## Facts

- PCC Structurals, Inc. operated three nearby facilities in the Portland, Oregon area with a common manufacturing process.
- Production occurred in two stages: a “front end” creating molds and castings, and a “back end” inspecting and reworking castings, including welding repairs.
- A union petitioned for a bargaining unit limited to approximately 102 welders and one rework specialist/crucible repair employee who worked primarily in the “back end.”
- The employer argued the smallest appropriate unit was a wall-to-wall unit of roughly 2,565 production and maintenance employees across about 120 job classifications.
- The Regional Director, applying the then-controlling Specialty Healthcare framework, found the welders-only unit appropriate because it was identifiable and internally shared a community of interest, and the employer failed to prove an “overwhelming community of interest” with excluded employees.
- The employer sought Board review, challenging both the unit determination and the Specialty Healthcare standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board should continue applying Specialty Healthcare’s “overwhelming community of interest” test for challenges seeking inclusion of additional employees in a petitioned-for unit.
2. What standard should govern whether a petitioned-for group is an appropriate bargaining unit under NLRA § 9(b).

## Decision

- The Board granted review and overruled Specialty Healthcare.
- The Board reinstated the traditional community-of-interest analysis, focusing on whether the petitioned-for employees’ interests are sufficiently distinct from those of excluded employees to justify a separate unit.
- The Board eliminated the requirement that a party seeking a larger unit must prove an “overwhelming community of interest” between included and excluded employees.
- The Board remanded to the Regional Director to reconsider the appropriate unit under the reinstated standard rather than decide the unit question itself.

## Legal Principles

- Under NLRA § 9(b), the Board must determine an “appropriate” bargaining unit in each case to assure employees’ fullest freedom in exercising statutory rights while supporting effective collective bargaining and avoiding unnecessary fragmentation.
- The traditional community-of-interest inquiry balances factors such as skills and duties, working conditions, functional integration, supervision, employee interchange and contact, geographic proximity, and bargaining history.
- The proper question is whether the petitioned-for employees share interests sufficiently distinct from excluded employees to warrant a separate unit; the petitioned-for unit is not presumptively controlling.
- A party advocating a broader unit is not required to meet an added “overwhelming community of interest” burden; instead, the Board assesses included and excluded employees under the same community-of-interest framework.

## Conclusion

The Board rejected Specialty Healthcare’s heightened burden that favored small petitioned-for units, restored the traditional multi-factor community-of-interest test, and remanded for a new unit determination applying whether the welders were sufficiently distinct from other production and maintenance employees to form a separate appropriate unit.


PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 N.L.R.B. No. 160 (2017)