Globe Security Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. 35
Globe Security Systems, Inc. and Local No. 2,
Independent Union of Police & Protective Employ-
ees, I.W.A. Case AO-153
February 13, 1974
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on November 8, 1973, by
Globe Security Systems, Inc., herein called the
Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity
with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to
determine whether the Board would assert jurisdic-
tion over the activities of the Employer with respect
to the dispute underlying the representation case
pending before the New York State Labor Relations
Board, herein called the State Board. Thereafter, on
November 19, 1973, Local No. 2, Independent
Union of Police & Protective Employees, I.W.A.,
herein called the Union, filed a response to the
petition for an Advisory Opinion entitled "Respon-
dent's Memorandum of Law"; on November 28,
1973, the Employer filed a response to the Union's
memorandum; and, on December 13, 1973, the
Union filed a reply to the Employer's response
memorandum.
In pertinent part, the petition, the Union's memo-
randum of law, the Employer's response to the
Union's memorandum, and the Union's reply thereto
allege as follows:
(1) On August 24, 1973. the Union filed a petition
with the New York State Labor Relations Board,
Docket No. SE-47029, for an investigation and
certification of representative with respect to the unit
of security guards, approximately 25 in number, at a
branch of the New York City Community College,
herein called Community College, located at 709 Jay
Street, Brooklyn, New York.
(2) The Employer, with its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the business of providing plant protection and guard
security services for a variety of types of customers
located throughout the United States. It annually
provides guard services valued in excess of $1 million
to customers located outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and annually provides guard services
valued in excess of $1 million to customers located
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are
engaged in interstate commerce.
(3) The State Board has made no findings with
respect to the aforesaid commerce data, and the
Union does not dispute this data which the Employer
supplied.
(4) No representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding involving this labor dispute is pending
before this Board.
(5) Although served with a copy of the petition for
Advisory Opinion, no response, as provided by the
Board's Rules, has been filed by the State Board.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that:
The issue presented here is whether the Board
would find the guard unit at Community College
exempt from the Board's jurisdiction under Section
2(2) of the Act. The Union argues that the Board
should follow the precedent set forth in The
Wackenhut Corp., 203 NLRB No. 3, since the facts
and circumstances therein are effectively the same as
those herein, in which the Board found that
Wackenhut's operations were exempt from the
Board's jurisdiction. The Union further argues that,
by the terms of the standard contract with New York
City, Community College retains a substantial degree
of control over the labor relations of the Employer.'
The Employer, on the other hand, argues that its
operations herein are different and distinct in nature
from those in Wackenhut and that at a minimum it
should be provided an opportunity to demonstrate
that its system of organization and methods of
operations are distinct from those- in Wackenhut.
In Wackenhut, the Board affirmed the Acting
Regional Director's Decision and Order on the basis
of his findings of fact that the guard services
provided by the employer under its contract with
City College are intimately related to the latter's
administration and educational purposes. For this
reason, the Board concluded that, with regard to the
guards employed by it to perform these services, the
employer shares City College's exemption from the
Board's jurisdiction under the provisions of Section
2(2) of the Act. It has been well established that our
Advisory Opinion proceedings are designed primari-
ly to determine questions as to the applicability of
the Board's discretionary jurisdictional standards to
an employer's commerce operations.2 The entire
submission by the Employer and the Union, as to
whether the Wackenhut case governs herein, raises
the basic issue of whether Section 2(2) of the Act
precludes the assertion of jurisdiction-an issue
which does not fall within the intendment of the
Board's Advisory Opinion rules.3
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the
1 In Wackenhut. supra, in 1, the Board found it unnecessary to decide ' Ibid Chairman Miller declines to issue an Advisory Opinion in this
whether or not the degree of control retained by City College concerning case because he believes the issue presented involves factual and legal
such services would constitute a separate basis for declining to assert questions which cannot be resolved on the basis of the pleadings, and
jurisdiction over the employer without a hearing.
2 See, e g, The Children's Village. Inc, 180 NLRB 1044, and cases cited
209 NLRB No. 18
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons set forth above, the petition for an Advisory determination of the merits of the jurisdictional
Opinion herein be. and it hereby is, dismissed. The issue.
Board 's dismissal is not to be construed as a