Purnell's Pride, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Purnell's Pride, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL- CIO, Local P-1224. Case 26-CA-6869 September 11, 1980 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 11, 1978, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, granting General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and find- ing that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- ed, by refusing to bargain with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local P-1224 (herein called the Union), as the certified collective-bargaining repre- sentative in a unit composed of production and maintenance employees. 2 The Board ordered Re- spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to bar- gain in good faith with the Union. Thereafter, the Board filed a petition for enforcement of said Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 15, 1980, a panel of the court of ap- peals issued its decision,3 declining to enforce the Board's Order to bargain and remanding the case to the Board for further proceedings for reasons fully set forth below. The Board accepted the remand and advised the parties that they could file statements of position. Thereafter, Respondent and the Union filed state- ments of position. i 234 NLRB 197. 2 On April 18, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 26 issued a De- cision and Direction of Election in Case 26-RC 5479 and found the fol- lowing unit to be appropriate: All production employees employed at the Employer's poultry proc- essing plant on Straus Street in Tupelo, Mississippi, including all un- loaders, loaders, killers, eviscerators, cutters and packers, and all general maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Tupelo, Mississippi, facilities; excluding all office clerical employees, local and over-the-road truckdrivers, hatchery employees, commer- cial egg processing employees, feed mill and by-products plant em- ployees, dry warehouse employees, refrigerated warehouse employ- ees, breeder farm employees, live haul department employees and su- pervisors as defined in the Act On April 29, 1977, Respondent filed a request for review of said Decision and Direction of Election with the Board, which was denied by the Board by telegraphic order on May 12, 1977 Thereafter, an election was held on May 13, 1977, among the employ- ees in the above unit, which was won by the Union. On May 20, 1977, Respondent filed timely objections. On June 24, 1977, the Regional Di- rector, after an investigation, issued a Supplemental Decision and Certifi- cation of Representative overruling Respondent's objections and certify- ing the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the above unit. On July 7, 1977, Respondent filed a request for review of said Supplemental Decision, which was denied by the Board by telegraphic order on July 28, 1977. Respondent's subsequent refusal to bargain gave rise to the instant unfair labor practice proceeding. s 609 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1980). 252 NLRB No. 18 Respondent is a Mississippi corporation engaged in the production, processing, distribution, and sale of processed poultry and related food products. Respondent's operations consist of four divisions: (1) a production division, which raises the chickens to be processed and produces eggs for commercial sale; (2) the processing division, which kills, cleans, and packages chickens; (3) the shipping and receiv- ing department, which is responsible for distribu- tion of Respondent's products; and (4) the mainte- nance division, which is divided into two groups: general and vehicle maintenance. Respondent main- tains several facilities in and around the Tupelo area: a hatchery, a feed mill, a processing facility, a byproducts facility, two warehouses, a commercial egg operation, and a vehicle maintenance facility. The Union filed a petition seeking to represent a unit consisting of all of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its processing facili- ty. Respondent contended that the only appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining should encompass the employees at all of its facilities, ex- cluding only agricultural workers. After a hearing on the issue of the scope of the appropriate unit, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election. He found that a separate unit of production employees at the processing facility was appropriate, relying, inter alia, on the separate location of the facility, the lack of "substantial employee interchange," the lack of a bargaining history in a broader unit, and the fact that no other labor organization sought to represent Respondent's employees in a broader unit. Noting also the Board rule that a single loca- tion unit is presumptively appropriate, 4 the Region- al Director found that the evidence introduced by Respondent concerning centralized control of em- ployee relations and operational integration was "not sufficient to alter the separate identity of the employees who perform their work at the poultry processing plant on Straus Street." In addition, the Regional Director found that Respondent's general maintenance employees should be included in the unit since they have common supervision, most of them report to the Straus Street processing facility (and perform work there as well as at Respondent's other facilities), and they have the same job func- tions. 5 Finally, the Regional Director found that the over-the-road and local truckdrivers, the vehi- cle maintenance employees, and the "live haul" 4 See, e.g., Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962). 1 The record reveals that, unlike the employees at Respondent's other facilities, the general maintenance employees have regular contact with the processing employees. In addition, the record indicates that Respond- ent initiated several transfers in 1976 from the processing division to gen- eral maintenance because of the employees' "knowledge of the equip- ment." 110 PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC. crews lacked a sufficient community of interest to be included in the appropriate unit.6 Accordingly, he directed that an election be held in a unit of the production employees at the processing plant and the general maintenance employees. Thereafter, the Board denied Respondent's re- quest for review of the Regional Director's Deci- sion and Direction of Election and an election was held in the designated unit. The Union won this election and was certified by the Board. However, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union and the complaint which gave rise to this proceeding was filed. As noted above, the Board found that this refusal to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and ordered Respondent to bargain with the Union. Subsequently, the Board filed a pe- tition for enforcement with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In declining to enforce the Board's Order in this case, the court found that the Regional Director's analysis "indicates that the Regional Director and the Board, which upheld his ruling, concluded that evidence bearing on bargaining history, geographic proximity, employee interchange, and common job function supported approval of the proposed unit while evidence concerning operational integration, common supervision, and uniformity of employee benefits militated against the proposed unit."7 The court reasoned that, although factors favoring the unit appeared to the Regional Director and the Board to "outweigh the counterfactors," the analy- sis contained in the Regional Director's decision did not adequately articulate the reasons why, under all of the circumstances, the factors support- ing a separate unit were sufficient to compel this result. In this regard, the court, inter alia, specifi- cally raised what it considered to be a failure to ar- ticulate the reasons why (1) the degree of depart- mental supervision outweighs Respondent's central labor policy; (2) the separate location of the proc- essing plant has such significance in view of the relative proximity of all of Respondent's facilities; (3) the uniqueness of the job functions of the proc- essing employees is significant; (4) the transfer of 20 employees is "so insubstantial as to tell in favor of the unit"; and (5) the type of "product integra- tion" present in this case does not lead to the con- clusion that a larger unit is required. Finally, the court questioned the Regional Director's reliance on the Board's rule concerning the presumptive ap- 6 The Regional Director relied, inter alia, on the fact that these em- ployees have separate supervision, there is no employee interchange, and they have little or no contact with the employees in the unit. In addition, he found that, with respect to the truckdrivers, most are compensated "on different bases than employees engaged in production and mainte- nance functions." '609 F.2d at 1160. propriateness of a "single plant" unit. Accordingly, the court remanded the proceeding to the Board to "disclose the basis of its order"8 and, as noted above, the Board accepted the remand. For the reasons set forth below, we reaffirm our original determination, though not entirely for the reasons ascribed by the Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Election. Initially, we must respectfully disagree with the court's conclusion that the Board's presumption that a "single location" unit9 is appropriate for col- lective-bargaining purposes "does nothing but con- fuse the inquiry."10 On the contrary, we consider this presumption to be useful in determining wheth- er employees at a single location have a sufficiently distinct community of interest to warrant a sepa- rate unit. However, we believe the result reached herein need not turn upon a determination of the viability of the "single location" presumption since, in our view, the record as a whole fully supports the Regional Director's and the Board's determina- tion without resort to this presumption. Neverthe- less, we recognize that the Regional Director, in his Decision and Direction of Election, may have failed to fully articulate the conclusion that a sepa- rate unit at the single location of the processing plant was appropriate despite Respondent's evi- dence concerning central labor policy and oper- ational integration. Accordingly, we shall endeavor to address the specific concerns raised by the court in its decision. At the outset, we find that the record evidence concerning employee transfers and interchange strongly supports a conclusion that the unit at issue constitutes a separate and distinct employee group- ing. The record reveals that in 1976 approximately 20 employees transferred from one department to another in Respondent's entire operation. Thus, out of a total complement of approximately 488 em- ployees, only 4 percent of Respondent's entire em- ployees were involved in any transfers, either per- manent or temporary. More importantly, however, Respondent's personnel director, Dick Geyton, tes- tified that with the exception of three processing employees who were transferred to maintenance because they were familiar with the machinery, the remainder of the transfers were at the request of 8 Id. at 1161. g See, e.g., Kapok Tree Inn, Inc., 232 NLRB 702 (1977); Dixie Belle Mills. Inc., 139 NLRB 629 (1962); see also Victoria Station, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 586 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1978), enfg. 233 NLRB 33 (1977); N.L.R.B. v. Boston-Needham Industrial Cleaning Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 74, 76 (Ist Cir. 1975), enfg. 216 NLRB 26 (1975). Of course, this presumption can be rebutted by a showing that the Employer's operation is so func- tionally intergrated that it negates any separate identity of the employees at the single facility. See, generally, Haag Drug Company. Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877 (1968). 10 609 F.2d at 1161 III DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the individual employees for health reasons or oth- erwise. Thus, there is no indication that Respond- ent has an administrative policy which provides for frequent or regular transfer from one department to another." On the contrary, Geyton testified that employees have no opportunity to bid for available jobs in other departments and, although Respond- ent ostensibly maintains a companywide seniority policy, there was no "bumping" of employees be- tween facilities. In addition, layoffs and recalls are apparently conducted on a departmental basis.12 Finally, the record is replete with testimony that, with the exception of the regular contact between the processing and general maintenance employees, who also have some contact with other employees, the employees at Respondent's various locations have little or no contact with each other. It is clear, from the nature and number of em- ployee transfers and the nearly total absence of contact between employees at the different loca- tions, that these factors lend strong support to a finding of a separate and distinct community of in- terest among the employees at the processing facili- ty.'3 With respect to similarity of job skills and func- tions, we find that the evidence on this issue again favors the unit found appropriate. In so doing, we primarily rely on the fact that, although Respond- ent contends that all of its employees are generally unskilled, its policy and practice with respect to transfer and hiring belie this assertion. As noted above, Respondent does not permit interdepart- mental bidding for available jobs or "bumping." More importantly, Respondent's recognition of the particular skills or knowledge possessed by at least some of its employees is evidenced by the fact that, according to Geyton, the only transfer initiated by Respondent involved transfers of processing em- ployees to general maintenance "because of their knowledge of equipment that was installed within the last year and their mechanical ability." Thus, it appears that Respondent at least believes that some of its employees possess unique skills and are gen- erally not interchangeable. Coupled with the un- contradicted evidence that the processing and maintenance employees perform different job func- tions from, for example, the shipping and receiving '' See United States Postal Service, 232 NLRB 556, 557 (1978). mZ Although Geyton testified that, for example, a laid-off truckdriver would be offered an available job in another department, this is apparent- ly not Respondent's general policy, since Geyton thereafter admitted that truckdriver vacancies had been filled by new employees without being offered to employees in other departments. IS In its decision, the court noted that frequent transfers and other in- terchange foster shared interests, indicate similar skills, and would make it difficult to administer rules at a single location. In our view, the evi- dence of lack of such transfers and interchange amply demonstrates that shared interests, common skills, and possible difficulty of rule administra- tion are wholly absent in this case. employees, the evidence concerning job skills and functions favors a separate unit. In addition to the above, it is uncontested that the employees have no collective-bargaining histo- ry in a broader unit and no union seeks to repre- sent the employees in a broader unit. Accordingly, the Regional Director correctly found that these factors favor the unit found appropriate. 4 We next address what appears to be the heart of Respondent's case and the major elements which the court found were not fully explained in the Re- gional Director's decision; namely, Respondent's contention that its centralized control of labor rela- tions and its functional integration are such that they obliterate any separate identity of the process- ing and general maintenance employees and compel a finding that only an overall unit is appro- priate. We believe that Respondent's claim in this regard is without merit. In his Decision and Direction of Election, adopt- ed by the Board, the Regional Director found that "the centralized control of employee relations and the product integration reflected in the record herein are not sufficient to alter the separate identi- ty" of the processsing employees. He did not, how- ever, specifically discuss or analyze the evidence presented with respect to these factors and, in fail- ing to do so, may have implied that this evidence supports Respondent's position. This is clearly not the case. The record indicates that, indeed, Respondent's administration of employee relations is to some extent centralized. All job applicants are inter- viewed, and new employees hired, through Re- spondent's central personnel office. There is a single payroll and all personnel files are maintained at the central office. Wage scales and classifications are generally uniform throughout Respondent's op- erations, 5 as are hours and fringe benefits. In addi- tion, Respondent contends that its overall labor re- lations policy is formulated by "staff level manage- ment," which consists of officers of the corporation and the department heads. The evidence further indicates, however, that a significant measure of autonomy is granted the de- partment heads and even the lower-level supervi- sory staff within the various departments. With re- spect to raises, Respondent's personnel director, Geyton, testified that, at the beginning of each month, a list of the names of those employees eligi- ble for raises is sent to each department and that 14 See, e.g., Hamburg Knitting Mills Company, 239 NLRB 1231 (1978); Renzetti's Market, Inc., 238 NLRB 174 (1978). I' There is at least one exception, however. Respondent's over-the- road truckdrivers are paid by the trip rather than hourly, as are its other employees. 112 PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC. the "increases are either granted or refused and re- turned to the personnel office." He further testified that it is the "department manager and the supervi- sor" who determine whether to grant or refuse these raises, and their decision is predicated upon length of service and their evaluation of the em- ployee's job performance. Respondent's practice concerning discharges and work assignments is further illustrative of the autonomy vested in the various departments. Al- though all firing is ostensibly done through the central personnel office, Geyton testified that if a leadman in the maintenance department desires that an employee be fired, a foremen or supervisor in the individual department has authority to fire the employee. Geyton stated categorically that he does "not fire employees unless they work directly for me." In addition, Geyton testified that department heads and other supervisors schedule production and assign work and overtime to the employees in their department. In our view, the evidence with respect to Re- spondent's control of employee relations demon- strates that, although its operations reflect central- ized administration in the areas of payroll, person- nel records, overall job classifications, pay scale and benefits, substantial day-to-day authority over the areas which most directly affect the employees rests in the individual department heads and their supervisory staff. They evaluate performance and grant raises, discipline employees, schedule work assignments and overtime, and in general substan- tially control the daily working conditions of the employees in their department. That an employer may have a uniform starting pay rate carries little weight in circumstances where all future advance- ment is subject to department evaluation and ap- proval. Similarly, when discipline and discharge are administered at the departmental level, the fact that a central administration may theoretically have authority with respect to overall labor relations policy loses much of its significance. This is espe- cially true where, as here, there is no evidence of any uniform work rules and procedures to which the department supervisory staff must adhere. Dis- tilled to its essence, the record shows that Re- spondent's central adminstration in large measure consists merely of upper management's oversight of the entire business operation including maintenance of a central filing system for personnel and payroll records in a manner not unique to any modern, multifacility enterprise.' 6 Moreover, while there is evidence that Respondent's employees have the '' See, e.g., Kapok Tree Inn, Inc., 232 NLRB 702, 703-704 (1977). See also N.LR.B. v. Fidelity Maintenance & Construction Company, Inc., 424 F.2d 707 (5th Cir 1970). same general pay scale and share the same fringe benefits, such facts alone are insufficient to negate the separate and distinct community of interest in- dicated by the day-to-day authority over labor re- lations exercised by the department supervisory staffs. 17 Finally, the evidence concerning central adminis- tration of Respondent's overall operation with re- spect to wages, benefits, and classifications is not, in any event, determinative on the issue of whether a separate community of interest exists among a given group of employees. In Renzetti's Market, Inc.,' 8 we held that: . . .the Employer's centralized administration is not, in our view, the primary factor which we must consider in determining whether the employees working at [one location] enjoy a community of interest separate and distinct from the employees at [another]. Rather, what is most relevant is whether or not the employ- ees at the sought [location] perform their day- to-day work under the immediate supervision of one who is involved in rating their perform- ance and in affecting their job status and who is personally involved with the daily matters which make up their grievances and routine problems. It is in this framework that we ex- amine community of interest, for the day-to- day problems and concerns among the em- ployees at one location may not necessarily be shared by employees who are separately super- vised at another location.'9 We conclude that the authority of the supervi- sory staff at Respondent's processing facility to assign work, evaluate job performance, grant raises, discharge employees, and otherwise exercise substantial control over the day-to-day working conditions of the employees under them supports the finding that the employees in the unit found ap- propriate have a community of interest separate and distinct from that of their colleagues at Re- spondent's other locations. Accordingly, we be- lieve that the evidence of ostensible central control of employee relations by Respondent is insufficient to require a broader unit than the one found appro- priate. As far as the operational integration of Respond- ent's business is concerned, the record reveals that its operations do not evidence the kind of integra- tion which would compel an overall unit. It is true that Respondent's operations appear almost totally 7 See, e.g., Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Borling Company, 223 NLRB 45 (1976). ta 238 NLRB 174 (1978). Ma Idat 175; see also Kapok Tree Inn, Inc.. supra. 113 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD self-sustaining, since Respondent itself produces and hatches eggs, produces feed for the chickens at its own byproducts plant, slaughters and processes the poultry, and distributes the finished product for sale.2 0 However, the fact that Respondent does not resort to outside entities for the "raw materials" necessary to produce its finished product carries little weight absent evidence that its operation re- quires such close coordination of the tasks of em- ployees in its various departments that there exists highly centralized control over production and per- sonnel matters and extensive employee contact giving rise to a community of interest among all of its employees. 21 In the present case, Respondent offered little evi- dence either of a high degree of operational cen- tralization or of close coordination of employee tasks necessitating extensive employee contact. Geyton testified that Respondent's production man- ager schedules a poultry "kill" 2 weeks in ad- vance. 2 2 The warehouse manager in turn schedules the processing facility operation by notifying the plant of the number of chickens to be killed and processed on a particular day. Since Respondent tries to maintain a certain inventory level of proc- essed poultry, the number of chickens processed depends on inventory needs. When a kill is scheduled, the "live haul" crews report the prior evening to the processing facility. They are transported to the farms where the chick- ens are raised and load the chickens onto trucks.2 3 The chickens are then transported to the process- ing facility for slaughter and preparation the next day. 24 After these functions are completed, the packaged poultry is again transported by truck to Respondent's warehouse for ultimate distribution to customers. The foregoing evidence indicates that, while Re- spondent must necessarily coordinate its "live 20 In addition, Respondent produces "table eggs" in its commercial egg department. 21 In Westrom, Inc., 230 NLRB 1159 (1977), the Board noted that modern production techniques and transportation make it possible to have some degree of product integration between separate facilities and yet "maintain a separate identity for bargaining purposes." 22 Of course, prior to this stage, Respondent's breeder operation pro- duces eggs which it transports by truck to the hatchery. The hatched chicks are transported by truck to the "breeder" farms. There the birds are raised and given feed which has been produced by Respondent's feed mill, which is in turn supplied by the by products operation. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that, up to the "kill" stage of the operation, anything other than a most basic coordination of the over- all operation is required. Moreover, Respondent admits that the employ- ees in the above departments have virtually no contact with employees in the other departments. :2 These employees perform no work at the facility, and, since they work at night, have no contact with the processing and general mainte- nance employees. 24 The truckdrivers spend 60-75 percent of their time driving back and forth from the farms to the processing plant. Like the "live haul" crews, they have no contact with the processing employees or any of Respond- ent's other employees. haul" operation with its production and inventory needs, such coordination does not appear to be dif- ferent from basic production coordination in any other business. Surely, any enterprise must arrange to produce its product only to the extent necessary to fill orders and maintain inventory. The only dis- tinguishing factor here is that Respondent provides its own "raw materials," a factor which we do not believe is substantial in a determination of integra- tion of operations. 2 5 More important, however, is the fact that, to the extent Respondent's operation may arguably be deemed "integrated," such integration does not give rise to the close coordination of employee tasks and extensive employee contact indigenous to truly integrated operations. Rather, as noted above, the employees in Respondent's various departments generally have little contact with employees in other departments and their work is coordinated in only the most general sense. The only employees that have contact with other departments are the general maintenance employees, who are included in the certified unit, and the truckdrivers, who have slight contact and, even then, only because they transport the various items being processed. In our opinion, such contact by the truckdrivers alone is insufficient to "destroy the separate identi- ties of the various operations." 2 6 In view of the almost total lack of close coordi- nation of employee tasks and the lack of employee contact, we must conclude that the record supports the determination that Respondent's operation is not so integrated that the employees in the certified unit do not possess a separate and distinct commu- nity of interest entitling them to a separate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Finally, we address the issue of the geographic proximity of the various facilities, a factor which the Regional Director considered to favor a sepa- rate unit and a finding which was questioned by the court. In our opinion, at the very least, this factor neither favors nor precludes a separate unit under the circumstances of this case. 25 In its decision, the court opined that "less weight may be assigned to the factor of integration in businesses where the work performed by some of the 'integrated' departments could well be subcontracted or where the item produced by a particular department might easily be pur- chased from an outside supplier." (609 F.2d at 1157-58.) With respect to the former, the record indicates that Respondent does in fact contract out part of its breeding operation. As to the latter, there is no evidence that such items as feed, eggs, and the like are unavailable to Respondent through outside sources. In any event, we do not think such evidence would be determinative here in view of our other findings. 20 Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631, fn. 3 (1962) We also note that, in virtually all other respects, the truckdrivers in Respondent's various departments do not share a community of interest with Respond- ent's other employees, including the production employees at the process- ing plant and the general maintenance employees. The same may be said for the "live haul" crews. See fn. 21, supra. 114 PURNELL'S PRIDE, INC. Respondent's processing facility is located on Straus Street in Tupelo. In addition, Respondent operates a hatchery, a feed mill, a commercial egg operation, a byproduct plant, a refrigerated ware- house, and a vehicle maintenance shop. Although all are located in or near Tupelo, 2 7 these facilities are geographically separated.2 8 The Regional Di- rector, in finding the certified unit appropriate, relied in part on the fact that the processing facility is "geographically separated from all of the Em- ployer's remaining facilities." As noted above, the record indicates that the production employees at the processing facility have separate supervision, different job skills and functions, and virtually no job interchange or other contact with employees in other departments.2 9 Under these circumstances, we believe the fact that they are also geographically separated from other departments adds to their separate and distinct identity. In any event, at the very least this geo- graphical separation can do little to rebut the evi- dence of distinct community of interest absent proof that, despite a geographical separation, the employees have sufficient contact to, as stated by the court, "foster common concerns." 30 Such is not the case here. In sum, we find that in view of the separate su- pervision, different job functions, lack of transfers, and other employee contact and interchange, cou- pled with the geographic separation of the process- 27 The commercial egg facility is in neighboring Auburn 28 The record does not indicate the distances between all these facili- ties, but only that the processing facility is approximately 3 miles from the hatchery and the two warehouses are approximately three-fourths of a mile apart 2e As noted previously, the only exception in this regard is the inter- change and contact with the general maintenance employees. 30 609 F.2d at 1157. The court noted that the factor of geographic proximity must be considered in conjunction with "any other relevant facts." We agree that geographic proximity must be weighed il relation to the factors of employee contact and interchange, job skills and func- tions, operational integration, common supervision, bargaining history, and extent of organization However, we do not consider the fact that employees may be in the same "labor market" relevant to a unit determi- nation. Moreover, even assuming that this factor is relevant and favors a combined unit, taken alone it is insufficient to destroy the separate com- munity of interest of the certified unit in this case. ing facility from the rest of Respondent's operation, the production employees at Respondent's process- ing facility share a sufficiently distinct and separate community of interest to warrant a separate unit. We further find that general maintenance employ- ees share a sufficient community of interest with the production employees to be included in the unit in view of their regular contact with these em- ployees,31 the evidence of transfers between these departments and other interchange, coupled with the fact that this department is also located at the processing facility. In addition, we find that the type of central ad- ministration and operational integration evidenced by Respondent's business does not destroy the sep- arate and distinct community of interest of the em- ployees in the certified unit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in view of the absence of any bargaining history and the fact that no labor organization seeks to represent Respondent's em- ployees in a broader unit, we reaffirm our finding that he certified unit is an appropriate unit for pur- poses of collective bargaining. 3 2 Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we reaffirm our previous decision that, by refusing to bargain with the Union as representative of the employees in the certified unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the Order issued by the Board in Purnell's Pride, Inc., 234 NLRB 197 (1978), be, it hereby is, reaffirmed. 3 Although the general maintenance employees have some contact with employees in some of the other departments, the majority of them are based at the processing facility. 32 Since, unlike the general maintenance employees, the "live haul" crews work different hours at other locations and have virtually no con- tact with the production employees, they are properly excluded from the unit Similarly, the truckdrivers are properly excluded from the unit in view of their lack of job interchange or other contact with the processing and general maintenance employees and different method of compensa- tion, different job functions, and separate supervision. See, eg., E. H Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRH 1006 (1962) Compare Calco Plating, 242 NLRB 1364 (1979) 115