributions for March 2015, along with an
affidavit from the Employer’s president, Martha Lutt, averring to their
authenticity. Irrespective of whether the checks were accepted and
cashed, it is undisputed that, at the very least, the Employer has ten-
dered Fund contributions on behalf of its Sansome Complex employ-
ees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
C. Management and Supervision
The Employer’s senior manager is its president, Martha Lutt.
Lutt receives management assistance from her human resources
staff and the Employer’s chief financial officer. Answering
directly to Lutt are several regional managers. Both facilities at
issue here fall under the supervision of the Employer’s regional
manager for the San Francisco area. All disciplinary and per-
sonnel decisions are made by that regional manager in consulta-
tion with Lutt and other senior managers.
Each location has a site supervisor, who answers directly to
the regional manager. Both site supervisors perform janitorial
work in addition to their duties as site supervisor. The UN
Plaza site supervisor can task other employees to perform work,
while the Sansome Complex site supervisor cannot because, as
the Employer explained, that supervisor is part of the bargain-
ing unit. There was no evidence offered as to whether the site
supervisors are paid at a higher rate than the other employees or
whether they are evaluated based on the performance of the
other employees.
Lutt alone determines the Employer’s labor policy, vacation,
pay, and other terms and conditions of the employees’ em-
ployment. The employees at both locations are required to
comply with the Employer’s employee handbook, except that
the superseding terms of Petitioner’s collective-bargaining
agreement apply to employees at the Sansome Complex. For
example, the Sansome Complex employees enjoy a different
holiday schedule, albeit with the same number of holidays—10
at each facility.
The evidence adduced at the hearing shows that there is no
interchange of employees between the two facilities. If neces-
sary, the regional manager will work a shift to cover for an
absent employee, but the Employer has never assigned an em-
ployee from one facility to work at the other. Employees’ per-
sonnel records are maintained at their respective work loca-
tions.
II. ANALYSIS
Distilled down, the parties’ positions and arguments essen-
tially raise two issues: (1) whether the Employer’s voluntary
recognition of the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees at the Sansome Complex serves to
bar the instant petition; and (2) whether the UN Plaza employ-
ees should be included in a single bargaining unit with the em-
ployees at the Sansome Complex. As explained more fully
below, I have answered “no” to both questions.
. . . .
B. The Petitioned-For Unit is Not Appropriate
I find that the petitioned-for multifacility unit is not appro-
priate because the Employer’s Sansome Complex employees
lack a community of interest with the Employer’s UN Plaza
employees. The Board’s procedure for determining an appro-
priate unit under Section 9(b) of the Act is to examine first the
petitioned-for unit. If that unit is appropriate, then the inquiry
into the appropriate unit ends. If the petitioned-for unit is not
appropriate, the Board may examine the alternative units sug-
gested by the parties, but it also has the discretion to select an
appropriate unit that is different from the alternative proposals
of the parties. See, e.g., Overnite Transportation Co., 331
NLRB 662, 663 (2000); NLRB v. Lake County Assn. for the
Retarded, 128 F.3d 1181, 1185 fn. 2 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Employer asserts that the petitioned-for multifacility
unit is presumptively inappropriate, invoking the Board’s oft-
cited rebuttable presumption that a single-facility unit is appro-
priate. See, e.g., J&L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993). However,
when a union seeks a multifacility unit, the single-facility pre-
sumption is inapplicable. NLRB v. Carson Cable TV, 795 F.2d
879, 887 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Capital Coors Co., 309
NLRB 322 (1992). In other words, the presumption of appro-
priateness carries with it no corresponding presumption that all
other units are inappropriate. As the court in Carson Cable
explained:
Where, as here, the union requests and the Board designates a
multi-location unit as appropriate, the (single-facility) pre-
sumption simply has no application. The presumption does
not preclude designation of a larger unit, but only works to as-
sure that a Board determination that a smaller unit is appropri-
ate will almost never be subject to challenge.
Id. at 887; see also Macy’s, 361 NLRB No. 4, slip op. at 20 fn.
65 (2014) (“That a unit is presumptively appropriate in a par-
ticular setting does not mean that a different unit is presump-
tively inappropriate.”) (emphasis in original); Capital Coors
Co., supra.
Because the Petitioner has requested a multifacility unit
comprising all of the janitorial and maintenance staff employed
by the Employer within the city limits of San Francisco, the
single-facility presumption is not applicable. I must therefore
determine whether the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate one
under the Board’s generally applicable standards.
The Board determines whether a petitioned-for multifacility
unit is appropriate based on its evaluation of the community of
interests among employees working at the different locations,
including: (1) similarity in employee skills, duties, and working
conditions; (2) functional integration of the business, including
employee interchange; (3) centralized control of management
and supervision; (4) geographical separation of facilities and
collective-bargaining history; and (5) extent of union organiza-
tion and employee choice. Capital Coors Co., supra; NLRB v.
Carson Cable TV, supra. I find, as discussed in greater detail
below, that the employees at the Sansome Complex and UN
Plaza lack the requisite community of interest.
i. Employees at Both Locations Have Substantially Similar
Skills, Duties, and Working Conditions
I find that the employees in the petitioned-for unit have simi-
lar skills, duties, and working conditions. All of the employees
at both locations perform janitorial work in an office setting.
Although each building requires different cleaning products and
equipment, the overall skills required are the same. Employees
at the Sansome Complex receive special training on interacting
with tenants, but this training can be completed in 30 minutes.
Nor does the special training required to clean the historical
floors at the UN Plaza establish a meaningful distinction in
skills between the two locations—the initial training for that
EXEMPLAR, INC. 9
task only takes 2 hours. Moreover, only two of the seven em-
ployees at the UN Plaza location receive that specialized train-
ing.
I also note that the employees at the two locations have, with
limited exceptions, substantially similar terms and conditions of
employment. Certainly, the two groups of employees are paid
at different hourly rates, but this slight difference is attributed
to the Employer’s voluntary adoption of the wage rates spelled
out in the Petitioner’s collective-bargaining agreement. The
employees otherwise receive comparable fringe benefits. I
therefore find no meaningful difference in the employees’ eco-
nomic terms and conditions of employment. With respect to
the employees’ noneconomic terms and conditions of employ-
ment, the Employer’s employee handbook sets rules and poli-
cies applicable to the employees at both locations, except to the
extent superseded by the collective-bargaining agreement at the
Sansome Complex.
ii. The Two Locations are not Functionally Integrated and Have
No Interchange of Employees
I find that the Sansome Complex and UN Plaza locations are
not functionally integrated. The Sansome Complex and the UN
Plaza building are geographically distinct operations, separated
by a distance of approximately 2.1 miles. Each location is ser-
viced under separate Federal contracts covering different peri-
ods of performance. Cf. Executive Resources Associates, 301
NLRB 400, 401–402 (1991) (finding separate community of
interest for groups of employees of a single employer working
under separate government contracts on a single military base,
where one contract expired more than a year after the other).
There is no interchange of cleaning products or equipment be-
tween the facilities, in part because each building has special
requirements that preclude such interchange. In short, there is
no functional integration of the operations at the two locations.
I also find that there is no interchange of employees between
the locations. The undisputed evidence in the record shows that
no employee from either location has ever been tasked to per-
form work at the other building. Although the Petitioner ar-
gued that such an interchange is feasible based on the similarity
of the work performed, the Board determines community of
interest based on actual interchange, not the mere potential for
it. See Essex Wire Corp., 130 NLRB 450, 453 (1961) (finding
no community of interest where jobs were “virtually inter-
changeable” but “there was in fact no interchange”); see also
Combustion Engineering, 195 NLRB 909, 912 (1972).
The Employer argues that the need for security clearance to
work at the Sansome Complex weighs against finding a com-
munity of interest, and while I agree, I find that this factor is
not dispositive. Cf. Cal-Cent. Press, 179 NLRB 162, 164
(1969) (finding community of interest among employees with
similar working conditions even though some of the employees
possessed security clearances and had to be isolated from clas-
sified projects). However, the requirement for security-cleared
employees does serve to restrict the transfer of UN Plaza em-
ployees to the Sansome Complex.
Overall, I find that there is no functional integration or inter-
change of employees between the two locations and conclude
that this factor weighs against finding a community of interest
among the employees in the petitioned-for unit.
iii. The Management and Supervision of the Employees in the
Petitioned-For Unit is Highly Centralized
Essentially, all of the Employer’s managerial and superviso-
ry functions for the two facilities at issue are centralized with
the regional manager and Lutt, with the assistance of Lutt’s
management team. These higher-level managers make all per-
sonnel decisions with respect to employees at both locations.
Although the Employer designates an employee at each site as
a “site supervisor,” neither party contends, and the evidence
does not establish, that either of the employees so designated
exercise any of the twelve supervisory indicia set forth in Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act. Although there was some testimony that
the UN Plaza site supervisor directed the tasks of his cowork-
ers, there was no evidence offered that the site supervisor did so
“responsibly.” See Community Education Centers, Inc., 360
NLRB No. 17 (2014); citing CGLM, Inc., 350 NLRB 974, 974
fn. 2, 983–984 (2007), enfd. mem. 280 Fed. Appx. 366 (5th Cir.
2008); see also Croft Metals, Inc., 348 NLRB 717, 722 fn. 13
(2006).
I therefore find that the Employer’s regional manager, in co-
ordination with Lutt and her team, exercises complete man-
agement control over the employees at its two San Francisco
facilities, which weighs in favor of finding that the petitioned-
for unit is appropriate.
iv. Geographical Separation of Facilities and
Bargaining History
The geographical distance between facilities is important as
to whether it is feasible for all employees in a multilocation unit
to participate without great difficulty in union activities. See
NLRB v. Sunset House, 415 F.2d 545 (9th Cir.1969). I find that
the geographical separation between the facilities—a distance
of approximately 2 miles in a densely populated, high-traffic
urban environment—is not significant. Cf. Capital Coors Co.,
supra at 325 (a distance of 90 miles between facilities did not
preclude finding a community of interest). The evidence ad-
duced at the hearing did not establish that the absence of em-
ployee interchange and functional integration is attributable to
the distance between facilities or any resultant difficulty in
transporting employees between the facilities.
The Petitioner presented evidence that, prior to January
2011, it represented another janitorial employer’s employees at
the two facilities at issue here in a single unit. It argues that the
existence of that historical bargaining unit demonstrates that the
petitioned-for unit is appropriate.
For its part, the Employer notes that it has already voluntari-
ly recognized the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its Sansome Complex employees and has offered to
abide by the terms of the Petitioner’s multiemployer collective-
bargaining agreement. Thus, it argues that the recent history of
collective bargaining at the Sansome Complex supports a find-
ing that the multifacility unit sought is inappropriate. Accept-
ing both parties’ factual representations at face value, neither is
accorded much weight.
The Petitioner’s evidence of a prior bargaining relationship
covering both the Sansome Complex and UN Plaza has little
relevance due to the intervening 4-year period in which the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
Petitioner has not represented employees at the UN Plaza, par-
ticularly where, as here, Petitioner has not presented any evi-
dence that the previous employer structured its business simi-
larly to the Employer here. Similarly, I find that the Employ-
er’s voluntary recognition of the Petitioner and the parties’
fledgling collective- bargaining relationship at the Sansome
Complex is not sufficiently settled or established to significant-
ly affect my decision. Cf. Dezcon, Inc., 295 NLRB 109, 112
(1989) (finding that expired jurisdiction-wide collective-
bargaining agreement was inconclusive because the parties’
bargaining relationship was “insufficiently settled or estab-
lished); Capital Coors Co., supra (declining to rely on bargain-
ing history where there was an intervening period during which
employees were not represented). In sum, I find that the geo-
graphical separation between the facilities would permit for full
employee participation in union activities. I further conclude
that the parties’ bargaining history does not bear on the deter-
mination of whether the unit sought is appropriate.
v. Extent of Union Organization and Employee Choice
In evaluating community of interest, “the overriding policy
of the Act is in favor of the interest in employees to be repre-
sented by a representative of their own choosing for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining.” Judge & Dolph, Ltd., 333
NLRB 175, 185 (2001) (citing NLRB v. Western & Southern
Life Insurance Co., 391 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir. 1968), cert.
denied 393 U.S. 978 (1968).) In considering the extent of Peti-
tioner’s organizing of the employees at the two facilities, I note
that the UN Plaza employees have been without a collective-
bargaining representative since July 1, 2013, when the Employ-
er began operating at that location. The instant petition was not
filed until after the Employer voluntarily recognized the Peti-
tioner as the collective-bargaining representative of its Sansome
Complex employees, who comprise nearly 60 percent of the
petitioned-for unit. There is no evidence on the record to show
whether and to what extent the Petitioner has attempted to or-
ganize the smaller group of UN Plaza employees, but I note
that the Employer offered on the record to recognize the Peti-
tioner at the UN Plaza based on a majority showing. (Tr. 41–
42.) As of the date of the hearing, at least, no such showing
had been made.9
Under Section 9(c)(5) of the Act, the extent that employees
have been organized may not be the controlling determinant of
the appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit, but it is a
factor that plays “an affirmative part in such determinations.”
See e.g., Acme Markets, Inc., 328 NLRB 1208 (1999) (citing
Central Power & Light Co., 195 NLRB 743 (1972)); Audiovox
Communications Corp. 323 NLRB 647 (1997). Here, there is
no evidence that the Petitioner has organized the minority
group of UN Plaza employees. It has made no showing of in-
terest among them.10

9 Nevertheless, as discussed above, voluntary recognition, if it were
to occur, would not bar the instant Petition.
10 On this basis alone, it would appear that Board policy forecloses
me from directing an election among the UN Plaza employees. See
e.g., Sperry Gyroscope Co., 147 NLRB 988, 994 fn. 17 (1964); Brook-
lyn Union Gas Co., 123 NLRB 441, 444 (1959); Hartford Electric
Light Co., 122 NLRB 1421 (1959). See also Great Lakes Pipe Line,
Turning to employee choice, there is no evidence that em-
ployees have expressed a desire to be included in a single bar-
gaining unit with the Sansome Complex employees, that they
prefer to be represented in a separate unit or, indeed, that they
are aware of the instant Petition at all. Put simply, although
“[e]mployee choice can tip the balance in determining which of
two equally appropriate units should be preferred,” I cannot
discern the employees’ wishes from this record. Pacific
Southwest Airlines, 587 F.2d 1032, 1044 (1978). Accordingly,
neither does employee choice “tip the balance” in favor of find-
ing the existence of a community of interest between the UN
Plaza employees and the existing Sansome Complex unit.
In summary, I conclude that the petitioned-for unit is not an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Although I find that
the employees in the petitioned-for unit are subject to central-
ized management and supervision, and have similar skills, du-
ties, and working conditions, the total absence of functional
integration and interchange between the two locations and the
fundamental concerns about the lack of any showing of interest
among the minority group of UN Plaza employees to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner render the unit sought inappropriate.
Sperry Gyroscope Co.; Brooklyn Union Gas Co.; Hartford
Electric Light Co.; Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., supra.
The lack of employee interchange is a particularly important
factor, one which weighs substantially against a finding that the
employees share a community of interest. Jerry’s Chevrolet,
Cadillac, 344 NLRB 689, 693 (2005) (Liebman, M., dissent-
ing) (lack of significant employee interchange between groups
of employees is a “strong indicator” that employees enjoy a
separate community of interest) (citing Executive Resources
Associates, 301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991)); see also First Security
Services Corp., 329 NLRB 235, 236 (1999) (describing lack of
employee interchange as “critical factor” in assessing commu-
nity of interest to rebut single-facility presumption); Towne
Ford Sales, 270 NLRB 311, 311–312 (1984) (describing em-
ployee interchange as “especially important” factor in consider-
ing community of interest in accretion context).
In Jerry’s Cadillac, the Board found that a multilocation unit
comprising service departments at four adjacent car dealerships
was the only appropriate unit despite the lack of meaningful
employee interchange. 344 NLRB at 691. In doing so, the
Board relied on the close geographic proximity, high level of
functional integration, centralization of labor relations, and the
similarity of skills, pay, and other conditions among the service
employees at the four locations. Id. Here, by contrast, the
facilities sought to be included in the unit lack the geographical
proximity and functional integration that might otherwise suffi-
ciently balance out the complete lack of employee interchange
between the two locations. Cf. Capital Coors Co., supra (find-
ing petitioned-for multilocation unit appropriate because of
functional integration, interchange of employees, and similarity
of working conditions). Indeed, the unit sought is inappropriate
because there is a lack of functional interchange involving UN

Co., 92 NLRB 583 (1950)(the Board is duty bound “to prevent injustice
being done to minority groups by . . . arbitrary inclusion of such groups
in a larger unit wherein they would have no effective voice to secure
the benefits of collective bargaining.”)
EXEMPLAR, INC. 11
Plaza and the Sansome Complex and because the unit would
consist of a heterogeneous grouping of UN Plaza employees
who have absolutely no interchange with the Sansome Com-
plex employees, nor any manifest interest in being represented
by the Petitioner. After considering the “balanc[e] of salient
factors” relevant to the designation of a multilocation bargain-
ing unit,11 I find the unit sought to be inappropriate.
I find, however, that a unit of the Employer’s janitorial em-
ployees at the Sansome Complex is appropriate, and that the
Employer’s voluntary recognition of that unit does not bar a
representation election. Accordingly, I shall direct an election
in the unit set forth below.
III. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Based on the entire record in this proceeding, I conclude and
find as follows:

11 See Spring City Knitting Co., 647 F.2d at 1016.
1. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are affirmed.
2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
3. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of
the Employer.
4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time janitorial employees em-
ployed at 630 Sansome Street and 555 Battery Street, San
Francisco, CA, EXCLUDING engineers, clerical, trash, and
recycling staff, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.