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,
Dean Transportation,
Inc. and
Dean
Transportation Employees Union and
June 21, 2007
DECISION AND ORDERS
By Chairman Battista and Members
Liebman and Kirsanow
The principal issues in
this case are whether Dean Transportation violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Grand Rapids
Educational Support Personnel Association (GRESPA) as the representative of a
unit of its employees, and violated Section 8(a)(1), (2) and (3) by recognizing
Dean Transportation Employees Union (DTEU) as the representative of the bus
drivers in the unit and imposing the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement
with DTEU, including the union-security clause.[1]
We agree with the judge,
for the reasons stated in his decision, that Dean Transportation violated the
Act as alleged, and that DTEU violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) by
accepting recognition and applying the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement. We also agree with the
judge’s underlying findings that (1) Dean Transportation is the successor to
Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS) as the employer of bus drivers, mechanics,
and route planners at its 900 Union Street facility (the unit);[2]
(2) GRESPA is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5); (3) the
unit is an appropriate bargaining unit;[3]
(4) the bus drivers in the unit were not accreted to the DTEU bargaining unit;[4]
and (5) GRESPA made an appropriate demand for recognition and bargaining.[5]
ORDER
The National Labor Relations
Board adopts the recommended Orders of the administrative law judge and orders
that the Respondent Employer, Dean Transportation, Inc.,
Dated,
Robert J. Battista, Chairman
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter N. Kirsanow Member
(seal) National Labor Relations Board
A. Bradley Howell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David E. Khorey, Esq. and Kurt M. Graham, Esq., for Dean.
Michael L. Fayette, Esq., for the Respondent
Fillipe S. Iorio, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Michael A.
Marcionese,
Administrative Law Judge. I heard
this case May 9 through 12, 2006, in
The complaint specifically alleges that Dean is a successor to GRPS with respect to a unit of employees previously represented by GRESPA;2 that Dean failed and refused to recognize GRESPA as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in that unit; that Dean interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights by telling job applicants that DTEU would be their collective-bargaining representative and that they would have to join DTEU as a condition of employment; that Dean rendered unlawful assistance to DTEU by distributing applications for membership and dues-checkoff authorizations for DTEU to employees, by recognizing DTEU and applying the terms of Dean’s collective-bargaining agreement with DTEU to employees at a time when DTEU did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees in the unit, and by deducting dues from employees and remitting them to DTEU; and that Dean encouraged membership in DTEU by prematurely recognizing that Union, applying the collective-bargaining agreement to unit employees and collecting and remitting dues to DTEU. The complaint alleges that DTEU violated the Act by accepting recognition from Dean at a time when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of unit employees and by accepting the dues that were collected by Dean from unit employees.
The Respondent Employer filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2006 denying many of the factual and legal allegations of the complaint and asserting several affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Respondent Employer denied that the Charging Party, GRESPA, was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, denied that it was a successor with any obligation to recognize and bargain with GRESPA regarding the employees working under its contract with GRPS, and denied that it rendered unlawful assistance to DTEU or otherwise unlawfully encouraged membership in that Union. The Respondent Employer asserted, inter alia, that the employees it hired to work under its contract with GRPS were an accretion to an existing unit of employees represented by DTEU and that it lawfully applied its collective-bargaining agreement with DTEU to those employees. The Respondent Union filed its answer to the complaint on January 10, 2006 interposing the same denials as the Respondent Employer and similarly asserting that it was the designated bargaining representative of the employees in question by virtue of its existing collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent Employer.
On January 18, 2006, the Respondent Employer filed a motion
with the Regional Director seeking a stay of these proceedings pending the
outcome of state court, state agency, and arbitral claims brought by the
Charging Party over GRPS’ decision to award the school bus
transportation contract to the Respondent Employer. The Respondent Employer argued that the Charging
Party was seeking inconsistent remedies in the other proceedings and that resolution
of those claims would moot the issues raised by the unfair labor practice
complaint.3 The Regional Director denied the motion, by
order dated February 1, 2006, on the basis that the parties and issues involved
in the other proceedings were not the same as those in this proceeding and
resolution of those other matters would not resolve the unfair labor practices
alleged here. On February 17, 2006, the
Respondent Employer filed the same motion with the chief administrative law judge
in
The Respondent Employer also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment directly with the Board on February 20, 2006, arguing that the General Counsel failed to adequately plead a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act because the unit alleged in the complaint was not the unit for which GRESPA allegedly sought recognition. The Respondent Employer further argued that the unit for which recognition was sought was inappropriate so that any refusal to bargain with GRESPA, as a matter of law, could not have violated the Act. By Order dated March 30, 2006, the Board denied summary judgment.
With the issues thus ripe for litigation, the hearing opened on May 9 with all parties ably represented by counsel. The parties began the hearing by entering into a detailed stipulation of facts with supporting documents demonstrating that most of the essential facts in this case were undisputed. The parties then proceeded to call witnesses and offer other evidence as to the remaining factual disputes. On June 30, 2006, all parties filed briefs which laid out their respective position on the law and the facts. Having considered the arguments made by the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, including in particular my observation of their demeanor, and the documentary evidence in the record,5 I make the following
Findings of Fact
i.
jurisdiction
A. Commerce
The Respondent Employer, a corporation with offices and
places of business in several cities, including
B. Labor Organization
The Respondents admit that the Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act but deny that GRESPA, the Charging Party, is a labor organization as defined in the Act. The basis for the denial, as detailed in arguments made at the hearing and in the Respondent Employer’s brief, is that GRESPA cannot be a labor organization under the Board’s jurisdiction because it does not represent statutory “employees.” The Respondents argue that, because the only individuals represented by GRESPA at the time it requested recognition were employees of GRPS, a municipality of the State of Michigan, GRESPA did not exist “for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work” (emphasis added). 29 U.S.C. §152(5).6
GRESPA is an organization comprised of individuals employed by GRPS in a variety of job classifications. It has represented a district-wide bargaining unit for many years, negotiating a series of collective-bargaining agreements, processing grievances on behalf of employees and otherwise acting on behalf of the employees in their dealings with management. GRESPA is an affiliate of the Michigan Education Association, which in turn is an affiliate of the National Education Association, which are organizations representing teachers and other employees in education-related positions throughout the country. It is undisputed that, at some point after the Respondent Employer was awarded the transportation contract by GRPS and hired employees to perform work under that contract, GRESPA made a demand for recognition as the representative of these employees. I find that these facts are sufficient to establish that GRESPA is a labor organization as that term is defined in the Act. Although the employees it currently represents and the transportation employees it previously represented when GRPS operated its own transportation service were technically not “employees” within the meaning of the Act because they were employed by a political subdivision, GRESPA is seeking to represent the employees currently employed by the Respondent Employer who are employees within the meaning of the Act. The Board has held that this is sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition. Gino Morena Enterprises, 181 NLRB 808 fn. 2 (1970). Accordingly, I find that GRESPA is a labor organization as defined by Section 2(5) of the Act.
ii. alleged
unfair labor practices
A. Facts
The Charging Party, GRESPA, was certified by MERC on June 3, 1993 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following unit of GRPS’ employees:
All non-supervisory employees in operations, supply, transportation, food service and maintenance, excluding all temporary (less than (30) days) employees, supervisors, management supportive service staff and all other employees.
Since that time, GRESPA and GRPS have entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements establishing the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for this unit. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement was effective for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006. The essentially wall-to-wall unit of nonteaching, nonclerical employees included such classifications as custodians, building and grounds workers, skilled maintenance employees, supply clerks, truckdrivers, and cafeteria workers in addition to the bus drivers, mechanics and “dispatcher/route planners” who worked in the transportation department before June 2005.7
GRPS is a large, urban school
district serving more than 22,000 students in about 100 schools. During the 2004–2005 school year, GRPS
employed more than 4000 people, including the 536 employees who were employed
in the GRESPA bargaining unit. Of these,
approximately 168 worked in the transportation department located at
The bus drivers in the GRESPA unit provided transportation
for regular and special education students. Those drivers transporting special education
students, approximately 97 of the unit employees, were jointly employed by GRPS
and the Kent Intermediate School District (KISD) pursuant to July 2002
agreements between the two school districts and between the districts and
GRESPA and GRAEOP.8 KISD is a countywide
school district created under the laws of
As noted above, the GRPS transportation department was located
at
All of the employees in the GRPS transportation department
worked at
The three route planners employed by GRPS in 2004–2005 were paid an hourly rate, punched a timeclock, and received the benefits provided under the GRESPA collective-bargaining agreement. The route planners typically were promoted from the ranks of bus drivers, were required to maintain their CDL license and filled in for drivers as needed. The main part of their job involved using a computer program called Versa Trans to create and adjust the drivers’ routes based on school census reports showing where students lived. The route planners created both regular and special education routes. Kangas, the supervisor, would compile the routes created by the route planners into “runs” which she assigned to the drivers on the basis of seniority. The drivers would interact with the route planners during the course of the year to provide feedback regarding how the routes worked in practice and to seek adjustments if there were problems with the routes as designed by the computer. The route planners also filled in for the dispatchers on occasion.
GRPS employed a lead mechanic and seven mechanics who worked in the garage performing scheduled maintenance and repairs as needed. The mechanics reported to Kangas and Sinke. They would occasionally go into the office or the drivers lounge, where the parts room was located, but had their own area within the garage to take breaks and eat lunch. The mechanics had frequent interaction with the drivers who would communicate by radio in the event they encountered a problem with the bus while on their routes and through regular discussions at 900 Union Street regarding the condition of their busses and the need for maintenance or repair.
On April 18, at a meeting of its Board of Education, GRPS approved a resolution to outsource student transportation services based on a proposal that had been submitted by the Respondent Employer. The impetus for this decision appears to have been budgetary restrictions and the desire of the Board to save money through subcontracting. At another meeting of the Board, on May 16, GRPS formally accepted the proposal and authorized staff to enter into a contract with the Respondent Employer to provide transportation services in the coming school year and to permanently lay off the transportation department employees effective June 9, the end of the current school year. There are two contracts between the Respondent Employer and GRPS effectuating this decision. One is for a 5-year period and covers the transportation of regular education students. The second, which includes KISD as a party, was a 5-year extension of the 2000 agreement between the Respondent Employer and KISD covering transportation services for students in the six school districts in Region III of KISD, identified as the “Special Education Transportation Consortium,” with GRPS added as a part of the Consortium. Both contracts include provisions that the Respondent Employer would use its best efforts to maintain existing routes within GRPS for the first year of the contract and would offer incentives, referred to as transition bonuses, to current GRPS drivers to encourage them to apply for jobs with the Respondent Employer. The goal of the parties’ agreement was for the Respondent Employer to maintain continuity in the transportation services it provided to GRPS students.
As noted, under the terms of the Respondent Employer’s agreement with KISD and GRPS, GRPS became part of the consortium of six school districts in KISD Region III. At the same time, however, GRPS secured special provisions in the agreement which treated the transportation needs of its special education students differently than the other school districts. The contract contained special terms with respect to route planning, driving, maintenance, employee compensation, and Dean’s compensation rates. For example, the Respondent Employer was required to use GRPS’ existing Versa Trans software for route planning and to adhere to GRPS Administration directives. Both the regular education and special education contracts gave the GRPS Superintendent the right of final approval for any route changes. In addition, both contracts required the Respondent Employer’s mechanics to continue to use GRPS maintenance software.
Kellie Dean, the Respondent Employer’s president, met with
the bus drivers employed by GRPS at
According to the handout and the testimony of Muñoz-Pyle, the drivers were told that they had to apply by April 29 to keep their current seniority and to be eligible for the transfer incentive program, which was a bonus of $250 a week in the first year and $150 a week in the second year for transferring drivers who worked at least 3 days a week. In response to a question from a driver, Dean said that GRPS would be paying the bonus. The handout also stated, on the back, under the heading “What Makes Dean Different?:
Dean’s desire and intent is to retain existing district employees (who meet transfer contingencies, including reference, background, and criminal checks), and its union contract includes conversion provisions that protect such employees who transfer to Dean by recognizing their original district seniority for pay and bidding.
According to Muñoz-Pyle, one of the drivers asked if Dean
had a union. Kellie Dean replied that
there was a union, called the Dean Transportation Employees Union, that it was
a NLRB-certified union and that the drivers hired by Dean to work under the
GRPS contract would be in that union. Kellie
Dean told the drivers that he was a “union man.” Another driver asked what the union dues would
be and Kellie Dean said, “$10 a year.” Kellie dean also told the drivers that they
would have a contract with a grievance procedure affording them the same rights
they had as GRESPA members. Muñoz-Pyle
testified further that Kellie Dean told the drivers that
he hoped to have 150 signed up by April 29, and that he expected to ultimately
employ 160–170 drivers. He also told the
drivers that it was his hope and desire that all of Dean’s drivers would be former
GRPS drivers. When one of the drivers at
the front of the room asked Kellie Dean if the Grandville drivers would be able
to bid into their positions, Dean responded, “No. You will be your own local. They will not be able to bid into your position.”10 In response to another question, Kellie Dean
also denied that the Respondent Employer would be hiring extra drivers to break
up their routes. He said that it was his
intent to put the least amount of busses on the road and have the least amount
of drivers to do the work. During this
meeting, which lasted about 2 hours, Kellie Dean also told the drivers that
Dean would continue to use Versa Trans software for route planning, that Don
Sinke would continue to serve as transportation director to ensure continuity
and that he was going to keep the busses they were currently driving, although
he planned to purchase additional busses. Kellie Dean assured the drivers that “
Judy Wilson is a former GRPS and KISD
special education bus driver who now works for the Respondent Employer. She did not attend Kellie Dean’s April meeting
with the drivers but did apply for a job with Dean before the April 29
deadline. She testified at the hearing
that, after submitting her application, she met with Brenda Witteveen, the
Respondent Employer’s West Regional Manager for an interview. On June 1, she met with Witteveen again to
fill out her employment papers for Dean. Also present for the Respondent Employer was a
woman named
On June 9, GRPS and KISD permanently laid off their respective
transportation department employees pursuant to notices that had been mailed to
each employee on May 18. Effective June
10, pursuant to the terms of its agreements with GRPS and KISD, the Respondent
Employer began providing transportation services for regular and special
education students in GRPS, including the maintenance and repair of buses and
route planning and dispatch operations. As
part of its arrangements with GRPS and KISD, the Respondent Employer leased the
transportation facilities at
There is no dispute that a majority
of the drivers hired by the Respondent Employer to transport regular and
special education students for the GRPS were employed by GRPS and/or KISD in
the GRESPA unit until June 9. In fact,
when the Respondent took over transportation services June 10, all 107 drivers
employed at
There is no dispute that, on September 1, GRESPA sent the
Respondent Employer a letter stating that it was “the recognized exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the employees
performing transportation services for [GRPS] students that have been hired by
Dean Transportation.” GRESPA then
requested that the Respondent Employer recognize it as the exclusive
representative of “the unit employees, including the full and part time bus drivers,
dispatchers, mechanics, route planners” and bargain with GRESPA as their
representative. The letter concluded by
asking the Respondent Employer to contact it by September 15 to set up dates to
begin negotiations. On September 15, the
Respondent Employer responded to this request by letter from Kellie Dean,
indicating that the Respondent Employer had received GRESPA’s letter on
September 6. Dean disputed GRESPA’s
claim that it represented the employees in question and refused to recognize
that
As noted above, the Respondent Employer commenced operations
under its contract with GRPS and KISD on June 10. During the summer months, the Respondent
Employer provided transportation for students enrolled in summer special education
programs with a smaller complement of employees, including former GRPS/KISD
employees and new hires. By the start of
the school year in September, the Respondent Employer’s employment reached its
full complement.15 The undisputed evidence establishes that,
after taking over the transportation services for GRPS and KISD, the Respondent
Employer continued transporting essentially the same regular and special
education students to the same schools, utilizing essentially the same buses16 with a majority
of the same drivers. At least during the
first year of the contract, these drivers were following the same routes as
before with variations based on changes in school census data. These routes were planned by the route
planners, a majority of whom held the same positions with GRPS, using the same
computer software as before while working in the same office. The buses were still parked in the same lot at
The evidence in the record reveals that, while many things
remained the same, as noted above, the Respondent Employer did make several
operational changes and changed the management hierarchy after it took over the
transportation department at
Although the route planners continue to perform their jobs
in the same location, using the same tools, and reporting to the same supervisor,
they are now salaried rather than hourly paid. Because they are not covered by Dean’s
collective-bargaining agreement with DTEU, the route planners receive benefits
that are not only different than they did under the GRESPA contract with GRPS,
but are different from those received by the DTEU-represented drivers. The route planners were not required to punch
a timeclock when the Respondent Employer first began operations at
The Respondent Employer also made changes in the way the mechanics perform their jobs. Pellerito testified that, at the request of the mechanics, the Respondent Employer converted from the two-shift operation that GRPS had to one shift, with all the mechanics now working days. Although the mechanics continue to utilize the GRPS computer system for tracking work orders, they now have new inspection reports and other paperwork to complete for Dean. Because the mechanics are also not covered by the DTEU contract, they receive different wages and benefits than they did with GRPS. The Respondent Employer also provides the mechanics with a tool allowance and requires them to wear uniforms with Dean’s logo.
The bus drivers have also experienced changes in their work routine since the Respondent Employer assumed operation of the transportation department.21 They must now perform a more detailed and time-consuming pre-trip inspection and complete a lengthier form than was required by GRPS and KISD. The drivers also have additional duties to perform while doing their jobs. For example, the Respondent Employer’s drivers are required to complete an attendance log which shows a “headcount” of students they transported each day to and from their assigned schools. The drivers must keep track of the total miles driven during an assigned run. These reports are then submitted to GRPS for purposes of performing mileage audits required under the Respondent Employer’s contract. Drivers now must also report the starting and ending times of their runs on a timesheet to account for their hours of work. This is in addition to punching the timeclock in the transportation office. According to Kangas, there has also been a change in the way routes are assigned. Whereas Kangas assigned the routes under the GRPS/KISD regime, the drivers were permitted to choose their routes, on the basis of seniority, at the beginning of the 2005–2006 school year.22 Any routes not selected in this manner were assigned by Kangas.
Because the
According to Brian Thrasher, the Respondent Employer’s vice
president and business manager, Dean has a centralized hiring process where
applications and/or resumes received at local facilities,
like
When the Respondent Employer took over transportation
services for GRPS and KISD, it already had contracts with a number of other
school districts in the State of
The Respondent Employer changed its name to Dean Transportation,
Inc. when Kellie Dean purchased the company. According to Thrasher, part of the reason for
the name change was to avoid the stigma attached to the term “special education.”
In 1976, the Respondent Employer
recognized the Respondent Union24 following its certification by MERC based on the results of
an election conducted May 21, 1976 among the Respondent Employer’s 69
all hourly paid drivers, excluding substitute drivers, supervisors, personnel, office and clerical employees, managerial employees, and maintenance and custodial employees.
There is no specific geographic location identified in the certification.
In 1980, the Respondent Employer began providing special
education transportation services for the Alma Regional Educational Services
District with facilities in
As noted above, the Respondent Employer began transporting
special education students for KISD Region III in 2000, with operations based
at a garage on
In 2004, the Respondent Employer entered a contract to provide
transportation for students in the Ottawa Area ISD, based in
At all of the facilities acquired by the Respondent Employer over the years, the Respondent Employer has included drivers and bus attendants in the DTEU unit, without any elections. The Respondents have done this based on the broad definition of the unit contained in the Respondent Union’s certification and the parties’ successive collective-bargaining agreements.26 As of April 2005, there were 550 drivers in the DTEU unit.
In order to deal with its expansion, the Respondent Employer
has reorganized its operations into two regions. The West Region, under the direction of
Witteveen, includes the KISD Region III facility at
Since taking over transportation services for GRPS and
KISD, there have been a few instances of employee interchange. The only mechanic working at
There have been three permanent transfers involving
The Respondent Employer also offered evidence to show that
special education drivers from
In addition, at one location, the
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The issues in this case, as framed by the pleadings and the evidence described above are:
1. Whether the
Respondent Employer is a successor to GRPS and KISD with respect to the
drivers, route planners, and mechanics employed at
2. Whether a unit limited to these employees is an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
3. If the
Respondent Employer is not a successor and had no duty to recognize and bargain
with GRESPA, whether the drivers at
The Board and the courts will find that an employer has succeeded
to its predecessor’s bargaining obligation if a majority of its employees,
consisting of “a substantial and representative complement,” in an appropriate
unit are former employees of the predecessor and if the similarities between the
two operations manifest a “substantial continuity” in the employing enterprise.
Van
Lear Equipment, Inc., 336
NLRB 1059, 1063 (2001), citing Fall
River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 41–43 (1987); Burns Security Services,
406 U.S. 272, 280 fn. 4 (1972). The
Board will normally assess whether an employer is a successor as of the time a
union makes its demand for recognition and bargaining, provided the employer
has already hired a substantial and representative complement of employees. See MSK Corp., 341 NLRB 43, 44–45 (2004). A union’s demand for recognition need not be
in any particular form. It is sufficient
if the union clearly conveys to the putative successor its desire to negotiate
on behalf of employees in an appropriate unit.
With respect to the issue of “substantial continuity,” the Supreme Court, in Fall River Dyeing, supra, identified the following factors as relevant:
[W]hether the business of both employers is essentially the same; whether the employees of the new company are doing the same jobs in the same working conditions under the same supervisors; and whether the new entity has the same production process, produces the same products and has basically the same body of customers.
482
It is essentially undisputed here that, by the beginning of the 2005–2006 school year, in September, a majority of the bus drivers, route planners, and mechanics hired by the Respondent Employer to carry out its contractual obligations to GRPS and KISD were former employees of GRPS and KISD employed in GRPS transportation department at 900 Union Street that was part of the GRESPA unit. Kellie Dean, in his first meeting with potential employees, made clear his desire to maintain continuity by hiring as many of the GRPS and KISD employees as he could. Pursuant to its contracts with GRPS and KISD, the Respondent Employer offered a bonus to any GRPS/KISD employee willing to accept employment with the Respondent Employer and offered to credit them with their existing seniority.
I am also convinced by a preponderance of the evidence
that there is “substantial continuity” in the employing enterprise despite the
change in employers. Certainly, when
viewed from the perspective of the employees, there has been very little change
in their working conditions. The bus
drivers continue to report to the same location, drive the same buses,
transport the same group of students to essentially the same schools. They report to the same supervisors, Sinke and
Kangas, that they did when they worked for GRPS and KISD. While there may be more paperwork involved in
fulfilling their assigned tasks, this has not destroyed the continuity in their
day-to-day work. The route planners,
although now salaried, continue to work in the same office, doing the same
jobs, using the same computer software, and reporting to the same supervisor,
Kangas. The mechanics, likewise, work in
the same garage, with the same equipment and tools, repairing and maintaining
the same buses. Although there has been
a change in their supervision, with
The real issue in this case, however, is whether the “unit”
of drivers, route planners, and mechanics employed by the Respondent Employer
at
The Board has long recognized a presumption that a single
plant or store unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining unless
it has been so effectively merged into a comprehensive unit, or is so
functionally integrated, that it has lost its separate identity. To determine whether the presumption has been
rebutted, the Board looks at such factors as central control over daily
operations and labor relations, including the extent of local autonomy; similarity
of skills, functions, and working conditions; degree of employee interchange; and
bargaining history, if any. D & L Transportation, 324 NLRB 160 (1997), and cases cited
therein. In Van Lear Equipment, Inc.,
supra, a case with many similarities to this case, the Board noted that the
presumption was particularly strong where the employees in question had historically
been represented in a single-location unit. 336 NLRB at 1063. See also Trident Seafoods, Inc.,
318 NLRB 738 (1995). The fact
that the employees the Respondent Employer hired to work at
The Respondent Employer emphasizes its centralized control
of labor relations and concomitant lack of local autonomy at Union Street, the
commonality of its policies, procedures, wages and benefits among the drivers
at its facilities represented by DTEU, its prior bargaining history with DTEU
in a multilocation unit, the evidence of employee interchange between Union
Street and other facilities, and the geographic proximity to at least two of
its facilities where drivers are represented by DTEU, i.e., 36th Street and Holland. While the evidence offered by the Respondent
Employer does show that it is a highly centralized operation, with most
decisions regarding policies, procedures, and labor relations being made at the
Lansing headquarters, it does have local site supervisors at each location who
carry out these policies and are responsible for ensuring that the drivers and
employees at their location satisfy Dean’s contractual obligations to the
respective school districts. Thus, Sinke
and Kangas have the authority to determine the proper routes within GRPS and
KISD, Kangas assigns the routes to the drivers and authorizes changes if
necessary. She is ultimately responsible
for ensuring that all runs are covered. Local supervisors handle complaints
from parents and schools regarding transportation issues. In the day-to-day operations, it is Sinke and
Kangas whom the drivers and other employees report to and
take direction from. The evidence also
shows that, despite the multifacility unit the Respondent Employer has
recognized, the drivers at each facility are treated as separate groups for job
assignment and bidding purposes. Even
when a driver transfers from one location to another, they go to the bottom of
the seniority list at that location. As
noted above, in the facts, the degree of interchange between