Capri Sun, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 1124 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1124
Capri Sun, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kraft
Foods, Inc. and Unification Organizing Commit-
tee, United Autoworkers (UAW), International
Association of Machinists (IAM) & United
Steelworkers of America (USWA), Petitioner.
Case 14–RC–11831
March 31, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On October 17, 1997, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 14 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
(pertinent portions are attached as an appendix), in which
he found that maintenance leads are neither supervisors
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act nor managerial
employees, and that the petitioned-for unit of mainte-
nance employees is not an appropriate unit for bargain-
ing.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Act-
ing Regional Director’s decision. The Petitioner con-
tended that the lead maintenance employees are statutory
supervisors because of their role in hiring maintenance
employees, and that the maintenance leads are manage-
rial employees because of their participation on the main-
tenance council. The Petitioner also claimed that the
petitioned-for maintenance unit is an appropriate unit for
bargaining. On January 16, 1998, the Board granted the
Petitioner’s request for review.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-
ing to a three-member panel.
We have carefully considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues on review and have de-
cided to affirm the Acting Regional Director’s findings
that the maintenance leads are neither statutory supervi-
sors nor managerial employees, for the reasons set forth
by the Acting Regional Director. However, contrary to
the Acting Regional Director and for the following rea-
sons, we find that the petitioned-for maintenance unit is
an appropriate unit for bargaining.
The Employer manufactures Capri Sun and Kool-Aid
Burst ready-to-drink beverages and Mr. Freeze freezer
pops. The production operations are divided into four
departments: Capri Sun, Kool-Aid Burst, Mr. Freeze, and
pouch manufacturing. The production process is highly
automated, and many of the production employees are
machine operators. The vast majority of the maintenance
employees are assigned to one of three production de-
partments, Capri Sun, Kool-Aid Burst, or pouch manu-
facturing. No maintenance employees are assigned to
Mr. Freeze, a seasonal department which is in operation
generally from January to June. Rather, maintenance
employees are sent to Mr. Freeze from other departments
as problems arise. The Employer also employs four
building maintenance employees and three or four main-
tenance employees who work in the central maintenance
shop area, which includes the maintenance shop, the re-
build room, and the parts room.
It is the Board’s longstanding policy, as set forth in
American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961), to find
separate maintenance department units appropriate when
petitioned for where the facts of the case demonstrate the
absence of a more comprehensive bargaining history and
that the petitioned-for maintenance employees have the
requisite community of interest. In determining whether
a sufficient separate community of interest exists, the
Board examines such factors as mutuality of interests in
wages, hours, and other working conditions; commonal-
ity of supervision; degree of skill and common functions;
frequency of contact and interchange with other employ-
ees; and functional integration. Ore-Ida Foods, 313
NLRB 1016, 1019 (1994); Franklin Mint Corp., 254
NLRB 714, 716 (1981).
Contrary to the Acting Regional Director, we find that
the petitioned-for maintenance unit at the Employer’s
manufacturing plant constitutes a distinct and cohesive
grouping of employees appropriate for collective-
bargaining purposes. Maintenance employees are much
more skilled than the production employees, and they
generally receive a higher wage.1 Maintenance employ-
ees perform skilled functions, such as electrical repair,
that production employees do not perform. The majority
(24 out of 40) of the Employer’s maintenance employees
are classified as mechanic “B.”2 Under the Employer’s
new system, the mechanic “B” must demonstrate the
ability to perform basic electrical wiring up to 480 volts
and read and explain wiring diagrams. The mechanic
“B” must possess, inter alia, the ability to hook up a lap-
top and use a troubleshooting aid, have an understanding
of ladder logic, and be familiar with equipment and op-
erations.3 The eight mechanic “A” employees are even
more highly skilled, as they are required to complete
additional extensive coursework and demonstrate addi-
tional skills.4 When filling the entry level production

s I.
1 The maintenance employees are paid from 7 to 20 percent more
than the production employees are paid.
2 The Employer maintains three maintenance classifications: me-
chanics A, B, and C. The Employer is in the process of implementing
certain course requirements and ability to demonstrate specific skills
for the “B” and “A” classifications. The qualifications are set forth in
the revised handbook, which, at the time of the hearing, was expected
to issue imminently. The current maintenance employees will be
grandfathered into their current classifications; however, one “B” me-
chanic testified that he has already met the course requirements.
3 The course qualifications for the “B” mechanic are industrial
electricity I and II, and electrical control system
4 To qualify as a mechanic “A,” the maintenance employee must
complete additional courses in industrial motors, industrial electronics
I, industrial electrical power distribution, electrical control systems II,
introduction to microprocessors, industrial instrumentation system,
industrial analog electronics, microprocessor interfacing, and pro-
grammable controllers I. They must have the ability to read ladder
logic; troubleshoot with the laptop computer, including hooking it up
330 NLRB No. 158
CAPRI SUN, INC. 1125
line mechanic “C” positions, the Employer advertises for
applicants with excellent mechanical aptitude and trou-
bleshooting abilities, and the ability to read wiring dia-
grams and perform basic wiring up to 480 volts.5 Simi-
larly, for building maintenance positions, the Employer
seeks, inter alia, excellent mechanical, plumbing, and
electrical troubleshooting abilities, as well as at least 2
years of experience. By contrast, all of the production
positions, except for the blow mold operator,6 require no
mechanical aptitude.
Unlike the production employees, maintenance em-
ployees are required to provide their own tools. The
higher skill level of the maintenance employees is re-
flected in the cost of these tools. One maintenance em-
ployee testified that his tools cost $10,000; a second tes-
tified that his tools cost between $9000 and $10,000.
Our dissenting colleague concedes that the mainte-
nance employees generally have a level of skill that is
somewhat higher than the production employees. He
argues that the difference is not uniform, as the skill level
of the entry level “mechanic C” employee does not ex-
ceed that of many production employees. The fact is,
however, that 32 of the 40 maintenance employees are
mechanics “A” or “B,” requiring a high level of skill.
Further, as noted, the Employer seeks to hire entry level
“mechanic C” production line mechanics who have dem-
onstrated mechanical aptitude, an aptitude not required of
most production employees. Although blow mold opera-
tors, who are production employees, must have and util-
ize mechanical skills, there are only 6 employees in this
classification out of 243 production employees. Even
these employees, the most technical of all the operators,
rely on the maintenance employees when electrical prob-
lems arise. Thus, while there may be some variation in
skill level among the maintenance employees, the vast
majority of the maintenance employees are significantly
more skilled than the production employees, and all of
the maintenance employees possess skills and perform
functions that are unique to their classification.
In addition, unlike the production employees, the
maintenance employees’ lunch and breaks are not sched-
uled, and they are “on-call” at all times. Further, accord-
ing to the Employer’s revised handbook, the maintenance

and getting on line; understand the basic operation of the quality con-
trol lab and process module (10-pack maintenance only); set up servo
drive systems completely; train/develop other maintenance mechanics;
and perform machinery design modifications.
5 Knowledge of ladder logic and programmable logic controller
(PLC) is a plus, and the Employer requests that the applicants be versed
in all aspects of mechanical and electrical maintenance on high-speed
filling and packaging equipment. The Employer does not require that
the applicant have an apprenticeship or journeyman experience in the
traditional crafts, and most of the maintenance employee’s training is
on-the-job.
6 For the most technical of the operator positions, the blow mold op-
erator, the applicant is required to demonstrate basic mechanical apti-
tude by passing a PMMI test, and the operator is thereafter trained to
maintain the blowmolding equipment.
employees, unlike production employees, are not subject
to the layoff procedures.
There is no evidence that maintenance employees are
temporarily assigned to production jobs. Contrary to our
dissenting colleague, we find that although a few of the
approximately 243 production employees have been
temporarily assigned to maintenance positions, the level
of interchange is not significant. One production em-
ployee is currently working in the shop on a 2- to 3-week
project building guards for the 10-pack machine. An-
other production employee has also worked with the
lathes and mills in the shop for a 4- to 6-month period on
more than one occasion, and a third production employee
has been assigned to the shop on at least two different
occasions. Two production employees regularly assist in
building maintenance when needed because they have
mechanical ability, and one of these employees has been
working in building maintenance for 2 to 3 months.
Our dissenting colleague points out that over the last
couple of years, at least 72 of the 243 production em-
ployees have performed preventive maintenance work on
the weekends. The production employees are permitted
to do this because, in the Kool-Aid Burst and Capri Sun
departments, there are generally not enough maintenance
employees available to do the preventive maintenance
work. However, this work is performed purely on a vol-
untary basis, and the tasks involved are repetitive and
routine, and do not involve the skilled work performed
by the maintenance employees. In performing this work,
the production employees work independently of the
maintenance employees.7 Thus, we find that this volun-
tary performance of routine and unskilled preventive
maintenance functions by production employees does not
constitute significant interchange. See Red Lobster, 300
NLRB 908 (1990) (the Board found the significance of
temporary interchange to be diminished because it was
voluntary); cf. Macy’s West, Inc., 327 NLRB 1222
(1999) (separate unit of maintenance engineers found
appropriate, notwithstanding that maintenance employ-
ees spent one-third of their time performing the lamping
function, which was also performed to some degree by
virtually all other employees, particularly receiv-
ing/dock/stock employees).
Similarly, the evidence of permanent interchange is
not significant. Our dissenting colleague argues that
there have been 18 permanent transfers between produc-
tion and maintenance positions. The vast majority of
these transfers have gone from production to mainte-
nance. When compared to the relatively large number of
production and maintenance employees (283), these 18
transfers, occurring over some undefined period, are le-
7 Similarly, during the Christmas shutdown, some production em-
ployees performed minor repairs and maintenance, while the rest are
laid off.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1126
gally insignificant.8 Further, in the past 2 years, new
hires have filled six out of seven maintenance positions,
and a production employee has filled only one position.
Moreover, although production and maintenance em-
ployees perform some overlapping preventive and light
maintenance functions during their regular work hours,
the functions performed by the production employees are
generally lesser skilled and routine.9 The Board has
found that some overlap of lesser skilled duties does not
negate the separate identity of the petitioned-for mainte-
nance unit. See Burns & Roe Services Corp., 313 NLRB
1307, 1309 fn. 11 (1994). Production employees may
also provide assistance to maintenance employees such
as holding a machine while a maintenance employee
troubleshoots or repairs the machine.10 However, such
assistance does not require the inclusion of production
employees in the unit, since this work is unskilled and
peripheral to the regular repair work performed by the
maintenance employees. See Ore-Ida Foods, supra at
1020. Nor does the level of interaction between the pro-
duction and the maintenance employees when working
together on these functions or discussing problems about
the machines mandate a combined unit. Id. Further-
more, the production line maintenance employees spend
at least 50 percent of their time in the central shop area,
away from production employees.
There is some common supervision of production and
maintenance employees under Engineering Manager
Allen Friedman in the pouch manufacturing department
and in building maintenance.11 However, as conceded by

8 Our dissenting colleague assigns the Petitioner the burden of prov-
ing that the permanent transfers occurred over a prolonged period. It is
the Employer, however, that tenders the evidence of these transfers in
support of its argument that the petitioned-for unit is not appropriate,
and it is the Employer that possesses and maintains the records which
would support its assertions. In these circumstances, the burden to
establish the time frame of the transfers is on the Employer.
9 Wisnasky testified that the Kool-Aid Burst, Mr. Freeze, and Capri
Sun departments have moved towards team approaches. However, the
maintenance functions that production employees are trained to per-
form consist of lesser skilled functions such as greasing and adjusting
machines, cleaning pipes and pumps, cleaning and rebuilding valves,
and other light maintenance of machines. There is no evidence that the
production employees perform or have the expertise to perform the
skilled work that the maintenance employees perform. Thus, Wisnasky
testified that even though the production employees in Kool-Aid Burst
have been trained to perform maintenance on the machinery in that
department, maintenance employees are nonetheless still assigned to
the department to perform work above the abilities of the production
employees, such as electrical work. Their functions may include in-
stalling new equipment, performing wiring work, or redesigning and
maintaining equipment. The blow molders are the most technical op-
erator position. They maintain the blow molder equipment, and only
call in a maintenance employee to perform electrical work.
10 We further note that both of the pouch maintenance employees
who testified stated that production employees have never assisted
them with repairs, troubleshooting, or overhaul of machines.
11 Friedman supervises five maintenance employees as well as pro-
duction and quality control employees in the pouch manufacturing
department. Friedman also supervises the four building maintenance
our dissenting colleague, the vast majority of mainte-
nance employees—those assigned to the Capri Sun,
Kool-Aid Burst, Mr. Freeze, or the central maintenance
shop area—function in a separate maintenance depart-
ment under the supervision of Plant Maintenance Super-
visor Steve Wisnasky.12
It is true, as noted by our dissenting colleague, that the
plant maintenance supervisor is only present on the day-
light shift. On this shift, the production line maintenance
employees report to the maintenance lead assigned to
their department. There is only one lead maintenance
employee working on each of the second and third shifts,
and they are both assigned to Capri Sun. The Em-
ployer’s witnesses testified that the production leads,
stipulated not to be supervisors, oversee the maintenance
employees in Kool-Aid Burst and pouch manufacturing
on the second and third shifts. However, as noted, a third
shift maintenance employee in pouch manufacturing tes-
tified that his direct supervisor is the day-shift mainte-
nance lead for his department, and another maintenance
employee assigned to pouch manufacturing on a 12-hour
shift also identified the dayshift maintenance lead as his
supervisor. Further, the record does not elaborate about
the role of production leads when maintenance employ-
ees report to them. Under these circumstances, we find
that the evidence regarding the supervision of mainte-
nance employees in the Kool-Aid Burst and pouch manu-
facturing departments on the second and third shifts is
inconclusive.
In sum, the maintenance employees have a signifi-
cantly higher skill level than the production employees
and higher wages. The maintenance employees have
some unique terms and conditions of employment, such
as unscheduled lunch and breaks and “on-call” require-
ments. According to the revised handbook, the mainte-
nance employees, unlike the production employees, are
not subject to the layoff procedures. The level of inter-
change between the maintenance and production em-
ployees is not significant. Further, the maintenance du-
ties performed by production employees are minor and
routine, and require lesser skills. Notably, the vast ma-
jority of maintenance employees function in a separate
maintenance department under the supervision of the
plant maintenance supervisor. Based on the foregoing,
we find that the petitioned-for maintenance employees

employees. As noted, two of these building maintenance employees
are production employees assigned to this job.
12 Two pouch manufacturing maintenance employees testified that
they are temporarily assigned to other departments. The record is silent
regarding their supervision when these temporary assignments occur.
Moreover, these two employees identified the day-shift maintenance
lead as their direct supervisor; and one of them identified Wisnasky as
the maintenance lead’s supervisor, albeit the maintenance lead actually
reports to Friedman.
CAPRI SUN, INC. 1127
are a readily identifiable group with a distinct community
of interest and are an appropriate unit for bargaining.13
Accordingly, the Acting Regional Director’s Decision
and Direction of Election is reversed solely with respect
to the unit finding.
ORDER
The Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direc-
tion of Election is affirmed with respect to his finding
that the maintenance leads are neither statutory supervi-
sors nor managerial employees, and reversed with re-
spect to his finding that the petitioned-for maintenance
unit is not appropriate. The case is remanded to the Re-
gional Director for further appropriate action.

MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would affirm the Acting
Regional Director’s decision. In my view, the Petitioner
has not shown that the Employer’s maintenance employ-
ees constitute a separate appropriate unit. These mainte-
nance employees do not comprise a distinct, separate,
and cohesive group of employees appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.1
The positions involved do not require any traditional
craft skills or specific technical, educational, or work
background. While maintenance employees generally
have a level of skills somewhat higher than the produc-
tion employees, the difference is not uniform. For ex-
ample, the skill level of the entry level “mechanic C”
employees does not exceed that of many production em-
ployees. Similarly, blow mold operators, who are pro-
duction employees, must have and utilize mechanical
skills, and still other production employees have and
utilize maintenance skills.
In addition, I do not agree with my colleagues that the
interchange (temporary and permanent) between produc-
tion and maintenance employees is insignificant. During
the past couple of years, at least 72 of the current produc-
tion employees have performed preventative mainte-
nance work on the weekends, and approximately 30 of
these employees regularly perform preventive mainte-
nance on a weekly basis.2 In addition, at least three pro-

13 We find this case to be distinguishable from Willamette Industries
v. NLRB, 144 F.3d 877 (D.C. Cir. 1998), rehearing denied (1998). In
that case, the court found that the Board’s certification of a bargaining
unit of maintenance employees at a facility that manufactures particle
board from wood by-products was not appropriate. The court found
that the Board effectively reversed, without explanation, its past prac-
tice and precedent in the lumber industry of certifying only “wall-to-
wall” units of both production and maintenance employees. The instant
case, by contrast, does not involve the lumber industry.
1 U.S. Plywood, 174 NLRB 292 (1969); American Cyanamid, 131
NLRB 909, 911–912 (1961).
2 Contrary to my colleagues, it is not critical that production em-
ployees volunteer to perform preventive maintenance work. Rather, the
critical fact is that production employees perform a significant amount
of maintenance work and thus share a community of interest with main-
tenance employees. Further, although this work involves lesser skills
than that possessed by most maintenance employees, it is clear, as
duction employees have worked recently on a temporary
basis in maintenance positions. Further, two of the four
building maintenance employees are production employ-
ees on loan to building maintenance. Finally, there have
been 18 permanent transfers between production and
maintenance positions.3
Further, I find significant common supervision. Five
mechanics in pouch manufacturing and the four building
maintenance employees report directly to Engineering
Manager Allen Friedman. The same individual super-
vises production and quality control employees working
in the pouch manufacturing department. Concededly,
most other mechanics report to Plant Maintenance Su-
pervisor Steve Wisnasky. However, he is generally pre-
sent only on the day-light shift. Thus, the second- and
third-shift mechanics report at least some of the time, to
production personnel.4 In view of the fact that the Em-
ployer has only 34 maintenance employees, I view as
substantial the number of maintenance employees who
report to a supervisor who also supervises production
employees.5 Thus, like the Acting Regional Director, I
find significant common supervision.
Moreover, as set forth by the Acting Regional Direc-
tor, the maintenance and production employees have
significant mutuality of interest in terms and conditions
of employment. All are hourly paid. They receive the
same benefits, including health benefits and bonuses. As
to base pay, I recognize that the mechanics receive
higher pay of 7 to 20 percent. In light of the fact that the
mechanics must pay for their own tools, the effective
wage differential is smaller than it appears to be. In any
event, the modest differential is outweighed by the other
factors (discussed above) showing commonality.
The production and maintenance employees interact
regularly with each other and are functionally integrated
into the Employer’s operation. As recounted by the Act-
ing Regional Director, the vast majority of maintenance
employees are assigned to one of three production de-
partments—Capri Sun, Kool-Aid Burst, or pouch manu-
facturing. They spend 50–85 percent of their time in
their respective production areas. Thus, maintenance
employees work more closely with their fellow produc-
tion department employees than with maintenance em-
ployees in other departments. Finally, the Employer pre-

noted above, that some maintenance employees have only such lesser
skills.
3 Although there is no time reference for this figure of 18, the Peti-
tioner, who bears the burden of proof, has not shown that the period is a
prolonged one. Contrary to the position of my colleagues, I believe that
the Petitioner, as the moving party, has the burden of proving an appro-
priate unit. There are some units that are presumptively appropriate
(thus shifting the burden) but the instant unit is not one of them.
4 Although the production personnel are not statutory supervisors,
they oversee the work of the maintenance employees.
5 My colleagues point to only two second- and third-shift employees
who claim that they have a maintenance supervisor.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1128
sented evidence that it has moved increasingly to a team
approach in these departments.
Based on the above, I conclude that the Employer’s
maintenance employees do not constitute a separate iden-
tifiable group of employees. I would affirm the Acting
Regional Director’s finding that only a unit including
both production and maintenance employees is appropri-
ate.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
2. The Employer, Capri Sun, Inc., a wholly owned subsidi-
ary of Kraft Foods, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture and
nonretail sale and distribution of ready-to-drink beverages at its
Granite City, Illinois plant, the only facility involved.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at its Granite City, Illinois plant,
excluding the production employees, office clerical, and profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors. Contrary to the
Petitioner, the Employer contends that the only appropriate unit
must also include production employees and the maintenance
leads. The Petitioner contends that the maintenance leads are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and therefore should
be excluded from the unit found appropriate here. The employ-
ees at issue have not previously been represented by a labor
organization. There are approximately 34 employees in the
unit sought by Petitioner, 287 employees in the unit sought by
the Employer, and 287 employees in the unit found appropriate
here.
The Employer’s Granite City plant manufactures Capri Sun
and Kool-Aid Burst ready-to-drink beverages, and Mr. Freeze
freezer pops. The operations include mixture of the drinks,
manufacture of the drink containers, which are either foil
pouches, molded plastic bottles, or plastic tubes, as well as the
filling of the containers and final packaging. The production
operations are ongoing 24 hours per day, generally 5 days per
week with the exception of the bulk pack area which runs 7
days per week. The production operations are divided into four
departments: Capri Sun, Kool-Aid Burst, Mr. Freeze, and
pouch manufacturing. The current employee handbook indi-
cates that the other plant departments are quality control, ware-
house, and maintenance, although Mr. Freeze and Kool-Aid
Burst each has its own maintenance budget.
The plant manager has overall responsibility for the plant
operations. The business unit manager is responsible for the
production operations and reports directly to the plant manager.
The operations supervisor is responsible for the overall produc-
tion and maintenance operations on the second shift and the
operations and sanitation supervisor is responsible for the over-
all production and maintenance operations on the third shift.
Both supervisors report directly to the business unit manager.
The engineering manager also reports directly to the plant man-
ager and is responsible for utilities and building maintenance,
special projects, as well as supervising a significant number of
employees engaged in production, quality control, and mainte-
nance in pouch manufacturing. The plant maintenance supervi-
sor reports directly to the engineering manager and is responsi-
ble for maintenance throughout the plant except for pouch
manufacturing. The Employer employs approximately 243
production employees including 10 lead employees. The pro-
duction process is highly automated so many of the production
employees are machine operators. The production employees
work on one of three 8-hour shifts or on one of two 12-hour
shifts. A production lead is assigned to each department on
each of the three 8-hour shifts, except for the second and third
shifts in Mr. Freeze, which is a seasonal department in opera-
tion generally from January to June. The vast majority of the
maintenance employees are assigned to one of three production
departments, Capri Sun, Kool-Aid Burst, or pouch manufactur-
ing. No maintenance employees are assigned to Mr. Freeze,
rather they are sent from other departments as problems arise.
On the first shift, the production line maintenance employees
report to the maintenance lead assigned to their department.
There is only one lead maintenance employee working on each
of the second and third shifts, and they are both assigned to
Capri Sun. The Employer’s witnesses testified that the mainte-
nance employees in Kool-Aid Burst and pouch manufacturing
on the second and third shifts are overseen by the production
lead, however, a third shift maintenance employee in pouch
manufacturing testified that his direct supervisor is the day-shift
maintenance lead for his department and another maintenance
employee assigned to pouch manufacturing on a 12-hour shift
testified that his direct supervisor was the plant maintenance
supervisor. The Employer also employs four building mainte-
nance employees and three or four maintenance employees who
are employed in the central maintenance shop area, which in-
cludes the maintenance shop, the rebuild room, and parts room.
There are also small maintenance shop areas in Kool-Aid Burst
and Mr. Freeze.
The four building maintenance employees are responsible for
maintaining the interior of the plant, including heating and
ventilation, the boiler room, minor air conditioning work, elec-
trical work ranging from wiring and troubleshooting to chang-
ing light bulbs, light plumbing work, painting, and concrete
patch work. The three to four maintenance employees assigned
to the central shop area rebuild and manufacture parts and over-
see the parts room. The remaining maintenance employees are
responsible for maintaining the production machinery, they
troubleshoot problems, rebuild and repair, and perform preven-
tive maintenance. These maintenance employees spend be-
tween 50 to 85 percent of their time in the production areas
depending on the area and shift that they are assigned to and
therefore have frequent contact with the production employees
who inform them of machine problems and breakdowns. The
maintenance employees also spend time in the central shop, as
well as assisting other production areas on an occasional basis,
varying from once per week to once per month. The production
and maintenance employees for each production area also meet
at the beginning of each shift for QCDSM (quality cost delivery
safety morale) meetings. These meetings are usually conducted
by the production leads and employees discuss the prior days’
production, plans for the current day, and suggestions made by
production or maintenance employees on machine modifica-
tions or other subjects pertinent to the department.
Although the maintenance employees perform no production
work, the production employees perform maintenance work on
a daily basis. One production employee is currently working in
the shop building guards for the 10-pack machine, which will
be a 2- to 3-week project. Another production employee has
also worked with the lathes and mills in the shop for a 4- to 6-
month period on more than one occasion and a third production
employee has been assigned to the shop on at least two differ-
ent occasions. Two production employees regularly assist in
CAPRI SUN, INC. 1129
building maintenance when needed because they have me-
chanical ability and one of these employees has been working
in building maintenance for 2 to 3 months. The blow mold
machine operators in Kool-Aid Burst repair their own machines
and can generally handle any mechanical breakdowns except
electrical. This includes replacing a drive or gearbox, rebuild-
ing mold covers, tearing down and cleaning die heads. The
operators in Mr. Freeze are responsible for greasing their ma-
chines and making film adjustments for quality control and they
determine when they need help and when to call for assistance
from maintenance. The production employees in the classifica-
tion of processing technicians also perform maintenance on
their machines. These employees operate the equipment that
blends and pasteurizes the various drink components prior to
the fill process. On a daily basis, these employees must disas-
semble and clean the pumps, valves, and pipes of this equip-
ment. Prior to January 1996, this work was performed by
maintenance employees.
All operators are trained to oil and grease their machines,
and a relief operator oils and greases machines on a daily basis.
The operators may also assist the maintenance employees in
their repair work at times by holding items or even assisting in
the reassembly process. Preventive maintenance is performed
every weekend as the machines are generally not in operation at
that time. In Kool-Aid Burst and Capri Sun, there are generally
not enough maintenance employees available to perform the
preventive maintenance work, so production employees per-
form this work along with the maintenance employees. During
the past couple of years, at least 72 of the current production
employees have performed preventive maintenance work on the
weekends, approximately 30 of these employees regularly per-
form preventive maintenance work on a weekly basis. The
preventive maintenance tasks include greasing, oiling, and
cleaning machines as well as changing parts such as dosing
valves on the fillers and conveyor chains. Generally, the pro-
duction employees are working independently of the mainte-
nance employees and are working within their assigned produc-
tion area on machines that they are familiar with. For at least
the past 2 years, the Employer has shut down most of the pro-
duction operations over the Christmas holidays. During this
time, the maintenance employees perform various projects and
maintenance work. Most of the production employees are re-
quired to take vacation or layoff, however, some production
employees are given the opportunity to work and perform mi-
nor repairs and maintenance along with the maintenance em-
ployees. The maintenance and production employees attend
joint training sessions on new equipment both in and out of the
facility, although maintenance employees do receive additional
training not offered production employees.
The Employer does not require any traditional craft skills or
specific technical, educational, or work background for the
maintenance positions. The current maintenance employees
have a variety of backgrounds including auto mechanic, coal
miner, and copy repairman. For building maintenance posi-
tions, the Employer advertises for applicants who have a high
school education or equivalent with a minimum of 3 years’
building maintenance experience with excellent mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical troubleshooting abilities. An associate
degree or equivalent technical training is preferred. For the
production line maintenance positions, the Employer advertises
for applicants who have excellent mechanical aptitude and
troubleshooting abilities, are capable of reading wiring dia-
grams, and performing basic wiring up to 480 volts; knowledge
of ladder logic and PLC experience is a plus and the Employer
requests that the applicants be versed in all aspects of mechani-
cal and electrical maintenance on high-speed filling and pack-
aging equipment. In contrast, for the most technical of the
operator positions, the blow mold operator, the applicant is
required to demonstrate basic mechanical aptitude by passing a
PMMI test and the operator is thereafter trained to maintain the
blowmolding equipment, including setup and tear down of jig
and fixtures and other associated equipment. None of the other
production positions require demonstration of any mechanical
aptitude. All applicants for maintenance positions must take a
multiple choice test assessing knowledge in the areas of
hydraulics, electrical, and mechanical. One witness testified
that there was no failing score on this test, however, another
witness testified that applicants who answer more than 19
questions incorrectly were not interviewed. Applicants for
production positions are required to take a situational judgment
inventory dealing with various teamwork concepts. Over the
years, there have been at least 18 permanent transfers between
production and maintenance positions, the vast majority going
from production to maintenance. In the past 2 years, seven
maintenance positions have been filled, one by a production
employee, the rest by new hires. Production employees are
eligible to bid on maintenance positions, if qualified, but
maintenance employees cannot bid on production positions
unless they have previously held a production position because
of the different screening processes.
The maintenance employees have three classifications: me-
chanics A, B, and C. Maintenance employees are usually hired
in at the “C” level. The Employer is in the process of imple-
menting certain course requirements and ability to demonstrate
specific skills for the “B” and “A” classifications. The qualifi-
cations are set forth in the revised handbook, which is expected
to issue imminently. The course qualifications for the “B”
mechanic are industrial electricity I and II and electrical con-
trols systems I. The required demonstrated skills are ability to
perform basic electrical wiring up to 480 V; read and explain
wiring diagrams; hook up laptop and use as a troubleshooting
aid; an understanding of ladder logic; understanding of equip-
ment and operations; demonstrated troubleshooting skills on the
production floor; timely completion of tasks and safe work
habits. Qualifications for the “A” classification include the
following additional courses: industrial motors, industrial elec-
tronics I; industrial electrical power distribution, electrical con-
trol systems II, introduction to microprocessors, industrial in-
strumentation system, industrial analog electronics, microproc-
essor interfacing, and programmable controllers I. The addi-
tional skills to be demonstrated are: ability to read ladder logic;
trouble shoot with the laptop computer, includes hooking it up
and getting on line; an understanding of the basic operation of
the Q.C. Lab and process module (10-pack maintenance only);
capability of setting up servo drive systems completely; capa-
bility of training/developing other maintenance mechanics; and
ability to perform machinery design modifications. Current
maintenance employees will be grandfathered into their current
classifications, however one “B” mechanic who testified stated
that he already met the course qualifications. The current com-
plement of maintenance employees include 8 “A” mechanics
24 “B” mechanics, and 8 “C” mechanics.
The maintenance employees are required to provide their
own tool belt, toolbox, and handtools such as channel locks,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1130
screwdrivers, pliers, side cutters combination wrenches,
punches, hammers, various socket sets, rulers, and scales. The
Employer provides more specialized equipment and instru-
ments which are kept in the shops, the maintenance tool lockers
or in large roll around toolboxes, and include such items as belt
sanders, disc grinders, bench grinders, welders, plasma cutters,
torch cutters, various saws, hydraulic press, sand blaster, hand
grinder, hydraulic bearing remover, volt-ohm meter, amp me-
ter, drill press, calipers, dial indicator, metal shear, metal brake,
soldering iron, metal lathe, milling machines, belt lacing ma-
chine, chain brake tool, pipe threading and pipe cutting ma-
chines, tap and die set, center punches, alignment tools, weld-
ers, bearing and bushing extractors, lathes, micrometers, in-
strumentation calibration equipment, electrical meters, and
electrical schematics. The maintenance employees also use a
laptop computer to diagnose problems with the PLC, or the
programmable logic controller, which is the computer operated
“brain” of the machines. The blow mold operators also utilize
large roll around tool cabinets containing many of the same
basic hand tools utilized by the maintenance employees, such
as wrenches, ratchets, hammers, calipers, and screwdrivers.
Some of these tools were supplied by the Employer and some
were purchased by the operators. The other operators are is-
sued small tool pouches containing a small screwdriver, scis-
sors, needle nosed pliers, a pencil, and razor.
The production and maintenance employees are hourly paid
but the maintenance employees are paid from 7 to 20 percent
more per hour than the production employees. The production
and maintenance employees receive the same fringe benefits
including health benefits and bonuses. They work the same
hours; are entitled to overtime after 40 hours; are entitled to
two work breaks and one lunchbreak per day; and use the same
clock-in/clock-out electronic timekeepers, locker room, lunch-
room, and rest rooms. The production and maintenance em-
ployees are carried on the same seniority list and they receive
the same options for the Employer—provided uniforms, al-
though the maintenance employees, as well as the blow mold
operators, tend to choose the dark blue shirts because they hide
grease stains. Unlike the production employees, the mainte-
nance employees’ breaks and lunches are not scheduled; they
have tool lockers within the central maintenance area; they are
issued keys to the facility, and cards are issued with their home
phone numbers listed because they are “on-call” at all times,
although maintenance employees are rarely called in when not
scheduled. The Employer’s revised employee handbook con-
tinues to provide for different hiring procedures for production
and maintenance employees, and states that maintenance, se-
lected jobs and lead person positions may not be subject to the
layoff procedures.
Contrary to the Petitioner’s contentions, the maintenance
employees are not a functionally distinct and homogeneous
group of skilled craftsmen whose work requires the use of sub-
stantial craft skills. Rather, the maintenance employees exer-
cise a conglomeration of skills which are adapted to the particu-
lar needs of the Employer’s operations and therefore the main-
tenance employees clearly do not constitute a traditional craft
unit. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 251 NLRB 492
(1980); Monsanto Co., 172 NLRB 1461 (1968); Timber Prod-
ucts Co., 164 NLRB 1060 (1967). Nonetheless, where, as here,
no bargaining history on a broader basis exists, a separate main-
tenance department unit may be appropriate where the record
establishes that maintenance employees are a separately identi-
fiable group performing similar functions which are separate
from production and having a community of interest such as
would warrant separate representation. U. S. Plywood-Champion
Papers, 174 NLRB 292 (1969); American Cyanamid Co., 131
NLRB 909, 911–912 (1961). In determining whether a suffi-
cient separate community of interest exists, the Board examines
such factors as mutuality of interests in wages, hours, and other
working conditions; commonality of supervision; degree of
skill and common functions; frequency of contact and inter-
change with other employees; and functional integration. Ore-
Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016 (1994). The record establishes that
most of the maintenance employees are significantly more
skilled than the vast majority of production employees and
generally receive a higher wage. Otherwise, the production and
maintenance employees share the same hours and benefits.
Most importantly, however, the production and maintenance
employees also share common supervision and functions; are
assigned to the same areas and have frequent contact and inter-
change. Accordingly, I find that the separate community of
interests which the maintenance employees might enjoy by
reason of their higher wages and skills has been largely sub-
merged in the broader community of interests which mainte-
nance employees share with the production employees and
therefore a unit limited to maintenance employees is not appro-
priate. F & M Schaefer Brewing Co., 198 NLRB 323 (1972);
U.S. Plywood, supra; Monsanto Co., 172 NLRB 1461 (1968).
4. At hearing, the parties stipulated that the production leads
are employees lacking any indicia of supervisory authority and
may appropriately be included in a unit of production and
maintenance employees. In its brief, the Petitioner states that
due to the length of the hearing and in order to facilitate the
closing of the hearing, it reluctantly entered into this stipulation
and that after review of the exhibits, the Petitioner has even
stronger reservations. As the stipulation is facially not incon-
sistent with any statutory provision or Board policy and as it is
not in conflict with the record evidence, I will abide by the
stipulation and I shall include the production leads in the unit
found appropriate here. Viacom Cablevision, 268 NLRB 633
(1984).
5. Like the other maintenance employees, the maintenance
leads are hourly paid; receive overtime after 40 hours, and they
receive the same health benefits. The leads are paid approxi-
mately 5 to 8 percent more per hour than the highest paid main-
tenance employees and they have their own desks and phones
in offices shared with production leads. The maintenance leads
spend at least 50 percent of their time on the production floor
doing hands-on maintenance work. The leads are also respon-
sible for coordinating the work of the maintenance employees,
including the scheduled preventive maintenance, however the
record does not reflect how maintenance work is actually as-
signed to particular maintenance employees within the depart-
ment. The maintenance leads can recommend to their supervi-
sors that overtime work is necessary. Approximately 80 per-
cent of the time, the requests for overtime are approved. On
one occasion, the maintenance lead’s request for weekend over-
time was approved and the lead was simply told to keep the
number of employees “reasonable.” The lead interpreted that
to mean approximately four employees, however the lead only
had two employees volunteer and, as the lead has no authority
to require employees to work overtime, his interpretation was
not tested. Maintenance employees are required to contact their
lead if they are to be absent from work and the leads can seek
CAPRI SUN, INC. 1131
for a replacement, however, the lead cannot require another
employee to come in to work. The maintenance lead must also
receive prior approval to temporarily transfer employees from
one department to another and employees are only transferred
on a voluntary basis. A lead can request an employee to cancel
scheduled vacation if additional help is needed without prior
authorization, however, the lead cannot require an employee to
cancel vacation. Requests for vacation time are approved by
human resources in accordance with seniority at the beginning
of each year. Requests submitted thereafter are approved on a
first-come first-serve basis. The leads must also obtain ap-
proval from human resources before granting timeoff for illness
or other personal reasons.
The leads can authorize minor or subtle modifications to one
piece of equipment, however, if the changes are major or affect
more than one piece of equipment, the leads must have prior
authorization from the immediate supervisor. The leads also
ensure that the parts supply is adequate for the department and
requisition necessary parts. However, the requisitions must be
approved by the lead’s immediate supervisor. The maintenance
leads issue minor discipline, such as the first warning, but the
discipline must be approved by the immediate supervisor and
the human resources. The leads can verbally admonish employ-
ees without prior approval. The only record evidence of any
discipline issued by a lead involved absences and tardiness,
which were recorded by the lead and then turned over to the
supervisor and human resources for further action in accor-
dance with the Employer’s progressive disciplinary policy. The
actual discipline issued by the lead was prepared by human
resources. More serious discipline is issued by the lead and the
immediate supervisor together. The leads prepare yearly
evaluations of maintenance employees, however, the evalua-
tions have no impact on wages, promotions, or any other term
or condition of employment.
The maintenance leads also participate in the hiring of main-
tenance employees. The leads have been named in advertise-
ments as the person to whom resumes are to be sent; the leads
have administered the prehire tests, reviewed those tests, and
have attended interviews of applicants. Maintenance applicants
are usually interviewed by a panel of three or more, including
leads, the engineering manager, the business unit manager,
and/or the plant maintenance supervisor. Applicants are also
separately interviewed by the human resources manager. The
engineering manager testified that the decision to hire is a joint
decision among the interviewers and that any of the interview-
ers, including a lead, can reject an applicant, however, that
rejection can apparently be overruled by others, although his-
torically it is not. The only lead who testified stated that he had
participated in approximately 10 interviews, that what he as-
sessed in the interviews was the applicant’s skills and abilities,
and that his participation in the hiring decision was limited to
expressing his thoughts of the applicant. On one occasion, he
told the other interviewers that he would not hire the applicant
and the applicant was hired nonetheless. The record contains
no specific examples of an applicant being rejected based solely
on a lead’s recommendation.
The leads also participate in the maintenance council along
with the engineering manager, the business unit manager, and
the maintenance scheduler. Other maintenance employees also
attended some of the maintenance council meetings. The main-
tenance council was formed in order to standardize mainte-
nance procedures throughout the plant. The members of the
council met once per week for about 3 months. The mainte-
nance council has not met recently because the leads are too
busy, however, the council may resume meetings some time in
the future. The maintenance council developed a master pre-
ventive maintenance list for the plant. The maintenance coun-
cil also discussed adopting a policy of posting jobs throughout
the plant rather than in limited departments and of restricting
the departmental transfer rights of maintenance employees with
current discipline in their file. These proposed policies were
then submitted to the human resources manager for implemen-
tation, however the record does not reflect whether or not the
policies were formally implemented, and, if so, how the deci-
sion to implement was reached. The maintenance council also
discussed implementing an apprentice program, but the council
did not have sufficient time to develop the program.
The Employer’s revised handbook, which is expected to is-
sue imminently, provides that employees with questions or
problems related to working conditions, policies, rules, safety,
health, or any other matters are encouraged to discuss them as
quickly as possible and that generally an employee’s lead or
supervisor is in the best position to handle problems within a
specific area quickly and easily and consequently, a frank dis-
cussion with that individual may provide an immediate solu-
tion. The handbook also provides that an employee may ex-
change shifts with another employee only with the prior au-
thorization of his or her “supervisor/Lead” and the other em-
ployee’s “supervisor/Lead.” The revised handbook further pro-
vides that approval to exchange shifts cannot be granted unless
the exchange can be accomplished without interfering with the
Employer’s operations and without requiring overtime and that
a rest period of 7-1/2 hours between shifts is required. The
handbook further provides that if it becomes necessary for an
employee to leave the department or the Employer’s premises
during work hours, permission must be obtained from that em-
ployee’s supervisor/Lead. The revised handbook also provides
that when being late or absent is unavoidable, employees must
give notice to their “Lead person/Supervisor” by telephone at
least 1 hour prior to the start of the scheduled shift. The hand-
book further provides that each probationary employee will
receive a performance evaluation prior to receiving a wage
progression and that it is the supervisor and lead person’s re-
sponsibility to ensure that each new employee receives a writ-
ten performance review at 90 days, 180 days, and 270 days.
The record contains no testimony further explaining these pro-
visions of the handbook.
It is the burden of the party asserting supervisory status to es-
tablish it by competent evidence. Quadrex Environmental Co.,
308 NLRB 101, 102 (1992). The Union relies heavily on the
testimony regarding the leads’ involvement in the hiring proc-
ess, discipline, overtime, and the provisions of the revised
handbook. The evidence does not establish, however, that the
leads make the decision to hire or effectively recommend hir-
ing. Thus, although the resumes are sent to the lead’s attention,
the record does not reflect what the leads do with those resumes
and therefore, contrary to the Petitioner’s contention, the record
does not establish that the leads perform any screening of ap-
plicants. Similarly, the administering and grading of the multi-
ple-choice mechanical assessment is simply a clerical function,
not requiring independent judgment. The record does not es-
tablish that the cutoff figure of 19 was independently arrived at
by the leads. Furthermore, the applicants are also interviewed
by at least two, many times three, other admitted supervi-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1132
sors/managers, who retain ultimate decisional authority and it
appears that the leads’ presence and recommendations are
sought in deference to their maintenance expertise rather than
their supervisory authority. Hogan Mfg., 305 NLRB 806
(1961). The record also fails to establish that the leads have
any authority to issue discipline or effectively recommend the
issuance of discipline. The leads relay information to the su-
pervisor and human resources and then simply issue the disci-
pline prepared by human resources. The verbal admonishments
issued by leads are not placed in personnel files nor do they
result in adverse actions. Thus the lead’s role in the process is
simply reportorial and does not constitute authority to disci-
pline or recommend discipline. Ten Broeck Commons, 320
NLRB 806 (1996). With respect to the assignment of overtime,
the record establishes that the lead must get prior authorization
for overtime, that this authorization is not always granted, and
that the leads thereafter seek volunteers for overtime and that
overtime is awarded on the basis of seniority. On one occasion,
the lead was instructed to keep the number of overtime volun-
teers “reasonable.” However, this incident was unusual and the
necessity for the overtime was occasioned by the hearing in this
case, and therefore this one incident, without more, does not
establish the authority to grant and assign overtime. The provi-
sions of the handbook relied on by Petitioner also fail to estab-
lish statutory supervisory authority. The handbook provisions
do not facially establish independent authority, especially
where the record testimony establishes that the authority is
severely circumscribed. The mere inference of independent
judgment without specific support in the record is not sufficient
to prove supervisory status. Sears Roebuck & Co., 304 NLRB
193 (1991). Moreover, the resolution of minor employee com-
plaints or problems is insufficient to establish supervisory
status. Riverchase Health Care Center, 304 NLRB 861, 865
(1991); Ohio Masonic Home, 295 NLRB 390, 394 (1989).
Furthermore, the conditions for approval of shift exchanges are
clearly spelled out in the handbook and therefore granting such
approval would not require independent judgment, even assum-
ing the lead would not have to first seek approval from his su-
pervisor. The record establishes that the leads cannot inde-
pendently grant employees permission to leave the Employer’s
premises or that the evaluations independently prepared by the
leads have impacted terms and conditions of employment, and
therefore seemingly contrary handbook provisions cannot be
relied on to establish independent judgment. Wilson Tree Co.,
312 NLRB 883, 885 (1993). In these circumstances, I find that
the Petitioner has failed to establish by competent evidence that
the maintenance leads are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. J. C. Brock Corp., 314 NLRB 157
(1994).
Petitioner also contends that by virtue of their participation
in the maintenance council the maintenance leads are manage-
rial employees. The record does not reflect the extent of the
participation of the leads in the formulation of the policies and
therefore fails to establish that the leads had any authority to
formulate or effectuate management policy. Mere attendance at
the meetings, which were also attended by rank-and-file em-
ployees, is insufficient to establish managerial status. Bakers-
field Californian, 316 NLRB 1211 (1995). Accordingly, I find
that the maintenance leads are not supervisors or managers, and
I will therefore include them in the unit found appropriate here.