International Security Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 29, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1129 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORPORATION 1129 International Security Corporation and Security Guards Local Union No. 714, affiliated with the In- ternational Association of Security Guards, Inde- pendent, Petitioner . Case 10-RC-10517 April 29, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Anne B. Reel. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Direc- tor for Region 10, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. There- after, the Employer filed exceptions and a brief in support of its respective position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner seeks a unit of security officers or guards who are contracted out by the Employer to various businesses in the metropolitan Atlanta area. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not qualified under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act to repre- sent a unit of guards since it would admit nonguard employees to membership. The International Association of Security Guards was formed about April 1, 1975, with a constitution and bylaws adopted on October 1, 1975. The Peti- tioner, Local Union No. 714, was chartered on Au- gust 1, 1975, and has adopted the constitution and bylaws of the International Union. Prior to the in- stant petition neither the Local nor the International has attempted to organize the employees of any Em- ployer. During their formative stage the International and Local received aid and support from union officials who were associated with unions which admit to membership employees other than guards. However, the record shows that in January 1976, all officials who were associated with nonguard unions resigned voluntarily.' There is no showing that at the time of the hearing, January 19, 1976, either the Internation- al or the Local had any direct or indirect affiliation with a nonguard union 2 The Employer bases its contention that the peti- tioning Local should be disqualified upon testimony- given early in the hearing by a Petitioner' s witness that the Local would admit to membership employ- ees whose duties consisted of making rounds of a plant to inspect for and reduce fire hazards. As the Employer correctly points out, such employees are not considered guards under the Board's definition.' However, upon further examination by its attorney the Petitioner's witness specifically statedâ€¢ that it was not the Local's intention to accept nonguards into membership and that it would be guided in all cases by existing Board and court precedents and advice from the Board's regional office. The International's constitution and bylaws do not on their face contra- dict. the testimony of Petitioner's witness nor give support to the Employer's contention.4 On these facts, we conclude that the Petitioner has neither direct nor indirect affiliation with a nonguard union. Nor do we find any basis for not concluding, on the record as a whole, that the Petitioner is an independent organization which will restrict its mem- bership to only employees defined as guards under the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is incorporated in the District of Columbia, and its principal office and place of busi- ness is in Arlington, Virginia. It maintains a branch office in Atlanta, Georgia, and from that office se- 1 Cf. International Harvester Company, Wisconsin Steel Works, 145 NLRB 1747 (1964). z Petitioner is admittedly funded in its operations and organizational ac- tivities by advances from G & G Enterprises through advances made against the latter's anticipated ticket sales for union benefits to be conduct- ed at future dates. Absent showing that G & G Enterprises or its agent, Carl Gallo, has affiliation with other labor organizations or would in any way compromise the Petitioner's status to represent guards, we do not con- sider this arrangement relevant to this proceeding. 3 Arkley Lumber Co., 169 NLRB 1098 (1968); Thunderbird Hotel, Inc. and Joe Wells, James Schuyler and William Deer, Co-partners, d/b/a Thunderbird Hotel Company, 144 NLRB 84 (1963). After the close of the hearing the Petitioner filed a motion with the Board to reopen the hearing for the limited purpose of placing into evidence an amended constitution and bylaws which specifically spelled out its intent and purpose to follow the requirements of Sec. 9(b)(3) of the Act. We deny the motion as we find that such amendment would add no additional mate- rial evidence to support our decision herein. In any case, if the Petitioner is shown to admit nonguards or to be affiliated directly or indirectly with a nonguard union, the Board will entertain a motion to withhold or to revoke certification if the Petitioner should win the election directed below. 223 NLRB No. 170 1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD curity guarding service is supplied to approximately 15 businesses in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Only the Atlanta office is involved in this proceeding. The Atlanta business office consists of approxi- mately 52 employees . The branch manager, the assis- tant manager, a captain , and two lieutenants who work in the business office are all salaried , with au- thority to hire and discharge security officers sup- plied to clients . At the hearing the parties agreed that the individuals holding these positions are supervi- sors within the meaning of the Act, and should be excluded from any unit found to be appropriate. In addition , the Employer maintains a force of approxi- mately 47 regularly assigned security or guard offi- cers . The security guards are generally permanently assigned on the premises of a client . They wear uni- forms and patrol and guard the entrances and prem- ises of the client against unauthorized persons. If the client requests, the security officers may be armed. Off-duty security officers are often assigned as re- placements for security officers who are unable to work their scheduled shifts . During the Christmas season security guards are hired on a temporary basis with no guarantee of permanent employment after the conclusion of the Christmas season. The parties agree that the appropriate guard unit consists of the above regularly assigned security offi- cers , and that the branch manager , the assistant man- ager, the captain , and the lieutenants , as well as se- curity personnel hired on a temporary seasonal basis, should be excluded. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain- ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All regularly assigned security officers or guards employed by the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, branch , excluding the branch manager , the as- sistant manager, the captain , and two lieuten- ants , and security officers employed temporarily for the Christmas season , office clerical employ- ees, and all other employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.]