Columbia Pictures Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 26, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION 899 Hence I have found that the actions of the Respondents complained of herein were directed against primary employers for a legitimate and legal purpose. Thus there can be no violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) and, therefore, I will recommend that this complaint be dismissed in toto. As a matter of fact, the Board has already decided the law applicable to the instant case when it decided International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 19, Independent, et al. (Pacific Maritime Association),15 and adopted the very able opinion of Trial Examiner William E. Spencer, with which I am in complete accord. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Hampton Roads Maritime Association, Inc., its employer-members: U.S. Lines Company, Raleigh, Southern, and Old Dominion, are each employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent International Longshoremen's Association and its Local 1248 are each of them labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondents have not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom- mend that the Board issue an order dismissing the complaint in its entirety. 15 137 NLRB 119 Columbia Pictures Corporation and American Federation of Guards, Local No. 1 and Office Employes International Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-RC-279. May 26, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNITS On July 17, 1964, the Employer filed a motion for clarification, requesting the National Labor Relations Board to find that the "two individuals employed at the front desk" should be included in the unit represented by the American Federation of Guards, Local No. 1.1 The Office Employes International Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO,2 opposed the motion on the grounds that the employees in question did not perform guard duties and have been properly represented by the Office Employes Union or its predecessor union since 1940. The Guards T`nion supported the motion. On November 17, 1964, the Board issued an Order in which it directed that the issues raised be resolved at the hearing, and referred the proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 21 for such pur- pose. On February 4, 1965, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Orville S. Johnson. All parties participated and also submitted briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con- 1 Hereinafter referred to as the Guards Union. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the Office Employes Union. 152 NLRB No. 90. 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in this case, and finds: Prior to 1947 the "individuals employed at the front desk" were included in the unit now represented by the Office Employes Union. In 1947 the parties agreed that these individuals, three in number, would continue to be represented by the Office Employes Union until they were replaced, died, or retired, at which time their replacements would be included in the unit represented by the Guards Union. Later in 1947, and again in 1953, a front desk employee left and his replace- ment was included in the unit represented by the Guards Union. In 1957 the Employer discontinued the third shift. The front desk was then manned by one office unit employee and one guards unit employee. Finally in 1964 the last office unit employee retired, and his replace- ment was included in the unit represented by the Guards Union. The Office Employes Union contends, contrary to its 1947 agreement, that both "front desk" employees should be included in its unit. The Employer's studio has three entrances . Two of them, the auto- mobile entrance and the prop entrance, are guarded by persons whom the Office Employes Union concedes are guards within the meaning of the Act. The third entrance, where the employees in question work, is in the administration building which faces on a public street. The employees in question are stationed at a desk located immediately behind the front entrance of the building. On either side of the desk are doors leading to the administration building and the studio lots. The employee at the desk controls passage through these doors by means of a foot pedal which electronically opens them. To gain admis- sion one must either be recognized or show a pass. Passes are issued to visitors only after checking with the person whom the visitor wishes to see. In preventing unauthorized persons from entering, the employ- ees in question have been instructed to use force, and on at least two occasions this has been necessary. There are no unguarded public entrances to the building. The employees at the front desk also watch for people carrying pack- ages or other property out of the building. If they do not have a pass, they are sent back to obtain proper authorization to remove the prop- erty. A pass must be shown for both personal and studio property. On a number of occasions employees have been sent back to obtain the proper authorization. COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION 901 The employees at the desk are considered by the Employer to be in its police department. They wear uniforms and have badges which read "Columbia Pictures-Police." 3 Neither they nor any other per- sons in the police department carry firearms. Employees at the front desk have always been male and have had either police experience or a comparable background. Whenever the regularly assigned employee is on vacation or is sick, he is replaced by another police department elllployee.4 The persons at the other two entrances, who admittedly perform guard functions, wear the same type of uniform, perform similar tasks, and receive orders from the same supervisor as those at the front desk. However, they do not sit at desks inside a building. The Office Employes Union relies on Livonia Plant of Automatic Transrnission Division, Ford Motor Company, 116 NLRB 1995, to show that the employees in question do not perform guard duties. We think that case is distinguishable. There the employees were women. Their duties did not require them to challenge persons entering the building, but rather to direct visitors to their destinations. Also, the building in which they worked had other unguarded entrances through which outsiders could gain admission. Further, they did not examine packages or challenge persons removing property. We are satisfied that the front-desk employees in the instant case perform guard duties and that their function is to protect the Employ- er's property against trespass and theft by both employees and others. They do so by controlling admission to the premises and insuring that those removing property have authorization to do so.' As they are employed as guards within the meaning of the Act, we shall include them in the unit represented by the Guards Union.6 [The Board clarified the units by including the two individuals employed at the front desk in the unit represented by the American Federation of Guards, Local No. 1, and by excluding them from the unit represented by the Office Employes International Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO.] 3 Employees in the unit represented by the Office Employes Union did not wear uniforms when working at the front desk. 4 There is evidence that in the past the employees at the front desk had been relieved during short breaks by nonguard employees . However, they are now replaced by other employees in the Guards Union's unit. 5 See, e.g., Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., and Joe Wells , et al., Co -Partners, d/b/a Thunder- bird Hotel, 144 NLRB 84 , 87 (timekeepers ) ; West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company (Hinde & Daueh Division, Detroit Plant), 140 NLRB 1160; Republic Aviation Corpora- tion, 106 NLRB 91, 93-94; (receptionists). 6 The fact that there was a past agreement among the parties to include persons doing the guard work in a nonguard unit does not authorize the Board to find at this time that they are appropriately within the unit represented by the Office Employes Union.