Pasha ServiceDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 11, 1978235 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1978) Copy Citation PASHA SERVICES Reprocessors, d/b/a Pasha Services and Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers and Helpers, Local 88, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca, Petitioner Reprocessors, d/b/a Pasha Services, Employer-Peti- tioner and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge 94, Local Lodge 1484. Cases 21-RC-14513, 21-RC-14620, and 21-UC-100 April 11, 1978 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS MURPHY AND TRUESDALE On March 15, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued a Decision and Order in Case 21- RC-14513 in which he found inappropriate Petition- er's requested unit of all production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Long Beach, California, auto processing plant. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision. By telegraphic order dated May 27, 1976, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review. In the interim, Petitioner filed a petition in Case 21-RC-14620 requesting an election in a unit of all body and fender men, mechanics, air-conditioning repairmen, painters, and painters and mechanics helpers at the Employer's Long Beach facility. A separate petition was filed by the Employer in Case 21-UC-100 requesting clarification as to the unit placement of the painters helpers. Thereafter, a hearing on both petitions was held before Hearing Officer Rhonda J. Starr. Subsequently, the Board, in the above-mentioned telegraphic order of May 27, directed that Cases 21-RC-14620 and 21-UC-100 be transferred to the Board and consolidated with Case 21-RC-14513 for decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 hereby affirmed. I Petitioner's primary position is the position it took in its petition in Case 21-RC-14513. Petitioner's alternative position is the position taken in 235 NLRB No. 111 The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding and hereby finds as follows: 1. The parties stipulated that the Employer is engaged in the business of import auto processing in Long Beach, California, and that during the past year it performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State of California. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(cX)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Petitioner, as its primary position, seeks a plantwide unit of all production and maintenance employees, including but not limited to all painters, body and fender men, mechanics, mechanics helpers and apprentices, sanders, polishers, wash and steam rack men, pickup and delivery men, partsmen, warehousemen, and janitors at the Employer's facili- ty. In the alternative, Petitioner seeks a unit consist- ing of all body and fender men, mechanics, air- conditioning repairmen, painters, and painters and mechanics helpers.l International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Dis- trict Lodge 94, Local Lodge 1484, herein the Interve- nor, takes the position that a plantwide unit of production and maintenance employees is inappro- priate in light of the parties' bargaining history. The Intervenor concedes, however, that the smaller alter- native unit requested by Petitioner is an appropriate one. The Regional Director, in Case 21-RC-14513, sustained the Intervenor's contention that an overall production and maintenance unit is inappropriate in view of the history of bargaining in separate units. The Employer operates a facility which repairs, paints, and services foreign cars prior to their delivery to new car dealerships in the southwestern United States. In 1969, the Employer recognized the Petitioner and the Intervenor as the representatives of its production and maintenance employees and bargained with them on a joint basis for a master collective-bargaining agreement. The agreement, en- tered into on April 1, 1969, divided the employees into two bargaining units (one represented by Peti- tioner and the other by the Intervenor) and specified separate job classifications and wage rates for each. The 1969 agreement contained separate pension fund provisions and a separate apprenticeship pro- gram for members of the Intervenor's unit. In its petition in Case 21-RC-14620, which, as noted above, was filed while the petition in Case 21-RC-14513 was pending review before the Board. 871 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD addition, the agreement's union-security clause pro- vided that employees must become members "of the appropriate union" within 30 days after execution of the agreement, or, in the case of new employees, after 30 days of employment. Uniform provisions applica- ble to both bargaining units were established with respect to holidays, vacations, and sick leave. Since the expiration of the 1969 agreement, the parties executed 2-year bargaining agreements in 1970, 1972, and 1974 each of which contained provisions substantially identical to those of the 1969 agreement, calling for separate bargaining units with separate wage and job classifications, separate pen- sion fund provisions, and (at least in the case of the 1974 contract) separate health and welfare provisions for each unit.2 After careful consideration of the above contract provisions and the record as a whole, we are convinced, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the parties intended to maintain separate bar- gaining units, albeit within the context of a joint bargaining arrangement. We are further persuaded that this bargaining history has been of sufficient duration and integrity to render appropriate a separate unit of the employees who have been historically placed in the Intervenor's unit. Contrary to the Regional Director, however, we are also of the view that an overall unit of production and mainte- nance employees is an appropriate unit, for we believe that the substantial community of interest shared by the employees in all job classifications is not significantly undermined by the separate bar- gaining history. The record shows that the employees in the two contractually designated units are not physically separated from one another, are commonly super- vised, and often perform duties on the same vehicles. Also, the employees in the two units have the same working hours, break periods, lunch periods, and enjoy at least some interchangeability. 3 These factors demonstrate that, despite their separate bargaining history, the employees in the two established units share a community of interest sufficient to render appropriate a plantwide production unit.4 We shall, therefore, in accordance with our usual practice, make no final unit determination at this time, but shall entrust this question to the employees' desires by directing separate elections among two voting groups - one group consisting of members of the unit presently represented by the Intervenor and 2 The 1974 agreement grouped the classifications of production worker, steam rack operator, fuel driver, warehouseman, buffer, car washer, detail man, shuttle driver, surveyor, and predelivery inspector in Petitioner's unit. The classifications of journeyman body and fender man, journeyman mechanic, air-conditioning repairman, mechanics helper, painter, and painters helper were grouped in the Intervenor's unit. 3 At the time of the hearing, a member of the Intervenor's unit with the the other consisting of members of the unit represent- ed by Petitioner. By such an arrangement, members of the Intervenor's unit will be able to select separate representation if they so desire. This leaves for our determination, however, the question of where the painters helpers are to be placed for voting purposes. The parties' collective- bargaining agreements from 1969 to the present have uniformly placed the classification of painters helpers in the Intervenor's unit. Nevertheless, evidence was introduced at the hearing which showed that the Employer has not been deducting dues from the painters helpers' wages and has not been making contributions to the Intervenor's pension fund on their behalf. Petitioner argues, on the basis of this evidence, that the painters helpers were placed by error in the Intervenor's unit. However, the record shows that the parties have in the past caught and corrected such errors. Thus, the production worker classification was placed in the Intervenor's unit in the 1969 and 1970 contracts, but was moved to Petitioner's unit in the 1974 contract. Additionally, when formulating the 1974 contract, the parties inadvertently placed the predelivery inspector classi- fication in the Intervenor's unit, but noticed the error and returned the classification to Petitioner's unit where it belonged. Therefore, since the contract language is unambiguous, we shall place the painters helpers in the voting group consisting of members of the Intervenor's unit.5 5. Accordingly, separate elections shall be direct- ed among the following employees of the Employer: Voting Group A: All production workers, steam rack operators, fuel drivers, warehousemen, buff- ers, car washers, detail men, shuttle drivers, surveyors, predelivery inspectors, partsmen, pick- up and delivery men, janitors, and all other production and maintenance employees (exclud- ing those placed in voting group B) at the Employer's Long Beach, California, facility; but excluding all other employees, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Voting Group B: All body and fender men, mechanics, air-conditioning repairmen, painters, and painters and mechanics helpers; but exclud- ing all other employees, office and clerical em- classification of painter was performing the job of surveyor, which is a classification in Petitioner's unit. 4 See Whiting Milk Company, 137 NLRB 1143 (1962). 1 Since we have found above that a question concerning representation exists, the petition in Case 21-UC-100 is hereby dismissed. Sec. 102.60(b), Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. 872 PASHA SERVICES ployees, professional employees, guards, watch- men, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The employees in Voting Group A shall vote whether or not they desire to be represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Automotive Em- ployees, Laundry Drivers and Helpers, Local 88, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters). The employees in Voting Group B shall vote whether they desire to be represented for collective-bargain- ing purposes by the Teamsters, by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge 94, Local Lodge 1484 (IAM), or by neither. In the event a majority of employees in Voting Group B selects the IAM, they shall be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director shall issue a certification of representative for such group. In these circumstances, if a majority of employees in Voting Group A select the Teamsters, the Regional Director shall also issue a certification of representa- tive for that group. If, however, a majority of employees in Voting Group B do not vote for separate representation, then we shall include the employees in the two voting groups in a single overall unit and we shall pool their votes. 6 The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification or certifications as described, depending on the results of the elections. Our ultimate determination in this case is based in part on the results of the election. However, we make the following findings with regard to the appropriate unit: 1. If a majority of employees in Voting Group B vote for separate representation, we find the follow- ing two units to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Unit A: All production workers, steam rack operators, fuel drivers, warehousemen, buffers, e If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for the IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Teamsters. All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the Teamsters or for no union. In the event that the results show that a majonty of the valid ballots have not been cast car washers, detail men, shuttle drivers, surveyors, predelivery inspectors, partsmen, pickup and de- livery men, janitors, and all other production and maintenance employees (excluding those placed in Unit B) at the Employer's Long Beach, California, facility; but excluding all other em- ployees, office and clerical employees, profession- al employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Unit B: All body and fender men, mechanics, air- conditioning repairmen, painters, and painters and mechanics helpers employed at the Employ- er's Long Beach, California, facility; but exclud- ing all other employees, office and clerical em- ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. If a majority of employees in Voting Group B vote against separate representation, we find that the following employees will constitute a unit appropri- ate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Employer's Long Beach, California, facility, including production workers, steam rack operators, fuel drivers, warehousemen, buffers, car washers, detail men, shuttle drivers, surveyors, predelivery inspectors, partsmen, pickup and de- livery men, janitors, body and fender men, me- chanics, air-conditioning repairmen, painters, painters and mechanics helpers, and all other production and maintenance employees; but ex- cluding all other employees, office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of conducting elections in the aforesaid voting groups, as outlined above. [Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] either for the Teamsters or against representation, it will be deemed to be an inconclusive election, and a second election will be conducted among the employees in the broader unit in which they will vote as to whether or not they desire to be represented by the Teamsters. 873 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation