Sundor Brands, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 755 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. 755
Sundor Brands, Inc. and International Union of Op-
erating Engineers, Local 48. Case 22–CA–22239
July 24, 2001
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMANAND TRUESDALE
On March 23, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in this proceeding.1
The Board found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and
bargain with the employees’ certified representative and
ordered it to bargain collectively with the Union. The
Employer refused to comply with this Order and, on
March 31, 1998, petitioned-for review of the Board’s
decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. The Employer contended
that the Board’s underlying unit determination was
unlawful.2 The General Counsel filed a cross-application
for enforcement.
On February 26, 1999, the court denied the petition for
enforcement, granted the petition for review, and re-
manded the case to the Board for further proceedings in
accordance with the court’s opinion.3 On May 21, 1999,
the Board advised the parties that it had accepted the
remand and invited statements of position. The Em-
ployer, the General Counsel and the Union each filed
statements of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the parties’ statements of
position in light of the court’s remand. For the reasons
set forth below, we adhere to our previous finding that
the petitioned-for skilled maintenance unit is appropri-
ate.4
The relevant facts are as follows. The Employer manu-
factures Sunny Delight and Hawaiian Punch juice bever-
ages at its facility in South Brunswick, New Jersey. Its
operations are divided into four departments, which to-
gether carry out the production process.5

1 325 NLRB 499 (1998).
2 Case 22–RC–11374. In an unpublished decision, the Board af-
firmed the Regional Director’s finding that the petitioned-for unit was
appropriate.
3 168 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir.).
4 The Union was certified to represent the employees in the follow-
ing unit:
All full time and regular part time skilled maintenance employees, in-
cluding advanced maintenance technicians, maintenance group lead-
ers, electrical and instrumentation technicians, and level 3 utilities co-
ordinators, employed by the [Company] at its South Brunswick, New
Jersey facility, but excluding all office clerical employees, all level 2
mechanical/electrical technicians, team coordinators, industrial health
and safety specialists, site environmental leaders, risk management
leaders, level 1 technicians, and all other employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
In 1992, the Respondent’s parent company, Proctor
and Gamble, began to implement a “high performance
work system,” which restructured the Company’s opera-
tions to eliminate multiple, narrow job classifications,
and replace them with a “team system.” Under the team
system, employees are cross-trained to provide all ser-
vices to a particular product line or operation.6
Employees at the plant are designated as “level 1,”
“level 2,” or “level 3,” depending on skill and experi-
ence. As they progress from level 1 to level 3, employ-
ees receive significant wage increases. Employees hired
as level 1 employees are assigned to opera-
tional/production roles. After mastering basic opera-
tional skills and principles of the business, level 1 em-
ployees may bid for level 2 positions on a systems path
or a mechanical/electric path. Level 2 employees may
then bid for level 3 jobs, which are either systems super-
visors or highly skilled maintenance technicians. The
Employer’s skilled maintenance technicians are exclu-
sively highly paid level 3 employees. Despite its stated
desire to promote from within the plant, the Employer
has recruited and hired its skilled level 3 maintenance
employees from outside the facility.
The Union filed a petition seeking to represent a unit
consisting of the plant’s skilled maintenance employees,
namely the level 3 advanced maintenance technicians
(AMTs), the level 3 “electrical and instrumentation tech-
nicians” (EITs), and the level 3 utilities coordinator
(UCs). After a hearing, the Regional Director directed an
election in a unit consisting of all AMTs, EITs, UCs, and
the maintenance group leaders (MGLs). As noted by the
court, the AMTs are members of a work team while the
EITs, UCs, and MGLs are not.
The bulk of the skilled maintenance work force con-
sists of 16 AMTs, who are responsible for, among other
things, performing all aspects of major electrical and
mechanical maintenance including preventive activities,
replacement, repairs and rebuilds; overseeing the installa-
tion of new projects and initiatives; and combining me-
chanical and electrical skills with operational skills to
support their team. Each AMT works with a team in one
of the four primary departments. The AMTs divide their
time between working on the floor with their team, fixing
problems as they arise, and tending to parts rebuilding,
fabrication work, and other long-term projects in the
5 The four departments are logistics, concentrate, process and pack-
ing.
6 For instance, a packing team would not only operate the equip-
ment on a particular line, but also maintain it, perform quality control
checks, ensure safe practices, and meet good manufacturing standards.
334 NLRB No. 100
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 756
Company’s maintenance shop. The AMTs are not fixed
in one spot, but move around the plant, solving mechani-
cal problems on lines other than those their team oper-
ates, if their skills are needed.
The two MGLs are responsible for planning mainte-
nance activities by tracking overall plant maintenance,
cost data, and work order systems. They also record
parts histories and coordinate other projects, installations,
and the activities of the AMTs. The MGLs do not be-
long to an operating team but their work overlaps with
the AMTs.
The EITs work throughout the plant performing me-
chanical, electrical, and programming work on various
pieces of production equipment. The Employer sched-
ules one EIT per shift who reports to a team leader and
the plant engineer.
The sole UC is ultimately responsible for maintaining
the facility’s boilers, air compressors, refrigeration sys-
tems, pH systems, and its water system and holds a state
license to do so. He is not assigned to any team but in-
stead is a full-time member of the facilities and engineer-
ing department. He handles complex utilities projects
and has no production responsibility. He also trains the
level 2 utilities coordinators who spend 20 percent of
their time performing basic utilities work and the re-
mainder on level 1 production line work.
The Respondent operates a maintenance shop contain-
ing equipment for its maintenance employees. Although
this shop is open to all company personnel, AMTs, and
other maintenance personnel use it almost exclusively.
When nonmaintenance personnel enter the shop, the ma-
chines are usually operated for them by the level 3 main-
tenance employees.
The Board affirmed the Regional Director’s finding
limiting the unit to maintenance employees, relying on
six considerations: (1) the employees’ specialized skills
relating to the maintenance of plant equipment; (2) their
responsibility for doing maintenance tasks; (3) the fact
that they spend some part of the working day in the
maintenance shop; (4) their frequent interaction with
each other; (5) their relatively high rates of pay; and (6)
their separate supervision when performing maintenance
work.
The court found that two factors, the specialized skills
of the maintenance employees and the time spent in the
maintenance shop, were supported by substantial evi-
dence. However, the court found that three of the six
factors that the Board relied on in support of its unit de-
termination were not supported by substantial evidence.
Further, the court found that the Board’s reasoning re-
garding the remaining factor, rates of pay, was unclear.
The court therefore remanded the case to the Board to
reconsider its unit determination, including whether the
factors for which there is record support could, standing
alone, support that determination.
Based on the application of the factors discussed be-
low to the record evidence in this case, we reaffirm our
finding that the Employer’s maintenance employees
comprise a distinct, separate, and cohesive grouping of
employees appropriate for collective-bargaining pur-
poses. We base this conclusion on the factors found by
the court to be supported by substantial evidence on the
record as well as record evidence showing that the main-
tenance employees’ wages are significantly higher than
the production employees’ wages. We further find, as
explained below, that these factors are sufficient support
for our conclusion that the petitioned-for maintenance
employees are a readily identifiable group with a distinct
community of interest and are an appropriate unit for
bargaining.7
It is the Board’s longstanding policy, as set forth in
American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961), to find
petitioned-for separate maintenance department units
appropriate where the facts of the case demonstrate the
absence of a more comprehensive bargaining history and
the petitioned-for maintenance employees have the req-
uisite community of interest. In determining whether a
sufficient separate community of interest exists, the
Board examines such factors as mutuality of interests in
wages, hours, and other working conditions; commonal-
ity of supervision; degree of skill and common functions;
frequency of contact and interchange with other employ-
ees; and functional integration. Significantly, the Board
does not require all factors to be present in order to find a
petitioned-for maintenance unit appropriate, so long as
the record establishes that “maintenance employees are
readily identifiable as a group whose similarity of func-
tion and skills create a community of interest such as
would warrant separate representation.” Id. at 910. The
American Cyanamid Board pointed out that “[w]hile
many factors may be common to most situations . . . the
effect of any one factor, and therefore the weight to be
given it in making the unit determination, will vary from
industry to industry and from plant to plant.” 131 NLRB
at 911. Thus, “collective-bargaining units must be based
upon all the relevant evidence in each individual case.”
Id. See also U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, 174
NLRB 292 (1969).
As the court recognized, to handle problems that arise
during their shifts, the level 3 maintenance employees
manage complex mechanical procedures requiring higher
level technical skills than the production employees pos-

7 Capri Sun, Inc., 330 NLRB 1124 (2000).
SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. 757
sess. Maintenance employees are required to pass a se-
ries of skills and safety tests, to be proficient at welding,
fabricating parts from designs, and quickly diagnosing
unusual problems. MGLs have all the skills of AMTs as
well as the superior organizational skills to coordinate
and execute complex repair and installation projects.
The level 3 UC is competent in all areas of utility main-
tenance and repair, holds a State license, and also must
oversee all utilities upkeep for the plant. The EITs must
be well-versed in all aspects of the plant’s mechanical
and electrical systems. No level 2 maintenance techni-
cians have been promoted to level 3 or assigned to per-
form significant amounts of maintenance work. Thus,
although the skill level among maintenance employees is
varied, all of these employees are more skilled than pro-
duction employees and perform functions unique to their
classifications. This higher skill level provides further
support for a finding of separate community of interest.8
The court asked the Board to explain its reliance on the
petitioned-for unit employees’ relatively higher wage
rates as a factor showing their community of interest. As
the court noted, the Employer’s pay scale is correlated to
experience and skill level. Level 3 employees accord-
ingly receive higher pay rates than employees in levels 1
and 2, and their higher pay rates do not reflect automatic
promotion through the lower levels within the plant over
time. The most advanced level 2 employee earns a
maximum of $17.22 per hour, whereas maintenance em-
ployees in level 3 start at an entry level rate of $17.41 per
hour with the potential to increase to $19.41 per hour.
We find that this significant wage disparity further favors
a separate maintenance unit.9
Significantly, the level 3 maintenance employees
spend a great deal of time working in a shop dedicated to
their needs, and are no more integrated into the produc-
tion process than in a typical plant. This maintenance
shop is almost exclusively used by maintenance person-
nel, another indicator of their separate community of
interest.10

8 Capri Sun, Inc., supra; Skyline Distributors, 319 NLRB 270, 270
fn. 2 (1995), enfd. 99 F.3d 403, 407 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Ore-Ida Foods,
313 NLRB 1016, 1018 (1994), enf. mem. 66 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995).
9 Omni International Hotel, 283 NLRB 475 (1987). Although there
are other level 3 employees in the plant who are not maintenance em-
ployees, those employees perform administrative work in the areas of
health and safety, environmental requirements, and risk management,
and do not share responsibility for maintaining the plant’s equipment
and utility infrastructure. They therefore should not be included in the
unit.
10 Hilton Hotel Corp., 287 NLRB 359, 360 (1987). The mainte-
nance employees attend monthly maintenance meetings in addition to
the daily team meetings that all team members attend. In its decision,
the court questioned whether those meetings were so significant that
they outweighed the daily meetings the AMTs attend with employees
We recognize, as did the American Cyanamid Board,
that the “Board must hold fast to the objectives of the
statute using an empirical approach to adjust its decisions
to the evolving realities of industrial progress and the
reflection of that change in organizations of employees.”
131 NLRB at 911. Despite the steps made toward inte-
gration here, our review of the record leads us to con-
clude that the Respondent’s operation is not “so inte-
grated . . . that maintenance has lost its identity as a func-
tion separate from production, and that maintenance em-
ployees are not separately identifiable.” Id. at 910.
Arguing that the petitioned-for employees do not have
a separate community of interest, our dissenting col-
league asserts that “all team members are interchange-
able” and that “[h]igher-level technicians routinely fill in
for absent lower-level production workers.” However,
the record does not support this assertion. It is clear, in
fact, that the AMTs and the EITs rarely, if ever, work on
the production line, while the other maintenance classifi-
cations are not expected to perform operations work at
all. Similarly, no level 2 employees perform level 3
maintenance work. Moreover, although maintenance
employees have contact with production employees on
the production floor, this by itself does not establish a
significant degree of functional integration. As in other
industrial settings, the Respondent’s maintenance em-
ployees must spend a considerable portion of their time
around the equipment they service, which is located on
the production floor. Nevertheless, the segregation of
actual work functions between maintenance and produc-
tion employees limits the extent to which the operations
process depends on the unit employees. While all pro-
duction processes ultimately depend on maintenance
employees to keep them running, if mere physical prox-
imity were sufficient to preclude a separate maintenance
unit no such unit would ever be certified. The Board
rejected such an outcome in 1961 when it began to allow
departmental organization.11 Because the familiar dis-
tinction between maintenance and production functions
is retained at the Respondent’s South Brunswick facility,

outside the unit. While the daily meetings address staffing, production,
and other nontechnical issues, the monthly maintenance meetings con-
cern technical issues at the plant involving maintenance employees
only. We recognize that the record sets forth a number of instances in
which the maintenance employees work alongside and attend meetings
with the production employees. We find, however, that those common
endeavors do not obliterate the clear functional distinction between the
more highly skilled work of the maintenance employees and the duties
required of, and performed by the other employees.
11 American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB at 910 (Board found main-
tenance employees had separate supervision, performed various main-
tenance work for the entire plant, and exercised specialized skills, thus
readily identifiable as a group whose similarity of function created a
separate community of interest).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 758
the certification of a separate maintenance unit here does
not obstruct the Respondent’s integration of its produc-
tion operations.
In its decision, the court asked us to explain why the
unit is justified “in spite of, not because of, the disparate
supervision of the employees in the unit.” 168 F.3d at
520. The reason is that the unit maintenance employees
are, for the most part, supervised separately from the
other plant employees. The absence of totally identical
supervision of the maintenance employees does not de-
feat their separate identity because their supervision is
separate from production supervision and is specifically
correlated to their maintenance functions.
Our dissenting colleague asserts that the production
team leaders exercise considerable supervision over unit
employees. However, it is clear from the record that the
primary supervision of maintenance employees comes
from outside the production teams. The Respondent’s
technology manager supervises the 16 AMTs and the 2
MGLs, totaling 18 of the 21 employees in the unit. The
EITs are supervised by the control engineer, and the level
3 UC is supervised by the plant engineer. None of these
individuals supervises or is a member of a production
team. Moreover, there is no record showing that the
team leaders’ oversight is crucial to the unit employees’
maintenance duties or that it diminishes their community
of interest.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the maintenance
only unit is an appropriate unit for bargaining.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board reaffirms its
original Order, reported at 325 NLRB 499 (1998), and
orders that the Respondent, Sundor Brands, Inc., South
Brunswick, New Jersey, its officer, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in that Order.

MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not find that the
unit consisting of skilled level 3 maintenance technicians
is appropriate. These technicians are classified as level 3
advanced maintenance technicians (AMTs) and mainte-
nance group leaders (MGLs),1 level 3 “electrical and
instrumentation technicians” (EITs); and level 3 utilities
coordinators (UCs). In my view, these employees, who
operate in a highly integrated production and mainte-
nance environment, do not comprise a distinct, separate,
and cohesive group of employees appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.

1 AMTs serve as MGLs on a rotational basis. In that capacity, they
schedule, coordinate, and prioritize maintenance activities.
The issue is whether the skilled level 3 maintenance
technicians have a separate community of interest.2 In
the underlying proceedings in this test-of-certification
case, the Board upheld the validity of the certification of
a unit of skilled level 3 maintenance technicians.3 The
Board found that the employees shared a community of
interest based on the asserted existence of six factors: (1)
the employees’ specialized skills relating to the mainte-
nance of plant equipment; (2) their responsibility for per-
forming maintenance tasks; (3) the fact that they spend
some part of the working day in the maintenance shop;
(4) their frequent interaction with each other; (5) their
relatively high rates of pay; and (6) their separate super-
vision when performing maintenance work.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit denied enforcement. This case is now before the
Board on remand from that court.
The Court’s Opinion
With respect to whether there is a community of inter-
est among the skilled level 3 maintenance technicians,
the court found unjustified the Board’s reliance on the
second, fourth, and sixth factors listed above. Regarding
factor 4, the unit employees’ interaction with each other,
the Board had noted that the AMTs and the MGLs have
common job duties. However, the court pointed out that
this does not mean that they work together in performing
those duties. Further, although the Board had observed
that the level 3 EITs work together with other unit em-
ployees in some respects, the Board had not made find-
ings as to the frequency of this working together. In ad-
dition, the Board had relied on monthly meetings of
skilled level 3 maintenance technicians. However, the
court noted that the AMTs meet daily with non-nit em-
ployees, and the UCs interact “most consistently” with
nonunit employees.
Regarding factor 6, the court noted that each of the
four classifications of technicians in the unit is super-
vised separately. In the court’s view, this factor seemed
to militate against a finding of cohesiveness among the
skilled level 3 maintenance employees.
Regarding factor 2, the Board had found that all the
skilled level 3 maintenance technicians had a common
task of maintaining equipment in the plant. The court
observed that this claim was “grossly overstated,” at least
as to the level 3 UC technician. The only maintenance
work that the UC technician performs is to fill in for
temporarily absent level 2 UC technicians.
2 U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, 174 NLRB 292 (1969); Ameri-
can Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961).
3 I did not participate in the decision.
SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. 759
The court also raised an issue with respect to factor
5—wages. The court found that the Board’s decision
was unclear. The Board had argued in its brief that the
relatively high wages of skilled level 3 maintenance
technicians were because of their status as maintenance
employees. The court said that “this is not the case.”
For example, skilled level 3 maintenance technicians
earn the same as equally skilled, equally senior level 3
nonmaintenance employees. Thus, status as a mainte-
nance employee is not the determinative factor regarding
rates of pay. On the other hand, the court suggested that
the Board may have meant that unit employees (level 3)
as a class earn more than nonunit employees (most of
whom are levels 1 and 2).
Accordingly, the court held that the Board failed ade-
quately to explain its unit determination. As noted, the
court remanded these proceedings for the Board to re-
consider whether the factors for which there is support in
the record are sufficient to support the present unit de-
termination.
Analysis
In resolving this unit issue, it is important to focus on
two different (albeit related) concepts: (1) cohesiveness,
i.e., whether there is a community of interest among the
unit employees; (2) separateness and distinctness, i.e.,
whether the unit employees have a community of interest
that is separate and distinct from nonunit employees.
The court’s concerns involve both of these issues. The
issue now before the Board is whether the unit employ-
ees’ maintenance skills and the fact that they spend some
part of the working day in the maintenance shop provide
the basis for a sufficiently separate, distinct, and cohesive
community of interest to support reaffirmation of the
prior unit determination. In my view, there is insuffi-
cient evidence of separateness. As discussed above, the
court has shown some of this inadequacy of evidence. I
do not believe that my colleagues have satisfactorily an-
swered the court’s concerns. Further, and in addition to
the factors considered by the court, I wish to expand on
other factors that show that these unit employees do not
have a separate, distinct, and cohesive community of
interest. To the contrary, they work closely in teams
with nonunit employees in a highly integrated production
process and share many of the same employment terms
and conditions.4
The Respondent produces bottled drinks using a
plantwide, team-based production process. All employ-

4 My colleagues assert that since 1961 the Board has found appro-
priate a unit of maintenance employees. However, the issue here is
whether the level 3 skilled maintenance employees comprise an appro-
priate unit.
ees are classified as technicians at level 1, level 2, or
level 3. The classification is based on overall experience
and skill level within the production process, not on spe-
cialized job skills. Each of the Respondent’s four core
manufacturing departments is staffed by production
teams which typically consist of: a team manager, who is
responsible for all team production, supervision, and
personnel matters; several level 3 technicians, who may
be AMTs, EITs, or UCs, and who spend 75 percent of
their time working on the production floor, and who also
train level 2 employees; several level 2 technicians, who
may be EITs or UCs; and approximately 7 to 15 level 1
technicians, who perform the lowest skilled production
work.
Teams or individual team members, including the level
3 maintenance employees, can be shifted from one pro-
duction area to another to respond to maintenance needs
or changes in production staffing based on waxing and
waning demand for specific products. Technicians at all
levels can be assigned to temporary (1 to 5 years) rota-
tional jobs outside of their teams. These rotations are
designed to enhance employees’ interdepartmental skills
and knowledge and their interchangeability.
Such interchangeability is a hallmark of the Respon-
dent’s team-based operation. Although team members’
basic job duties vary according to their skill and experi-
ence levels, team members are interchangeable and must
be able to perform the full range of team job functions,
which typically include production, maintenance, quality
assurance, materials management, safety and environ-
mental control, and inventory. Higher level technicians
are required to fill in for absent lower level production
workers.5 My colleagues assert that level 2 maintenance
employees do not perform level 3 work. However, as
noted, level 3 maintenance employees can and do per-
form levels 2 and 1 work.
In attempting to defend the present unit determination,
my colleagues stress the fact that the skilled level 3
maintenance employees possess the highest levels of
skill and proficiency in performing their maintenance
duties. However, as shown, progressive development of
employees from the level 1 production work to levels 2
and 3 work, and the resulting employee interchangeabil-
ity, is integral to the Respondent’s integrated production
process.6 The fact that the level 3 maintenance techni-
5 Contrary to my colleague’s contention, record evidence establishes
that levels 1 and 2 technicians conduct maintenance of production
equipment, commensurate with their skill and experience levels. Level
1 technicians perform the most basic maintenance functions. Level 2
technicians can troubleshoot, resolve some routine equipment break-
downs, replace parts, and perform preventive maintenance.
6 My colleagues contend that no level 2 maintenance technicians
have been promoted to level 3. The team-based production process had
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 760
cians have higher skills than others on the team does not
outweigh the high degree of interchangeability, integra-
tion, and interaction with other employees during their
maintenance of production equipment on the production
floor.7
Moreover, all production and maintenance employees,
regardless of level, participate in a daily, collaborative,
preshift meeting, at which production related information
and related maintenance issues are discussed.8 They
share common employment conditions. These include
fixed shifts, use of timeclocks, a plantwide wage scale
and benefits, performance appraisal and disciplinary sys-
tems, promotion standards, and policies contained in a
companywide employee handbook. Job bidding is plant-
wide.
In addition, the Respondent does not even maintain a
separate maintenance department. As noted, skilled level
3 maintenance technicians are assigned to individual

been in operation about 2 years at the time of the hearing in this case.
There is record evidence that development and promotion of some level
2 employees to level 3 was imminent.
7 My colleagues acknowledge that the skilled level 3 maintenance
employees spend “a considerable portion of their time” on the produc-
tion floor keeping the production equipment and, thus, the production
process, up and running. Illogically, however, they contend that this
work brings the level 3 maintenance employees into “mere physical
proximity” with other production employees but does not result in
integration of activities with those employees. The evidence and com-
mon sense suggest otherwise. Further, as shown, skilled level 3 main-
tenance employees are supervised by production team leaders when
they are performing maintenance on the production floor.
American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961), a case relied on by
my colleagues, is not to the contrary. There, unlike the instant case, the
engineering (maintenance) department and production department were
administratively separate entities reporting separately to the plant man-
ager. See American Cyanamid Co., 130 NLRB 1 (1961). Compare
Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 251 NLRB 492 (1980) (unit of
highly skilled electrical maintenance workers not appropriate where
those workers performed maintenance work on production equipment
on plant floor as part of an integrated production operation). Here, the
plant is organized along the lines of the product production process;
and, although some aspects of the work of the level 3 maintenance
employees are supervised by the technology manager and other manag-
ers having plantwide subject matter responsibilities, the level 3 mainte-
nance employees are also supervised by production team managers
when they perform maintenance on the production floor.
I also note that the American Cyanamid cases were decided in 1961.
Production technology and operations have changed considerably since
then, a fact anticipated by the Board in American Cyanamid, 131
NLRB, supra at 911–912, when it cautioned future Boards to
examine on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of separate
maintenance department units, fully cognizant that homogeneity, co-
hesiveness, and other factors of separate identity are being affected
by automation and technological changes and other forms of indus-
trial advancement.
8 Contrary to my colleagues, the fact that skilled level 3 mainte-
nance technicians also attend a monthly maintenance meeting does not
detract from the high degree of integration and employee contact inher-
ent in the team production concept.
production teams. Although the skilled level 3 mainte-
nance technicians are separately supervised regarding
some aspects of the performance of their maintenance
duties by managers having certain specialized plantwide
responsibilities, they also receive direction from team
leaders as they perform maintenance work on the produc-
tion floor.9 Although level 3 maintenance employees
perform the most demanding maintenance work, lower
level employees regularly perform maintenance tasks as
part of their development within the production process,
usually under the direction of the skilled level 3 mainte-
nance technicians.
Concededly, there is a separate maintenance shop.
However, it is not used exclusively by skilled level 3
maintenance technicians.10 As noted, these maintenance
technicians spend approximately 75 percent of their time
on the production floor, not in the shop.11
With respect to wage levels, as noted above, the court
observed that skilled level 3 maintenance technicians do
not earn more than equally skilled and equally senior
nonmaintenance employees. The court suggested, how-
ever, that the Board may wish to show that unit employ-
ees (all level 3) as a class earn more than nonunit em-
ployees (most of whom are levels 1 and 2) as a class. It
is true that skilled level 3 maintenance technicians earn
more than levels 1 and 2 employees. However, there are
nonmaintenance employees who are at level 3; and they
9 The technology manager has the ultimate supervisory responsibil-
ity for the AMTs and MGLs; the controls engineer supervises the EITs;
and the plant engineer supervises the level 3 UC. Thus, categories of
employees within the certified unit ultimately are separately supervised
by managers with specialized, plantwide responsibilities and oversight.
These managers are not assigned to teams. According to my col-
leagues, “there is no record showing that the team leaders’ oversight is
crucial to the unit employees’ maintenance duties or that it diminishes
their community of interest.” On the contrary, the record shows that
the team leaders’ direction of maintenance employees working on the
production floor is integral to their maintenance duties. If it were so
that team leader supervision in not crucial to the performance of main-
tenance on the production floor, then on-sight supervision and direction
of maintenance work in production areas necessarily would be provided
by the specialized managers, rather than the team leaders. Record
evidence establishes that the team leaders provide line management and
direction of maintenance work in the production areas.
10 As my colleagues concede, level 3 AMTs work alongside other
technicians in the shop by operating shop machinery for non-
maintenance personnel. There is no evidence that other unit employees
–—i.e., EITs and UCs—use the shop at all. Thus, work within the shop
is not a condition common or unique to all of the employees in the
certified unit.
11 Thus, the record evidence belies my colleagues’ bare assertion
that the skilled maintenance employees “are no more integrated into the
production process than in a typical plant.” Further, as noted, the main-
tenance workers spend about 75 percent of their time working with
their teams on the production floor, thus contravening my colleagues
assertion that the production workers “spend a great deal of time work-
ing in a shop dedicated to their needs.”
SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. 761
earn as much as the skilled level 3 maintenance techni-
cians. Moreover, the difference between the wage rate of
the highest paid level 2 employee ($17.22 per hour) and
the entry level wage of level 3 employees ($17.41) is
minimal and, thus, reflects the structure of the Respon-
dent’s progressive job classification structure based on
growth over time in employee experience and skill lev-
els.
In short, pay is a function of level; and one’s level is
tied to attainment of higher degrees of skill and seniority
within the Respondent’s highly integrated production
operation, rather than to any particular kind of skill, e.g.,
maintenance skill.12

12 Omni International Hotel, 283 NLRB, 475, 475 (1987), cited by
my colleagues in support of their reliance on the wage differential
between level 3 technicians and other production and maintenance
employees, is distinguishable. There, the issues were:
Under all the circumstances, I find that the Respon-
dent’s operations are “so highly integrated as to destroy
the maintenance employees’ identity as a separate and
distinct function.”13 In addition, there is no showing of
cohesiveness among the unit employees.

(a) the appropriateness of the Board’s unit determination stan-
dards in the hotel and motel industry; and, (b) whether tips earned
by nonengineering department employees sufficiently reduced the
disparity between their earnings and those of the engineering
department employees sought to be included in the unit.
Further, in Omni, in contrast to the instant case, no other nonsupervi-
sory employees earned wages equal to those earned by the engineering
department employees.
13 Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016, 1019 (1994), enfd. 66 F.3d 328
(7th Cir. 1995).
My decision is limited to finding that the present unit of skilled level
3 maintenance employees is not appropriate. I do not decide any other
issue related to the scope of an appropriate unit of the Respondent’s
employees.