System Auto Park & Garages, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 4, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 948 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
System Auto Park & Garages, Inc.' and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
841, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-16308
April 4, 1980
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Kevin J.
Murray of the National Labor Relations Board on
May 8, 1979. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the
Acting Regional Director for Region 1, this case
was transferred to the Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer filed a brief.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
On the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles,
California. The Employer is engaged in the nation-
wide operation of parking lots and related services.
From these operations the Employer derives rev-
enue in excess of $500,000 annually. The Employer
annually receives goods valued in excess of $50,000
shipped to its Massachusetts facilities from places
located outside the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. We further find that it will ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The parties have stipulated, and we find, that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time and
regular part-time parking attendants at the Employ-
er's Boston University operation, excluding guards
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hoaring.
248 NLRB No. 115
and supervisors. The Employer agrees that a unit
of parking attendants at its Boston University facili-
ty is appropriate; however, it contends that all
parking attendants who are also "bonafide stu-
dents" do not share a community of interest with
the other parking attendants, and therefore should
be excluded from the unit.
The Employer operates six attended parking lots
and garages, as well as a number of self-parking
lots, in the vicinity of Boston University. It em-
ploys approximately 16 attendants at its Boston
University facilities. Nine of these attendants work
on the first shift. None of the first-shift employees
is a student, and all of the first-shift employees
work full time, averaging over 40 hours of work a
week. The other seven attendants are all enrolled
as students at Boston University and work a re-
duced schedule, averaging 25 hours of work a
week. 2 Three of the student attendants work a
scheduled second shift of 5 hours an evening, 5
days a week. The other four student attendants
usually work evenings and weekends during special
events such as athletic contests or concerts held at
Boston University facilities or at nearby Fenway
Park.3 The Employer receives a schedule for the
special events on a yearly basis and the attendants
working special events are assigned a work sched-
ule well in advance of the scheduled event. Since
special events are held on an almost daily basis,
part of the special-events shift works almost every
day of the week.
All of the attendants-the first shift, the second
shift, and the special-events shift-do the same type
of work, parking cars, and all are supervised and
hired by the same individual. In addition, some of
the special-events attendants fill in for the first-shift
attendants, and some of the first-shift attendants
work some of the special events. The Employer
pays its first-shift employees $3.75 an hour and
these employees are entitled to holidays and vaca-
tion pay. The second shift and special-events shift
are paid $3 an hour and are not entitled to holidays
or vacation pay. Most of the first-shift attendants
are hired through word of mouth. 4 The other at-
tendants are hired primarily through word of
mouth or through a student placement office. Al-
though the Employer contends that it hires student
One of the student attendants works an average of 37 hours a week
3 There is no record support for the assertion by the Employer in its
post-hearing brief that the Petitioner "admitted" that the special-events
shift does not belong i the unit. At the hearing, the Petitioner indicated
that it sought to represent a unit of all parking attendants, including at-
tendants who are enrolled as students at Boston University. There is no
record evidence that the Petitioner has made any distinction between the
second-shift attendants and the special-events attendants.
4 The Employer contends that it also hires the first-shift attendants
through the placement of help-wanted advertisements The record, how-
ever, indicates that the Employer has not utilized help wanted advertise-
ments for over a year.
SYSTEM AUTO PARK & GARAGES 949
attendants for the school year, it admits that the
student attendants are not terminated at the end of
the school year. In fact, a majority of the student
attendants have worked for the Employer for more
than a year, and a majority of the student atten-
dants work during the summer. The Employer also
concedes that student attendants hired as freshmen
could work through their senior year. Further-
more, the Employer does not require student atten-
dants to resign upon graduation, and the record in-
dicates that at least one student has continued
working after the completion of all of his classes.5
As indicated above, the Petitioner seeks a unit of
all of the Employer's parking attendants, including
the attendants who are enrolled as students at
Boston University. At the hearing the Petitioner
argued that, regardless of the student status of
some of the attendants, all of the attendants were
either full-time or regular part-time employees and
should be included in the same unit. In its post-
hearing brief, the Employer contends that the stu-
dent attendants should be excluded because their
employment is only incidental to their academic
objectives, whereas the employment of the other
attendants constitutes their livelihood. In addition,
the Employer contends that the student attendants
should be excluded because their employment is
temporary and they do not have an expectation of
continued employment after graduation.
These student attendants work in a capacity un-
related to their studies or educational program. In
this situation, the impact of their student status on
their community of interest with other employees
is minimal. Thus, the record establishes that the
student status of these employees has a negligible
effect on traditional community-of-interest factors
such as the amount or regularity of hours of em-
ployment, the expectancy of permanent employ-
ment, the similarity of compensation, and the simi-
larity of job duties and responsibility. Accordingly,
we find no merit to the Employer's contention that
the student attendants should be excluded because
their employment is only incidental to their aca-
demic objectives.
We also find no support for the Employer's con-
tention that the student attendants should be ex-
cluded because their employment is only tempo-
rary and they have no expectation of continued
employment after graduation. The record estab-
lishes that all of the student attendants enjoy regu-
larity of employment. They work an average of 25
hours a week, and most of them work 12 months a
" The Employer's division manager testified that he knt of no stu-
dent who colntlnued xlllking for the Employer suhsequent to graduation
Although this ,itncss has been employed h the FInploycr foi 24 )ears,
he conceded that he had only been working al the Bostonl Universily fa-
cility for 3 to 4 months
year. Such a work schedule clearly indicates regu-
lar part-time employment and does not constitute
sporodic or temporary employment as asserted by
the Employer.
Finally, in view of our finding that the student
attendants enjoy regular part-time employment, we
reject the Employer's additional contention that
the student attendants should be excluded because
they have no expectation of continued employment
after graduation. It is well settled that:
[T]he test as to whether part-time employees
should be included is not based on the expec-
tancy of permanent employment but is based
on the part-time employees' relationship to the
job-whether they perform unit work and
whether they have a sufficient regularity of
work to give them a community of interest
with full-time employees with respect to
wages, hours, and other working conditions. 6
As indicated above, we have found that the student
attendants enjoy sufficient regularity of work to es-
tablish their regular part-time employment. With
regard to the similarity of work conditions, the
Employer concedes and the record establishes that
the student attendants have the same job responsi-
bilities as the nonstudent attendants, and nonstu-
dent attendants are hired and supervised by the
same individual. In addition, some student atten-
dants fill in for the nonstudent attendants, and non-
student attendants regularly work alongside student
attendants parking cars during special events. In
such circumstances, we find that the insignificiant
differences in hourly pay and fringe benefits do not
destroy the commonality of working conditions be-
tween the student and nonstudent attendants.7
Accordingly, we find that the student attendants
are regular part-time employees with a regular and
established work schedule and that they have a suf-
ficient community of interest with the nonstudent
attendants to justify their inclusion in the requested
unit.8 Based on the foregoing and the record as a
whole, we find that the following employees con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
R Childrensv Hospital of Pittshurgh, 222 NLRB 588, 51 (1976)
7 Moreover. there is no showing in the record that the student atten-
dants have different expectations of continued employment from the non-
student attendants Thus, the majority of tilhe student attendants have
worked for more than a ear, the majority of the student attendants work
during the summer, and the Employer does not require that student at-
tendants resign after graduation
6 Frank B. A rundson. Frank M. Amundson & Eric K. mundson. a
Partnership, d/b/a Femco Machine Co.. 238 NLRB No. 108 (1978); Dick
Kelchner Excavating Co., 236 NLRB 1414 (1977); Children s lopital o'
Pittshurgh. upra at 591; Ileartt Corporation, San Antonio Light Division.
221 NLRB 324 (1975); S Flags Over Georgia. Inc, 215 NLRB 809
(1974)
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All full-time and regular part-time parking cals, supervisors, and guards as defined by the
attendants employed at the Employer's Boston Act.
University facilities; excluding all office cleri- [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]