141 

13. MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS 

420-4000 

420-7390 

440-3300 

737-4267-8700 

The determination of the proper scope of a bargaining unit when the employer operates more 

than one plant or establishment often presents special problems. As we have seen, Section 9(b) 

empowers the Board to decide in each case whether the unit appropriate for bargaining purposes 

shall be the employer unit, the craft unit, the plant unit, or a subdivision thereof. 

The scope of the unit sought by the petitioner is relevant but cannot be determinative of the 

unit (see sec. 13-1000, infra). So when a union seeks a presumptively appropriate unit, e.g., a 

single facility or an employerwide unit, it is the employer’s burden to rebut the presumption. See, 

e.g., Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc., 326 NLRB 514 (1998) (employerwide unit presumptively 

appropriate). 

A number of factors bear on the unit determination in a multilocation situation; indeed, they 

bear striking resemblance to the factors discussed in the preceding chapter. Assuming the union is 

seeking a single-location unit, these include past bargaining history; the extent of interchange of 

employees; the work contacts existing among the several groups of employees; the extent of 

functional integration of operations; the differences, if any, in the products or in the skills or types 

of work required; the centralization or lack of centralization of management and supervision, 

particularly in regard to labor relations, the power to hire, discharge, or affect the terms and 

conditions of employment; and the physical and geographical location in relation to each other. 

These factors must necessarily be weighed in resolving the unit contentions of the parties. See, 

for example, Alamo Rent-A-Car, 330 NLRB 897 (2000); Novato Disposal Services, 328 NLRB 

820 (1999); and R & D Trucking, Inc., 327 NLRB 531 (1999), both finding that the single facility 

presumption was rebutted; RB Associates, 324 NLRB 874 (1997), single-facility presumption not 

rebutted; J&L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993). 

The general rule is that a single-plant unit is presumptively appropriate, unless the employees 

at the plant have been merged into a more comprehensive unit by bargaining history, or the plant 

has been so integrated with the employees in another plant as to cause their single-plant unit to 

lose its separate identity. Trane, 339 NLRB 866 (2003); Budget Rent A Car Systems, 337 NLRB 

884 (2002); Dattco, Inc., 338 NLRB 49 (2002); New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 

(1999). Centurion Auto Transport, 329 NLRB 34 (1999). Kendall Co., 184 NLRB 847 (1970); 

Kent Plastics Corp., 183 NLRB 612 (1970); National Cash Register Co., 166 NLRB 173 (1967); 

O’Brien Memorial, 308 NLRB 553 (1992); and Passavant Health Center, 313 NLRB 1216 

(1994) (health care institution). For a recent case in which this presumption was rebutted, see 

Dattco, supra; and Budget Rent A Car Systems, supra. See also Waste Management Northwest, 

331 NLRB 309 (2000); and Oklahoma Installation Co., 305 NLRB 812 (1991), for a discussion 

of multisite units in the construction industry. See Acme Markets, Inc., 328 NLRB 1208 (1999). 

In North Hills Office Services, 342 NLRB No. 25 (2004), the Board found a single-facility 

unit appropriate and distinguished Trane, supra, and Waste Management Northwest, supra. 

Even though employees may share a community of interest with others in a petitioned-for 

multifacility unit, that interest must be separate and distinct from that which they share with other 

employees at other facilities of the same employer, if the petitioned-for unit is to be appropriate. 

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 341 NLRB No. 140 (2004). 

If employees of another facility of the same employer are included in the unit sought, the 

presumption in favor of a single-facility unit may be lost at least witih regard to that other unit. 

Publix Super Markets, Inc., 343 NLRB No. 109 (2004). 
142 MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS

An employerwide unit is also presumptively appropriate. 

In considering whether the single-facility presumption has been rebutted, the Board examines 

a number of factors including: 

(1) central control over labor relations 

(2) local autonomy 

(3) interchange of employees 

(4) similarity of skills 

(5) conditions of employment 

(6) supervision 

(7) geographic separation 

(8) plant and product integration 

(9) bargaining history 

Budget Rent A Car Systems, supra; Trane, supra; and Bashas’, Inc., 337 NLRB 710 (2002). 

For other cases dealing with these issues see Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988); Esco 

Corp., 298 NLRB 837 (1990); and Executive Resources Associates, 301 NLRB 400 (1991). 

The same general rule is applicable also to retail chain store operations. At one time the 

Board’s policy generally was to determine the appropriate unit in retail chain store industry on the 

basis of being coextensive with the employer’s administrative division or the geographic area in 

question. This was changed in Sav-On Drugs, 138 NLRB 1032 (1962), which modified the 

preexisting policy to apply the rule that a proposed unit, which is confined to one of two or more 

retail establishments making up an employer’s retail chain, is either appropriate or not in the light 

“of all the circumstances in the case.” Id. at 1033. This does not make the extent of organization 

the “decisive factor,” but, as in manufacturing and any other multiplant enterprises, means that “a 

single location or a grouping other than an administrative division of geographical area may be 

appropriate.” See, e.g., Verizon Wireless, 341 NLRB No. 63 (2004) (unit of Bakersfield stores 

appropriate, even though distinct wide unit might also be appropriate). 

This means that the question of appropriateness of a unit is not decided “by any rigid 

yardstick” but by examining all the relevant circumstances. Frisch’s Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., 147 

NLRB 551, 552 (1964). By way of clarification of the rule announced in Sav-On Drugs, it was 

pointed out in Frisch’s that the rule in multiplant situations was applicable to multistore 

situations; i.e., a single-plant unit is presumptively appropriate unless it is established that the 

single plant has been effectively merged into a more comprehensive unit so as to have lost its 

individual identity. See also Walgreen Co., 198 NLRB 1138 (1972); Gray Drug Stores, 197 

NLRB 924 (1972); Haag Drug Co., 169 NLRB 877 (1968); and V.I.M. Jeans, 271 NLRB 1408 

(1984). In Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 153 NLRB 1549 (1965), applying the Sav-On Drugs

rule, a multistore unit was found solely appropriate on the basis of an established bargaining 

relationship and other factors pertinent to a unit determination. Compare Twenty-First Century 

Restaurant, 192 NLRB 881 (1971), and McDonalds, 192 NLRB 878 (1971). In Bashas’, Inc.,

337 NLRB 710 (2002), the Board rejected a multistore unit petition that was based solely on the 

fact that all stores were in the same county. 

It was pointed out in Haag Drug, supra, that a group of retail outlets could also constitute an 

appropriate bargaining unit if there were a sufficient degree of geographic coherence and 

common interests of the employees in the outlets. And see NLRB v. Carson Cable TV, 795 F.2d 

879 (9th Cir. 1986), which illustrates the principle that the single-facility presumption is 

inapplicable when a union petitions for a multifacility unit. 

Even if there are some factors supporting a multiplant or multistore unit, the appropriateness 

of such a unit does not establish the inappropriateness of a smaller unit. McCoy Co., 151 NLRB 

383, 384 (1965). It also follows that the appropriateness of a storewide unit does not establish a 

smaller unit as appropriate. Montgomery Ward Co., 150 NLRB 598 (1965). Thus, although the 

optimum unit for collective bargaining may well be citywide in scope, a union is not precluded 
MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS 143

from seeking a smaller unit when the unit sought is in and of itself also appropriate for collective 

bargaining in light of all the circumstances. Frisch’s Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., supra. 

On September 28, 1995, the Board published a proposed rule on the appropriateness of 

single-location bargaining units. Specifically, the proposal stated that an unrepresented singlelocation unit shall, absent extraordinary circumstances, be found appropriate provided that there 

are 15 or more employees, that no other location is located within 1 mile, and that a supervisor is 

present at the location for a regular and substantial period. The Board later decided to withdraw 

the proposed rule. 

We now direct our specific attention to the individual factors previously cited in multiplant 

and multistore situations: 

13-100 Central Control of Labor Relations 

420-4025 

440-3300 

The fact that several plants or stores are subject to identical personnel and labor relations 

policies, which are determined at the employer’s principal office, have been cited to support 

multilocation determination. Budget Rent A Car Systems, 337 NLRB 884 (2002); Dattco, Inc.,

338 NLRB 49 (2002) Purity Supreme, Inc., 197 NLRB 915 (1972); Dan’s Star Market, 172 

NLRB 1393 (1968); McCulloch Corp., 149 NLRB 1020 (1964); Mid-West Abrasive Co., 145 

NLRB 1665, 1667–1668 (1964); Barber-Colman Co., 130 NLRB 478, 479 (1961). Similarly, 

administrative integration of the employer’s operations under unified control and centralized 

control of labor relations are factors given significant weight in favor of a multilocation unit. 

Novato Disposal Services, 328 NLRB 820 (1999); R & D Trucking, Inc., 327 NLRB 531 (1999); 

Twenty-First Century Restaurant, 199 NLRB 881 (1971); Mary Carter Paint Co., 148 NLRB 46 

(1964); Universal Metal Products Corp., 128 NLRB 442 (1960). Compare Cargill, Inc., 336 

NLRB 1114 (2001), where the Board majority found “significant local autonomy over labor 

relations sufficient for a single unit.” In Twenty-First Century Restaurant, supra at 882, the Board 

commented: 

In our opinion it is significant that all of the franchised food outlets of the Employer conduct 

business under standardized policies and procedures subject to close centralized controls. It 

is clear that the location manager is vested only with minimal discretion with respect to 

labor relations matters and the method of operation, and the exercise of his discretion is 

carefully monitored by the field supervisor who visits each location daily and the general 

manager who also makes frequent visitations. In sum, any meaningful decision governing 

labor relations matters emanates from established corporatewide policy, as implemented by 

the general managers and field supervisors. [See also Waste Management Northwest, 331 

NLRB 309 (2000).] 

Compare Red Lobster, 300 NLRB 908 (1990). 

13-200 Local Autonomy 

420-4033 

440-3300 

Local autonomy of operations will militate toward a separate unit. Massachusetts Society for 

Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. NLRB, 297 F.3d 41 (1st. Cir. 2002); Angelus Furniture Mfg. 

Co., 192 NLRB 992 (1971); Bank of America, 196 NLRB 591 (1972); Parsons Investment Co., 

152 NLRB 192 (1965); J. W. Mays, Inc., 147 NLRB 968 (1964); Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, 

Inc., 128 NLRB 236 (1960). D&L Transportation, 324 NLRB 160 (1997). In Angelus Furniture, 

supra, the individual store manager could he said to represent “the highest level of supervisory 

authority present in the store for a substantial majority of time.” See also Grand Union Co., 176 
144 MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS

NLRB 230 (1969); Red Lobster, supra. Compare Budget Rent A Car Systems, 337 NLRB 884 

(2002); V.I.M. Jeans, supra; R & D Trucking, supra. 

In New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999), the Board found that the 

existence of centralized administration and control was not inconsistent with finding sufficient 

local autonomy to warrant a single location. 

13-300 Interchange of Employees 

420-5027 et seq. 

440-3300 

Interchange among employees is a frequent consideration. Like the other factors, it is 

considered in the total context. Gray Drug Stores, supra; Carter Camera Shops, 130 NLRB 276, 

278 (1961). Thus, for example, where, except for the rare instance of a new store opening, 

employees were not transferred from the store in question to another store, a unit confined to the 

one store was found appropriate. Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. 

NLRB, supra; J. W. Mays, Inc., supra at 970. See Cargill, Inc., 336 NLRB 1114 (2001); Van Lear 

Equipment, Inc., 336 NLRB 1059 (2001); Bowie Hall Trucking, 290 NLRB 41 (1988); cf. Globe 

Furniture Rentals, 298 NLRB 288 (1990). See also Courier Dispatch Group, 311 NLRB 728 

(1993). Compare Budget Rent A Car Systems, 337 NLRB 884 (2002); Trane, 339 NLRB 866 

(2003). 

For discussion of interchange in a health care setting see O’Brien Memorial, 308 NLRB 553 

(1992). 

In J&L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993), the Board found that minimal employee interchange 

and lack of meaningful contact between employees at the two facilities diminishes the 

significance of the functional integration and distance between the facilities. See also Alamo 

Rent-A-Car, 330 NLRB 897 (2000); RB Associates, supra. Compare First Security Services 

Corp., 329 NLRB 235 (1999). R & D Trucking, supra; Novato Disposal Services, 328 NLRB 820 

(1999); and Macy’s West, Inc., 327 NLRB 1222 (1999). 

In New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999), the Board found that the singlefacility presumption was not rebutted by evidence of interchange that was presented in aggregate 

form rather than as a percentage of total employees. 

In Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 341 NLRB No. 140 (2004), the Board found the 

multifacility unit sought was too narrow as it left out employees with whom the unit employees 

interchanged regularly. 

13-400 Similarity of Skills 

420-8417 

440-3300 

The similarity or dissimilarity of work skills has some bearing, along with the nature of any 

work performed, in deciding on whether a multiplant alone is appropriate. Thus, where similar 

classifications existed and similar work was being performed at two separately located plants, 

these, in addition to the consideration of multiplant bargaining history, weighed the balance in 

favor of finding only a two-plant unit appropriate. Cheney Bigelow Wire Works, 197 NLRB 1279 

(1972). See also Dattco, Inc., 338 NLRB 49 (2002); R & D Trucking, supra, and Greenhorne & 

O’Mara, and Waste Management Northwest, 331 NLRB 309 (2000). 

13-500 Conditions of Employment 

420-2900 

440-3300 

Working hours, pay rates, the nature of the employer’s operations, and indeed all terms and 

conditions of employment are factors in this area of unit determination. A difference in working 
MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS 145

hours in each store was one among a number of factors considered. V. J. Elmore 5 Stores, 99 

NLRB 1505 (1951). A difference in rates of pay was a factor, among others, in reaching the 

ultimate conclusion. Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines, 101 NLRB 581 (1953). The fact that 

airport operations were “functionally distinct” from the employer’s other operations in the area 

was taken into account. The airport operations involved the preparation and supplying of cooked 

meals for various airline companies which were prepared, brought to thc airport, and loaded on 

airplanes by employees. The employer’s other operations were restaurants in the same general 

area. In this context, a unit confined to the airport employees was found appropriate. Hot 

Shoppes, Inc., 130 NLRB 138, 141 (1961). But see Dattco, Inc., supra; Stormont-Vail Healthcare, 

Inc., 340 NLRB No. 143 (2003); Globe Furniture Rentals, supra, finding a multilocation unit 

appropriate. See also Greenhorne & O’Mara, supra; and Novato Disposal Services, 328 NLRB 

820 (1999). 

13-600 Supervision 

440-3300 

Whether the employees at different plants or stores share common supervision is a 

consideration where more than one plant, facility, or store is involved. Thus, where a store 

supervisor and the store manager of a store had direct control over the hiring and discharging of 

employees in one store, assigned work, approved work schedules and time off, and settled 

customer complaints, a unit limited in scope to that store was an appropriate unit within Board 

policy. Purity Food Stores, 150 NLRB 1523, 1527 (1965). See also Alamo Rent-A-Car, 330 

NLRB 897 (2000); Penn Color, Inc., 249 NLRB 117 (1980), and Renzettis Market, 238 NLRB 

174 (1978). See also First Security Services Corp., supra, and Courier Dispatch Group, supra. 

Compare Dattco, Inc., supra; Trane, supra; Novato Disposal Services, supra; and Macy’s West, 

supra. 

13-700 Geographical Separation 

420-6280 

440-3300 

Geography is frequently a matter of significance in resolving these issues. Thus, plants which 

are in close proximity to each other are distinguished from those which are separated by 

meaningful geographical distances. This was among the factors enumerated in deciding the 

appropriateness of a single-plant unit where 20 miles separated it from another plant. Although 

not a large distance, this geographical separation added to lack of substantial interchange; the 

absence of a bargaining history and the fact that no labor organization sought to represent a 

multiplant unit were held to warrant a single-plant unit. Dixie Belle Mills, 139 NLRB 629, 632 

(1962). See also Van Lear Equipment, Inc., 336 NLRB 1059 (2001). Compare Barber-Colman 

Co., supra, in which a plant 43 miles distant was included in what would otherwise have been a 

three-plant unit because of the functional integration of operations and centralized management of 

labor matters. See also Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 143 (2003); Trane, supra; 

Novato Disposal Services, supra, and Macy’s West, Inc., supra. But see Esco Corp., 298 NLRB 

837 (1990). 

In Capital Coors Co., 309 NLRB 322 (1992), the Board denied an employer’s request for 

review of a decision in which the Regional Director found two plants to be a single unit even 

though they were 90 miles apart. Here the union had sought a single unit of the two plants. 

In D & L Transportation, 324 NLRB 160 (1997), the Board found a single-bus terminal unit 

appropriate where inter alia, the other terminals were between 3 and 21 miles apart. See also New 

Britain Transportation, 330 NLRB 397 (1999) (separations of 6 and 12 miles). 
146 MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS

13-800 Plant Integration and Product Integration 

420-2969 et seq. 

420-4600 

440-3300 

A distinction exists between plant integration and product integration. While operations may 

be integrated among several plants with respect to executive, managerial, and engineering 

activities, countervailing factors may nonetheless favor the appropriateness of a single-plant unit. 

“[P]roduct integration is becoming a less significant factor in determining an appropriate unit 

because modern manufacturing techniques combined with the increased speed and ease of 

transport make it possible for plants located in different States to have a high degree of product 

integration and still maintain a separate identity for bargaining purposes.” Black & Decker Mfg. 

Co., 147 NLRB 825, 828 (1964). In that case, the employer engaged in the manufacture of power 

tools at plants located 24 miles apart. The Board was mindful of the existence of product 

integration and that the interchange of employees between the two plants was “more than 

minimal.” However, these circumstances were counteracted by a “relatively wide geographical 

separation,” substantial autonomy reflected by the control exercised by departmental managers 

and foremen in day-to-day operations, the absence of any bargaining history, and the fact that no 

labor organization was seeking a larger unit. It should be noted parenthetically that the latter two 

factors reflect a constant refrain in unit determinations. But compare Eastman West, 273 NLRB 

610 (1984). See also Lawson Mardon U.S.A., 332 NLRB 1282 (2000). 

Although the integration of two or more plants in substantial respects may weigh heavily in 

favor of the more comprehensive unit, it is not a conclusive factor, particularly when potent 

considerations support a single-plant unit. In this connection, see also Dixie Belle Mills, supra, 

and J&L Plate, 310 NLRB 429 (1993). 

The highly integrated nature of particular industries has caused the Board to find that a 

broader unit is optional. See New England Telephone Co., 280 NLRB 162 (1986) (system wide 

unit for each department in public utility); Inter-Ocean Steamship Co., 107 NLRB 330 (1954) 

(fleetwide unit in the maritime industry). With respect to maritime, see also Moore-McCormack 

Lines, 139 NLRB 796 (1962), in which special circumstances supported a finding that a fleetwide 

unit was not appropriate. Accord: Keystone Shipping Co., 327 NLRB 892 (1999). For a 

discussion of functional integration in automobile rental industry, see Alamo Rent-A-Car, 330 

NLRB 897 (2000). 

See also Chapter 15-280. 

13-900 Bargaining History 

420-1200 

440-3300 

The pattern of bargaining, as any study of bargaining unit principles will readily indicate, 

plays a significant role in all phases of unit determination, including, of course, the resolution of 

questions pertaining to single-unit or multilocation unit scope. By way of illustration, we mention 

three of the many cases involving this factor: 

Where a retail chain bargained in citywide units in other cities, this fact was accorded 

considerable weight in arriving at the unit determination. Spartan Department Stores, 140 

NLRB 608, 610 (1963). 

A bargaining history on a chainwide basis militated in favor of the more comprehensive 

bargaining unit. Meijer Supermarkets, 142 NLRB 513 (1963). 

A “fairly sketchy history of bargaining in two units” was insufficient to rebut other 

evidence supporting the sole appropriateness of a three-plant unit. Coplay Cement Co., 288 

NLRB 66 (1988). 
MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS 147

In Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. NLRB, 297 F.3d 41 (1st. 

Cir. 2002), the First Circuit, while commenting that the absence of history of bargaining does not 

favor or disfavor a single-facility finding, nonetheless found that the Regional Director did not 

abuse her discretion in relying on it for a single-facility finding. 

13-1000 Extent of Organization 

420-4600 

420-6280 et seq. 

440-3300 

This area of substantive law has received the specific attention of the courts, including the 

United States Supreme Court. Generally, the courts have enforced Board orders based on findings 

in given circumstances of single-location units in multilocation enterprises, despite contentions 

that the Board acted in derogation of the ban in Section 9(c)(5) on giving controlling weight to 

extent of organization. Thus, the Fourth Circuit, in discussing this type of unit determination and 

considering the factual elements, had occasion to state: “[T]he office operates in an isolated 

manner, with little or no contact with other branch offices. . . . We cannot say that a single office 

is an arbitrary choice. . . . At most, the extent of organization was only one of the factors leading 

to the Board’s decision, not the controlling one.” NLRB v. Quaker City Life Insurance Co., 319 

F.2d 690, 693–694 (4th Cir. 1963). 

In its analysis of the facts, the Third Circuit observed that “The grouping of two district 

offices was founded on cogent geographical considerations.” Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. 

NLRB, 328 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1964). 

The Sixth Circuit pointed out that “Geographical considerations were not ‘simulated grounds’ 

but the actual basis for the Board’s decision.” Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 

62 (6th Cir. 1964). See also the Ninth Circuit opinion in NLRB v. Carson Cable TV, 795 F.2d 879 

(9th Cir. 1986). 

Finally, this issue reached the highest court, in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 380 

U.S. 438 (1965), the Supreme Court reversed an unfavorable decision of the First Circuit, 327 

F.2d 906 (1964). The circumstances attending this expression by the Supreme Court were as 

follows. 

The First Circuit, disagreeing with the Board’s finding, had held, in the light of the 

unarticulated basis of decision and what appeared to it to be inconsistent determinations 

approving units requested by the union, that the only conclusion that it could reach was that the 

Board had made extent of organization the controlling factor in violation of the congressional 

mandate. The Supreme Court, declining to accept the First Circuit’s holding that the only possible 

conclusion was that the Board had acted contrary to the ban on “extent of organization” in 

Section 9(c) (5), remanded the case to the Board for the purpose of disclosing the basis of its 

order and to “give clear indications that it has exercised the discretion with which Congress has 

empowered it.” The Court added that the Board may, of course, articulate the basis of its order 

“by reference to other decisions or its general policies laid down in its rules and its annual reports, 

reflecting its ‘cumulative experience.’” 

Restating its policy in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 156 NLRB 1408, 1418 (1966), the 

Board stated: 

In making its determination the Board applied the usual tests to measure the community of 

interest of the employers involved: common working conditions a clearly defined 

geographical area sufficiently inclusive and compact to make collective bargaining in a 

single unit feasible and the absence of any substantial interchange with employees or offices 

outside the stated areas. As the units are thus appropriate under traditional criteria, the fact 

that we give effect to the Union’s request certainly does not mean that our decision is 
148 MULTILOCATION EMPLOYERS

controlled by the extent of the Union’s organization, which would be contrary to the 

mandate of Section 9(c)(5). 

It should be pointed out that, when a union requested a single unit in which only two of the 

three divisions would be represented, the Board characterized the request as one which asked “for 

neither fish nor fowl,” and found instead a unit which would represent “some geographic or 

administrative coherence.” See discussion in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 158 

NLRB 925 (1966). 

For additional discussion see sections 12-140, 12-239, and 12-300. 

13-1100 Health Care 

401-7575 

470-8500 

The statutory admonition against proliferation of bargaining units in health care prompted the 

Board to apply a somewhat different standard on multilocation v. single-location unit questions. 

In Manor Healthcare Corp., 285 NLRB 224 (1987), the Board announced that it would apply the 

single-facility presumption in health care. See also Visiting Nurses Assn. of Central Illinois, 324 

NLRB 55 (1997); Mercy Health Services North, 311 NLRB 367 (1993). That presumption can 

however, “be rebutted by a showing that the approval of a single-facility unit will threaten the 

kinds of disruptions to continuity of patient care that Congress sought to prevent when it 

expressed concern about proliferation of units in the health care industry.” Mercywood Health 

Building, 287 NLRB 1114 (1988). In that case, the Board found a single facility appropriate. 

Compare West Jersey Health System, 293 NLRB 749 (1989). Under the Board’s Rules on health 

care bargaining units, this issue is left to adjudication. 284 NLRB 1527, 1532. See also 

Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. NLRB, 297 F.3d 41 (1st. Cir. 

2002). 

In St. Luke’s Health System, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 139 (2003), a divided Board found that the 

single-facility presumption had been rebutted in a health care situation based on a review of the 

traditional factors for deciding multilocation unit issues. See also Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc,.

340 NLRB No. 143 (2003) 

See other health care issues discussed and cross-referenced in section 15-170.