S & I Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

S & I TRANSPORTATION 865
S & I Transportation, Inc. and Local 406, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL—CIO,
Petitioner. Case 7—RC-19584
March 27, 1992
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN-STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OV1ATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered determinative challenges
in an election held July 2, 1991, and the hearing offi-
cer's report recommending disposition of them. The
election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Elec-
tion Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 17 for and
10 against the Petitioner, with 14 challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions' and brief, has adopted the hearing officer's
findings and recommendations,2 and finds that an ap-
propriate certification of representative should be is-
sued.
The hearing officer recommended, inter alia, that the
Petitioner's challenge to Gerald Buffin's ballot be sus-
tained on the basis that Buffin is excluded from the
unit because he works at a different facility from that
described in the unit description.3 The Employer has
excepted to this recommendation, arguing that Buffin
shares a community of interest with the other employ-
ees in the unit and that the hearing officer's construc-
tion of the unit description is rendered meaningless
with regard to mechanics, because the only two me-
1 1n the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the hearing
officer's recommendation to sustain the challenge to the Ulm of
Mark Fairgrieve and Michael Debney and to overrule the challenges
to the ballots of Ed Newton, Craig DeGraff, Norman Jones, and
Rodney Buchanan.
2 The hearing officer recommended that an appropriate certification
should be issued on a revised tally of ballots. Because we adopt the.
hearingofficer's recommended disposition of the challenged ballots,
however, we find it unnecessary to direct that a revised tally of bal-
lots be issued because the overruled challenges are not sufficient in
number to determine the outcome of the election.
We note that of the 14 challenged ballots, the parties stipulated
that the challenges to the ballots of Mark Austin and Doug Risher
should be overruled and that the challenges to the ballots of Carl
Lutz and Tom Ratliffe should be sustained. In addition, no excep-
tions were filed to the hearing officer's recommendation to overrule
the challenges to the ballots of four additional employees and to sus-
tain the challenge to the ballots of two additional employees, de-
scribed at fn. I. Further, we adopt the hearing officer's recommenda-
tion to sustain the challenges to ballots of Jason Jones, Scott Jones,
Chris Craig, and Gerald Buffin. Therefore, the number of sustained
challenges totals eight ballots and the number of. overruled chal-
lenges totals six ballots, a number insufficient to determine the out-
come of the election. Accordingly, we will not direct that any ballots
be opened or counted, and will issue the appropriate certification of
representative.
3 The unit description includes mechanics employed by the Em-
ployer at its 40th Street facility. The hearing officer found that
Buffin is a mechanic at the Employer's Kraft Street facility.
306 NLRB No. 170-
chanics employed by the Employer perform some of
their work at the Kraft Street facility. We find no merit
in this exception.
In Southwest Gas Corp„ 305 NLRB No. 74 fn. 6
(Nov. 6, 1991), we stated that in resolving challenged
ballots of disputed employees in a stipulated unit elec-
tion, the initial question is "whether the intent of the
parties is unambiguously manifested in the unit stipula-
tion." If such a manifestation' of intent is found, we
will give effect to that agreement.4
Here, the clear language of the unit description in-
cludes mechanics employed at the Employer's 40th
Street location and by implication excludes mechanics
employed at any other facility. Insofar as we agree
with the hearing officer's finding that Ruffin per-
formed "virtually all mechanical work at a sepa-
rate and distant facility," and that this was the situa-
tion at the time the parties agreed to the unit descrip-
tion, we find the parties' clear intent was to exclude
mechanics not working at the 40th Street facility. Ac-
cordingly, we adopt the hearing officer's recommenda-
tion to sustain the challenge to Buffin's ballot. In addi-
tion, we note that the unit description is not rendered
meaningless with regard to mechanics. The unit plainly
will include anyone subsequently employed as a me-
chanic at the 40th Street facility, as distinct from those
employed at other facilities not covered by the unit de-
scription.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT Is CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots
have been cast for Local 406, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL—CIO, and that it is the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, me-
chanics, and truck washers employed by the Em-
ployer at its 4635 40th Street, SE, Grand Rapids,
Michigan facility; BUT EXCLUDING dispatch-
ers, and guards, professional employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
MEMBER OviATT, concurring in part and dissenting in
part.
The hearing officer sustained the Petitioner's chal-
lenge to Gerald Buffin's ballot on the ground that he
is not employed at the Employer's 40th Street location
as required by the unit description. Contrary to my col-
leagues, I would reverse the hearing officer and over-
rule the challenge to Buffin's ballot.'
4 See Viacom Cablevision, 268 NLRB 633 (1984).
1 1 join my colleagues in adopting the hearing officer's rec-
ommendation to sustain the challenge to the ballot of Chris Craig
on the ground that he is a casual employee. Further, in agreeing with
my colleagues and the hearing officer that the challenge to the ballot
of Jason Jones be sustained, .1 rely only on the fact that Jason Jones
Continued
39
32
36
84
39
59
70
29
4
866 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The stipulated unit description is limited to certain
employees, including "mechanics," who were em-
ployed at the Employer's 40th Street location in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Buffin is one of two mechanics em-
ployed at the Employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan op-
eration, which is composed of the 40th Street facility
and a facility on Kraft Street, about a mile-and-a-half
away from the 40th Street location. Each workday,
Buffin begins his shift at the 40th Street location,
where he spends about an hour talking to dispatchers
and drivers about the mechanical and maintenance
work that must be performed on the Employer's vehi-
cles. Buffin then usually takes the vehicles to the Kraft
Street facility, where he does the necessary mechanical
work. Aside from Jason Jones, who works at the Kraft
was not employed by the Employer in Grand Rapids on the payroll
eligibility cutoff date, May 19, 1991. Additionally, in affirming the
hearing officer's recommendation to sustain the challenge to the bal-
lot of Scott Jones, I rely only on the hearing officer's finding that
Scott Jones is a casual employee. As to both Jason Jones and Scott
Jones, I find it unnecessary to pass on the hearing officer's findings
regarding the effect on their voting eligibility of their relationship
with J. C. Jones and Steven Jones.
Street facility and whom I find to be ineligible for
other reasons, Buffin was the only mechanic employed
by the Employer in Grand Rapids when the parties en-
tered into the unit stipulation.
I find that Buffin is a "mechanic" employed at the
40th Street facility, within the meaning of the unit de-
scription. Including Buffin in the unit is entirely con-
sistent with the parties' unit description and is the most
reasonable interpretation of the parties' stipulation, in
light of the express inclusion of mechanics in the unit
and Buffin's daily contact and interaction with the rest
of the unit employees at 40th Street.2 While, as the
majority notes, mechanics subsequently hired at 40th
Street would be in the unit, there is no evidence—and
I consider it highly unlikely—that when the parties in-
cluded the "mechanic" classification in the unit de-
scription, they had in mind only some future hire rath-
er than Buffin.
2Challenges to six other ballots have been overruled. These six
and Buffin's ballot are sufficient to affect the election results. Ac-
cordingly, I would open and count these seven ballots.
DI
a