Neodata Product/Distribution

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1993

312 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

987
312 NLRB No. 145
NEODATA PRODUCT/DISTRIBUTION
1 The Union petitioned for a unit consisting of ‘‘[a]ll full-time and
regular part-time employees employed by the Employer at 1901 Bell
Avenue and 2301 Fleur Drive, Des Moines, Iowa, including leads;
excluding employees at its 10th Street facility, contract employees,
confidential employees, managers, office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.’’ It
appears from the record that the Bell Avenue and Fleur Drive facili-
ties, located across a parking lot from each other, were scheduled
to be merged and relocated to a single facility located at East Wash-
ington Street, in Des Moines. Both facilities shall jointly be referred
to here as the Washington facility.
2 As of the date of the hearing, the Employer employed 88 unit
employees (referred to as ‘‘non-exempt’’ in the record) at the Wash-
ington facility, and 660 such employees at the 10th Street facility.
3 The Employer also employs part-time home workers, who are lo-
cated throughout the Des Moines area, to perform the same function
as the data operators.
Neodata Product/Distribution, Inc. and Over The
Road, City Transfer Drivers, Helpers,
Dockmen, Warehousemen, Inside Workers,
State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local
147, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case
18–RC–15235
September 30, 1993
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On June 25, 1992, the Regional Director for Region
18 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this
proceeding finding, inter alia, that the unit of employ-
ees which the Petitioner seeks to represent is appro-
priate for collective-bargaining purposes,1 and directing
that an election be held among employees at the Wash-
ington facility. The Employer thereafter filed a request
for review, asserting that the unit sought by the Union
is inappropriate, and that the only appropriate unit is
one that includes employees at both its Washington
Street and 10th Street facilities. By Order dated July
23, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board granted
the Employer’s request for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the entire record in this proceeding, including the Em-
ployer’s supplemental brief in support of its request for
review, and, for the reasons set forth below, agrees
with the Employer that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner, consisting of its Washington facility employees
only, is inappropriate.
The Employer, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with
facilities in Des Moines and Clarion, Iowa, is engaged
in the product distribution business for the direct mar-
ket industry. Currently, it provides services for 38 cli-
ents which are engaged in the direct mail business sell-
ing a variety of products such as books, records, cof-
fee, and children’s toys. To service its clients, the Em-
ployer, as noted, maintains two facilities in Des
Moines, Iowa—the Washington facility and the 10th
Street facility2—situated approximately 3 miles apart,
and a facility in Clarion, Iowa, located approximately
90 miles north of Des Moines.
The Employer receives approximately 250,000 or-
ders (media) daily for its clients’ products. As the or-
ders are received at the 10th Street facility, they are
loaded onto pallet jacks by loading dock employees
who sort and batch the media and load them onto large
trays to be transported to the mail processing area.
Mail processing employees then open the mail, after
which the orders received are forwarded to the file
maintenance area where employees batch all similar
orders together and, when possible, ‘‘scan’’ relevant
information into the Employer’s central computer sys-
tem, which links all three facilities. The orders are then
sent from the file maintenance area to the data input
area where data key input operators manually enter
customer information into the computer system.3 Cus-
tomer information, along with product availability in-
formation provided by the Washington facility, is sort-
ed by the computer to produce client reports, error re-
ports, and invoices. The invoices are then sent to the
Clarion facility, where they are ‘‘burst’’ or separated,
inserted into envelopes, and sent to the Washington fa-
cility to be filled.
At the Washington facility, where 85–90 percent of
the clients’ products are stored, the ordered product is
packaged, invoiced, and shipped to the customer. After
the product is shipped, Washington facility employees
enter the shipping data into the computer. That infor-
mation is needed by the 10th Street facility to initiate
the billing process, to register decreases in the inven-
tory and to update all the audit systems for the inven-
tory. When the product is shipped, the customer is
contacted either by phone or mail to ensure that it has
been received. The Washington facility also handles
products that are returned by customers. After deter-
mining whether the product is usable or waste, Wash-
ington facility employees again make data entries into
the computer to update the inventory. There is no his-
tory of collective bargaining for any of the Employer’s
employees.
In finding that the unit petitioned for constitutes an
appropriate bargaining unit, the Regional Director rea-
soned that the employees at the Washington facility
were ‘‘warehouse-type’’ employees performing such
warehouse functions as shipping, receiving, storage,
order filling, and other similar duties of a ‘‘ware-
house’’ nature, while the 10th Street employees were
office clerical employees who held administrative and
clerical type classifications and performed administra-
tive, bookkeeping, accounting, computer, customer
service, and other similar office type duties. He further
988 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 See Avon Products, 250 NLRB 1479 (1980); Scholastic Maga-
zines, 192 NLRB 461 (1971).
5 Due to space limitations, 85–90 percent of the clients’ stock and
forms are stored at the Washington facility.
relied on the presumption that single-facility units are
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.
However, in characterizing the Washington facility
employees as simply ‘‘warehouse-type’’ employees,
and the 10th Street employees as merely administrative
and clerical type employees, the Regional Director
oversimplified the nature of the Employer’s business
operations, and did not give sufficient consideration to
the fact that, notwithstanding their physical separation,
these two facilities are closely integrated with each
other functionally, and effectively operate as a single
unit. Thus, the employees at each facility participate
equally and fully at various stages in the Employer’s
overall production process, which consists of the proc-
essing and filling of customer orders for its clients’
products. As noted, both facilities are linked to a cen-
tral computer system which employees at both facili-
ties use to advise each other of the availability of a cli-
ent’s product, of customer shipping information, and of
other related data. Employees at both facilities work
together to accomplish the Employer’s ultimate pro-
duction goals of receiving orders and thereafter assur-
ing the prompt delivery of the client’s product to a
customer. Thus, it is clear that, despite being phys-
ically separate from each other, the Washington and
10th Street employees constitute integral and indispen-
sable parts of a single ‘‘order flow process.’’4
Many of the skills used and functions performed by
employees at both locations are virtually identical.
Thus, merchandise handlers at the Washington facility
routinely and regularly perform computer ‘‘scanning’’
and data entry work on newly received, ordered, or re-
turned products, similar to that performed by file main-
tenance and data entry employees at the 10th Street fa-
cility on incoming orders. Mail processing employees
at the 10th Street facility perform the same sorting and
bundling functions that are performed by receiving em-
ployees at the Washington facility. Inventory supply
clerks at both locations likewise perform essentially
the same function, e.g., the storage and handling of cli-
ent forms and the conduct of monthly inventories of
clients’ stock, using identical equipment to move
around the more than 50 million forms which the Em-
ployer stores for its clients.5 Significantly, we note that
the inventory supply clerks at both facilities are di-
rectly supervised by the same individual, 10th Street
Purchase Coordinator Jerry Zuffa.
Contrary to the Regional Director, the record reveals
that a number of employees at both facilities have fre-
quent personal, as well as telephonic, contact with each
other. Thus, approximately once or twice a week, three
to four employees from the 10th Street facility go to
the Washington facility to retrieve needed information
or data, and are assisted in their duties by employees
at the Washington facility. The Employer also rou-
tinely performs, at a client’s request, a ‘‘complete
physical’’ of the client’s account. This requires that a
physical count be made of every item, e.g., forms and
merchandise owned by the client and stocked at the
Washington and 10th Street facilities. Because most of
the client forms are stored at the Washington facility,
10th Street employees are sent to the Washington facil-
ity to accomplish this task. The Employer also con-
ducts over 24 audits per year during which Washington
and 10th Street employees work together pulling all or-
ders that have been placed by customers and verifying
the number of customers who have paid full price for
subscriptions.
In addition to the aforementioned personal contact,
employees at both facilities are in daily contact with
each other by phone and by facsimile transmissions.
Thus, several times each day, customer representatives
at the 10th Street facility talk with employees at the
Washington facility to determine the availability and
location of a product, to request that media be pulled
and checked, and to communicate changes in a client’s
promotions. Further, ‘‘return recorders’’ at the Wash-
ington facility, who ‘‘scan’’ into the computer infor-
mation regarding a returned product, communicate
daily with programmers and client account representa-
tives at the 10th Street facility to clear up any errors
that might have occurred previously during the proc-
essing of an order. To resolve discrepancies in client
postal accounts, accounting department employees at
the 10th Street facility make frequent calls, as well as
monthly visits, to the Washington facility.
Employees are able to transfer from one facility to
the other. As noted, vacancies at either the Washington
or the 10th Street facility are posted at both locations,
and employees at both facilities may bid on the posted
jobs and may transfer from one location to the other.
Kipp testified without contradiction that during the
past 6 years 20 employees have transferred from the
10th Street facility to the Washington facility, and ap-
proximately 17 Washington facility employees trans-
ferred to the 10th Street facility.
Employees at both facilities receive the same fringe
benefits, including medical and dental coverage, life
insurance, accidental death and dismemberment and
long-term disability coverage, vacation and sick leave
benefits, 10 paid holidays, bereavement leave and jury
duty leave, and medical and personal leave. Both
groups of employees also receive the same amount of
time for breaks and meals, are subject to the same em-
ployee handbook, and are under the same employee
appraisal system. Employees from both locations also
attend the same quarterly meetings during which they
are updated on the Employer’s business results for the
989NEODATA PRODUCT/DISTRIBUTION
6 We emphasize that the evidence of both common benefits and
top level constraints on local supervision is a very minor part of the
case for finding that only a multifacility unit is appropriate here. The
presence of that evidence merely slightly strengthens the case for our
ultimate finding. We in no way seek to cast doubt on prior decisions
in which similar instances of common benefits and overall direction
of labor policy have been deemed insufficient to rebut the finding
of single-facility appropriateness. See, e.g., Red Lobster, 300 NLRB
908, 912 (1990); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. NLRB, 938 F.2d
570 (5th Cir. 1991), and cases cited at fn. 7, infra.
7 The Regional Director’s reliance on Esco Corp., 298 NLRB 837
(1990); Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988); and Birdsall,
Inc., 268 NLRB 186 (1983), is misplaced. Unlike here, where the
Washington and 10th Street facilities are relatively close to each
other and there is frequent contact between both groups of employ-
ees, in Esco Corp., and Bowie Hall, supra, the Board found that the
presumption favoring a single-facility unit had not been overcome
because the facilities in question in those cases were separated by
great distances and the employees of the facilities had little or no
contact with each other. Similarly, in Birdsall, supra, the Board de-
clined to include in a warehouse unit employees who were engaged
in traffic, data processing, insurance, and administration departments
because, inter alia, the latter employees had little or no contact or
interchange with the warehouse employees and were essentially en-
gaged in performing paperwork and other purely clerical functions.
Here, unlike in Birdsall, both groups of employees have daily con-
tact with each other and form integral parts of the order-flow proc-
ess.
prior quarter, and attend company picnics and an an-
nual award banquet. Newly hired employees at both
locations take part in the same orientation program.
Other factors also indicate a close link between the
two facilities. Control over the daily operation and
labor relations policy at both facilities rests with the
Employer’s director of operations, Bob Christiansen, in
conjunction with its manager of personnel and admin-
istration, Susan Kipp. While plant managers at each fa-
cility retain some degree of autonomy, they are also
constrained in a number of significant respects by con-
trols imposed from headquarters. Thus, Christiansen
sets the production goals for each facility and deter-
mines the number of shifts to be worked at each facil-
ity as well as the number of employees to be used in
each department at both facilities. While plant man-
agers have authority to make purchases, such pur-
chases are limited to $200, with approval needed from
Christiansen if the purchase is to exceed that amount.
All requests for hiring must first be approved by
Christiansen. Thus, if a plant manager seeks to hire a
new employee, he must submit a request to
Christiansen who may approve it based on need and
budgetary requirements. Similarly, a plant manager
may not discharge an employee or issue a written dis-
ciplinary notice without having it approved first by
Christiansen, and ultimately by Kipp. Kipp testified,
without contradiction, that she has declined to follow
a plant manager’s recommendation to discipline or dis-
charge an employee about 20 percent of the time. Ac-
cording to Christiansen, on ‘‘multiple occasions,’’ his
approval of recommendations made by plant managers
regarding written disciplinary action or termination of
an employee has been overridden by Kipp’s personnel
office. Kipp’s office also oversees and must approve
appraisals of employees and recommendations for pay
increases recommended by an employee’s immediate
supervisor. Kipp generally approves the rating and
wage increases but, where a supervisor and a plant
manager disagree over an appraisal or the amount of
a wage increase, Kipp has final authority of the mat-
ter.6
The foregoing facts, especially in light of the sym-
biotic relationship of the two facilities as a part of the
Employer’s ‘‘order flow’’ process, persuade us that
any presumption favoring a single-facility unit limited
to the Washington facility employees only has been
overcome in this case. See, e.g., Sol’s, 272 NLRB 621
(1984); Orkin Exterminating Co., 258 NLRB 773
(1981). Thus, the appropriate unit in this case must in-
clude employees of both the Washington and 10th
Street facilities.7
As the unit found appropriate here is substantially
larger than that sought by the Petitioner, and as there
is no indication that the Petitioner is interested in rep-
resenting employees in the broader unit, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the petition in Case 18–RC–
15235 is dismissed.