Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc.

375 NLRB No. 16 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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. Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Internation- al Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 304. Case 14–RC–351691 July 29, 2026 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS PROUTY AND MAYER The petition in this case, filed on October 1, 2024, sought a self-determination election to add three classific- ations—the vehicle maintenance coordinator, ware- houseman, and warehouse supervisor—to an existing bar- gaining unit of employees of Wheatland Electrical Co- operative, Inc. (the Employer).1 The existing bargaining unit, which the Petitioner has represented for the past 65 years, includes a diverse assortment of classifications, including area supervisors, foremen, linemen, servicemen, groundmen, truck drivers, substation maintenance, and meter technicians. The Employer argued that a self-de- termination election was not appropriate for the ware- house classifications because those classifications do not share a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit; the Employer did not oppose the vehicle maintenance coordinator’s inclusion in the unit.2 The Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election on October 25, 2024, concluding that none of the applicable community-of-interest factors favor allow- ing the warehouse classifications to join the existing unit and that a self-determination election was thus inappropri- ate for those classifications. The Regional Director there- fore directed an election limited to the unopposed vehicle maintenance coordinator, who voted to join the unit. In accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review contending that the ware- house classifications do share a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit and should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether to join the unit. The Employer did not file an opposition. The Petitioner’s request for review is granted, as it raises substantial issues warranting review. Having care- fully considered the entire record, including the request for review, we find that the warehouse classifications share a community of interest with employees in the exist- ing unit and constitute an identifiable, distinct segment of the workforce that is an appropriate voting group. Accord- ingly, we reverse the Regional Director and conclude that the warehouse classifications should be given the oppor- tunity to vote on whether they wish to be included in the existing unit. I. FACTS The Employer is a rural electrical cooperative providing electrical service throughout southwestern Kansas. The Employer organizes its service area into seven geographic districts and maintains warehouses in districts four, five, and six (Syracuse, Garden City, and Great Bend). Each of the three warehouses serves multiple districts. Line and service crews, in turn, are assigned to one particular dis- trict; when a crew is dispatched to a worksite in its district, the crewmembers use the nearest warehouse. Districts comprise a roughly 15-mile radius from a centrally located city. As a result, a crew can usually respond to an incident within its district in less than an hour. Line and service crews create work orders detailing the supplies and equipment they will need for a given job, transmit the work orders to the warehouse that is best situ- ated to fill the order, retrieve the materials from the relev- ant warehouse before going to the specific worksite, and return any equipment and unused materials to the relevant warehouse after each job. The district managers within each of the seven districts hold a morning call with the line and service crew foremen as well as any warehouse em- ployees within their districts; other unit employees also participate. On these daily morning calls, the employees discuss the expected jobs for the day, including the work orders that will be transmitted to each warehouse, filled by the warehouse employees, and retrieved and used by the line and service crews. The Employer offers the same set of benefits to all its employees, and the employees work the same hours (with minor exceptions in emergencies, including power out- ages or damage to power lines or facilities, in which case warehouse employees and line and service crews may be called in). The wage rates for employees in the existing unit vary significantly. Wages for the journeyman lineman and journeyman substation maintenance are at the top of the scale, at $50.41 and $53.43 per hour, respectively; at the lower end of the scale are groundman ($27.73 per hour) and first-year meter technician ($27.71 per hour). The warehouseman is paid $29.97 per hour; the record 1 At the time the petition was filed, this group consisted of one vehicle maintenance coordinator, three warehousemen, and one warehouse supervisor. 2 The Regional Director found that the Employer did not timely serve its Statement of Position on the Petitioner and, pursuant to Sec. 102.66(d) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, precluded the Employer from raising any evidence or argument on the community-of-interest issue at the preelection hearing. The Employer has not sought review of that determination. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 does not state the warehouse supervisor’s precise com- pensation, but the evidence establishes that the warehouse supervisor is paid more than the warehouseman.3 The Employer’s operations require a high level of inter- dependence between all employees. As indicated above, several classifications in the existing unit and the ware- house classifications attend the regular morning meetings discussing daily work orders. Line and service crews cre- ate work orders for specific equipment and materials that the warehouse classifications fulfill.4 At the beginning of each workday, the line and service crews sign out their requested equipment and materials from the appropriate warehouse, and, at the end of the workday, the crews re- turn to that warehouse to sign in their equipment and any unused materials. Line and service crews also have a significant presence in the warehouses themselves. When line and service crews are not out in the field working on specific jobs, they are in the nearest warehouse. One witness testified that line crew members will occasionally perform prepara- tion or maintenance tasks inside the warehouse. The em- ployee breakrooms are also located in the warehouses, and all employees use the warehouse breakrooms. There is no evidence that warehouse classifications who are based in different warehouses have any regular contact with each other. This is, however, also true of employees within the existing unit. For example, when not in their respective warehouses, the individual line and service crews are dispersed throughout the seven different dis- tricts and are not generally in contact with one another. In any event, the record does not indicate that the unit em- ployees have a greater degree of contact among them- selves than they do with the warehouse classifications. II. ANALYSIS An Armour-Globe self-determination election is the proper method by which a union may add unrepresented employees to an existing unit.5 The Board will direct such an election where the petitioned-for employees share a community of interest with the unit employees and where the petitioned-for employees “constitute an identifiable, distinct segment so as to constitute an appropriate voting group.” Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993, 995 (1990). The Board considers the following factors in de- termining whether employees share a community of interest: whether the employees are organized into a separate department; have distinct skills and training; have dis- tinct job functions and perform distinct work, including inquiry into the amount and type of job overlap between classifications; are functionally integrated with the [e]mployer’s other employees; have frequent contact with other employees; interchange with other employ- ees; have distinct terms and conditions of employment; and are separately supervised. United Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123, 123 (2002). Here, no party disputes the Regional Director’s finding that the petitioned-for warehouse classifications constitute an identifiable, distinct segment that is an appropriate vot- ing group; the only dispute is whether those employees share a community of interest with the unit employees. In concluding that the warehouse classifications do not share the requisite community of interest, the Regional Director found that none of the factors favor the warehouse classi- fications’ inclusion in the existing unit. The Petitioner’s request for review contends that the warehouse classifica- tions share common terms and conditions of employment with the employees in the existing unit and display a high degree of functional integration as well as meaningful, regular contact with those employees.6 Contrary to the Regional Director, we conclude that the petitioned-for warehouse classifications share a com- munity of interest with the unit employees and therefore may be appropriately included in the existing unit and should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they wish to join it. To begin, the Regional Director’s community-of-in- terest analysis contained two notable errors that influ- enced her conclusions on each of the factors at issue here. First, the Regional Director failed to apply the proper standard, instead relying on inapposite cases that applied a more stringent standard. As indicated above, the ques- tion to be answered in self-determination elections, such as the election at issue here, is whether the petitioned-for employees may be included in the existing unit because 3 More specifically, nonunion job descriptions in the record use a numerical scale to identify the different wage rates, and the warehouse- man’s wage rate is listed as 5, while the warehouse supervisor’s is listed as 8. 4 The warehouse supervisor performs many of the warehouseman’s duties, in addition to others. At least one of the warehouses is staffed solely by a warehouse supervisor. 5 See Armour & Co., 40 NLRB 1333 (1942); Globe Machine & Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937). 6 The Petitioner’s request for review does not specifically dispute the Regional Director’s findings as to the skills and training, job duties, departmental organization, or supervision factors, so those factors are not at issue here. The Petitioner also raises employee interchange, but, in doing so, only contends that the Regional Director mischaracterized it as a “critical” factor. We agree that the Regional Director’s citation to Ex- ecutive Resources Associates, 301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991), is misplaced. See Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, U.S., Inc., 373 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 10 fn. 27 (2024). But based on our review of the record, the Regional Director correctly found that there is very little evidence of interchange, and there is accordingly no basis to reverse her conclusion that inter- change does not favor finding a community of interest. WHEATLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 3 they share a community of interest with the unit employ- ees. See, e.g. Public Service Company of Colorado, 365 NLRB 1017 (2017). The Regional Director, however, cited and relied upon cases in which the Board analyzed whether certain classifications must be included in a peti- tioned-for unit, for the reasons that their exclusion would be arbitrary due to their strong community of interest with the petitioned-for employees. See, e.g., Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB 603, 607 (2007). By relying on these inapposite cases, the Regional Director “gave too much weight to relatively minor differences between” the warehouse clas- sifications and the existing-unit employees. Walt Disney, 373 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 9. Second, the Regional Director’s analysis tended to fo- cus on only one of the positions in the existing unit—the journeyman linemen—to the exclusion of other unit posi- tions, including the truck drivers and meter technicians. In self-determination cases, the Board has made clear that, although it is not a traditional community-of-interest factor, “the diversity of the existing unit may be relevant to consider generally.” Walt Disney, 373 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 9; see also Public Service Co., 365 NLRB at 1017 fn. 4. Here, the record contains material evidence regarding the other unit classifications, which the Region- al Director also should have analyzed given the diversity of the existing unit. Turning to the individual community-of-interest factor- s, we find that wages and other terms and conditions of employment, functional integration, and contact establish that the warehouse classifications in the existing unit share a community of interest with the unit employees, notwith- standing the remaining factors, which the Regional Dir- ector determined weigh against finding a community of interest. The Regional Director acknowledged that the Employer offers the same set of benefits to all its employees, all of whom also work the same core hours. However, she found that terms and conditions of employment ultimately weigh against finding a community of interest because the col- lective-bargaining agreement showed that “no unit job classification earn[s] the same pay” as the warehouse clas- sifications. In so finding, the Regional Director emphas- ized the difference in the warehouseman’s wage ($29.97 per hour) with the journeyman lineman’s wage ($50.41 per hour). But as detailed above, the warehouseman’s and warehouse supervisor’s wage rates are comparable to those of many unit classifications, including the ground- man ($27.73), truckdriver ($32.77), and several additional classifications. As many of the unit classifications’ pay is very similar, and certainly comparable, to that of the warehouse classifications, this factor favors including the warehouse classifications in the unit. With respect to functional integration, the Regional Director found that the warehouse classifications and ex- isting unit members “lack . . . functional integration,” cit- ing the Board’s opinion in Transerv Systems, 311 NLRB 766 (1993). The Regional Director seemingly suggests that functional integration is demonstrated by evidence of overlapping job duties and regular contact. This is incor- rect; functional integration is present where employees “must work together and depend on one another to ac- complish their tasks.” See MV Transportation, Inc., 373 NLRB No. 8, slip op. at 7 fn. 24 (2023) (citing WideOpen- West Illinois, LLC, 371 NLRB No. 107, slip op. at 7 fn. 16 (2023)).7 Applying the correct definition, the level of in- terdependence between the warehouse classifications and the line and service crews is textbook functional integra- tion. As the Regional Director herself commented, “[l]inemen cannot order and receive material” and the “[w]arehousemen cannot hang or run power lines.” Thus, although they are engaged in different job duties, the re- cord shows that the respective positions must “depend on one another to accomplish their tasks.” As the Board has previously stated, a work-order system in which the “peti- tioned-for employees’ work is typically preceded by [] work orders generated by unit employees[] and [then] followed . . . by [] work performed by unit employees” reflects that there is “substantial functional integration.” Public Service Co., 365 NLRB at 1017 fn. 4. We therefore find that there is a high level of functional integration here that weighs strongly in favor of finding a shared com- munity of interest. In finding the evidence of contact to be “minimal,” the Regional Director discussed two specific examples (the morning meetings and daily sign-out and sign-in process) but then concluded that the “[l]inemen spend most of their workday away from the warehouse and on the job site” and that “[a]fter picking up their job supplies, they have no further interaction” with the warehouse classifications. The record, however, contains several more instances of regular, work-related contact. The warehouse classifica- tions have recurring contact with the linemen and other unit employees throughout the day because the line and service crews spend an appreciable amount of time in the warehouses. Relatedly, the breakrooms for all the em- ployees working in each district are in the warehouses, and 7 Contrary to the Regional Director, the Board in Transerv Systems did not hold that “[e]vidence that employees work together on the same matters, have frequent contact with one another, and perform similar functions is relevant in determining whether functional integration exist- s.” The Board in that case merely listed the employees’ overlapping job duties, contact, and functional integration as three factors that favored finding a community of interest. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 all the employees steadily frequent the breakrooms along- side the warehouse employees. Finally, the Regional Dir- ector should have accorded more significance to the daily morning calls, as those calls involve the warehouse em- ployees as well as numerous members of the existing unit beyond just the journeyman linemen, including foremen from the line and service crews and the vehicle mainten- ance coordinator. These facts establish that there is suffi- cient contact to warrant finding a community of interest. Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB at 605–606, on which the Re- gional Director relied, is not to the contrary; indeed, it is inapposite because there the Board was analyzing whether additional classifications must be included in a petitioned- for unit. We instead conclude that this case is analogous to Public Service Co., which also concerned an Armour- Globe election in a rural electrical utility, and wherein the Board found that regular daily meetings and in-person consultations resulted in “frequent and substantive” con- tact that supported finding a community of interest. See 365 NLRB at 1017 fn. 4.8 In sum, applying the standard applicable to Armour- Globe elections and taking into account the record evid- ence that relates to the numerous positions contained in the existing unit, we conclude that the petitioned-for warehouse classifications share a community of interest with the unit employees. Both employee groups have the same terms and conditions of employment, receive com- parable wages, are deeply functionally integrated, and maintain a sustained level of frequent and recurring work- related contact. Although no party disputes the Regional Director’s conclusion that the remaining factors weigh against finding a community of interest (and we agree with the Regional Director’s conclusion that interchange does not support finding a community of interest), the sim- ilarities between the warehouse classifications and the existing unit are sufficient to establish that a community of interest exists between the two groups. Having found that the warehouse classifications share a community of interest with the existing unit, and the Re- gional Director having found that the warehouse classific- ations are an identifiable, distinct voting group, we re- mand this case to the Regional Director to conduct an elec- tion to determine whether the petitioned-for warehouse classifications wish to be included in the existing unit.9 ORDER The Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Elec- tion is reversed. The case is remanded to the Regional Dir- ector for Region 14 for further appropriate action consist- ent with this Decision on Review and Order. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 29, 2026 ______________________________________ James R. Murphy, Chairman ______________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member ________________________________________ Scott A. Mayer, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 8 We further note that, in several cases, the Board has explained that contact may be viewed in context, and a lack of regular, work-related contact between petitioned-for employees and existing-unit employees ought to be accorded less weight where “there is also infrequent contact between the [existing bargaining-unit members] in one [division] with those in another.” See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 181 NLRB 814, 819 (1970); see also Walt Disney, 373 NLRB No. 99, slip op at 10. Here, the Employer’s workforce is distributed across a vast distance covering all of southwestern Kansas, and many of the unit employees work in the field at locations within their geographic districts. As a result, the line and service crews based in one district may rarely see or interact with those based in another, and a relatively low level of contact seems typical for many employees in the existing unit. But because the three ware- houses serve all seven districts, the warehouse classifications share more regular contact with employees in the bargaining unit than other bargain- ing unit members. That is material here, and it further supports finding that the employee contact factor weighs in favor of finding a shared community of interest. 9 Nothing in our decision affects the self-determination election the region already conducted for the vehicle maintenance coordinator or the December 3, 2024 certification reflecting the vehicle maintenance co- ordinator’s vote to be included in the existing unit.