New Britain Transportation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1999

330 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

NEW BRITAIN TRANSPORTATION CO. 397
New Britain Transportation Co. and Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 1706, AFL–CIO, CLC, Pe-
titioner. Case 34–RC–1690
December 30, 1999
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN
AND BRAME
On February 5, 1999, the Regional Director for Region
34 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which
he found that the petitioned-for schoolbus, car and van
drivers, and monitors/aides at the Employer’s Berlin,
Connecticut facility constitute a separate appropriate
unit. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director’s de-
cision, contending that the unit must also include em-
ployees at the Employer’s two other facilities located in
Southington and Meriden, Connecticut. By order dated
March 5, 1999, the Board granted the Employer’s request
for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, including
the Employer’s brief on review, we conclude, in agree-
ment with the Regional Director, that the petitioned-for
unit, limited to employees at the Berlin facility, is an
appropriate unit. We do so for the reasons set forth in
the Regional Director’s decision (relevant portions of
which are attached as an appendix), and for the addi-
tional reasons set forth below.
The Employer is a transportation company engaged in
providing public bus transportation for Berlin, and school
transportation and related services for Berlin, Southing-
ton, and Meriden. Its headquarters are located at its Ber-
lin facility. The Employer employs approximately 172–
179 schoolbus, van and car drivers, and 13 aides at its
three facilities. The petitioned-for unit at Berlin is com-
posed of 32–34 drivers, 1 runner, and 2 monitors/aides.1
There are 70 drivers and about 10 monitors/aides
at Southington, and 70–75 drivers and 1 monitor/
emergency medical technician at Meriden.

The manager at Southington, the operations supervisor
at Meriden, and the managers at Berlin oversee their fa-
cilities’ operations, supervise dispatchers, and deal di-
rectly with the respective school boards. They are au-
thorized to buy supplies on credit and oversee paycheck
distribution to employees at their facilities.3 At least one
manager, the manager of the Southington facility, has
authority to hire and fire, and has negotiated contracts on
behalf of the Employer. The Employer’s own witness,
Vice President Shirley Gralnick, repeatedly described the
dispatchers and facility managers as “supervisors” and as
The facilities are located in contiguous towns. The
Berlin location is about 6 miles from the Meriden facility
and about 12 miles from the Southington facility. The
Meriden and Southington facilities are about 6 miles
apart.
A single plant or store unit is presumptively appropri-
ate unless it has been so effectively merged into a more
comprehensive unit, or is so functionally integrated, that
it has lost its separate identity. J&L Plate, Inc., 310
NLRB 429 (1993). To determine whether the presump-
tion has been rebutted, the Board considers such factors
as centralized control over daily operations and labor
relations, including the extent of local autonomy; similar-
ity of skills, functions, and working conditions; degree of
employee interchange; geographic proximity; and bar-
gaining history, if any. J&L Plate, supra; Bowie Hall
Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988); D&L Transportation,
Inc., 324 NLRB 160 (1997); Esco Corp., 298 NLRB 837,
839 (1990), and cases cited therein. Analyzing the in-
stant facts in light of the applicable criteria, we agree
with the Regional Director’s conclusion that the pre-
sumption has not been rebutted.

1 The unit excludes all other employees, office clerical employees,
dispatchers, guards, professional employees, and other supervisors.
The Employer has centralized control over personnel
and labor relations policies, including accounting, re-
cordkeeping, payroll, and wages and benefits, and over
such matters as formal discipline, new-hire training, and
safety training. Centralized control over personnel and
labor relations alone, however, is not sufficient to rebut
the single-location presumption where the evidence
demonstrates significant local autonomy over labor rela-
tions. See, e.g., Carter Hawley Hale Stores, 273 NLRB
621, 623 (1984). It is clear from the record here that the
dispatchers and facility managers at each location have
an important role in performing labor relations functions.
In this regard, it is undisputed that local dispatchers
determine the need for and make decisions regarding
employee schedules and assignments, including making
temporary transfers. They handle problems encountered
by drivers during their routes. They also approve time
off, short-term vacation, and sick leave. Dispatchers
independently address minor disciplinary problems.
Dispatchers are also responsible for carrying out the Em-
ployer’s decisions involving formal discipline.2 Prior to
the start of a new school year, dispatchers are responsible
for contacting employees who work at their facilities to
arrange for their return.
2 See D&L Transportation, supra, where the Board found that head-
quarters’ involvement in formal discipline and approval of wage in-
creases was not sufficient to rebut the presumption where terminal
managers and dispatchers had local control over hiring, assignments,
and dispatching, time off, and minor discipline.
3 We note the fact that there is no single-facility manager at Berlin
because it is the Company’s headquarters and houses the offices of the
president, vice president, and treasurer, who appear to share manage-
ment duties, although the vice president appears to take the lead role as
Berlin’s manager.
330 NLRB No. 57
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 398
“in charge,” which we find to be a significant indicator of
their responsibility.
In addition, while new-hire training initially occurs at
Berlin, subsequent training is conducted at the facility
from which new-hires will operate and is performed by
drivers/instructors who work at that facility. Safety
training is conducted at each facility and involves each
facility’s safety committee staffed by local employees.
Some employee safety evaluations are conducted on-site
by local drivers/instructors.4 Thus, the existence of cen-
tralized administration and control of some labor rela-
tions policies and procedures is not inconsistent with a
finding, as here, that there exists sufficient local auton-
omy to support the single location presumption. Rental
Uniform Service, 330 NLRB 334 (1999); D&L Transpor-
tation, 324 NLRB at 161.
There also is a lack of significant interchange involv-
ing the Berlin facility. The Employer notes more than
200 instances of temporary employee interchange from
August 31, 1998, to January 29, 1999. Almost 100 of
these temporary transfers involved employees from
Meriden and Southington working at Berlin, or Berlin
drivers working at one of the other facilities, according to
the Employer. This is virtually the only evidence noted
by the Employer to support its claim that there has been
significant temporary employee interchange.
Assuming, as the Regional Director did, that there
were 200 bona fide instances of temporary employee
interchange, that data alone lacks any context and, thus,
is of little evidentiary value because the Employer did
not present evidence on the percentage of the total num-
ber of routes and charters involving temporary inter-
change or the percentage of the total employees involved
in temporary interchange. The party opposing the single-
facility presumption has the burden of presenting suffi-
cient evidence to rebut it. J&L Plate, 310 NLRB at 429.
We find that the Employer has failed to meet its burden
to introduce relevant affirmative evidence to rebut the
single location unit presumption.5 The presumption has
not been rebutted where an employer’s interchange data
is represented in aggregate form rather than as a percent-
age of total employees. Dunbar Armored, Inc. v. NLRB,
186 F.3d 844, 849 fn. 5 (7th Cir. 1999), citing Walgreen
v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 751, 754 (7th Cir. 1977). Employee
contact of the kind described here may be considered
“interchange” where there is evidence that a significant
portion of the work force is involved and that the work
force is actually supervised by the local branch, factors
the Employer failed to show. Even if it were possible to
put the Employer’s asserted number of temporary em-

4 That nearly all vehicle maintenance and repair work is performed
at Berlin because it is the only facility with a garage big enough to
accommodate buses, does not require a finding that the employees’
interests in working conditions have been merged.
5 AVI Foodsystems, Inc., 328 NLRB 426 (1999), citing J&L Plate,
supra.
ployee interchanges into context, we find that significant
temporary employee interchange has not been estab-
lished and does not approach the degree of interchange
typically present in cases where the Board has found it to
be significant. Compare Purolator Courier Corp., 265
NLRB 659, 661 (1982) (interchange factor met where 50
percent of the work force came within the jurisdiction of
other branches on a daily basis and there existed a greater
degree of supervision from supervisors at other terminals
than from the supervisors at their own terminals); Dayton
Transport Corp., 270 NLRB 1114 (1984) (Board found
the presumption rebutted where in 1-year there were ap-
proximately 400–425 temporary employee interchanges
between terminals among a workforce of 87 and the
temporary employees were directly supervised by the
terminal manager from the point of dispatch).
We also note that of the 190 bona fide temporary em-
ployee transfers,6 118 involved charter or special events
for which drivers voluntarily sign up. Such voluntary
interchange is given less weight in determining if em-
ployees from different locations share a common iden-
tity. D&L Transportation, 324 NLRB at 162 fn. 7.
Moreover, there has been little permanent employee in-
terchange, with only six instances (two of which were
voluntary) in one recent year, and only one involving a
permanent transfer to Berlin. Id. at 161.7
Additionally, the facilities are located 6 to 12 miles
apart. This geographic separation, while not determina-
tive, gains significance where, as here, there are other
persuasive factors supporting the single-facility unit.
Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB at 43. We note in this
regard the Employer’s vice president’s testimony that the
Employer does not permanently transfer individuals to
other facilities against their wishes because the employ-
ees prefer to work near their homes. Finally, that there is
no bargaining history, and no other labor organization
seeks to represent the employees on a broader basis, are
factors that also support the Petitioner’s requested single-
facility unit. Id.
In sum, we find that the evidence presented does not
establish that the Berlin facility has been so effectively
merged into the Southington and/or Meriden facilities, or
that the three facilities are so functionally integrated that
they have lost their separate identities to the point where
the presumptive appropriateness of the petitioned-for
Berlin unit has been rebutted, such that the only appro-
6 Based on our analysis of Emp. Exh. 3, a chart created from dis-
patch books that purportedly shows when an employee from one facil-
ity was sent to cover a route or a charter originating from another facil-
ity and includes the employee’s name, we identified approximately 190
bona fide instances of temporary employee interchange involving unit
employees performing unit work.
7 Member Hurtgen does not necessarily agree that the degree of tem-
porary interchange is insignificant. Rather, in his view, it is not so
significant as to outweigh other factors supporting the appropriateness
of the single-facility unit.
NEW BRITAIN TRANSPORTATION CO. 399
priate unit is one including employees from all locations.
D&L Transportation; Bowie Hall Trucking.8
ORDER
The Regional Director’s decision is affirmed. This
proceeding is remanded to the Regional Director for fur-
ther appropriate action.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
5. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation with its princi-
pal office located in Berlin, Connecticut, is engaged in provid-
ing public bus transportation for the town of Berlin and
schoolbus services for Berlin, Southington, and Meriden, Con-
necticut. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the
following employees employed at Berlin, Connecticut: 32 to 34
schoolbus, car and van drivers; a runner; and 2 bus monitors
and aides. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inap-
propriate, and the only appropriate unit is one which must also
encompass a total of approximately 165 drivers, monitors and
aides, fuelers, mechanics, and maintenance employees em-
ployed at its Southington and Meriden facilities. The record
indicates that the Berlin facilities are located approximately 6
miles from the Meriden facilities and approximately 12 miles
from the Southington facilities, and that the Meriden and
Southington facilities are approximately 6 miles apart.
There is no history of collective bargaining covering any of
the positions at issue herein. However, the record reveals that
for over 27 years the Petitioner and its predecessor have repre-
sented a separate unit at Berlin, composed of the Employer’s
line drivers performing public bus transportation, mechanics,
and maintenance employees.
In addition to the Employer’s main office, the Berlin, Con-
necticut location is also the site of the Employer’s main garage.
It is at the Berlin facilities where the Employer performs its

8 Contrary to the Employer’s contention, we find no basis on which
to reconsider or overrule the Board’s decision in D&L Transportation
or Dattco, Inc., 324 NLRB 323 (1997). In each of those cases, as here,
the Board has applied its traditional test where a union seeks to repre-
sent employees at a single-location facility. R&D Trucking, 327 NLRB
531 (1999), cited by the Employer, is not to the contrary. Rather, in
that case, the Board found that the presumption was rebutted based on
evidence of lack of local autonomy, centralized control over operations,
personnel functions and labor relations, common supervision, regular
and substantial interchange of drivers between the two facilities, per-
manent transfers, common employee skills, common benefits, holidays,
and employee policies, and the small number of employees involved.
Those factors differ considerably from those in D&L Transportation
and Dattco, 324 NLRB 323 (1997), and from those under consideration
here.
major bus repairs,2 all of its accounting and payroll functions,
and most of its safety, training, and hiring functions. In this
regard, all schoolbus, van and car drivers are compensated un-
der a uniform wage structure; receive the same fringe benefits;
and are subject to the same rules and policies.
Situated at the Berlin office are the Employer’s president,
vice president, secretary, safety director, and a dispatcher. The
overall responsibility for managing the operations at Berlin is
vested in the vice president. Direct supervision of the Berlin
bus operations is vested in the Berlin dispatcher.
The Employer’s Southington facilities include an office, and
a garage where minor repairs and servicing is performed. Situ-
ated at the Southington office are the Employer’s treasurer,
who is also responsible for managing the overall operations at
Southington, and a dispatcher, who directly supervises the
Southington bus operations. The Employer’s Meriden facilities
include an office, and a garage where minor repairs and servic-
ing is performed. Situated at the Southington office are an
operations supervisor, who is responsible for managing the
overall operations at Meriden, and a dispatcher, who directly
supervises the Meriden bus operations.
The record indicates that the school bus service that the Em-
ployer performs for the three towns is provided pursuant to
three separate contracts it has with each of the respective towns.
The record reveals a total of only six drivers permanently trans-
ferred among any of the three locations during the past year,
and that only one of these involved the Berlin facilities. Al-
though the record reveals approximately 200 instances of tem-
porary driver interchange during the period from August 31,
1998, to January 29, 1999, less than half of these involved the
Berlin facility and only 11 involved temporary reassignments
from Berlin to one of the other locations.
In D&L Transportation, Inc., 324 NLRB 160 (1997), and
Dattco, Inc., 324 NLRB 323 (1997), the Board reaffirmed the
application of the single location presumption to bus operations
strikingly similar to those in the case at bar, and found that the
presumption had not been overcome. Accordingly, based upon
the foregoing and the record as a whole, I find that the follow-
ing employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:

All full-time and regular part-time school bus drivers, van
drivers, car drivers, bus monitors and aides, and the runner
employed by the Employer at Berlin, Connecticut; but exclud-
ing all other employees, office clerical, employees, dispatch-
ers, and guards, professional employees and other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
2 The record indicates that the Employer maintains a number of
spare buses, which are housed at Berlin and are used to replace inopera-
tive buses at all three locations.