Rental Uniform Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1999

330 N.L.R.B. 334 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 334
Rental Uniform Service, Inc. and Teamsters Local
430, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 5–RC–14628
December 13, 1999
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND LIEBMAN
On March 25, 1998, the Regional Director for Region
5 issued a Decision and Direction of Election, in which
he found appropriate for collective bargaining a multi-
facility unit of service representatives that is broader than
the Petitioner’s requested single-facility unit.1
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Peti-
tioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director’s Decision, asserting that a unit limited to the
Hanover facility is appropriate based on separate local
supervision and the lack of interchange among employ-
ees at the three facilities.2 The Employer filed an opposi-
tion to the Petitioner’s request for review. By Order
dated April 22, 1998, the Board granted the Petitioner’s
request for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having carefully considered the entire record, we re-
verse the Regional Director’s decision and find that the
single-facility presumption that a unit of employees at
the Hanover location is appropriate has not been rebut-
ted.3
The Employer, Rental Uniform Service, Inc., is en-
gaged in the business of renting uniforms and industrial
towels or mats to businesses. Corporate officials located
in Virginia set wage policies and many human relations
policies and rules. The Employer has 22 processing cen-
ters, 1 of which is located in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
At the Hanover processing center, the Employer laun-
ders and repairs garments, towels, and mats. Once proc-
essed, some products are retained at Hanover, and others
are delivered by shuttle drivers to two satellite pickup
stations, one in York, Pennsylvania, and the other in Fre-
derick, Maryland. The York location is approximately
22 miles from the Hanover processing center. The Fre-
derick location is approximately 39 miles from Hanover.
The Frederick and York locations are about 50 miles
apart. The Hanover location has operated for over 30
years. The York and Frederick sites were created in the
mid-1980s to minimize driving time for delivering prod-
ucts to customers.

1 The Petitioner requested a unit of service representatives and route
drivers and jumpers employed by the Employer at its Hanover, Penn-
sylvania facility. The Regional Director found that the requested unit
was not an appropriate unit. The unit found appropriate by the Re-
gional Director is as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time service representatives, shuttle
drivers and jumpers employed by the Employer at its facilities located
at York, Pennsylvania, Hanover, Pennsylvania, and Frederick, Mary-
land; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined by the Act.
2 The Petitioner also requested review of the Regional Director’s in-
clusion of the shuttle drivers in the unit found appropriate.
3 We affirm, however, as discussed below, the Regional Director’s
inclusion of shuttle drivers in the unit.
The general manager of the Hanover area, which in-
cludes the three locations, is located at Hanover. The
sales department, order department, and administration
and human resources department for the Hanover terri-
tory are also housed at Hanover.4
The York and Frederick sites each have a service cen-
ter manager. Hanover also has a service center manager
position, which at the time of hearing was vacant.
The Employer employs service representatives and
jumpers who deliver the products to customers and pick
up soiled products. Service representatives and jumpers
are permanently assigned to one of the three locations.
Nineteen service representatives and three jumpers work
from the Hanover location, 12 service representatives
and 2 jumpers are assigned to York, and 12 service rep-
resentatives and 2 jumpers are assigned to Frederick.
Service representatives are assigned regular routes that
originate from and terminate at the facility to which they
are assigned. Routes may change as accounts are added
or eliminated. Jumpers do not have assigned routes, but
are trained to do the route service representative jobs at
the particular site to which they are assigned. When a
service representative is absent, a jumper from the same
location fills in.
Service representatives report directly to a supervisor
assigned to the same location. The supervisors report to
the service center manager at the same location.5 The
service representatives’ immediate supervisor is respon-
sible for overseeing the work of the service representa-
tives, for ensuring that the routes get run every day, that
invoices are checked in, and that credits or debits are
adjusted in the computer. Service representatives are
expected to bring any problems to their immediate su-
pervisor. The supervisors also grant service representa-
tives’ requests for time off.
The supervisors evaluate the service representatives
and are involved in discussing any performance prob-
lems. Day to day, the supervisors carry out discipline,
including giving oral warnings, to service representa-
tives. Supervisors also may issue written warnings,
which are forwarded to the Hanover general manager,
who signs off on them and who might call the supervisor
to discuss the matter. The service center manager can
suspend service representatives working at his location,
after notifying and discussing the matter with the Hano-
4 The human resources director for the Hanover area also is respon-
sible for the Allentown, Pennsylvania processing center.
5 The supervisors at Hanover report to the general manager at Hano-
ver. As noted, at the time of the hearing, the Service Center Manager
position at Hanover was vacant.
330 NLRB No. 44
RENTAL UNIFORM SERVICE 335
ver general manager. Hanover General Manager Paul
Johnson testified that during his one-half year in the po-
sition, he has generally relied on the supervisors’ judg-
ment in handling discipline issues, and has never exer-
cised his authority to overrule a supervisor’s decision
with regard to discipline. The immediate supervisor is
also involved in discharge decisions, although the deci-
sion concerning discharge of service representatives at all
three facilities is done through the Hanover office.
Applications for employment generally are made at a
particular location. Supervisors at the three locations
conduct initial interviews. The service center manager
may conduct a second interview, or the applicant may
interview with the human resources manager located at
Hanover. The Hanover general manager retains final
authority over all hiring decisions.
As noted, service representatives are permanently as-
signed to one of the three locations, where they drive
assigned routes. There is no record evidence of any tem-
porary interchange or instances in which a Hanover ser-
vice representative has driven a route originating in ei-
ther of the other facilities. In the mid-1980s, when the
Employer opened the Frederick and York locations,
some Hanover service representatives transferred to
those locations. There are no recent examples of perma-
nent transfers of service representatives to service repre-
sentative positions at another facility. Service represen-
tatives have moved to another facility to accept a promo-
tion to a nonunit position such as supervisor. Employees
who transfer would retain their seniority with the Em-
ployer. The jumpers assigned to each facility fill in for
absent service representatives at the facility to which the
jumper is assigned because the jumper is familiar with
that facility’s routes; jumpers generally receive a promo-
tion to a service representative position at the location
where they have been working, although they may be
offered a position at another location.
A unit consisting of employees at a single-plant or
store location is presumptively an appropriate unit unless
it has been so effectively merged into a more comprehen-
sive unit, or is so functionally integrated, that it has lost
its separate identity. D&L Transportation, Inc., 324
NLRB 160, 160 (1997); J&L Plate, Inc., 310 NLRB 429,
429 (1993); Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41, 42
(1988); Dixie Belle Mills, 139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962).
To determine whether the presumption has been rebutted,
the Board looks at such factors as centralized control
over daily operations and labor relations; extent of
autonomy in the local manager to handle the facility’s
day-to-day ordinary operations and to supervise the em-
ployees’ day-to-day work; similarity of skills, functions,
and working conditions; extent of employee interchange;
geographic proximity; and bargaining history if any.
D&L Transportation, supra; Office Depot, Inc. v. NLRB,
184 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1999).
In finding that the single-facility presumption had been
rebutted, the Regional Director cited the highly inte-
grated nature of the Employer’s operation, the adminis-
trative and operational dependence of York and Freder-
ick on Hanover, and centralized control over labor rela-
tions, administrative, and personnel matters. The Re-
gional Director characterized the local managers’ author-
ity as “routine.” Although recognizing the absence of
significant interchange, the Regional Director determined
that the similarity of skills, pay, and job functions of the
service representatives at the three facilities demon-
strated a shared community of interest that rendered the
single-location unit inappropriate.
We recognize that the Employer maintains central con-
trol of aspects of labor relations, and that there is admin-
istrative and operational integration between Hanover
and the two “satellite” facilities, and a similarity of job
functions, skill, and pay. Based on these factors, we
have little doubt that the combined unit would, if sought,
constitute an appropriate unit. We disagree, however,
with the Regional Director’s finding that those factors
are sufficient to overcome the single-facility unit pre-
sumption in the circumstances presented. Carter Hawley
Hale Stores, 273 NLRB 621 (1984).
Contrary to the Regional Director’s characterization,
the record evidence demonstrates significant local auton-
omy over labor relations. York and Frederick have a
service center manager, who oversees the delivery opera-
tion; a comparable, although vacant, position exists at
Hanover. The service representatives permanently as-
signed to a facility report to an immediate supervisor,
who, along with the local manager, has significant re-
sponsibility for the employees’ day-to-day work. Service
representatives bring “any” problems to their immediate
supervisors, who also grant time off requests.6 The im-
mediate supervisor can issue oral warnings and draft
written discipline, and participates in discussions involv-
ing terminations. The local service center manager also
may suspend an employee. Although the Hanover gen-
eral manager reviews written warnings and suspensions,
the general manager has never reversed the action of a
local supervisor or manager. In addition, the direct su-
pervisor does the evaluations of the service representa-
tives, and is involved in discussions about performance
problems. Further, although the Hanover general man-
ager approves all hiring decisions, the local facility su-
pervisor and service manager are involved in the hiring
process.
Such significant involvement in a range of personnel
and labor relations matters is not “routine in nature” as
characterized by the Regional Director, but demonstrates
meaningful local autonomy and participation in matters
directly affecting the service representatives’ working

6 Indeed, the supervisors’ bonuses are based on the performance of
the service representatives who report to them.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 336
lives. See Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41, 43
(1988) (local terminal manager, who conducted initial
screening for new hires and was consulted about major
disciplinary decisions, made more than routine decisions,
notwithstanding that central management had final au-
thority with respect to hiring and major disciplinary deci-
sions).
The Employer further failed to rebut the presumption
by any showing of significant employee interchange.
Indeed, there is no showing of any temporary inter-
change of service representatives among the three facili-
ties. Service representatives are permanently assigned to
one facility, and their routes begin and end at their as-
signed facility. Even jumpers, who fill in for absent ser-
vice representatives, are assigned to a particular facility,
fill in almost exclusively on routes originating from that
facility, and generally are promoted to a service represen-
tative position at that facility. Further, the only examples
of service representatives permanently transferring to a
service representative position at another facility oc-
curred in the mid-1980s, when the Employer opened the
York and Frederick facilities.7
Although service representatives at the three facilities
perform the same job, there is no evidence that Hanover
service representatives interact with service representa-
tives at York or Frederick to perform their jobs or on any
regular basis.8 The instances of common training relied
on by the Employer are offset by the many separate
meetings the Employer holds at each facility. See Bowie
Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41, 43 (1988) (finding pre-
sumption not rebutted where no substantial evidence of
employee transfers, and only generalized testimony
about employee contacts).
Given the absence of interchange and work interaction,
the similarity of skills, pay, and job function does not
establish that Hanover has no separate identity. Further,
despite the Employer’s argument about the dependency
of York and Frederick on Hanover, that dependency is
based on the administrative services that are separately
performed at Hanover. There is no dependency between
service representatives at Hanover and those at York or
Frederick. See Office Depot, Inc. v. NLRB, 184 F.3d 506

7 Dayton Transport Corp., 270 NLRB 1114 (1984), in which the
Board found sufficient evidence to overcome the presumptive appropri-
ateness of the requested single-facility unit, is distinguishable. There
the record showed frequent (about 400–425 times in 1 year) short-term
or temporary interchange of drivers among three facilities, where driv-
ers from one terminal dropped loads at another terminal, and then were
dispatched on another run from the intermediate terminal.
8 The Employer provided evidence that when it obtained a large con-
tract in the Baltimore area to provide uniforms, individuals from all
three locations helped with necessary measuring. That sole occurrence,
about which the Employer provided no details, fails to demonstrate that
Hanover service representatives have significant, regular work interac-
tion with service representatives from the other two locations.
(6th Cir. 1999) (rejecting contention that unit was re-
quired to include satellite delivery centers).9
Further, the geographic separation of the facilities is
significant. The York location is 22 miles from Hanover
and Frederick is 50 miles away. There is also an absence
of bargaining history. These factors further support a
single-location unit.
In sum, we find that the presumptive appropriateness
of the petitioned-for, single-facility unit has not been
rebutted.10 Accordingly, we reverse the Regional Direc-
tor’s decision in this regard,11 and shall remand this pro-
ceeding to him for further appropriate action.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is reversed. This case is remanded to the Re-
gional Director for further proceedings in conformity
with this Decision on Review.
9 In Neodata Product Distribution, 312 NLRB 987 (1993), on which
the Employer relies, the employer maintained two facilities located 3
miles apart. Employees at one facility received and processed orders
for delivery of products, while employees at the nearby facility pack-
aged, invoiced and shipped the ordered product to the customer, and
entered information into the computer for the billing process, which
was handled by employees of the first facility. In concluding that the
only appropriate unit consisted of employees at both facilities, the
Board found that “employees at each facility participate equally and
fully at various stages in the Employer’s overall production process,
which consists of the processing and filling of customer orders . . . Thus
. . . despite being physically separate from each other, the Washington
and 10th Street employees constitute integral and indispensable parts of
a single ‘order flow process.’” Id. at 988. In Neodata, the Board also
found that in performing their coordinated functions, the employees of
the two facilities had regular, frequent contact. By contrast here, the
Hanover service representatives and jumpers that the Petitioner seeks to
represent perform their work wholly independent of, and with virtually
no contact with, service representatives at either Frederick or York.
10 After the Board granted review, the Employer submitted to the
Board a decision by an Acting Regional Director in RUS of Morgan-
town, Case 6–RC–11681, in which the Acting Regional Director found
that a single-location unit, involving the same Employer, was not ap-
propriate. No party requested review of that decision. “We do not
attach any weight in this proceeding to that case since we have long
held that Regional Director’s Decisions do not have precedential
value.” S. H. Kress & Co., 212 NLRB 132 fn. 1 (1974).
11 We see no basis for reversing the Regional Director’s inclusion of
shuttle drivers in the unit. They are assigned to the Hanover facility,
and are subject to the same line of supervision as the Hanover service
representatives and jumpers. The Petitioner has provided no facts or
argument in support of its bare assertion that they were improperly
included.