Publix Super Markets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 2004

343 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS
343 NLRB No. 109
1023
Publix Super Markets, Inc. and United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union, Lo-
cal 1625, AFL–CIO & CLC. Cases 13–RC–
20891, 13–RC–20892, and 13–RC–20893 (For-
merly Cases 12–RC–8844, 12–RC–8845, and 12–
RC–8846)
December 16, 2004
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On April 29, 2003, the Regional Director for Region
13 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which
she directed an election in two units: a fluid processing
unit and a “Dallas/non-Dallas” or distribution unit.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the Employer filed a timely request for review, contend-
ing that the smallest appropriate unit was a plantwide
unit. By Order dated May 28, 2003, the Board granted
the Employer’s request for review. The Employer and
the Petitioner filed briefs on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having carefully considered the entire record, includ-
ing the briefs on review, we find, contrary to the Re-
gional Director, that there is insufficient evidence to war-
rant finding that a separate fluid processing unit is ap-
propriate apart from the other production and mainte-
nance employees. Consequently, we reverse the Regional
Director’s unit determination and remand this case for
further proceedings consistent with this decision.
I. FACTS
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the
Employer’s distribution facility in Deerfield Beach, Flor-
ida. The employees at the main building, along with em-
ployees at three nearby satellite buildings, are engaged in
processing and distributing grocery items to the Em-
ployer’s retail stores. Along with distribution operations,
employees at the Deerfield Beach main facility also
“fresh pack” produce, package ice, and process and bot-
tle drinks, including soda, milk, and juice. The satellite
buildings consist of a pallet repair facility about 2 to 5
miles from the main building, a dispatch office about 100
feet from the main building, and a garage (also about 100
feet from the main building) where fleet operations ‘em-
ployees perform maintenance on the facility’s tractors
and trailers.
There are over 900 employees working in the Deer-
field Beach complex. Distribution Manager Jeffrey Day
is in charge of the distribution aspect of the facility.
Many of the employees in the distribution operation per-
form typical warehouse shipping, receiving, and storage
functions. In addition, the distribution operation under
Day includes the “fresh pack” department, which proc-
esses bulk produce, and various support employees.
The distribution operation can be summarized as fol-
lows: receiving employees receive bulk produce, fresh
meats, frozen foods, and other perishable grocery items1
and store them in the warehouse. The facility has a vari-
ety of different storage areas, based on the different tem-
peratures and other conditions necessary to store the
items. Part of the frozen foods warehouse is automated
with conveyors, the ASRS system. The products are
stored in the Deerfield Beach facility until they are se-
lected to be part of a delivery to a Publix retail store.
When orders are received from Publix retail stores,
shipping employees remove the correct items from the
warehouse (or from the ASRS system), prepare them on
pallets for shipping, and load the pallets onto trailers.
Publix truckdrivers then deliver the trailers to the retail
stores and bring back returns and recyclable packaging
from the stores to the facility. Spotter/jockeys, who work
out of the dispatch office, are responsible for staging the
trailers on the property.
In addition, the distribution operation under Day in-
cludes the “fresh pack” department, which processes
bulk produce. Fresh pack employees inspect, process,
and package fresh produce using a conveyor line system.
The produce is bagged or packaged, weighed, labeled,
and inspected again before being transported out of the
department. Examples of fresh pack processing opera-
tions include trimming and packaging corn on Styrofoam
trays and bagging potatoes. After processing, fresh pack
items are stored and shipped in the same manner as the
rest of the produce.
The facility also includes a fluid processing operation,
headed by Jay Sapp. The fluid processing operation (the
“milk plant,” although it processes fluids in addition to
milk) and the distribution operation are in separate busi-
ness units within the Publix Corporation. The milk plant
processes and bottles milk, soda, juice, and water and
manufactures and bags ice.
Milk processing is the most complicated aspect of the
operation. Incoming raw milk arrives in tankers and is
weighed, agitated, and tested.2 Operators then pasteurize,
separate, and homogenize the milk using computer-
operated machines. The milk plant also mixes soft
drinks. The processed milk and soft drinks, as well as
juice and water, are then bottled in bottles primarily

1 The vast majority of the truckdrivers who deliver these items to the
facility are not employees of Publix.
2 The lab employees, who test the raw milk, were not included in the
unit by the Regional Director, and neither party seeks their inclusion.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1024
manufactured in the facility’s blow mold room. The bot-
tles are filled, labeled, and stacked into pallets by an
automated conveyor system. As the Publix retail stores
place orders for certain quantities of milk, water, juice, or
soda, the bottles are loaded on to Publix trailers and de-
livered to the retail stores by Publix truckdrivers.
II. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S FINDINGS
The Petitioner originally sought three units: a unit of
fluid processing (milk plant) employees, a unit of ware-
house employees who use the “Dallas system,” and a unit
of warehouse employees who do not use the “Dallas sys-
tem.” The Dallas system is computer software used by
certain distribution employees, who access the system
through terminals in the facility and mounted on fork-
lifts. The system tracks the movement of product through
the warehouse and tracks some employees’ use of time.
The Regional Director found the three petitioned-for
units to be inappropriate, reasoning that the Dallas sys-
tem employees perform identical duties to their “non-
Dallas” counterparts. According to the Regional Direc-
tor, that employees used the Dallas system was, in itself,
insufficient to warrant excluding such employees from a
unit including their non-Dallas counterparts.
The Regional Director concluded, however, that two
units were appropriate: (1) a fluid processing unit more
expansive than the one requested by the Petitioner, and
(2) a “Dallas/non-Dallas” or distribution unit, which in-
cluded the employees sought in the other two petitioned-
for units, plus certain additional employees. The Re-
gional Director’s fluid processing unit essentially con-
sists of all employees who ultimately report to Jay Sapp.
The Dallas/non-Dallas or distribution unit essentially
consists of all production and maintenance employees at
the main building (plus the spotter/jockeys) who ulti-
mately report to Jeffrey Day. The Regional Director ex-
cluded the employees at the three satellite locations ex-
cept for the spotter/jockeys, who were among the satel-
lite employees requested in the petitioned-for non-Dallas
unit. The Employer contends that only a single plant-
wide unit including all satellite employees is appropri-
ate.3
III. ANALYSIS
We find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the re-
cord evidence does not establish that the fluid processing
operation is sufficiently distinct from the distribution
operation to support a finding that it is an appropriate
unit. Moreover, we find that the Regional Director erred

3 The Employer argues only for the inclusion of all satellite employ-
ees in a plantwide unit and does not make an alternative argument
contending that the Regional Director erred in including the spotters in
a unit excluding all other satellite employees.
in excluding the employees in the pallet repair facility,
the garage, and the dispatch office while including the
spotters, who also work out of the dispatch office. We
agree with the Regional Director that the truckdrivers
may be excluded from the unit.
A. Fluid Processing and Distribution
We find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the
evidence does not demonstrate that the fluid processing
employees have a separate community of interest apart
from the distribution employees. In determining whether
unit employees possess a separate community of interest,
the Board examines such factors as: (1) functional inte-
gration; (2) frequency of contact with other employees;
(3) interchange with other employees; (4) degree of skill
and common functions; (5) commonality of wages,
hours, and other working conditions; and (6) shared su-
pervision. See Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016 (1994),
affd. 66 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995). We review these fac-
tors below.
1. Functional integration
In general, the milk plant employees are engaged in
receiving bulk product and processing, bottling, ware-
housing, and shipping milk and other drinks to Publix
retail stores. The distribution operation is likewise di-
vided according to the type of grocery product. Employ-
ees in the fresh pack operation process and package the
bulk produce, while the produce employees receive bulk
produce, warehouse the inventory, and ship product (in-
cluding produce processed by fresh pack) to Publix retail
stores. Dairy/box meat employees receive fresh dairy and
meat products (such as cottage cheese or packaged
chicken breasts), warehouse the inventory, and ship
product to Publix retail stores. And, similarly, frozen
foods employees receive frozen foods, warehouse the
inventory (either manually or with the ASRS system),
and ship product to Publix retail stores.
A number of employees included in the distribution
unit that was found appropriate by the Regional Director
are not warehouse or processing employees but rather are
employees who perform support functions throughout the
entire facility. These employees perform duties function-
ally integrated with all aspects of the plant, including the
fluid processing operation. For instance, the spot-
ter/jockeys and the rest of the dispatch office support
both the distribution operation and the milk plant opera-
tion. The pallets repaired by the pallet repair shop are
essential to all operations at the facility, including the
milk plant.4

4 As discussed below, we find, contrary to the Regional Director,
that the employees working out of the satellite buildings cannot appro-
priately be excluded from the unit.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS 1025
Further, in-house maintenance employees are respon-
sible for maintaining the building structure throughout
the Deerfield Beach facility. Refrigeration maintenance
employees maintain the freezer and refrigeration systems
used by both fluid processing and distribution employ-
ees. Pest control employees are responsible for pest con-
trol throughout the entire facility. Parts room employees
provide all manner of supplies, including office supplies,
uniforms, and mechanical parts, to all employees. Distri-
bution sanitation employees clean nonproduction areas
throughout the facility. The facility trainer certifies and
recertifies all material handling equipment operators
(whether from the milk plant or distribution) on the op-
eration of their equipment. All of these support employ-
ees report to Jeffrey Day.
Forklift operators and material handling equipment
operators throughout the facility (milk plant and distribu-
tion) must visit the battery changing station once or twice
per shift to obtain a recharged battery for their equip-
ment. The employees who change the batteries are distri-
bution maintenance employees included in the distribu-
tion unit. Likewise, the forklift repair employees respon-
sible for repairing and maintaining all material handling
equipment for the entire facility are included in the dis-
tribution unit.
The cafeteria used by many milk plant and distribution
employees is part of the sanitation department and cafe-
teria employees are included in the distribution unit.
Products from the milk plant and from the distribution
warehouses are served in the cafeteria.
Even within the warehousing and processing opera-
tions there are multiple areas in which the operations
overlap. For instance, the ice produced and bagged in
fluid processing is stored and shipped by distribution unit
employees in the frozen food warehouse. Milk receivers,
who are milk plant employees responsible for receiving
and weighing raw milk, often weigh watermelons or
other bulk produce for produce employees. There is also
a storage area within the dairy/box meat warehouse in
which milk from the milk plant is stored.
Although each department generally ships its own
product (i.e., produce employees ship produce on trailers
designated for produce deliveries, frozen food employees
ship frozen foods on trailers designated for frozen food
deliveries, etc.), the nature of the business is such that
additional orders routinely need to be shipped from other
areas of the facility. Thus, products from the milk plant
are routinely shipped on produce trucks and sometimes
on dairy/box meat trucks.
2. Contact
As discussed above, there is a significant amount of
functional integration between the distribution and milk
plant operations, which results in a significant amount of
work-related contact among employees. In particular,
there is significant work-related contact between non-
processing milk plant employees and distribution em-
ployees. For instance, a main transit route used by distri-
bution employees to travel through the facility (both on
foot and with material handling equipment) goes through
the nonprocessing areas of the milk plant. Milk plant
shipping employees have regular contact with the spot-
ters, who are responsible for jockeying trailers through-
out the facility. Distribution employees unloading trailers
as they return from the stores often find returned prod-
ucts; when milk plant products are returned, the unload-
ers must coordinate with someone from the milk plant to
return the product to its proper location. Sapp testified
that distribution employees enter the milk plant’s bever-
age and water palletizer area, empty case room, milk
receiving dock, and milk shipping area in the course of
their duties.
On the other hand, because of the nature of their work,
the processing employees do not have a great deal of
work-related contact with employees outside of their
work areas, whether distribution employees or nonproc-
essing milk plant employees. However, there is some
contact between milk plant processing employees and
distribution employees. During each shift, employees
from throughout the facility, including the processing
areas of the milk plant, take garbage and recycling from
the work areas to the support dock using material han-
dling equipment. Moreover, employees hauling garbage
and recycling will occasionally need to visit the battery
changing station in the course of those duties. Milk plant
processing employees occasionally need to visit the parts
room for parts and supplies.
In addition to the above work-related contact, all milk
plant employees also have casual contact with distribu-
tion employees in the cafeteria and the parking lot, when
passing through the distribution area to reach their work-
place, in the breakrooms and other shared areas of the
facility.
The Regional Director emphasized the fact that em-
ployees not involved in milk processing are discouraged
from entering the processing areas. The milk plant proc-
essing areas are considered “clean areas” and require
employees to don hairnets, wash their hands, and pass
through a footbath before entering. The clean areas un-
doubtedly prevent contact between the milk processing
employees and the distribution employees during work-
time. However, they also prevent contact between the
milk processing employees and most of the other milk
plant employees included in the same unit by the Re-
gional Director. Thus, the existence of the clean areas
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1026
lends little support to the Regional Director’s unit deter-
mination.
3. Interchange
There have been a significant number of permanent
transfers between the milk plant and distribution. Sapp
estimated that about one-third of the milk plant employ-
ees transferred from distribution. Specific examples of
permanent transfers include two milk plant mechanics
who transferred from parts and one who transferred from
the forklift repair shop.
There has also been temporary interchange between
fluid processing and distribution employees. Sapp testi-
fied that forklift operators from distribution help out in
the empty case room in the milk plant. Day testified that
fresh pack employees have been temporarily assigned to
the milk plant.
4. Skills and duties
Processing, shipping, receiving, warehousing, and
maintenance functions take place throughout the Deer-
field Beach facility. Many of the employees in the distri-
bution unit perform the same or similar duties as em-
ployees in the fluid processing unit. Both the milk plant
and distribution have forklift operators moving pallets of
groceries. Both have employees loading product onto
trailers. Both have plant clericals responsible for manag-
ing shipping and receiving documents. Both have receiv-
ing employees responsible for receiving bulk product,
whether corn, frozen peas, or raw milk. Both have main-
tenance employees responsible for repairing and main-
taining automated conveyor machinery. While the job
responsibilities may vary between the distribution em-
ployees and their fluid processing counterparts, the skills
and duties of most employees in distribution and fluid
processing are relatively similar.
We recognize that the processing operation in the milk
plant is more extensive than the processing that occurs in
distribution.5 The milk plant employees homogenize and
pasteurize the milk, blend soft drinks, and manufacture
bottles in a blow mold room. These specific tasks are not
performed in distribution. However, we find, contrary to
the Regional Director, that the overall skills and func-
tions of employees in fluid processing are substantially
the same as those in distribution.

5 The Petitioner emphasizes the duties that are unique to the milk
processing employees. It also emphasizes the “Good Manufacturing
Practices” handbook, which provides guidance on personal grooming,
instructions for maintaining a sanitary work area, and other guidelines
for safe and sanitary food processing. All milk plant employees must
read and follow this handbook. The employees involved with pasteuri-
zation are also subject to the PMO or pasteurized milk ordinance,
which is issued by governmental regulators.
Much of the milk plant processing is done with auto-
mated equipment, some of which appears to be operated
in a similar manner as the automated aspects of the dis-
tribution operation. For instance, the employees in both
the milk plant and the fresh pack operation print price
labels and apply the labels to packaged product. Some of
the bagging equipment used in fresh pack is similar or
identical to the ice bagging equipment in the milk plant.
Distribution employees who operate the ASRS convey-
ors keep the conveyor running, clear jams, and realign
the machine’s photo eye; these functions also make up
much of a milk plant processing employee’s work.
Moreover, as discussed above, the differences in skills
and functions that exist between the milk plant and dis-
tribution are largely confined to the milk plant employees
engaged in processing. Although the Regional Director’s
decision emphasizes the differences between the process-
ing functions of the milk plant and the primarily ware-
house-related functions of the distribution operation, it
does not acknowledge the fact that many of the employ-
ees in the milk plant are themselves performing ware-
house-related functions, not processing functions. Many
of the employees in the Regional Director’s fluid proc-
essing unit perform traditional shipping, receiving, and
warehousing functions that are similar to or the same as
those performed by employees in the distribution unit.
5. Wages, hours, and other working conditions
All Deerfield Beach employees have substantially the
same wages, benefits, work rules and policies, and other
conditions of employment.6
The milk plant employees have additional rules con-
cerning food safety as detailed in the Good Manufactur-
ing Practices handbook. This lone distinction, however,
does not negate the fact that the overall working condi-
tions are substantially similar throughout the Deerfield
Beach facility.
6. Supervision
The fluid processing unit consists of all of the employ-
ees ultimately supervised by Jay Sapp. The distribution
unit consists of all production and maintenance employ-
ees at the main building (plus spotters) ultimately super-
vised by Jeffrey Day. Within each of the units there are
many first-line supervisors and superintendents. This
separation of fluid processing and distribution in differ-
ent business units creates a distinction between the two
groups in terms of supervision and control of labor rela-
tions. Indeed, this is the strongest fact supporting the
Regional Director’s unit determination. Nonetheless, we

6 Although the fluid processing employees are not paid according to
the same wage structure as the distribution employees, the record indi-
cates that similar jobs in each operation receive roughly similar pay.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS 1027
find that the other factors demonstrating the community
of interest between the two groups of employees out-
weigh this distinction. Moreover, the fact that few of the
employees within the two units have shared first-level or
second-level supervision diminishes the relevance of this
distinction.
7. Conclusion
The Petitioner contends that the Regional Director cor-
rectly found that the milk plant employees have a sepa-
rate community of interest based on the separate man-
agement by Jay Sapp, the PMO and Good Manufacturing
Practices handbook, the lack of work-related contact be-
tween fluid processing and distribution employees, and
the existence of the clean areas. The Petitioner also
claims that there is no functional integration between the
distribution and warehouse activities.
The factors cited by the Petitioner are not insignificant.
However, weighing all the factors in this particular case,
we find that it has not been established that the fluid
processing employees have a separate community of
interest apart from the distribution employees.
We find that there is substantial functional integration
between the milk plant and distribution, particularly with
regard to plantwide support operations such as the parts
room, forklift repair, dispatch, and pallet repair. We fur-
ther find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that
there is significant plantwide interchange and plantwide
uniformity in terms and conditions of employment.
In reaching the conclusion that the Regional Director’s
unit determinations are not appropriate, we rely on the
fact that the differences among the fluid processing unit
employees and among the distribution unit employees
are nearly as great as the differences between the units.
For instance, the clean areas and the PMO apply only to
a portion of the fluid processing unit employees and
therefore distinguish them from other milk plant employ-
ees as well as distribution employees.
Likewise, in terms of skills and duties, the ASRS con-
veyor operators (officially called MS operators) and the
milk processing employees have more in common with
each other than either has with the forklift operators
working in either distribution or the milk plant. Although
the employees within each of the Regional Director’s
units share supervision by either Jay Sapp or Jeffrey Day,
most of them have separate first and second level super-
vision.
The different operations within distribution operate on
different shifts: a produce shipping employee whose shift
starts at 5 a.m. may have little contact with a frozen
foods shipping employee whose shift starts at 4 p.m. Yet,
a produce shipping employee will have regular contact
with milk plant employees dropping off milk to be
shipped out on a produce trailer. Indeed, the record indi-
cates that some distribution employees have more con-
tact with some milk plant employees than with many
other distribution employees.
Moreover, in terms of functional integration, the dis-
tribution operation itself is split into areas according to
product; there is not a great deal more functional integra-
tion between frozen foods and produce than there is be-
tween the milk plant and produce.
Finally, the Regional Director’s fluid processing unit
includes only about 60 of the approximately 900 em-
ployees at the facility. We find it particularly inappropri-
ate to carve out a disproportionately small portion of a
large, functionally integrated facility as a separate unit.
We recognize that, in other factual circumstances,
units confined to specific business units within a plant
may be appropriate. In this particular case, however, we
find, based on the record before us, that the evidence
does not support the Regional Director’s unit determina-
tion. Under these circumstances, we find that the smallest
appropriate unit including the petitioned-for employees is
a single production and maintenance unit.
B. The Satellite Buildings
The Regional Director excluded the pallet repair em-
ployees, dispatch employees, and garage employees
based on the single-facility presumption, while including
the spotters.7 All of these employees work out of satellite
buildings on or near the Deerfield Beach property. We
find that the Regional Director erred in excluding the
pallet repair employees, dispatch employees, and garage
employees. First, the Regional Director erred in exclud-
ing dispatch employees from the unit based on the sin-
gle-facility presumption while at the same time including
spotters, who work out of the same building; once the
spotters working out of the dispatch satellite building are
included in the unit, the single-facility presumption is no
longer applicable—at least with regard to the dispatch
satellite building. In any event, we find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that the satellite employees have no
separate community of interest apart from the included
employees, and the production and maintenance unit is
therefore inappropriate without the inclusion of the satel-
lite employees.
1. Pallet repair
The pallet repair shop is less than five miles away
from the main building. There is no evidence of separate
control of labor relations at the pallet repair shop. The
pallet repair supervisor reports to the sanitation superin-
tendent at the main building, who in turn reports to Jef-

7 As noted above, no party contests the inclusion of the spotters.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1028
frey Day. The pallet repair employees are subject to the
exact same terms and conditions of employment as the
rest of the distribution department.
Contrary to the Regional Director’s assertion, the evi-
dence establishes that the pallet repair employees visit
the main building regularly. Admittedly, the pallet repair
employees choose not to travel to the main facility to
take advantage of the free meals offered to all employees
in the cafeteria. However, they go to the main building
for meetings, to visit human resources with questions
about their benefits, for training on material handling
equipment, and for other business they might have in the
administrative offices.
The pallet repair employees have significant contact
with included employees. The parts room in the main
building supplies parts and other supplies to the pallet
repair shop, creating the need for interaction between the
pallet repair employees and parts room employees, who
are included in the unit. The pallet repair employees have
daily interaction with the spotter/jockeys that bring trail-
ers full of pallets back and forth between pallet repair
and the main building. Distribution and milk plant em-
ployees from the main building regularly visit the storage
areas that are in the same building as the pallet repair
shop. In so doing, they interact with the pallet repair em-
ployees to use their material handling equipment to move
items in the storage area. While at the satellite location,
spotters and other employees from the main facility use
the break room at the pallet repair shop. Maintenance
from the main building is responsible for any repairs to
the physical structure of the pallet repair/warehouse
building.
The pallet repair shop is functionally integrated with
the distribution and milk plant operations—the pallets
they repair are essential to both operations. Moreover,
the pallet repair shop exists solely to repair pallets for
distribution and the milk plant; there is no separate pallet
repair business. The pallet repair employees have similar
skills and perform similar duties as employees at the
main building, including forklift operation, pallet sorta-
tion, and the operation of automated conveyor machin-
ery. Finally, there is temporary interchange between the
pallet repair shop and the main building; a sanitation
employee from the main building fills in at pallet repair.
2. Dispatch
The dispatch office is about 100 feet from the main
building. While there is separate supervision of dispatch
employees, they are managed by Jeffrey Day, and there
is no separate control of labor relations. All of their terms
and conditions of employment are identical to those of
the other distribution employees.
Contrary to the Regional Director’s assertion, the dis-
patch clerks are in constant contact with unit employees.
The spotters included in the unit are in constant contact
with dispatch in order to coordinate the movement of
trailers around the property. The spotters also clock in
and out of dispatch, although they spend most of the day
in their tractors. The employees who load the trailers
have frequent contact with dispatch.
There is functional integration between dispatch and
the shipping employees in the main building, both in the
milk plant and in distribution—all orders from retail
stores are routed through dispatch to coordinate how the
orders will be loaded onto the trailers. Employees at the
main building perform all of the building maintenance in
the dispatch office, and all of their parts and supplies
come from the parts room in the main building.
3. Garage
The garage is about 100 feet from the main building.
Again, despite separate supervision, there is no separate
control of labor relations, and Jeffrey Day is in charge of
the garage employees. These employees’ terms and con-
ditions of employment are the same as the other distribu-
tion employees.
Garage employees have significant contact with in-
cluded employees. Employees at the main building per-
form all of the building maintenance in the garage, and
all of their parts and supplies come from the parts room
in the main building. The garage employees generally eat
in the cafeteria in the main building. Garage employees,
dispatch, and the spotters regularly coordinate with each
other to ensure that trailers and tractors in need of repair
are brought to the garage and repaired. For instance,
when a driver notices a maintenance problem with a
trailer, he might leave a note on his driver’s log for dis-
patch to have a spotter bring the trailer to the garage after
it has been unloaded. Or, the driver may tell dispatch
about a problem with a tractor or trailer, and dispatch
will notify the garage about the problem. Similarly, when
a spotter notices a problem with a tractor, they might
alert dispatch or contact the garage directly.
Many of the garage employees have skills similar to
those of included employees. Like the spotters, the fuel
truck operator spends most of the day driving a truck
around the facility. Like the refrigeration maintenance
employees in the main building, the trailer refrigeration
maintenance employees repair refrigeration units and
maintain the certifications necessary to do such work.
Trailer maintenance employees in the garage repair the
trailers; in-house maintenance employees in the main
building repair the loading bay doors, to which the trail-
ers dock. Fleet maintenance in the garage repairs truck
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS 1029
tractors; forklift maintenance in the main building repairs
material handling equipment.
Considering the extent of the community of interest
between the excluded satellite employees and the in-
cluded spotters and the rest of the unit, we find that the
unit is inappropriate without the inclusion of the garage
employees, the pallet repair employees, and the remain-
der of the dispatch employees.
Therefore, we reverse the Regional Director’s exclu-
sion of the satellite building employees from the unit.
C. Truckdrivers
The Regional Director correctly found that the truck-
drivers need not be included with the production and
maintenance employees.
The drivers depart the facility with a loaded trailer and
deliver the grocery items to one or more retail stores. As
they off-load product at each store, the drivers load re-
turns and recyclable packaging back onto the trailer for
return to the plant. Each individual driver works a shift
consisting of one or more runs and returns his tractor-
trailer to the facility before going home for the day.
There is unquestionably a community of interest be-
tween the truckdrivers and the unit employees. For in-
stance, the Employer’s fleet safety supervisor trains both
the truckdrivers and the spotters. Both the truckdrivers
and the spotters spend most of their shift driving tractor-
trailers. The truckdrivers are not separately supervised;
the dispatch department supervises both the truckdrivers
and the spotters, using the same evaluation forms that are
used to evaluate all the distribution employees. The
truckdrivers communicate regularly with dispatch. In
terms of permanent interchange, all truckdrivers were
promoted from within the facility, both from the milk
plant and from distribution.
Based on the above, we find that a production and
maintenance unit including the truckdrivers would be an
appropriate unit. However, there may be more than one
appropriate unit in a given case, and the Petitioner may
seek an election in any appropriate unit. In this case, the
truckdrivers are not so integrated with the production and
maintenance unit that they have lost their separate iden-
tity, requiring their inclusion in the unit. See Overnite
Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 723, 724 (1996);
Purnell’s Pride, Inc., 252 NLRB 110 (1980), reaffirming
234 NLRB 197 (1978); and Pacemaker Mobile Homes,
194 NLRB 742, 743 (1971).
The truckdrivers are required to have a commercial
drivers license (CDL). Most other employees do not have
this license.8 After they have received their CDL license
and are no longer considered trainees, the truckdrivers
are paid based on a formula that accounts for the number
of stops they make, the number of pallets they deliver,
and other factors. All other unit employees are paid on an
hourly basis. The truckdrivers spend most of their day
away from the facility. Unlike all unit employees, the
truckdrivers can essentially choose their own schedule
and work as little or as much as they want to. Like the
spotters, the truckdrivers do not have prescheduled break
times; unlike the spotters, however, the truckdrivers do
not have to coordinate their breaks with anyone else.
Moreover, the truckdrivers do not perform work within
the facility, and there is no evidence of temporary inter-
change between the truckdrivers and the unit employees
other than the truckdrivers’ occasional trip to the pallet
repair facility. There is no evidence of any contact be-
tween the truckdrivers and the vast majority of unit em-
ployees and only minimal contact with others.
Under these circumstances, the Board generally does
not require truckdrivers to be included in a unit when
they spend most of their day away from the facility, have
little interchange and contact with unit employees, and
do not perform unit work. See, e.g., Home Depot USA,
Inc., 331 NLRB 1289 (2000).
Therefore, we find that a production and maintenance
unit at the Deerfield Beach facility is appropriate without
the inclusion of the truckdrivers.
ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Re-
gional Director and find that the smallest appropriate unit
is a plantwide production and maintenance unit including
all employees working out of the satellite buildings but
excluding truckdrivers. The case is remanded to the Re-
gional Director for further action consistent with this
decision.

8 There is a fuel island position in the garage that requires a CDL li-
cense. Moreover, at least one of the spotters has a CDL in order to
transport pallets to the pallet repair facility. It is not clear how many of
the spotters have a CDL or whether they are required to maintain a
CDL.