Matson Terminals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 2016

20-RC-173060 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MATSON TERMINALS, INC.
Employer
and Case 20-RC-173060
WORKING FOREMEN’S AND
WORKING SUPERVISORS UNION,
LOCAL 100, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHORE & WAREHOUSE UNION
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 22, 2016.

1 In denying review, we agree with the Regional Director that the petitioned-for employees share a community of
interest and that the F&M supervisors need not be excluded. We also find that the petitioned-for employees
constitute an appropriate unit separate from the Teamsters-represented unit because they perform the common
function of overseeing employees in their respective departments, which are functionally integrated; they all are
salaried and receive benefits; and they share a common work site. See DPI Secuprint, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 172, slip
op. at 4 fn.10 (2015) (unit of employees is appropriate despite being drawn from several departments if they are
readily identifiable as a group and share a community of interest). Because we find that the employees share a
community of interest, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Regional Director’s residual unit analysis.
The Regional Director applied Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934
(2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). Member
Miscimarra disagrees with the Specialty Healthcare standard. See Macy’s, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 4, slip op. at 25-32
(2014) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting). He nevertheless finds that the petitioned-for employees constitute an
appropriate unit under traditional community-of-interest principles on the basis that they comprise an overall unit of
the Employer’s unrepresented supervisors and they share a community of interest based on the fact that they perform
the same function of overseeing employees in their respective departments at a common work site, they are all paid
on a salaried basis and receive benefits, and they perform work that is functionally integrated. Member Miscimarra
therefore joins his colleagues in denying the Employer’s Request for Review.