Dobbs-Life Savers, Inc.

DOBBS-LIFE SAVERS, INC. 51 Dobbs-Life Savers, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Chauf- feurs and Helpers Local Union No. 100, an affiliate of the international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-10195 April 12, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On August 27, 1973, the Acting Regional Director for Region 9 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit of food transporters. Thereafter, 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, contending that the Acting Regional Director has, inter alia, erred in failing to find only an overall unit to be appropriate. The Petitioner filed opposition. By telegraphic order dated October 2, 1973, the National Labor Relations Board granted the request for review and stayed the election. Subsequently the Petitioner filed a timely brief 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 case, including the brief on review, and hereby makes the following findings: The Employer operates an airline catering kitchen at the Cincinnati Airport at Erlanger, Kentucky, where it employs approximately 22 employees. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of seven of those employees, who are engaged in loading and trans- porting food from the kitchen to waiting aircraft. The 1 Case 9-RC-7474, in winch the Board denied the Employer's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. Employer contends that only an overall unit is appropriate . In a 1968 proceeding, the same parties litigated the same unit issue with respect to the instant operation, and the Regional Director found there, as was found here, that the requested unit of food transport employees was appropriate.' The Employer contends that substantial changes have been made in its operations since 1968, and that the 1968 decision is accordingly of no precedential Glue. We find merit in the Employer's contentions. The Employer asserts, and the record demon- strates, that since 1968 , by reason of the loss of several major airline accounts, its employee comple- ment has decreased from about 55 to 22; that the food transport employees no longer are separately supervised at all times, but instead share supervision with the kitchen employees during substantial por- tions of their days; and that the food transport employees have been assigned, and perform, a variety of additional new duties including washing food trays, mopping floors, and removing garbage. In view of the facts that the operation is now substantially reduced and that the requested employ- ees now share supervision and functions with the kitchen employees to a greater extent, we cannot agree with the Regional Director that the food transport employees remain a homogeneous group with interests separate and distinct from those of the Employer's other employees.2 Accordingly, as there is now no basis for finding that the food transport employees alone constitute an appropriate unit and as the Petitioner does not seek to represent the employees in an overall unit, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. T Cf. Marriott In-Flute Services, A Division of Marriott Corporation, 209 NLRB No. 74. 210 NLRB No. 7