Marine Spill Response Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 2006

348 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
348 NLRB No. 92
1282
Marine Spill Response Corporation and Inlandboat-
men’s Union of the Pacific, Marine Division, In-
ternational Longshore and Warehouse Union,
AFL–CIO. Case 21–CA–36663
December 18, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On February 15, 2006, Administrative Law Judge John
J. McCarrick issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Marine Spill Response Cor-

1 There were no exceptions to the judge’s finding that at the time of
the hearing the Respondent had effectively merged its Carson facility
with its Long Beach facility.
There were also no exceptions to the judge’s application of the pre-
sumption in favor of the appropriateness of a single-facility unit in
making his determination that the Carson-Long Beach facility is an
appropriate bargaining unit. In the absence of such exceptions, it is
unnecessary for us to address our colleague’s discussion of the judge’s
analysis.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 Chairman Battista joins his colleagues in affirming the judge’s
finding that a two-facility unit (one at Carson and one at Long Beach)
is an appropriate unit. However, he bases his affirmance on a different
reading of the judge’s analysis. At the time of the hearing, there were
two facilities (Carson and Long Beach), and they were 9 miles apart.
The judge found that they were effectively merged in their day-to-day
operations. The judge found that each facility was presumptively an
appropriate unit, but the presumption was overcome by a showing that
a two-facility unit is appropriate. In response, Chairman Battista notes
that a single-facility presumption exists only when a union seeks a
single-facility unit, and the Union does not do so here. Thus, the issue
is whether a two-facility unit is an appropriate unit. Chairman Battista
concludes that it is. In this regard, he relies upon the significant opera-
tional integration, employee interaction, and employee interchange
between the Carson facility and the Long Beach facility as well as the
lack of such significant integration, interaction, and interchange be-
tween these two facilities and other Respondent facilities in California
or nationwide.
poration, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order.
Lisa E. McNeill, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Avrum M. Goldberg, Esq. and Dawn E. Starr, Esq. (Akin Gump
Strauss, Hauer & Feld), of Washington D.C., for the Re-
spondent.
Carlos Cordon, International Organizer, of San Pedro, Cali-
fornia, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Los Angeles, California, on November 7–9, 2005,
based upon the complaint issued on June 22, 2005, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21. The complaint was amended on
June 27, 2005. The complaint, as amended, alleges that Marine
Spill Response Corporation (Respondent), as the successor to
Clean Coastal Waters (CCW), has refused to recognize and
bargain with Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, Marine
Division, International Longshore and Warehouse Union,
AFL–CIO (the Union), the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent’s employees, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent filed a timely an-
swer to the complaint denying any wrongdoing and denying
that they are a successor employer.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, with facilities located
at 190 South Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California, and 20780
Leapwood Avenue, Carson, California, is engaged in the busi-
ness of providing clean up services for oil, substance spills, and
natural disasters. During calendar year 2004, Respondent in the
course of its business operations performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 outside the State of California.
Based upon the above, Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admitted and I find that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The facts in this case are not in significant dispute. After the
1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska, due to Congressional
Legislation mandating the establishment of Oil Spill Response
Organizations (OSRO), in 1990, Respondent was created by
several major oil companies to clean up oil spills on the coasts
of the United States. Respondent is nonprofit funded by the
Marine Preservation Association (MPA). Later in the mid-
1990’s MPA increased its funding to Respondent so that it
could undertake additional clean up functions such as hazard-
ous spills, inland spills, and natural disasters nationally and
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORP. 1283
internationally. In addition to its headquarters in Herndon,
Virginia, Respondent maintains regional centers in New Jersey,
Louisiana, California, and the State of Washington. Respon-
dent has 75 manned and unmanned facilities in the United
States and employs over 250 employees. Respondent has in
excess of 4000 customers that include oil companies, insurers,
and cargo vessels.
Steve Benz (Benz) is Respondent’s president and is located
at Respondent’s Herndon, Virginia corporate and administra-
tive headquarters. Under Benz are four regional vice presidents
located at the regional administrative offices. Steve Ricks
(Ricks) is vice president of the California region with adminis-
trative offices in Concord, California. Under Ricks are area
response managers for Northern and Southern California. Ray
Nottingham (Nottingham) is area response manager for South-
ern California and is located in Long Beach, California. Report-
ing to Nottingham are four response teams. These teams in-
clude the Carson, California team of five employees supervised
by Jeff Jappe (Jappe), two Long Beach, California teams, one
team of six employees supervised by John Degner (Degner) and
second team of five employees supervised by Rick Tamayo
(Tamayo) and a San Diego, California team of three employees
supervised by Kyle Hanson (Hanson).
Since at least 1990, Clean Coastal Waters, Inc. (CCW), was
an Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO), licensed by both
the State of California and the Federal Government to conduct
offshore oil spill clean ups in the Southern California area from
Pt. Dume near Oxnard, California, to the Mexican border south
of San Diego, California. CCW operated from its facility at
190 South Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California. Nottingham
was President of CCW, Dave Redman was Operations Man-
ager, and Tamayo and Degner were supervisors. CCW em-
ployed approximately 13 employees who were divided into two
teams, supervised by Tamayo and Degner. On March 26, 1998,
the Union was certified in Case 21–RC–19901 as the bargain-
ing representative of CCW’s boat operators and crew members
employed at its 190 South Pico Avenue Long Beach, California
facility.1 On April 1, 2003, CCW and the Union signed a col-
lective-bargaining agreement effective April 1, 2003, to March
31, 2006, covering CCW’s employees in the above unit.2
As a result of a merger on about July 1, 2004, the assets of
CCW were transferred to Respondent, including all of CCW’s
vessels and oil recovery equipment. Respondent hired 12 of
CCW’s bargaining unit employees as well as most of CCW’s
managers and supervisors.
A. CCW Operation
Since the 1970’s CCW performed oil spill clean up from Pt
Dume south to the Mexican Border. CCW performed oil clean
up and recovery services for about 11 members and fewer than
30 subscribers. In performing its clean up functions, CCW
employed 13 bargaining unit employees who operated boats,
barges, and various items of oil recovery equipment. CCW
categorized the bargaining unit employees as crew members,
boat operator I or boat operator II. At CCW bargaining unit

1 Jt. Exh. 1.
2 Jt. Exh. 2.
employees received their day-to-day work assignments from
supervisors Degner and Tamayo. On a daily basis CCW em-
ployees performed checks on equipment to assure they were in
good working order. As needed, employees would perform
preventative and corrective maintenance on recovery equip-
ment and vessels. Employees operated various boat trailers,
vehicles, power packs, skimmers, oil recovery booms, gas
monitoring systems, breathing apparatus, absorbants, and dis-
persants. CCW employees worked on vessels of varying sizes
including 18-foot sea sleds, 30-foot recovery I vessels, a 50-
foot shallow water barge, and 100-foot recovery vessels. Bar-
gaining unit employees operated the oil recovery equipment
aboard the 140-foot vessel Cleanwaters while an independent
contractor operated the vessel. CCW bargaining unit employ-
ees worked generally from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and were subject to a voluntary on call system.
CCW employees participated in mandatory training exercises
two to three times a month. From time-to-time CCW employ-
ees went out of their geographic area of responsibility to assist
other OSROs in California. Through a mutual aid agreement,
the OSROs responsible for oil recovery in the San Francisco
Bay area, Clean Bay, in the Santa Barbara Channel, Clean Seas,
and in Southern California, CCW, assisted each other when the
oil recovery operation exceeded their capacity. Since 1992,
CCW employees trained with Clean Bay employees twice for 5
days each and trained with Clean Seas employees on another
occasion. CCW lent a boat and crew to Clean Seas, went to an
oil platform in the Santa Barbara Channel in an oil recovery
operation and deployed six employees to an Avila Beach, Cali-
fornia oil spill on the California central coast for a week in aid
of Clean Seas. Bargaining unit employee wage rates are set
forth in Joint exhibit 2 at page 8. Effective April 1, 2004, boat
operator I earned $20.98 to $22.45, boat operator II earned
$16.62 to $18.41, and crew member earned $13.13 to $14.32.
CCW provided its employees with medical benefits and a
401(k) plan.
B. Respondent’s Operation
Since 1990, Respondent has provided oil recovery and clean
up throughout the coastal United States and since the mid-
1990’s oil and hazardous substance clean up, shoreline clean
up, inland clean up, and offloading ships (lightering) both in the
United States and internationally. Respondent services over
4000 clients, including those CCW formerly serviced.
At the time of the CCW-Marine Spill Recovery Corporation
merger, Respondent operated a nationwide set of facilities
managed from both a central corporate office in Herndon, Vir-
ginia, and four regional offices, including its California re-
gional office located in Concord, California, near San Fran-
cisco. Both Respondent’s labor relations and personnel policies
are established at the corporate headquarters and are adminis-
tered by regional vice presidents. Respondent creates job de-
scriptions at the corporate level. Likewise all terminations,
transfers, hires, and benefits programs are decided at the corpo-
rate headquarters. Respondent employs 280 employees in 34
locations. All of Respondent’s employees engaged in direct
recovery operations are called responders, lead responders, and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1284
master responders. Rates of pay, within a range determined by
the corporate office, are set by the regional vice presidents.
Respondent’s California Regional vice president, Ricks, is
responsible for 7 locations with 46 employees throughout the
State of California. The regional office provides all administra-
tive functions for the sites in California, and makes recommen-
dations to hire, fire, and discipline employees. In hiring, the
regional human relations department interviews prospective
employees with the first line supervisor and the area response
manager and a recommendation is made to the corporate office
which has the final decision. Employee personnel files are
maintained at the Regional Office.
At Respondent’s local facilities, the first line supervisors ap-
prove both vacation and overtime for employees and make day-
to-day work assignments. In addition the local supervisors
prepare performance appraisals.
Because of its mission and size, Respondent has the ability to
send employees to recovery operations throughout the United
States. This practice is known as “cascading.” Since Respon-
dent merged with CCW, there have been two emergencies that
required nationwide cascading. Both of these incidents in-
volved hurricanes in the Gulf Coast area. In September 2004,
Respondent cascaded employees from throughout the United
States to the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan and
in September 2005, Respondent cascaded its employees to the
Gulf area after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Employees were
assigned to various administrative and clean up duties for 1 to 3
weeks at a time. Not all employees were required to cascade in
these two emergencies. In 2004, 4 of 17 employees from the
Carson-Long Beach facilities cascaded to Hurricane Ivan clean
up and in 2005, 8 of 16 Carson-Long Beach employees went to
the Gulf in response to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.3 In addi-
tion in August 2004, when Respondent opened a new facility in
San Diego, California, eight employees from Carson-Long
Beach went to San Diego for 1 week at a time to help open the
new facility.
Respondent conducts drills at its local facilities mandated
both by the corporate office and State and Federal regulatory
agencies. Respondent also provides for financial audits at its
nationwide facilities on a regular basis.
When Respondent merged with CCW in July 2004, it al-
ready operated a facility at Carson, California, employing four
Responders.4 Respondent effectively merged its Carson facility
with the CCW Long Beach facility where CCW had employed
13 bargaining unit employees.5 The Carson and Long Beach
facilities are about nine miles apart. Respondent hired 12 of the
CCW Long Beach bargaining unit employees at the time of the
merger.6 After the merger there were 18 responders in the Car-
son-Long Beach facilities.7 Following the merger, two of Re-
spondent’s Carson employees were transferred to Long Beach
and four CCW employees were transferred to Carson. In addi-
tion there is regular interchange of employees between the Car-

3 R. Exhs. 10 and 12.
4 R. Exh. 4.
5 Jt. Exh. 3
6 Compare R. Exh. 5 and Jt. Exh. 3.
7 R. Exh. 5.
son and Long Beach facilities for work assignments, meetings,
drills, and training. Tamayo and Degner remained the supervi-
sors of the two Long Beach responder teams and Jappe super-
vises the Carson team. Nottingham was made Respondent’s
area response manager, supervising the two Long Beach teams,
the Carson team and the San Diego team. Respondent plans to
merge the Carson and Long Beach locations into one facility in
Long Beach as of December 2005.
The Responder’s job duties at the Carson-Long Beach facili-
ties remained essentially unchanged from the job duties with
CCW. With both employers Responders did check offs, per-
formed routine and preventative maintenance, and engaged in
training and various drills. The equipment was essentially the
same at both employers although Respondent introduced some
new oil skimmers, a different shallow water barge, and a larger
oil recovery boat, the 200-foot long California Responder. Like
CCW’s employees aboard the Cleanwaters, Respondent’s em-
ployees operate the oil recovery equipment aboard the Califor-
nia Responder but an independent company operates the vessel
itself. Respondent’s employees at Long Beach continue to use
the same oil recovery equipment they had used with CCW in
addition to the new oil recovery equipment introduced by Re-
spondent. Responders are also required to perform inland oil
recovery and shoreline clean up in addition to oil spill clean up
at sea. Respondent introduced a computer system that requires
Responders to input their maintenance check offs of equipment.
Computer duties occupy from 30 minutes to 2 hours a day.
Respondent has given Responders authority to charge up to
$1000 for the purchase of parts and supplies. Respondent’s
Responders work an alternative work schedule generally from 7
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In a 2-week pay period, Responders work 9
hours for 4 days, 1 day for 8 hours then 4 days for 9 hours, and
the 5th day off. Respondent has a mandatory on call system for
Responders. Responders must report for duty within 2 hours, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. The job titles of employees
changed after the merger. CCW crew member became Re-
sponders, boat operators II became lead responders, and boat
operators I became master responders. Long Beach lead re-
sponder Garrick Gilham earned $18.41 an hour as a boat opera-
tor II with CCW and $20.05 an hour with Respondent. Long
Beach lead responder Tim Parker earned $18.41 an hour as a
boat operator II with CCW and $19 an hour with Respondent.
Respondent provides its employees with both medical benefits
and a 401(k) plan that differ in minor ways from the CCW
medical and 401(k) plans.
C. The Demand for Recognition
In its letter of July 2, 2004, the Union, as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit consisting of boat operators and crew members of CCW,8
made a demand for recognition and bargaining upon Respon-
dent. In response, by letter dated July 15, 2004, Respondent
stated that it was not a successor to CCW and desired that the
matter be submitted to the Board for adjudication.9 Again on
September 24, 2004, the Union made a demand for recognition

8 Jt. Exh. 5.
9 Jt. Exh. 6.
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORP. 1285
and bargaining upon Respondent. Respondent has refused to
recognize or bargain with the Union as representative of the
employees in the CCW bargaining unit.
D. The Law
The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406
U.S. 272, 281 (1972), established that a successor is bound to
bargain with the union representative of its predecessor’s em-
ployees if, “the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a ma-
jority of employees hired by the new employer were repre-
sented by a recently certified bargaining agent.” In Howard
Johnson Co. v. UNITE HERE, Detroit Local Joint Executive
Board, 417 U.S. 249, 263 (1974), the Court stated that one test
of successorship was the “substantial continuity of identity of
the business enterprise.” In Valley Nitrogen Producers, 207
NLRB 208 (1973), the Board held that the criteria for determin-
ing substantial continuity in the employing industry includes
whether an employer, “uses substantially the same facilities and
work force to produce the same basic products for essentially
the same customers in the same geographic area.” Later in Fall
River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 41
(1987), the Supreme Court clarified Burns and said if a, “new
employer makes a conscious decision to maintain generally the
same business and to hire a majority of its employees from the
predecessor, then the bargaining obligation of Section 8(a)(5) is
activated.”
In applying these principles, an employer will be found a
successor if there is continuity in the work force, i.e., has it
hired a majority of the predecessor’s employees, if there is
continuity of the appropriate bargaining unit, i.e., does the bar-
gaining unit remain appropriate and if there is substantial conti-
nuity of the business enterprise. It is the employees’ perspec-
tive and their expectations of continued representation that is
paramount when assessing these factors in determining succes-
sorship. Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, Inc. v. NLRB,
254 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2001), enf. 331 NLRB 1147 (2000).
E. The Analysis
1. Continuity of the work force
There is no dispute that Respondent hired a majority of its
predecessor, CCW’s, employees from the Long Beach bargain-
ing unit that were represented by the Union. Thus, there is
continuity of the workforce vis-à-vis the Long Beach bargain-
ing unit. The dispute is whether there is continuity of the ap-
propriate bargaining unit and of the business enterprise.
2. Continuity of the appropriate bargaining unit
Counsel for the General Counsel concedes that there has
been a change in the appropriate bargaining unit in that it has
expanded into the Carson, California facility. Respondent, on
the other hand, contends that due to the functional integration
and interchangeability of employees only a nation-wide unit of
Responders is appropriate. In the alternative Respondent ar-
gues that the smallest appropriate unit is the unit consisting of
all Responders employed by Respondent in the California Re-
gion.
A bargaining unit need not be the most appropriate unit un-
der all of the circumstances, it must be only an appropriate unit.
American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 610 (1991).
In Budget Rent a Car Systems, 337 NLRB 379 (2002), the
Board reaffirmed that a,
[S]ingle-facility unit is presumptively appropriate, unless the
single facility has been effectively merged into a more com-
prehensive unit, or is so functionally integrated with another
unit that it has lost its separate identity. R & D Trucking, 327
NLRB 531 (1999). To determine whether the single-facility
presumption has been rebutted, the Board looks at such fac-
tors as the similarity of employee skills, functions and train-
ing, the distance between the facilities, the functional coordi-
nation in operations of the facilities, common supervision,
centralized control of operations and labor, contact between
employees at different facilities, employee interchange (par-
ticularly temporary transfers) between facilities, common
wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment, and
bargaining history, if any. See Waste Management North-
west, 331 NLRB 309 (2000); New Britain Transportation
Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999).
An employer must over come this presumption and demon-
strate that a single facility unit is inappropriate. Dattco, Inc.,
338 NLRB 49 (2002). A review of recent Board decisions
reviewing the issue of the appropriateness of single facility
units and multi facility units in a larger corporate organizational
structure is helpful in analyzing this case.
In North Hills Office Services, 342 NLRB 437 (2004), Ready
Mix USA, Inc., 340 NLRB 946 (2003), Van Lear Equipment,
Inc., 336 NLRB 1059 (2001), New Britain Transportation Co.,
330 NLRB 397 (1999), Rental Uniform Service, 330 NLRB
334 (1999), and First Security Services Corp., 329 NLRB 235
(1999) the Board found single facility units or units smaller
than the employer’s larger organizational structure appropriate.
In North Hills,10 the Board found a single unit of 27 service
employees appropriate despite the employer’s larger regional
administrative unit composed of 366 employees at 59 facilities
in the New York/New Jersey area. Despite the similarity of job
functions among employees, and the new employer’s central-
ized labor relations and personnel policies, the Board noted that
there was local supervision and some degree of labor relations
autonomy at the Meadows facility, limited transfer and inter-
change among the various employer facilities in the greater
New York/New Jersey area and the Meadows. The Board dis-
tinguished Trane, American Medical Response, 339 NLRB 1
(2003), Waste Management, supra, and P.S. Elliot Services, 300
NLRB 1161 (1990), where it found the single plant unit pre-
sumption had been rebutted since in those cases there was no
local supervision or local autonomy of labor relations.
In Ready Mix, supra, the Board found the predecessor’s 39
employee, three-plant facility still appropriate despite its
merger into the successor’s 800-employee operation. In Ready
Mix there was a history of bargaining as well as local autonomy
and supervision at the three unit facility.
In Van Lear, supra, the merger of the predecessor’s 32 em-
ployee bargaining unit into the successor’s 218 employee ad-
ministrative organization that had a high degree of centralized
labor relations and personnel policies did not defeat the single

10 North Hills, fn. 3.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1286
facility presumption where the predecessor unit retained local
labor relations autonomy and local supervision and where there
was no interchange or transfer of employees from the single
facility to the successor’s other locations.
In New Britain, supra, the predecessor’s single facility of bus
drivers remained appropriate where there was evidence of local
autonomy in labor relations, local supervision, and lack of in-
terchange or transfer of employees from the single location to
the successor’s other facilities, despite the successor’s central
control of labor relations and personnel functions.
In Rental Uniform, supra, the Board found a single process-
ing plant appropriate despite the fact that it had two satellite
facilities 22 and 38 miles away where each satellite facility had
its own managers and supervisors who retained some degree of
labor relations autonomy and where there was no interchange
among the three facilities.
In First Security, supra, the Board found the petitioned for
unit of 34 guards at one of the successor’s facilities in an ad-
ministrative region consisting of 230 guards at over 17 client
facilities, appropriate despite the successor employer’s highly
centralized labor relations and personnel functions that included
common pay, hiring, firing, and discipline. The single facility
retained day-to-day supervision, including local work assign-
ments, local approval of overtime, initial preparation of per-
formance appraisals, and the absence of employee interchange
or transfer.
In Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 344 NLRB 332 (2005),
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 341 NLRB 1079
(2004), Trane, supra, Dattco, supra, Budget Rent a Car, supra,
and Waste Management, supra, the Board found that the appro-
priateness of the single-plant unit had been rebutted.
In Clarian, supra, a merged healthcare facility, the Board
found the predecessor’s unit of maintenance employees at a
single location no longer appropriate where there was common
supervision, interaction, and exchange among maintenance
employees in several similar facilities only 5 minutes apart.
In Laboratory Corp., supra, the Board reversed the Regional
Director who had found a 7-facility unit appropriate out of the
employer’s 29 facility administrative region, where all 29 fa-
cilities were in similar geographic proximity, where there was
common supervision of all 29 facilities, where the supervision
of the seven facility unit was in a state of flux and not consis-
tent with other employer administrative groups and where there
was frequent employee interchange.
In Trane, supra, a 16-employee single-facility unit among
the employer’s three facility St. Louis District was found not
appropriate where there was centralized labor relations, super-
vision, and personnel policies at all three facilities and no su-
pervision or management one of the facilities. There was com-
mon interchange and frequent contact among employees at all
three facilities.
In Dattco, 338 NLRB 49 (2002), the employer contended
that its predecessor’s Hartford, Connecticut bus driver’s termi-
nal was not an appropriate unit as it had been integrated into its
statewide administrative organization. The Board found that
Dattco had highly centralized labor relations with no local
autonomy of the managers or dispatchers at each of its nine
terminals. Local terminal mangers or dispatchers could not
grant time off, hire, fire, or discipline employees. All work
assignments were made at headquarters not by the terminal
dispatcher or manager. There was significant interchange
among the Hartford drivers to and from various terminals
where they were supervised by the local terminal dispatcher or
manager.
In Budget Rent a Car, supra, the Board found the petitioned
for single facility unit inappropriate where there were seven
similar rental facilities in the Detroit area, five of which, in-
cluding the petitioned for facility, were commonly managed,
where there was no local autonomy of labor relations, where
there was daily contact among employees of the various Detroit
facilities, where there was regular interchange and transfer of
employees among the five facilities, including the petitioned for
unit, and where there was no supervision at the petitioned for
location.
In Waste Management, supra, the petitioned for unit of 18
employees at the Woodinville, Washington facility performed
identical tasks as the 12 employees at the Fife, Washington
facility 42 miles distant. In finding the single unit inappropri-
ate, the Board noted that there was no supervisor at the Fife
facility, that all supervisors and managers were at Woodinville,
that all work assignments were made from Woodinville and
that there was frequent interaction and coordination among the
Fife and Woodinville employees.
Common to those cases where a single facility or a multi fa-
cility unit smaller than the unit requested by the employer was
found appropriate, are local autonomy of labor relations in the
smaller unit, including the ability of local supervisors to sched-
ule work, grant time off, and prepare initial appraisals, and lack
of regular interchange, interaction or transfer between the
smaller unit and the employer’s larger administrative unit. The
common thread in each of those cases where the single facility
presumption was rebutted, in addition to centralized control of
labor relations and personnel functions by the new employer
among several facilities, was no evidence of local autonomy or
day-to-day local supervision at the predecessor facilities, evi-
dence of common day-to-day supervision at the different plants,
evidence of regular interaction among employees, and em-
ployee transfers among the facilities including the petitioned
for units.
In this case, I find that the presumption that a single facility
unit is appropriate has been overcome.
Since 1998, there has been a history of bargaining between
the Union and CCW regarding CCW’s oil clean up employees
at the Long Beach facility. With the merger Respondent con-
tinued to operate CCW’s Long Beach facility but effectively
merged the day-to-day operation of the Long Beach facility
with its preexisting Carson facility. After the merger, Respon-
dent transferred Carson employees to Long Beach and Long
Beach employees to Carson. There is ongoing exchange of
employees between the Carson and Long Beach facilities. Both
Carson and Long Beach employees attend daily meetings
where work is assigned, participate together in weekly drills,
training and safety meetings, and perform essentially the same
work under the common supervision of Nottingham.
This functional and operational integration is so complete
that as of December 2005, Respondent planned to merge the
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORP. 1287
Carson and Long Beach facilities at a new facility near the
Long Beach airport. I conclude that the single Long Beach
facility has been so effectively merged and integrated with the
Carson facility that it has lost its separate identity. Dattco,
supra.
In addition to the Carson and Long Beach facilities, in Au-
gust 2004 Respondent opened a new manned Responder facil-
ity in San Diego, California, with a supervisor and three Re-
sponders under the supervision of Nottingham. San Diego is
located about 100 miles from Long Beach. Unlike the Carson
and Long Beach employees, there is no daily or weekly inter-
change of employees with San Diego. While Carson-Long
Beach employees were detailed to San Diego to assist in setting
up equipment and facilities in August 2004, this was an iso-
lated, one time event. Any ongoing contact or interchange
between Carson-Long Beach employees and San Diego em-
ployees is irregular. While Area Response Manager Notting-
ham and ultimately Regional Vice President Ricks manage all
three facilities, there is no common day-to-day first line super-
vision of Carson-Long Beach and San Diego employees. There
is a supervisor at the San Diego facility that has autonomy over
the day-to-day operations, including the scheduling of work,
granting overtime and time off, and preparing the initial per-
formance evaluations of Responders. Given the lack of regular
employee interaction or interchange, the local autonomy and
presence of supervision at San Diego as well as at Carson and
Long Beach and the distance between Carson-Long Beach and
San Diego, I find that the Carson-Long Beach facilities and the
San Diego facility have not been so functionally integrated as
to have lost their separate identities. The Carson-Long Beach
facility is thus an appropriate unit. New Britain Transportation
Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999).
There is some interchange of employees between Carson-
Long Beach and other California Regional facilities. However,
this interchange is not a frequent occurrence. There has been
sporadic delivery of vehicles and equipment by Carson-Long
Beach employees to the Concord, California, Regional Office.
Repairs and training have been conducted infrequently in Car-
son and Long Beach by employees from other California Re-
gional facilities. While the rates of pay, hiring, firing, and dis-
cipline of employees is centralized at the Regional offices in
Concord, California, local supervisors in Carson-Long Beach
conduct day-to-day operations, assign work to Responders
daily, supervise employees’ work, schedule vacation, make
overtime assignments, prepare performance appraisals, partici-
pate in the interview of prospective employees, and initiate
disciplinary actions. I find that the Carson-Long Beach facili-
ties have not been so functionally integrated into Respondent’s
California Region as to have lost their separate identity and
thus Carson-Long Beach remains an appropriate unit. North
Hills Office Services, 342 NLRB 437 (2004); First Security
Services Corp., 329 NLRB 235 (1999).
Likewise there is occasional temporary assignment of Car-
son-Long Beach Responders throughout the United States in
response to catastrophes like Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This
policy has impacted about half of the Carson-Long Beach Re-
sponders for a total of 4 to 6 weeks per Responder over the past
2 years as a result of the devastation caused by hurricanes in the
Gulf Coast. While Respondent’s ability to respond to natural
disasters is an important service to its customers, it cannot be
said that the isolated natural disaster response is a regular and
substantial part of the day-to-day functions of the Carson-Long
Beach Responders. Moreover, the duties performed by Re-
sponders during cascading to events such as the Gulf hurricanes
is a natural extension of the jobs they perform and train to per-
form on a day-to-day basis while stationed in Carson and Long
Beach. When assigned to perform temporary duty in the event
of a natural disaster the Responders are not assigned to a new
facility but perform duties on the site of the natural disaster,
establishing that there is no significant interchange between
facilities. The number of days assigned to temporary work in
response to major spills and natural disasters represents a small
fraction of the total days the Carson-Long Beach Responders
worked in 2004 and 2005. The Carson-Long Beach Respond-
ers spend the vast majority of their time working with employ-
ees on the Responder teams assigned to Carson-Long Beach
and are supervised on a day-to-day basis by Carson-Long
Beach supervisors who assign work, grant time off, grant over-
time, and prepare initial performance evaluations. The Carson-
Long Beach unit retains its integrity independent of the remain-
der of Respondent’s Responders throughout the United States.
North Hills, supra; Rental Uniform Service, 330 NLRB 334
(1999); First Security Services Corp., supra.
3. Continuity of the business enterprise
Respondent argues that there has been a fundamental and
substantial change in the employing enterprise so that under the
Burns, Howard Johnson, and Fall River Dyeing tests it is not a
successor to CCW. Thus it is necessary to consider whether
Respondent uses substantially the same facilities and work
force to produce the same basic products for essentially the
same customers in the same geographic area. Valley Nitrogen
Producers, 207 NLRB 208 (1973). While the Board considers
the totality of the circumstances when determining if an em-
ployer is a successor, hiring a majority of the predecessor’s
employees is central. Pennsylvania Transformer Tech., Inc. v.
NLRB, 254 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2001), enfg. 331 NLRB 1147
(2000). In assessing these factors the Board has traditionally
held that changes in the employing entity will not terminate the
successor’s obligation to bargain unless “the employee’s job
situation is so changed that they would change their attitude
about being represented.”11 In assessing whether Respondent is
a successor the analysis must focus “not on the continuity of the
business structure in general but on the parties’ operations of
the business as they affect the members of the relevant bargain-
ing unit.” Food & Commercial Workers Local 152 v. NLRB,
768 F.2d 1463, 1470 (D.C. Cir. 1985), enfg. in part, denying in
part, remanding in part 268 NLRB 1483 (1984). See also
Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, Inc., supra.
It is beyond dispute that Respondent is a much larger organi-
zation than CCW with the ability to operate outside the South-
ern California area to encompass the entire coastal United
States. Respondent’s clients are far more numerous than
CCW’s. Respondent’s corporate headquarters has standardized

11 Van Lear, supra at 1059.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1288
pay and benefits for all of its Responder employees that differ
slightly from CCW benefits and Respondent has a centralized
labor relations policy that applies to all Responders nationwide.
Respondent performs services that CCW did not, including
inland and coastal spill clean up as well as centralized commu-
nications. However, the mere fact that the successor is a larger
organization with centralized labor relations and personnel
policies, a different management philosophy and larger cus-
tomer base will not alone defeat a finding of successorship.
Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, Inc., supra.
At the Carson-Long Beach facilities, a majority of CCW’s
employees continue to perform the same essential duties for
Respondent, i.e., oil spill cleanup, with essentially the same
equipment, i.e., small and large boats, barges, booms, oil
skimmers, breathing apparatus, and gas monitors. The Carson-
Long Beach employees continue to service most of CCW’s
former clients in essentially the same geographic area as CCW
from essentially the same facilities. Respondent’s Responders
are supervised by the two former CCW supervisors who per-
form essentially the same supervisory duties with Respondent.
Nottingham, CCW’s former president, continues to manage the
Carson-Long Beach employees.
While Respondent introduced CCW employees to some new
oil recovery equipment, it was not significantly unlike the
equipment they were familiar with and continue to use. Former
CCW employees are required by Respondent to use computer
terminals to input maintenance records and have authority to
charge up to $1000 for parts. Further, Respondent’s Respond-
ers are required to be on call at all times and occasionally per-
form their duties away from their permanent duty station.
These temporary assignments away from the permanent duty
station constitute an insignificant number of days out of the
Responders’ total days worked in a year. Further, this deploy-
ment is not unlike the assignment of CCW employees to other
OSROW’s for large oil spill clean up in California in the past
decade. The modifications in the CCW employees’ working
conditions made by Respondent are minor alterations that do
not change the CCW employees’ job situation such that they
would alter their attitude about being represented. I conclude
that there is substantial continuity in the employing business
enterprise. North Hills, supra; Ready Mix, supra; Van Lear,
supra.
Having found continuity in the workforce, the appropriate
bargaining unit and the employing business enterprise, I find
that Respondent is successor employer to CCW within the
meaning of NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272,
281 (1972); Howard Johnson Co. v. UNITE HERE, Detroit
Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249, 263 (1974); and
Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 41
(1987).
In refusing to bargain with the Union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of the Carson-Long Beach oil recovery employees,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Marine Spill Response Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, Marine Division,
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, AFL–CIO is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to recognize and
bargain with Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, Marine
Division, International Longshore and Warehouse Union,
AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit:
All full time and regular part time responders, master re-
sponders and lead responders employed by Respondent at its
facilities located at 190 Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California
and 20780 Leapwood Avenue, Carson, California; excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
The above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6), (7), and (8) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act. I shall order the Respon-
dent to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
above described unit and on request by the Union meet and
bargain in good faith.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended12
ORDER
The Respondent, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Long
Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain in good
faith with Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, Marine Divi-
sion, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, AFL–CIO
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit:
All full time and regular part time responders, master re-
sponders and lead responders employed by Respondent at its
facilities located at 190 Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California
and 20780 Leapwood Avenue, Carson, California; excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.

12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORP. 1289
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, meet and bargain in good faith with the Un-
ion as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees
in the described appropriate unit concerning terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if agreements are reached, embody
the agreements in a signed collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Carson and Long Beach, California, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”13 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after
being signed by the Company’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by the Company immediately on receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Company has gone out of business or closed a
facility involved in theses proceedings, the Company shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
current employees and former employees employed by the
Company at any time since July 15, 2004.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

13 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted Pursuant to an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives or bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively
with Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, Marine Division,
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, AFL–CIO as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit:
All full time and regular part time responders, master re-
sponders and lead responders employed by us at our facilities
located at 190 Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California and
20780 Leapwood Avenue, Carson, California; excluding of-
fice clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with Inlandboatmen’s Union of
the Pacific, Marine Division, International Longshore and
Warehouse Union, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit:
All full time and regular part time responders, master re-
sponders and lead responders employed by Respondent at its
facilities located at 190 Pico Avenue, Long Beach, California
and 20780 Leapwood Avenue, Carson, California; excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
MARINE SPILL RESPONSE CORPORATION