ISS Action Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jul 12, 2021

16-RC-271479 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ISS ACTION, INC.
Employer
and Case 16-RC-271479
LAW ENFORCEMENT SECURITY
OFFICERS UNIONS (LEOSU-CA)
Petitioner
ORDER
The Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s administrative dismissal
of the petition is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
JOHN F. RING, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 12. 2021.
1 The Petitioner contends that the Employer’s contract with the International Union, Security,
Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) cannot bar an election because it contains
“clearly unlawful” union security provisions, including provisions that allegedly violate Texas
“right-to-work” laws and Sec. 186(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §
186(c)(4).
It is well settled that a contract which includes a union-security clause that is clearly unlawful
on its face does not bar an election. Paragon Products Corp., 134 NLRB 662 (1961). In
determining whether a union-security clause is clearly unlawful, the Board limits its inquiry to
the “four corners of the [contract] itself” and will not examine extrinsic evidence. Jet-Pak Corp.,
231 NLRB 552, 552–553 (1977).
On its face, the contract language neither requires employees to maintain SPFPA
membership as a condition of employment nor requires the Employer to discharge an employee
who resigns from SPFPA and fails to pay dues thereafter. Indeed, a provision of the union-
security clause plainly states that “[a]n employee shall not be required, as a condition of
employment, to pay money to the Union, or to become a member of, or continue membership in,
the Union.” Additionally, the contract language is silent with respect to employees’ right to
revoke their dues checkoff authorizations and their obligations to SPFPA if they choose to do so.
For these reasons, the Regional Director did not err in finding that the contract provisions are not
clearly unlawful on their face, and that the contract serves to bar the petition at this time.
Member Emanuel recognizes that this case does not turn on the application of the successor
bar in UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357 NLRB 801 (2011), and, therefore, he joins his colleagues
in denying review. However, he recommends that the Board revisit UGL-UNICCO in a future
appropriate case and return to the approach taken in MV Transportation, 337 NLRB 770 (2002).