In a decision by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 27, an election was directed for traffic control employees of Traffic Management, LLC (the Employer). The Petitioner, Laborers International Union of North America, Local 720, sought to represent all of the Employer's full-time and regular part-time employees in the State of Colorado. The Employer contested this, arguing that the proposed unit, encompassing the entire state, was overly broad.

The Employer operates traffic control facilities, with two branches in Colorado: Denver and Greeley. The Petitioner argued that the statewide unit was appropriate due to the parties' existing Section 8(f) agreements and historical operational patterns. The Employer, however, contended that the unit should be limited to employees dispatched from its two existing branches, citing that the overwhelming majority of work occurred within a 30-mile radius of these locations.

The Regional Director found that the Petitioner's proposed statewide unit was not appropriate. The Director noted that while the parties had a Section 8(f) agreement, its terms did not specify geographic constraints beyond the nature of the work. Although incorporated Master Labor Agreements were limited to Colorado, the Employer had no stated involvement in their negotiation. Crucially, the record did not demonstrate that the Employer consistently performed work throughout the entire state, with evidence showing significant portions of Colorado where no work had been performed. The Director emphasized that a statewide unit would improperly grant representational status to employees of potential future branches who would then be deprived of their right to choose their representative, contrary to Board policy.

Consequently, the Regional Director found the Employer's proposed unit definition to be appropriate. This unit encompasses all full-time and regular part-time employees performing traffic control work, dispatched from or out of the Denver and Greeley branches. The Director noted that despite some work occurring outside the 30-mile radii, employees remained attached to these branches, reporting to them before and after shifts and receiving dispatches from them. The analysis considered the factors for a multifacility unit, including employee skills, functional integration, geographic proximity, centralized control, bargaining history, and extent of union organizing. The decision found these factors weighed in favor of a multifacility unit encompassing both branches.

The decision directed a secret ballot election for employees within the defined appropriate unit. The election was scheduled for May 14-15, 2026.

Significant Cases Cited

• Wheeling Island Gaming, 355 NLRB 637 (2010): The Board's determination of an appropriate unit focuses on whether it is "an appropriate unit," not necessarily the only or most appropriate one.
• P.J. Dick Contracting, Inc., 290 NLRB 150 (1988): In determining an appropriate unit, the Board is guided by the objectives of promoting employee self-organization, freedom of choice in collective bargaining, and industrial peace and stability.
• Exemplar, Inc., 363 NLRB 1500 (2016): When evaluating the appropriateness of a multifacility bargaining unit, the Board examines factors such as employee skills, duties, working conditions, functional integration, geographic proximity, centralized control, bargaining history, and the extent of union organizing and employee choice.
• Barron Heating & Air Conditioning, 343 NLRB 450 (2004): While Section 8(f) bargaining history is a factor in determining an appropriate unit, it is not conclusive and must be weighed against other considerations and Board policy.
• Oklahoma Installation Co., 305 NLRB 812 (1991): It is improper to include areas within a bargaining unit where the employer has performed no work in the past and has no current plans to do so, as claims of future work in those areas are speculative.

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.