Kye Hillig, Secretary-Treasurer, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Charles Booth, Deputy Superintendent, appeared on behalf of the employer.

Edward A. Hemphill, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the intervenor, Public School Employees of Washington.

On October 27, 1986, the Auburn School District No. 408 Warehouse/Laundry Group (petitioner) filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). The petitioner seeks severance of a group of six warehouse and laundry employees of the Auburn School District (employer) from a larger bargaining unit of classified personnel represented by the Public School Employees of Washington (PSE). A pre-hearing conference was held in the matter on January 6, 1987, at which time the parties stipulated a number of matters. The issues which remained for determination included whether the petitioner was a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3) and whether severance of the petitioned-for bargaining unit was appropriate. A hearing was held in the matter on January 27, 1987, before Hearing Officer Martha M. Nicoloff. At the opening of hearing, the parties stipulated that the petitioner was a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of the statute. The hearing was thus limited to the unit determination issue. The petitioner and the intervener filed post-hearing briefs.

BACKGROUND

The Auburn School District operates an educational program for approximately 9000 students in kindergarten through high school (K-12). The employer has approximately 15 school facilities in the area in and around Auburn, Washington.

The employer has approximately 487 full-time equivalent (FTE) certificated personnel. There is one bargaining unit of non-supervisory certificated personnel in the district, and one bargaining unit of school principals.

The employer has approximately 300-325 employees in its classified work force, filling about 231 FTE positions. The record in this proceeding, together with the docket records of the Public Employment Relations Commission, reflect that five separate bargaining units and bargaining relationships had been formed among the employer's classified employees, as follows:

-        Classified administrators are represented for the purposes of collective bargaining, although the identity of the exclusive bargaining representative is not clear;

-        Vehicle maintenance employees (approximately 5 employees) are represented by the International Association of Machinists;

-        School bus drivers (approximately 67 employees) are represented by PSE;

-        Secretarial, clerical and print shop employees (approximately 40 employees) are represented by the Auburn Association of Educational Office Personnel (AAEOP), an affiliate of PSE; and

-        Custodial, maintenance, food service, aide, warehouse, grounds and laundry employees (approximately 191 employees) are represented by PSE.

The latter unit, which is known within the school district as the "CMFSA unit", is the bargaining unit at issue in this proceeding. That unit has been represented by Public School Employees of Washington since at least 1974, and is described in the 1983 - 1986 collective bargaining agreement between the school district and PSE as:

[A]11 classified employees in the following general job classifications: Custodial, Laundry, Food Services, Maintenance, Warehouse, Grounds and Building Aides. Nothing within this Agreement pertains to employees not employed on a regular basis.

There is no history of separate representation for the laundry and warehouse employees which the petitioner seeks to carve out from the CMFSA unit.

The warehouse and laundry employees are under the general direction of Reva Bryant, who holds the title of Warehouse/Laundry Supervisor. Bryant reports to Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations Roger Thordarson, who also has general authority over custodial, maintenance and grounds operations. In the event that the supervisor of custodians is absent, Bryant serves as the acting custodial supervisor. In addition, Bryant serves as the district's "safety officer", and she routinely gives safety classes to all district employees. The warehouse and laundry employees work at the employer's central shops and warehouse complex, where school busses and a variety of support operations are based.

The five warehouse employees are responsible for the storage and delivery of school district supplies, including food items that are to be used in the employer's food service program. Warehouse employees receive incoming shipments, keep track of stock on hand, and deliver the supplies to school district facilities, as needed. Although other employees of the Auburn School District work in the complex where the warehouse is located, they do not work within the confines of the warehouse itself.[1] The warehouse employees are in regular contact with other school district employees in the "delivery" part of their function, however. School supplies are delivered on the basis of purchase orders submitted from the various school buildings, and warehouse personnel are expected to deliver the supplies to designated areas at each facility. Food items are ordered by individual kitchen managers through the director of food services. A regular schedule of deliveries has been established, with produce delivered on Tuesdays, frozen food delivered on Thursdays, and staples, such as canned foods, delivered every other week. In addition, the warehouse operation is responsible for district mail delivery and for some transportation of prepared meals from a central kitchen to the location where they will be consumed.

The typical work shift for warehouse employees is from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. They generally work the full calendar year, unlike food service and aide employees within the existing bargaining unit, who work only during the portion of the year when students are in attendance.

The one laundry employee provides services for food service, home economics instruction, physical education instruction, and other programs in a number of the employer's school facilities. Laundry operations are conducted in a facility adjacent to the warehouse. Items to be laundered and finished laundry are transported by the warehouse employees.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The petitioner believes that the full-time, nonsupervisory warehouse and laundry employees of the employer constitute a unique and logical grouping for the purposes of collective bargaining. It claims that unique skills and a dissimilar work environment segregate the petitioned-for employees from the other employees in the existing larger bargaining unit. The petitioner argues that there is currently little interchange between employees of the petitioned-for unit and those in the existing unit. The petitioner claims that the warehouse and laundry personnel have historically had to function separately within the existing bargaining unit in order to meet their needs in representation, and that an informal "schism" has existed for several years. Accordingly, it claims that opponents of severance would not be able to show disruption of a stable labor relations situation. Finally, it argues that severance would not unduly fragment bargaining units, as the classified employees of the school district are currently represented in five separate bargaining units.

The employer took no position on the unit determination issue in this matter.

As the incumbent exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit from which severance is sought, PSE argues that the petitioned-for unit in this matter does not meet the criteria for severance enunciated by the Commission in Yelm School District, Decision 704-A (PECB, 1980), and that the petition should be dismissed. PSE claims that the warehouse and laundry group is not a functionally distinct department, and that the employees in those functions are integrated with other district operations, particularly with food service. It claims that there is a significant amount of interchange between warehouse/laundry employees and other classified employees of the employer. It also claims that the warehouse/laundry employees work similar hours and share similar wages and working conditions with other employees in the existing bargaining unit. It relies on the approximately 13-year history of bargaining in the current bargaining unit, and claims there is no separate bargaining history for the petitioned-for employees. It argues that the petitioner has made no showing that it is better qualified than the intervenor to represent the proposed bargaining unit. Finally, it asserts that the severance of this group would contribute to fragmentation of bargaining units and could unduly disrupt bargaining relationships with the school district.

DISCUSSION

The Public Employment Relations Commission has addressed the proposed severance of part of an existing bargaining unit on numerous occasions. In Yelm School District, Decision 704-A (PECB, 1980), the Commission expressed its approval of the "severance criteria" set forth in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387 (1966). Those criteria found to be illustrative were:

1. Whether or not the proposed unit consists of a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeyman craftsmen performing the functions of their craft on a nonrepetitive basis, or of employees constituting a functionally distinct department, working in trades or occupations for which a tradition of separate representation exists.

2. The history of collective bargaining of the employees sought and at the plant involved, and at other plants of the employer, with emphasis on whether the existing patterns of bargaining are productive of stability in labor relations, and whether such stability will be unduly disrupted by destruction of the existing patterns of representation.

3. The extent to which the employees in the proposed unit have established and maintained their separate identity during the period of inclusion in a broader unit, and the extent of their participation or lack of participation in the establishment and maintenance of the existing pattern of representation and the prior opportunities, if any, afforded them to obtain separate representation.

4. The history and pattern of collective bargaining in the industry involved.

5. The degree of integration of the employer's production processes, including the extent to which the continued normal operation of the production processes is dependent upon the performance of the assigned functions of the employees in the proposed unit.

6. The qualifications of the union seeking to "carve out" a separate unit, including that union's experience in representing employees like those involved in the severance action.

In relation to the dispute presented here, the Commission's concluding comments in Yelm School District are also instructive. The Commission noted that the affected bargaining unit was an "integrated support operation essential to the overall discharge by the district of its primary educational function." Turning to the instant case, the unit from which severance is sought is not quite as "integrated" as the unit at issue in Yelm. but the same analysis holds true. As in Yelm. the main business of the employer in the instant case is the operation of its educational program.

The employees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit are not a distinct and homogenous group of skilled journeyman craftsmen. The attempt to combine "warehouse" and "laundry" necessarily implies a mix of occupations. It can be acknowledged that the warehouse and laundry employees perform work that is not generally performed by the rest of the existing bargaining unit but, in like manner, there are other assignments given to other bargaining unit members that are not given to the warehouse and laundry personnel. The logical extension of the petitioner's argument would be to permit each identifiable occupation within a school district support operation to have a bargaining unit of its own. The employer already deals with four groups of non-supervisory employees within its support operation, and there is no logical need to further fragment the existing bargaining unit structure.

The employees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit share a common immediate supervisor, but that fact is not sufficient to carry the day for the petitioner. That supervisor both reports to a management official with authority over other bargaining unit employees and acts as back-up supervisor over other unit employees.

There is no history of separate representation for the petitioned-for employees or for school district warehouse and laundry personnel generally. While there is more than one bargaining unit of classified employees at the Auburn School District, the record demonstrates that the existing CMFSA unit is an integrated operation, and that the creation of a separate unit would, in fact, be disruptive of labor relations.

It is evident that the employees in this small group have some dissatisfaction with their representation by PSE, but that falls short of a showing that the exclusive bargaining representative has aligned itself in interest against them. As part of the existing bargaining unit, the warehouse and laundry employees retain their statutory rights to participate in union activities and to seek other representation for the entire bargaining unit. The petitioner has not demonstrated, however, that the warehouse and laundry employees are sufficiently unique to justify the creation of a separate bargaining unit to protect their collective bargaining rights.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Auburn School District provides a number of educational services to local residents and is a "public employer" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(1). The school district has collective bargaining relationships with several employee organizations.

2.                  Public School Employees of Washington, a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3), represents classified employees of the school district in several bargaining units, including a unit of custodial, maintenance, food service, aide, grounds, warehouse and laundry employees, known as the "CMFSA" unit, which has been in existence since approximately 1974. The collective bargaining agreement in effect between the employer and PSE for the 1983-1986 period described the unit as:

[A]ll classified employees in the following general job classifications: Custodial, Laundry, Food Services, Maintenance, Warehouse, Grounds and Building Aides. Nothing in this agreement pertains to employees not employed on a regular basis.

3.                  Auburn School District No. 408 Warehouse/Laundry Group, a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3), timely filed a petition seeking investigation of a question concerning representation involving certain warehouse and laundry employees of the Auburn School District.

4.                  The employees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit are currently part of the "CMFSA" unit represented by PSE.

5.                  Warehouse and laundry employees work twelve months a year, and report to Warehouse/Laundry Supervisor Reva Bryant. The affected employees are routinely required to work in conjunction with other district employees, and warehouse employees deliver a variety of goods to district facilities when so directed.

6.                  Warehouse and laundry employees perform their assigned functions in support of the educational program of the school district along with the other employees in the existing CMFSA bargaining unit, and the petitioned-for employees do not share a unique community of interest.

7.                  The creation of a separate bargaining unit of warehouse and laundry employees would contribute to fragmentation of the work force and collective bargaining process among employees of the employer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW.

2.                  The petitioned-for bargaining unit of warehouse and laundry employees is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of RCW 41.56.060, and no question concerning representation currently exists in an appropriate bargaining unit.

ORDER

The petition for investigation of a question concerning representation filed in the above-entitled matter is hereby DISMISSED.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 22nd day of June, 1987.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT/RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director

This Order may be appealed by filing a petition for review pursuant to WAC 391-25-390(2).