Yellowstone International Mailing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 386
Yellowstone International Mailing, Inc. and Manufac-
turing, Production, & Service Workers Union
Local 24, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 13–RC–
20399
September 27, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel,
which has considered the Petitioner’s request for review
of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order (pertinent
parts of which are attached as an appendix), as well as
the Employer’s brief in response to the request for re-
view. The request for review is granted.
Based on the undisputed facts as set forth by the Re-
gional Director, we find, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, that the Employer’s current workforce is substantial
and representative of the complement of employees to be
employed in the reasonably foreseeable future, such that
an immediate election is appropriate.
It is well settled that the Board will direct an immedi-
ate election, notwithstanding an employer’s plan to ex-
pand its workforce, when the employer’s current com-
plement of employees is “substantial and representative”
of the unit workforce to be employed in the near future.
See Toto Industries (Atlanta), 323 NLRB 645 (1997);
General Cable Corp., 173 NLRB 251 (1968). In gen-
eral, the Board finds an existing complement of employ-
ees to be substantial and representative when approxi-
mately 30 percent of the eventual employee complement
is employed in 50 percent of the anticipated job classifi-
cations. Custom Deliveries, 315 NLRB 1018, 1019 fn. 8
(1994); see, e.g., Gerlach Meat Co., 192 NLRB 559
(1971). In the instant case, even assuming that the Em-
ployer’s projected expansion by the first quarter of 2001
is not too indefinite, speculative, or remote in time to
serve as the standard against which to measure the pre-
sent complement of employees,1 and assuming that all of
the employees hired as a result of the expansion would
be included in the unit, the Employer’s current unit
workforce (113 employees) would constitute 38 percent
of the ultimate projected workforce of approximately 300
employees at the new facility.2 Additionally, as it is un-
disputed that there will be no new job categories created
by the Employer, the current employees are employed in
100 percent of the ultimate job classifications. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that the Employer’s
present workforce constitutes a substantial and represen-
tative complement of employees, notwithstanding the
Employer’s anticipated expansion of its operations.

1 Cf. Witteman Steel Mills, Inc., 253 NLRB 320 (1980); Bekaert
Steel Wire Corp., 189 NLRB 561 (1971).
2 Comparatively, the Employer’s current workforce constitutes 71–
75 percent of the Employer’s projected complement of employees as of
November 1, 2000.
Although the Employer contends, citing Cooper Inter-
national, 205 NLRB 1057 (1973), that the number of its
current employees who will ultimately continue their em-
ployment with the Employer at the relocated facility is
uncertain, such that it is impossible to ascertain whether a
substantial and representative complement of employees
exists, we conclude that under the facts of this case, it is
reasonable to infer that at least a substantial number—if
not virtually all—of the current employees will remain
employed with the Employer following the relocation.
Significantly, the Employer has indicated that it plans to
extend offers of employment to all of its current employ-
ees, and the facts here suggest a strong likelihood that a
considerable proportion of the current employees will ac-
cept the offers of employment. These facts include the
following: (1) the new facility is only approximately 1-1/2
miles from the Employer’s existing facility; (2) the nature
of the work and functions performed will not change; and
(3) there will be no hiatus between the closing of the cur-
rent facility and opening of the new facility.
In this regard, we find this case distinguishable from
Cooper International, supra. In Cooper, the Board dis-
missed a union’s petition for an election based on the
employer’s imminent relocation of its operations3 and the
lack of evidence indicating that a considerable proportion
of its existing employee complement would accept em-
ployment at the new facility. In contrast to the instant
case, however, the employer in Cooper averred that, al-
though it intended to offer employment to all of its cur-
rent employees, it was unlikely that a substantial number
of them would accept employment at the new facility
because most of the employees—who lived 18 to 25
miles from the new facility—did not own cars, and pub-
lic transportation between the towns in which the old and
new facilities were located was inadequate. Id. Under
those circumstances, the Board concluded that no pur-
pose would be served by holding an immediate election.
Id. at 1058.
Although the Board in Cooper indicated that it would
not attempt to determine the number of employees who
might accept employment at the relocated facility, we
find that the strikingly different facts of the instant case
3 In Cooper, according to the executed purchase agreement submit-
ted by the employer, the employer’s relocation of its operations would
occur approximately 2-1/2 months from the date of the Regional Direc-
tor’s Decision and Direction of Election, and within approximately a
week of the Board’s decision.
332 NLRB No. 35
YELLOWSTONE INTERNATIONAL MAILING 387
lead to a determination that a substantial or even over-
whelming number of the Employer’s employees almost
certainly will remain as part of the ultimate workforce
after the relocation. Moreover, the Board’s decision in
Cooper “does not establish an exclusive and dispositive
means for the exercise of discretion by the Board in im-
plementing its case-by-case approach” to determining the
existence of a substantial and representative complement
of employees. NLRB v. AAA Alternator Rebuilders, Inc.,
980 F.2d 1395, 1399 (11th Cir. 1993) (stating that one
means for the Board to assess whether a substantial and
representative complement exists is to make a projection
based on current data suggesting that the premove “com-
plement will be representative of the unit as it will be
composed at the new location”).
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that under
the circumstances of this case, the Employer’s current
employees constitute a substantial and representative
complement of the Employer’s projected workforce fol-
lowing its relocation, such that an immediate election is
appropriate.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Order is re-
versed, and the case is remanded to the Regional Director
for further appropriate action.
APPENDIX
REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND ORDER

The Employer in this case contends that the petition is pre-
mature because it is currently in the process of relocating its
operations, as well as undergoing corporate changes that will
result in the expansion of the work force. As a result of the
relocation and future expansion, the Employer argues that there
cannot be a substantial and representative complement of em-
ployees at this point in time. The Petitioner contends that there
is a representative complement of employees, and an election
should proceed without delay.
FACTS
The Employer operates a business engaged in the furnishing
of international mailing and distribution of published and
printed materials. It is a company wholly owned by Deutsche-
Post. The Employer’s headquarters are located at 2375 Pratt
Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, where they employ
approximately 135 employees, approximately 113 of which are
in the unit at issue. The Employer also has a smaller facility
located in Hackensack, New Jersey. The Company is scheduled
to move from its present location into a larger facility located
approximately a mile and a half away at 1800–1872 Brummel
Drive, Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The move will occur on or
before the first of November 2000. The lease for this facility
has not yet been finalized, but the move is imminent. Negotia-
tions have been ongoing, and the lease currently needs only the
proper signatures, according to the Employer.
The Employer has not yet offered the employees at its 2375
Pratt Boulevard location employment at the new Brummel
Drive facility, though it plans to do so. As no employees have
yet been offered positions at the new facility, no evidence was
provided as to how many of these employees would accept
employment at the new facility.
The Employer testified at hearing that the move into a larger
facility is caused by a need to accommodate a larger work
force. The expansion in work force stems from Deutsche-Post’s
plans to combine its companies into a single enterprise under
the corporate umbrella of Deutsche-Post Global Mail. There
will be three “hubs” in the United States, located in California,
New Jersey, and in Chicago, Illinois. The Employer will make
up the Chicago hub. Currently, the Employer is primarily in-
volved in press distribution and mailing. However, after the
consolidation, three additional product lines will be added,
those being direct mail, e-commerce, and parcels.
Due to the expansion, the Employer anticipates that its work
force will increase to around 150-160 employees on or before
November 1, 2000. It also anticipates that by the end of the first
quarter of 2001, around 300 employees will be employed. Cur-
rent management will be retained after the relocation.
In regard to the specific impact the consolidation will have
on the current employees, all will be offered employment in the
new facility. Additionally, the same functions that are being
performed now will be performed after the consolidation of
companies. The Employer testified that there will be no new
job categories created. In fact, the functions that are being pres-
ently performed by the employees at issue already include di-
rect mail and functions related to e-commerce and parcel ship-
ping. The main difference is that these functions are to be ex-
panded so that a larger labor force will be required. The only
additional job skill the Employer could articulate involved
computer skills, which was envisioned as data input of inven-
tory and shipping destination.
ANALYSIS
The Employer is relocating its operations into a new facility,
and has not yet offered any current employees positions at that
new facility. Under these circumstances, the Board will not
speculate as to the probability of whether a substantial and
representative amount of current employees will accept em-
ployment at the new facility. In Cooper International, 205
NLRB 1057 (1973), the Board dealt with a strikingly similar
factual situation, stating:

. . . in view of the imminence of the transfer of operations
and the absence of evidence showing that the Employer
has as yet offered, and that a considerable proportion of
the unit employees have indicated that they would accept,
such employment, no useful purpose would be served by
processing the petition at this time. We, therefore, shall
dismiss the petition . . . without prejudice to the filing of a
new petition . . . when the . . . facility is in operation and a
substantial and representative working force is there em-
ployed. [205 NLRB at 1058.]

In the instant case, uncontested evidence demonstrates that
the Employer has not yet offered the employees at the current
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 388
facility employment at the new facility. Further, no evidence
was presented on how many current employees will accept
employment at the new facility once offered and, as noted
above, the Board has made it clear that it will not speculate on
such matters.5
The Union contends that the current employees constitute a
substantial representative complement of projected future em-
ployees; however, it does not address either the relocation issue
or the issue that the employees have not been offered employ-
ment at the new facility. Additionally, the Union’s argument
that the Employer’s plans are merely conjecture or speculative
is not supported by the facts. The Employer is moving into a
newer, larger facility to accommodate its expanding work force
within the next 4 months. The lease agreement for the new

5 While the record shows that the Employer in the instant case in-
tends to offer all current employees employment at the new facility, the
Employer in Cooper also intended to offer all current employees em-
ployment at its new facility. The Board stated that it would not attempt
to ascertain the probabilities with respect to whether a substantial and
representative complement of employees would accept employment.
Cooper, 205 NLRB 1057 at 1058.
location has been under negotiation,6 and uncontested testi-
mony confirmed that presently only the proper signatures are
needed for completion of the leasing agreement. Further, there
is no cause for finding conjecture or speculation based on the
fact that a final leasing agreement was not produced at time of
hearing, as evidence need only demonstrate that a relocation
move is imminent. See Cooper, 205 NLRB at 1058. No evi-
dence was produced to suggest that the move would not take
place as planned.7
Based on the foregoing, the processing of the instant petition
is premature.
6 A copy of a lease agreement from these negotiations was produced
at hearing.
7 The instant situation is factually distinguishable from cases cited
by the Petitioner. For example, Endicott Johnson De Puerto Rico, 172
NLRB 1676 (1968), involved a second building on the same site, and
no estimate was provided as to the date when the second building
would be in full operation. The instant situation involves definite plans
for relocation to a new site, on or before November 1, 2000. As such,
the plans here are not indefinite or speculative as contemplated in the
cases cited by Petitioner.