Macy's West, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 1222 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1222
Macy’s West, Inc. and International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, Local 428, AFL–CIO, Petitioner.
Case 28–RC–5422
March 31, 1999
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On June 25, 1996, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 28 issued the attached Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding (pertinent por-
tions are attached as an appendix). He found that a unit
consisting of all maintenance engineers employed by the
Employer at its six facilities located in two cities in Ari-
zona is an appropriate unit for bargaining, and that the
chief engineer is not a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Acting Regional Director’s decision. The Employer con-
tended that a separate maintenance unit is not an appro-
priate unit for bargaining. It alternatively argued that
even if a separate maintenance unit is found appropriate,
the unit must include all maintenance engineers assigned
to each of its stores in Las Vegas, Nevada, and its store
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as well as its Arizona
stores. The Employer also contended that the chief engi-
neer is a statutory supervisor. On July 24, 1996, the
Board granted the Employer’s request for review. The
election was held as scheduled on July 24, 1996, and the
ballots were impounded pending the Board’s Decision on
Review. The Petitioner filed a brief on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the Petitioner’s brief on review, with re-
spect to the issues on review and has decided, for the
reasons set forth in the attached Acting Regional Direc-
tor’s decision, and the reasons set forth below, to affirm
the Acting Regional Director’s conclusions that a unit
consisting solely of the Employer’s maintenance engi-
neers is appropriate for bargaining. We also affirm, for
the reasons set forth by the Acting Regional Director,
that chief engineer Bob Smith is not a statutory supervi-
sor.1 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Act-
ing Regional Director’s conclusion that a unit limited to
the Employer’s facilities in Arizona is appropriate.

1 The maintenance engineers primarily work on their own without
supervision. Chief Engineer Smith, the most highly skilled mainte-
nance engineer with respect to heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) equipment, asks engineers to assist him or to correct problems
that he spots in the HVAC equipment. Smith provides technical direc-
tion based on his superior technical skills to engineers on nonroutine
projects. Smith may also send an employee to get needed supplies and
parts for projects. In general, maintenance engineers talk to Smith once
or twice a week regarding the HVAC equipment. Under these circum-
stances, the record fails to establish that Smith’s role, based on his
technical expertise, in assigning and directing maintenance engineers,
involves the use of independent judgment under Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
See Chevron Shipping Co., 317 NLRB 379 (1995). See also Provi-
dence Hospital, 320 NLRB 717 (1996), affd. sub nom. Providence
Alaska Medical Center v. NLRB, 121 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1997).
The Employer is engaged in the sale and distribution
of general retail merchandise and related products in a
number of locations, including the western United States.
The Employer’s stores are divided into geographical re-
gions. The southwest region consists of four stores in
Phoenix, Arizona, two in Tucson, Arizona, four in Las
Vegas, Nevada, and one in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Dennis Hunt is the Employer’s divisional maintenance
manager for the southwest region, and he is responsible
for the housekeeping and maintenance of the Employer’s
facilities located in these States.2 Hunt works from an
office in one of the Phoenix stores. Six to seven mainte-
nance engineers report to him directly—two to three in
Phoenix, one in Tucson, two in Las Vegas, and one in
Albuquerque.
The Phoenix stores are within 20 minutes driving time
of each other. The Tucson stores are located approxi-
mately 117 miles (2 hours driving time) from the Phoe-
nix stores, the Las Vegas stores are about 290 miles from
Phoenix (about 4–1/2 hours driving time) and the Albu-
querque store is located about 431 miles (about 8 hours
driving time) from the Phoenix stores.3 The distance
between Albuquerque and Las Vegas is 579 miles (about
10 hours driving time).
The Acting Regional Director found that a unit limited
to the facilities in the six stores in Phoenix and Tucson is
appropriate for bargaining. He noted that all of the em-
ployees in the unit sought by the Petitioner report to the
same supervisor and are within relatively close proximity
of one other. He found that they occasionally inter-
change, substitute for, and assist one another. By con-
trast, the Acting Regional Director found virtually no
interchange of employees between the Phoenix/Tucson
stores and the stores in Las Vegas and Albuquerque.
In determining whether a petitioned-for multilocation
unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, the Board

With respect to the assignment of overtime, Divisional Maintenance
Manager Dennis Hunt testified that when Smith is contacted about or is
aware of a maintenance problem at a store that needs attention during
off hours (weekends or evenings), Smith, without authorization from
higher management, may contact a maintenance engineer and ask the
engineer to handle the problem. However, Hunt testified that if an-
other maintenance engineer besides Smith is contacted first during off
hours concerning a problem, he assumes that the employee might call
Smith and ask him to handle the problem, and that maintenance engi-
neers help each other out in that regard. We further note Hunt’s testi-
mony that he has always instructed on-call maintenance engineers that
they had his approval to enter the stores during off-duty hours to handle
emergencies. Thus, the record fails to establish that Smith may require
a maintenance engineer to work overtime, or that such an assignment
requires the exercise of independent judgment. Providence Hospital,
320 NLRB at 732.
2 The housekeeping functions are performed by a contract service.
3 See Rand McNally Standard Highway Mileage Guide (1993).
327 NLRB No. 201
MACY’S WEST, INC. 1223
examines traditional community-of-interest factors, in-
cluding similarity in employee skills, duties, and working
conditions; centralized control of management and su-
pervision; functional integration, including employee
interchange; geographic separation of facilities; collec-
tive-bargaining history; extent of union organization, and
employee choice. See NLRB v. Carson Cable TV, 795
F.2d 879, 884–885 (9th Cir. 1986).
Contrary to the Acting Regional Director, we find that
a unit limited to the stores located in Phoenix and Tucson
is not appropriate for bargaining, and that the smallest
appropriate unit must also include the stores in Las Ve-
gas and Albuquerque. The six to seven maintenance
engineers in all of the stores—Phoenix, Tucson, Las Ve-
gas, and Albuquerque—share similar skills, duties, and
working conditions. All of them work under and report
directly to Hunt, the divisional maintenance manager.
There is no separate supervision of employees working
in Tucson and Phoenix. Most significantly, the chief
engineer, Bob Smith, who constitutes one-third or one-
fourth of the three to four person unit found appropriate
by the Acting Regional Director,4 travels to Las Vegas
approximately once a month for 2 days at a time and to
Albuquerque every other month to provide assistance to
the engineers at these stores in technical areas involving
the HVAC equipment. He, thus, has significant interac-
tion with the other employees whose terms and condi-
tions of employment are otherwise identical with those
enjoyed by employees in Phoenix and Tucson. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that a unit limited to
the Phoenix/Tucson facilities is not appropriate.5 Rather,
the only appropriate unit also includes stores in Las Ve-
gas and Albuquerque, notwithstanding the substantial
geographic separation between these stores and the peti-
tioned-for stores (a factor which is somewhat offset by
the substantial separation between the petitioned-for
Phoenix and Tucson stores).
Although we reverse the Acting Regional Director as
to the scope of the unit, we affirm the Acting Regional
Director’s finding that a separate unit of maintenance
engineers is an appropriate unit for bargaining. In doing
so, we note that the maintenance engineers are separately
supervised by Divisional Maintenance Manager Dennis
Hunt. The maintenance engineers possess mechanical
skills in electricity, plumbing, and heating, ventilation
and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment that is unique to
their classification. They earn higher wages than the
average wages of other hourly employees. They are as-

4 Smith spends the majority of his time in the Phoenix and Tucson
facilities.
5 We note that this case presents the issue of whether a petitioned-for
multilocation unit is an appropriate unit for bargaining or whether other
locations must be included. This is not a case involving the appropri-
ateness of a petitioned-for single facility unit or of an overall unit of
the Employer’s stores, in which there would be a presumption of ap-
propriateness.
signed a portion of their work under a unique work order
system. In addition, maintenance engineers do not inter-
change with employees in other job classifications at the
stores. Also, the record contains minimal evidence of
transfers in or out of the maintenance department. See
Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016, 1019 fn. 3 (1994), and
cases cited therein.6 Contrary to our dissenting col-
league’s contention, the fact that the maintenance engi-
neers and other employees perform some overlapping
functions, such as lamping, is not determinative. Id. at
1018. Further, we note, as found by the Acting Regional
Director, that the maintenance engineers’ participation in
special projects is generally limited to performing any
electrical work necessary for the project, not the func-
tions performed by other employees.
Based on the above, the Acting Regional Director’s
Decision and Direction of Election is affirmed with re-
spect to the findings that a separate maintenance unit is
appropriate for bargaining and that chief engineer Bob
Smith is not a supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act. However, we find that the maintenance engi-
neers in the Las Vegas, Nevada and Albuquerque, New
Mexico facilities must be included in the unit found ap-
propriate. Accordingly, the Acting Regional Director’s
Decision and Direction of Election with respect to the
exclusion of the Las Vegas and Albuquerque facilities is
reversed.
ORDER
This proceeding is remanded to the Regional Director
for further appropriate action, consistent with the find-
ings herein.

MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
I find that the Employer’s maintenance engineers do
not constitute a separate appropriate unit.1 Accordingly,
I would dismiss the petition.2
To constitute a separate appropriate unit, the Board re-
quires that the petitioned-for maintenance employees
comprise a readily identifiable group whose “similarity
of function and skills create a community of interest such
as would warrant separate representation.” American
Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909, 910 (1961); Harrah’s
Illinois Corp., 319 NLRB 749 (1995). Based on such
factors as overlapping job functions and interaction with
other hourly employees, I find that this standard has not
6 Compare: Harrah’s Illinois Corp., 319 NLRB 749 (1995), in which
the petitioned-for maintenance trade employees were not separately
supervised and were not grouped administratively in a separate depart-
ment, and there were frequent transfers and job interaction between the
maintenance trade employees and other employees.
1 I find a separate maintenance unit inappropriate regardless whether
it encompasses the Phoenix and Tucson locations—sought by the Un-
ion, or additionally includes the Albuquerque and Las Vegas loca-
tions—as found by the majority.
2 Because I find a separate maintenance unit inappropriate, I do not
reach the issue of chief engineer Smith’s alleged supervisory status.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1224
been met.3 See generally Westin Hotel, 277 NLRB 1506
(1986).
Although the petitioned-for employees perform certain
“maintenance” functions such as lamping, electrical
work, HVAC, plumbing, painting, and repairs, other
hourly employees perform some of the same work.
Thus, while maintenance employees spend one-third of
their time on lamping work, virtually all other hourly
employees also perform this work—particularly dock
employees. Dockmen, like the maintenance engineers,
also repair shelves and build walls. And, when mainte-
nance engineers are unavailable, handymen perform
painting and minor maintenance work. Finally, during
maintenance emergencies, such as water leaks, all em-
ployees help out.
Maintenance engineers also perform nonmaintenance
work. For example, when working on special projects
(which—with special requests—comprise one-third of
their work), the maintenance engineer often will help
finish the entire project, not just the maintenance aspect.
And, significantly, when working on these special pro-
jects, such as displays, seasonal decorations, and moving
departments, the maintenance engineers work along side
and interact with other hourly employees.
In sum, because I find that the maintenance engineers
do not have a sufficiently distinct community of interest
warranting their separate representation, I would dismiss
the petition.4
APPENDIX
REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
The parties stipulated that the Employer, a Delaware corpo-
ration, with its principal office and place of business in Phoe-
nix, Arizona, is engaged in the sale and distribution of general
retail merchandise and related products in a number of loca-
tions in the western United States, including Arizona, where it
has a total of six stores, four in Phoenix and two in Tucson.
During the past year, it derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 from the sale and distribution of products. During the

3 The maintenance engineers also have much in common with the
Employer’s other hourly employees: they use the same employee
entrances, punch the same timeclock, wear the same employee identifi-
cation badges, are subject to the same employee handbook, participate
on the same safety committees, and are eligible for the same benefits.
And, unlike skilled maintenance employees, the instant maintenance
engineers are not required to have any licenses, degrees, or specific
training beyond that required of other hourly employees. Indeed, the
Employer has contracted out its skilled maintenance work in such areas
as escalators, elevators, alarm systems, doors, telephones, and electrical
systems. Although the Employer has retained its HVAC work, it ap-
pears that only chief engineer Smith is proficient in nonroutine HVAC
matters.
4 Contrary to the majority, I am not persuaded that the lack of trans-
fers between maintenance engineers and other hourly employees war-
rants a different result, particularly given the virtual lack of mainte-
nance engineer turnover. Nor is it determinative that maintenance
engineers have a separate regional supervisor. Thus, although the
supervisor evaluates the maintenance engineers, he solicits input from
store managers when doing so.
same period, it shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 in
interstate commerce to points located outside the State of Ari-
zona and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from out-of-state sources. Based on the parties’ stipulation, I
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all
maintenance engineers employed by the Employer at its six
facilities located in the State of Arizona. The Employer asserts,
however, that a statewide unit comprised exclusively of engi-
neers is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. It contends that the engineers share a community of interest
with the sales and sales support employees who work in the
retail stores to which the engineers are respectively assigned
and that the only appropriate unit would be single store, wall-
to-wall units of employees that would include the engineers
assigned to that particular store. Alternatively, the Employer
contends that even if a unit comprised solely of engineers is
found to be appropriate, the unit must include all maintenance
engineers who work within the regional purview of the divi-
sional maintenance manager whose jurisdiction includes Phoe-
nix and Tucson. More specifically, the Employer asserts that a
unit limited to maintenance engineers must include, in addition
to those engineers who work in Phoenix and Tucson, all main-
tenance engineers who are assigned to its four stores in Las
Vegas, Nevada, and its store in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Finally, the Employer, contrary to the Petitioner, asserts that the
position of chief engineer is supervisory within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and, therefore, any unit found appro-
priate should exclude the chief engineer.
The record reflects that the Employer operates retail depart-
ment stores in the southwestern part of the United States, in-
cluding stores that were formerly Broadway Stores, Incorpo-
rated, but were acquired by the Employer in February 1996. In
addition to a number of stores in California and Texas, the Em-
ployer has six stores in Arizona (four in Phoenix and two in
Tucson), four in Las Vegas, and one in Albuquerque. It appears
that engineers have performed some work at a distribution cen-
ter in Tempe, Arizona. However, the record also suggests that
the Employer does not operate this facility. Inasmuch as there is
no record evidence that the Petitioner is seeking to represent
any engineers working at the distribution center, there was no
contention at the hearing that the distribution center should be
included in any unit found appropriate and the Employer main-
tains that it is not one of its facilities, I shall not include the
distribution center in the unit found appropriate herein.
The Employer’s stores are divided into geographical regions,
each of which is assigned to a vice president of stores. For hu-
man resources purposes, however, the Employer groups its
stores into regions based on a different geographical composi-
tion and each region has a human resources manager. Conse-
quently, the stores within the geographical region of one vice
president of stores may be under the responsibility of two or
more human resources managers. Moreover, the record reflects
that the jurisdictional breakdown of the engineering divisions is
not coextensive with that of either the retailing or human re-
sources operations. In this regard, Dan Hunt, the Employer’s
divisional maintenance manager for the southwest region, testi-
fied that his division of responsibility encompasses Arizona,
Nevada, and New Mexico. As such, the facilities in Hunt’s
region fall within the scope of two vice presidents of stores as
well as two human resources managers. Specifically, Hunt’s
MACY’S WEST, INC. 1225
stores in Arizona and New Mexico are in Vice President of
Stores Colleen Miller’s region, which also includes several
stores in Texas. In contrast, Hunt’s Las Vegas stores are in
Vice President of Stores Jack Chestnut’s region. Similarly, the
Arizona and New Mexico stores are in one human resources
manager’s region, whereas the Las Vegas stores, together with
the Employer’s stores in Northern California, are in another
human resources manager’s region.
Each of the Employer’s retail department stores is headed by
a store manager who oversees all of the departments within the
store. The departments are classified as either sales or sales
support areas. Based on the record, it appears that the sales area
is divided into approximately 18 sales “zones” which are then
broken down into groups that are assigned to approximately 7
sales team managers who report directly to the store manager.
The team managers, in turn, have team leaders and sales asso-
ciates who work in each of the selling zones. Approximately 75
to 80 percent of the total hourly employee complement in each
store, which ranges from 141 to 188, works in sales on either a
commission or noncommission basis. The noncommission em-
ployees earn between $6.50 and $12 per hour depending on
longevity and performance. The record discloses that there are
no required qualifications for those who occupy sales jobs but
the Employer seeks aggressive individuals who have customer
service experience, some basic mathematical skills, and some
adaptability to computers.
The remaining 25 percent of employees work in sales sup-
port areas such as receiving/dock/stock gift wrap, cashier, “vis-
ual,” loss prevention, and engineering areas. The functions in
each of these areas are coordinated by an operations or assistant
manager, who reports directly to the store manager. In addition
to coordinating all of the sales support functions, the operations
manager is directly responsible for the receiving/dock/stock gift
wrap, and cashier departments.
Receiving/Dock/Stock
The record suggests that receiving/dock/stock is the largest
sales support department in each store. This department is
staffed by approximately 15 to 20 hourly employees, who work
full-time, part-time, or one of a variety of flex-time schedules; a
receiving supervisor; two to three team leaders; and the receiv-
ing manager, who reports directly to the operations manager.
The primary duties performed by the receiving/dock/stock em-
ployees include unloading merchandise from trucks, marking
merchandise, stocking stockrooms, and moving merchandise
and equipment from one area of the store to another. Addition-
ally, the record indicates that the receiving/dock/stock employ-
ees are expected to perform other miscellaneous functions as
may arise. The majority of the employees in the receiv-
ing/dock/stock department earns between $5.50 and $7 per
hour. The receiving supervisor earns approximately $9.50 while
the team leaders make between $8 to $12 per hour. The record
indicates that other than some weight lifting requirements, there
are essentially no minimum requirements to qualify for these
jobs. In performing their duties, they may utilize scanning and
ticketing guns, pallet jacks, and dollies.
Cashers & Gift Wrap
The cashiers use computer equipment and cash and coin
counting machines. Although there are no minimum job re-
quirements to qualify for a cashier’s position, potential employ-
ees with cash handling experience are preferred. With respect
to employees in gift wrap, there are no minimum job qualifica-
tions.
Visuals
The record indicates that the physical presentations of mer-
chandise in the stores are performed by “visuals” teams. These
teams ensure that the merchandise is displayed in a manner that
is consistent with corporate guidelines as set forth in a manual
called, “The San Francisco Report.” In creating their presenta-
tions, the “visuals” team members will move merchandise,
request fixture moves, and paint and hang fixtures and props.
Their duties often require the use of hot glue guns, hammers,
bank pins, electric drills, saws, paper slicers, mat knives, and
painting instruments.
The “visuals” manager has responsibility for two stores, in
each of which are assigned two team leaders. Both team leaders
are full-time, but one is salaried and the other is hourly. It ap-
pears from the record that there are no other “visuals” employ-
ees; however, their projects often call for them to work with or
come into contact with other employees, both sales and sales
support, throughout the store. Like the sales support employees
described above, it appears from the record that there are no
minimum job requirements for the team leader positions; how-
ever, the Employer might give hiring preference to creative
individuals who have some experience handling merchandise.
The salaried team leader earns the equivalent of approximately
$12.50 per hour and the hourly employee earns approximately
$8 per hour.
Loss Prevention
The record indicates that each store has a loss prevention or
security supervisor and two detectives. These individuals earn
between $8.50 and $16.75 per hour and operate a bank of ap-
proximately 25 cameras. In addition, they are responsible for
security alarms, locks, and any security issue that might arise
within the store. Additionally, the record reflects that they
might be called upon to use handcuffs, so it appears that they
are responsible for the apprehension and detention of persons
suspected of engaging in criminal activity within the store.
Engineers
As noted above, Dan Hunt is the divisional maintenance
manager responsible for the housekeeping and maintenance of
the Employer’s facilities located in Arizona, New Mexico, and
Las Vegas. Although he reports to Martin Gusky, executive
maintenance manager who is based in San Francisco, Hunt
works from an office in one of the Phoenix stores. The house-
keeping functions in Hunt’s division are performed by a con-
tract service. Hunt has six to seven maintenance engineers re-
porting to him directly as follows: two to three in Phoenix, one
in Tucson, two in Las Vegas, and one in Albuquerque. In tech-
nical areas involving the heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment, Hunt is assisted by chief
engineer Bob Smith.
With the exception of the engineer in Albuquerque, where
there is only one store, each of the engineers is assigned to two
stores. One of these stores is designated the engineer’s home
store, which is the store that determines which human resources
manager the engineer would fall undeer and where the engineer
will pick up his paycheck. The engineer is responsible for the
repair and maintenance of both assigned stores, including, but
not limited to, changing light bulbs (also referred to as “lamp-
ing”); repairing and installing lighting fixtures; installing, re-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1226
moving and/or transferring electrical outlets; maintaining and
troubleshooting the HVAC systems; repairing plumbing and
faucets; relocating phone wires; repairing store equipment such
as scanners; repairing carpet; and installing locks. Some of the
engineer’s tasks are part of the preventive maintenance pro-
gram for the particular store involved, which is reflected on a
“Weekly Maintenance Chart” that is stored in the engineering
area of the building. Other assignments are special requests
made of the engineer either orally, some time during his visit,
or in writing on a log maintained in each store and commonly
known as “the clipboard.” Finally, engineers may be assigned
by Hunt to work on a special project which the store or opera-
tions manager has specifically requested because of the time or
cost involved. In this connection, Hunt is responsible for a
budget for his division that is separate and independent of the
stores’operating budgets. Thus, Hunt is consulted by the store
manager or operations manager any time a store project will
impact his division economically or will require the use of an
engineer in a way that is outside the normal scope of the engi-
neer’ routine duties and/or will require a substantial amount of
the engineer'’ time.
The working hours for the engineers are from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. 5 days per week and the engineers located in the Phoenix
stores rotate their days off and working Saturdays. The engi-
neers’ schedules have in the past included being on-call after
work hours. The “on-call” schedule has since been eliminated;
nonetheless; if there is an emergency at one of the stores out-
side working hours, an engineer might be called upon to re-
spond to the emergency.
Generally, the engineer reports directly to one store each
day, alternating on a daily basis between the two. Upon arrival,
the engineer clocks in, which is done at any register within the
store as opposed to a central timeclock. Initially, the engineer
typically reviews the “clipboard” and begins his preventive
maintenance routine, as outlined on the preventive maintenance
chart for that particular store. If the operations manager is at the
store at the time the engineer reports to work they might review
the “clipboard” together in the morning. More often, however,
the engineer will not see the operations manager until sometime
later in the day. When they do meet, the operations manager
will discuss with the engineer and prioritize any special re-
quests on the “clipboard” as well as any special projects in
which the engineer’s assistance has been requested. With re-
spect to the “clipboard,” it appears that management and non-
management employees can make a special request which is
placed on the “clipboard.” Additionally, several requests might
be placed on the list in 1 day, particularly where the request is
to replace burned out light bulbs; however, several months may
also pass without any special request being posted on the “clip-
board.”
Approximately one-third of the engineer’s time is spent on
the lamping function, which essentially involves changing any
burned out light bulbs throughout the store. This duty was for-
merly the responsibility of the receiving/dock/stock department.
At some point, the Employer reassigned lamping to the engi-
neering department and created the position of “lamper” to
perform this function exclusively. It was expected that the
lamper would spend 10 hours per week on lamping. Thus, the
engineering department employed one full-time lamper for the
four Phoenix stores, a part-time lamper for the two Tucson
stores, and a part-time lamper in the Las Vegas stores (only two
of which existed at the time). The lamper position was eventu-
ally eliminated and the duty was absorbed by the engineers.
Although it appears that lamping is primarily the responsibility
of the engineers, the Employer places a high priority on chang-
ing burned out light bulbs (each store has as many as 1500
lights). As a result, this function is performed to some degree
by virtually all other employees, including management, but
particularly receiving/dock/stock employees.
To facilitate the lamping function, each store maintains at
least one lamp cart that contains a variety of light bulbs, light
poles (used to remove and replace ceiling or other high-
reaching burned out bulbs), and possibly a ladder or two. The
engineer will push the lamp cart through the store floors and
change any burned out bulbs observed and those of which he or
she has previously been advised. The engineer is responsible
for ordering light bulbs, which are stored wherever the particu-
lar store has space, e.g., in the dock area or stockroom.
In addition to changing light bulbs, one-third of the engi-
neer’s day is spent performing preventive maintenance duties.
Each store has a list of preventive maintenance duties which the
engineer is expected to perform automatically upon each visit.
In performing the preventive maintenance duties, the engineer
conducts a walk-through inspection of the building, i.e., tests
the emergency generator; insures all fire protection valves are
unobstructed and in the “on” position; tests and, if necessary,
adjusts every entrance door; visually inspects the escalators and
elevators, noting in writing any defects; and, records all read-
ings on the air-conditioning units, adding chemicals as neces-
sary. While performing the lamping and preventive mainte-
nance functions, the engineer generally works alone, although
he may come into contact with other employees in the store.
After performing the preventive maintenance duties for the
particular building, the engineer spends the last third of his time
working on special requests or a special project. These projects
often require the engineer’s interaction with employees of other
departments. The projects often involve moving a point-of-sale
(POS) cash register, moving an entire department from one area
of the store to another, or putting up a “visuals” team display.
The record reflects that the engineer’s participation in these
projects is generally limited to performing any electrical work
necessary for the project, such as electrical connects and dis-
connects, moving or installing telephone lines, or locating elec-
trical circuitry. Engineers typically do not move equipment or
merchandise during these projects. Those tasks are performed
by receiving/dock/stock employees. For example, Operations
Manager Janet Elizabeth Nelson described that if one of the
departments in her store were changing the merchandise pres-
entation layout, the engineer might interact with employees of
the visuals department. In this regard, the visuals department
might design a particular display that needed a light or lights in
a particular place. The engineer would be shown where the
lights were needed, and he or she would then install the neces-
sary equipment and/or wiring for that project.
In performing their duties, engineers use a number of tools
commonly used by other employees, such as ladders, hammers,
screw drivers, tape measures, and saws. They also use amp
probes, leak detectors, thermometers, evacuators, and acetylene
and oxygen torches that are unique to the functions they per-
form.
The record reveals that, although engineers may work with
the operations manager on specific projects, much of the engi-
neers’ time is spent without constant supervision. In this con-
nection, the engineers, on average, see the operations manager
MACY’S WEST, INC. 1227
only once a day and talk to Divisional Maintenance Manager
Dan Hunt by phone at some point each day to discuss how their
work day has gone. Additionally, the engineers talk to the chief
engineer approximately once or twice a week regarding the
HVAC equipment.
The engineers earn between $9.68 and $13.95 per hour. The
chief engineer earns $20.15 per hour. Although there does not
appear to be any job descriptions for any of the engineers to be
considered for hire, an applicant would have to be mechanically
inclined, have some background in electricity, and be able to
read gauges. Additionally, it appears that the individual would
interview with the chief engineer who determines the appli-
cant’s capabilities working with HVAC equipment. The chief
engineer then apparently would advise Hunt as to whether the
applicant could handle working with HVAC equipment. His-
torically, there has been virtually no turnover in the engineering
division. Consequently, Bob Smith, the current chief engineer,
has not been involved in the hiring of any employees, although
he did suggest an individual to fill a recent vacancy which had
not been filled as of the date of the hearing.
The engineers use the same employee entrance as other em-
ployees. During the day, the engineer has access to the same
lunchroom and bathrooms as other employees. They wear the
same type of identification badge and are subject to the same
employee handbook as other employees. Additionally, they are
eligible for the same health, pension, and holiday benefits as
other employees. In contrast, however, unlike other employees,
they split their 40-hour week between two stores (except the
Albuquerque engineer who has only one store). Other than
changing light bulbs, a task performed at some point by virtu-
ally every employee, including management, the maintenance
engineers do not perform the job duties of other employees or
interchange with them to any degree. Maintenance engineers
are not required to attend store meetings and, apparently, attend
them only infrequently, if at all. The Phoenix engineers, how-
ever, attend quarterly maintenance meetings conducted by
Hunt, which no other employees attend.
Historically, engineers are hired off the street and not trans-
ferred from other classifications. The record reflects that one
former engineer had originally been hired in receiv-
ing/dock/stock and transferred to the engineering department,
ultimately becoming a full-time engineer. Aside from a house-
keeper becoming a lamper, there is no evidence that engineers
are hired from the ranks of other employee classifications.
Similarly, the record reflects only two instances where an engi-
neer moved into another employee classification. One occurred
as a result of a reduction in force and was apparently not at the
request of the engineer in question. The other was not a transfer
at all; an engineer retired and, thereafter, was hired part time in
another department as a handyman.
All of the engineers wear brown shirts that distinguish them
from other employees who may wear smocks or shirts of a
different color that identify the particular department in which
they work. Unlike other employees, engineers are assigned
company vehicles which they drive to and from work as well as
during the day. Moreover, they may be called upon to respond
to an after-hours emergency call.
The Phoenix stores are within 20 minutes’ drive time of one
another. The Tucson stores are approximately 2 hours driving
time and the Albuquerque store approximately 8 hours driving
time from the Phoenix stores. The record reflects that the engi-
neers located in the Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and Tucson stores
travel infrequently, if at all, to other stores to work. In fact,
engineers in Las Vegas and Albuquerque never travel from
their home cities. On the very few occasions that an engineer
has traveled outside of his or her respective city, it has been an
engineer from one of the Phoenix stores. In this regard, one of
the Phoenix engineers was recently named the “traveling engi-
neer.” For 6 weeks, he traveled to Tucson on a regular basis.
However, since the recent resignation of one of the Phoenix
engineers, the “traveling” engineer has remained in Phoenix.
Occasions requiring travel of a Phoenix engineer to another
store in Phoenix or Tucson would be to fill in for an engineer
who is ill or on vacation or to assist an engineer on a large or
difficult project. There is virtually no similar interchange that
involves the Las Vegas and Albuquerque facilities. The chief
engineer travels more than any of the other engineers because
he possesses the technical expertise of the HVAC equipment.
Thus, he travels to Las Vegas approximately once a month and
to Albuquerque every other month The majority of his time,
however, is spent in the Phoenix and Tucson facilities.
The chief engineer is primarily responsible for maintaining
and repairing the HVAC equipment at the Employer’s stores in
Hunt’s administrative jurisdiction. He travels among the stores
where he spends 75 percent of his time inspecting and adjust-
ing, if necessary, the HVAC equipment. He spends half of his
time working alone and the other half working with the mainte-
nance engineer assigned to that particular store. The other 25
percent of his time he assists with special projects in the stores.
He had to be certified in HVAC to be hired in his position and
is considered the “technical” engineer. Because of his technical
expertise, which is reflected in his rate of pay of $20.15, Smith
directs the other engineers in regard to nonroutine work on the
HVAC equipment. He discusses their capabilities on the HVAC
equipment with Hunt, who admittedly knows very little about
the equipment.
The record evidence shows that Hunt is responsible for hir-
ing, firing, issuing disciplinary actions, writing evaluations,
determining pay increases, assigning store locations, approving
special projects as requested by store and operations managers,
and maintaining payroll and other personnel records. In many
of his decisions, Hunt apparently relies on input from store and
operations managers as well as from the chief engineer. For
example, to facilitate the preparation of an engineer’s evalua-
tion, Hunt solicits input from the store or operations managers
in whose stores the engineer works. Additionally, Hunt seeks
the chief engineer’s opinion of the engineer’s performance vis-
a-vis the HVAC equipment. The record discloses, however, that
Hunt merely accumulates reports from the store or operations
managers and the chief engineer and uses this cumulative in-
formation, together with his own observations, to prepare
evaluations of the engineers. In this regard, Hunt testified that
Smith “has his ear” and that he “bounces” overall performance
ratings of engineers off of Smith, but he did not further explain
what impact the chief engineer has had in altering the overall
rating Hunt had determined to give. In addition, the evidence
does not establish that either the store and operations managers
or the chief engineer effectively recommend personnel actions.
Specifically, the record evidence establishes that on one occa-
sion, the chief engineer recommended to Hunt that an engineer
receive disciplinary action. Although Hunt prepared a discipli-
nary action and reviewed it with the engineer in question, he
decided not to place the discipline in the engineer’s file. This
was the only disciplinary recommendation by the chief engi-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1228
neer cited at the hearing and no examples of disciplinary rec-
ommendations from store or operations managers were cited.
The parties did not stipulate to Hunt’s supervisory status at
the hearing. Inasmuch as the record is replete with evidence
that Divisional Maintenance Manager Hunt possesses multiple
indicia of supervisory authority, I find him to be a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) and shall, therefore, ex-
clude him from the unit found appropriate herein.
The Board has historically found separate maintenance de-
partment units appropriate where there is no showing of a more
comprehensive bargaining history, no other labor organization
seeks to represent the same employees in a more comprehen-
sive unit, and where it is established that the maintenance em-
ployees involved have a community of interest separate and
distinct from other employees. American Cyanide Co., 131
NLRB 909 (1961). In determining whether the requisite com-
munity of interest among maintenance employees exists, the
Board looks to such factors as a common interest in wages,
hours, and other working conditions; common supervision;
degrees of skill and common functions; frequency of contact
and interchange with other employees; and functional integra-
tion. Franklin Mint Corp., 254 NLRB 714, 716 (1981). More-
over, the Board will find maintenance employees to be an ap-
propriate unit, despite some degree of functional integration,
where the employees are separately supervised, possess skills
unique to their classification, receive the highest hourly wage,
are assigned work under a unique work order system, and
where transfers of employees are infrequent. See Ore-Ida
Foods, 313 NLRB 1016, 1019 at fn. 3 (1994), and cases cited
therein.
The record establishes that the maintenance engineers share
a common supervisor in Dennis Hunt. Although they confer
with the store and/or operations managers of their respective
stores, this involves merely prioritizing tasks that are routine
and daily or special projects that have been approved by Hunt.
The store and operations managers do not instruct the engineers
on how to perform their various duties, even those tasks they
perform on special projects. Additionally, at least two-thirds of
the work performed by the maintenance engineers involves
mechanical skills, albeit unlicensed and noncertified, in elec-
tricity, plumbing, and HVAC equipment. These mechanical
skills, which require the use of a number of tools used exclu-
sively by the engineers, are reflected in their wages, which, as a
group, are higher than the average wage of other hourly store
employees, with some engineers earning as much or more than
team leaders and department managers in other areas of the
stores. With respect to the other one-third of the their work,
“lamping,” engineers primarily perform this alone, notwith-
standing that others, including management, also change light
bulbs. The engineers are the only employees who wear brown
uniform shirts, drive store trucks to and from work, and are
assigned to multiple stores. Finally, the record is clear that the
maintenance engineers interchange among themselves but
never with the sales and other nonsales employees who work at
the stores. Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, I
find that the maintenance engineers share a significant commu-
nity of interest with one another and constitute a distinct and
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
In reaching this conclusion I have carefully reviewed the
cases relied upon by the Employer and find them distinguish-
able. In Harrah’s Illinois, Corp., 319 NLRB 749 (1995), the
maintenance employees were not separate and distinct as a
group for administrative purposes. Additionally, they did not
have separate supervision. To the contrary, the maintenance
employees shared overall supervision as well as intermediate
supervision with environment service (EVS) employees, clean-
ers, and heavy duty cleaners. There was also a high rate of
transfers with other employee classifications as a part of what
the employer recognized as progression from one employee
classification to another. Finally, a significant number of the
maintenance employees in Harrah’s spent most, if not all, of
their time performing tasks that did not utilize their skills. The
Board stated that all of these factors weighed against finding
appropriate a separate unit of maintenance employees. None of
these factors exists in the instant case. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
194 NLRB 321 (1971), is distinguishable on its facts in that
they established that the employees in the unit sought had con-
tinuous contact with other employees whose job duties were
interrelated to their own and with whom they shared overall
and intermediate supervision. The other cases cited by the Em-
ployer are also distinguishable on their facts. In this regard, it is
noted that the Employeer concludes from the facts of the instant
case that the maintenance engineers share common supervision
with the other employees of the store. If this were, in fact, the
case, each of the maintenance engineers would have between
two to four immediate supervisors. As described above, the
maintenance engineers have one common supervisor in Hunt.
With respect to the scope of the unit, the Employer contends
that if a unit comprised solely of engineers is found to be ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining, it must include
all of the stores under the purview of Dennis Hunt and that to
do otherwise would be arbitrary. However, a union is not re-
quired to seek representation in the most comprehensive group-
ing of employees unless “an appropriate unit compatible with
that requested does not exist.” P. Ballantine & Sons, 141 NLRB
1103 (1963). The unit sought by the petitioning union is always
a relevant consideration. Lundy Packing Co., 314 NLRB 1042,
1043 (1994). The Employer has a number of administrative
breakdowns, all of which might be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. However, the fact that such units
might be appropriate does not render the unit sought by the
Petitioner inappropriate. Here, the employees in the unit sought
by the Petitioner all report to the same supervisor and are
within relatively close proximity of each other. Moreover, they
occasionally interchange, substitute for, and assist one another.
In fact, one Phoenix engineer assisted in Tucson for a period of
6 weeks. In contrast, there is virtually no interchange of em-
ployees between the Arizona stores and the stores in Las Vegas
and Albuguerque. Based on the foregoing, I find that a unit
comprising the Employer’s maintenance employees located at
its Arizona facilities to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
I turn next to the issue relating to the status of the chief engi-
neer. I note that the Board has held that an individual must
possess and exercise at least one indicia of supervisory author-
ity to be a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 292 NLRB 753 (1989). More-
over, an individual will not be found to be a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) if one or more indicia exists only
on a sporadic basis. Indiana Refrigerated Lines, 192 NLRB
1057 (1971). The record evidence does not establish that Smith
has ever exercised any of the indicia of Section 2(11) supervi-
sory status. Instead, the evidence shows that Smith is highly
skilled, for which he is well paid and well respected. The only
MACY’S WEST, INC. 1229
example of his recommending a particular action vis-à-vis an-
other maintenance engineer proved to have been an ineffective
recommendation. Moreover, if Smith were a supervisor, then
there would be two supervisors for three to four employees who
essentially work alone and unsupervised. Based on the forego-
ing, I find that the chief engineer is not a supervisor within
Section 2(11) of the Act, as contended by the Employer, and I
shall include him in the unit found appropriate herein.
There are approximately four maintenance engineers in the
unit found to be appropriate herein.