Crenulated Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1216 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1216
308 NLRB No. 178
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crenulated Company, Ltd. and Local 971, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Security Guards, Peti-
tioner. Case 12–RC–7522 (formerly Case 2–RC–
21140)
September 30, 1992
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
REMANDING
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The Board has delegated its authority in this pro-
ceeding to a three-member panel, which has considered
the Petitioner’s request for review of the Regional Di-
rector’s Decision and Order. The request for review is
granted as it raises a substantial issue with respect to
the Regional Director’s finding that the Employer’s
shift security supervisors are supervisors within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)
despite the fact they supervise employees of another
employer. Having carefully considered the matter at
issue, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that
the shift security supervisors are not statutory super-
visors, as they do not supervise employees of their em-
ployer, and therefore the petitioned-for unit of two
shift security supervisors is an appropriate unit for col-
lective bargaining.
The undisputed facts as set forth in the Regional Di-
rector’s decision show that the Employer owns and
leases 14 residential apartment buildings in the Bronx,
New York, which are known as New Settlement
Apartments. CHP Security Service Company has a
contract with the Employer to provide unarmed secu-
rity service for the Employer’s apartment buildings.
The Employer employs two individuals classified as
shift security supervisors to oversee these security
guards. The Petitioner does not dispute the Regional
Director’s finding that the shift security supervisors ex-
ercise supervisory authority, but contends only that this
authority does not render them supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act because the em-
ployees that they are supervising are employees of an-
other employer.
Petitioner is correct. It is well established that an in-
dividual must exercise supervisory authority over em-
ployees of the employer at issue, and not employees
of another employer, in order to qualify as a supervisor
under Section 2(11) of the Act. See, e.g., Eureka
Newspapers, 154 NLRB 1181, 1185 (1965); Fleet
Transport Co., 196 NLRB 436, 438 fn. 6 (1972). In
the instant case, it is uncontroverted that the peti-
tioned-for shift security guards, found to be super-
visors, are employed by a different employer from the
security guards over whom they possess supervisory
authority. Accordingly, we reverse the Regional Direc-
tor’s decision, reinstate the petition, and remand the
case to the Regional Director for further appropriate
action.
ORDER
It is ordered that the Regional Director’s dismissal
of the representation petition is reversed, the petition
is reinstated, and the proceeding is remanded to the
Regional Director for further appropriate action.