Frito-Lay, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

FRITO-LAY, INC. 1011
Frito-Lay , Inc. and Sales Drivers & Helpers Local 274,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers
of America ,' Petitioner . Case 28-RC-2390
April 9, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Harroliese
Brown. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the
Acting Regional Director for Region 28, the case was
transferred to the Board for decision.
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.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization as
defined in the Act and claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within, the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Employer manufactures various snack
products and distributes them throughout the United
States. The Employer's administration structure, for
purposes of sales and distribution, is organized
geographically by zone, division, region, and district,
in order of decreasing size.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of approxi-
mately 29 route salesmen in Districts 51, 53, and 54
of the Employer's Region 2 of Division 4 of the
Western Sales Zone and a single warehouseman
located at the Employer's distribution center in
Phoenix, Arizona. One of the route salesman sought
by the Petitioner operates out of a distribution center
in Casa Grande, Arizona, about 50 miles southeast of
Phoenix, and the remaining route salesmen operate
out of the Phoenix warehouse or distribution center.
The Employer contends that the smallest appropri-
ate unit is one comprising all of the route salesmen in
Region 2, including the employees sought by the
Petitioner and those assigned to Districts 52 and 60
in the Tucson, Arizona, vicinity, and District 55 in
Las Vegas, Nevada. There is no history of collective
bargaining.
Major overall sales programs for the corporation,
such as product promotions and sales contests, are
planned at the corporate headquarters level in
Dallas, Texas. The administration of those programs,
employee compensation, and fringe benefits are all
handled at the zone and division levels.
The record reveals that implementation of the
Employer's sales. effort is effectuated at the regional
level. All products are manufactured outside the
region, and are shipped to the various distribution
centers within the region to be picked up by the route
salesman to be delivered to the various retail stores
which are the Employer's product outlets. The
regional sales manager is responsible for determining
how these products are allocated within his region.
He is also responsible, for the profits from his region
and for expense planning for the region, which
includes salesmen's compensation, truck expenses,
purchasing, warehouse expansion, and locations.
Although each district has a district sales manager
who is concededly a supervisor, the record reveals
that the district sales managers have no authority in
these matters. Indeed, the record shows that, under
the Employer's method of operation, it is not
possible to determine expenses at any level below
that of the region, and that profits are not broken
down by district.
All route salesmen assigned to Region 2 are
recruited, screened, and hired by the regional sales
manager, and again the district sales managers have
no authority in this area. Although district sales
managers may participate in the initiation of discipli-
nary procedures, the record reveals that decisions
concerning disciplinary measures and terminations
are solely within the province of the regional sales
manager. The only specific instance in the record of
a district sales manager's recommendation concern-
ing discharge or hire of an employee is one
recommending termination which was resolved by
the regional sales manager by declining to terminate
the employee.3
Although the route salesmen operating out of
Tucson and Las Vegas (and indeed the individual
who works out of Casa Grande) are widely separated
from those utilizing the Phoenix distribution center,
I The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing. regional sales manager conducts hiring interviews or is "usually" present
2 The Employer's motion to permit oral argument is hereby denied as, in when he issues verbal warnings falls far short of establishing that the district
our opinion, the record in this case adequately presents the issues and sales manager plays a "significant role in hire, discharge, and discipline" as
positions of all the parties. the dissent claims.
3 That the district sales manager is present "in.some cases" when the
202 NLRB No. 143
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tucson is only 90 minutes from Phoenix by automo-
bile and Las Vegas is only 45 minutes distant by air.
Eighty percent of the regional sales manager's time is
typically spent traveling throughout his region, a
total of approximately 50,000 miles a year. Thus, the
regional sales manager testified that he is well
acquainted with each of the route salesmen in the
region and is able to closely observe the work
performance of each. The record reveals that the
regional -sales manager conducts frequent inspections
of routes, discusses problems directly with the route
salesmen, observes their work, appraises them, and
evaluates them for promotion to district sales
manager openings. All such promotions are made by
the regional sales manager and are made without
regard to district boundaries. Only the regional sales
manager has access to the route salesmen's personnel
records and files, which are maintained by him.
Work rules, dress codes, and vehicle maintenance
standards are all established by the regional sales
manager. Recompense for route salesmen's out-of-
pocket expenses must be approved by the regional
sales manager. Trucks are purchased regionally by
the Employer. Title is vested in the Employer, but the
trucks are garaged by the individual route salesmen
at their homes. It is the policy of the Employer to
assign new trucks to route salesmen in the most
outlying areas where maintenance is more difficult
and to reassign older trucks to routes in urban areas.
When the Employer obtains a new retail outlet
customer, the regional sales manager is responsible
for establishing the relationship and authorizing any
promotions concommitant therewith. Likewise, all
sales promotions are regionwide, are established by
the regional sales manager, and customers are
informed of such events by him. Customers are also
notified of price changes by the, regional sales
manager who is also responsible for collecting from
delinquent customers and for obtaining the best
space available in the customers' stores.
It is clear from the record that district sales
managers have no authority or function with regard
to any of the above, with the exception of their
minimal role in the early stages of disciplinary
action. The functions of the district sales manager
are limited to aiding the route salesmen in training,
to building displays, and to covering routes through-
out the region which are open due to absence or
vacations. Specifically, it is clear that district sales
managers have little or no authority over any terms
or conditions of employment, and could not repre-
sent the Employer in collective bargaining.
In determining whether the unit petitioned for in a
particular case is appropriate, the Board has tradi-
tionally looked to the community of interest among
the employees sought to be represented: whether
they comprise a homogeneous, identifiable, and
distinct group; whether they are interchanged with
other employees; the extent of common supervision,.
previous history of bargaining, and the geographic
proximity of various parts of the Employer's opera-
tion. Also, it is well settled that there may be more
than one way in which employees of an employer
may appropriately be ' grouped for purposes of
collective bargaining. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, 156 NLRB 1408.
The factual considerations discussed above support
the Employer's contention that the smallest appropri-
ate unit is one encompassing all of Region 2. While
the record also reveals that, in addition to the
geographical considerations, there is little or no
employee interchange either on 'a temporary or
permanent basis among the districts in Region 2,
there is substantial product transfer among districts,
the district sales managers are utilized on a need
basis throughout the region, and the four relief
salesmen in the region are assigned and utilized on a
regional basis. The fact that the route salesmen
sought by the Petitioner, with the exception of the
Casa Grande salesman,4 all operate out of the
Phoenix distribution center, would in other circum-
stances be a factor tending to support the appropri-
ateness of a unit limited to those employees. But the
record indicates that they spend only about 1 hour a
day picking up supplies at the distribution center,
and it does not even affirmatively appear that they
are all present at the distribution center at the same
time.
In view of the factors enumerated above, and
particularly in light of the almost total lack of
autonomy at any level below the region, the high
degree of authority at the regional sales manager
level over hiring, transfer, promotion, discipline,
discharge, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, the fact that the Phoenix employees' contacts
with one another are limited, and the lack of
common supervision in the requested unit, we find
the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. We
further find that the smallest appropriate unit is one
comprised of all six districts in the Employer's
Region 2. In so finding, we are not unmindful that
the Board has previously found appropriate a unit
almost identical to the one sought herein.5 However,
that case was predicated upon a different corporate
organization which existed until 1969, and under
which authority was diffused among the district and
4 Presumably our dissenting colleagues would include the Casa Grande • town which is located almost halfway between Phoenix and Tucson.
salesman in the unit they found appropriate , undeterred by the fact that he 5 Frito-Lay, Inc., 170 NLRB 1678.
operates out of and utilizes warehouse facilities located in Casa Grande, a
FRITO-LAY, INC. 1013
regional levels and a subsequently abolished interme-
diary "Area" level of authority. Since the Employer's
1969 reorganization, the Board has found inappro-
priate a 'unit limited to three districts in a region
composed of six districts.6
We are at a loss to understand our dissenting
colleagues' expressions of surprise with respect to our
reliance on these factors, and are totally baffled by
their view that characterizes the evidence as to the
lack of authority of district managers as "irrelevant."
In the case in Volume 177, supra, involving this same
employer, a majority of this Board, including one of
our now-dissenting colleagues, found that the former
existence of this local autonomy had been "the
essential factor" in finding appropriate a unit such as
is sought here. Frito-Lay, Inc., 177 NLRB 820, 821.7
Admittedly, that case involved different geographic
considerations. However, in view of the clear holding
of the Board therein, our dissenting colleagues are, in
our view, in serious error when they fail now to even
consider relevant what this Board considered as "the
essential factor."
The autonomy over day-to-day operations which is
so totally lacking at the local level (and which we
consider very relevant) is to be found herein vested in
the regional sales manager. Many of the terms and
conditions of employment, which taken together
create a community of interest among employees,
derive from such control. Of course, this factor is
"employer-controlled," as the dissent points out. But
then, so are almost all of the indicia for determining
where the community of interest lies. Employers
determine the location, size, and nature of their
facilities, choose the method and amount of wage
payments, establish hours, choose those employees
who shall be paid overtime and bonuses, control
employee interchange between facilities, determine
lines of progression, enforce dress and behavior
codes, and establish and enforce disciplinary proce-
dures. To characterize these factors as "employer-
controlled" is merely to recognize a fact of industrial
life, and does not serve to destroy their relevancy as
unit determinants. Thus, our decision does not
constitute a move "to a new administrative theory
calculated to insure unit control by employer
organization," but rather represents reliance upon
those time-tested factors which establish what unit is
appropriate for collective bargaining.
In the last analysis, we believe, the dissent is
6 Frito-Lay, Inc., 177 NLRB 820; see also Frito-Lay, Inc., 4-RC-9702
(not published).
r In that case , the Board stated:
It is evident that the essential factor which made a unit of three
Districts appropriate, in a Region comprised of six Districts , was the
Area Manager's "considerable autonomy in the day-to-day operations
within his (A)rea ," and it was for that reason that the Board denied
review of the Regional Director 's unit finding . But since it is clear that
reduced to reliance solely on the one factor of the
geographic proximity of the Phoenix-based employ-
ees-a consideration which is certainly relevant in
determining units generally. But this factor is of
substantially less importance in, this instance than it
would be in a case concerning employees who work
in close and steady contact in a plant or on a selling
floor. Here, the employees sought spend their
working day on the road, separate and apart from
one another. Although they work out of Phoenix,
their workday contacts with,one another are limited
to the approximately 1 hour they spend at the
warehouse in the morning picking up supplies, and
there is no showing that they all come together there
even at that time. Indeed, the record indicates that
some of them do not go into the warehouse in the
morning at all.
As we have found that the unit sought by the
Petitioner is inappropriate and as Petitioner has
indicated no interest in the larger unit found
appropriate herein, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS, dissenting:
The smallest appropriate unit here, say our
colleagues, must encompass the Employer's Region 2
(of Division 4, Western Zone). This means a two-
state unit of route salesmen working in widely
separated locations in Arizona and Nevada. It would
include 49 route salesmen instead of the 29 now
sought who work out of the Phoenix distribution
center.
Since 1947, in making its unit findings , .the Board,
has had the statutory responsibility not to give
controlling weight to the extent of employee organi-
zation.8 This provision is a Taft-Hartley addition to
Section 9 of the Act, designed to overrule a unit
theory which prior to that time had been used in
some cases by the Board. The change was opposed in
Congress by those who feared it would prevent small
operational units, particularly in businesses with
widespread operations. We have before us such a
business. Senator Taft, in analyzing the section from
that standpoint, saw no problem in light of numerous
tests evolved by the Board to determine appropriate
units, "such as community of interest of employees
involved, extent of common supervision,-interchange
the administrative changes brought about by Respondent 's reorganiza-
tion of its operations eliminated the "considerable autonomy" of the
Area Manager completely, the essential factor which made a unit of
three Districts in an administrative and geographical grouping of six
(now five) Districts is missing.
6 Sec. 9(c)(5) of the Act provides: " In determining whether a unit is
appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) the extent to which
the employees have organized shall not be controlling."
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees, geographical considerations, etc. any
one of which may justify the finding of a small unit."
(Emphasis supplied.)9
In the intervening 25 years the cases are legion in
which the Board has implemented the spirit of that
interpretation. Now, however, our colleagues select
among the factors mentioned by Senator Taft one
which, is wholly employer-controlled -common
supervision-and apply it in a manner that requires a
two-state unit. This means six districts, each with its
own district manager, three based in Phoenix, two
based in Tucson, 120 miles to the southeast, and one
based in Las Vegas, 293 miles to the northwest. Thus,
they move from the statutory prohibition of unit
control by extent of employee organization to a new
administrative theory calculated to insure unit
control by employer organization. Based on this
organization a regional sales manager who has
ultimate hire and discharge authority, and recognizes
his 49 route salesmen on those occasions when he
sees them, becomes the focal requirement for a viable
bargaining unit. It matters- not at all that the
geography being what it is, the 49 are brought
together only once a year.
Quite explicitly our colleagues say that because "a
different corporate organization" now exists, there is
no longer validity in 'a Phoenix-based unit though
admittedly almost identical to one found appropriate
by the Board in April 1968.10 They see the organiza
tional elimination of a former area level of authority,
between district and region, as elimination of
meaningful common supervision. They also see the
corporate reorganization of this Employer as having
received carte blanche Board sanction for unit
purposes in. another case, a refusal-to-bargain pro-
ceeding involving Southern California route sales-
men of this Employer.11 Brushing aside the virtually
unchanged working conditions for Phoenix-based
employees since the 1968 Phoenix case, emphasizing
the intervening corporate reorganization; and ignor-
ing highly significant factual variations in the
California case, the majority here disposes of time-
hbnored criteria like employee community of inter-
est, lack of interchange, and obvious geographic
cohesiveness. "Any one" of these, and certainly the
three in combination, dictates a contrary result.
The earlier case involving Phoenix: In 1968 the
Employer urged a unit consisting of all route
salesmen in Arizona and the southern part of
California. There was no employee interchange
among the three districts then existing in Arizona.
One was at Tucson, and the other two, which were
petitioned for, were at Phoenix. The Phoenix-based
salesmen worked out of the Phoenix warehouse.
Their district managers shared the.-Phoenix district
office and "frequently" held their weekly meetings
with, route salesmen on a joint basis for the Phoenix
districts. Now, these same salesmen have been
grouped in three districts based in Phoenix, operate
out of the same common warehouse, and cover the
same geographical area of "Phoenix and the immedi-
ate area outside of Phoenix." 12 "Some" joint
meetings of all Phoenix-based salesmen are still held.
Interchange is still nonexistent.13
"Areawide meetings" in 1968 were said to number
only two or three per year. Now, it appears that the
only occasion when more than Phoenix, salesmen get
together -is the annual regional sales meeting for
route salesmen of the six districts. Unlike the weekly
district meetings held on company premises, the
annual regional meeting is held at a motel.
Tucson is still the nearest warehouse to Phoenix
out. of which other route salesmen operate. Now
there is also a warehouse at Las Vegas, 293 miles
away.14 Referring, as the majority does, to Las Vegas
as only 45 minutes "by air" from Phoenix is
meaningless to suggest community of interest on a
regional basis among route salesmen who drive
trucks. For that matter, 90 minutes "by auto" from
Tucson to Phoenix, which implies nonstop driving, is
hardly meaningful.
In 1968 the area manager for the two Phoenix
districts supervised the district managers , attended
weekly district sales meetings, and was responsible
for making chainstore contracts. He exchanged
trucks within the area to equalize their mileage and
made recommendations concerning route changes
and district boundaries. He also recommended hiring
and discharge although, as the Board noted, the
regional manager usually made the final decisions.
The district managers trained and directed route
salesmen , prepared reports of sales and inventory,
held weekly sales meetings , and made calls on major
accounts. They assisted route salesmen with difficult
collections, display work, and complaints and re-
lieved sick or vacationing route salesmen. They
"usually" recommended the hiring and firing of
route salesmen, but their recommendations required
9 93 Cong. Rec. 7002; Leg. Hist. of the Management Relations Act of
1947, Vol. 11, p. 1625.
10 Frito-Lay, Inc., 170 NLRB 1678 (Case 28-RC-1732).
11 Frito-Lay, Inc., 177 NLRB 820, growing out of Case 31-RC-787,
unpublished.
12 Only two witnesses testified: Clegg, the Employer's vice president for
labor relations , and Ellery, the regional sales manager for Region-2 from
1968 until shortly before the hearing.
13 An "area relief man" was included in the Phoenix unit in 1968. Now
there are three relief men stationed at Phoenix , and one at Tucson.
14 Bin-type storage is provided at Tucson and Las Vegas ; no warehouse-
man is stationed at either location . At Las Vegas distribution of product was
formerly accomplished by a contract distributer. Currently in Arizona there
are eight independent distributors serving areas not covered by employees
based at Phoenix and Tucson. Distributors receive product deliveries direct
from California.
FRITO-LAY, INC. 1015
the approval of both the area and the regional
manager. Now, according to the testimony of Vice
President Clegg, the primary' function of district
managers is to train new employees pursuant to a 3-
week formalized program. He also testified, however,
that they make sure the routes are run each day and
make recommendations in regard to hire and
.discharge,. with the ultimate decision still made by
the regional manager. It also appears that district
managers are present "in some cases" when the
regional sales manager conducts his own hiring
interview, and "usually" present when he issues a
verbal warning. Taken in conjunction with admitted
recommendations of hire and discharge, which our
colleagues choose to ignore, we view this record as
showing that the district manager plays a significant
role in personnel matters, with the regional sales
manager engaging largely in "paper work" approval.
We note that the record instance of discharge
recommended by a district manager-which the
majority would minimize because the regional
manager "declined" to discharge-has the ring, as
described in the record, of a higher echelon supervi-
sor talking a lesser one out of his recommendation,
after a three-way discussion with the salesman. In
our view it fails to establish that the district managers
do not make effective recommendations.
. Taken as a whole, the record here reflects the fact
that regional managers took on functions such as
expense planning, forecasting, and chainstore con-
tracts when area managers were eliminated, but that
district managers and their route salesmen continued
to operate as before. Regional managers already had
ultimate approval of hire and discharge which the
elimination of area managers did not change. The
majority emphasizes: irrelevant matters when it
speaks of district managers having no authority to
function with respect to sales programs, price
changes, terms and conditions of employment, such
as work rules and dress codes, and not representing
the Employer in collective bargaining. District
managers are admittedly, supervisors working in close
conjunction with route salesmen and holding weekly
meetings for them (some of which are jointly held for
all route salesmen in the three Phoenix-based
districts), often checking out merchandise to route
salesmen when the Phoenix warehouseman is not at
the warehouse, and playing a significant role in hire,
discharge, and discipline.15 We do not say that a
regional unit is inappropriate. We do say that, on the
record here made, a Phoenix-based unit of "geo-
15 According to this record district managers also have some responsibil-
ity for proper truck appearance and maintenance.
16 The record hardly supports a finding that regional sales managers are
"well acquainted" with each salesman, but rather that he "knows them .. .
can identify them by sight." And the majority finding that he "closely
observes the work performance of each" must surely be based to a great
graphically contiguous districts" is no less appropri-.
ate than it was in 1968. Frito-Lay, Inc., 170 NLRB
1678, 1679. The Board there said:
Thus, the two-district unit requested by the
Petitioner includes all of the route salesmen in
geographically contiguous districts, who are
engaged in the same work under the same
working conditions; operate out of the only
warehouse in the metropolitan area of Phoenix;
and. who have separate immediate supervision
and are geographically separated from other route
salesmen , with whom they do not interchange, by
at least 120 miles. Accordingly, we find that a unit
composed of all route salesmen in the two
districts who work out of the Phoenix warehouse
is appropriate.
We agree with our colleagues that implementation
of the Employer's sales effort is effectuated at the
regional level, but note that they fail to say that the
regional sales manager spends only 20 percent of his
time in Phoenix where the regional office is located.
We suggest that they ponder the limited time spent in
Phoenix by the regional sales manager and the
largely sales promotion and economic planning
functions he necessarily performs there, rather than
the lack of specific evidence that all route salesmen
converge on the Phoenix distribution center at the
same time each 'day. It is clear that they normally
load their trucks in the morning. Their opportunity
for daily, 'contact among themselves while loading
needs no amplification, but the regional sales
manager's opportunity for change contact with
salesmen at Phoenix could be just I day a week, or I
week in 5 weeks; the record does not show. In fact
there is no evidence that such contact occurs at all
unless he attends a district sales meeting in the
building. And, as to that, there is no evidence as to
frequency. While traveling, it appears from the
record that the regional sales manager makes spot
checks, which may develop into a personal contact
with a salesman if he finds a problem.16 Regular
supervisory contact, of this frequency much less this
type, has often been viewed by the Board'as too little
to negate autonomy at a lower supervisory level.17 It
appears that our colleagues prefer to ignore the true
implications here concerning the limitations on'
regional supervision and to focus upon the ultimate
approval of hire and discharge even though that
factor is unchanged, since the earlier case which
granted the Phoenix unit. In the final analysis they
are setting up separate rules for route salesmen, on
extent on the weekly sales ieports sent in by the various district managers,
which result in a chart for each salesman on the regional office wall.
17 See Waigreen Co., 198 NLRB No. 158, where once a month visits by
central management were termed infrequent , and Big N Department Store
No. 333, 199 NLRB No. 28, where once a week visits were similarly viewed.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the flimsy distinction that they have no- selling floor
or plant for mutual contact.
The earlier case involving Southern California: In
this case the Employer, after its corporate reorgani-
zation eliminating area managers, refused to bargain
fora three-district unit of route salesmen. It appears
that our colleagues misjudge the true purport of that
Board dismissal. Although the Board found that the
corporate reorganization was undertaken for legiti-
mate business purposes, following which the essential
factor of area supervision supporting a three-district
unit in Southern California was missing, it specifical-
ly found in addition that the three-district group was
"not a well defined and separate geographic unit,"
noting that the dispersion of the warehouses showed
one "substantially closer" to a warehouse which
served the remaining districts than it was to other
warehouses serving the three districts specifically
sought. Frito-Lay, Inc., 177 NLRB 820, 821. The
geographical considerations of the instant case are
,18 The regional sales manager may at times conduct any of these
meetings, though they are basically the responsibility of the district
manager. Contrary to the majority's implication that covering routes
throughout the region is a function of district managers is the following
pertinent testimony: "They work within their district, primarily, unless there
is a need for them to be assigned somewhere else. They are riding with
salesmen and relieving them for sick leave when we have no relief man
available . Other than that they are running ,. riding routes with the
salesmen ." Could it be otherwise when it is clear that district managers have
a sales quota for their districts as a base for the incentive bonus which they
receive?
19 Mesmerized by three words-"the essential factor"-which appear in'
the majority's quote at fn. 7, words which we obviously considered relevant
and used in analyzing the Southern California decision as a whole, our
colleagues insist upon ignoring three whole sentences which immediately
follow their quote, to wit:
... There is nothing in the record to show that the employees in
entirely different. The three Phoenix districts utilize a
common Phoenix warehouse at which the route
salesmen have daily opportunity for contact before
starting on their routes, and weekly opportunity for
contact at meetings, some of which are three-district
meetings. Tucson and Las Vegas each has its own
warehouse and conducts its own sales meetings.18 A
more appropriate setup for separate geographic units
than exists in this Arizona-Nevada Region 2 is hard
to imagine. This was not true in Southern California,
as the Board specifically found. It ill behooves the
majority to shut its eyes to these significant facts and.
assume that a 1969 corporate reorganization has
rendered regional units ,.alone appropriate for the
route salesmen of this Employer, with no regard for
the scope of the region or, the almost total lack of
employee contact on a regional basis.19
We would direct an election in the Phoenix-based
unit sought.
Districts 08, 09 , and 10 enjoy a community of interest separate and
apart from the employees in the remaining Districts in the Region. Nor
can we say that the three Districts in question constitute a well defined
and separate geographical unit. Thus, the Bloomington warehouse in
Region II serving some of the employees in the three Districts involved
herein (08, 09, and 10) is actually substantially closer to the Glendora
warehouse , serving employees in the other two Districts (06 and 07)
than it is to the other warehouses in Districts 08, 09, and 10 which the
Union sought as part of the three District unit ... .
We cannot conveniently disregard these sentences . The record in the instant
case supplies precisely what was lacking in the above-cited case to establish
the appropriateness of the proposed unit in view of the discontinuance of
area managers . If the simple management device of employer organization
or reorganization is to be determinative regardless of record facts
concerning employee community of interest- and pertinent geographical
considerations , then clearly the trend is to remove unit findings from the
Board's control.