Commercial Fleet Wash, Inc.

326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Commercial Fleet Wash , Inc. and Automotive Em- ployees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local 88, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-12033 May 12, 1971 DECISION ON REVIEW By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 18, 1971, the Acting Regional Director for Region 21 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate a unit of all vehicle washing em- ployees including vehicle washers and assistant lead- men, but excluding, inter alia, leadmen on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, as amended, the Petitioner timely filed a request for review of the Acting Regional Director's Decision, contending that the Acting Regional Director erred in finding the leadmen to be supervisors and excluding them from the unit found appropriate. On March 15, 1971, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic order, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on re- view. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the request for review, the Employer's statement in opposition to the request for review, and the Employer's brief on review, and makes the follow- ing findings: The Employer is engaged in commercial vehicle washing operations, which it conducts at its customers' facilities. The work is performed by five regular crews and a sixth miscellaneous crew, each consisting of a leadmen and from one.to four crewmembers. The crews assemble at the Employer's location each day, check out the necessary equipment, and proceed to the cus- tomer's site. At the site, the leadman receives a list of vehicles to be washed, after which the crew, including the leadman, wash, sweep out, spray, and chamois the vehicles. When all vehicles are washed, the equipment is loaded back onto the Employer's truck, the leadman completes the necessary paper work, and the crew re- turns to the Employer's site. According to the Acting Regional Director, it is the leadmen who assign tasks to specific crewmembers, train new crewmembers, determine when the crew takes its breaks, and, as the highest officials of the 190 NLRB No. 63 Employer at the jobsite, are responsible for seeing that the work is properly performed. In addition, the Acting Regional Director found that the leadmen have recom- mended that certain crewmembers receive a commis- sion. On the basis of the foregoing, the Acting Regional Director concluded that the leadmen are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and should, therefore, be excluded from the unit. In its request for review, the Petitioner contends that the leadmen are not supervisors because, although they give routine directions and make work assignments, the leadmen are not required to exercise any independent judgment. Further, the Petitioner contends that if the leadmen are found to be supervisors, there will be a ratio of 8 supervisors (including 2 admitted super- visors) to 9 employees. We find merit in the Petitioner's contentions. Although it is clear that the leadmen are the highest officials of the Employer at the customer's site, it is equally clear from the record that their direction of their crews does not necessitate the exercise of inde- pendent judgment. Thus, the crews are engaged in rou- tine tasks requiring little or no supervision and, while the leadman may train new crewmembers, the training necessary to perform the tasks required appears to be minimal. Moreover, we view as significant that the leadmen spend 80 to 90 percent of their time working as part of the crew. While the record does indicate that crewmembers have been transferred from a crew at the request of the leadmen, that at least one crewmember received a com- mission based upon the recommendation of a leadman, and that two employees were laid off pending investiga- tion when their leadmen reported them for theft, we do not consider these few isolated instances, in view of the record as a whole, to be sufficient to establish that they possess the supervisory authority contemplated by Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act.' Moreover, although the ratio of supervisors to rank- and-file employees is not always determinative, we con- clude under the facts of the present case, including the highly routine nature of the work performed, that the ratio of 8 supervisors to 9 employees is a highly persua- sive factor militating toward inclusion of the leadmen in the unit.' On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that the leadmen are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and we find that the following employees constitute a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining: ' Sanborn Telephone Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 512; West Virginia Pulp And Paper Company, 122 NLRB 738. ' United States Gypsum Co., 119 NLRB 1415. COMMERCIAL FLEET WASH, INC All vehicle washing employees employed by the Employer at its 5618 Borwick Avenue, South Gate, California, facility, including vehicle wash- ers, assistant leadmen, and leadmen; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Re- gional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of con- ducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direc- tion of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that 327 immediately preceding the date of this Decision on Review.' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.L.R.B. V Wyman-Gordon Co,394 U S 759. Ac- cordingly, it is hereby directed that an amended election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligibile voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 21 within 7 days of the date of this Decision of Review . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed