FAA Concord T, Inc., dba Concord Toyota

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 22, 2020

32-RC-255130 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FAA CONCORD T, INC., D/B/A
CONCORD TOYOTA
Employer
and Case 32-RC-255130
MACHINISTS AUTOMOTIVE TRADES
DISTRICT LODGE NO. 190, MACHINISTS
LOCAL 1173
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 The Board also remands
1 In denying review, we agree with the Regional Director’s decision that a self-
determination election was appropriate, as modified and corrected below. We agree with the
Regional Director’s overall conclusions that the petitioned-for voting unit of advisors is an
identifiable, distinct segment so as to constitute an appropriate voting group and that it shares a
community of interest with the existing unit of technicians and parts employees. See, e.g.,
Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993, 995 (1990). The RD erred, however, in finding that the
advisors’ shared community of interest necessarily showed that they are an identifiable, distinct
segment so as to constitute an appropriate voting group; even where a proposed voting group
shares a community of interest, it is not an identifiable, distinct segment if it is an arbitrary
segment. See Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp., 194 NLRB 1063, 1063–1064 (1972).
Addressing “identifiable, distinct segment” separately, we conclude that the advisors are not an
arbitrary segment because they perform the same essential task of evaluating and ordering
necessary parts and services; generally perform the same types of tasks (e.g., initial vehicle
inspections, writing repair orders, ordering necessary parts, and dispatching the repair order to
the appropriate technician team leader); have the same general qualifications; and perform tasks
that no other classification performs. By contrast, the employees excluded from the voting
group—cashiers and a warranty administrator/clerk—perform payment and warranty
transactions with customers and have no role in explaining or recommending repairs. The voting
group of advisors is consequently not arbitrary.
We also correct two additional errors in the Regional Director’s analysis. First, she erred
in treating employee shifts and schedules, and method of compensation, as separate relevant
factors in addition to the “terms and conditions of employment” community-of-interest factor.
See Buckhorn, Inc., 343 NLRB 201, 204 (2004) (work schedules); Omni International Hotel,
283 NLRB 475, 475 & fn. 2 (1987) (tips and hourly wages). Second, she erred in analyzing
“centralized control of labor relations” as a traditional community-of-interest factor in self-
determination elections, because that factor is not relevant where, as here, the unit is a single-
facility, not a multi-facility, unit.
this matter to the Regional Director with a directive to issue a certification of results, which is the
proper certification in any self-determination election, irrespective of the results. See Public
Service Co. of Colorado, 365 NLRB No. 104, slip op. at 1 (2017).
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 22, 2020.