Lawson Mardon U.S.A.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1282
Lawson Mardon U.S.A., Inc. and Graphic Communi-
cations Local Union 619M, AFL–CIO–CLC, Pe-
titioner. Case 9–RC–17222
November 16, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND LIEBMAN
On March 31, 1999, the Regional Director for Region
9 issued a Decision and Direction of Election (pertinent
portions are attached as an appendix), in which he found
that the petitioned-for unit of production employees em-
ployed by the Employer, excluding production employ-
ees employed by Pharma Center Shelby, Inc. (a single
employer with the Employer), and the Employer’s main-
tenance employees, is an appropriate unit for bargaining.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director’s decision. The Employer contended
that the appropriate unit must include the production em-
ployees employed by Pharma Center Shelby, Inc.
(Pharma Center), which is located under the same roof as
the Employer and separated by air-locked doors. The
Employer further contended that the maintenance em-
ployees who maintain and repair production machinery
for both operations must also be included in the bargain-
ing unit. On April 26, 1999, the Board granted the Em-
ployer’s request for review.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-
ing to a three-member panel.
We have carefully considered the entire record in this
case, including the Employer’s brief on review, and have
decided to the affirm the Regional Director’s conclusion
that the petitioned-for unit of production employees em-
ployed by the Employer is an appropriate unit for bar-
gaining. For the reasons set forth in the Regional Direc-
tor’s decision, we also affirm the Regional Director’s
finding that the evidence is insufficient to compel the
inclusion of the maintenance employees in the unit found
appropriate. See Capri-Sun, Inc., 330 NLRB No. 158
(2000) (noting Board’s longstanding policy to find peti-
tioned-for maintenance units where maintenance em-
ployees have requisite community of interest and there is
no history of bargaining on more comprehensive basis).
The Employer is engaged in the printing and produc-
tion of food packaging products, and Pharma Center pro-
duces pharmaceutical packaging products. Prior to 1994,
the Employer produced both food related and pharma-
ceutical packaging products. In 1994, the Employer’s
parent corporation built a new addition to the Employer’s
facility dedicated to pharmaceutical packaging. Pharma
Center is separated from the Employer’s premises by air-
locked doors, and occupies a wing of the Employer’s
facility encompassing approximately 50,000 square feet
(the overall facility is 300,000 square feet).
For the reasons set forth by the Regional Director and
discussed below, we agree with the Regional Director
that, based on a traditional community-of-interest analy-
sis, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that even
though the Employer and Pharma Center Shelby, Inc.
constitute a single employer that such a substantial com-
munity of interest exists between their employees so as
to require their inclusion in the same unit.1 See South
Prairie Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local
627, 425 U.S. 800, 805 (1976) (a determination that two
entities constitute a single employer does not establish
that an employerwide unit is appropriate); Peter Kiewit
Sons Co., 231 NLRB 76 (1977) (“in determining the
scope of the unit [the Board is] concerned with the com-
munity of interest of the employees involved”; employ-
ees had “distinct and separate” community of interests);
Edenwald Construction Co., 294 NLRB 297 (1989) (a
finding of single-employer status does not in itself mean
that the employees of both entities composing the single
employer will be included in a single-bargaining unit
covered by a collective-bargaining contract signed by
only one of the nominally separate employers; in deter-
mining the scope of the unit the primary concern is the
community of interest of the employees involved).2
Significantly, as found by the Regional Director, the
Employer’s production employees have separate imme-
diate and intermediate daily supervision from those in
Pharma Center.3 Moreover, there is almost no temporary
interchange between the Employer’s production employ-
ees and those in Pharma Center, and the current instances
of permanent interchange are not substantial. Further,

1 Although the Regional Director set forth the law involving the sin-
gle-facility presumption, he clearly analyzed the case from a commu-
nity-of-interest perspective. As noted, in agreement with the Regional
Director, we find that the petitioned-for unit enjoys a separate commu-
nity of interest from Pharma Center employees. We therefore find it
unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the Regional Director prop-
erly applied the single-facility presumption in finding the petitioned-for
production unit to be appropriate.
2 Cf. Centurion Auto Transport, 329 NLRB No. 42 (1999) (Board
rejects single employer’s argument that only multilocation unit was
appropriate, instead applying traditional presumption involving sepa-
rate locations to unit determination).
3 As noted by the Regional Director, although the human resources
department initially screens job applicants for both entities, the appli-
cants are interviewed and approved by the supervisory staff of the
respective entities. Shift supervisors direct daily work production and
initiate disciplinary action. The supervisors in each entity determine
the wage increases of individual employees, based on performance
evaluations. Further, there is no evidence that supervisors interchange
or routinely oversee the work of the other operation.
332 NLRB No. 122
LAWSON MARDON U.S.A. 1283
some of the incentives available to the Employer’s em-
ployees and those at Pharma Center have been different.
The Pharma Center operations are housed in a separate
area from the Employer, and the record supports the Re-
gional Director’s finding that the Pharma Center is
housed in a more “pristine” environment than the Em-
ployer. In addition, uniforms worn by the Employer’s
employees are easily distinguishable from those worn by
the Pharma Center employees. Finally, the entities use
somewhat different machinery, manufacture different
products, have different customers, and their own mar-
keting, sales, and customer service departments.
In affirming the Regional Director, we note that to the
extent there is integration between the two entities, it
appears in substantial degree to be product integration,
which the Board has found to be a less significant factor
than other types of integration in determining an appro-
priate bargaining unit. See Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,
147 NLRB 825, 828 (1964). In this regard, both entities
are engaged to a significant degree in performing interre-
lated production tasks for their respective customers.
Thus, both entities rely on the other’s machinery to pro-
duce certain items that their own machinery cannot han-
dle. The Employer performs approximately 20 percent
of the Pharma Center’s production requirements.
Pharma Center, in turn, performs 5 to 10 percent of the
Employer’s production functions. The associated costs
are negotiated between the Companies and then charged
between accounts.
Moreover, the amount of daily contact between the
Employer’s production employees and the Pharma Cen-
ter employees is not substantial enough to compel the
inclusion of the Pharma Center employees in the unit.
Although the Employer provides support services to
Pharma in a variety of areas, these services involve only
about 60 of the Employer’s 148 employees. The record
does not establish that the level of daily contact among
these employees and the Pharma Center employees is
extensive. It appears that the primary contact involves
transporting the products or materials to and from the
Employer’s side, and the extent of this contact is unclear.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Regional Di-
rector’s Decision and Direction of Election is affirmed.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is affirmed. The case is remanded to the Re-
gional Director for further appropriate action.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
. . . .

5. The Employer, a corporation, is engaged in the manufac-
ture of food packaging products at its Shelbyville, Kentucky
facility where it employs approximately 148 employees in the
unit found appropriate. There is no history of collective bar-
gaining affecting any of the employees involved in this pro-
ceeding.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit comprised solely of
the Employer's production employees, including all press op-
erators, assistant operators, helpers, slitter operators, die cutters,
packers, material handlers, recycle attendants, shipping and
receiving employees, cylinder retrieval employees, ink techni-
cians, parts, washers and mixers employees, and quality assur-
ance lab technicians, but excluding the standard exclusions and
approximately 20 maintenance employees. The Employer con-
tends that it is a single employer with Pharma Center Shelby-
ville Inc. and, contrary to the Petitioner, maintains that the only
appropriate unit for collective bargaining is an overall unit in-
cluding employees of both corporate entities. Contrary to the
Petitioner, the Employer also maintains that the community of
interest shared by all of its employees compels the inclusion of
the maintenance employees in the unit. Finally, the Petitioner
would exclude Wayne Aldridge, lead laboratory technician,
from the unit apparently as a statutory supervisor, while the
Employer contends that he is at most a lead person properly
included in the unit.
The Employer is engaged in the printing and production of
durable packaging by transforming materials through lamina-
tion, extrusion or adhesion processes into single structure con-
tainers. Prior to 1994, the Employer produced both food re-
lated and pharmaceutical packaging products. In 1994, the
Employer’s parent corporation built a new addition to the Shel-
byville facility that was dedicated to pharmaceutical packaging.
That operation was subsequently incorporated as a separate
entity, Pharma Center Shelbyville Inc. (Pharma Center) in Au-
gust 1998. Pharma Center, like the Employer, is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Alusuisse Lonza of America, Inc. Al-
though the two corporations have different customers, their
own sales departments and separate production employee com-
plements, they share the same facility, certain administrative
staff, and support services.
Administrative responsibility for the Employer’s daily opera-
tions and for the overall facility, which encompasses approxi-
mately 300,000 square feet, is vested in Herman Grilliot, the
Employer’s site manager. Reporting directly to Grilliot are
Mark Hvidhyld, operations manager, who oversees both pro-
duction and maintenance operations, and John R. Poehlein, the
human resources manager. The Employer has approximately
148 production, 20 maintenance, and some quality assurance
employees who are scheduled to work on either a 12-hour shift
or on one of three 8-hour shifts. Pharma Center’s general man-
ager, Hans Buschman, who is assisted by the production man-
ager, Mary Czarnopys, is in charge of the day-to-day operation
of Pharma Center, which occupies a new wing to the Shelby-
ville facility encompassing approximately 50,000 square feet.
Pharma Center has a separate air-filtration system and is sepa-
rated from the Employer’s premises by air-locked doors. It
employs approximately 35 production and quality assurance
employees who work on one of three 8-hour shifts.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1284
The Employer’s operations include rotogravure printing,
flexographic printing, adhesion lamination, extrusion lamina-
tion, slitting and finishing applications (including die-cutting)
as well as associated production functions such as cylinder
retrieval and roll grinding, inks mixing and parts washing, sup-
plies warehousing, recycling, quality assurance, shipping and
receiving, and maintenance. Although it is newer, much of the
machinery in Pharma Center is substantially similar to that used
by the Employer. However, Pharma Center’s presses, contrary
to those of the Employer, can only accommodate a narrow
width of material.4 Further, Pharma Center lacks the capacity
to perform extrusion lamination and is dependent upon the
Employer to perform various auxiliary production services.
The record discloses that the Employer performs approximately
20 percent of Pharma Center’s production requirements and the
associated costs are negotiated between the companies and then
charged between accounts. Pharma Center, in turn, performs
some work for the Employer, generally 5 to 10 percent of the
Employer’s production output.
The human resources department handles all personnel func-
tions for both the Employer and Pharma Center. Applicants for
job vacancies are initially screened by human resources and
potentially acceptable candidates are then referred to the indi-
vidual corporations for interviews. Although Poehlein is em-
ployed by the Employer and reports directly to Grilliot, he is
also responsible to Buschman. Both Grilliot and Buschman, in
consultation with Poehlein, determine the annual wage rates
and pay ranges for all employee job classifications at the facil-
ity. Each individual employee’s wage rate is determined by an
annual performance review completed by that person’s imme-
diate supervisor, which is then reviewed and approved by the
appropriate corporate manager. The Employer and Pharma
Center have separate payrolls, but both are prepared by the
human resources department.
Employees at the facility, whether employed by Pharma
Center or the Employer, share certain common working condi-
tions and enjoy similar benefits. Thus, all employees, including
those in the maintenance department, use the same parking area
located near the entrance to the Employer’s operations 5 and the
same timeclocks. Pharma Center employees may traverse the
Employer’s portion of the building to reach the Pharma Center
production area. All employees, including maintenance em-
ployees, are subject to the same rules and disciplinary proce-
dure, receive the same handbook, attend monthly safety meet-
ings, have access to lockers, and can use any breakrooms in the
facility. Job vacancies, whether for the Employer or Pharma
Center, are posted on bulletin boards throughout the facility and
employees seeking a different position utilize the same job bid
form. The job descriptions in effect for certain production posi-
tions are the same for the employees of both the Employer and
Pharma Center. Finally, all employees enjoy similar benefits,
including service and perfect attendance recognition awards,

4 Materials run on the Employer’s presses are usually about 50
inches wide whereas Pharma Center’s equipment handles material
approximately 35 inches in width.
5 Although Pharma Center has a separate parking lot and entrance,
such access is limited to its administrative and managerial staff.
participation in a profit-sharing plan, a 401(k) plan, paid vaca-
tion, 10 paid holidays, personal absence allowance, bereave-
ment leave, jury duty pay, an employee assistance program, and
various insurance policies such as health, life, short-and long-
term disability, death and dismemberment and travel accident
coverage. In addition, all employees are invited to annual facil-
itywide events such as a safety fair, Christmas party, and Easter
egg hunt. Although all employees wear uniforms, those worn
by the Employer’s employees are easily distinguishable from
those of Pharma Center employees.
Despite the general uniformity of employment conditions de-
scribed above, there have been differences in incentives avail-
able to the respective employees of the Employer and Pharma
Center. For example, in 1998, only the Pharma Center employ-
ees were given a cruise. That same year, the Employer spon-
sored a cookout only for its employees. Pharma Center em-
ployees each received a $1000 bonus in 1998 for exceeding a
performance based goal. No such program was in effect for the
Employer’s employees.6 However, in 1998, Pharma Center
made available to the Employer, in recognition of the assistance
provided by the shared services to Pharma Center by the Em-
ployer’s employees, $21,000. The Employer, out of this
amount, gave each of its employees, including those in the
maintenance department, $100. The employees for the two
entities, as previously noted, have completely separate immedi-
ate, as well as intermediary, supervision.
Transfers between employees of the Employer and Pharma
Center, respectively, have been limited. The record discloses
that some job vacancies for the Pharma Center’s initial em-
ployee complement and much of its supervisory staff were
filled by bids from the Employer’s employees. However, since
January 1998, there have only been three successful bidders
from the Employer’s employees for vacancies in the Pharma
Center. During that same timeframe, only one employee has
transferred from Pharma Center to the Employer. Similarly,
temporary transfers appear to be almost nonexistent. Although
the record in this regard is based primarily on anecdotal reports
rather than documentation, it appears that the Employer’s em-
ployees worked no more than 40 hours total during the last year
at Pharma Center. Pharma Center employees (primarily one
employee interested in acquiring overtime work) worked ap-
proximately 48 hours total for the Employer during the same
time period.
The maintenance department services all machinery and
equipment at the facility. Approximately 20 electrical techni-
cians and maintenance mechanics work directly under the su-
pervision of Tim Brandenburg, electrical engineer supervisor,
and Terry Scharfer, mechanical engineer supervisor, both of
whom report to Hvidhyld. Hvidhyld holds weekly meetings
with the maintenance staff. In the event that Brandenburg or
Scharfer, who generally work day-shift hours, is unavailable,
mechanics are responsible to the shift supervisor on duty. The
record suggests that the shift supervisor’s primary function with
6 The Employer asserts that all employees at the facility, including
those within Pharma Center, received the same bonus in 1997. The
record does not disclose whether the Pharma Center employees were
employed by the Employer or a separate entity at that time.
LAWSON MARDON U.S.A. 1285
respect to maintenance employees is to determine the priority
of certain repairs. Although shift supervisors have the authority
to discipline maintenance employees, there is no evidence that
any such actions have occurred. Maintenance employees repair
and modify plant machinery, fabricate necessary parts, and take
care of the building and grounds. The maintenance shop,
which contains a lathe, milling machine, and other necessary
equipment, is located at the north end of the Employer’s facility
and is enclosed by an 8-foot tall open weave fence. Mainte-
nance employees spend the majority of their time responding to
service calls throughout the facility, including the Pharma Cen-
ter.
Although maintenance department employees have daily
contact with production employees, their work interactions are
largely limited to discussions about machinery malfunctions.
Occasionally production employees may assist in the repair of
equipment by handing tools to a mechanic, particularly in the
event that another maintenance employee is unavailable. Me-
chanics have trained some operators to make minor repairs to
their own machines and, on one occasion, a press crew assisted
in rebuilding a press by changing the bearings. During plant
shutdowns, production employees occasionally volunteer to
help in performing building maintenance tasks such as painting
or fixing widows. Despite the fact that no special licenses or
certifications are required, almost all maintenance jobs are
filled by outside applicants with some experience. Although
maintenance positions, like other job vacancies, are posted for
internal bidding, only two of the Employer’s production em-
ployees have bid into the maintenance department. Both trans-
fers occurred more than 3 years ago and both employees hold
lower labor grades than the other maintenance mechanics.
Most maintenance employees are classified at labor grades 11
or 12, which is equivalent to that of a press operator’s position,
which is the highest paid production classification. However,
two maintenance employees, the mechanical project technician
and the electrical project technician, are classified at labor
grade 14 and are the Employer’s highest hourly paid employ-
ees.
The Single-Employer Unit Issue
Contrary to the Petitioner, the Employer asserts that it consti-
tutes a single employer with Pharma Center because the two
corporate entities operate as an integrated enterprise. In this
regard, the Employer notes that both corporations are wholly
owned subsidiaries of Alusuisse Lonza of America, Inc. Al-
though Herman Grilliot, the Employer’s site manager, and
Hans Buschman, Pharma Center’s general manager, report to
different executives, their respective superiors are ultimately
responsible to the same executive within Alusuisse Lonza of
Switzerland, Ltd., the parent corporation. The corporations
have separate telephone numbers and addresses, but share a
common building, which is situated on premises owned by the
parent corporation. Each corporation utilizes the services of
one human resources department that, as noted above, main-
tains all personnel files, handles all employment opportunities,
including hiring for vacancies, prepares the payrolls and has a
common wage and fringe benefits program. All employees are
given the same handbook and are subject to the same rules and
disciplinary procedures. Finally, the Employer, as a conse-
quence of its particular resources, performs approximately 20
percent of Pharma Center’s work orders and provides support
services in a variety of areas, including shipping and receiving,
cylinder grinding, and ink mixing. Pharma Center, in turn,
handles between 5 and 10 percent of the Employer’s required
production.
In determining whether two or more separate entities are suf-
ficiently integrated to be considered a single employer, the
Board looks to four principal factors: (1) interrelation of opera-
tions; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common
management; and (4) common ownership or financial control.
Although no one factor is controlling, particular emphasis is
generally placed on centralized control of labor relations. See
Peter Vitalie Co., 310 NLRB 865, 867 (1993). Here, it is clear
that the Employer and Pharma Center have common ownership
and are engaged to a significant degree in performing interre-
lated production tasks for their respective customers. Thus,
both entities rely on the other’s machinery to produce certain
items, which their own equipment cannot handle. Pharma Cen-
ter, in particular, is dependent on the Employer for a range of
ancillary production services such as maintenance, shipping
and receiving, materials storage, and cylinder retrieval. Finally,
both corporations utilize one human relations department to
administer common personnel policies and have established a
facilitywide wage and fringe benefits program applicable to all
employees. Accordingly, given the record evidence as a whole,
I find, in argument with the Employer, that the Employer and
Pharma Center constitute a single employer. See, e.g., Peter
Vitalie Co., supra.
A determination of single employer status does not, how-
ever, resolve the issue of whether the requested unit is appro-
priate. In this regard, it should be noted that analysis of single-
employer status focuses on ownership, structure, and integrated
control of separate corporations. Consideration of both the
scope and composition of the bargaining unit, however, require
evaluation of traditional community of interest factors. See
South Prairie Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local
627, 425 U.S. 800, 805 (1976); Edenwald Construction Co.,
294 NLRB 297 (1989).
Pharma Center Employees
A single-plant or corporate unit is presumptively appropriate,
absent a bargaining history in a more comprehensive unit or a
degree of functional integration that effectively negates its
separate identity. A-1 Fire Protection, 233 NLRB 38 (1977);
Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 147 NLRB 825, 827–828 (1964). In
determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the
Board generally considers the same factors used in analyzing
whether a community of interest exists between employees,
including central control over daily operations and labor rela-
tions, the degree of separate autonomy, proximity of the opera-
tions, similarity of skills, functions, and working conditions
among employees, and the degree of employee interchange,
particularly on a temporary basis. See Executive Resources
Associates, 301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991). After carefully con-
sidering the record evidence and the arguments of the parties at
the hearing and in the Employer’s brief, I find there is insuffi-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1286
cient evidence to rebut the presumption of a unit limited to the
Employer’s operation or to demonstrate that such a substantial
community of interest exists between employees of Pharma
Center and the Employer so as to compel their inclusion in the
same unit.
Although the Employer and Pharma Center share a single fa-
cility, operate under centrally determined personnel policies,
utilize a common wage and benefits structure for their respec-
tive employees and have somewhat integrated manufacturing
operations, the degree of autonomy between the two entities
shows that the employees sought by the Petitioner constitute an
appropriate unit. Notwithstanding the centralized personnel
administration, it is clear that the Employer’s employees have
separate daily supervision that substantially affects their work-
ing conditions. Thus, the human resources department initially
screens job applicants, but they are interviewed and approved
by the supervisory staff of the respective entities. Shift super-
visors direct daily work production and initiate disciplinary
action. There is no evidence that supervisors interchange or
routinely oversee the work of the other operation. Although
limited in range, wage increases are based on supervisory
evaluations of the respective corporate entities. Employees of
each entity wear distinctive uniforms and there are some differ-
ences in tangential fringe benefits such as the 1998 cruise and
performance incentive program for Pharma Center employees.
Despite the accessibility between the Employer’s operations
and that of Pharma Center, the record discloses that Pharma
Center’s operations are housed in a separate area and in a more
pristine environment. Employees utilize similar skills, but the
record discloses that in 1994 when employees started to staff
the Pharma Center, some “on the job” training was necessary.
Moreover, the machinery used by each operation is somewhat
different. In contrast to the Employer’s equipment, which ac-
commodates wider cylinders, Pharma Center’s machinery is
newer and produces narrower materials. Pharma Center has no
extrusion lamination equipment and any such work required by
its customers is performed solely by the Employer’s employees.
The evidence of minimal interchange between the two em-
ployee complements underscores the distinct nature of the op-
erations. In 1998, only 4 of the 17 vacancies filled internally
were the consequence of transfers. More importantly, tempo-
rary interchange between the employees of the Employer and
Pharma Center is almost nonexistent.
Although the more comprehensive unit proposed by the Em-
ployer may also be appropriate for bargaining purposes and
certain factors support such a conclusion, the record does not
establish that the employees of Pharma Center possess such a
substantial community of interest with the Employer’s employ-
ees to compel their inclusion in the same unit. J&L Plate, 310
NLRB 429 (1993); Executive Resources Associates, supra. In
reaching this decision, I note that a labor organization need not
seek to represent employees in the ultimate, or even in the most
appropriate unit. Morand Bros. Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409
(1950). The only requirement is that the employees constitute
an appropriate unit. Although not controlling, a union’s desires
is a relevant consideration in determining the appropriateness
of a unit. Marks Oxygen Co., 147 NLRB 228 (1964).
The fact that the Employer and Pharma Center may consti-
tute a single employer does not render the unit sought by the
Petitioner limited to the Employer’s employees inappropriate.
Indeed, the Board found in A-1 Fire Protection, supra, that the
employees of two entities that made up a single employer did
not constitute one bargaining unit notwithstanding that the two
entities, like here, operated from the same facility, shared the
same trucks, tools, equipment, and materials without reim-
bursement and, unlike here, even frequently interchanged em-
ployees. See also B & B Industries, 162 NLRB 832 (1967);
Towne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB 311 (1984); and Renzetti’s Mar-
ket, 238 NLRB 174 (1978). See also Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co.,
231 NLRB 76 (1977).
In reaching my decision, I note that the Employer has not
cited any authority for compelling the inclusion of employees
of two separate entities into the same unit even when the enti-
ties constitute a single employer. The cases relied on by the
Employer are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.
Transerv Systems, 311 NLRB 766 (1993), cited by the Em-
ployer, involved the composition of the unit. The Board merely
held that a unit limited to bike messengers, excluding driver
messengers, of an individual employer was not appropriate
because all messengers perform essentially the same functions.
In Phoenician, 308 NLRB 862 (1992), the Board found that a
unit limited to an individual employer’s golf course mainte-
nance employees, excluding landscape employees who worked
with them, was inappropriate. A. C. Pavement Striping Co.,
296 NLRB 206 (1989), involved an issue of whether certain
employees of an individual employer constituted separate craft
groups or whether an overall unit was appropriate. The Board
agreed with the Regional Director that only an overall unit was
appropriate. Peerless Electric Co. (unpublished official vol-
ume), 38 LRRM 1386 (1956), merely found that two plants of
the same individual employer constituted the only appropriate
unit based on integration of operations. The other cases cited
by the Employer refer only to the community-of-interest stan-
dards utilized by the Board in making unit determinations and
do not specifically apply to the facts in the subject case. In-
deed, the cases relied on by the Employer are not analogous to
this case and do not support the Employer’s position that the
employees of two separate entities must be combined in the
same unit merely because the separate entities may constitute a
single employer, particularly where, as here, the two corpora-
tions manufacture different products and reimburse each other
for any work performed by the other and employees work un-
der separate supervision. Although the employees for both
corporations share the same facility amenities and may attend
the same social functions, the work force of the two companies
is not commingled and there is minimal temporary employee
interchange. Indeed, the work areas of the two companies are
separated by air-locked doors and Pharma Center, being en-
gaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical packaging, is
maintained, contrary to the Employer, in pristine condition. A-
1 Fire Protection, supra.
Based on the foregoing, the entire record and careful consid-
eration of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in the
Employer’s brief, I find that the record does not mandate the
inclusion of the Pharma Center employees in the same unit with
LAWSON MARDON U.S.A. 1287
the Employer’s employees whom the Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent and that the Employer’s employees constitute an appropri-
ate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. A-1 Fire
Protection, supra. Accordingly, I shall exclude the Pharma
Center employees from the unit.
Maintenance Employees
The Employer, as previously noted, asserts that the mainte-
nance employees must be included in any unit found appropri-
ate given the close community of interest its maintenance em-
ployees share with production employees. I find, however, that
the record evidence is insufficient to compel inclusion of the
maintenance employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner. In
contrast to the production employees, the maintenance employ-
ees are in a separate department and have their own supervi-
sion. Although shift supervisors have some authority over
maintenance employees when their regular supervisors are
unavailable, it appears that any directions given by production
supervisors relate to the priority in which certain repairs are to
be undertaken. There is no evidence that the shift supervisors
have disciplined or effectively recommended discipline of
maintenance employees. Although maintenance employees
have daily contact with production employees, it is limited to
identifying and repairing machinery malfunctions. Production
employees may make minor repairs and assist maintenance
employees by holding tools, but their participation is minimal
and incidental to the repair process. Although production em-
ployees have been permitted to perform maintenance duties
during plant shutdowns, such work is unskilled and largely
limited to custodial functions.
The extremely limited number of transfers from production
to maintenance reflects the differences in training, job skills,
and duties. Almost the entire maintenance complement has
been hired from outside applicants and no production employ-
ees even applied for the last available maintenance vacancy.
Although maintenance employees are not required to hold li-
censes and arguably do not qualify as “craft” employees, it is
clear that applicants are expected to possess job-related experi-
ence. The two production employees who bid into maintenance
jobs are in entry level positions and hold lower labor grades
than the other maintenance employees. The majority of the
maintenance employees are in pay grades 11 and 12, similar to
the pay grades of press operators, who are the highest paid
production employees. Moreover, two maintenance employees
hold pay grade 14, a higher level than that of any production
employee.
Based on the foregoing, the record as a whole, and careful
review of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in the
Employer’s brief, I find that the community-of-interest factors
are not so substantial as to mandate the inclusion of mainte-
nance employees in a production unit. Overnite Transportation
Co., 322 NLRB 723 (1996); Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016
(1994); and American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961).
As discussed in considering the unit placement of the Pharma
Center employees, a labor organization need not seek the only
or even the most appropriate unit but is required to seek only an
appropriate unit. Morand Bros. Beverage Co., supra. The
cases relied on by the Employer in its brief are distinguishable.
RTW Industries, 296 NLRB 910 (1989), concerned a successor
employer’s refusal to recognize and bargain with the union
representing the predecessor’s employees in a production and
maintenance unit. The successor employer took the position
that the unit was inappropriate but failed to offer evidence in
support of its contention. Here, there is no established produc-
tion and maintenance unit. Rather, the Petitioner merely wishes
to exclude the maintenance employees from an initial produc-
tion employee unit. Similarly, in Appliance Supply Co., 127
NLRB 319 (1960), the petitioning labor organization sought a
production and maintenance unit, which the employer opposed
as “inappropriate” without evidentiary justification. Beaumont
Forging Co., 110 NLRB 2200 (1954), also involved a situation
in which the union sought a broad production and maintenance
unit while the employer asserted that only smaller departmental
units were appropriate. The Board found the broad unit sought
by the Union to be an appropriate unit. Here, the Petitioner
seeks a unit limited to the production employees. Overnite
Transportation Co., supra. Under these circumstances, Board
precedent does not mandate inclusion of the maintenance em-
ployees in the unit sought. Accordingly, I shall exclude the
maintenance employees from the unit.
The Unit
Based on the foregoing, the record as a whole and careful
consideration of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and
in the Employer’s brief, I find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining:

All full-time and regular part-time production employees, in-
cluding press operators, assistant operators, helpers, slitter op-
erators, die cutters, packers, material handlers, recycle atten-
dants, shipping and receiving employees, cylinder retrieval
employees, ink technicians, parts, washers and mixers em-
ployees, and quality assurance lab technicians employed by
the Employer at its Shelbyville, Kentucky facility, but exclud-
ing all maintenance employees, all employees of Pharma
Center Shelbyville Inc., all office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees and all professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.

Accordingly, I shall direct an election among the employees in
such unit.