Purolator Courier Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1982

265 N.L.R.B. 659 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

PUROLATOR COURIER CORP.
Purolator Courier Corp. and Highway and Local
Motor Freight Employees, Local 667, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Petitioner. Case 26-RC-6444
December 7, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On August 24, 1981, the Petitioner filed a peti-
tion under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. On August 31, following an
investigation, the Regional Director for Region 26
dismissed the petition on the grounds that (1) the
Petitioner, which admits nonguards to membership,
sought to include in the unit the Employer's couri-
er-guards, who, the Regional Director concluded,
were guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3)
of the Act, and (2) the petitioned-for unit was inap-
propriate as it failed to include the Employer's
entire south-central administrative region. Thereaf-
ter, the Petitioner filed with the Board a request
for review of the Regional Director's dismissal of
the petition, contending that his determinations
with respect to unit scope and the status of the
courier-guards were erroneous.
On January 29, 1982, having duly considered the
matter, the Board issued its Ruling on Administra-
tive Action, in which it concluded that reinstate-
ment of the petition and a hearing on the two
issues raised by the Petitioner's request for review
were warranted. Accordingly, the petition was re-
instated and the case was remanded to the Region-
al Director for appropriate action.
On February 17 and 18, 1982, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer W. Paul Tuberville. Fol-
lowing the close of the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director
transferred this proceeding to the Board for deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief with
the Board.
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 af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is a corporation with an office and place
of business located in Memphis, Tennessee, and
that it is engaged in the business of providing se-
cured transportation of bank instruments and other
265 NLRB No. 86
items of value on a time-sensitive basis. The parties
further stipulated that, during the 12 months prior
to the date of the hearing, a representative period,
the Employer provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ten-
nessee, and received goods and services valued in
excess of $50,000 from points directly outside the
State of Tennessee. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Petitioner is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that it claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer argues that the petition for a
unit of drivers (hereinafter courier-guards), sorters,
and laborers at its Memphis, Tennessee, location'
should be dismissed on two separate grounds. First,
it contends that the petition fails to raise a question
concerning representation because the courier-
guards in question are employed as guards within
the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, and Sec-
tion 9(b)(3) prohibits the Board from certifying, as
a bargaining representative for guards, any union
which, like the Petitioner, admits to membership
employees other than guards. Second, it contends
that the unit sought by the Petitioner, inasmuch as
it does not encompass the entire administrative
region, is too narrow, and thus inappropriate for
collective-bargaining purposes. The only appropri-
ate unit, the Employer maintains, is one which is
coextensive with its south-central region.
The Petitioner concedes that it admits nonguard
employees to membership, but disputes the Em-
ployer's position regarding the courier-guards'
status as statutory guards. The Petitioner further
contends, contrary to the Employer, that the
degree of integration in the Employer's operation is
insufficient to establish the appropriateness of a re-
gionwide unit, particularly in view of the substan-
tial lack of integration among the employees dis-
patched from separate terminals.
' At the hearing, the Petitioner amended the petition to delete from its
bargaining unit request the Employer's Little Rock, Arkansas, area oper-
ational office.
The Employer notes that it does not employ employees in the classifi-
cations designated in the petition, but, rather, that the employees referred
to as drivers carry the classification of "courier-guard." It states that all
courier-guards do their own sorting of commodities for delivery, and that
no one is employed in the now-defunct "sorter" classification. It further
states that it has no "laborers." The Employer indicates, however, that it
does employ two mechanics at the Memphis location, who, it contends,
are cross-trained and, in addition to their regular duties, spend a substan-
tial amount of time performing courier-guard work. The Employer con-
tends that these employees are guards within the meaning of Sec. 9(bX3)
of the Act. In view of our disposition of the instant petition, we find it
unnecessary to pass upon this issue.
659
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer operates a nationwide delivery
system designed to provide the secure, timely
transportation of a wide variety of valuable com-
modities ranging from cash letters and data proc-
essing materials to controlled drugs and radioactive
pharmaceuticals. Its national operation is divided
into 20 administrative subdivisions, or regions, of
which the south-central region is one.2
The headquarters for the south-central region is
located in Memphis, Tennessee, but at a location
separate from the Memphis area terminal office at
which the approximately 35 Memphis-based couri-
er-guards in question report for work. There are, in
addition to the Memphis terminal, six other oper-
ational offices and numerous satellite facilities lo-
cated throughout the region at which various num-
bers of courier-guards are stationed. A significant
number of courier-guards, rather than being as-
signed to a specific operational or satellite office,
work out of their homes. In all, the Employer uti-
lizes about 500 courier-guards to cover its south-
central region.3 They pick up commodities from
customers and deliver them on a time-sensitive
basis, through an interconnecting route system and
a network of "meet" or relay points, to their desti-
nations. 4
In Purolator Courier Corp., 254 NLRB 599
(1981), the Board examined the nature of the work
performed by the Employer's courier-guards who
were employed in its Texas-Oklahoma region, and
concluded, relying on MDS Courier Service, Inc.,
248 NLRB 1320 (1980), and Brink's Incorporated,
226 NLRB 1182 (1976), that these employees were
guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the
Act. In its request for review of the Regional Di-
rector's decision finding the courier-guards in the
instant case to be statutory guards, the Petitioner
attempted to distinguish Purolator by alleging, inter
alia, that the trucks dispatched from the Memphis
terminal do not transport parcels of value like
those described in Purolator, and that the courier-
guards in the instant case, unlike those in Purolator,
"are not issued keys nor do they have access to
purchase customer's [sic] bank vaults, and private
property during non-working hours." The record
reveals the Petitioner's factual allegations in this
regard to be patently false. They were contradicted
not only by the Employer's witness, but by its own
witness as well. There is no material difference be-
tween the duties performed, the commodities car-
I The south-central region consists of all of the Employer's operation
in the States of Arkansas, Mississippi. Louisiana, Tennessee. and a small
portion of Missouri.
a Fourteen mechanics also work in the region, two of them in Mem-
phis.
4 Cash letters from a customer bank, for example, must be received at
the Federal Reserve Bank in Memphis no later than 12:01 a.m., or else
the customer loses use of the "float," or the interest on deposits in transit.
ried, or the type of customers serviced by the Em-
ployer's courier-guards in either the south-central
or the Texas-Oklahoma region. Thus, the Board's
findings in Purolator are equally applicable here:
All of the courier/guards are bonded and
must pass a security clearance before being
hired. They do not carry firearms. They wear
uniforms, supplied by the Employer, consisting
of shirt, trousers, jacket, cap or hat, with an
identifying company logo. The Employer
issues the uniforms to make its employees
readily identifiable to clients and local law en-
forcement agencies. The courier/guards make
deliveries in vans owned by the Employer,
which are clearly identified as "Purolator Cou-
rier" delivery vehicles. For a substantial
number of the Employer's clients, 5 the
courier/guards make pickups and deliveries
during nonworking hours, and have access to
clients' locked security vaults by entry into the
clients' locked premises. For each delivery run
which requires entry into customers' locked
premises, the dispatcher furnishes the
courier/guard on that run with all the keys
needed for entry into the customers' premises,
for disengaging any alarm systems, and for en-
tering the customers' security vaults. The keys
are distributed at the beginning of the shift,
and the courier/guard returns the set of keys
after he has completed his rounds. The
courier/guards are held accountable for the
safekeeping of packages in their vehicles, as
well as for taking precautions when entering
or leaving customers' premises during non-
working hours. 5
5 DeWitt Evans, the Employer's regional vice president for the
Texas-Oklahoma region, testified without contradiction that over
100 of its Houston customers have locked security vaults for
which courier/guards are issued keys.
At the time of the hearing in the earlier Purolator
case, DeeWitt Evans s was the regional vice presi-
dent in charge of the Texas-Oklahoma and south-
central regions. He is currently in charge of only
the south-central region. He testified in Purolator,
as well as in the instant case, regarding the courier-
guard position. He indicated on the record in this
case that the positions in both regions, and
throughout the country for that matter, are identi-
cal. Specifically, Evans testified that 90 percent of
all routes in the south-central region require the
use of keys to open vaults, and that the same per-
centage of regional employees regularly open secu-
' 254 NLRB at 599-600.
* The spelling of Evans' first name is as it appears in the record in this
cue.
660
PUROLATOR COURIER CORP.
rity vaults as part of their job duties.7 Normally,
they do so twice a day. According to Evans, virtu-
ally every courier-guard in the region performs this
security-related job duty at one time or another be-
cause routes and employees assigned to them
change frequently.
Evans further testified that approximately 900
customers in the region entrust the keys to their
premises to the Company so that its courier-guards
can come and go during nonbusiness hours, and
that 95 percent of the Company's employees utilize
these keys on a daily basis. Finally, he testified
that, because courier-guards need to have access to
customers' locked premises, the Company provides
them with extensive security training. It also main-
tains felonious assault insurance for each of them.
Courier-guard Danny Foshee, who testified on the
Petitioner's behalf, essentially corroborated Evans'
testimony. He admitted, inter alia, that his duties
regularly require that he open security vaults and
use keys to enter customers' premises during non-
business hours, and that he has also deactivated a
customer's alarm system with a key provided by
the Company when it was necessary for him to do
so.
Inasmuch as the record evidence establishes that
the Employer's courier-guards are employed to
protect the valuable property of the Employer's
customers, we conclude that the courier-guards
herein are guards within the meaning of Section
9(b)(3) of the Act.8 Accordingly, as the Petitioner
admits employees other than guards to member-
ship, it may not be certified as the representative of
the Employer's courier-guards, and we will dismiss
the petition for this reason.
In addition, we agree with the Employer that the
petitioned-for unit would be inappropriate in any
case. The unit sought by the Petitioner includes
only those employees who work out of the Em-
ployer's Memphis terminal. The Employer disputes
the appropriateness of a single-facility unit on the
basis of American Courier Corporation, 184 NLRB
602 (1970),9 arguing that the only appropriate unit
would include all of its operations regionwide.
In American Courier, the Board considered facts
virtually identical to those present here, and con-
cluded that the courier-guards throughout the Em-
ployer's New England region shared such a close
community of interest that only a unit coextensive
with that region would be appropriate. In rejecting
I The security vaults in question are supplied by the Employer. They
are located either inside or outside the client's premises, depending on the
circumstances pertaining to the individual client.
a Purolator Courier Corp., supra, MDS Courier Service. Inc.. supra.
Brink's Incorporated, supra
9 Prior to 1973, the Employer was called American Courier. The name
change to Purolator Courier did not reflect any change in the Company's
corporate or administrative structure.
the petitioner's contention that a unit limited in
scope to certain employees at the Employer's
Boston, Massachusetts, terminal was an appropriate
unit, the Board emphasized the high degree of inte-
gration in the Employer's operations, the frequent
contacts among courier-guards at relay points in
the Employer's transportation system, and the
common policies and overlapping supervision
under which the courier-guards performed their
duties. The record evidence in the instant case
makes it abundantly clear that the factors which
the Board considered to be controlling in the New
England region in American Courier also exist in
the Employer's south-central region.
As was the case in American Courier, control for
all operational and personnel matters for the ad-
ministrative region in the instant case is centered in
a regional office. Here, the regional office is locat-
ed in Memphis, Tennessee. As already noted,
DeeWit Evans, regional vice president, is in charge
of the south-central region. Working with him is a
regional transportation manager, a regional equip-
ment manager, and a regional sales manager. Local
supervision is provided throughout the region by
terminal managers at the seven area operational lo-
cations and by courier supervisors or dispatchers at
the satellite locations, all of whom are subject to
the direct control of the regional office.
In order to meet the demands of its customers
for time-sensitive delivery, the Employer maintains
in the south-central region, as it does in all its ad-
ministrative regions, a system of interconnecting
routes. No route can be established or changed
without the express approval of the regional office,
and these routes are reviewed and changed by that
office on a daily basis to maximize efficiency.
These routes are tied together by "meet points,"
where courier-guards operating within the region
meet to exchange either specific commodities or
the vehicles themselves. 1 0 The locations of the
meet points are also set by the regional office, and
may occur at a terminal or even a designated exit
off a highway. Some meets involve a substantial
number of employees, others only two. According
to Evans, approximately 50 percent of the region's
courier-guards are involved with transfer work at
meet points at any given time but, because routes
frequently are reassigned, all courier-guards engage
in a significant amount of such work during their
tenure with the Company.
'o In delivering outbound cash letters from the Memphis Federal Re-
serve Bank, for example, courier-guards stationed at the Employer's loca-
tions in the tristate area of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas rendez-
vous at from 30 to 40 meet points between 6 and II a.m. to effectuate
timely delivery to member banks.
661
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition to routes involving meet points, the
Employer also utilizes what it calls "layover"
routes.1 Courier-guards assigned to these routes
leave their base terminals, make pickups at custom-
er locations on their routes, and proceed to other
facilities in the south-central region where they
stay overnight. Accordingly, the Employer main-
tains a number of layover facilities in terminals
throughout the south-central region, each consist-
ing of a bunkroom and a lounge. Approximately 25
percent of the courier-guards in the region utilize
them. 1 2
The record also shows, contrary to the Petition-
er's contentions, that there is significant overlap-
ping supervision in the Employer's south-central
region, just as there is in its New England
region.13 The very nature of the Employer's oper-
ations, i.e., employees constantly moving from ter-
minal to terminal, actually demands that this be the
case. Thus, while at a terminal other than his home
terminal, the courier-guard is subject to the super-
vision of the local supervisor, who may assign
work or impose discipline. In many instances, par-
ticularly in the case of courier-guards who are as-
signed to layover routes, employees receive a
greater degree of supervision from supervisors at
other terminals than they do from the supervisors
at their base terminals.
Further, it is undisputed that the regional office
maintains strict control over virtually all aspects of
operations and labor relations throughout the
south-central region in order to coordinate the
Company's delivery system and to maintain uni-
formity of service. Thus, regional office personnel,
as previously noted, maintain careful control over
routes, making or approving changes whenever
necessary. They spend a substantial amount of time
visiting the regional facilities where they review
routes and monitor compliance with all of the
Company's policies and procedures. In addition to
the route system, the number of hours worked by
employees in the region is another operational
' I The Employer's route structure also consists of express or line-haul
routes which involve about 15 percent of the courier-guards in the
region. Courier-guards assigned to these routes carry commodities non-
stop from their home terminals to other terminals in the region. The re-
mainder of its routes are direct service routes. Courier-guards on these
routes make pickups from customers in certain parts of the region and
travel nonstop to other parts of the region to deliver the commodities.
1" Courier-guard Foshee acknowledged knowing, on a personal basis,
some of the employees who lay over in the Memphis terminal. He also
admitted knowing personally most of the employees stationed at the
Jackson, Tennessee, terminal where he laid over on a previous route, and
which is a stop on his current route. In addition, Foshee testified that he
works with a courier-guard from the Ja.ckson terminal who manifests
commodities as he unloads them. Thus, the Petitioner's allegation in its
request for review of the Regional Director's decision that "contact be-
tween drivers working at different terminals is almost non-existent"
stands in direct contrast to the record evidence.
is American Courier Corp., supr.
component which the regional office monitors and
controls on a regular basis. Each week, the region-
al facilities file an hours report with the regional
office. If, after reviewing a report, it is determined
that the hours either exceed or fail to meet the
"norm" established for that particular location,
someone from the regional office investigates. De-
pending upon the particular circumstances, the re-
gional office may direct local supervisors to reduce
overtime, hire employees, or take some other ap-
propriate action. The regional office may itself ar-
range to transfer excess employees permanently to
other regional facilities in need of additional per-
sonnel.
All of the Employer's courier-guards wear iden-
tical uniforms, drive the same type of vehicle, per-
form the same work duties, are subject to the same
work rules, and receive the same benefits. Wage
scales, increases, vacation benefits,14 and the
number of holidays and the days on which they are
celebrated are all determined on a regional basis.
Payroll is handled by the national headquarters.
The regional office also plays an important role
in hiring, firing, and transferring employees. It in-
structs all area operational offices and satellite facil-
ities regarding the format and language to be used
in advertisements for new hires. It sets the number
of new employees to be hired, and must approve
them before they can be considered permanent. Al-
though in some circumstances a local supervisor
may fire an employee without prior approval, nor-
mally the regional office must approve termina-
tions, as well as new hires and rehires. Transfers
also require the regional office's prior approval,
except in the case of a short term transfer on an
emergency basis. While the record is vague with
respect to the actual frequency with which courier-
guards transfer between the various regional termi-
nal facilities, if union witness Foshee is an accurate
barometer, such transfers would seem to be fairly
commonplace. Foshee testified that he transferred
at least three times, and added that courier-guards
can move around so long as they stay within the
jurisdiction of the south-central region.
In view of the factors discussed above, we con-
clude, as the Board did in American Courier, that a
bargaining unit limited to a single terminal within
one of the Employer's administrative regions is in-
appropriate. In particular, the high degree to
which the Employer's operations are integrated as
a result of its customers' demands for time-sensitive
and secure delivery, the overlapping supervision
under which the courier-guards routinely work, the
', Vacation schedules are arranged at the local level, but are reviewed
to insure that too many are not being taken at the same time.
662
PUROLATOR COURIER CORP.
frequent contact among courier-guards stationed
throughout the region, the uniformity of courier-
guards' working conditions and duties, and the
broad authority over daily operations and labor re-
lations exercised by the regional office lead us to
conclude, in accord with American Courier, that
only a unit coextensive with the south-central
region is appropriate.
Since we have found that the unit sought by the
Petitioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the pe-
tition on this ground, as well as on the ground, dis-
cussed supra, that the courier-guards are guards
under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, and the Petitioner
cannot therefore be certified to represent them.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
663