United Operations, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2002

338 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

UNITED OPERATIONS, INC. 1
United Operations, Inc. and United Association of
Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters, Local
539. Case 18–RC–16744
September 30, 2002
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of the Em-
ployer’s HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air condition-
ing) service technicians (HVAC techs). On December
12, 2000, the Regional Director for Region 18 issued a
Decision and Order, finding that the smallest appropriate
unit must include all field service employees and dis-
missing the petition.1 Thereafter, in accordance with Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s decision. By
Order dated March 12, 2001, the Board granted the Peti-
tioner’s request for review.
The Board has carefully considered the entire record
and has decided to reverse the Regional Director’s Deci-
sion and Order. As explained below, we find that the
HVAC techs constitute a readily identifiable and func-
tionally distinct group of highly skilled and licensed em-
ployees, with common interests distinguishable from the
Employer’s other field service employees. See Dick Kel-
chner Excavating Co., 236 NLRB 1414, 1415 (1978);
The Dahl Oil Co., 221 NLRB 1311 (1975); Del-Mont
Construction Co., 150 NLRB 85 (1964).
I. FACTS
The Employer provides general building maintenance
services to commercial property owners through its field
service employees. The Employer’s clients contact the
Employer with service requests, and the appropriate field
service employee is sent to respond to each call. Some-
times, a job requires more than one person, and two or
three field service employees are sent to respond to a
particular job. Thus, the bulk of the field service employ-
ees’ work is done away from the Employer’s facility.
At the time of the petition, the Employer employed
approximately 50 field service employees, including 26
building service employees (BSEs), 16 policers, and 9
HVAC techs. The BSEs are responsible for general
maintenance tasks such as carpentry, general labor, light
plumbing, electrical work, and painting. The policers
pick up litter from the grounds of the clients’ buildings.
The HVAC techs repair and service the heating, ventila-
tion, and air conditioning systems of the buildings.

1 Pertinent portions of the decision are attached as an appendix.
In determining whether a unit of employees, such as
the petitioned-for unit of HVAC techs, is appropriate, the
Board considers whether the employees are organized
into a separate department; have distinct skills and train-
ing; have distinct job functions and perform distinct
work, including inquiry into the amount and type of job
overlap between classifications; are functionally inte-
grated with the Employer’s other employees; have fre-
quent contact with other employees; interchange with
other employees; have distinct terms and conditions of
employment; and are separately supervised. See, e.g.,
Bartlett Collins Co., 334 NLRB 484 (2001); The Dahl
Oil Co., 221 NLRB 1311 (1964). We review these fac-
tors below.
Separate Department
The field service employees are split into three de-
partments: building services, HVAC, and policers, and
the Employer generally assigns its work along depart-
mental lines. Thus, the Employer organizes the HVAC
techs into a separate department and treats them accord-
ingly.
Skills and Training
The HVAC techs primarily perform HVAC work and
are required to have skills particular to that field. None of
the Employer’s other employees are required to have
HVAC skills, and the uncontested evidence shows that
no one outside the HVAC department can do skilled
HVAC work.
Furthermore, only HVAC techs are required to be cer-
tified by the EPA to handle refrigerants, and all of the
Employer’s HVAC techs actually have EPA certification
(except Gregg Jevnager and Ronald Clausen, who were
both transferred to the HVAC department just 2 weeks
before the hearing). No other field service employee is
EPA-certified. To receive EPA certification, individuals
are required to pass a written test on their knowledge of
refrigerants, preparation for which includes significant
study and a preparatory class. In addition, most or all of
the HVAC techs have a boiler license, which none of the
other field service employees has.
The HVAC techs also use specialized HVAC tools, in-
cluding refrigeration gauges, refrigerant leak detectors,
self-contained recovery equipment, and electrical test
meters. Such tools are not used by BSEs or policers.
The Employer bills its clients for work performed by
the HVAC techs at a separate, higher rate based on the
fact that the HVAC techs have a set of skills that the
Employer sells as a separate service to its clients.
While the skill level of the HVAC techs varies, all
HVAC techs are required to have HVAC-specific skills
that no other field service employees are required to
338 NLRB No. 18
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
have. Entry-level HVAC techs are required to have
“some experience or schooling” in HVAC, evolving into
“high-skilled trouble shooting of various mechanical
systems.” The new HVAC techs further develop their
HVAC skills on the job.
There is no evidence that any policer or BSE has the
ability to do the level of HVAC work that even the least-
skilled HVAC techs do. Even the least-skilled HVAC
techs perform inspections and startups, clean equipment,
replace faulty controls, and test refrigerant levels with
refrigerant pressure gauges, which requires EPA certifi-
cation. On the other hand, there is no allegation that poli-
cers have any HVAC skills whatsoever; it is undisputed
that the policers’ work is entirely unskilled. Likewise,
while BSEs change filters, clean condenser coils, unplug
condensate lines and do plumbing work, this is not
skilled HVAC work. BSEs cannot replace faulty controls
or test refrigerant. Furthermore, the evidence demon-
strates that HVAC-related work performed by BSEs is
not only unskilled but also done in conjunction with
skilled HVAC work performed by HVAC techs.
Job Functions and Work
The HVAC techs, policers, and BSEs perform very
different types of work the vast majority of the time. The
incidence of job overlap between the HVAC techs and
the other field service employees is minimal, and it is
clear that the primary function of the HVAC techs re-
mains at all times the service and repair of HVAC units.
The HVAC techs spend the vast majority of their time
performing HVAC-specific work, and no other field ser-
vice employee spends significant time performing
HVAC-related work. The Employer generally distin-
guishes between service calls that involve HVAC work
and those that do not. Assignments are primarily made
according to skill: HVAC work is assigned to HVAC
techs, general maintenance work is assigned to BSEs,
and outdoor litter removal is assigned to policers. Al-
though the Employer considers skill, geography, famili-
arity with the building, and client preference in making
assignments, the record established that skill is the prior-
ity factor. The little overlap that does occur between
classifications is largely unskilled work and is primarily
done out of courtesy to the client or in emergencies.
There is no crosstraining.
Policers do not spend any time at all on HVAC work.
Similarly, it is rare for an HVAC tech to perform polic-
ing work. The only evidence of HVAC techs doing polic-
ing work is one service call in which two HVAC techs
did policing work for two and a half hours. In addition,
HVAC tech Larson testified that he performed general
clean up or policing for approximately 1 day in a 5-year
period. HVAC tech Soberg testified that he picked up
trash one or two times in a 10-year period. Thus, the evi-
dence shows that the job overlap between the HVAC
techs and the policers is irregular, infrequent, and insig-
nificant.
Likewise, the job overlap between the HVAC techs
and the BSEs is minimal. HVAC techs do a variety of
non-HVAC tasks if unusual speed is required or if the
BSE department is overloaded. However, these incidents
of overlap work are rare. In addition, an HVAC tech oc-
casionally is asked by a building manager to perform
“minor requests,” such as changing a lightbulb or un-
plugging a toilet, because the HVAC tech happens to be
on the property. The HVAC tech will generally comply
with such requests out of courtesy. However, if the re-
quest requires a more substantial effort, such as fixing a
lock or plumbing work, or if a building has an extensive
list of building maintenance work to be done, the HVAC
tech will call the office and have them send a BSE to do
the work.
BSEs never perform skilled HVAC work. However,
BSEs occasionally perform unskilled HVAC-related
work. For instance, about once a week, a BSE out on a
call is asked by a building manager to adjust a thermostat
or a damper. Further, when BSEs perform HVAC-related
work, the work is not only unskilled, but also performed
in conjunction with skilled HVAC work done by HVAC
techs. For instance, the Employer’s witness testified that
a BSE responded to a call about two roof leaks. The first
leak he determined to be a roofing problem and called a
roofer. The second leak he determined to be an HVAC
leak and called an HVAC tech to pinpoint and repair the
leak. The BSE later returned with the HVAC tech and
“assisted” him with the repair. There is no evidence that
BSEs performed any HVAC-related work without
HVAC techs present.
Furthermore, even the least-skilled HVAC techs do
more than the unskilled HVAC-related tasks sometimes
performed by BSEs. In addition to changing filters, the
least-skilled techs also perform HVAC tasks such as
starting up equipment, replacing bad components, and
testing refrigerant levels using refrigerant pressure
gauges, which requires EPA certification. There is no
evidence that BSEs can or do perform such tasks.
Functional Integration
There is no significant functional integration between
the HVAC techs and the other field service employees.
For the most part, the BSEs are sent to answer service
calls requiring general maintenance skills, and the
HVAC techs are sent to answer service calls pertaining
to repair or service of HVAC equipment. Each service
call is independent of all others. Few service calls require
both an HVAC tech and a BSE. When this does occur,
UNITED OPERATIONS, INC. 3
approximately one time per week, the HVAC tech per-
forms the necessary HVAC work and the BSE assists
with unskilled labor.
Other Contact
There is no significant contact between the HVAC
techs and the other field service employees. The BSEs
and the HVAC techs occasionally see each other during
the limited time they spend in the office or when they
happen to run into each other in the field. Even then, the
record reveals that contact between the HVAC techs and
the BSEs is limited to pleasantries.
On the other hand, the record established that the
HVAC techs have regular, work-related contact with
each other.
Interchange
There is minimal evidence of interchange between the
HVAC techs and the other field service employees.
There is no evidence of temporary transfers. Nor is there
any evidence of permanent transfers between the policers
and the HVAC techs or from the HVAC department to
the BSE department. Two BSEs, Gregg Jevnager and
Ronald Clausen, transferred from the BSE department to
the HVAC department just 3 weeks before the hearing.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Although the HVAC techs share dispatchers, personnel
policies, and fringe benefits with the other employees,
there is a substantial difference in wages. The average
wage for policers is $14.69 per hour, and the average
wage for BSEs is $15.83 per hour. In contrast, the aver-
age wage for HVAC techs is $19.78 per hour.2
Furthermore, it is uncontroverted that the HVAC techs
have regular, separate meetings with their supervisor,
President Paul Daily. No other employees are required to
attend similar meetings.
Supervision
The HVAC techs and the BSEs have separate immedi-
ate supervision. The HVAC techs share common imme-
diate supervision with the policers.
II. ANALYSIS
After reviewing the relevant factors, we find, contrary
to the Regional Director, that the HVAC techs share a
separate community of interest apart from the other field
service employees. Accordingly, they constitute an ap-
propriate unit.
The HVAC techs are a readily identifiable group with
common interests apart from the policers. As discussed
2 If the two recent transfers into the HVAC department are excluded
from the calculation, the average wage for HVAC techs is actually
$21.04 per hour.
above, the factors suggesting a community of interest
between the HVAC techs and the policers are common
supervision, personnel policies, and work rules. How-
ever, in light of the lack of any evidence of interchange,
shared skills, crosstraining, contact, or functional integra-
tion, the miniscule amount of job overlap, and the sig-
nificantly higher wages of the HVAC techs, we find that
the commonalities are insufficient to negate the propriety
of a unit of the HVAC techs, excluding the policers.
Likewise, the HVAC techs are a readily identifiable
group with common interests apart from the BSEs. Other
than the similarity in personnel policies and work rules,
each of the community of interest factors supports the
propriety of an HVAC-only unit: the HVAC techs are
organized into a separate department; have distinct skills
and training; have distinct job functions and perform
distinct work with little overlap; the Employer’s work is
not significantly functionally integrated; there is little
contact between the HVAC techs and the BSEs; there is
no significant interchange; the HVAC techs receive
higher wages; and the HVAC techs are separately super-
vised from the BSEs.
That some HVAC techs may occasionally perform
BSE duties not strictly within their job description or that
BSEs may perform some minor HVAC tasks does not
render the unit inappropriate where, as here, the HVAC
techs spend a substantial majority of their time perform-
ing distinctive duties. See Maxim’s De Paris Suite Hotel,
285 NLRB 377, 378 (1987); Dick Kelchner Excavating
Co., 236 NLRB 1414 (1978). Further, the Board has held
that sporadic instances of employees’ assisting with an-
other department’s tasks reflect “a spirit of cooperation
or civility” rather than overlap of job functions. See Ore-
Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016 (1994); Maxim’s De Paris
Suite Hotel, 285 NLRB at 378; Omni International Ho-
tel, 283 NLRB 475 (1987).
On balance, therefore, we find that a unit of HVAC
techs is appropriate. See Bartlett Collins, 334 NLRB 484
(2001); Dick Kelchner Excavating, 236 NLRB 1414,
1415 (1978); Del-Mont Construction Co., 150 NLRB 85
(1964).
The cases cited by the Regional Director and the Em-
ployer are distinguishable. In none of the cases cited did
the petitioned-for employees have the distinct identity
and divergent interests that the HVAC techs have in this
case.3
For instance, in Brand Precision Services, 313 NLRB
657 (1994), the petitioned-for operators did not have
training, skills, supervision, or function distinct from the
3 Further, none of the cases cited by the Employer or the Regional
Director specifically deal with the propriety of an HVAC unit apart
from other building operations employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
laborers and leadmen the petitioner sought to exclude.
All employees were required to have driver’s licenses
and the sole additional requirement for operators was to
have and maintain a commercial driver’s license. The
Employer’s work was highly integrated, and there was
“constant” contact among the petitioned-for operators
and the disputed laborers and leadmen. Laborers spent up
to 10 percent of their time doing operator work. Opera-
tors’ wages fell in the range between those of the lead-
men and laborers.
Similarly, in Proctor & Gamble Paper Products, 251
NLRB 492 (1980), cited by the Regional Director, the
petitioned-for electrical employees spent at least one-half
of their time working in functionally integrated teams
with production employees, and a substantial amount of
electrical work was performed by other employees.
There was also no licensing requirement for the electrical
employees, and they were recruited from the production
ranks.
Finally, we find the Regional Director’s reliance on
Seaboard Marine, Ltd., 327 NLRB 556 (1999), to be
misplaced. In Seaboard Marine, the union petitioned for
a unit of approximately 17 employees in three classifica-
tions, excluding approximately 181 employees in 12 ad-
ditional classifications. The Board found the petitioned-
for unit inappropriate based on the fact that the duties
and minimal skills of the employees in the petitioned-for
classifications were not distinct from those of several
other classifications, noting that the Board does not ap-
prove fractured units, i.e., combinations of employees
that are too narrow in scope or that have no rational ba-
sis. Here, however, as explained above, the HVAC techs
are skilled employees performing tasks distinct from the
other field employees.
III. CONCLUSION
As the petitioned-for HVAC service technicians con-
stitute a readily identifiable and functionally distinct
group, with common interests distinguishable from the
Employer’s other field service employees, we find that
the Regional Director erred in finding the unit inappro-
priate and dismissing the petition.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Elections is reversed. This proceeding is remanded to the
Regional Director for further appropriate action consis-
tent with this decision.

MEMBER BARTLETT, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I agree with the Regional
Director’s conclusion that the petitioned-for unit of the
Employer’s HVAC techs is not an appropriate unit, and
that the only appropriate unit is one that includes all of
the Employer’s field service employees, i.e., the building
services employees, the policers, and the HVAC techs.
In my view, the Regional Director correctly found that
the HVAC techs do not have a community of interest
separate and apart from the other field service employ-
ees. The field service employees all go on service calls
and are commonly dispatched by the Employer. They all
report to the Employer’s office to pick up work orders
and supplies, and to complete any necessary paperwork.
They have the same work rules and fringe benefits.
Further, it is undisputed that the HVAC techs and the
policers have common supervision. Additionally, the
wage ranges for all three classifications are quite similar;
the HVAC techs earn between $13 and $25.25 per hour,
the policers earn between $10 and 25.88 per hour, and
the building services employees earn between $10 and
$20 per hour. Although, as my colleagues note, the aver-
age hourly wage rate of the HVAC techs is slightly
higher than the average hourly wage rates of the other
two classifications of field service employees, this fact
may be due to certain employees’ length of service, and
thus is not a true indicator of whether all three classifica-
tions of employees have similar wages.
My colleagues emphasize that the HVAC techs have
particular or distinct skills and that most possess an EPA
certification, which requires passing a written test.1
However, my colleagues do not contend, correctly, that
the HVAC techs constitute a craft unit. The HVAC techs
do not participate in any apprenticeship program, and the
nature of their work is essentially a mechanical service
rather than work typically performed by any craft. See
generally Schaus Roofing, 323 NLRB 781 (1997). Fur-
ther, some of the building service employees also have
particular or distinct skills and perform work that re-
quires special licensing or training. As found by the Re-
gional Director, some have low-voltage electrician li-
censes and five have been specially trained to perform
locksmith work.
Finally, I disagree with my colleagues’ reliance on the
limited contact between the HVAC techs and the em-
ployees in the other two classifications. As noted by the
Regional Director, the HVAC techs generally work
alone, and thus they also have limited contact with each
other. Their limited contact with other field service em-
ployees, therefore, is not indicative of a separate com-
munity of interest from the other employees.
In sum, the HVAC techs do not have a community of
interest apart from the Employer’s other field service
employees who also go on service calls and are com-

1 As noted by my colleagues, two of the nine HVAC techs, who
were recently transferred from building service positions into HVAC
tech positions, do not have an EPA certification.
UNITED OPERATIONS, INC. 5
monly dispatched. The HVAC techs have common su-
pervision with other field service employees, their wage
ranges are similar to the other field service employees,
and they have the same work rules and fringe benefits as
the other field service employees. Although the HVAC
techs have distinct skills and perform work that requires
EPA certification, they do not constitute a craft unit, and
the building service employees also have distinct skills
and perform work that requires licensing or training. In
these circumstances, I find, in agreement with the Re-
gional Director, that a separate bargaining unit of HVAC
techs would result in a fractured unit, without any ra-
tional basis. See generally Seaboard Marine, Ltd., 327
NLRB 556 (1999).2

APPENDIX
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was
held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act,
the Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to me.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I find:
1. The hearing officer’s rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.1
3. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all full-time
and regular part-time HVAC service techs employed by

2 My colleagues seek to distinguish Seaboard Marine on the ground
that the HVAC techs are skilled employees performing tasks distinct
from other employees. However, as indicated above, I disagree with my
colleagues that the HVAC techs’ particular or distinct skills are a rele-
vant basis for distinguishing them from the other field service employ-
ees. Thus, in my view, it is also not a meaningful basis to distinguish
Seaboard Marine.
1
The Employer, United Operations, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation
with an office and principal place of business in Plymouth, Minnesota,
where it is engaged in the building maintenance business. During
calendar year 1999, a representative period, the Employer received
gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and it purchased and received at
its Plymouth, Minnesota facility goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Minne-
sota.

the Employer at its Plymouth, Minnesota facility. The
Employer contends that a unit limited to HVAC service
techs is inappropriate because all of its field service per-
sonnel share a community of interest. Therefore, the
Employer contends that the unit should be all full-time
and regular part-time field service employees, including
HVAC service techs, building service employees, and
policers.
The Employer provides building maintenance services
to buildings managed by commercial real estate compa-
nies. Thus, its customers are the real estate concerns.
The Employer services about 1300 buildings in Minnea-
polis, Minnesota, and an area about 40 miles in all direc-
tions from Minneapolis. The Employer provides opera-
tional management, heating and air conditioning service
and repair, locksmithing, plumbing, carpentry, electrical,
painting, roof repair, irrigation and sprinkler maintenance
and repair, caulking and weatherproofing, storage units,
and construction services for tenant improvements. The
Employer does not provide janitorial services.
The Employer’s president is Paul Daily. Its vice
president of operations is Dan Shedlov. Paul Mallory is
also in supervision/management, including apparently
overseeing the Employer’s administrative personnel.
Daily supervises the HVAC techs and policers, while
Shedlov oversees the building services employees. All
employees who the Employer contends should be in the
unit receive the same benefits, employee handbook, uni-
forms, vans and/or trucks, and attend two Employer-
sponsored parties each year. The Employer bills its cli-
ents $59 per hour for HVAC work and $41 per hour for
work normally performed by building services employ-
ees. The record does not disclose what rate is charged
for policer work. HVAC techs (also referred to as me-
chanics in the record) are currently paid between $13 and
$25.25 an hour, building services employees are cur-
rently paid between $10 and $20 an hour, and policers
are currently paid between $10 and $25.88 an hour. The
Employer employs about nine mechanics, between 20
and 25 building services employees, and about 16 poli-
cers.
The Employer learns about customer needs when calls
are taken by one of two service dispatchers. They deter-
mine the type of service needed; type the service orders;
and post the orders to the service board, where the calls
wait to be dispatched to an appropriate field service em-
ployee. (The term field service employee, hereinafter
“FSE,” encompasses all three classifications of employ-
ees in dispute.) Service dispatchers contact the appropri-
ate FSE by cell phone or pager. Some FSEs are also
notified by fax when they have a fax machine at their
home. In addition, Daily and/or Shedlov might give
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
FSEs work orders in person if the FSEs are in the office.
Most FSEs are in the Employer’s office about three days
a week, for a total of two to three hours a week. They
report to the office to pick up work orders, to complete
paperwork, to pick up and drop off tools and equipment,
and to pick up supplies. However, most of their work
time is spent away from the Employer’s facility at vari-
ous customer locations.
In order to determine which FSE to send on a call, the
following factors are considered: (1) skill required for
the service call; (2) geographical location of the call; (3)
priority of the service call; (4) familiarity of the FSE with
a particular building; and (5) whether the customer re-
quests a certain FSE by name. Of these factors, the most
important is the skill required for the job. For example,
there are certain calls that only HVAC techs can perform.
They are the only FSEs with boiler licenses and EPA
certifications. EPA certifications are required to pur-
chase and transport refrigerant. Not all HVAC techs
have the necessary skills to work on boilers or to perform
work involving refrigerant, however. Some have the
skill only to perform routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance involves replacing air filters and, while do-
ing that, visually inspecting the equipment. They can
also start up and clean equipment. Another group of
HVAC techs have skills to make repairs, but not to work
on complicated control systems like boilers. Building
service employees perform general labor, plumbing, car-
pentry, electrical and painting services for the Em-
ployer’s customers. Some building service employees
have low-voltage electrician licenses, and five of them
have been specially trained to perform locksmith work.
Policers pick up litter from the exterior of the building.
The Employer acknowledges that HVAC techs are
recognized as a separate “department” by the Employer.
However, the Employer also maintains that HVAC techs
perform the work of the other two classifications on oc-
casion, including changing light bulbs and picking up
trash. The Employer also contends that some work can-
not be easily categorized as HVAC tech work versus
building service work. Examples of such work are
tripped circuit breakers, roof leaks, and low-battery
alarms on monitoring panels. The Employer further
maintains that some service calls involve multiple needs,
and therefore an HVAC tech might perform both me-
chanical and building service work on a particular call.
Finally, the Employer contends that some calls involve
sending out both an HVAC tech and a building service
employee. The record contains quite a bit of conflicting
testimony regarding the frequency of HVAC techs per-
forming policer or building service work and how often
HVAC techs work with a building service employee.
Generally, it appears that service calls are handled by one
FSE; that there is minimal work-related interaction
among FSEs when they are in the field; and that only
HVAC techs can perform work on boilers, air condition-
ing systems, and other equipment involving customers’
heating and cooling systems.
Paul Mallory, Dan Shedlov and Paul Daily hire field
service employees. Daily evaluates the HVAC techs and
policers. Shedlov evaluates the building services em-
ployees. Mallory evaluates administrative personnel.
Each evaluation contains a recommendation for a wage
increase. Daily decides on the amount of increase for all
employees, including building services employees.
Daily further testified that Mallory, Shedlov or he can
discipline any employee. Current HVAC tech Gregg
Jevnager was a building services employee for the Em-
ployer before he took his current position. Current
HVAC tech Ronald Clausen worked part of his time as a
building services employee and part of his time as an
HVAC tech until he recently became a full-time HVAC
tech.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the appropriate
unit should include all of the Employer’s field service
employees, and therefore that the unit sought by Peti-
tioner is inappropriate. In reaching this conclusion, I rely
particularly on the Board’s admonition that it will not
approve fractured units; that is, combinations of employ-
ees that have no rational basis. Seaboard Marine, Ltd.,
327 NLRB 556 (1999). Petitioner cites Overnite Trans-
portation, Inc., 322 NLRB 723 (1996), for the proposi-
tion that the statute requires only that the bargaining unit
be an appropriate unit, and does not require a union to
seek the most appropriate unit. However, the Overnite
decision also makes clear that the Board must examine
the union’s petition and whether the unit sought in the
petition is appropriate. I conclude that in this case the
unit sought by the petition is not appropriate. More spe-
cifically, I conclude that the HVAC techs do not consti-
tute a “readily identifiable and homogenous group with a
community of interest separate and apart from the other
employees,” as contended by Petitioner at the hearing.
More specifically, I conclude that because the HVAC
techs and policers are commonly supervised, because all
FSEs are commonly dispatched, because all FSEs enjoy
the same fringe benefits and are subject to the same work
rules, and in view of the similarity in wage rates, HVAC
techs do not have a distinct community of interest from
other FSEs. Moreover, at least two of the current HVAC
techs previously performed building services work on a
regular basis as building services employees. I also note
that all FSEs are engaged in the same work, insofar as all
are away from the Employer’s facility and at customer
UNITED OPERATIONS, INC. 7

locations in response to service needs. While the record
presents conflicting evidence regarding the amount of
contact HVAC techs have with other FSEs, I note that
even the individual HVAC techs generally work alone
and not with one another. Thus, I decline to conclude
that HVAC techs are a distinct group because of their
limited day-to-day contact with other FSEs, because it
appears that HVAC techs do not have regular work-
related contact with one another. Even assuming that
HVAC techs perform work of a specialized nature that
other FSEs cannot perform, it is clear that HVAC techs
do not have an apprenticeship program. Moreover, at
least some HVAC techs have not acquired the skills to
work with refrigerants or on boilers, and instead spend
most of their time changing air filters, which apparently
building services employees can do. Finally, I note that
some building services employees have also been spe-
cially trained in locksmithing. Therefore, I find no basis
for establishing a separate bargaining unit of HVAC
techs. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products, 251 NLRB
492 (1980); Monsanto Co., 172 NLRB 1461 (1968).
Burns & Roe Services Corp., 313 NLRB 1307 (1994),
cited by Petitioner at the hearing, does not compel a con-
trary conclusion. In Burns & Roe Services Corp., the
Board found appropriate a unit of electrical department
employees. However, unlike the instant case, the electri-
cal department employees were separately supervised,
were separately assigned work, and had a distinct wage
rate from other employees the employer sought to in-
clude in the unit. Moreover, the electrical department
employees had a training program that included appren-
tices and journeymen, and they were assigned work typi-
cally performed by members of a craft. The Board also
noted the lack of transfers into or out of the electrical
group. None of these facts are applicable to the HVAC
techs employed by the Employer. Because Petitioner
stated at the hearing that it is not interested in proceeding
in any unit broader than the HVAC techs, I will therefore
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it is, dismissed.2
2 Under the provisions of Sec. 102.67 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, a request for review of this Decision may be filed with the
National Labor Relations Board, addressed to the Executive Secretary,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570. This request must
be received by the Board in Washington by December 26, 2000.