Globe Security Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 11, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 596 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Globe Security Services, Inc. and Union of Security
Officers. Case 4-CA-7326
November 11, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on April 2, 1975, by Union of
Security Officers, herein called the Union, and duly
served on Globe Security Services, Inc., herein called
the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 4, issued a complaint on April 29, 1975,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and Was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on March 5,
1975, following a Board election in Case 4-RC-
11330 the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate;1 and that,
commencing on or ' about April ' 1, 1975, and at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and con-
tinues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative,
although the Union has requested and is requesting it
to do So.' On May 8, 1975, Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint.
On June 18, 1975, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Subsequently, on June 30, 1975, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 4-RC-11330, as the term "record" is defined in Sees. 102 68 and
102 69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended See
LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd 388 F.2d 683 (C.A 4,
1968); Golden Age Beverage Co, 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd 415 F 2d 26
221 NLRB No. 77
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and in its Statement
in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,
Respondent denies that the unit in which the Union
was certified is appropriate, asserts that a majority of
unit employees did not in fact select the Union as
their representative, and asserts that, consequently,
its refusal to bargain with the Union was not
violative of the Act. The General Counsel contends
that Respondent, in its answer to the complaint,
merely contests the validity of the findings made in
the representation proceeding and fails to raise any
issues warranting a hearing. We agree with the
General Counsel.
Our examination of the record in Case 4-RC-
11330 reveals that on December 31, 1974, the Acting
Regional Director, after a hearing on the Union's
petition, issued a Decision and Direction of Election
directing an election among a unit of Respondent's
guards assigned to stores of the Pennsylvania, Liquor
Control Board in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
metropolitan area. Respondent filed a request for
review contending that the unit found by the
Regional Director to be appropriate is, in fact,
inappropriate in that it is too narrow in scope and
should include all the guards employed at its
Philadelphia branch. The Board, in a telegraphic
communication of February 6, 1975, denied Respon-
dent's request for review as raising no substantial
issues warranting review., An- election conducted on
February 25, 1975, resulted in a vote of 17 for the
Union, 3 against the Union, and no challenged
ballots. Absent objections to the election, the
Regional Director, on March 5, 1975, certified the
Union as exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in the unit found to be appropriate.,
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2'
All issues, except as discussed hereinafter, raised by
the Respondent in this proceeding were or could
have been litigated in the prior representation
proceeding, and the Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
(C.A 5, 1969); Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va, 1967);
Follett Corp, 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7, 1968); Sec
9(d) of the NLRA
2 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N L.RB, 313 US. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Sees 102.67(1) and 102.69(c)
GLOBE SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 597
find that the Respondent has not raised any issue
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding.
In its Statement in Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment Respondent also contends, in
substance, that a decision and order based on the
record before us would be procedurally defective as
contrary to Section 10 of the Act and the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, which contemplate that
findings and orders of the Board be based upon a
record made before a member of the Board or by an
Administrative Law Judge designated by the Board.
Contrary to Respondent's view, neither Section 10 of
the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act,' nor
constitutional due process mandate that the instant
proceeding be heard and determined by a member of
the Board or an Administrative Law Judge where, as
here, there `are no issues of fact on which to hold a
hearing .3 Respondent's request for review, which
disputed the unit determination; was denied on the
ground that it raised no substantive issues warranting
review. By such denial the Board implicitly and
necessarily found that Respondent raised no issue
warranting an evidentiary"hearing?' Likewise, due
process does not require such a hearing in this
summary judgment proceeding because the only
issues raised here were considered and determined in
the representation proceeding.5 Finally, Respondent
was afforded an opportunity to oppose the motion
and did so in its Statement in Opposition to Motion
for Summary Judgment. Respondent has thus been
afforded a proper forum in which to be heard and
we, therefore, find no merit in this contention.6 We
shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in
the business of providing security services to business
firms and institutions located throughout the United
States. During the past year, Respondent provided
a See Janler Plastic Mold Corporation, 191 NLRB 162'(1971), Local
Union No 3, IBEW, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), 206
NLRB 423 (1973).
4 Raub Supply Company, 215 NLRB No 75 (1974)
s Target Stores, Inc, 219 NLRB No 95 (1975)
6 On October 1, 1975, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
complaint and revoke certification in the instant proceeding alleging that
the unit of all New York City employees found appropriate by the Regional
Director for the Board's Region 2 in Case 2-RC-16915 is inconsistent with
the unit limited to only one location in Philadelphia, found appropriate
herein and requesting dismissal of the complaint or alternatively oral
argument before the full Board. It is well settled that more than one unit
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
persons and firms located outside the State of
Delaware.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Union of Security Officers is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within 'the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All guards employed by Globe Security Serv-
ices, Inc., at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board's State Stores located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, but excluding all other employees,
guards employed at other locations,7 and supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act.
2. The certification
On February 25, 1975, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 4, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent. The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on March 5, 1975, and the Union
continues to be, such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
may be appropriate and which of multiple possible alternative units may be
appropriate m a particular case is left-to the discretion of the Board See U-
Tote-Em Grocery Co, division of Malone & Hyde, Inc, 185 NLRB 52 (1970),
Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc., 187 NLRB 873 (1971), and cases cited therein
Accordingly, the appropriateness of the citywide New York City unit, the
scope of which was stipulated, does not necessarily negate the appropriate-
ness of the less than citywide Philadelphia unit found appropriate herein. In
these circumstances, the motion and the alternative request for full Board
oral argument is denied
7 The unit description has been clarified to eliminate any possible
ambiguity resulting from the exclusion of guards from a guard unit
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Request To Bargain,and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about March 19, 1975, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about April 1, 1975, and continuing at
all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has
refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said
unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since April 1, 1975, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section, I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic , and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and- desist therefrom, and,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in - the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit. See Mar Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 785 -(1962); Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (C.A., 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB
1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d,57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire-record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Globe Security Services, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Union of Security Officers is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All guards employed by Globe Security Serv-
ices, Inc., at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board's State Stores located in Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, but excluding all other employees, guards
employed at other locations, and supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since March 5, 1975, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for, the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about April 1, 1975, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Globe Security Services, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Union of Security
GLOBE SECURITY- SERVICES, INC. '599
Officers as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All guards employed by Globe Secunty Serv-
ices, Inc., at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board's State Stores located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, but excluding all other employees,
guards employed at other locations, and supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offices
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." S
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4 after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon ' receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
s In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Orderof the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF TIM
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to. bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours,•and other
terms and conditions of employment with Union
of Security Officers as'the exclusive representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit described
below.,
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all' employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment',, and, if an understanding is ;reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The, bargaining unit is:
All guards employed by Globe Security
Services, Inc., at the Pennsylvania Liquor
Control -Board's State Stores located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but excluding all
other employees; guards and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
GLOBE SECURITY
SERVICES, INC.