IKEA Distribution Services, Inc.

370 NLRB No. 109 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Ikea Distribution Services, Inc. and United Mainte- nance Technicians of Tejon. Case 31‒RC‒266527 April 19, 2021 ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND RING The Employer’s request for review of the Regional Di- rector’s Decision and Direction of Election, pertinent por- tions of which are attached, is granted as it raises substan- tial issues warranting review. On review, we affirm the Regional Director’s decision for the reasons that follow. The Regional Director found appropriate a petitioned- for unit of maintenance employees at the Employer’s Lebec, California facility, applying the three-step analysis set forth in Boeing Co., 368 NLRB No. 67 (2019). We agree with the Regional Director’s finding that the petitioned-for employees share an internal community of interest under Boeing step one for the reasons stated in her Decision and Direction of Election.1 Step two of the Boe- ing analysis addresses whether the petitioned-for employ- ees are sufficiently distinct from excluded employees. While the Employer contends that the smallest appropriate unit must include 404 other hourly employees employed at the Lebec facility, the Regional Director found that the Employer was precluded from litigating this issue because its Statement of Position, though timely filed, was served on the Petitioner 1 hour and 41 minutes late. Notwith- standing this determination, the hearing officer elicited ev- idence regarding the excluded employees and the Deci- sion and Direction of Election contains findings in that re- gard. The Board has an affirmative statutory obligation to de- termine the appropriate bargaining unit in each case. American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 611, 614 (1991). In making that determination, the Board may simply look at the Union’s proposed unit and, if it is an appropriate unit, accept that unit determination without any further inquiry. But, absent a stipulated agreement, presumption, or rule, the Board must be able to find––based on some record evidence––that the pro- posed unit is an appropriate one for bargaining before directing an election in that unit. 1 We also agree with the Regional Director’s finding that there are no applicable guidelines that the Board has established for this industry with regard to appropriate unit configurations under Boeing step three. Allen Health Care Services, 332 NLRB 1308, 1309 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Consistent with these principles, the Boeing step two analysis is satisfied where parties had an opportunity to litigate the inclusion of excluded employees but did not do so. In those circum- stances, a regional director is not required to address the Boeing step two analysis in his or her decision. We find, however, that somewhat different considerations apply where, as here, a party has been precluded from litigating the issue due to untimely service of its statement of posi- tion. Section 102.66(d) relevantly provides that A party shall be precluded from raising any issue, pre- senting any evidence relating to any issue, cross-exam- ining any witness concerning any issue, and presenting argument concerning any issue that the party failed to raise in its timely Statement of Position or to place in dispute in response to another party's Statement of Posi- tion or response, except that no party shall be precluded from contesting or presenting evidence relevant to the Board's statutory jurisdiction to process the petition. We agree with the Regional Director that the Employer failed to timely serve its statement of position on the Peti- tioner and is therefore precluded from litigating its con- tention that the 404 excluded hourly employees should be included in the unit. Consistent with Section 102.66(b), however, this does not “limit the Regional Director's dis- cretion to direct the receipt of evidence concerning any is- sue, such as the appropriateness of the proposed unit, as to which the Regional Director determines that record evi- dence is necessary.” See Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 96, slip op. at 2‒3 (2016) (regional director did not err in determining that contract was a bar to election petition notwithstanding that party no party raised issue in timely statement of position, where issue was apparent from face of the petition). Accordingly, the fact that a party is precluded from liti- gating whether the petitioned-for unit must include addi- tional employees under Boeing step two does not divest the regional director of the responsibility to determine the appropriateness of the proposed unit. Likewise, following a hearing, a regional director is not free to disregard Boe- ing step two simply because a party was precluded from presenting evidence on that issue where the record as a whole indicates that the inclusion of particular employees is required in order for the unit to be an appropriate unit. This is particularly true if the petitioned-for unit is a frac- tured unit. See Boeing, supra, slip op. at 4 fn. 5. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 As noted above, the hearing officer in this case permit- ted the Employer to make certain offers of proof, to submit certain exhibits to complete the record (entered as Board exhibits), and to make witnesses available for examination by the hearing officer, in order to make a complete record. We find that the Regional Director conducted the inquiry contemplated by Section 102.66(b) and that her findings, and the record as a whole, support her determination that the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit.2 Accordingly, for these reasons, we affirm the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. Dated, Washington, D.C. April 19, 2021 ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ______________________________________ John F. Ring, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN, concurring in the result. I adhere to my earlier positions that both Boeing Co., 367 NLRB No. 67 (2019), and PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), were wrongly decided, and that the Board should return to the standards established in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013), approved by eight United States Courts of Appeals. I agree with my colleagues, however, that under Boeing, the petitioned-for bargaining unit is appropriate, as the Re- gional Director found. I also agree, as my colleagues ob- serve, that the “step two” analysis required by Boeing is satisfied where parties had an opportunity to litigate the inclusion of excluded employees but did not do so, and that in that setting a regional director is not required to ad- dress the Boeing “step two” analysis. But, contrary to my colleagues, I would not distinguish between a situation where an employer has chosen not to raise an issue con- cerning the appropriateness of the petitioned-for bargain- ing unit and a situation (as here) where the employer is 2 We therefore disavow the Regional Director’s speculation that the case may have turned out differently if preclusion had not applied. 1 All dates hereinafter refer to 2020 unless otherwise noted. 2 At the hearing, the parties agreed to remove the Preventative Maintenance Technicians classification from the petitioned-for unit be- cause that classification is no longer being used at the facility at issue. 3 In its statement of position, the Employer asserted that the appro- priate unit is as follows: All full-time and regular part-time employees precluded by the Board’s election rules from raising such an issue. Accordingly, I believe that, in this case, the hear- ing officer erred in admitting evidence related to Boeing “step two.” However, I would find the hearing officer’s error to be harmless because the Regional Director subse- quently and correctly found the petitioned-for unit appro- priate. Dated, Washington, D.C. April 19, 2021 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On September 23, 2020,1 United Maintenance Techni- cians of Tejon (Petitioner or Union) filed a representation petition (the Petition) under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) seeking to represent certain employees of Ikea Distribution Services, Inc. (Employer). The petitioned-for unit was modified at the hearing to in- clude all full-time and regular part-time maintenance tech- nicians and power equipment technicians employed by the Employer at its facility in Lebec, California.2 There are approximately 15 employees in the petitioned-for unit. On September 23, Region 31 of the National Labor Re- lations Board (the Region) served a copy of the Petition on the Employer and notified the Employer of its obliga- tion to file a Statement of Position, serve that Statement of Position on all parties, and to do so in a timely manner by noon Pacific time on Monday, October 5. On the same date, the Region issued a Notice of Representation Hear- ing setting a videoconference hearing for Wednesday, Oc- tober 14. The Employer filed its Statement of Position with the Region on October 5, raising the substantive issue of the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit.3 The Em- ployer, however, failed to timely serve its Statement of Position on the Petitioner. A videoconference hearing on the Petition was held on October 14, 15, and 16 before a hearing officer of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board (the Board). At the hearing, the Employer did not dispute that it failed to serve its employed at the Employer’s Tejon Distribution Center in Lebec, Cali- fornia in the following classifications: Auditor, Cleaner, Internal Hauler, Maintenance Technician, Preventative Maintenance Technician, Power Equipment Technician, Recovery Co-worker, Stock Controller, and Warehouse Co-worker and excluding all porary, office clerical, admin- istrative, confidential and es, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 3 Statement of Position on the Petitioner in a timely man- ner.4 Thus, pursuant to Section 102.63(b)(1) and 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules, I directed the hearing of- ficer to preclude the Employer from litigating issues con- tained in its statement of position because it failed to timely serve a copy of it on the Petitioner. At the begin- ning of the hearing, the Employer made a verbal motion to reconsider my decision on the preclusion issue. The mo- tion was denied. Section 102.63(b)(1) of the Board’s Rules states an em- ployer named in an RC petition “shall” file a statement of position with the Regional Director and serve a copy of that statement of position on the other parties named in the petition. Section 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules, “Preclu- sion,” states, in relevant part: Section 102.63(b)(1) of the Board’s Rules states an em- ployer named in an RC petition “shall” file a statement of position with the Regional Director and serve a copy of that statement of position on the other parties named in the petition. Section 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules, “Preclu- sion,” states, in relevant part: A party shall be precluded from raising any issue, pre- senting any evidence relating to any issue, cross-exam- ining any witness concerning any issue, and presenting argument concerning any issue that the party failed to raise in its timely Statement of Position or to place in dispute in response to another party’s Statement of Po- sition or response. . . The Board addressed preclusion and the operation of Section 102.66(d) in Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 1, fn.1 (2017). In that case, the Board con- cluded that the Regional Director was correct to preclude the employer from litigating the appropriateness of the peti- tioned-for unit based on the employer’s failure to timely serve its statement of position on the petitioner. Id. The Employer argues that precluding it from presenting evidence regarding the appropriateness of the petitioned- for unit denies it due process, is an unduly harsh penalty that is arbitrary and capricious, and prevents the Region from fulfilling its obligations under Section 9(b) of the Act. While a procedural rule will at times prevent a sub- stantive issue from being addressed, that is not an unin- tended consequence of a preclusion rule but the intent. 4 I also note that the Employer did not file a motion for an extension of time to file and serve its Statement of Position nor did it provide an explanation for failing to serve its Statement of Position in a timely man- ner. 5 The Employer recognized as much in its verbal motion to recon- sider. 6 At the hearing, I directed the hearing officer to permit the Employer to submit a posthearing brief on the limited issues of the appropriate legal standard to apply in determining the appropriateness of the unit at issue Sections 102.63(b)(1) and 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules are clear in their operation, and nothing in the Employer’s verbal motion to reconsider articulated at the hearing pro- vides a valid basis for ignoring the preclusion dictated by the Board’s Rules. Thus, I hereby affirm my ruling and find that the Employer was properly precluded from liti- gating the unit issue raised in its statement of position. Section 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules, however, does not preclude the Regional Director from addressing an is- sue.5 See Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 96 (2016); Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 1, fn. 1 (2017). This is clear from the plain language of Section 102.66(d), which places no lim- itation on any person other than the defaulting party. It is also clear from the context of the provision within the structure of the Act and the Rules, including Section 102.66(b), which authorizes the Regional Director to di- rect the receipt of evidence concerning any issue, such as the appropriateness of the proposed unit, as to which the Regional Director determines that record evidence is nec- essary, even if the parties have not taken adverse positions on the issue. Brunswick, 364 NLRB slip op at 4. The Board recently clarified the standard to apply when determining the appropriateness of a petitioned-for unit in situations like here, where no party asserts that the small- est appropriate unit must include employees excluded from the petitioned-for unit.6 In Macys West Stores, Inc., 32‒RC‒246415, fn. 1 (unpublished May 27, 2020), the Board stated:7 W]here no party asserts that the smallest appropriate unit must include employees excluded from the petitioned- for unit, it is unnecessary to apply the three-step analysisset forthin BoeingCompany, 368 NLRBNo. 67 (2019), which applies “when a party asserts that the smallest appropriate unit must include employees ex- cluded from the petitioned-for unit.” Id. slip op. at 2. It is true that steps one and three of Boeing—the require- ment that any appropriate unit have an internal com- munity of interest, and that consideration must be given to the Board’s decisions on appropriate units in the par- ticular industry involved—reference broad principles that are generally applicable to unit determinations. Step two, however—which considers “whether the peti- tioned-for employees share a community of interest and its position on the method of election. On October 23, the Employer filed a posthearing brief and argued that the appropriate standard to apply in this matter is the traditionalcommunity of interest test set forth in PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017). While the Employer cites to Boeing Co., 368 NLRB No. 67 (2019) and the three-step process articu- lated therein, it does not cite to Macys West Stores, Inc., supra. 7 The Board’s decision is available on the Board’s public website at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-RC-246415. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 sufficiently distinct from employees excluded from the proposed unit to warrant a separate appropriate unit,” ibid. (internal quotations omitted)—only applies if a party contends that additional employees must be in- cluded in the unit to render it appropriate, a situation that is not present in this case. Accordingly, since the Employer here was precluded from asserting that additional employees must be included in the petitioned-for unit to render it appropriate, consistent with the Board’s decision in Macys West Store, in the following sec- tion I will apply steps one and three of Boeing in determining the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit. In addition to the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit, the other matter to be decided in this case is whether an election should be held manually at the Employer’s Lebec, California facility or by mail ballot, considering the continuing COVD-19 pandemic.8 The Employer ar- gues that any election should be by manual ballot at its Lebec facility and that it can safely hold an open-air elec- tion at the facility in compliance with all local, state, and federal guidelines and consistent with the protocols de- scribed in General Counsel Memorandum 20‒10. The Employer further states that it will provide all materials required by General Counsel Memorandum 20‒10. The Petitioner supports either a mail or manual ballot election. The Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to me under Section 3(b) of the Act. Based on the entire record in this proceeding and relevant Board law, I find that the petitioned-for unit, as modified at the hearing to include only maintenance technicians and power equip- ment technicians, share a community of interest sufficient to establish that it is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Furthermore, based on the entire record, relevant Board law, and the extraordinary circumstances of a pandemic, I shall direct a mail-ballot election com- mencing on the earliest practicable date. I. THE EMPLOYER’S OPERATIONS The Employer provides warehousing and logistic ser- vices at its facility in Lebec, California (the Facility). The Facility includes a distribution center that consists of one large warehouse that houses six buildings under one roof, 8 Throughout this decision, the terms “COVID-19,” “coronavirus,” and “virus” are used interchangeably. 9 The record is unclear as to whether the distribution center is the only building at the Facility. Nevertheless, the distribution center and build- ings 1-6 are the only buildings at issue in this matter. 10 The record is unclear as to whether the Safety Department falls within Operations and/or Facilities or is its own separate department. I note, however, that it is regularly referred to as the Safety Department. 11 An individual can place an order by phone or online. which are numbered 1 through 6.9 Employer product ar- rives at the distribution center, is sorted into different areas within the distribution center, and is shipped to other dis- tribution centers, retail stores, and/or individual custom- ers. The distribution center includes Operations and Facili- ties.10 Employees within Operations and Facilities work toward the shared goal of making sure that the Employer’s product reaches its destination. Within Operations, there is Customer Distribution (referred to as CD or CDC) and Store Distribution (referred to as SD). The CDC is based in Building 6 and handles situations where an individual customer places an order for product.11 More specifically, when an individual customer places an order for a partic- ular product, the CDC employees get the product from within the distribution center and prepare it to be shipped via FedEx to the individual’s home. The SD is based in Buildings 1 through 5 and handles situations where a retail store places an order for product or when another distribu- tion center needs product. Most hourly/non-exempt12 em- ployees work within Operations, including the auditor, in- ternal haulers, recovery coworkers, stock controllers, and general warehouse coworkers.13 Facilities is charged with making sure the distribution center is operational and safe for all employees to com- plete their jobs in a safe manner. Within Facilities, there are the maintenance technicians, power equipment techni- cians, cleaners, and a sustainability developer.14 There is a maintenance shop located between Buildings 1 and 4, which is the hub for maintenance, which includes the maintenance technicians and the power equipment techni- cians.15 Ultimately, maintenance employees are there to make sure that the Employer’s process for ensuring that its products reach their destination is not stopped for some reason and, if it is stopped, the maintenance team is there to make sure it is mitigated and lessened as much as pos- sible so that the process can continue. Jermaine Gordon is the current site manager at the fa- cility. He oversees SD Warehouse Manager Ken Brown, the SD operational support manager (vacant position), the HR manager (vacant position), Safety & Security Man- ager Victor Avila, Business Navigator Diane Young, Fa- cilities Manager Aaron Lucas, CD Warehouse Manager 12 Throughout the record it appears that the terms hourly and non- exempt are used interchangeably and, therefore, I will use these terms interchangeably throughout this decision. 13 There are 367 general warehouse coworkers, 10 stock controllers, 10 recovery coworkers, 9 internal haulers, and 1 auditor. 14 There are 14 maintenance technicians, 1 power equipment techni- cian, 7 cleaners, and 1 sustainability developer. 15 The witnesses regularly referenced the maintenance hub or the maintenance shop, which refer to the same location between Buildings 1 and 4. IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 5 Stephanie Rivas, and CD Operational Support Manager Jose Estrada. Facilities Manager Aaron Lucas oversees all of Facilities, including Maintenance Team Leads William Villanueva, Robert Jones, and Mitchell Newman, and Cleaners/Waste Sorters16 Team Lead Robert Spivey. He also oversees the sustainability developer. Lucas’s office in located in Building 1, but the maintenance team leads have offices/desks in the maintenance shop between Buildings 1 and 4. Hourly employees enter through the same entrance of the Facility. Hourly employees share the same common break room area for lunch.17 Hourly employees wear an Employer badge, which includes the employee’s name, hire date, and employee number and is used to clock in and out. The badges do not indicate an employee’s partic- ular department or job title. Employees have access to an employee locker room, where they can get dressed before or after their shift. The employee locker room is used by various classifications of employees, including some maintenance technicians. Full-time hourly employees are designated into differ- ent hours levels, which represents how many hours they are normally scheduled to work each week. The different levels include the following: (i) HL2, which represents 20‒34 hours per week; (ii) HL3, which represents 34‒40 hours per week; and (iii) HL4, which represents 38‒40 hours per week. At the Facility, nearly all full-time hourly employees are within HL2 or HL3 and all maintenance are full-time HL3s.18 There are three shifts available to full-time hourly em- ployees, including the first shift, second shift, and third shift. However, the start and end times for the second and third shifts differ between departments. For example, for maintenance technicians, the shift schedule is as follows: first shift is approximately 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., second shift is approximately 1:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and third shift is approximately 9:00 p.m. to 5:30 am. Whereas for SD employees, the shift schedule is approximately as fol- lows: first shift 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., second shift is 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and third shift is 8:30 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. The Employer pays a $0.50 shift differential for hourly employees working the second shift and a $1.00 shift dif- ferential for hourly employees working the third shift. The shift differential is applicable to cleaners, internal haulers, recovery coworkers, stock controllers, general 16 Waste sorters are often referred to as cleaners. 17 Employees are also allowed to leave the Facility for lunch. 18 The record is not clear as to whether this reference to “mainte- nance” includes both the power equipment technician and the mainte- nance technicians. 19 There is no record evidence clearly establishing whether or not maintenance technicians qualify for an alternate work schedule. warehouse coworkers, maintenance technicians, and power equipment technicians. The Employer offers some hourly employees an alter- nate work schedule, which means that they work four 10- hour days. The record is not clear as to which classifica- tions can take advantage of the alternate work schedule or how many hourly employees do. However, some testimo- nial evidence suggests that maintenance technicians do not qualify for an alternate work schedule.19 Whether some- one works an alternate work schedule or not will impact whether that employee is eligible for overtime. More spe- cifically, if an employee does not work an alternate work schedule, then they are generally eligible for overtime. The record does not reflect the precise wage rates or wage ranges for the Employer’s hourly employees. How- ever, the Employer’s Interim Unit People and Culture Manager testified that the cleaner is the lowest pay grade position, and then progressing up in pay are the recovery and warehouse coworkers, then the stock controller and internal hauler, and then finally the maintenance techni- cians. The record is not clear as to whether the power equipment technician is at the top of this structure with the maintenance technicians. All hourly employees are subject to the same work rules and policies, including the Employer’s Code of Conduct.20 In addition, all hourly employees, excluding part-time workers, are eligible for the same Employer benefits, in- cluding, but not limited to, medical, dental, vision, and re- tirement. All hourly employees participate in the Em- ployer’s onboarding experience on their first day of em- ployment. All hourly employees also participate in the Employer’s online digital trainings, including the follow- ing: active shooter; bomb threats general information; data privacy fundamental; data privacy test; data privacy train- ing; data privacy training for California store coworkers; earthquake safety; emergency notification Code 1000; fire and accident prevention; fire and safety training retail; handling and sharing information; harassment awareness for Ikea coworkers and specialists; how to report an emer- gency; how to use a fire extinguisher; insect, snake and animal safety; ladder safety; lifting safety; lockout tagout general information; medical emergency and accident re- porting; pedestrian safety in the warehouse; product safety and compliance alarm; responding to a fire; safety and so- cial distancing; safety and social distancing module 1; 20 The Employer’s work rules and policies include the attendance pol- icy, the behavior standards policy, the coworker discount and credit pur- chase policy, the general safety policy, the harassment, discrimination and retaliation prevention policy, the holiday incentive pay policy, the information security policy, the mobile device policy, the pay practices policy, the problem resolution policy, and the rest breaks and meal peri- ods policy. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 safety and social distancing module 2; safety knives; se- vere weather safety; supply chain security; and workplace hazard communication. A. Maintenance Technicians There are approximately fourteen maintenance techni- cians that work at the Facility. Four maintenance techni- cians work the 1st shift, three work the 2nd shift, and seven work the 3rd shift. After maintenance technicians clock in for work, they report to the maintenance shop be- tween Buildings 1 and 4. Maintenance technicians have lockers in the maintenance shop, which is where they store their Employer-issued tools (including, but not limited to, screwdrivers, wrenches, sockets, pliers).21 The mainte- nance shop includes cabinets that hold replacement parts for various pieces of equipment and it has computers for the maintenance technicians to use. Maintenance techni- cians have around 15 Employer-issued keys, which are used to access restricted areas like solar panels, electrical panels, and the hazardous materials storage building, among others.22 The job posting for the maintenance technician position states that its function is DC Operations23 and that its core responsibilities include the following: (i) performing maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair on all equip- ment; (ii) performing inspection and adjustments as pre- scribed by the manufacturer; (iii) performing other duties as assigned; and (iv) contributing to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. In addition to the general job functions and duties set forth in the job posting, there was substantial testimony regarding the specific job duties that maintenance techni- cians perform. More specifically, on each shift, maintenance techni- cians work a rotation that includes either working on the floor, working preventative maintenance, working on pro- jects, and working in the ASRS.24 When working on the floor rotation, the maintenance technician handles issues relating to the conveyor system. The maintenance techni- cian will drive around on the floor and if he receives a warning that something has broken down on the conveyor, he will go and address that breakdown.25 When working preventative maintenance, the mainte- nance technician receives a list of jobs related to 21 This is not a personal locker room like the shared locker room de- scribed previously. If a maintenance technician wants to change clothes or shoes before or after a shift, they would do that in the shared locker room, not the maintenance locker room. 22 There is testimonial evidence that certain areas of the Facility are restricted to maintenance employees because they require these keys. 23 The record does not explicitly state what DC Operations stands for; however, it appears to stand for Distribution Center Operations. preventative maintenance and will spend the shift going through the list and completing those tasks. Preventative maintenance can include jobs like working plumbing in bathrooms, fixing something on the outside fence line, working on the solar panels on the roof, etc. When work- ing projects, the maintenance technician will receive work orders or requests through the CAFM system (which is de- scribed in more detail below) and will respond to immedi- ate requests for maintenance work. It is not clear the ex- tent of the differences between working the projects rota- tion and the preventative maintenance rotation. When working on the ASRS system rotation, the maintenance technician will monitor the system for faults and breakdowns, watching for anything that may slow the production of the system. The maintenance technician will also perform preventative maintenance on all compo- nents of the ASRS system. In order to complete these job duties, maintenance tech- nicians have a wide range of skills, including knowing how to work plumbing, how to fix light fixtures, how to work electrical systems, how to weld, how to work with schematics, how to work hydraulic systems, how to per- form carpentry work (such as erecting a podium or build- ing something), and how to turn wrenches. The mainte- nance technician job posting specifically requires experi- ence with hand tools and their proper use; proven electri- cal, mechanical, and/or plumbing skills; ability to trouble- shoot electrical problems by reading and following a sche- matic; welding and fabrication skills; advanced computer skills working in a variety of software; the ability to lift 50 to 75 lbs.; an educational degree (high school diploma, general education degree, college diploma, etc.); an Ikea forklift driver certification; and a minimum of 2 years prior industrial maintenance experience is required. Maintenance technicians also maintain licenses for var- ious types of equipment, including the following: scissor lift, crane, counterbalance, order picker, electronic pallet jacks, reach inc. kooi forks, boom lift, and clamp truck. Each maintenance technician has a license for at least one of these pieces of equipment. Maintenance technicians also perform maintenance work on or with a variety of equipment, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) walkies, which are designed to pick up pallets; (ii) reaches, which are designed to pick product off racks; (iii) counter- balances (a.k.a. forklifts), which are designed to offload 24 The ASRS, which stands for Automated Storage and Retrieval Sys- tem, is located in the middle of Building 6 and it is a system designed to bring product out of the racking area without having human interaction. Essentially, it is a high-tech way of sorting product. It is large, approxi- mately 50 feet wide, 100 feet in length, and 30 feet high. 25 The record is not clear regarding what the maintenance technician drives. IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 7 trailers; (iv) C trains at dock doors to move product around; (v) conveyors; (vi) batteries; (vii) wrapping paper used to shrink wrap product; and (viii) fire extinguishers. Maintenance Team Lead Mitchell Newman supervises the four maintenance technicians and the power equip- ment technician that work the first shift, which is from about 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Newman is responsible for making sure that the employees he supervises have their jobs for the shift and he also leads a pre-shift meeting.26 Team leads are not designated to a specific area in the fa- cility; rather, they are typically either in the maintenance shop (on the computers) or on the floor. Maintenance technicians get their work assignments in a variety of ways. Maintenance technicians can receive a work order through the CAFM system, which is an appli- cation program for the maintenance employees. The CAFM work-order system is the preferred way for mainte- nance technicians to receive work orders because it will track the work orders and log them. In other words, man- agement, including team leads, can track which work or- ders have been completed and which are outstanding through the CAFM system. Essentially, anybody who needs something done by maintenance will put in a service request and then the team leader or management will take the service request and make it into a work order, which is then distributed to the maintenance technician‒typically through CAFM. A CAFM work order could be for some- thing as small as a repair needed on a water fountain or as big as a repair needed on a conveyor belt, the ASRS sys- tem, or racking. While maintenance technicians typically receive their work assignments from their direct supervisor/team lead, they can and do receive assignments from other team leads as well. For example, maintenance technicians can also get a work assignment by receiving a call on the radio. Team leaders from within maintenance and outside maintenance can place a call on the radio and ask for a maintenance technician to come address an issue. All maintenance technicians have a radio.27 Maintenance technicians can also get a work assignment by being flagged down by another employee or any team lead. For example, if a general warehouse coworker has an issue with their forklift and sees a maintenance technician walk- ing by, that general warehouse coworker can flag down the maintenance technician to see if they can fix the issue right there, on-the-spot. 26 The record does not include evidence about who attends these meetings, how often they are held, or where they are held. 27 Other leads and employees communicate with the maintenance em- ployees through these radios. The level of access to the radios differs depending on job classification. For example, cleaners have radios and Maintenance technicians are required to wear a long sleeve fire retardant shirt, pants, and steel-toed boots. They are not allowed to wear shorts. A uniform company launders their uniforms and brings them to the facility. When the maintenance technicians work in the ASRS in Building 6, they are required to wear hard hats. Mainte- nance technicians will also sometimes wear safety gloves and eye protection when working on certain equipment. B. Power Equipment Technicians There is currently one power equipment technician that works at the Facility. He works on the first shift. The power equipment technician clocks in for work and then reports to the maintenance shop. The record is not clear as to whether the power equipment technician uses the lockers in the maintenance shop or stores any Employer- issued tools there. There is no evidence regarding whether the power equipment technician has Employer-issued keys. The job posting for power equipment technician de- scribes the position function as DC Operations and states that its core responsibilities include the following: (i) di- agnosing and repairing all material handling equipment; (ii) performing inspection and adjustments as prescribed by the manufacturer; (iii) performing other duties as as- signed; and (iv) contributing to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. In order to complete the job duties of power equipment technician, the job posting requires knowledge of how to use forklifts and other power equipment; basic MS Com- puter skills; exhibit a mechanical aptitude; experience with hand tools and their proper use; proven electrical, mechanical, and/or plumbing skills; welding and fabrica- tion skills; advanced computer skills working in a variety of software; ability to obtain an Ikea forklift driver certifi- cation; the ability to lift 50 to 75 lbs.; an educational de- gree (high school diploma, general education degree, col- lege diploma, etc.); a valid driver’s license; a Ikea forklift driver certification; a minimum of 3‒5 years of experience working on electrical forklifts required; and prior material handling equipment training preferred. In addition, the evidence indicates that the power equipment technician maintains licenses for the following types of equipment: electronic pallet jack, counterbalance, scissor lift, and reach inc. kooi forks. The power equipment technician reports to Team Lead Newman. Although there is minimal testimonial evidence internal haulers have a radio in their trucks. General warehouse cowork- ers, however, do not have radios but there is a radio in Building 1 and there are radios in Buildings 2 and 5, where general warehouse cowork- ers run the silos (silos are special forklifts). There are also radios in the cranes, which the general warehouse coworkers operate. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 about the specific job duties of the power equipment tech- nician, the record reveals that the power equipment tech- nician turns wrenches on the power equipment28 and works on forklifts, reaches, and the general power equip- ment. It appears that the power equipment technician has a work area within the maintenance shop and performs most of his work there. The record is not clear as to how the power equipment technician receives work orders. The record does not reveal whether the power equip- ment technician carries a radio or walks through the build- ings at all. The record also does not reveal whether the power equipment technician is required to wear the same uniform as the maintenance technicians and/or whether the uniform is laundered by the uniform company. It is unclear whether the power equipment technician qualifies for an alternate work schedule. There is some evidence of transfers between the classi- fications of maintenance technicians and power 28 The record is unclear as to what precisely “turning a wrench” means. 29 The job posting for general warehouse coworkers states that its function is DC Operations and that they report to the warehouse team leader. It further states that the core responsibilities include the follow- ing: (i) assume major responsibility for shipping, receiving, block/stor- age; (ii) unload and properly handle all inbound/outbound merchandise; (iii) secure merchandise properly to allow for safe movement through the distribution center; (iv) verify articles received againstcorresponding pa- perwork, note any discrepancies to ensure 100% inventory accuracy; (v) remove and properly document all damages found or caused on in- bound/outbound merchandise; (vi) properly store/stage all pallets in as- signed locations; (vii) rotate to all location functions as assigned; (viii) maintain and clean and safe work area in all locations within the distri- bution center; (ix) attend work and contribute to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers; and (x) perform other duties as assigned. The job posting for stock controller states that its function is Inventory and that they report to the inventory control team leader. It further states that the core responsibilities include the following: (i) support overall Ikea inventory routines; (ii) proactive cooperation and contribution with colleagues inside and outside the department with the aim to minimize all inventory adjustments/deviations; (iii) process daily ship zero report including counting of address; (iv) process daily stock control paperwork and requests; (v) cycle count annually and correct/report deviations; (vi) audit picked pallets based on agreed requirements; (vii) ensure that goals and KPIs are met and results delivered; (viii) perform other duties as as- signed; and (ix) contribute to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. The job posting for recovery coworker states that its function is DC Operations and that they report to the quality team leader. It further states that the core responsibilities include the following: (i) proactive cooperation and contribution with colleagues inside and outside the de- partments with the aim to minimize all internal damages or other costs related to Ikea products; (ii) perform investigations with 48 hours of re- ceipt of request based on the information received; (iii) complete all re- pairs in accordance with work orders and protocol; (iv) ensure smooth flow of product through the Recovery/Repair area; (v) check all dam- ages, ensure all articles which are considered to be saleable are packaged equipment technician. Specifically, the documentary evi- dence indicates that one employee was a maintenance technician from September 2010 through May 2012, was a power equipment technician from May 2012 through August 2020, and then returned to the maintenance tech- nician classification in August 2020. Another employee was a power equipment technician from June 2008 through August 2020, at which time he became a mainte- nance technician. However, there is no evidence of tem- porary assignment of duties and/or temporary interchange between the classifications. C. Other Employees There are approximately 404 other hourly employees employed by the Employer at the Facility. There are ap- proximately 367 general warehouse coworkers, approxi- mately 10 stock controllers, approximately 10 recovery coworkers, approximately 9 internal haulers, approxi- mately 7 cleaners, and 1 auditor.29 as close to the original packaging as possible, operate repack table to create new packaging when necessary; (vi) create and monitor tracking reports measuring results and productivity; (vii) always consider the sus- tainability impact when deciding when and how to recover product; (viii) perform other duties as assigned; and (ix) contribute to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. The job posting for internal hauler states that its function is DC Oper- ations and that they report to the flow team leader. It further states that the core responsibilities include the following: (i) operate yard truck in a safe manner at all times; (ii) coordinate with Flow and Operations to po- sition all trailers and containers for loading and receiving; (iii) maintain a clean and safe work area; (iv) adhere to Internal hauler rules and pro- cesses, use creative problem solving skills and analytical skills in reach- ing decisions and direction; (v) ensure that goals and KPIs are met and results delivered; (vi) contribute to an environment where the Ikea cul- ture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers; and (vii) perform other duties as assigned. The job posting for cleaner states that its function is DC Operations and that they report to the Facilities team leader or manager. It further states that the core responsibilities include the following: (i) operate and maintain sweeper/scrubber machines; (ii) recycling responsibilities, emptying banana boats through the DC, able to empty and trouble shoot bailers; (iii) outside cleaning of docks, parking lots and light landscaping and painting work; (iv) maintain a clean and safe work area in all loca- tions within the distribution center; (v) respond to requests for assistance from maintenance and warehouse staff; (vi) performs other duties as as- signed; and (vii) contribute to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. The job posting for auditor states that its function is DC Operations and that they report to the inventory control team leader/manager. It fur- ther states that the core responsibilities include the following: (i) collab- orate with the stock control department to support overall Ikea inventory routines; (ii) audit departmental spreadsheets for discrepancies; (iii) keep track of damages and discrepancy statistics in Excel; (iv) perform general warehouse duties as needed; (v) perform other duties as assigned; and (vi) contribute to an environment where the Ikea culture is a strong and living reality that embraces the diversity of coworkers and customers. IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 9 In addition to the different duties and skills described in the job postings for the petitioned-for classifications and the other hourly employees, the record also revealed other differences. The other hourly employees have different team leads and different managers. The maintenance tech- nicians’ uniforms are different from the uniforms of the other hourly employees. The evidence also reflects that the system for working overtime is different between the maintenance technicians and the other hourly employ- ees.30 There is substantial testimonial evidence regarding the daily interactions between the maintenance technicians and these other hourly employees.31 The evidence reflects that the other hourly employees use various pieces of equipment to perform their job duties. Some of the other employees, including the general warehouse coworkers, use a system called a d-log in performing their job duties. The evidence essentially indicates that the maintenance technicians and the power equipment technician perform maintenance work on much of the equipment that the other hourly employees use to complete their job duties. There is also evidence showing that there are some em- ployees who started out as general warehouse coworkers and then worked their way to become maintenance tech- nicians. However, there is no evidence of other classifi- cations performing the work of a maintenance technician or a power equipment technician; nor is there any evidence of temporary assignments between the two petitioned-for classifications and the other classifications. II. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PETITIONED-FOR UNIT A. Relevant Board Law In accordance with Section 9(b) of the Act, “[t]he Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to em- ployees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guar- anteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 159 (b). When making a determination as to whether a petitioned- for unit is “appropriate” under Section 9(b) of the Act, “the Board’s discretion in this area is broad, reflecting Con- gress’ recognition ‘of the need for flexibility in shaping the [bargaining] unit to the particular case.’” NLRB v. Ac- tion Automotive, 469 U.S. 490, 494 (1985) (quoting NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 134 (1944)). When determining an appropriate unit, the Board delin- eates the grouping of employees within which freedom of choice may be given collective expression. At the same 30 Generally, the maintenance technicians do not need pre-approval for overtime and the warehouse coworkers get overtime through a system where a sheet is posted at the SD hub and then the coworkers can sign up if they are interested in working overtime. time, it creates the context within which the process of col- lective bargaining must function. Therefore, each unit de- termination must foster efficient and stable collective bar- gaining. Gustave Fisher, Inc., 256 NLRB 1069 (1981). The Act does not require a petitioner to seek representa- tion of employees in the most appropriate unit, but only in an appropriate unit. Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 723 (1996) (emphasis added). The appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit is not challenged here in light of the untimely service of the Em- ployer’s Statement of Position and the resulting preclu- sion. However, I am nevertheless required to determine whether the unit sought is an appropriate unit under Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act. In determining the appropriateness of a petitioned-for unit where no party asserts that the smallest appropriate unit must include employees ex- cluded from the petitioned-for unit, the Board applies steps one and three of Boeing—the requirement that any appropriate unit have an internal community of interest and that consideration must be given to the Board’s deci- sions on appropriate units in the particular industry in- volved. Macys West Stores, Inc., 32‒RC‒246415, fn. 1 (unpublished May 27, 2020). When deciding whether a group of employees shares a community of interest, the Board considers whether the employees sought: (1) are organized into a separate de- partment; (2) have distinct skills and training; (3) have dis- tinct job functions and perform distinct work, including inquiry into the amount and type of job overlap between classifications; (4) are functionally integrated with the em- ployer’s other employees; (5) have frequent contact with other employees; (6) interchange with other employees; (7) have distinct terms and conditions of employment; and (8) are separately supervised. PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160, slip op. at 6 (2017) (citing United Opera- tions, Inc., 338 NLRB 123, 123 (2002)). With regard to organization of the plant, the Board has made clear that it will not approve of fractured units—that is, combinations of employees that are too narrow in scope or that have no rational basis. Seaboard Marine, Ltd., 327 NLRB 556 (1999). All relevant factors must be weighed in determin- ing community of interest, including the Board’s estab- lished guidelines for appropriate unit configurations in specific industries. PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160, slip op. at 11. 31 Given that this testimony is not relevant to the issue at hand—which is whether the petitioned-for employees have an internal community of interest to establish that it is an appropriate unit— it is not detailed in this decision. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 B. Application of Board Law to the Instant Case Based on the record evidence, I find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that the employees in the petitioned- for unit, including maintenance technicians and power equipment technicians, share an internal community of in- terest to make the unit an appropriate within the meaning of the Act. I further find that the facility, industry, or em- ployer precedent does not alter this conclusion. i. Employer’s organization An important consideration in any unit determination is whether the proposed unit conforms to an administrative function or grouping of an employer’s operation. In cer- tain circumstances, the Board will approve a unit despite the fact other employees in the same administrative group- ing are excluded. Home Depot USA, 331 NLRB 1289, 1291 (2000). Here, it is undisputed that the maintenance technicians and the power equipment technician are grouped within Facilities. In addition, these two classifications make up the maintenance group within Facilities. Other classifica- tions are included within Facilities, including the cleaners and the sustainability developer, but they are not consid- ered part of maintenance.32 Thus, the fact that the peti- tioned-for unit does not include all classifications within Facilities does not mandate that the unit is inappropriate, specially in cases like this one where there is another grouping—the maintenance department—within the larger Facilities. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest. ii. Skills and training This factor examines whether the petitioned-for em- ployees can be distinguished from one another based on qualifications, skills, or trainings. Evidence that employ- ees must meet similar requirements to obtain employment, that they have similar job descriptions or licensure re- quirements, that they participate in the same Employer training programs, or that they use similar equipment sup- ports a finding of similarity of skills. Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB 603 (2007); J.C. Penny Co., Inc., 328 NLRB 766 (1999); Brand Precision Services, 313 NLRB 657 (1994); Phoenician, 308 NLRB 826 (1992). Here, the maintenance technicians and power equip- ment technicians must meet similar requirements to obtain employment and they have similar licensure requirements. The job postings indicate that maintenance technicians and power equipment technicians are required to have the following same skills or experience: (i) experience with hand tools and their proper use; (ii) proven electrical, me- chanical, and/or plumbing skills; (iii) welding and fabrication skills; (iv) advanced computer skills working in a variety of software; (v) an Ikea forklift driver certifi- cation or the ability to obtain one; (vi) ability to lift 50 to 75 lbs.; and (vii) an educational degree. Differences in- clude that a maintenance technician must have (i) the abil- ity to troubleshoot electrical problems by reading and fol- lowing a schematic; and (ii) a minimum of 2 years prior industrial maintenance experience, whereas a power equipment technician must have (i) knowledge of how to use forklifts and other power equipment; (ii) basic MS Computer skills; and (iii) a required minimum of 3‒5 years working on electrical forklifts and preferred prior material handling equipment training. The similarity of re- quirements is greater than the differences between them. With respect to licenses, the documentary evidence shows that the maintenance technicians maintain licenses for various types of equipment, including the following: Scissor Lift, Crane, Counterbalance, Order Picker, Elec- tronic Pallet Jacks, Reach Inc. Kooi Forks, Boom Lift, and Clamp Truck. It also shows that the power equipment technician maintains licenses for the following types of equipment: Electronic Pallet Jack, Counterbalance, Scis- sor Lift, and Reach Inc. Kooi Forks. Therefore, the two classifications possess many of the same licenses for var- ious types of equipment. I note, however, that there is in- sufficient evidence to determine the extent to which maintenance technicians and power equipment techni- cians use similar equipment in performing their job func- tions. The evidence also indicates that maintenance techni- cians and power equipment technician participate in the same online digital trainings, which apply to all employ- ees. Overall, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest. iii. Job functions and work This factor examines whether the petitioned-for em- ployees can be distinguished from one another on the basis of job duties or functions or the work they perform. Evi- dence that employees perform the same basic function or have the same duties, that there is a high degree of overlap in job functions or of performing one another’s work, or that employees work together as a crew, support a finding of similarity of functions. Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB 603 (2007); J.C. Penny Co., Inc., 328 NLRB 766 (1999); Brand Precision Services, 313 NLRB 657 (1994). Here, the job postings indicate that maintenance techni- cians and power equipment technicians have similar job duties or functions. Specifically, the postings indicate that both classifications are responsible for diagnosing or trou- bleshooting and repairing equipment and performing IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 11 inspections and adjustments as prescribed by the manufac- turer. There is no evidence about whether the power equipment technician physically performs any work out- side the maintenance shop. Thus, while the record evi- dence fails to show a high degree of overlap in job func- tions or performing one another’s work, the job postings support a finding of similarity of functions. In other words, both classifications are responsible for repairing and maintaining equipment and therefore perform the same basic function. The record does not reveal precisely whether the maintenance technician and power equipment technician use similar equipment. Nor does it reveal how the power equipment technician receives work orders. Overall, though, despite the lacking evidence on details of the power equipment technician’s daily tasks, the fact that both classifications perform the same basic function makes this factor weigh slightly in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest. iv. Functional integration Functional integration refers to when employees’ work constitutes integral elements of an employer’s production process or business. Thus, for example, functional inte- gration exists when employees in a unit sought by a union work on different phases of the same product or as a group provides a service. Another example of functional inte- gration is when the Employer’s workflow involves all em- ployees in a unit sought by a union. Evidence that em- ployees work together on the same matters and perform similar functions is relevant when examining whether functional integration exists. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 343 NLRB 1023, 1024‒1025 (2004); Transerv Systems, Inc., 311 NLRB 766 (1993). On the other hand, if func- tional integration does not result in contact among em- ployees in the unit sought by a union, the existence of functional integration has less weight. Here, the maintenance technicians and the power equip- ment technician, as a group, fulfill the role of making sure that the Employer’s equipment and facilities function so that the Employer’s products reach their destination. Ul- timately, all the hourly employees work toward the shared goal of making sure that the Employer’s products reach their destination, but if the process for making sure that the products reach their destination is stopped for some reason, the maintenance team is there to make sure the dis- ruption is mitigated and lessened as much as possible so that the process can continue. The maintenance techni- cians and power equipment technician provide mainte- nance services on various pieces of equipment that are used throughout this process, including conveyors, fork- lifts, and the ASRS, among others. Thus, although the two classifications may provide different specific maintenance acts during their job duties, they ultimately serve the same purpose. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest. v. Contact among employees Also relevant is the amount of work-related contact among the petitioned-for employees, including whether they work beside one another. Thus, it is important to compare the amount of contact employees in the unit sought by a union have with one another. See, e.g., Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB at 605‒606; Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 251 NLRB 1407, 1408 (1980). Here, the limited testimonial evidence establishes that the power equipment technician essentially works inside the maintenance shop for the duration of his shift. The maintenance shop is where the maintenance technicians are based when they are not working in another location throughout the buildings. However, the testimony about the maintenance technicians’ various rotations, which in- cludes working on the floor, working preventative mainte- nance, working on projects, and working in the ASRS does not make clear how much of this work is done in the maintenance shop. Therefore, it is not clear how much work-related contact there is between them. For example, we do not know how often they may work beside each other, whether they ever work on the same piece of equip- ment, whether the power equipment technician will go out on the floor with the maintenance technician, or whether the power equipment technician also accesses the areas re- stricted by Employer-issued keys. Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of find- ing that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest, but it does not necessarily cut against it. vi. Interchange Interchangeability refers to temporary work assign- ments or transfers between two groups of employees. Fre- quent interchange “may suggest blurred departmental lines and a truly fluid work force with roughly comparable skills.” Hilton Hotel Corp., 287 NLRB 359, 360 (1987). As a result, the Board has held that the frequency of em- ployee interchange is a critical factor in determining whether employees who work in different groups share a community of interest sufficient to justify their inclusion in a single bargaining unit. Executive Resources Associ- ates, 301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991) (citing Spring City Knit- ting Co. v. NLRB, 647 F.2d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 1981)). Here, there is no evidence of temporary work assign- ments between maintenance technicians and the power DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 12 equipment technician. However, there is evidence that one employee was a maintenance technician from Sep- tember 2010 through May 2012, then was a power equip- ment technician from May 2012 through August 2020, and then returned to the maintenance technician classifi- cation in August 2020. There is also evidence that another employee was a power equipment technician from June 2008 through August 2020, at which time he became a maintenance technician. Thus, while this factor does not strongly support finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest, it does not nec- essarily cut against such a finding. vii. Terms and conditions of employment Terms and conditions of employment include whether employees receive similar wage ranges and are paid in a similar fashion (e.g., hourly); whether employees have the same fringe benefits; and whether employees are subject to the same work rules, disciplinary policies and other terms of employment that might be described in an em- ployee handbook. However, the fact employees share common wage ranges and benefits or are subject to com- mon work rules does not warrant a conclusion that a com- munity of interest exists where employees are separately supervised, do not interchange and/or work in a physically separate area. Bradley Steel, Inc., 342 NLRB 215 (2004); Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 347 (1996). Similarly, sharing a common personnel system for hiring, background checks and training, as well as the same pack- age of benefits, does not warrant a conclusion that a com- munity of interest exists where two classifications of em- ployees have little else in common. American Security Corp., 321 NLRB 1145 (1996). Here, the maintenance technicians and the power equip- ment technician are hourly employees. Although the rec- ord evidence is not clear as to whether they receive similar wage rates or are within the same wage ranges, it is undis- puted that they have the same fringe benefits, are subject to the same Employer work rules and policies, and are sub- ject to the same Employer code of conduct. The record is not clear as to whether the power equip- ment technician wears the same fire-retardant long sleeve shirt and pants as the maintenance technician. The testi- mony indicates that maintenance technicians are issued a uniform so that they can be highly visible when they are on the floor, but it is not clear whether this includes the power equipment technician, nor is it clear whether the power equipment technician ever works on the floor such that he would need a uniform to be highly visible. How- ever, the record indicates that they both wear the same badges and steel-toed boots. Overall, there are more similarities in terms and condi- tions than differences and, therefore, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of inter- est. viii. Supervision In examining whether the employees in dispute are commonly supervised, most important is the identity of employees’ supervisors who have the authority to hire, to fire or to discipline employees (or effectively recommend those actions) or to supervise the day-to-day work of em- ployees, including rating performance, directing and as- signing work, scheduling work, and providing guidance on a day-to-day basis. Executive Resources Associates, 301 NLRB at 402; NCR Corp., 236 NLRB 215 (1978). Common supervision weighs in favor of placing the em- ployees in dispute in one unit. However, the fact that two groups are commonly supervised does not mandate they be included in the same unit, particularly where there is no evidence of interchange, contact, or functional integration. United Operations, 338 NLRB at 125. Similarly, the fact that two groups of employees are separately supervised weighs in favor of finding against their inclusion in the same unit. However, separate supervision does not man- date separate units. Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB at 607, fn. 11. Rather, more important is the degree of interchange, contact, and functional integration. Id. at 607. Here, the maintenance technicians and the power equip- ment technician share the same direct supervisor— Maintenance Team Lead Mitchell Newman. Although there is no evidence regarding Newman’s authority to hire, to fire, or to discipline his direct reports (or effectively rec- ommend those actions), or regarding whether Newman evaluates or rates his direct reports, Newman testified that he is responsible for monitoring his reports’ workload and making sure that everyone has their work on a daily basis. In other words, it appears that he directs and/or assigns work to his direct reports. The testimony further indicates that Newman’s direct reports receive most of their work from their team lead, as opposed to from other team leads or coworkers. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share a community of interest. ix. Summary of community of interest factors analysis Based on the foregoing, considering all the community of interest factors, the evidence supports finding that the maintenance technicians and power equipment technician share an internal community of interest, therefore satisfy- ing step one of Boeing. In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the grouping of the maintenance technician and power IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. 13 equipment technician under maintenance within Facili- ties, the common skills and training required to obtain em- ployment in the two classifications, as well as the similar licensure requirements. I also rely on the fact that the two classifications perform the same basic function and to the extent that there is some overlap in certain job functions, this too supports finding a community of interest. The pe- titioned-for employees also have common terms and con- ditions of employment and share supervision. Further- more, the functional integration between the two classifi- cations also supports finding that they share a community of interest. I acknowledge, though, that interchange was effectively neutral and that there is insufficient specific evidence of contact among the employees other than the fact that they work out of the maintenance shop. This lack of evidence, even if it indicated differences between the two classifications, would not be enough to outweigh all the other factors detailed above that support finding an in- ternal community of interest. I also must recognize that had the Employer timely served the Statement of Position on the Petitioner and, therefore properly asserted that additional employees must be included in the petitioned-for unit to render it appropri- ate, step two of Boeing would have applied and a different conclusion may have been reached. However, that is not the situation and/or question before me. Thus, considering all the factors as a whole, I find that the evidence establishes that the petitioned-for unit of maintenance technicians and power equipment techni- cians share an internal community of interest. x. Facility, industry, or employer precedent Having satisfied step one of Boeing, step three of Boe- ing considers facility, industry, or employer precedent. Here, there does not appear to be any special facility or industry guidelines that apply to this case that would change my determination on the appropriateness of the pe- titioned-for unit. With respect industry guidelines, in Boe- ing the Board cited situations involving public utilities, de- fense contractors, and retail establishments as examples of industries that may have industry-specific guidelines. 368 NLRB No. 67, slip op. at 1 (2019). None of those situa- tions are present in the instant matter. In addition, Boeing generally involved the production and maintenance indus- try and the Board determined that no industry-specific guidelines were applicable to the case. Id. Moreover, the fact that the Petitioner seeks a less-than- plantwide unit in this industry does not require that it meet a higher burden. In Boeing, the Board specifically stated that no case “establishes that a less-than-plantwide manu- facturing unit is presumptively inappropriate, or that a pe- titioner seeking such a unit bears any heightened burden of proving that it is appropriate.” 368 NLRB No. 67, slip op. at 6. Rather, “the Board has held that the appropriate- ness of an overall unit does not establish that a smaller unit is inappropriate.” Id., citing Montgomery Ward & Co., 150 NLRB 598, 601 (1964) (citing cases) (petitioned-for unit of automotive service center service department em- ployees was appropriate, even though the employer con- tended that only a storewide-unit was appropriate). Ac- cordingly, the necessary industry and facility considera- tions do not change my determination that the petitioned- for unit is an appropriate unit. With respect to the consideration of employer prece- dent, it is true that the record does not contain evidence regarding the Employer’s precedent because the hearing officer did not call one of the Employer’s offered wit- nesses. Specifically, the Employer offered a witness that would have been able to testify to the makeup of bargain- ing units at the Employer’s facilities across the country.33 However, even if the hearing officer had called the witness and the witness had testified as outlined in the offer of proof, that would not change the outcome of my determi- nation that the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit. Based on the offer of proof, the testimony would have shown that at some of the Employer’s other distribution centers, there is one IAM bargaining unit that covers the maintenance and production employees. Here, however, IAM is not seeking to represent only the maintenance technicians and the power equipment technician. Rather, an entirely different union is seeking to represent mainte- nance employees and, therefore, the Employer precedent does not establish that a smaller unit within the larger unit would be inappropriate. Thus, considering steps one and three of Boeing, I find that the evidence establishes that the petitioned-for unit of maintenance technicians and power equipment techni- cians share a community of interest sufficient to establish that it is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.