1 / 6

PIE Factors Demonstrating “Community of Interest”

PIE Factors Demonstrating “Community of Interest”. NLRA Statutory Restrictions on Bargaining Units. Professional employees may not be included in a unit with nonprofessionals unless professional employees consent by a majority vote (Section 9(b)(1))

kylene
Download Presentation

PIE Factors Demonstrating “Community of Interest”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PIEFactors Demonstrating “Community of Interest”

  2. NLRA Statutory Restrictions on Bargaining Units • Professional employees may not be included in a unit with nonprofessionals unless professional employees consent by a majority vote (Section 9(b)(1)) • Guards may not be included in unit with non-guards and may not be represented by the same union as non-guards (Section 9(b)(3)) • United Plant Guard Workers of American represents only guards • No other union represents guards

  3. Single-Facility Presumption • Board presumes that a single facility is appropriate for collective bargaining purposes unless that facility has been so effectively merged with another so as to destroy its identity (for example, J & L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993)) • Presumption - determines how decision-maker will rule unless the party opposing the presumption can prove that the presumption does not hold in that case

  4. Rebuttal of Single-Facility Presumption • Jerry’s Chevrolet - Cadillac, Inc., 344 NLRB No. 87, 2005. • Er successfully rebutted single facility presumption of a unit of service techs at one of four car dealerships owned in common • Four car dealerships located contiguously • common parts facility, car wash, collision center, new car drop-off location, state inspection device, and phone/computer system • Centralized human resources (HR) function (including approval of hiring and all discipline • Factors offset minimal ee interchange among dealerships

  5. Failure to Rebut Single-Facility Presumption • Kroger Ltd. Partnership d/b/a/ Hilander Foods, 348 NLRB No. 82, 11/30/06, • Employer operates 6 grocery stores and a commissary near Rockford, Illinois • Factors supporting rebuttal/multi-facility unit • Overall mgmt controlled by merchandising coordinator and Area Support Personnel clerk • Coordinator approves merit increases • Common personnel polices and handbook • 8 transfers from store in question, 51 across all stores in petitioned-for unit in previous 3-1/2 years • All stores receive bakery goods from commissary

  6. Hilander Foods (cont.) • Factors supporting single facility • Store managers interview, hire, establish assignments, set work schedules, approve overtime, authorize time off, schedule employee vacations, determine breaks, train, handle discipline, recommend merit increases, promote employees • Board ruled significant autonomy of store managers over labor relations the controlling factor

More Related