Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc.

ARROWHEAD PURITAS WATERS, INC. 493 Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc. and Bottlers Local 896, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-13284 November 20, 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On August 7, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit of production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Los Angeles and Monterey Park, California, facilities, excluding there- from, in accord with the Petitioner's request, 18 automotive service employees at the Los Angeles facility. In accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the ground, inter alia, that in excluding the automotive service employees he departed from Board precedent. The Board, by telegraphic order dated August 31, 1973, granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding with respect to the issues under review, and makes the following findings: The Petitioner sought to represent a unit of production, maintenance, and dispenser service employees at the Employer's Los Angeles facility, excluding truckdrivers, automotive service employ- ees, and the commercial dispenser service employees at its Monterey Park facility. The Regional Director broadened the requested unit by including the truckdrivers and the commercial dispenser service employees at Monterey Park, and he excluded the automotive service employees. The Employer con- tends that the automotive service employees should be included in the unit found appropriate on the ground that they share a substantial community of interest with other employees sought by the Petition- er. We find merit in the Employer's contention. The Employer is engaged in the processing, bottling, and delivery of drinking water and the sale, rental, and servicing of residential water dispensers. Employed at these operations are a total of 135 production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employees, loaders and yardmen, truckdrivers, field servicemen and leadmen, as well as the automotive service employees whose unit placement is here in dispute. A number of employees in the petitioned-for unit work in the yard, including lift truck operators, loaders who load filled bottles on transport and route trucks, and yardmen who remove empty bottles from the yard and place them on the bottling line and place filled bottles on pallets for transport to the yard. There are also approximately 15 transport drivers who bring water in bulk quantities to the -Los Angeles facility for processing and deliver bottled water and bulk processed water from there to outlying distribution facilities over distances ranging from 12 to 70 miles. The transport drivers spend an average of 1-1/2 hours per day at the Los Angeles facility and during slack periods are assigned to work in the plant. While in the plant the transport drivers perform the same tasks as other production person- nel. Located across the street from the production facility at Los Angeles is an automotive service building where repair work is performed on the Employer's trucks driven by field servicemen and truckdrivers, and on other automotive vehicles such as forklift trucks. The 18 automotive service employ- ees spend most of their time working at that location. However, they perform minor maintenance and repairs on vehicles in the yard of the Los Angeles facility and when necessary on lift trucks in the production area of the plant. Minor maintenance is also done in the field using two service vehicles equipped to change tires, oil, or axles. In the event of a breakdown in the field, automotive service employ- ees are subject to fleet service calls. Ancillary to the repair and maintenance function, a trainer-mechanic headquartered at the automotive facility checks out new truckdrivers on the operation of vehicles. He certifies these truckdrivers prior to their being allowed to operate vehicles alone. The automotive servicemen are under the supervi- sion of a manager of automotive operations who reports to the vice president, production and services. The latter is responsible for production and mainte- nance, transportation, and the cooler reconditioning operation. Personnel recruitment is centralized and the Employer's policy with regard to holidays, vacation, sick leave, insurance programs, pension, and retirement plan applies uniformly to all of its employees. It is evident from the foregoing that the automotive service function is integrated with the operations performed by the production and maintenance employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner, as 207 NLRB No. 77 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD well as with those of field servicemen and truckdri- vers included in the unit by the Regional Director. In the circumstances, in view of the substantial community of interest which automotive service employees share with transport drivers, field service- men, and others included in the unit, and in the absence of a labor organization seeking to represent the automotive service employees as a separate unit, we see no basis for their exclusion herein.' We shall ' See Parrot Packing Company, 112 NLRB 1432. See also E. H. Koester Bakery Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 1006. The cases relied on by the Regional Director are inapposite. In Walker-Roemer Dairies, Inc., 186 NLRB 430, the Board found a requested unit of garage employees to be appropriate, rejecting the employer's contention that route drivers must be included in the unit. In J. C. Penney Company Store No 1345, Honolulu, Hawaii, 196 NLRB 446, the Board, again, found appropriate a requested unit of auto service employees, excluding all other employees at the employer' s retail department store ; in Groendyke Transport, Inc., 171 NLRB 997, the Board found that a requested unit of drivers and owner -drivers constituted a separate appropriate unit apart from mechanics and servicemen and the latter were excluded from the unit. 2 In the event the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election in the unit found appropriate herein it shall so notify the Regional Director by therefore include the 18 automotive service employ- ees in the unit.2 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director in order that he may conduct an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the eligibili- ty payroll period therefore shall be that immediately preceding the date of this Decision.3 written notice within 7 days of the date of issuance. Moreover, as the unit found appropriate is broader than that originally requested by the Petitioner, the Regional Director shall determine whether its showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding with the election. a A corrected election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 21 within 7 days after the date of this Decision on 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. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.