National Labor Relations Board v. Klochko Equipment Rental Co.
657 F. App'x 441
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Klochko Equipment Rental Company operates a Melvindale, Michigan repair shop with a separate Saginaw satellite office; six mechanics and two truck drivers form the Melvindale unit represented by Local 324 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.
- Brian Miller was hired in 2012 as the sole mechanic at the Saginaw satellite office, while the Melvindale unit mechanics remained at the main location.
- Miller sought to join the Melvindale bargaining unit; the union petitioned for an Armour–Globe election to include Miller in the unit.
- The NLRB Regional Director found a community of interest between Miller and the Melvindale unit mechanics and allowed Miller to vote to join the unit.
- Klochko challenged the NLRB’s decision, arguing Miller did not share a community of interest with the Melvindale mechanics; the NLRB panel denied review and Miller joined the unit.
- After certification, Klochko refused to recognize and bargain with the Union regarding Miller, leading to a charge and the Board’s summary judgment in favor of the General Counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller shares a community of interest with the Melvindale mechanics | Klochko argues no substantial interchange and dissimilar working conditions. | Klochko (as employer) contends the record shows no community of interest. | Yes; substantial evidence supports community of interest. |
| Whether the unit and Miller have similar working conditions | Klochko asserts notable differences in location, duties, and pay. | Board found substantial similarity in hours, pay range, and tasks. | Yes; working conditions are sufficiently similar. |
| Whether Miller’s distinct benefits negate inclusion in the unit | Klochko asserts Miller lacks health insurance and retirement benefits. | Differences stem from the bargaining agreement, not the unit’s structure. | No; differences due to absence of bargaining agreement do not prevent inclusion. |
| Whether the NLRB acted within its discretion in unit determination | Klochko contends decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. | Board has broad discretion and standard of review is narrow. | Yes; NLRB’s decision not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Action Auto., Inc., 469 U.S. 490 (1985) (broad discretion in bargaining-unit determinations; focus on community of interest)
- American Hosp. Ass’n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (flexibility in unit shaping; employer’s burden of proof limited to arbitrariness)
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013) (five-factor community-of-interest test; unit appropriateness)
- ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 689 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2012) (employee interchange, supervision, and contact considerations)
- Mitchellace, Inc. v. NLRB, 90 F.3d 1150 (6th Cir. 1996) (limits on deference to Board findings; standard of review for unit decisions)
- Bry-Fern Care Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 21 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 1994) (interchange and working-condition considerations in community-of-interest analysis)
- NLRB v. American Seaway Foods, Inc., 702 F.2d 630 (6th Cir. 1983) (framework for reviewing Board unit determinations)