G2 Secure Staff LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 21, 2020

29-UD-232699 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 21, 2020)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G2 SECURE STAFF, LLC
Employer
and Case 29-UD-232699
VERONICA SALAZAR,
Petitioner
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 32BJ
Union
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 11, 2018, the Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking to rescind the
authority to maintain a union-security clause in the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and the Union, which covers all employees employed by the Employer at Terminal D,
LaGuardia Airport. The Employer argued that the petition should be dismissed, reasoning that it
is a “derivative carrier” subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and therefore
the Board lacks jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of the Act. Following a hearing, the Regional
Director transferred the matter to the Board and requested that the Board refer the matter to the
National Mediation Board (NMB) for an advisory opinion concerning the NMB’s jurisdiction.
On June 12, 2019, the Board submitted this case to the NMB for a determination on whether the
Employer’s LaGuardia operations are subject to the RLA. Thereafter, the NMB issued an
opinion stating that, in its view, the Employer is a carrier subject to the RLA. G2 Secure Staff,
LLC, 46 NMB 83 (2019).
Having received the NMB’s advisory opinion, we will give it the substantial deference
the Board ordinarily accords such opinions. See DHL Worldwide Express, 340 NLRB 1034,
1034 (2003). Considering the record in light of the NMB’s opinion, we find that the Employer’s
employees employed at Terminal D perform work that has traditionally been performed by air
carrier employees, and that a carrier (Delta Airlines) exercises substantial control over the
Employer’s Terminal D operations under the NMB’s traditional six-factor carrier control test.
Under that test, we find that the record supports the NMB’s finding that four factors — the extent
of Delta’s control over the manner in which the Employer conducts its business, Delta’s access
to the Employer’s operations and records, Delta’s role in personnel decisions, and the extent of
Delta’s control over employee training — demonstrate that the Employer is subject to Delta’s
2
control and thus weigh in favor of RLA jurisdiction.1 Therefore, we agree with the NMB’s
determination that Delta exercises sufficient control over the Employer’s operations at Terminal
D to establish RLA jurisdiction. See Prime Flight Aviation Services, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 81,
slip op. 2–3 & fn. 4 (2019) (four of six factors established RLA jurisdiction; only “the degree of
carrier supervision over the Employer’s employees and whether the Employer’s employees are
held out to the public as carrier employees” did not support RLA jurisdiction.) Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed.
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 21, 2020.

1 We find that an additional factor — whether the Employer’s employees are held out to the
public as Delta’s employees — is neutral because although the Employer’s employees’ uniforms
do not contain Delta’s logo and they do not interact with Delta’s passengers, the Employer’s and
Delta’s employees wear similar uniforms and the Employer’s employees drive Delta’s lavatory
and water trucks. The remaining factor — the degree of carrier supervision over the Employer’s
employees — does not support RLA jurisdiction.