Novato Disposal Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 622 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 632
Novato Disposal Services, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 624, AFL–
CIO, Petitioner. Case 20–RC–17513
February 10, 2000
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On November 4, 1999, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 20 issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction of
Election, in which he found that the smallest appropriate
unit for bargaining consisted of drivers, drivers’ helpers,
mechanics, mechanics’ helpers, recycle laborers, bailers,
and buy-back attendants at all of the Employer’s unrep-
resented companies.1
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 Re-
gional Director’s supplemental decision. The Petitioner
requested that the Regional Director’s determination that
mechanics and mechanics’ helpers be included in the unit
found to be appropriate be reversed, and that those classi-
fications be excluded from any election held.2
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having carefully considered the record in its entirety,
we grant the Petitioner’s request for review and find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that mechanics and
mechanics’ helpers do not share such a close community
of interest with the included employees as to require their
inclusion in the unit.
The Employer’s operation includes two primary facili-
ties at Petaluma and Santa Rosa, California, a yard in
Gualala, California, and five transfer stations. The Santa
Rosa and Petaluma facilities house a number of compa-
nies, all owned and operated by the Employer, that per-
form a variety of garbage/debris hauling and recycling
functions. In all, the Employers’ companies employ ap-
proximately 101 employees in various driver, helper, and
recycle laborer positions. The Employer has mechanics
shops located at the Petaluma and Santa Rosa facilities.
The main mechanic shop, located in Santa Rosa, employs
six mechanics and four helpers. The Petaluma shop em-
ploys three mechanics.
In finding that the mechanics must be included in the
unit, the Regional Director reasoned that the mechanics,
like most of the drivers, work out of the Petaluma and
Santa Rosa facilities, and have common supervision,
regular contact, comparable wage rates, and significant
interchange with the other unit employees. In his prior
May 17, 1999 Decision and Direction of Election, the
Regional Director found that mechanics were excluded
from the petitioned-for unit of drivers because they per-
form distinct work, and have specialized skills, different
hours, and different pay rates. In requiring the inclusion
of mechanics in the unit here based on the same record
facts, the Regional Director made no attempt to distin-
guish these earlier findings. In our order remanding, id.
at fn. 1, we explicitly did not address the Employer’s
argument that mechanics should be included.

1 The Regional Director previously found appropriate the petitioned-
for unit of drivers and drivers’ helpers employed at the Employer’s
Petaluma facility. On June 25, 1999, the Board found, contrary to the
Regional Director, that the Employer had rebutted the single facility
presumption and that the petitioned-for unit was not appropriate.
Novato Disposal Services, 328 NLRB 820 (1999). The Board re-
manded the case to the Region to determine the appropriate unit for
bargaining, expressing “no view as to whether an overall unit . . . or
whether some lesser combination of facilities and/or classifications
would also be appropriate.” Id. at fn. 2.
2 The election was “blocked” by certain pending unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings.
While it is true that mechanics work out of the two
main facilities at Petaluma and Santa Rosa, their work is
generally limited to the mechanics’ shops or performing
repairs on the Employer’s trucks on the road. Unlike
drivers, who are generally assigned to a single company,
mechanics work for all of the Employer’s companies.
Drivers’ interaction with mechanics is limited to submit-
ting reports on their trucks, bringing a truck to the shop
for service or inspection, or calling a mechanic for road
service.
With regard to interchange, four mechanics’ helpers
have permanently transferred to various driving posi-
tions. However, the record does not indicate the time
period over which these transfers occurred, and there is
no evidence that drivers have ever transferred to me-
chanic or mechanics’ helper positions.3 Temporary
transfers are limited to one helper who works as a recycle
laborer a portion of each day and one mechanic who per-
forms some driving on an “as needed” basis, but the re-
cord does not reveal how often this occurs.
Although the Employer’s owner or operations manager
supervises all employees, including drivers and mechan-
ics, it appears that the mechanics’ shops are generally
autonomous, with lead mechanics Jerry Roy or Jose
Robles distributing work to the mechanics based on spe-
cialty.4 Alternately, in the absence of Roy or Robles, the
mechanics decide among themselves how work should
be distributed. In any event, the presence of shared su-
pervision is but one factor to be considered, and is not
necessarily determinative of unit determinations. See
Mc-Mor-Han Trucking Co., 166 NLRB 700, 701 (1967).
Other factors militate against requiring the mechanics’
inclusion in the unit. Although the record does not re-
veal what, if any, certifications are possessed by the Em-
ployer’s mechanics, it is undisputed that they are very
3 In any event, the Board has long regarded permanent transfers to be
a less significant indication of actual interchange than temporary trans-
fers. See Red Lobster, 300 NLRB 908, 910 (1990).
4 Roy also sits in on interviews, assigns road calls, and determines
what supplies are needed in the mechanics’ shop.
330 NLRB No. 97
NOVATO DISPOSAL SERVICES 633
highly skilled employees.5 They perform major and mi-
nor repairs and inspections for all of the Employer’s ve-
hicles and have a minimum of 4–5 years and up to 30
years’ experience as mechanics. Each mechanic has a
subspecialty, and mechanics’ helpers are considered to
be apprentices in training to become mechanics. In con-
trast, drivers do not possess the same skills, perform no
mechanics’ work, and do not assist mechanics with re-
pairs.6 Finally, mechanics’ pay scale differs from that of
drivers; mechanics earn between $10.50 and $27 per
hour, while most drivers earn between $6 and $20 per
hour.
Because of these differences, we find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that mechanics and mechanics’ help-
ers need not be included in the unit.7 Accordingly, we

5 See Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 347, 349–350 (1996),
reconsideration denied 322 NLRB 723 (1996) (finding that it is “all but
self-evident that mechanics must have specialized skills” based on their
performance of major and minor mechanical repairs).
6 Indeed, one driver testified that drivers are actively discouraged
from attempting truck repairs.
7 In Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB at 349–350, the Board
refused to require the inclusion of mechanics in a petitioned-for unit of
modify the Regional Director’s decision to exclude me-
chanics and mechanics’ helpers from the unit found ap-
propriate.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s supplemental decision is re-
versed with respect to his inclusion of mechanics and
mechanics’ helpers in the unit. This proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for further appropriate
action.

drivers, noting, inter alia, that the mechanics had specialized skills,
training, and equipment; worked different hours; performed major
mechanical work; had separate terms and conditions of employment;
and did little driving. See also Overnite Transportation Co., 325
NLRB 612 (1998); Laidlaw Waste Systems v. NLRB, 934 F.2d 898 (7th
Cir. 1991), enfg. 299 NLRB No. 124 (1990) (not reported in Board
volumes). Member Hurtgen, who dissented in Overnite Transporta-
tion, 325 NLRB 612 (1998), finds that case to be distinguishable. In
that case, the fact pattern was that the union had sought the inclusion of
mechanics in some units and the exclusion from other units of the same
employer, based (in Member Hurtgen’s view) solely on the desires of
the petitioning union. That fact pattern is not present here.