GREEN MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 2014

01-RC-127082 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

1
MJS
Bennington, VT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GREEN MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY NETWORK,
INC.
Employer
and Case 01-RC-127082
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS UNION NO. 597 a/w
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS1
Petitioner
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered an
objection and a determinative challenge in an election held May 28, 2014, and the hearing
officer’s report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 11 for and 10 against the Petitioner,
with 1 challenged ballot, a sufficient number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the
hearing officer’s findings and recommendations,2 and finds that a certification of representative
should be issued.

1 We have corrected the caption to reflect the correct spelling of the Petitioner’s name. We have
also corrected the unit description to conform to the Stipulated Election Agreement.
2 In adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation to sustain the challenge to the ballot cast by
Medicaid Coordinator Dawn Julius, we rely solely on the hearing officer’s finding that the
position is excluded from the unit by the express language of the Stipulated Election Agreement.
We do not rely on any implication in the hearing officer’s report that the exclusion of Julius from
the initial eligibility list supplied by the Employer is extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.
2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for Chauffeurs,
Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union No. 597 a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time bus drivers, van drivers, and maintenance
employees employed by the Employer at its Bennington, Vermont location but,

Because a majority of the ballots were cast in favor of the Petitioner, we find it
unnecessary to pass on the Petitioner’s objection.
Member Miscimarra believes, as the hearing officer found, that the Stipulated Election
Agreement is unambiguous in its description of job classifications, and not the work performed.
Although the unit includes, among others, “bus drivers” and “van drivers,” this description is
distinguishable from the unit at issue in Harold J. Becker, 343 NLRB 51, 51 fn. 3 (2004), cited
by the Employer, which plainly described the unit in terms referencing the performance of
certain work, encompassing “all employees of the [employer] engaged in sheet metal work . . .”
(emphasis added). Member Miscimarra further notes that, although any phrase ending with the
word “drivers” can sometimes be regarded as describing the type of driver, it is advisable for the
Board, whenever reasonable, to regard such references in unit descriptions as job classifications
because the resulting bargaining unit will have greater stability than a unit defined by work
performed, because the latter is more likely to give rise to questions regarding the scope of the
unit if job responsibilities change and questions about whether new or different job assignments
might be non-mandatory bargaining subjects (because they potentially alter the unit), among
other things. See generally Antelope Valley Press, 311 NLRB 459 (1993).
Member Johnson agrees with the hearing officer’s recommendation to sustain the
challenge to Julius’s ballot. He believes that where the stipulated unit description is otherwise
unambiguous, the mere fact that the classifications set forth in the stipulation do not precisely
match the employer’s actual classifications should not render the stipulation ambiguous. So long
as the job classifications contained in the stipulation are reasonable variants of the employer’s
actual classifications, Member Johnson would find that the parties intended to include the actual
classifications. See, e.g., USF Reddaway, 349 NLRB 329 (2007) (finding that even though the
employer’s actual classifications were more specific than those in the unit description in the
stipulated election agreement, a “reasonable reading [of the stipulated election agreement] would
be that all of [the employer’s] classifications were meant to be included,” but nevertheless
finding the stipulated election agreement ambiguous for other reasons).
Member Schiffer likewise agrees that the language of the stipulation unambiguously
excluded Julius from the unit and thus the challenge to her ballot should be sustained. Even if
the language had been ambiguous, though, Member Schiffer still would have found that Julius
should not be included in the unit because, under a dual-function analysis, Julius did not drive
enough to have a substantial interest in the wages, hours and working conditions of the unit
drivers. Harold J. Becker Co., 343 NLRB 51, 51 (2004).
3
excluding all other employees, dispatchers, clerical employees, managers,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 16, 2014.
_____________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
_____________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
_____________________________________
Nancy Schiffer, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD