Dunbar Armored, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner, and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, Intervening Respondent/cross-Petitioner
Docket: 99-1046
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 2, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Dunbar Armored, Inc. is appealing a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which found the company in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act for refusing to bargain with the United Plant Guard Workers of America, the certified representative of its employees at the Cinnaminson terminal. Dunbar acknowledges its refusal but argues that the NLRB's determination of a bargaining unit limited to Cinnaminson employees is overly narrow, as its operations are integrated across multiple locations in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The Union had petitioned for representation of 85 employees at Cinnaminson, leading to a secret-ballot election where a majority supported the Union. The NLRB certified the Union after rejecting Dunbar's claim for a broader regional unit. Following the certification, Dunbar's refusal to negotiate prompted the Union to file an unfair labor practice charge, resulting in the NLRB ordering Dunbar to engage with the Union regarding the Cinnaminson workforce. The NLRB seeks enforcement of its order while Dunbar appeals the decision.
The standard of review for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is characterized by deference, meaning that while the reviewing court may have reached a different conclusion, it will not displace the Board's reasonable inferences. The factual determinations made by the NLRB are evaluated for substantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the Board's conclusions. Legal conclusions of the Board are also reviewed under a similarly deferential standard.
Bargaining unit determinations fall within the Board's discretion and are reviewed for abuse of discretion, requiring a thorough examination of the record to ensure the determination is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. An employer challenging the Board’s unit determination must demonstrate that the Board’s chosen unit is clearly inappropriate rather than merely suggesting a more suitable alternative.
For employers with multiple facilities, a single facility is considered a "presumptively appropriate" unit for collective bargaining, which can be rebutted by evidence of substantial functional integration among facilities negating their separate identities. Factors considered in this evaluation include central control of labor relations, similarity in employee skills and conditions, employee interchange, distance between locations, and any existing bargaining history.
Dunbar contends that the Board improperly disregarded its own precedent of rejecting single-site units in the armored car industry. However, the review of relevant case law indicates that the Board has not abandoned its single-site presumption. The Board's decisions are context-dependent and do not establish rigid rules, allowing it discretion in applying standards to unique facts. The Board's approval of multi-site bargaining units in similar cases does not invalidate its current decision.
Dunbar argues that the single-site presumption has been rebutted based on two factors: centralized control of labor relations and employee interchange among branches. Despite Dunbar's claims regarding centralized management decisions made by the regional headquarters, the findings from the Regional Director support the decision to approve the Cinnaminson unit. The Director demonstrated that local management retains significant autonomy in areas such as initial employment interviews, low-level discipline, and route assignments, countering Dunbar's assertions. The presence of centralized control does not negate the existence of sufficient local autonomy to uphold the single-location presumption, as supported by prior NLRB cases.
The Director's factual findings are upheld as supported by substantial evidence, with no indication of arbitrariness or irrationality in the Board's conclusions. Although Dunbar's Baltimore office maintains centralized control over policies and major decisions, local managers manage daily operations at the Cinnaminson facility. This level of local autonomy aligns with Board precedents favoring single-site units despite uniform policies.
Dunbar contends that the frequent interaction between drivers and guards from other branches and Cinnaminson employees undermines the single-site unit classification. Specifically, Dunbar cites over 1600 "temporary transfers" during a sixteen-month period, along with employees working at jewelry shows alongside others from different locations. However, the Director determined that this level of employee interchange is not significant enough to counter the presumption of a single-site unit. The sporadic nature of the jewelry shows and the lack of evidence linking transferred employees to specific branch offices further support this conclusion.
Dunbar's argument regarding the nature of temporary transfers is rejected, as mere loading and unloading activities do not constitute significant interchange. The Regional Director's decision aligns with Board precedent, indicating that such limited contact does not meet the threshold for interchange. Unlike the Pinkerton case, where substantial transfers were documented, Dunbar has only provided one instance of a bona fide temporary transfer, reinforcing the conclusion that the single-site presumption remains intact.
The Regional Director's assessment of various factors supporting the appropriateness of a single-site bargaining unit for the Cinnaminson facility favored the Union's position. Key points include:
1. **Bargaining History**: The absence of any contrary bargaining history led to a conclusion that this factor supports the Union's desired single-site unit, consistent with prior case law.
2. **Employee Similarities**: Although Dunbar employees share similar skills, functions, and working conditions, this similarity did not negate the presumption favoring a single-site unit, as it did not diminish the appropriateness of the Cinnaminson unit compared to others.
3. **Geographic Proximity**: The distance of 60 miles to the nearest branch and 130 miles to another proposed branch was significant, reinforcing the appropriateness of the single-site bargaining unit, despite geographic proximity not being a decisive factor alone.
The Board concluded that Dunbar did not demonstrate that the Regional Director's decision was arbitrary or irrational. The presumption favoring single-site units was upheld, leading to the Board's enforcement of its order. Notably, Dunbar's reliance on past cases did not show significant local management control over the proposed unit. Furthermore, evidence of employee interchange necessary to undermine the single-site presumption was not sufficiently demonstrated by Dunbar.
