BENTELER AUTOMOTIVE CORP.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 2014

25-RC-135839 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BENTELER AUTOMOTIVE CORP.
Employer
and Case 25-RC-135839
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 364, AFFILIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Petitioner
ORDER
The Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 25, 2014.

1 In denying review, we find no merit in the Petitioner’s contention that, having found the petitioned-for unit
inappropriate, the Regional Director was required to direct an election in a unit of technical employees. The
Petitioner now concedes that its petitioned-for unit was inappropriate, and the Petitioner does not dispute that the
unit proposed by the Employer—the same unit in which the RD directed an election—is an appropriate unit. As
such, the Regional Director’s direction of an election in the unit proposed by the Employer is consistent with well-
established precedent. See P.J. Dick Contracting, 290 NLRB 150, 151 (1988) (“[i]f the union’s proposed unit is
inappropriate, the employer’s proposals are then scrutinized”). Contrary to the Petitioner, Vickers, Inc., 124 NLRB
1051 (1959), in which the Board found appropriate a unit comprised of the employer’s technical employees, does
not apply because it is not clear from the record and the post-hearing Petitioner’s brief that it alternatively sought to
represent a unit of all the Employer’s technical employees. Rather, it appears that the Petitioner has raised this
contention for the first time in its Request for Review, and after it specifically agreed at the hearing to proceed to an
election in a larger unit. See Board’s Rules & Regulations Sec. 102.67(d). We further note that no party contends
that the Regional Director otherwise improperly applied the framework set forth in Specialty Healthcare &
Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC, 727
F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). Member Miscimarra agrees with the denial of review, but would apply traditional
community of interest standards, and not Specialty Healthcare, for the reasons stated in Macy’s, Inc., 361 NLRB
No. 4, slip op. at 22, 31-32 (2014) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting).