AFP Specialties, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

May 18, 2017

07-RD-187706 (N.L.R.B. May. 18, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFP SPECIALTIES, INC.
Employer
and
SHERYL L. BECKMAN
Petitioner Case 07-RD-187706
and
ROAD SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO
Union
ORDER
The Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 18, 2017

1 We agree that the bargaining relationship between the Union and the Employer with respect to the
Employer’s sprinkler fitters was governed by Section 8(f), not Section 9(a), of the Act, for the reasons discussed in
the Regional Director’s decision. See also G & L Associated, Inc., d/b/a USA Fire Protection, 358 NLRB 1722
(2012) (Noel Canning Board), motion for reconsideration denied 359 NLRB 574 (2013), affirmed and incorporated
by reference 361 NLRB No. 58 (2014), in which we held that identical language in the Union’s recognition
agreement did not establish Section 9(a) status under Staunton Fuel & Material, Inc., d/b/a Central Illinois
Construction, 335 NLRB 717 (2001). Accordingly, the Regional Director correctly rejected the Union’s arguments
regarding the multiemployer unit and contract bar in directing an election in the single-employer unit. John
Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375, 1385 (1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d
Cir. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 889 (1988). Finally, we decline to address the Union’s argument under Casale
Industries, Inc., 311 NLRB 951 (1993), which it failed to timely present to the Regional Director and which
accordingly is not properly before us. See Sec. 102.67(e) of the Board’s Rules & Regulations; Pulau Corp., 363
NLRB No. 8, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2015).
In denying review, Chairman Miscimarra notes his disagreement with Staunton Fuel, supra, for the reasons
stated in his opinions in Colorado Fire Sprinkler Inc., 364 NLRB No. 55, slip op. at 3-6 (2016) (Member
Miscimarra, dissenting), and King’s Fire Protection, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 129, slip op. at 3-6 (2015) (Member
Miscimarra, dissenting in part). Nevertheless, he agrees that the Union has failed to prove valid 9(a) status in the
single-employer unit here under any relevant standard. Chairman Miscimarra disagrees with the holding of Casale
Industries, supra, for the reasons stated in his partial dissent in Kings Fire Protection, supra, slip op. at 7-8.
Accordingly, he would find that the challenge to the Union’s Sec. 9(a) status was timely even if the Casale
Industries argument had been timely presented to the Regional Director.