Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

96 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board8. Accretion to Represented UnitIn Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc.," the Board held that a previouslyunrepresented group of two warehouse employees of CMD, Inc.did not constitute an accretion to a represented unit of two warehouseemployees of Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., notwithstanding thefull operational integration of the warehouse functions of thosetwo companies and their status as a single employer. 98 TheBoard also found that, following the operational integration ofthe previously separate Hamilton and CMD warehouse functions,the employer was no longer under an obligation to bargain withthe union about the two represented Hamilton employees. Thus,it concluded that the employer did not violate the Act as alleged,and dismissed the complaint.In fmding no accretion, the Board distinguished this case fromCentral Soya Co., 99 in which the majority found that an unrepresentedgroup of 13 feed mill employees at a newly acquired locationconstituted an accretion to a represented unit of 15 feed millemployees at another location following the consolidation of thecompany's feed mill operations at the newly acquired, historicallyunrepresented location. "Thus, a crucial factor in the . fmdingof an accretion in Central Soya—union majority status—is notpresent here," stated the Board, noting that there were an equalnumber of represented Hamilton employees and unrepresentedCMD employees. Accordingly, the Board overruled Public ServiceCo. of New Hampshire,"° in which the majority found thatan unrepresented group of five employees constituted an accretionto a represented unit of five employees.In fmding that the employer had no obligation to continue tobargain with the union about the represented employees followingthe operational integration of the represented and unrepresentedgroups, the Board relied on Abbott-Northwestern Hospital"'and Renaissance Center Partnership. 102 In those cases, theBoard held that "an employer is not obligated to continue to recognizeand bargain with a union as the exclusive bargaining representativeof one group of its employees when that representedgroup is merged with an unrepresented group in such a mannerthat an accretion cannot be found and the original representedgroup is no longer identifiable."Applying this principle to the facts in Geo. V. Hamilton, theBoard found that, in light of the full operational and administrativeintegration of the Hamilton and CMD warehouse functions97 289 NLRB No. 165 (Chairman Stephens and Members Johansen, Babson, and Cracraft).98 A "single employer" relationship exists when two nominally separate entities are actually part ofa single integrated enterprise so that for all purposes, including liability for actions alleged to be inviolation of the National Labor Relations Act, there is in fact only a "single employer." See NLRB v.Browning-Ferris Industries, 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982).°° 281 NLRB 1308 (1986).100 190 NLRB 350 (1971).1 ° 1 274 NLRB 1063 (1985)."a 239 NLRB 1247 (1979).