Met Electrical Testing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 872 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 872
Met Electrical Testing Company, Inc., a Subsidiary of
Pepco Services, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 5,
AFL–CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 6–RC–11643
July 27, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND BRAME
On March 4, 1999, the Regional Director for Region 6
issued a Decision and Direction of Election (relevant
portions are attached as an appendix) finding appropriate
the petitioned-for unit of field employees at the Em-
ployer’s Cranberry, Pennsylvania facility.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s decision.
The Employer contended, inter alia, that the Regional
Director departed from established Board precedent
when he found that the petitioned-for single-facility loca-
tion was appropriate despite a history of bargaining on a
multilocation basis. By order dated March 31, 1999, the
Board granted the request for review. The Petitioner and
the Employer filed briefs on review.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-
ing to a three-member panel.
Having carefully considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including the briefs on review, we find, con-
trary to the Regional Director, that no compelling cir-
cumstances exist warranting disturbing the established
multilocation bargaining history. The petition, therefore,
is dismissed.
The Employer is a high voltage electrical equipment
testing contractor with its headquarters office in Balti-
more, Maryland, and branch offices in Cranberry, Penn-
sylvania, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. In December
1998, the Employer purchased the assets of Met Electri-
cal Testing Company, Inc. (Met Electrical) and hired all
its employees, becoming its successor. The Regional
Director found, and the Employer does not dispute, that
there has been a long history of collective bargaining
between the predecessor employer and the Petitioner and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 24
(Local 24) on a multilocation, multiunion basis. Met
Electrical recognized Local 24 in the early 1980s and the
Petitioner in 1987, by which time all three facilities were
in existence. Met Electrical was party to a series of col-
lective-bargaining agreements, first with Local 24, then
with the Petitioner, Local 24, and IBEW Local 712 from
1990–1993, and finally with the Petitioner and Local 24
from 1993–1996 and 1996–1999. The language of the
1993 and 1996 collective-bargaining agreements clearly
evidence that the parties intended joint-representative,
multilocation agreements.1 Further actions of the parties
also evidence this intent.2
The Board normally will not disturb an historical,
multilocation unit absent compelling circumstances.
Trident Seafoods, 318 NLRB 738 (1995), enfd. 101 F.3d
111 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The party challenging an historical
unit bears the burden of showing that the unit is no
longer appropriate. Id. This evidentiary burden is a
heavy one. See, e.g., P. J. Dick Contracting, 290 NLRB
150, 151 (1988). The Board has applied these principles
not only to decertification petitions,3 but to representation
petitions as well.4 In balancing the goals of employee
free choice and bargaining stability, the Board has de-
termined that even a 1-year bargaining history on a mul-
tiplant basis can be sufficient to bar a petition seeking an
election in a segment of that unit. See Arrow Uniform
Rental, 300 NLRB 246 (1990); see also West Lawrence
Care Center, 305 NLRB 212, 216–217 (1991). The fact
that the instant case involves a successor employer does
not warrant a different result. Trident Seafoods, 318
NLRB at 738, citing Indianapolis Mack Sales & Service,
288 NLRB 1123, 1127 (1988).
We find that none of the factors relied on by the Re-
gional Director—a desire by one party to alter the his-
torical multilocation unit; a showing of interest for a sin-
gle-facility by those facility’s employees; varied bargain-
ing history; or differences in degree among the employ-
ees’ community of interest (geographical separation,
local autonomy, and limited interaction)—constitute
“compelling circumstances” that would warrant disturb-
ing the parties’ historical, multiplant unit. Gibbs & Cox,
280 NLRB 953, 955 (1986), dismissed as moot 904 F.2d
214 (4th Cir. 1990); Anheuser-Busch, 246 NLRB at 29;
Trident Seafoods, 318 NLRB at 739; Owens-Illinois
Glass Co., 108 NLRB at 948, 950; and Arrow Uniform
Rental, 300 NLRB at 248–249.
We find no reason to stray from the above precedents
because one of the incumbent unions, rather than the
Employer, seeks to disturb the historical, multiplant bar-
gaining unit. Crown Zellerbach, 246 NLRB 202 (1979),
relied on by the Regional Director, is distinguishable.
There, the Board found a single-facility unit appropriate

1 Although the recognition clauses in the collective-bargaining agree-
ments do not specifically set forth the unit, Met Electrical agreed in the
contracts to recognize the signatory Local Unions (Local 24 and the Peti-
tioner) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all their employees
performing work within the jurisdiction of the IBEW; the agreements refer
to employees in the bargaining unit (in singular form); and the agreements
contain a single signature page for Met Electrical and the Locals.
2 See the Regional Director’s discussion of the UD petition (at fn. 11 of
his decision) and of the Petitioner’s position at the hearing (at fn. 16 of the
Regional Director’s decision) that, if the petitioned-for unit was not appro-
priate, the Petitioner wished to continue as one of the two representatives in
the three-location unit.
3 Mo’s West, 283 NLRB 130 (1987); and Campbell Soup Co., 111
NLRB 234 (1955).
4 Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 246 NLRB 29, 32 (1979); and Owen-Illinois
Glass Co., 108 NLRB 947 (1954).
331 NLRB No. 106
MET ELECTRICAL TESTING CO. 873
despite bargaining history on a multifacility basis where
all parties to the historical relationship sought to estab-
lish a separate unit. Here, the Employer opposes the Pe-
titioner’s attempt to change the historical multilocation
unit. Crown Zellerbach, therefore, does not support dis-
turbing the historical unit.
Accordingly, we conclude, contrary to the Regional
Director, that no compelling circumstances exist which
warrant disturbing the historical, multilocation bargain-
ing unit.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is reversed, and the petition is dismissed.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit all senior
field engineers, field engineers, test technicians, and test assis-
tants4 employed by the Employer at its Cranberry, Pennsylvania
facility;5 excluding office clerical employees and guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and
all other employees including field employees employed by the
Employer at its Baltimore or Columbia, Maryland facility, and
at its Virginia Beach, Virginia facility. The Employer, contrary
to the Petitioner, moves to dismiss the petition on the ground
that only an employerwide, multilocation unit of field employ-
ees employed at Cranberry, Baltimore, and Virginia Beach (the
overall unit) is appropriate in view of the long history of collec-
tive bargaining which the Employer alleges existed between the
predecessor Employer of the field employees, Met Electrical
Testing Company, Inc. (Met Electrical), and the Petitioner, and
IBEW Local 24 (Local 24), who, according to the Employer,
acted as the joint representative of the overall unit prior to the
Employer’s parent, Pepco Services, Inc. (Pepco), purchasing
the assets of Met Electrical on December 10, 1998. In addition,
the Employer argues that the Cranberry unit is inappropriate in
view of the strong community of interest which exists among
the field employees in the overall unit. There are approxi-
mately 5 field employees employed in the Cranberry unit and
approximately 19 field employees employed in the overall
unit.6
The Employer is a high voltage electrical equipment testing
contractor that maintains its headquarters office in Baltimore
and branch offices in Cranberry and Virginia Beach. Approxi-
mately 95 percent of the work performed by the field employ-
ees occurs on the premises of the Employer’s customers located
throughout the middle Atlantic States.7 The field employees in
these three locations basically possess the same skills and per-
form the same tasks, but their work, as set forth more fully

4 These classifications of employees are collectively referred to as field
employees.
5 The Cranberry facility is also referred to in the record as the Pittsburgh
facility. Cranberry Township is located approximately 25 miles to the north
of Pittsburgh.
6 Three field employees are employed at Virginia Beach and approxi-
mately eleven field employees are employed at Baltimore.
7 Customers include commercial, industrial, institutional, and govern-
mental entities who have high voltage electrical equipment located on their
premises.
here, is limited to a substantial degree to projects which are bid
within the geographical area assigned to each office.
As previously indicated, the Employer is a recent asset pur-
chaser of Met Electrical. The Employer is under the overall
supervision of Robert Alyward, its president and chief operat-
ing officer. Prior to the asset purchase, Alyward, since October
1997, was employed by Met Electrical as its vice president and
general manager. The record affirmatively establishes, and the
Employer emphasizes, that the Employer’s methods of opera-
tion are substantially similar to, if not identical with, the meth-
ods of operation utilized by its predecessor.
Collective-Bargaining History
Met Electrical commenced operations in the 1960s with Bal-
timore as its sole facility. Subsequently, Met Electrical opened
offices in Cranberry and Virginia Beach. At some point in the
1970s or early 1980s, Local 24 was voluntarily recognized by
Met Electrical as the collective-bargaining representative of the
field employees.8 Subsequently, in 1987, Met Electrical recog-
nized a consortium of IBEW Locals: Local 24, Local 5 in
Pittsburgh, and Local 712 in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.9
Thereupon, two successive collective-bargaining agreements
were entered into between Met Electrical and the three IBEW
Locals wherein the three Locals are alleged by the Employer to
have acted as joint representatives for the field employees on an
employer-wide basis.10 Following the expiration of the 1990–
1993 collective-bargaining agreement, Local 712, for reasons
not set forth in the record, ceased to be a party to the contract.
The 1993–1996 and the 1996–1999 collective-bargaining
agreements were entered into between Met Electrical and the
Petitioner and Local 24. The successive collective-bargaining
agreements do not specifically describe the unit recognized but
merely state, at article 5, section 5.4, that “the Employer hereby
agrees to recognize the signatory local unions of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as the sole and exclu-
sive bargaining agent for all their employees performing work
within the jurisdiction of the IBEW.”
While most of the terms and conditions of employment for
the field employees when employed by Met Electrical were
governed by the two most recent collective-bargaining agree-
ments jointly negotiated by the Petitioner and Local 24 with
Met Electrical, there were some differences between the terms
applicable to the Cranberry field employees and the terms ap-
plicable to the Baltimore-Virginia Beach field employees. For
instance, separate benefit funds existed for the Cranberry em-
ployees, and the Met Electrical contribution rate was different
with respect to these funds than its contribution rate to the
funds covering the Baltimore-Virginia Beach employees. In
8 The record does not disclose whether the Cranberry and/or Virginia
Beach offices were in operation at the time of recognition. Local 24’s geo-
graphical jurisdiction apparently encompasses both the Baltimore and Vir-
ginia Beach areas.
9 Beaver County is located adjacent to Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) to
the northwest. The Petitioner’s (Local 5) geographical jurisdiction does not
extend to Beaver County, but does include Butler County, where the Cran-
berry office is located. Butler County is located adjacent to Allegheny
County to the north.
10 The contract periods were from 1987 to 1990 and 1990 to 1993. Aly-
ward testified that it is his understanding that Local 5 and Local 712 were
recognized by Met Electrical “as the bargaining agents” for the field em-
ployees at Cranberry. The record does not disclose any additional informa-
tion concerning the development of this multi-union bargaining relationship
with Met Electrical.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 874
addition, the dues deducted from the Cranberry employees’ pay
pursuant to the contracts’ union-security and checkoff provi-
sions were forwarded by Met Electrical to the Petitioner, while
dues deducted for the Baltimore-Virginia Beach field employ-
ees were forwarded to Local 24.11 Administratively, from the
Locals’ internal standpoint, the Petitioner would represent the
Cranberry employees with respect to work problems and issues
arising among this group, while Local 24 would do the same
for the field employees employed at Baltimore and Virginia
Beach. Further, the contract provisions required that if Met
Electrical determined that layoffs were necessary, layoffs
would be by seniority at each office location.
The Employer’s Purchase of Met Electrical’s Assets
Several days prior to the effective date of the asset purchase,
the Employer, by letter dated December 8, 1998, notified the
field employees and the two IBEW Locals, advising that it
intended to set initial terms and conditions of employment, and
that if a majority of the field employees accepted job offers
under such terms and conditions, the Employer would recog-
nize the Petitioner and Local 24 as the joint representatives of
the overall unit. The Employer advised the employees and the
Locals that it would not adopt the Met Electrical 1996–1999
collective-bargaining agreement, but rather desired to negotiate
a new collective-bargaining agreement.12 Apparently, all field
employees accepted the Employer’s offer and all of the overall
unit employees were subsequently hired. Although the Em-
ployer did not adopt the 1996–1999 contract, it kept in place
the economic and most noneconomic terms and conditions set
forth therein.
The Petitioner’s and Local 24’s Representational Intent
Notwithstanding that the Employer hired all of the overall
unit, the Petitioner and Local 24 never made a formal demand
for recognition as joint representatives in the overall unit. On
February 10, 1999, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. On
February 12, a meeting was conducted between the Employer
and the Petitioner and Local 24. According to Lee Hintemeyer,
a business representative for the Petitioner who attended the
meeting, Local 24 President Jim Jarvis told him a short time
prior to the date of the meeting that Local 24 “was going to sit
down and meet, eyeball to eyeball, with the new owner to get a
feel of how negotiations would go from there.”13 According to
Hintemeyer, Jarvis told him that it was not necessary for any
representative of the Petitioner to attend the meeting. Hinte-
meyer advised Jarvis that the Petitioner would be filing a peti-
tion seeking to represent the Cranberry unit and that he would
attend the meeting to so advise the Employer. Hintemeyer
attended the meeting and the Employer acknowledges that Hin-
temeyer advised the Employer that the instant petition had been

11 On June 17, 1998, a field employee employed at Baltimore filed a un-
ion-security deauthorization (UD) petition in Region 5 of the Board in Case
5–UD–121. Pursuant to an election agreement signed on behalf of the
Petitioner and Local 24, a UD mail-ballot election was conducted. The unit
described in the election agreement was a unit of field employees employed
at Met Electrical’s three offices. A majority of employees in the overall unit
voted that the authority for the union-security provision set forth in the
1996–1999 contract should be rescinded.
12 The Employer, in this communication, stated that it would not adopt
the language of art. 5, sec. 5.4. This provision of the Met Electrical contract,
as set forth above, contains language which could be interpreted as recogni-
tional language for an overall unit.
13 No representative of Local 24 testified at the hearing.
filed. Thereafter, a general discussion took place among the
parties with respect to such matters as the Employer’s business
plans, and its marketing and sales strategies. At the close of the
meeting, the Employer presented to Hintemeyer and Jarvis a
proposed collective-bargaining agreement for the overall unit.
Both Hintemeyer and Jarvis advised the Employer that they
would “look at it.”14 Three additional meetings have been
scheduled.15
At the hearing in this matter, although Local 24 did not seek
to participate as an Intervenor, Jarvis did enter an appearance
on behalf of Local 24. At this time, Jarvis stated on the record
that Local 24 had “no objection” to the Petitioner seeking to
represent the Cranberry employees in a separate unit wherein
the Petitioner would be the sole representative of the Cranberry
employees, that Local 24 did not wish to participate in any
election which may be directed for the Cranberry unit, that
Local 24 waives any representational interest in the Cranberry
employees if the petitioned-for unit is found appropriate, and
that Local 24 has no objection to the Petitioner being certified
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the
unit. Similarly, the Petitioner stated on the record that if the
petitioned-for unit is found appropriate, it would disclaim any
interest in representing the Baltimore and Virginia Beach em-
ployees.16
The Employer’s Operation
As previously indicated, the Employer’s method of operation
is essentially the same as Met Electrical’s method of operation
in terms of the work and work location of field employees and
their terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, in
analyzing the issues presented here, the community-of-interest
argument advanced by the Employer in support of its unit posi-
tion is based in large part on the manner in which Met Electri-
14 The proposed contract describes the bargaining unit as a unit of all
field employees employed at Cranberry, Baltimore, and Virginia Beach.
15 The record does not disclose the purpose of the scheduled meetings.
There is no contention by the Employer that the Petitioner is estopped from
seeking to represent the Cranberry employees on a separate basis because
the Petitioner and Local 24 “accepted” recognition in the overall unit by
their conduct in attending the February 12 meeting.
16 Both the Petitioner and Local 24 expressly stated, however, that their
respective disclaimers were conditioned upon the ultimate determination by
the Board or the courts that the Cranberry unit is appropriate, and that if it
was ultimately determined that the historical overall unit was the only ap-
propriate unit, both continued to desire to represent the overall unit as joint
representatives.
The Employer contends that it is a “successor” employer within the
meaning of the United States Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Burns
Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972), and that as a Burns successor, it was
obligated to extend recognition to Local 5 and Local 24 as the joint repre-
sentatives of the overall unit. The Employer’s position that it is a Burns
successor is based on the premise that there exists the requisite continuity in
operations between its operations and those of the predecessor, that all of its
workforce is comprised of the predecessor’s employees, and that the prede-
cessor’s overall bargaining unit is the sole appropriate unit for collective-
bargaining purposes. Although the term “successor employer” is utilized
throughout this decision in describing the Employer’s operations and the
continued appropriateness of the overall unit in light of the Petitioner’s
desire to represent the Cranberry employees as a separate unit, the use of the
term “successor employer” is not meant to connote that the Employer is a
Burns successor within the strict meaning of that term in view of the fact
that the continued appropriateness of the overall unit is the issue to be re-
solved here.
MET ELECTRICAL TESTING CO. 875
cal’s business was conducted and the Employer’s anticipation
that such operational methods will remain the same.17
The Employer’s management hierarchy is located in Balti-
more. In addition, the field employees at Baltimore and each of
the other two offices are under the supervision of a branch
manager and, with respect to Baltimore and Cranberry, one or
two project managers who are responsible for coordinating the
work done at specific projects.18
Each office is assigned a geographical area, and customers
within that area are generally serviced by field employees
working out of that office. Customers are typically hospitals,
large commercial office buildings, sensitive governmental loca-
tions, or any other entity that would be heavily computer de-
pendent such as data centers and telephone answering centers.
Generally, customers of larger jobs require that the Employer
supply evidence that the field employees possess the necessary
credentials and that the Employer has adequate staff to perform
the work expeditiously. Sales personnel assigned to each office
bid for the work.
As noted, approximately 95 percent of the work performed
by the field employees is done at customer locations. Most
jobs are of fairly short duration, several hours to a day or 2 in
length. Larger projects may last for a period of several months
but, generally, are not worked on continuously for more than
several weeks at a time.
All field employees are subject to the same operating poli-
cies and procedures, work rules, and personnel policies. These
policies are administered, generally, on a local office basis.
The Employer maintains a centralized payroll system, an Em-
ployer-wide computer network, a centralized accounting func-
tion, and a centralized process for the production of customer
reports. Because the field employees were subject to the terms
of a common collective-bargaining agreement when they were
employed by Met Electrical, the wage scale, fringe benefits,
and many other terms of employment are identical for all field
employees.19
Local management is responsible for scheduling field em-
ployees for work, approving requests for time off, handling or
adjusting employee complaints that can be resolved at the local
level, interviewing and recommending to higher management
the hire of prospective employees, counseling employees for
unsatisfactory work performance, recommending to higher man-
agement the imposition of employee discipline, preparing an-
nual employee evaluations, and generally overseeing that the
quality of work performed by the field employees meets the
Employer’s and customers’ preestablished standards.
There are occasions when the Employer utilizes field em-
ployees from other offices to work on projects located within
the contracting office’s jurisdiction. Such “side-by-side” em-
ployment occurs when a large job involving an extensive
amount of customer equipment needs to be done in a short pe-
riod of time, when a job requires employees with specialized
skills, or when an office is understaffed due to employee ab-

17 Employer President Alyward was the sole witness called by the Em-
ployer and it is his testimony and his first hand knowledge of Met Electri-
cal’s operational methods on which the Employer relies.
18 Two project managers, in addition to the branch manager, are em-
ployed at Baltimore, and a branch manager and a project manager are em-
ployed at Cranberry. Only a branch manager is employed at Virginia
Beach.
19 As noted, Cranberry employees participate in different benefit funds
than the Baltimore-Virginia Beach field employees.
sences. In these circumstances, the branch manager of the of-
fice which needs assistance will coordinate the staffing of the
job with the other branch managers and Alyward. According to
Alyward, such “side-by-side” employment “does not occur
with a high degree of frequency.”20 It appears, generally, that
there is more extensive job interaction between field employees
working at Baltimore and Virginia Beach than between Cran-
berry and either of the other offices.21
Analysis
Section 9(b) of the Act provides that “[t]he Board shall de-
cide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act,
the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit or subdivision
thereof.” Determining whether a unit is appropriate for bar-
gaining requires the Board to balance the competing interests of
“insuring to employees their rights to self-organization and
freedom of choice in collective bargaining and of fostering
industrial peace and stability through collective bargaining.”
Kalamazoo Paper Box Corp., 136 NLRB 134, 137 (1962).
The cornerstone of the Board’s policies on appropriateness
of bargaining units is the community-of-interest doctrine which
operates to group together only employees who have substan-
tial mutual interests in wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment. “Such a mutuality of interest serves to assure the
coherence among employees necessary for efficient collective
bargaining and at the same time to prevent a functionally dis-
tinct minority group of employees from being submerged in an
overly large unit.” Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 172–173 (1971).
The instant case presents the task of balancing the employ-
ees’ Section 7 rights of self-organization and freedom of choice
against the interest of stability in labor relations, by requiring
me to decide whether to give controlling weight to the fairly
long history of collective bargaining between the predecessor
Employer (Met Electrical) and the Petitioner and Local 24 in a
multilocation, multiunion bargaining arrangement in the face of
a timely filed single location unit petition filed by one of the
joint representatives. For the reasons set forth below, I find that
the balance based upon the facts presented in this case should
be struck in favor of the employees’ Section 7 rights.
Often the Board is faced with the issue of whether estab-
lished bargaining units remain appropriate when successor
employers commence operations. Generally, the Board has
20 For example, the Employer has contracted for a job referred to in the
record as the “U.S. Steel Towers” job to be performed by the Cranberry
office. According to Alyward, the job is a large project involving “fifty-six
substations and six maintenance cycles” requiring a staff of ten field em-
ployees for an approximately 3-week period. Because the Cranberry office
is presently short staffed by one employee, six field employees from Balti-
more and/or Virginia Beach will be used on this project.
21 The Employer notes that during the 1996–1998 period, there were ap-
proximately 15 large jobs each year within the Cranberry office’s geo-
graphical area that required the assistance of field employees from other
offices. The Employer further notes that during this period, approximately
30 percent of its Cranberry office billings involved jobs where there was
“side-by-side” employment. The record does not reveal, however, the
percentage of the total work hours for these projects which can be attributed
to non-Cranberry office field employees. Indeed, the record does show that
during the aforementioned 3-year period, the five Cranberry office field
employees spent less than 500 hours working on non-Cranberry office
projects. In addition, during the past 18 years, the record reveals only four
instances of field employees permanently transferring to other offices.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 876
long given substantial weight to prior bargaining history in
deciding whether established bargaining units remain appropri-
ate. In most cases, a historical unit will be found appropriate if
the predecessor employer recognized it, even if the unit would
not be appropriate under Board standards if it were being or-
ganized for the first time, e.g., Trident Seafoods, Inc., 318
NLRB 738 (1995), enfd. in part 101 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir.
1996); and Indianapolis Mack Sales & Service, 288 NLRB
1123, 1126 (1988). In this regard, the Board stated in Trident
Foods, supra:
Regarding the appropriateness of historical units, the
Board’s longstanding policy is that “a mere change in
ownership should not uproot bargaining units that have en-
joyed a history of collective bargaining unless the units no
longer conform reasonably well to other standards of ap-
propriateness.” Indianapolis Mack Sales, 288 NLRB 1123
fn. 5 (1988) [citing Crown Zellerbach Corp., 246 NLRB
202, 203 (1979)]. The party challenging a historical unit
bears the burden of showing that the unit is no longer ap-
propriate. Id. The evidentiary burden is a heavy one.
See, e.g., Children’s Hospital, 312 NLRB 920, 929 (1993)
(“compelling circumstances are required to overcome the
significance of bargaining history”); P. J. Dick Contract-
ing, 290 NLRB 150, 151 (1988) (“units with extensive
bargaining history remain intact unless repugnant to Board
policy”).
The question of whether the historical unit remains appropri-
ate in the successorship context usually arises when a successor
employer contends that the historical unit is no longer appropri-
ate, notwithstanding that the incumbent labor organization, or
another labor organization, seeks to represent the employees on
such a basis. See, e.g., Trident Seafoods, Inc., supra, and Indi-
anapolis Mack Sales & Service, supra. There is no require-
ment, however, that a voluntary implementation of a joint or
multiunion bargaining arrangement for a multilocation unit
perforce makes such a relationship permanent or precludes,
contrary to the urgings of a successor employer, either of the
joint representatives from timely withdrawing therefrom and
seeking to represent part of the historical multiplant unit on a
single plant basis. The statutory presumptive appropriateness
of single plant units is not overcome solely by the existence of
prior, voluntary, multiplant, multirepresentative bargaining, and
if compelling circumstances exist for disregarding a bargaining
history in the multiplant unit, a petition for a single plant unit
will be found to be appropriate. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 246
NLRB 202, 204 (1979).22
In the instant case, compelling reasons do exist for disregard-
ing bargaining history in the multilocation unit. In this regard, I
find it significant that neither the Petitioner nor Local 24 seeks

22 Crown Zellerbach involved the Board’s disregard of bargaining his-
tory on a multiplant basis in a non-successorship situation.
In support of its position, the Employer, in its posthearing brief, relies on
the Board decision in Arrow Uniform Rental, 300 NLRB 246 (1990), for the
proposition that where the parties have bargained on a multiplant basis, the
bargaining history becomes controlling and precludes a severing of employ-
ees at any given location from the overall multiplant unit. However, Arrow
Uniform involved the issue of whether a decertification election could be
directed at a single plant of a historic multiplant unit. Since the decertifica-
tion petition seeking a single location bargaining unit was not coextensive
with the existing multilocation unit, the petition, in accordance with long-
established Board policies, was dismissed. Accordingly, the Employer’s
reliance on Arrow Uniform and similar cases is misplaced.
to continue to represent the historical multiplant unit. In this
regard, the joint representatives have not requested recognition
in this unit. Indeed, Local 24 has unequivocally stated that it
has no objection to the Petitioner seeking to represent the Cran-
berry employees in a single unit. Local 24 has further stated
unequivocally that it consents to the Petitioner being certified
as the sole bargaining representative for such a unit and that it
waives its representational status for these employees if it is
ultimately determined that a unit limited to Cranberry is appro-
priate. Similarly, the Petitioner has unequivocally waived its
representational status for the Baltimore and Virginia Beach
employees.
In addition, the record does not establish, contrary to the
contention of the Employer, that the Cranberry employees pos-
sess a community of interest so interwoven with the Baltimore
and Virginia Beach employees as to dictate that they must be
combined to constitute an appropriate unit. Cranberry is lo-
cated approximately 300 miles from Baltimore and approxi-
mately 500 miles from Virginia Beach. The multirepresenta-
tive-bargaining arrangement which developed with Met Elec-
trical appears somewhat erratic based on the fact that Local 712
located in Beaver, Pennsylvania, appears to have acted as a
joint representative of the overall unit for approximately 6
years, from 1987 to 1993, notwithstanding that Met Electrical
never had an office in Beaver County.23 Each of the Em-
ployer’s three offices is under the supervision of a branch man-
ager and other project managers who exercise a significant
degree of control over the labor relations policies on a day-to-
day basis affecting the employees working there. Thus,
interviewing and hiring recommendations, scheduling hours of
work, counseling employees and recommending discipline,
overseeing the quality of work, approving requests for time off,
preparing employee evaluations, and other matters are done on
the local level. Further, the degree of job interaction between
Cranberry and Baltimore-Virginia Beach field employees is not
of such a frequent or substantial nature as to compel a finding
that the overall unit is the sole unit appropriate for collective
bargaining purposes or that the Cranberry employees do not
constitute a homogenous, identifiable grouping of employees
entitled to representation on a separate basis.24 Furthermore,
the petition in this case was supported by an adequate showing
23 The record is not clear as to the reasons Local 712 acted as a joint rep-
resentative other than for the fact that unit employees were working in Local
712’s territorial jurisdiction at that time. The record does reveal that when
unit employees work outside the territorial jurisdiction of either the Peti-
tioner or Local 24, these employees pay dues to the IBEW local in whose
jurisdiction they are then working. In addition, the record is not entirely
clear, notwithstanding the overall unit description contained in the election
agreement in Case 5–UD–121and the somewhat ambiguous recognitional
language set forth in the collective-bargaining agreements, whether the
Petitioner and Local 24 represented the field employees in an overall unit as
joint representatives or whether the Locals merely jointly negotiated a single
contract for separate bargaining units. As detailed previously, there is some
suggestion that Met Electrical and the Locals viewed the Cranberry field
employees to be a separate employee grouping from the Baltimore-Virginia
Beach field employees as evidenced by the dues remittance procedure,
separate benefit funds, separate seniority systems for layoffs, and by the fact
that the Petitioner and not Local 24 would “speak” on behalf of the Cran-
berry employees with Met Electrical whenever matters affecting the Cran-
berry employees needed to be discussed and resolved.
24 The fact that field employees are at times temporarily transferred to
other office areas for short periods of time, is, in my opinion, an incidental
part of their work duties which are primarily performed within the geo-
graphical area of the office where they are employed.
MET ELECTRICAL TESTING CO. 877
of interest, a consideration which tends to show that the Cran-
berry field employees do not desire to be included in a bargain-
ing unit with the field employees employed at other offices.
Based on the above and in light of the particular facts of the
instant case, it is clear that the Cranberry employees should
have the opportunity to select their own bargaining representa-
tive in a separate election. See Crown Zellerbach Corp., su-
pra.25 Accordingly, I find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-

25 Accordingly, the Employer’s motion to dismiss the instant petition is
denied.
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All senior field engineers, field engineers, test technicians
and test assistants employed by the Employer at its Cran-
berry, Pennsylvania, facility; excluding senior field engi-
neers, field engineers, test technicians and test assistants
employed at the Employer’s Baltimore, Maryland, and
Virginia Beach, Virginia, facilities, office clerical employ-
ees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.