Hall Chevrolet

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 2014

05-RC-126386 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HALL CHEVROLET, LLC
Employer
and Case 05-RC-126386
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
Petitioner

ORDER
The Employer’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

1 We agree with the Regional Director, given his fact findings, that the body shop unit sought by
the Petitioner is appropriate for bargaining under Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center
of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011), enfd. sub. nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East v. NLRB,
727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). The body shop employees are readily identifiable as a group and
share a community of interest. They work in a physically separate department, share some
common terms and conditions of employment, and are separately supervised by their department
manager. They are not interchanged with the employees in the Employer’s service or parts
departments, and they also possess skills, training, and job functions distinct from the other two
departments. While there is significant functional integration, contact, and some common terms
and conditions of employment between the three departments, the work of one department is not
dependent on the others and these features do not create an “overwhelming community of
interest” whose factors “overlap almost completely,” such that there is “no legitimate basis” for
excluding the other two departments from the unit. Id., slip op. at 11-13 and fn. 28; see also
Courtesy Honda, 12-RC-083701, review denied November 1, 2012 (unit limited to service and
lube technicians in employer’s service and parts department was appropriate under Specialty
Healthcare, notwithstanding some functional integration, daily contact, and permanent
interchange with excluded employees in the same department).
Member Miscimarra would grant review regarding the appropriateness of the petitioned-for
unit because in his view – whether or not one applies Specialty Healthcare (and without passing
on the standard articulated in that case) – the Employer has identified similarities and distinctions
between unit and non-unit employees, respectively, that resemble similarities and distinctions
existing among employees within the petitioned-for unit, which in part prompted the Board to
grant review in Macy’s, Inc., 01-RC-091163 (review granted Dec. 4, 2012) and The Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc. d/b/a Bergdorf Goodman, 02-RC-076954 (review granted May 30, 2012).
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

Dated, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2014.