Pasha Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

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