Kamehameha Schools Bernice P. Bishop Estate

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 52 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kamehameha Schools Bernice P. Bishop Estate ' and
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO and Hawaii Government
Employees' Association , Local 152 , AFSCME,
AFL-CIO,2 Petitioners. Cases 37-RC-1950 and
37-RC-1959
August 26, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On May 15, 1974, the Regional Director for Region
20 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he found appro-
priate a unit of "[a]11 physical plant and transportation
employees" of the Employer at its Honolulu, Hawaii,
educational facility, excluding all food service depart-
ment employees, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act. Thereafter, in accor-
dance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for re-
view of the Regional Director's decision on the
grounds that, in making his unit determination, he
made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and
departed from officially reported Board precedent.
By telegraphic order dated July 1, 1974, the request
for review was granted and the election was stayed
pending decision on review. Thereafter, Local 152
filed a brief on review.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, including
Local 152's brief on review, and makes the following
findings:
The Employer in this case is a nonprofit eleemosy-
The name of the Employer is amended to conform to that which appears
in the employee handbook introduced into the record as Employer 's Exh. 3.
2 The Petitioners are referred to herein as the LAM and Local 152, re-
spectively.
3 Local 152 requested , and the Board granted , an extension of time to file
its brief on review.
nary trust engaged in the business of operating a non-
profit educational institution which is divided into an
elementary school, an intermediate school, a high
school, and an early education program for children
between kindergarten and third grade. Petitioners
sought a unit variously described as all "physical
plant," "production and maintenance," or "manual"
employees, and would exclude employees in the
transportation section, food services department, of-
fice clerical employees, etc. The Regional Director
found that the employees in the transportation sec-
tion share a community of interest with the employ-
ees in the physical plant department and included
them in the unit found appropriate.'
The Employer contends in its request for review
that the appropriate unit, as described by the Re-
gional Director, does not clearly include all its "ser-
vice and maintenance" employees, and that it in-
cludes only the employees in the physical plant and
transportation section.
We agree. The record reveals that there are two
janitors and two groundskeepers who work in the
athletic department of the Employer's high school fa-
cility. There is also some indication that there may be
other employees outside the physical plant and trans-
portation section who perform service and mainte-
nance functions.5 We shall therefore modify the unit
description as follows:
All physical plant and transportation section em-
ployees and all other service and maintenance
employees of the Employer at its Honolulu, Ha-
waii, facility, excluding all food service employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional
Director for the purpose of conducting an election
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as
modified herein, except that the payroll period for
determining eligibility shall be that immediately pre-
ceding the date of issuance of this Decision.
4 Petitioner has not requested review of this finding.
s The Regional Director , of course , properly excluded the food service
employees as they are currently represented by Local 152. We reject the
Employer's contention that the unit should specifically include all "classi-
fied" employees , as we agree with the Regional Director 's exclusion of office
clerical employees.
213 NLRB No. 8