Purnell's Pride, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Purnell's Pride, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local P-1224. Case 26-CA-6869
September 11, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
On January 11, 1978, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding, granting General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and find-
ing that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed, by refusing to bargain with Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local P-1224 (herein called the
Union), as the certified collective-bargaining repre-
sentative in a unit composed of production and
maintenance employees. 2 The Board ordered Re-
spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union. Thereafter, the
Board filed a petition for enforcement of said
Order with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.
On January 15, 1980, a panel of the court of ap-
peals issued its decision,3 declining to enforce the
Board's Order to bargain and remanding the case
to the Board for further proceedings for reasons
fully set forth below.
The Board accepted the remand and advised the
parties that they could file statements of position.
Thereafter, Respondent and the Union filed state-
ments of position.
i 234 NLRB 197.
2 On April 18, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 26 issued a De-
cision and Direction of Election in Case 26-RC 5479 and found the fol-
lowing unit to be appropriate:
All production employees employed at the Employer's poultry proc-
essing plant on Straus Street in Tupelo, Mississippi, including all un-
loaders, loaders, killers, eviscerators, cutters and packers, and all
general maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its
Tupelo, Mississippi, facilities; excluding all office clerical employees,
local and over-the-road truckdrivers, hatchery employees, commer-
cial egg processing employees, feed mill and by-products plant em-
ployees, dry warehouse employees, refrigerated warehouse employ-
ees, breeder farm employees, live haul department employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act
On April 29, 1977, Respondent filed a request for review of said Decision
and Direction of Election with the Board, which was denied by the
Board by telegraphic order on May 12, 1977
Thereafter, an election was held on May 13, 1977, among the employ-
ees in the above unit, which was won by the Union. On May 20, 1977,
Respondent filed timely objections. On June 24, 1977, the Regional Di-
rector, after an investigation, issued a Supplemental Decision and Certifi-
cation of Representative overruling Respondent's objections and certify-
ing the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the above unit. On July 7, 1977, Respondent filed a request for
review of said Supplemental Decision, which was denied by the Board
by telegraphic order on July 28, 1977. Respondent's subsequent refusal to
bargain gave rise to the instant unfair labor practice proceeding.
s 609 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1980).
252 NLRB No. 18
Respondent is a Mississippi corporation engaged
in the production, processing, distribution, and sale
of processed poultry and related food products.
Respondent's operations consist of four divisions:
(1) a production division, which raises the chickens
to be processed and produces eggs for commercial
sale; (2) the processing division, which kills, cleans,
and packages chickens; (3) the shipping and receiv-
ing department, which is responsible for distribu-
tion of Respondent's products; and (4) the mainte-
nance division, which is divided into two groups:
general and vehicle maintenance. Respondent main-
tains several facilities in and around the Tupelo
area: a hatchery, a feed mill, a processing facility, a
byproducts facility, two warehouses, a commercial
egg operation, and a vehicle maintenance facility.
The Union filed a petition seeking to represent a
unit consisting of all of Respondent's production
and maintenance employees at its processing facili-
ty. Respondent contended that the only appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining should
encompass the employees at all of its facilities, ex-
cluding only agricultural workers.
After a hearing on the issue of the scope of the
appropriate unit, the Regional Director issued a
Decision and Direction of Election. He found that
a separate unit of production employees at the
processing facility was appropriate, relying, inter
alia, on the separate location of the facility, the
lack of "substantial employee interchange," the
lack of a bargaining history in a broader unit, and
the fact that no other labor organization sought to
represent Respondent's employees in a broader
unit. Noting also the Board rule that a single loca-
tion unit is presumptively appropriate, 4 the Region-
al Director found that the evidence introduced by
Respondent concerning centralized control of em-
ployee relations and operational integration was
"not sufficient to alter the separate identity of the
employees who perform their work at the poultry
processing plant on Straus Street." In addition, the
Regional Director found that Respondent's general
maintenance employees should be included in the
unit since they have common supervision, most of
them report to the Straus Street processing facility
(and perform work there as well as at Respondent's
other facilities), and they have the same job func-
tions. 5 Finally, the Regional Director found that
the over-the-road and local truckdrivers, the vehi-
cle maintenance employees, and the "live haul"
4 See, e.g., Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962).
1 The record reveals that, unlike the employees at Respondent's other
facilities, the general maintenance employees have regular contact with
the processing employees. In addition, the record indicates that Respond-
ent initiated several transfers in 1976 from the processing division to gen-
eral maintenance because of the employees' "knowledge of the equip-
ment."
110
PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC.
crews lacked a sufficient community of interest to
be included in the appropriate unit.6 Accordingly,
he directed that an election be held in a unit of the
production employees at the processing plant and
the general maintenance employees.
Thereafter, the Board denied Respondent's re-
quest for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion and Direction of Election and an election was
held in the designated unit. The Union won this
election and was certified by the Board. However,
Respondent refused to bargain with the Union and
the complaint which gave rise to this proceeding
was filed. As noted above, the Board found that
this refusal to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act and ordered Respondent to bargain
with the Union. Subsequently, the Board filed a pe-
tition for enforcement with the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
In declining to enforce the Board's Order in this
case, the court found that the Regional Director's
analysis "indicates that the Regional Director and
the Board, which upheld his ruling, concluded that
evidence bearing on bargaining history, geographic
proximity, employee interchange, and common job
function supported approval of the proposed unit
while evidence concerning operational integration,
common supervision, and uniformity of employee
benefits militated against the proposed unit."7 The
court reasoned that, although factors favoring the
unit appeared to the Regional Director and the
Board to "outweigh the counterfactors," the analy-
sis contained in the Regional Director's decision
did not adequately articulate the reasons why,
under all of the circumstances, the factors support-
ing a separate unit were sufficient to compel this
result. In this regard, the court, inter alia, specifi-
cally raised what it considered to be a failure to ar-
ticulate the reasons why (1) the degree of depart-
mental supervision outweighs Respondent's central
labor policy; (2) the separate location of the proc-
essing plant has such significance in view of the
relative proximity of all of Respondent's facilities;
(3) the uniqueness of the job functions of the proc-
essing employees is significant; (4) the transfer of
20 employees is "so insubstantial as to tell in favor
of the unit"; and (5) the type of "product integra-
tion" present in this case does not lead to the con-
clusion that a larger unit is required. Finally, the
court questioned the Regional Director's reliance
on the Board's rule concerning the presumptive ap-
6 The Regional Director relied, inter alia, on the fact that these em-
ployees have separate supervision, there is no employee interchange, and
they have little or no contact with the employees in the unit. In addition,
he found that, with respect to the truckdrivers, most are compensated
"on different bases than employees engaged in production and mainte-
nance functions."
'609 F.2d at 1160.
propriateness of a "single plant" unit. Accordingly,
the court remanded the proceeding to the Board to
"disclose the basis of its order"8 and, as noted
above, the Board accepted the remand.
For the reasons set forth below, we reaffirm our
original determination, though not entirely for the
reasons ascribed by the Regional Director in his
Decision and Direction of Election.
Initially, we must respectfully disagree with the
court's conclusion that the Board's presumption
that a "single location" unit9 is appropriate for col-
lective-bargaining purposes "does nothing but con-
fuse the inquiry."10 On the contrary, we consider
this presumption to be useful in determining wheth-
er employees at a single location have a sufficiently
distinct community of interest to warrant a sepa-
rate unit. However, we believe the result reached
herein need not turn upon a determination of the
viability of the "single location" presumption since,
in our view, the record as a whole fully supports
the Regional Director's and the Board's determina-
tion without resort to this presumption. Neverthe-
less, we recognize that the Regional Director, in
his Decision and Direction of Election, may have
failed to fully articulate the conclusion that a sepa-
rate unit at the single location of the processing
plant was appropriate despite Respondent's evi-
dence concerning central labor policy and oper-
ational integration. Accordingly, we shall endeavor
to address the specific concerns raised by the court
in its decision.
At the outset, we find that the record evidence
concerning employee transfers and interchange
strongly supports a conclusion that the unit at issue
constitutes a separate and distinct employee group-
ing. The record reveals that in 1976 approximately
20 employees transferred from one department to
another in Respondent's entire operation. Thus, out
of a total complement of approximately 488 em-
ployees, only 4 percent of Respondent's entire em-
ployees were involved in any transfers, either per-
manent or temporary. More importantly, however,
Respondent's personnel director, Dick Geyton, tes-
tified that with the exception of three processing
employees who were transferred to maintenance
because they were familiar with the machinery, the
remainder of the transfers were at the request of
8 Id. at 1161.
g See, e.g., Kapok Tree Inn, Inc., 232 NLRB 702 (1977); Dixie Belle
Mills. Inc., 139 NLRB 629 (1962); see also Victoria Station, Inc. v.
N.LR.B., 586 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1978), enfg. 233 NLRB 33 (1977);
N.L.R.B. v. Boston-Needham Industrial Cleaning Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 74, 76
(Ist Cir. 1975), enfg. 216 NLRB 26 (1975). Of course, this presumption
can be rebutted by a showing that the Employer's operation is so func-
tionally intergrated that it negates any separate identity of the employees
at the single facility. See, generally, Haag Drug Company. Incorporated,
169 NLRB 877 (1968).
10 609 F.2d at 1161
III
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the individual employees for health reasons or oth-
erwise. Thus, there is no indication that Respond-
ent has an administrative policy which provides for
frequent or regular transfer from one department to
another." On the contrary, Geyton testified that
employees have no opportunity to bid for available
jobs in other departments and, although Respond-
ent ostensibly maintains a companywide seniority
policy, there was no "bumping" of employees be-
tween facilities. In addition, layoffs and recalls are
apparently conducted on a departmental basis.12
Finally, the record is replete with testimony that,
with the exception of the regular contact between
the processing and general maintenance employees,
who also have some contact with other employees,
the employees at Respondent's various locations
have little or no contact with each other.
It is clear, from the nature and number of em-
ployee transfers and the nearly total absence of
contact between employees at the different loca-
tions, that these factors lend strong support to a
finding of a separate and distinct community of in-
terest among the employees at the processing facili-
ty.'3
With respect to similarity of job skills and func-
tions, we find that the evidence on this issue again
favors the unit found appropriate. In so doing, we
primarily rely on the fact that, although Respond-
ent contends that all of its employees are generally
unskilled, its policy and practice with respect to
transfer and hiring belie this assertion. As noted
above, Respondent does not permit interdepart-
mental bidding for available jobs or "bumping."
More importantly, Respondent's recognition of the
particular skills or knowledge possessed by at least
some of its employees is evidenced by the fact that,
according to Geyton, the only transfer initiated by
Respondent involved transfers of processing em-
ployees to general maintenance "because of their
knowledge of equipment that was installed within
the last year and their mechanical ability." Thus, it
appears that Respondent at least believes that some
of its employees possess unique skills and are gen-
erally not interchangeable. Coupled with the un-
contradicted evidence that the processing and
maintenance employees perform different job func-
tions from, for example, the shipping and receiving
'' See United States Postal Service, 232 NLRB 556, 557 (1978).
mZ Although Geyton testified that, for example, a laid-off truckdriver
would be offered an available job in another department, this is apparent-
ly not Respondent's general policy, since Geyton thereafter admitted that
truckdriver vacancies had been filled by new employees without being
offered to employees in other departments.
IS In its decision, the court noted that frequent transfers and other in-
terchange foster shared interests, indicate similar skills, and would make
it difficult to administer rules at a single location. In our view, the evi-
dence of lack of such transfers and interchange amply demonstrates that
shared interests, common skills, and possible difficulty of rule administra-
tion are wholly absent in this case.
employees, the evidence concerning job skills and
functions favors a separate unit.
In addition to the above, it is uncontested that
the employees have no collective-bargaining histo-
ry in a broader unit and no union seeks to repre-
sent the employees in a broader unit. Accordingly,
the Regional Director correctly found that these
factors favor the unit found appropriate. 4
We next address what appears to be the heart of
Respondent's case and the major elements which
the court found were not fully explained in the Re-
gional Director's decision; namely, Respondent's
contention that its centralized control of labor rela-
tions and its functional integration are such that
they obliterate any separate identity of the process-
ing and general maintenance employees and
compel a finding that only an overall unit is appro-
priate. We believe that Respondent's claim in this
regard is without merit.
In his Decision and Direction of Election, adopt-
ed by the Board, the Regional Director found that
"the centralized control of employee relations and
the product integration reflected in the record
herein are not sufficient to alter the separate identi-
ty" of the processsing employees. He did not, how-
ever, specifically discuss or analyze the evidence
presented with respect to these factors and, in fail-
ing to do so, may have implied that this evidence
supports Respondent's position. This is clearly not
the case.
The record indicates that, indeed, Respondent's
administration of employee relations is to some
extent centralized. All job applicants are inter-
viewed, and new employees hired, through Re-
spondent's central personnel office. There is a
single payroll and all personnel files are maintained
at the central office. Wage scales and classifications
are generally uniform throughout Respondent's op-
erations, 5 as are hours and fringe benefits. In addi-
tion, Respondent contends that its overall labor re-
lations policy is formulated by "staff level manage-
ment," which consists of officers of the corporation
and the department heads.
The evidence further indicates, however, that a
significant measure of autonomy is granted the de-
partment heads and even the lower-level supervi-
sory staff within the various departments. With re-
spect to raises, Respondent's personnel director,
Geyton, testified that, at the beginning of each
month, a list of the names of those employees eligi-
ble for raises is sent to each department and that
14 See, e.g., Hamburg Knitting Mills Company, 239 NLRB 1231 (1978);
Renzetti's Market, Inc., 238 NLRB 174 (1978).
I' There is at least one exception, however. Respondent's over-the-
road truckdrivers are paid by the trip rather than hourly, as are its other
employees.
112
PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC.
the "increases are either granted or refused and re-
turned to the personnel office." He further testified
that it is the "department manager and the supervi-
sor" who determine whether to grant or refuse
these raises, and their decision is predicated upon
length of service and their evaluation of the em-
ployee's job performance.
Respondent's practice concerning discharges and
work assignments is further illustrative of the
autonomy vested in the various departments. Al-
though all firing is ostensibly done through the
central personnel office, Geyton testified that if a
leadman in the maintenance department desires that
an employee be fired, a foremen or supervisor in
the individual department has authority to fire the
employee. Geyton stated categorically that he does
"not fire employees unless they work directly for
me." In addition, Geyton testified that department
heads and other supervisors schedule production
and assign work and overtime to the employees in
their department.
In our view, the evidence with respect to Re-
spondent's control of employee relations demon-
strates that, although its operations reflect central-
ized administration in the areas of payroll, person-
nel records, overall job classifications, pay scale
and benefits, substantial day-to-day authority over
the areas which most directly affect the employees
rests in the individual department heads and their
supervisory staff. They evaluate performance and
grant raises, discipline employees, schedule work
assignments and overtime, and in general substan-
tially control the daily working conditions of the
employees in their department. That an employer
may have a uniform starting pay rate carries little
weight in circumstances where all future advance-
ment is subject to department evaluation and ap-
proval. Similarly, when discipline and discharge
are administered at the departmental level, the fact
that a central administration may theoretically have
authority with respect to overall labor relations
policy loses much of its significance. This is espe-
cially true where, as here, there is no evidence of
any uniform work rules and procedures to which
the department supervisory staff must adhere. Dis-
tilled to its essence, the record shows that Re-
spondent's central adminstration in large measure
consists merely of upper management's oversight of
the entire business operation including maintenance
of a central filing system for personnel and payroll
records in a manner not unique to any modern,
multifacility enterprise.' 6 Moreover, while there is
evidence that Respondent's employees have the
'' See, e.g., Kapok Tree Inn, Inc., 232 NLRB 702, 703-704 (1977). See
also N.LR.B. v. Fidelity Maintenance & Construction Company, Inc., 424
F.2d 707 (5th Cir 1970).
same general pay scale and share the same fringe
benefits, such facts alone are insufficient to negate
the separate and distinct community of interest in-
dicated by the day-to-day authority over labor re-
lations exercised by the department supervisory
staffs. 17
Finally, the evidence concerning central adminis-
tration of Respondent's overall operation with re-
spect to wages, benefits, and classifications is not,
in any event, determinative on the issue of whether
a separate community of interest exists among a
given group of employees. In Renzetti's Market,
Inc.,' 8 we held that:
. . .the Employer's centralized administration
is not, in our view, the primary factor which
we must consider in determining whether the
employees working at [one location] enjoy a
community of interest separate and distinct
from the employees at [another]. Rather, what
is most relevant is whether or not the employ-
ees at the sought [location] perform their day-
to-day work under the immediate supervision
of one who is involved in rating their perform-
ance and in affecting their job status and who
is personally involved with the daily matters
which make up their grievances and routine
problems. It is in this framework that we ex-
amine community of interest, for the day-to-
day problems and concerns among the em-
ployees at one location may not necessarily be
shared by employees who are separately super-
vised at another location.'9
We conclude that the authority of the supervi-
sory staff at Respondent's processing facility to
assign work, evaluate job performance, grant
raises, discharge employees, and otherwise exercise
substantial control over the day-to-day working
conditions of the employees under them supports
the finding that the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate have a community of interest separate
and distinct from that of their colleagues at Re-
spondent's other locations. Accordingly, we be-
lieve that the evidence of ostensible central control
of employee relations by Respondent is insufficient
to require a broader unit than the one found appro-
priate.
As far as the operational integration of Respond-
ent's business is concerned, the record reveals that
its operations do not evidence the kind of integra-
tion which would compel an overall unit. It is true
that Respondent's operations appear almost totally
7 See, e.g., Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Borling Company, 223 NLRB 45
(1976).
ta 238 NLRB 174 (1978).
Ma Id t 175; see also Kapok Tree Inn, Inc.. supra.
113
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
self-sustaining, since Respondent itself produces
and hatches eggs, produces feed for the chickens at
its own byproducts plant, slaughters and processes
the poultry, and distributes the finished product for
sale.2 0 However, the fact that Respondent does not
resort to outside entities for the "raw materials"
necessary to produce its finished product carries
little weight absent evidence that its operation re-
quires such close coordination of the tasks of em-
ployees in its various departments that there exists
highly centralized control over production and per-
sonnel matters and extensive employee contact
giving rise to a community of interest among all of
its employees. 21
In the present case, Respondent offered little evi-
dence either of a high degree of operational cen-
tralization or of close coordination of employee
tasks necessitating extensive employee contact.
Geyton testified that Respondent's production man-
ager schedules a poultry "kill" 2 weeks in ad-
vance. 2 2 The warehouse manager in turn schedules
the processing facility operation by notifying the
plant of the number of chickens to be killed and
processed on a particular day. Since Respondent
tries to maintain a certain inventory level of proc-
essed poultry, the number of chickens processed
depends on inventory needs.
When a kill is scheduled, the "live haul" crews
report the prior evening to the processing facility.
They are transported to the farms where the chick-
ens are raised and load the chickens onto trucks.2 3
The chickens are then transported to the process-
ing facility for slaughter and preparation the next
day. 24 After these functions are completed, the
packaged poultry is again transported by truck to
Respondent's warehouse for ultimate distribution to
customers.
The foregoing evidence indicates that, while Re-
spondent must necessarily coordinate its "live
20 In addition, Respondent produces "table eggs" in its commercial
egg department.
21 In Westrom, Inc., 230 NLRB 1159 (1977), the Board noted that
modern production techniques and transportation make it possible to
have some degree of product integration between separate facilities and
yet "maintain a separate identity for bargaining purposes."
22 Of course, prior to this stage, Respondent's breeder operation pro-
duces eggs which it transports by truck to the hatchery. The hatched
chicks are transported by truck to the "breeder" farms. There the birds
are raised and given feed which has been produced by Respondent's feed
mill, which is in turn supplied by the by products operation. However,
there is nothing in the record to indicate that, up to the "kill" stage of
the operation, anything other than a most basic coordination of the over-
all operation is required. Moreover, Respondent admits that the employ-
ees in the above departments have virtually no contact with employees in
the other departments.
:2 These employees perform no work at the facility, and, since they
work at night, have no contact with the processing and general mainte-
nance employees.
24 The truckdrivers spend 60-75 percent of their time driving back and
forth from the farms to the processing plant. Like the "live haul" crews,
they have no contact with the processing employees or any of Respond-
ent's other employees.
haul" operation with its production and inventory
needs, such coordination does not appear to be dif-
ferent from basic production coordination in any
other business. Surely, any enterprise must arrange
to produce its product only to the extent necessary
to fill orders and maintain inventory. The only dis-
tinguishing factor here is that Respondent provides
its own "raw materials," a factor which we do not
believe is substantial in a determination of integra-
tion of operations. 2 5
More important, however, is the fact that, to the
extent Respondent's operation may arguably be
deemed "integrated," such integration does not
give rise to the close coordination of employee
tasks and extensive employee contact indigenous to
truly integrated operations. Rather, as noted above,
the employees in Respondent's various departments
generally have little contact with employees in
other departments and their work is coordinated in
only the most general sense. The only employees
that have contact with other departments are the
general maintenance employees, who are included
in the certified unit, and the truckdrivers, who
have slight contact and, even then, only because
they transport the various items being processed.
In our opinion, such contact by the truckdrivers
alone is insufficient to "destroy the separate identi-
ties of the various operations." 2 6
In view of the almost total lack of close coordi-
nation of employee tasks and the lack of employee
contact, we must conclude that the record supports
the determination that Respondent's operation is
not so integrated that the employees in the certified
unit do not possess a separate and distinct commu-
nity of interest entitling them to a separate unit for
purposes of collective bargaining.
Finally, we address the issue of the geographic
proximity of the various facilities, a factor which
the Regional Director considered to favor a sepa-
rate unit and a finding which was questioned by
the court. In our opinion, at the very least, this
factor neither favors nor precludes a separate unit
under the circumstances of this case.
25 In its decision, the court opined that "less weight may be assigned
to the factor of integration in businesses where the work performed by
some of the 'integrated' departments could well be subcontracted or
where the item produced by a particular department might easily be pur-
chased from an outside supplier." (609 F.2d at 1157-58.) With respect to
the former, the record indicates that Respondent does in fact contract out
part of its breeding operation. As to the latter, there is no evidence that
such items as feed, eggs, and the like are unavailable to Respondent
through outside sources. In any event, we do not think such evidence
would be determinative here in view of our other findings.
20 Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631, fn. 3 (1962) We also
note that, in virtually all other respects, the truckdrivers in Respondent's
various departments do not share a community of interest with Respond-
ent's other employees, including the production employees at the process-
ing plant and the general maintenance employees. The same may be said
for the "live haul" crews. See fn. 21, supra.
114
PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC.
Respondent's processing facility is located on
Straus Street in Tupelo. In addition, Respondent
operates a hatchery, a feed mill, a commercial egg
operation, a byproduct plant, a refrigerated ware-
house, and a vehicle maintenance shop. Although
all are located in or near Tupelo, 2 7 these facilities
are geographically separated.2 8 The Regional Di-
rector, in finding the certified unit appropriate,
relied in part on the fact that the processing facility
is "geographically separated from all of the Em-
ployer's remaining facilities."
As noted above, the record indicates that the
production employees at the processing facility
have separate supervision, different job skills and
functions, and virtually no job interchange or other
contact with employees in other departments. 2 9
Under these circumstances, we believe the fact that
they are also geographically separated from other
departments adds to their separate and distinct
identity. In any event, at the very least this geo-
graphical separation can do little to rebut the evi-
dence of distinct community of interest absent
proof that, despite a geographical separation, the
employees have sufficient contact to, as stated by
the court, "foster common concerns." 30 Such is
not the case here.
In sum, we find that in view of the separate su-
pervision, different job functions, lack of transfers,
and other employee contact and interchange, cou-
pled with the geographic separation of the process-
27 The commercial egg facility is in neighboring Auburn
28 The record does not indicate the distances between all these facili-
ties, but only that the processing facility is approximately 3 miles from
the hatchery and the two warehouses are approximately three-fourths of
a mile apart
2e As noted previously, the only exception in this regard is the inter-
change and contact with the general maintenance employees.
30 609 F.2d at 1157. The court noted that the factor of geographic
proximity must be considered in conjunction with "any other relevant
facts." We agree that geographic proximity must be weighed il relation
to the factors of employee contact and interchange, job skills and func-
tions, operational integration, common supervision, bargaining history,
and extent of organization However, we do not consider the fact that
employees may be in the same "labor market" relevant to a unit determi-
nation. Moreover, even assuming that this factor is relevant and favors a
combined unit, taken alone it is insufficient to destroy the separate com-
munity of interest of the certified unit in this case.
ing facility from the rest of Respondent's operation,
the production employees at Respondent's process-
ing facility share a sufficiently distinct and separate
community of interest to warrant a separate unit.
We further find that general maintenance employ-
ees share a sufficient community of interest with
the production employees to be included in the
unit in view of their regular contact with these em-
ployees,31 the evidence of transfers between these
departments and other interchange, coupled with
the fact that this department is also located at the
processing facility.
In addition, we find that the type of central ad-
ministration and operational integration evidenced
by Respondent's business does not destroy the sep-
arate and distinct community of interest of the em-
ployees in the certified unit. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth above and in view of the absence
of any bargaining history and the fact that no labor
organization seeks to represent Respondent's em-
ployees in a broader unit, we reaffirm our finding
that he certified unit is an appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. 3 2
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we reaffirm
our previous decision that, by refusing to bargain
with the Union as representative of the employees
in the certified unit, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Order issued by the
Board in Purnell's Pride, Inc., 234 NLRB 197
(1978), be, it hereby is, reaffirmed.
3 Although the general maintenance employees have some contact
with employees in some of the other departments, the majority of them
are based at the processing facility.
32 Since, unlike the general maintenance employees, the "live haul"
crews work different hours at other locations and have virtually no con-
tact with the production employees, they are properly excluded from the
unit Similarly, the truckdrivers are properly excluded from the unit in
view of their lack of job interchange or other contact with the processing
and general maintenance employees and different method of compensa-
tion, different job functions, and separate supervision. See, eg., E. H
Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRH 1006 (1962) Compare Calco Plating,
242 NLRB 1364 (1979)
115