Unisys Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 92
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Unisys Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO
and its Local 1313, Petitioner. Case 7–RC–23167
October 20, 2009
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On February 21, 2008, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Order in this proceeding, in which he con-
cluded that a self-determination election to permit pro-
duction control assistant Gerald Sarna to vote on inclu-
sion with the currently represented general production
employees and electronic product technicians was not
appropriate. In this regard, the Regional Director found
that the proposed voting group, which consists only of
Sarna, is not appropriate because it excludes other em-
ployees with whom Sarna shares a community of inter-
est, including employees with the same title as Sarna,
certain shipping and receiving employees, procurement
analysts, material planning analysts, and order manage-
ment analysts, all of whom are unrepresented.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Re-
gional Director’s decision. The Petitioner contended that
Sarna’s specialized duties, functional integration and
interaction with employees in the existing unit, and his-
tory of bargaining in a separate plant clerical unit with
terms and conditions of employment similar to those of
the existing unit, warrant a self-determination election to
decide whether he desires inclusion in the existing unit.
The Employer filed an opposition to the request for re-
view.
By Order dated June 5, 2008, the Board granted the
Petitioner’s request for review. Thereafter, the Petitioner
and the Employer each filed a brief on review.
Having carefully considered the entire record, includ-
ing the briefs on review filed by the Petitioner and the
Employer, we conclude that Sarna shares a sufficient
community of interest with the existing unit and that his
employment interests are sufficiently identifiable and
distinct from the other unrepresented employees to per-
mit a self-determination election.1

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
Factual Background
1. The facility
The Employer manufactures and distributes check
processing equipment and related products at several
facilities throughout the United States. Its Plymouth,
Michigan facility is the sole location germane to this
proceeding. The Plymouth facility consists of four build-
ings connected by a series of breezeways. Located in
building 1 are the Employer’s accounting, human re-
sources, and payment systems personnel.
Building 2 consists of 10 to 12 separate production ar-
eas, where the Employer’s check processing products are
assembled, tested, and repaired; a packing area; a ship-
ping and receiving area; and an office area known as
“cube city.” All of the employees in the existing unit
work in building 2, in the production, packing, and ship-
ping and receiving areas, except for four unit employees
who perform janitorial duties in building 1. Several clas-
sifications of unrepresented employees also work in
building 2, primarily in cube city. These include pro-
curement analysts, material planning analysts, order
management analysts, engineers, certain management
personnel, and Sarna.
Building 3 is devoted to the warehousing of spare parts
and the reclamation of equipment returned by customers.
Warehousing employees, shipping and receiving em-
ployees, production control assistants, and technicians,
among others, work in building 3. building 4 houses a
separate business division of the Employer, known as
Unisys Direct. Building 4 employees are involved in the
warehousing and distribution of consumable products,
such as literature, software, and toner cartridges. The
employees working in buildings 3 and 4 are all unrepre-
sented.
2. Bargaining history
The Petitioner has represented the Employer’s general
production employees and electronic technicians since
1964. The contractual unit description in the most recent

powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d
410 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3130 (U.S.
September 11, 2009) (No. 09-328); New Process Steel v. NLRB, 564
F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 77 U.S.L.W. 3670 (U.S.
May 22, 2009) (No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB,
560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3098
(U.S. August 18, 2009) (No. 09-213). But see Laurel Baye Healthcare
of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009), petition
for cert. filed sub nom. NLRB v. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake
Lanier, Inc., __U.S.L.W.__ (U.S. September 29, 2009) (No. 09-377).
DECISIIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
collective-bargaining agreement, which was effective
from April 24, 2007 to April 24, 2009, included “all
hourly-rated production employees of the plants located
at 41100 Plymouth Road and 13100 Haggerty Road
[buildings 1 and 2], Plymouth, Michigan, including gen-
eral production and electronic technicians (manufactur-
ing).” The unit excluded “all other employees presently
covered by existing collective-bargaining agreements
between labor organizations and the company,” as well
as office clerical employees, professionals, all other
technical employees, guards, assistant foremen, foremen,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.2
Between 1967 and 2007, a sister local–International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local Union 1440–
represented a separate unit of plant clerical employees
working in building 2. The unit description in the most
recent collective-bargaining agreement, which was effec-
tive from March 30, 2002 through March 25, 2006, in-
cluded “all salaried plant clerical employees of the Ply-
mouth Plant located at 13100 Haggerty Road [building
2], Plymouth, Michigan, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, managers, guards, professional employees,
technical employees, confidential employees, managerial
employees and all employees covered under collective-
bargaining agreements.”
The wages and benefits under the two most recent col-
lective-bargaining agreements between the Employer and
the Petitioner and between the Employer and Local 1440
were substantially similar. The agreements included
similar cost-of-living allowances, working hours and
overtime provisions, call-back pay provisions, holidays,
and service days. The agreements expired within 1 or 2
weeks of one another. The Employer and the Petitioner
negotiated their contract first. Local 1440 and the Em-
ployer then met a single time and adopted a contract that
provided similar economic improvements.
Over time, the plant clerical unit represented by Local
1440 dwindled down to one employee, Gerald Sarna. In
2007, Local 1440’s charter was revoked by the Interna-
tional Union. The Petitioner then assumed representa-
tional responsibility for the plant clerical unit.
By letter dated January 13, 2007, the Employer noti-
fied Sarna that he had been reclassified as a production
control assistant effective July 2, 2007.3 The letter stated
that Sarna’s wage rate would remain unchanged, but his
other terms and conditions of employment would be the
same as the Employer’s unrepresented employees. Sarna

2 The unit description in previous agreements included additional clas-
sifications. For example, prior to 1998, the unit also included “hourly
rated plant clerical employees” working in buildings 1 and 2.
3 Sarna’s former title was senior material control clerk.
was also given certain additional responsibilities, de-
scribed below. On about June 15, 2007, the Employer
withdrew recognition from the Petitioner as the represen-
tative of the plant clerical unit on the ground that it had
become a one-person unit. On January 7, 2008, the Peti-
tioner filed the instant petition for a self-determination
election to ascertain whether Sarna wishes to be included
in the existing unit or remain unrepresented.
The other classifications of employees at issue in this
proceeding have never been represented by any labor
organization for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and there is no applicable bargaining history involving
those classifications.
3. Job functions, skills, and training
a. Existing unit: There are approximately 124 em-
ployees in the existing production unit. Unit employees
assemble, test, pack, and ship the Employer’s check
processing products; receive incoming shipments of
component parts purchased from outside suppliers; test
and inspect the component parts to ensure that they meet
the Employer’s specifications; deliver the component
parts to appropriate internal delivery locations; perform
repairs on returned parts; and perform janitorial duties in
buildings 1 and 2.
The unit employees responsible for testing and trou-
bleshooting the Employer’s finished products are re-
quired to have an electronics certificate from a 2-year
training school or community college. The employees
responsible for testing component parts purchased from
outside suppliers are required to have a mechanical in-
spection certificate. The other unit employees receive no
formal training and are not required to have licenses or
certifications of any kind.
b. Sarna: Sarna has worked for the Employer since
1974. His primary responsibility involves filling emer-
gency orders for replacement parts for the Employer’s
products. This involves picking, packing, and shipping
the replacement parts. He is also responsible for process-
ing incoming shipments of component parts.
Sarna begins his workday at his desk in cube city,
where he spends approximately 2 hours communicating,
by telephone and e-mail, with customers and customer
service engineers4 at other locations who have placed
emergency orders. Sarna then travels to the shipping and
receiving area to process incoming shipments. Incoming
shipments are initially processed by a unit employee.
The unit employee scans bar-coded packages into a com-
puter database using a radiofrequency gun and puts aside
any packages that do not have a barcode for Sarna to

4 Customer service engineers work at customer locations and repair
the Employer’s products.
UNISYS CORP. 3
process. The unit employee then writes up packing slips
for the packages without bar-codes and gives the packing
slips to Sarna. Sarna manually enters the information
from the packing slips into a computer in the shipping
and receiving area that is reserved for his sole use, prints
bar-coded labels, and gives the labels to the unit em-
ployee. The unit employee attaches the labels to the
packages and delivers the packages to internal delivery
locations in building 2. Sarna spends approximately 1
hour each day processing incoming shipments.
Sarna then travels to the production areas of building 2
to obtain replacement parts to fill emergency orders. He
ordinarily goes to the work cells where the required part
is manufactured and asks a unit employee to pull the part
or, if the part is not already assembled, to expedite the
part. Sarna spends approximately 1 hour in the produc-
tion areas obtaining replacement parts from unit employ-
ees. If Sarna is unable to locate the appropriate unit em-
ployee, he may request assistance from an unrepresented
analyst assigned to the work cell. He may also request
assistance from unrepresented analysts in obtaining re-
placement parts from a stockroom in building 2, in veri-
fying the address to which an emergency order is being
shipped, or recirculating parts for repair.
After Sarna obtains the required parts, he carries them
to the small parts packing area in building 2, to be
packed by a unit employee. Sarna may also pack parts
himself. He then inputs data regarding the parts into the
Employer’s inventory tracking system using a shared
computer located in the small parts packing area. Sarna
spends anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes in small parts
packing each day. Next, Sarna takes the parts to the
shipping and receiving area, where he completes the
shipping documentation on his computer and prints and
attaches shipping labels to the packages. This process
may take up to an hour each day.
Some parts have to be transferred to the warehouse lo-
cated in building 3 and entered into inventory at that lo-
cation prior to shipping. In that event, Sarna delivers the
parts to the shipping and receiving employees in building
3. Sarna spends up to 15 minutes each day delivering
parts to the warehouse in building 3.
As noted above, the Employer reclassified Sarna as a
production control assistant effective July 2, 2007.5
When he was reclassified, Sarna was given responsibility
for processing emergency orders for replacement parts
for printers manufactured by outside vendors. This pri-
marily involves communicating by email with outside
vendors to arrange for the drop shipment of replacement

5 Sarna’s former title was chief production control dispatcher.
printer parts to customers.6 Sarna spends approximately
1 hour per day performing these duties, using his com-
puter in cube city.
Sarna’s normal working hours are from 8 a.m. until
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He is required to
carry a pager and a cell phone and to remain on call at all
times. He is called back to the facility to process emer-
gency overnight orders two to three times per week.
Sarna did not receive any formal training. He received
on-the-job training in three different computer programs:
BAMCS, which is the Employer’s computerized manu-
facturing database; GLS, an inventory tracking system;
and OMS, an international shipping program.
c. Production control assistants: As indicated above,
following the Employer’s withdrawal of recognition
from the Petitioner in the plant clerical unit, Sarna was
reclassified as a production control assistant (PCA).
There are five other employees with this title. Three
work in the reclamation area of building 3 performing
inventory management and one works in building 4 per-
forming inventory management for literature and soft-
ware.7 The written job description of the PCAs indicates
that they are responsible for reviewing records on stock
status, material requirements, order processing, inspec-
tion, and production, and maintaining records on current
production, using software applications. They frequently
interact with customers. The record does not reflect
whether they use the same computer systems as Sarna.
The PCA position does not require any specialized train-
ing or skills.
d. Analysts: There are three classifications of ana-
lysts. Procurement analysts work with outside vendors
to purchase component parts used in the assembly of the
check processing machines and printer parts. Material
planning analysts determine the flow of product to make
sure that parts get to the work cells in a timely manner
and in the correct quantities required to fulfill orders.
They also communicate with procurement analysts to
make sure that shortages are known. Order management
analysts follow up with procurement on parts orders to
make sure they ship on time. Order management ana-
lysts and material planning analysts work in buildings 2,
3, and 4. Procurement analysts work in building 2, in
cube city. A college degree is preferred for the analyst
positions, but the record reflects that two procurement
analysts, both formerly members of the Local 1440 plant
clerical unit, bid on and obtained their present positions
as procurement analysts without a college degree.

6 Before his reclassification, Sarna’s duties involved only products
assembled at the Employer’s Plymouth facility.
7 The record is unclear regarding the specific job duties of the re-
maining PCA and whether she works in building 3 or 4.
DECISIIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
e. Shipping and receiving employees: The shipping
and receiving employees work in building 3. They are
responsible for receiving orders, completing shipping
and receiving paperwork, picking orders and performing
continual warehouse inventory. Like Sarna, they process
orders for replacement parts and are required to remain
on call and be available at all times to process emergency
overnight orders. Unlike Sarna, however, they only
process orders for replacement parts that are in inventory
in the building 3 warehouse. If the required part is not in
inventory in building 3, the order goes to Sarna. The
shipping and receiving employees are not required to
have any specialized training. They received on-the-job
training in the same computer systems as Sarna.
4. Supervision and management
a. Existing unit: Most of the employees in the existing
unit report to three “production coaches”: Jerry Kiesel,
Gayle Rodriguez, and Stephen Steen. Kiesel, Rodriguez,
and Steen report directly to Department Manager John
Earl, who reports to Vice President Larry McCarter. Five
unit employees who are responsible for performing repairs
on returned parts report directly to Department Manager
Bill Holmes, who reports to McCarter. Five unit employ-
ees who perform janitorial duties are supervised by Mi-
chael Safranski. The record is silent regarding the second-
level supervision and management of the janitorial em-
ployees.
b. Sarna: Sarna is supervised by Mary Beth Fischer
Smith, who reports to Holmes. Fischer Smith has super-
vised Sarna since 2005.
c. Production control assistants: Three of the other
PCAs are supervised by Alan Yew, one is supervised by
Sue Erdman, and one is supervised by Bob Sheeler. The
record is silent regarding the second-level supervision
and management of the other PCAs.
d. Analysts: Fischer Smith supervises two analysts
working in building 2 whose exact title is unclear. Some
witnesses referred to them as material planning analysts,
while others referred to them as order management ana-
lysts. At the time of the hearing, the procurement ana-
lysts reported directly to Holmes, but they were in the
process of being transitioned to Department Manager Jim
Whiting. Like Holmes, Whiting reports to Vice Presi-
dent McCarter. The Employer’s organizational chart
also reflects that several order management analysts re-
port indirectly to Whiting through an unnamed manager.
e. Shipping and receiving clerks: Fischer Smith su-
pervises two shipping and receiving clerks who work in
building 3. At the time of the hearing, she was tempo-
rarily supervising several other shipping and receiving
clerks working in building 3, who were in the process of
being transitioned to an unnamed manager, who will
report to Holmes.
5. Wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions
of employment
The terms and conditions of employment of the Em-
ployer’s represented and unrepresented employees are
similar in many respects, but there are differences relat-
ing to compensation, leave, vacation, disability, medical
insurance, and pension. In addition, some unrepresented
employees are eligible for availability pay, while em-
ployees in the existing unit are not. Both represented and
unrepresented employees receive call-back pay, but it is
calculated differently for the two groups.
Unit employees are paid an hourly wage rate, which
ranges between $11 and $25.05 per hour. Under the
Local 1440 collective-bargaining agreement, Sarna’s
wage rate was $21.06 per hour, which falls between the
lowest and the highest hourly wage rate in the existing
unit.8 When he was reclassified, Sarna’s wage rate re-
mained unchanged and he kept his accrued service days
and his years of service under the negotiated pension
plan. In all other respects, however, his terms and condi-
tions of employment became the same as the Employer’s
other unrepresented employees.
Like Sarna, the other PCAs and the shipping and re-
ceiving employees are hourly paid.9 The analysts are
salaried. The record does not reveal the specific wage
rates or salaries of any of the unrepresented employees at
issue in this proceeding or how their compensation com-
pares to Sarna’s.
6. Functional integration and interaction
Sarna works alongside of, and interacts with, employees
in the existing unit from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours each day.
Thus, the record reflects that Sarna spends approximately
1 hour each day in the shipping and receiving area of
building 2, working with a unit employee to process in-
coming shipments that are not bar-coded; he spends ap-
proximately 1 hour each day in the production areas of
building 2, obtaining replacement parts directly from unit
employees; and he spends anywhere from 30 to 90 min-
utes each day working alongside a unit employee in the
small parts packing area, packing replacement parts for
shipping and entering them into the Employer’s inventory

8 The record is silent concerning how Sarna, an hourly-paid plant
clerical, came to be included in the Local 1440 unit of salaried plant
clericals.
9 Fischer Smith testified that the wage rate for the PCAs is based on
a combination of factors, including a common market reference point,
the employee’s annual performance review, years of service, and back-
ground. At the time of the hearing, Sarna’s wage rate had not yet been
set in relation to the market reference point for PCAs.
UNISYS CORP. 5
database. Sarna also spends approximately 1 hour each
day in the shipping and receiving area where unit employ-
ees work, preparing shipping manifests for replacement
parts on a computer dedicated to his sole use.
The record reflects that Sarna has no interaction or
functional integration with the other PCAs.
Sarna spends anywhere from 45 minutes to approxi-
mately 1 hour and 15 minutes each day interacting with
unrepresented analysts. Sarna testified that when he
cannot locate a unit employee to help him obtain a re-
placement part, he asks analyst Gale Gutknect for assis-
tance in obtaining the required part. He estimated that he
interacts with Gutknect 15 to 20 minutes per day. He
also testified that if there is a problem with the delivery
address for an emergency order, he asks analyst Denise
Durkin for the correct address. He estimated that he in-
teracts with Durkin 5 to 10 minutes a day. He testified
further that he interacts with analyst Fred Kuriakose ap-
proximately 10 to 15 minutes each day when he needs to
obtain a part from the stockroom in building 2. Although
Sarna referred to Gutknect, Durkin, and Kuriakose as
analysts, he was not able to recall their specific title.
Sarna also testified that analyst Eileen Barbacci sends
him an email requesting his assistance in getting a part
expedited off the floor once a week or every other week.
He testified further that he asks analyst Jason Doliezel
for assistance in getting printer parts recirculated for re-
pair. Sarna testified that his interaction with Doliezel
occurs approximately every other day and lasts 15 to 20
minutes. Barbacci and Doliezel are both supervised by
Fischer Smith.10
In addition, Sarna testified that he receives one or two
emails each day from procurement analysts, confirming
that outside vendors have shipped replacement parts for
printers to the Employer’s customers.
For many years, including while Sarna was repre-
sented by Local 1440 in the plant clerical unit, analysts
Gutknecht and Doliezel have performed Sarna’s duties
relating to the preparation of manifests for ground ship-
ping for emergency orders. The record does not reveal
how frequently this occurs.
As indicated above, Sarna interacts with the shipping
and receiving employees in building 3 approximately 15
minutes each day, when he delivers replacement parts to
building 3 to be shipped out of that area. The shipping
and receiving employees also perform some of Sarna’s
shipping duties when he is on vacation or unavailable.

10 As discussed above, the evidence regarding the specific title
of the analysts supervised by Fischer Smith is conflicting, and it is not
clear whether they are material analysts or order management analysts.
The record does not reveal how frequently this occurs or
which aspects of Sarna’s shipping duties they perform.
Sarna testified that a unit employee delivers parts to
the stockroom in building 3, where the shipping and re-
ceiving employees work. The record is otherwise si-
lent regarding the extent of interaction and functional
integration between the unit employees, the other
PCAs, the analysts, and the shipping and receiving
employees in building 3.
Analysis
Based on the foregoing facts, we find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that a self-determination election in a
voting group limited to Sarna is appropriate.
The Regional Director dismissed the petition on the
basis that the proposed voting group is not appropriate
because it excludes other unrepresented “residual” em-
ployees similar to Sarna, and “it is well established that a
residual unit is appropriate only if it includes all unrepre-
sented employees of the type covered by the petition.”
We disagree. An Armour-Globe self-determination elec-
tion permits employees sharing a community of interest
with an already represented unit of employees to vote
whether to join that unit. Globe Machine & Stamping
Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937); Armour & Co., 40 NLRB 1333
(1942). See also NLRB v. Raytheon Co., 918 F.2d 249,
251 (1st Cir. 1990). Although the Board will usually
determine first whether the petitioned-for employees
constitute a separate appropriate unit, the Board has also
held that a self-determination election is the proper
method by which a union may add unrepresented em-
ployees to an existing unit, if those employees share a
community of interest with unit employees and constitute
an identifiable, distinct segment so as to comprise an
appropriate voting group. Warner-Lambert Co., 298
NLRB 993, 995 (1990). Here, the Petitioner seeks a self-
determination election in a separate appropriate voting
group pursuant to Armour-Globe, not the creation of, and
election in, a residual unit.
In these circumstances, the Board’s policy that a resid-
ual unit is appropriate only if it includes all unrepre-
sented employees of the type covered by the petition is
not applicable. Rather, the proper analysis is whether the
employee(s) in the proposed voting group share a com-
munity of interest with the currently represented employ-
ees and whether they constitute an identifiable, distinct
segment. Id.
We find that Sarna shares a community of interest with
the existing unit. Sarna has different job skills and du-
ties, separate immediate supervision, and does not inter-
change with the employees in the existing unit. How-
ever, he works in the same building as the unit employ-
ees and spends a substantial amount of time each day in
DECISIIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
the production, packing, and shipping and receiving ar-
eas where he has frequent work-related contact with the
unit employees and, like them, he is hourly paid, punches
in and out, works similar hours, and takes the same
amount of time for lunch. His wages are similar to the
more highly paid unit employees. While there are some
differences in pay and benefits, the differences are the
result of collective bargaining. Furthermore, his position
is functionally integrated into the production, packing,
and shipping and receiving functions of the unit employ-
ees, and he performs overlapping job functions with sev-
eral of the unit employees. For example, he works
closely with the shipping and receiving clerk in building
2 on a daily basis, receiving and processing incoming
shipments. He also works alongside a unit employee in
small parts packing on a daily basis, packing and proc-
essing parts for shipment. Moreover, Sarna spends ap-
proximately an hour each day in the production areas,
obtaining replacement parts directly from unit employ-
ees. Finally, Sarna shares common second-level supervi-
sion with several unit employees who perform repairs on
returned parts. In light of these factors, it is clear that
Sarna shares a sufficient community of interest with the
existing unit to warrant a self-determination election.
We also find that Sarna constitutes a distinct, identifi-
able segment of the Employer’s unrepresented employ-
ees and that a voting group limited to Sarna is appropri-
ate. In reaching this determination, we rely in part on
Sarna’s distinctive functions. In describing Sarna’s du-
ties, Fischer Smith testified “he’s pretty much a one
man show” and “[n]o one really does exactly what he
does.” Sarna’s main responsibility is filling emer-
gency orders for replacement parts that cannot be
filled from the existing stock in building 3. As de-
scribed above, performing this function brings Sarna
into regular contact with unit employees and requires
that he spend up to 3-1/2 hours each day in the pro-
duction, packing, and shipping and receiving areas,
working alongside unit employees. No other unrep-
resented employee at issue in this proceeding per-
forms comparable functions or has comparable con-
tact with the unit employees.
Although the other unrepresented PCAs share the same
title as Sarna, it is undisputed that they perform different
functions, work in different buildings and departments,
and have separate supervision. Further, there is no evi-
dence of work-related contact between the other PCAs and
the unit employees, nor is there evidence that the other
PCAs are functionally integrated with the existing unit.
The record reflects that Sarna has no contact or functional
integration with the other PCAs. Thus, although they
share a title and have the same benefits as nearly all of the
unrepresented employees, Sarna has a much stronger
community of interest with the employees in the existing
unit by virtue of functional integration and daily substan-
tive contact.
The unrepresented shipping and receiving employees,
like Sarna, are responsible for processing emergency
orders for replacement parts and, like Sarna, they are
required to remain on-call after hours and during the
weekends. Unlike Sarna, however, they only fill emer-
gency orders for routine parts that are in stock in the
warehouse in building 3. If a part is not in stock, the
order goes to Sarna. There is no evidence that the ship-
ping and receiving employees, in performing their duties,
ever travel to building 2 where the unit employees work.
While, as found by the Regional Director, a unit em-
ployee delivers parts to building 3, the record does not
reveal whether, in doing so, she has any contact with the
unrepresented shipping and receiving employees.
Sarna’s contact with the shipping and receiving em-
ployees appears to be minimal and, contrary to the Re-
gional Director, it is clearly outweighed by his more sub-
stantive daily contact with unit employees. Sarna testi-
fied that he spends, at most, 15 minutes a day delivering
parts to building 3 to be shipped out of that location.
As to the analysts, the record is silent regarding the na-
ture and extent, if any, of their contact and functional
integration with the unit employees. Sarna’s contact
with the analysts, while more substantial than his contact
with the other PCAs and the shipping and receiving em-
ployees, appears to be outweighed by his contact and
functional integration with the unit employees. As noted
above, the record discloses that Sarna works closely with
unit employees up to 3 1/2 hours each day when he is
processing incoming shipments, obtaining parts directly
from unit employees on the production floor, and pack-
ing and processing parts for shipment. In contrast, Sarna
interacts with the analysts approximately 1 hour and 15
minutes a day at most, and some of his interaction with
the analysts consists of email exchanges, rather than
face-to-face contact.
Further, we find significant Sarna’s history of repre-
sentation in a separate plant clerical unit. Although the
record indicates that the analyst positions have been in
existence for many years, the analysts have historically
been excluded from the Local 1440 plant clerical unit
and the parties evidently agreed that the employment
interests of the analysts and the Local 1440 plant cleri-
cals were sufficiently distinct that the plant clericals
could appropriately be represented in a separate bargain-
UNISYS CORP. 7
ing unit.11 Although the Employer reclassified Sarna as a
PCA and gave him additional responsibilities, the
changes in Sarna’s duties do not appear to be so signifi-
cant as to render his representation in a separate unit
from the analysts inappropriate.
Upon these facts and the record as whole, we find that
Sarna has both the requisite community of interest with
the existing unit and a distinctive function and diverse
community of interest from the remaining employees
necessary for the establishment of a separate voting
group under Warner-Lambert, supra. According, we
reverse the Regional Director and direct a self-
determination election for Sarna to decide whether he

11 The testimony indicates that the analyst classifications have been
in existence for at least a decade. The record does not reveal how long
the PCA or the building 3 shipping and receiving classifications have
been in existence.
wishes to be represented in the general production and
electronic product technician unit, or to remain unrepre-
sented.
ORDER
Based on the forgoing, we reverse the Regional Direc-
tor and remand this case to the Regional Director for
further appropriate proceedings.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 20, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD