Otasco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 376 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Otasco, Inc. and Tulsa General Drivers, Warehouse-
men & Helpers , Local Union 523, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Washington, D.C., Petitioner. Case
10-RC-13215
31 January 1986
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Gaye Nell Hymon of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
close of the hearing the Regional Director for
Region 10 transferred this case to the Board for de-
cision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief and a
supplemental brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are affirmed.
On the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The parties have stipulated that the Employer,
a Delaware corporation with an office and place of
business located in College Park, Georgia, is en-
gaged in the retail and wholesale sale of automo-
tive and household goods; during the past calendar
year, a representative period, the Employer sold
and shipped directly to customers outside the State
of Georgia products valued in excess to $50,000.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju-
risdiction herein.
2. The, parties stipulated and we find that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit com-
posed of all over-the-road and local truckdrivers
employed by the Employer at its College Park,
Georgia facility. The Petitioner contends that the
unit should include the two local drivers, Alan
Duck and Tim Parrott, because they perform over-
the-road driving duties in addition to their local
driving duties. The Employer contends that the
local truckdrivers should not be included in the
unit as they are represented by the Retail, Whole-
sale and Department Store Union, Local #315
(RWDSU), and are expressly covered by the exist-
ing. collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the RWDSU. The Employer further
argues that the petition should be dismissed be-
cause it is barred by the agreement between the
Employer and RWDSU and on community-of-in-
terest grounds.
For approximately 28 years, the Employer has
recognized RWDSU as the exclusive bargaining
representative of a unit of employees consisting of,
inter alia, its local truckdrivers, but excluding, inter
alia, its over-the-road truckdrivers. The most
recent collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the RWDSU is effective from 5
June 1984 to 4 June 1987. The Employer currently
employs two local truckdrivers, Parrott and Duck,
and eight over-the-road truckdrivers who are un-
represented.
The record shows that since May 1985 employee
Duck has spent some 3 to 4 days per week and em-
ployee Parrott some 1 to 2 days per week making
over-the-road deliveries in addition to their regular
warehouse and local driving duties. There is no
dispute that a unit consisting of the over-the-road
truckdrivers would be appropriate. The Employer
argues that the contract between itself and
RWDSU bars inclusion of the local truckdrivers
classification with over-the-road truckdrivers.
It is well settled that a collective-bargaining
agreement which meets- certain requirements bars
an election within the unit covered by that agree-
ment. Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB
1160 (1958). It is clear that the unit represented by
the RWDSU here includes the Employer's local
truckdrivers and that that classification is expressly
covered by the existing agreement between the
Employer and the RWDSU. Moreover, no party
contends that their agreement does not meet the
contract-bar requirements set forth in Appalachian
Shale, supra. In these circumstances, we also find
that agreement bars the inclusion of dual-function
employees Parrott and Duck in the unit sought to
be represented by the Petitioner. We further find
that the Board decisions in Sun Valley Bus Lines,
99 NLRB 844 (1952); Treadwell Engineering Co.,
106 NLRB 898 (1953); and Nu-Life Spotless, 215
NLRB 357 (1974), are inapposite in that none of
these cases involved dual-function employees who
were covered by the terms of an existing collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which would constitute
a bar to an election among such employees. Since
the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to pro-
ceed to an election if an alternative unit is found
278 NLRB No. 54
OTASCO, IN
appropriate , we shall direct an election in a unit
limited to the Employer's over-the-road drivers.I
On the entire record in this proceeding, we find
that the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
fi In the circumstances here, we find without merit the Employer's
contention that the petition should be dismissed
377
All over-the-road drivers at the Employer's
College Park, Georgia facility; excluding
warehouse and service employees (which in-
cludes maintenance and repairmen and local
truckdrivers), salesmen, watchmen and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]