Otasco, Inc.

376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Otasco, Inc. and Tulsa General Drivers, Warehouse- men & Helpers, Local Union 523, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Washington, D.C., Petitioner. Case 10-RC-13215 31 January 1986 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Gaye Nell Hymon of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the close of the hearing the Regional Director for Region 10 transferred this case to the Board for de- cision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief and a supplemental brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are affirmed. On the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds: 1. The parties have stipulated that the Employer, a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business located in College Park, Georgia, is en- gaged in the retail and wholesale sale of automo- tive and household goods; during the past calendar year, a representative period, the Employer sold and shipped directly to customers outside the State of Georgia products valued in excess to $50,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju- risdiction herein. 2. The, parties stipulated and we find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit com- posed of all over-the-road and local truckdrivers employed by the Employer at its College Park, Georgia facility. The Petitioner contends that the unit should include the two local drivers, Alan Duck and Tim Parrott, because they perform over- the-road driving duties in addition to their local driving duties. The Employer contends that the local truckdrivers should not be included in the unit as they are represented by the Retail, Whole- sale and Department Store Union, Local #315 (RWDSU), and are expressly covered by the exist- ing. collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the RWDSU. The Employer further argues that the petition should be dismissed be- cause it is barred by the agreement between the Employer and RWDSU and on community-of-in- terest grounds. For approximately 28 years, the Employer has recognized RWDSU as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of employees consisting of, inter alia, its local truckdrivers, but excluding, inter alia, its over-the-road truckdrivers. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the RWDSU is effective from 5 June 1984 to 4 June 1987. The Employer currently employs two local truckdrivers, Parrott and Duck, and eight over-the-road truckdrivers who are un- represented. The record shows that since May 1985 employee Duck has spent some 3 to 4 days per week and em- ployee Parrott some 1 to 2 days per week making over-the-road deliveries in addition to their regular warehouse and local driving duties. There is no dispute that a unit consisting of the over-the-road truckdrivers would be appropriate. The Employer argues that the contract between itself and RWDSU bars inclusion of the local truckdrivers classification with over-the-road truckdrivers. It is well settled that a collective-bargaining agreement which meets- certain requirements bars an election within the unit covered by that agree- ment. Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160 (1958). It is clear that the unit represented by the RWDSU here includes the Employer's local truckdrivers and that that classification is expressly covered by the existing agreement between the Employer and the RWDSU. Moreover, no party contends that their agreement does not meet the contract-bar requirements set forth in Appalachian Shale, supra. In these circumstances, we also find that agreement bars the inclusion of dual-function employees Parrott and Duck in the unit sought to be represented by the Petitioner. We further find that the Board decisions in Sun Valley Bus Lines, 99 NLRB 844 (1952); Treadwell Engineering Co., 106 NLRB 898 (1953); and Nu-Life Spotless, 215 NLRB 357 (1974), are inapposite in that none of these cases involved dual-function employees who were covered by the terms of an existing collec- tive-bargaining agreement which would constitute a bar to an election among such employees. Since the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to pro- ceed to an election if an alternative unit is found 278 NLRB No. 54 OTASCO, IN appropriate, we shall direct an election in a unit limited to the Employer's over-the-road drivers.I On the entire record in this proceeding, we find that the following employees of the Employer con- stitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: fi In the circumstances here, we find without merit the Employer's contention that the petition should be dismissed 377 All over-the-road drivers at the Employer's College Park, Georgia facility; excluding warehouse and service employees (which in- cludes maintenance and repairmen and local truckdrivers), salesmen, watchmen and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election omitted from publication.]