226 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

Manpower, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 20, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

MANPOWER, INC. I Manpower, Inc. and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. and Local 807, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner . Case 29-RC-3347 September 20, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Rearing Officer Steven Goodman on several days between April 12 and May 19, 1976. Following the hearing the case was transfer- red to the National Labor Relations Board in Wash- ington, D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, as amended. Thereaf- ter, the Employers and the Petitioner filed briefs originally directed to the Regional Director for Re- gion 29. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, and the briefs filed herein, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce with- in the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The Petitioner contends that the Employers are joint employers of the employees it seeks to repre- sent, car shuttlers provided to Employer Avis Rent-a- Car System, Inc., by Employer Manpower, Inc. These shuttlers are provided pursuant to a contract arrangement between the Employers, who contend that Manpower, Inc., is the sole employer. However, Avis hires, directs, disciplines, and discharges these employees, and we find that it is a joint employer with Manpower, Inc. 2. The labor organization involved claims to rep- resent certain employees of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees within the mean- ing of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all shuttlers and head shuttlers employed jointly by the Employers within the New York zone (including New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, lower Connecticut, and northern New Jer- sey).t This is the scope of the unit urged by the-Em- ployers and found to be appropriate in previous cases involving the same employee group. Accord- ingly, we find that the following employees of the Employers constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All automobile shuttlers and head shuttlers em- ployed by the Employers within their New York zone, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The parties differ on the question of the eligibil- ity of certain persons employed' within the unit agreed to be appropriate. The Employers would find eligible, and the Petitioner would find ineligible, six part-time shuttlers who work full time for Avis as service agents and an undetermined number of shut- tlers employed during the Employers' busy summer months. In Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., Rent-A-Car Divi- sion, 173 NLRB 1368 (1968), the Board fixed an eligi- bility formula tailored to the pattern of employment of_ shuttlers in this unit. This formula rendered eligi- ble all shuttlers who had worked in the unit for at least 10 days within the 90-day period preceding the issuance of the decision, at least 1 of those days being within the last 30 days of that period. In the instant case the Petitioner has endorsed this formula and the Employers, while urging that consideration be given to those seasonal shuttlers who have worked for more than one season, do not take issue with it. The parties agree that for purposes of any eligibility for- mula fixed herein, $17 earned by a shuttler shall equal I day's employment. We regard the previously determined eligibility formula as having reflected the kinds of variations in employment regularity presented by the current dis- pute over the eligibility of the part-time and seasonal shuttlers, and we see no adequate reason to apply a different test as to their community of interest with unit employees. Those that meet the eligibility for- mula, which we conclude, continues to be appropri- ate, will be eligible to vote. In interpreting the parties' stipulation with regard to the dollar equivalency of 1 day's work, we think it will be applied most fairly to part-time shuttlers if the total dollar amounts are converted into days and fractions of days irrespective of the number of full days worked. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] 1 We hereby grant Petitioner's motion to amend its petition to conform to the above 226 NLRB No. 1.