Napa Columbus Parts Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 1052 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Genuine Parts Company d/b/a Napa Columbus Dis-
tribution and Automotive Parts Company and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-14306
17 April 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 25 August 1983 the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate a unit consisting of all ware-
house employees at the Employer's Columbus,
Ohio distribution center facility.'
In so finding, the Regional Director rejected the
Employer's contention that the appropriate unit
must also encompass all local department store em-
ployees and joober delivery drivers. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's deci-
sion. The Employer alleged that there were errone-
ous findings of fact and a departure from official
precedent in the Regional Director's decision.
By telegraphic order on 22 September 1983 the
request for review was granted. Pursuant to the
Board's procedures2 the election was held 22 Sep-
tember 1983 and the ballots were impounded pend-
ing decision on review. The Employer filed a brief
on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings.
The Employer is engaged in the warehousing
and distribution of automotive replacement parts at
its Columbus, Ohio distribution center and 19 local
sales outlets in the Columbus area.3 Sales are to
I The specific unit found appropriate by the RD is as follows:
All warehouse employees employed at the Employer's Columbus,
Ohio distribution center facility including stock clerks, shipping
clerks, the invoice control clerk, customer pick-up/will call clerks,
perpetual inventory clerks, receiving clerks, returned goods notice
(RGN) clerks, jobber service clerks, special order clerk, inventory
clerks, RON factory billing clerk, back order clerk, catalog clerks,
stock clerk/relief driver, shipping clerk/relief driver, and jobber
service delivery driver, but excluding all jobber delivery drivers, all
local department store employees, office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
a Sec. 102.67(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
· The largest of these local outlets, known as the main counter, is lo-
cated within the distribution center itself
both wholesale and retail customers. All local
stores are located within 16 miles of the distribu-
tion center and carry the same product line. The
stores are in constant communication with the dis-
tribution center in order to keep the line supplied,
and deliveries from the center to the stores occur
daily. There is no history of collective bargaining.
The Petitioner initially filed an election petition
seeking a unit of all warehouse employees at the
distribution center, including those employees at
the main counter sales store located within the dis-
tribution center. During the hearing in this case,
however, the Petitioner requested, and was grant-
ed, permission to amend its petition to exclude the
employees at the main counter store from the peti-
tioned-for warehouse employee unit.4 At the hear-
ing the Petitioner also indicated its willingness to
proceed to an election in any unit found appropri-
ate by the Board.
The Employer contends that a separate unit of
only warehouse employees is inappropriate due to
the high degree of functional integration through-
out the Employer's entire Columbus operation, the
centralized administration and supervision of busi-
ness and labor relations policies, the corresponding
lack of significant authority possessed by immediate
supervisors either within the distribution center or
at the individual stores, and extensive employee
interchange throughout all areas of the Employer's
operation. Due to these factors the Employer con-
tends that the only appropriate unit must consist of
warehouse employees, jobber delivery drivers,5
and all local store employees. 6 We find merit in
these contentions.
1. For a separate warehouse unit to be appropri-
ate, the petitioned-for employees must form a dis-
tinct and identifiable administrative segment of an
employer's operation that is devoted essentially to
warehousing functions. Further, the employees in
such a petitioned-for unit should be under separate
supervision, should perform substantially all their
work tasks in buildings geographically separated
from those in which the bulk of the remaining em-
ployees of the employer work, and should not be
integrated, to any substantial degree, with employ-
4 There are approximately 95 employees in the petitioned-for ware-
house unit.
6 There are approximately 10 jobber delivery drivers. Their primary
function entails delivering goods overnight from the distribution center to
the Employer's unaffiliated jobber customers, who in turn sell the prod-
ucts independently on a retail basis. These deliveries are made through-
out Ohio and West Virginia.
6 There are approximately 185 employees in the overall, multifacility
unit which the Employer claims is appropriate: 95 in the warehouse facil-
ity at the distribution center; 14 at the main counter retail store at the
distribution center; 10 jobber delivery drivers; and approximately 3 or 4
employees at each of the other 18 geographically separate local stores.
269 NLRB No. 178
1052
NAPA COLUMBUS PARTS CO.
ees in other divisions in the performance of their
ordinary duties.7
In concluding that a separate warehouse unit was
warranted, the Regional Director relied on his
findings that the warehouse employees are the only
employees engaged in traditional warehousing
functions, are under separate immediate supervision
from the Employer's other workers, and perform
their duties in a facility separate and apart from
those of the Employer's retail store outlets. In ad-
dition, the Regional Director found that there is
little face-to-face contact between local store per-
sonnel and the warehouse employees, that the local
store employees are engaged in different work
functions-primarily customer service and sales-
and that the jobber delivery drivers, whom the
Employer also seeks to include, do not work at the
distribution center with warehouse employees.
Unlike the Regional Director, we find that the
record establishes that employees of the Employer
other than the warehouse employees perform ware-
house work. While the record reveals that the
warehouse employees do the large majority of
warehousing functions at the Employer's distribu-
tion center, the record also establishes that other
employees frequently assist in this work, and fur-
ther, that the duties of the local store employees
primarily involve these same warehouse-type ac-
tivities. Both the distribution center and the local
stores, which are arranged and stocked as smaller
versions of the distribution center, service predomi-
nantly wholesale customers. Both the petitioned-for
warehouse employees and the local store employ-
ees are responsible for receiving orders, pulling the
desired items from the stockroom shelves, packing
the items, and checking that the order is filled cor-
rectly.8 Additionally, when local store driver stock
clerks" deliver larger or more specialized items to
a store's customer, the driver often assists ware-
house employees at the distribution center, where
such items are housed, in pulling and loading these
items onto the delivery truck. The record also es-
tablishes that main counter employees, who work
in the same building as the warehouse employees,
are frequently required to enter the warehouse area
and pull stock to help fill orders for both main
'A. Harris & Ca, 116 NLRB 1628, 1632 (1956); see also Gustave Fisch-
er, 256 NLRB 1069, 1072-73 (1981).
* At the distribution center, which is a much larger operation, different
employees perform each of the receiving, pulling, packing, and checking
functions, while at the local store one employee may complete a single
order. However, the record demonstrates that they are performing the
same tasks as the distribution center employees.
9 This is a category of local store employees who delivers items from
either local stores or the distribution center to the Employer's local cus-
tomers.
counter and local store customers. ' Occasionally,
jobber delivery drivers, whose work emanates from
the distribution center, also perform warehouse-
type work in that they assist warehouse employees
in loading-delivery trucks.
With regard to supervision of the warehouse em-
ployees, the record reveals a highly centralized
control of personnel and business decisions by Gen-
eral Manager Garvin and Operations Manager Pe-
derson. Although the nature of the operation re-
quires each local store (including the main counter)
and the warehouse to have separate line supervi-
sors,1 ' the autonomy of these supervisors is limited
to routine daily matters. Although they can recom-
mend discipline of employees, all final decisions
with regard to these and other personnel matters
are made by Garvin or Pederson. In addition,
Garvin and Pederson are in constant contact with
the warehouse supervisors, as is Local Store Oper-
ations Manager DeGroot with the local store su-
pervisors. Finally, the Employer is committed to a
policy of companywide bidding for promotions.
Thus, Garvin and Personnel Manager Auman de-
termine which, if any, employees will be added to
the stores or warehouse departments. In these cir-
cumstances, where the supervisory authority of
warehouse and local store supervisors is limited to
routine matters, and all significant personnel prac-
tices and corresponding personnel policies are im-
plemented and controlled by higher management,
we find that the existence of separate immediate su-
pervision for the warehouse employees is not a
controlling factor in our determination of the ap-
propriate unit. 2
Finally, contrary to the conclusion reached by
the Regional Director, the workplace of the ware-
house employees is not separate and distinct from
that of other employees. Both the main counter
employees and jobber delivery drivers share a
common breakroom, access to vending machines,
employees' entrance, and parking area with the
warehouse employees. More importantly, both fre-
quently work with the warehouse employees or in
the latter's workplace. Thus, the 13 main counter
employees spend approximately half of their work
time in the warehouse itself. There, among other
duties, they pull their own orders or assist ware-
house employees in filling orders. In turn, ware-
house employees, on occasion, have assisted main
'o At the hearing, two main counter employers, Power and Carrell,
testified that they regularly spend at least half of each day in the stock
room, pulling orders.
I" In this regard, the warehouse is divided into four distinct depart-
ments each with its own manager.
" We note also that the jobber delivery driven whom Petitioner seeks
to exclude from the petitioned-for warehouse unit are actually grouped
with the warehouse employees for purposes of supervision.
1053
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counter employees in taking orders and answering
telephones at the main counter.
Similarly, jobber delivery drivers spend part of
their workday with the warehouse employees.
These drivers report to work at the shipping area
where warehouse workers are loading the jobber
trucks. They often assist the warehouse employees
in loading the trucks, and occasionally enter the
warehouse to help the latter move larger, heavier
items.
In light of the foregoing, especially the high
degree of contact between warehouse and distribu-
tion center employees and jobber delivery drivers,
the extensive integration of warehousing functions
among warehouse employees and local store em-
ployees, the lack of significant separate administra-
tive control and supervision of warehouse employ-
ees, and the location of the warehouse in the same
building as the main counter employees, we find
that the warehouse employees do not have a com-
munity of interest sufficiently distinct and separate
from other employees to warrant the placement of
these warehouse employees in a separate unit. 13
2. The Employer contends that the appropriate
unit should include, inter alia, all warehouse and
local store employees employed in the Columbus
area. We find merit in this contention. When con-
sidering a multifacility operation such as in the in-
stant case, the well-established Board policy is to
find a single-facility unit presumptively appropri-
ate. This presumption can only be overcome by a
showing of functional integration so substantial as
to negate the separate identity of the single-facility
unit. In making findings on this issue, the Board
looks to such factors as central control over daily
operations and labor relations, skills and functions
of the employees, general working conditions, bar-
gaining history, employee interchange, and geo-
graphic location of the facilities in relation to each
other. 4
Based on the facts discussed below, we find that
the presumption favoring a single-facility unit has
been rebutted by the high degree of functional inte-
gration, centralized control and uniform application
of all labor relations policies, procedures, and prac-
tices of the Employer's operation, frequent tempo-
rary interchange and permanent transfer of em-
ployees, and the similarity of employee skills and
working conditions at the distribution center and in
all the local stores. We further find that these fac-
tors establish that a multifacility unit including at
s1 Cf. Wickes Furniture, 255 NLRB 545 (1981), and cases cited therein
(separate warehouse units found appropriate on materially distinct facts).
14 Orkin Exterminating Co., 258 NLRB 773 (1981); see also Second
Federal Savings d Loan, 266 NLRB 204 (1983); Petrie Stores Corp., 266
NLRB 204 (1983).
least the warehouse and all local store employees
(including the main counter employees) would be
appropriate. 1
Control over the Employer's daily operations
and labor relations/personnel matters throughout
its 19-location Columbus facility is highly central-
ized, due largely to the extensive functional inte-
gration of the Employer's operation. The local
stores are totally dependent on the distribution
center. All the local stores are linked by the com-
puterized Total Automotive Management Systems
(TAMS), which automatically replenishes local
store inventory with distribution center stock on a
daily basis, and which assists in filling orders for
goods that a particular store may not have by lo-
cating the goods at the distribution center or an-
other local outlet and by processing all orders so
that each customer receives its order at its desig-
nated price.' 6 The TAMS system enables the Em-
ployer to meet any order at any local store on a
daily basis, whether or not that store has the re-
quested goods in stock. The system allows central
management to monitor the sales and turnover of
inventory at each local store from the distribution
center. Credit and customer billing functions, sales
promotions and pricing, advertisting, product line
decisions, payment of all expenses including bills
and taxes, and the handling of correspondence for
all the local stores are done at the distribution
center. In addition, Local Store Operations Manag-
er DeGroot is in constant personal contact with
the local stores, spending approximately half of
each workday visiting these locations.
Furthermore, as noted previously, supervisors at
the local stores and the warehouse lack authority
to deal with labor relations matters. All decisions
regarding the hiring, firing, disciplining, or promo-
tion of warehouse or local store employees are
made by central management. Local store supervi-
sors may recommend discipline, but General Man-
ager Garvin and Local Store Operations Manager
DeGroot make all final decisions regarding disci-
pline based on their own independent investigation.
With regard to hiring, local stores may not even
take employment applications; instead, applicants
are referred to the distribution center.
The evidence also establishes that uniform per-
sonnel policies and procedures exist for the Colum-
bus area employees. All local store and warehouse
"' We note that the Regional Director reached a similar conclusion
with regard to the instant Employer in Napa Distribution Center - Nitro,
Case 9-RC-13181 (1980), involving six geographically separate local
stores which functioned identically to those in the instant case. There the
Regional Director found that only a multistore unit was appropriate.
'6 The Employer has a coded pricing system based on volume of sales
to its wholesale customers. The TAMS system produces the invoice for
each individual order.
1054
NAPA COLUMBUS PARTS CO.
employees appear to have basically the same skills
and functions. No position requires any special
training or background. The record neither estab-
lishes nor implies any significant disparity in the
general working conditions between the distribu-
tion center and any of the 19 local facilities. All
employee records are kept in the personnel manag-
er's office at the distribution center and all payroll
functions are administered there as well. All new
employees participate in the same orientation pro-
gram regardless of the department to which they
are assigned. All employees are entitled to the same
holiday and vacation benefits, overtime policy, in-
surance, employee merchandise discounts, pension
plan coverage, stock options, holiday hams and tur-
keys, and participation in the Employer's credit
union. All employees have received the same
across-the-board pay increases for the past several
years, and are hourly paid; and the wages of ware-
house and local store employees are similar. ' 7
Temporary interchange of employees within the
Employer's Columbus operation is frequent. Em-
ployees were temporarily assigned between the
local stores and the distribution center a total of
1967.2 hours in the year prior to the hearing and
1845 hours in the preceding year.' s Additionally,
driver/stock clerks (local store employees) make an
average of five trips per day to the distribution
center, where they spend an approximate total of 1
to 1-1/2 hours. These trips to the distribution
center result in daily personal contact between
these driver/stock clerks and the distribution
center employees both at the main counter and in
the warehouse. Occasionally, the driver/stock
clerks will assist at the main counter while waiting
for stock.
There also is a significant amount of permanent
job transfer between locations. Of the current dis-
tribution center employees, 16 have previously
worked in a local store, while 57 of the approxi-
mately 85 local store employees have previously
worked in the distribution center. This high degree
of job transfer is ongoing, due to the Employer's
companywide job-bidding policy. That policy re-
quires that a job opening anywhere in the Colum-
bus operation must first be offered to the current
employees, with a uniform seniority-based formula
used to determine how the open position is to be
filled.
As noted, the 19 local stores are within 16 miles
of the distribution center. Some of the local stores
" The wage rate for warehouse and local store employees ranges from
S6.72 to $7.19 hourly, dependent on the department to which the employ-
ee is assigned.
ia As seen, there are approximately 185 employees in the multifacility
unit which we find appropriate in this case.
are within I mile of the distribution center and/or
each other. There is no bargaining history for any
of these stores or the warehouse.
3. In excluding the 10 jobber delivery drivers,
the Regional Director found that they lacked a suf-
ficient community of interest with warehouse em-
ployees to be included in the unit he found appro-
priate. The Employer contends that the Regional
Director failed to give proper weight to other sub-
stantial evidence, made certain erroneous factual
findings, and departed from precedent in excluding
the jobber delivery drivers. For the reasons dis-
cussed below, we find, contrary to the Regional
Director, that the jobber delivery drivers must be
included in the unit found appropriate.
Where warehouse employees and truck drivers
share a sufficient community of interest they may
be included in the same appropriate unit.19 Fur-
ther, such employee groups may be so united in in-
terest as to make separate units inappropriate. 2 0
The record establishes that the jobber delivery
drivers are paid hourly, receive their paychecks on
the same companywide payday as all other em-
ployees, and receive a wage rate which is not sub-
stantially higher than that of other employees. 21
The drivers are immediately supervised by the
stockroom manager who also supervises approxi-
mately 70 percent of the warehouse employees.
The drivers share the same workplace with ware-
house employees, to the extent that the drivers
report to work at the same platform where the
warehousemen are loading the drivers' trucks for
delivery. Drivers spend 1 to 1-1/2 hours daily at
the loading platform. They also share breakroom,
parking, and other facilities with distribution center
employees. The record reveals that the drivers
work with the warehouse employees on a daily
basis, sharing the duties of loading the trucks.
While drivers are, naturally, primarily involved in
driving trucks and spend much of their work time
away from the warehouse distribution center, they
19 See, generally, Ives Business Forms, 263 NLRB 286 (1982); Institu-
tional Food Services, 258 NLRB 650 (1981); and Big Buck Lumber, 241
NLRB 639 (1979) (separate units combining warehousemen and truck-
drivers found appropriate, but overall units of all employees found not
appropriate; compare these cases to the instant case in regard to appro-
priateness of overall unit).
20 See Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 200 NLRB 475 (1972) (separate
unit of only local truckdrivers inappropriate; long history of bargaining
in overall unit and community of interest with other employees in broad-
er unit). Cf. Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co, 259 NLRB 401 (1981) (eparate
unit of over-the-road truckdrivers found appropriate). The delivery driv-
ers in Memphis Furniture, for whom a separate unit was found, had no
contact at all with warehouse employees, performed no warehousing
functions, were supervised separately, were paid on a mileage basis,
worked different hours, and spent 95 percent of their hours away from
the jobsite.
2' The rate for driver is $9.15 per hour, whereas the rate for other
employees is approximately $7 per hour.
1055
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do perform similar warehousing functions in the
course of making their deliveries. Jobber delivery
drivers personally unload the ordered goods at
each stop and pick up customer order forms for the
next day's deliveries. The drivers have further face-
to-face contact with warehousemen at the close of
their shifts, while relaxing in the breakroom.
The drivers receive the identical benefit package
shared by all other employees, as detailed above,
including participation in the job change bidding
system. It is through this system that the drivers
generally attain their positions, as 9 of the 10
jobber delivery drivers were formerly warehouse
or local store employees. In addition to this exten-
sive evidence of permanent transfer there is a high
degree of temporary interchange between ware-
house employees and the delivery drivers. Two
warehouse employees, the stock clerk/relief driver
and the shipping clerk/relief driver, are frequently
required to substitute for the regular jobber deliv-
ery drivers. Indeed, the record establishes that
these warehouse employees spend 50 percent and
30 percent of their worktime, respectively, substi-
tuting as jobber delivery drivers.
Based on the above considerations-particularly
the substantial daily contact, frequency of both
temporary and permanent interchange, equality of
benefits, and commonality of certain job func-
tions-we find that it would be inappropriate to ex-
clude the jobber delivery drivers from the overall
plantwide multilocation unit found appropriate in
this case.22
Because the plantwide, multifacility unit found
appropriate is substantially larger than the ware-
house unit found appropriate by the Regional Di-
2" In a decision involving the same parties at the Employer's Cincin-
nati facility, where the jobber delivery drivers performed tasks identical
to those performed by the jobber delivery drivers in the instant case, the
Regional Director found the jobber delivery drivers to be appropriately
included in an overall plantwide distribution center unit. Napa Cincinnati
Distribution Center, Case 9-RC-11352 (1976).
rector, 23 the election conducted on 22 September
1983 must be vacated.2 4 But because the Petitioner
has indicated its willingness to proceed to an elec-
tion in any unit found appropriate, we shall direct
that an election be held in the following unit which
we have found appropriate:2 6
All warehouse employees employed at the
Employer's Columbus, Ohio, distribution
center facility including stock clerks, shipping
clerks, the invoice control clerk, customer
pick-up/will call clerks, perpetual inventory
clerks, receiving clerks, returned goods notice
(RGN) clerks, jobber service clerks, special
order clerk, inventory clerks, RGN factory
billing clerk, back order clerk, catalog clerks,
stock clerk/relief driver, shipping clerk/relief
driver, and jobber service delivery driver; all
local department store employees in the Co-
lumbus operation including stock clerks,
driver/stock clerks and shop persons, and all
jobber delivery drivers, but excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
The election conducted on 22 September 1983 is
vacated.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2s The unit found appropriate here is approximately twice as large as
the unit found by the Regional Director.
54 See Avon Products, 262 NLRB 46 (1982).
Us As the unit found appropriate is larger than that requested, the Peti-
tioner is accorded a period of 10 days in which to submit the requisite
showing of interest to support an election. In the event the Petitioner
does not wish to proceed with an election, it may withdraw its petition
without prejudice by notice to the Regional Director within 7 days from
the date of this Decision.
We note that no party requested review of the Regional Director's de-
termination that the shipping supervisor, the stock supervisor, and the re-
ceiving supervisor should be permitted to vote subject to challenge. Ac-
cordingly, they shall vote subject to challenge in this election.
1056