Professional Janitorial Service of Houston

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 2008

353 N.L.R.B. 595 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON
353 NLRB No. 65
595
Professional Janitorial Service of Houston, Inc. and
Service Employees International Union, Local 5.
Cases 16–CA–25491 and 16–CA–25780
December 17, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On August 1, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Joel P.
Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel and the Charging Party each filed answering
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.2
ORDER
The Respondent, Professional Janitorial Service of
Houston, Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Service
Employees International Union, Local 5, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees
employed at 580 West Lake Park Boulevard, Houston,
Texas, 1415 Louisiana, Houston, Texas, and 5177 Rich-
mond, Houston, Texas.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain with Service Employees In-
ternational Union, Local 5, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate units

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 We shall modify the recommended Order and substitute a new no-
tice to accord with the judge’s findings, which we affirm, that the Re-
spondent was obligated as a successor to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of three separate units of
employees. Inasmuch as the Respondent has ceased performing jani-
torial services at the 580 West Lake Park building in Houston, we shall
also order the Respondent to mail copies of the remedial notice to bar-
gaining unit employees who formerly worked at that location.
concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if
an agreement is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
All non-supervisory janitorial employees employed at
1415 Louisiana, Houston, Texas, but excluding all
other employees, including office employees, guards,
managers and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All non-supervisory janitorial employees employed at
5177 Richmond, Houston, Texas, but excluding all
other employees, including office employees, guards,
managers and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its principal office at 2303 Nance Street, Houston, Texas,
as well as at the Louisiana and Richmond buildings in
Houston, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency
of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since January 31, 2007.
(c) The Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since January 31, 2007, in the following appropriate unit:
All non-supervisory janitorial employees employed at
580 West Lake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas, but
excluding all other employees, including office em-
ployees, guards, managers and supervisors as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act.

3 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD596
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Service Employees
International Union, Local 5 (the Union), as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of our employees em-
ployed at 580 West Lake Park Boulevard, 1415 Louisi-
ana, and 5177 Richmond, Houston, Texas.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the fol-
lowing bargaining units:
All non-supervisory janitorial employees employed at
1415 Louisiana, Houston, Texas, but excluding all
other employees, including office employees, guards,
managers and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All non-supervisory janitorial employees employed at
5177 Richmond, Houston, Texas, but excluding all
other employees, including office employees, guards,
managers and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF
HOUSTON, INC.
Jamal Allen, Esq. and Kelly Pagan, Esq., for the General Coun-
sel.
Mark Jodon, Esq. and Timothy Rybacki, Esq. (Littler, Mendel-
son, P.C.), for the Respondent.
Alexia Kulwiec, Esq. and Leslie Ward, Esq., for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on April 30 and May 1, 2008, in Houston,
Texas. The consolidated complaint herein which issued on
February 29, 2008, was based upon unfair labor practice
charges that were filed on March 13, 2007,1 and August 29 by
Service Employees International Union, Local 5 (the Union). It
alleges that on about October 1, 2006, Professional Janitorial
Service of Houston, Inc. (the Respondent), was awarded the
janitorial services contract at 580 West Lake Park Bolevard,
Houston, Texas (West Lake), which work was formerly per-
formed by the employees of Sanitors Services of Texas, L.P.
(Sanitors), and that the Respondent has since continued to op-
erate the business of Sanitors at West Lake in basically un-
changed form, and has employed as a majority of its employees
individuals who were previously employees of Sanitors, and
based upon these operations, Respondent is a successor to Sani-
tors. The complaint next alleges that all nonsupervisory janitor-
ial employees employed by Sanitors excluding all other em-
ployees, including office employees, guards, managers, and
supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit
for collective-bargaining purposes, and that on about November
29, 2005, a majority of these employees selected the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative, and from about No-
vember 29, 2005, to November 6, 2006, based upon Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of these employees employed by
Sanitors. On about January 31, the Union requested that Re-
spondent recognize and bargain with the Union as the bargain-
ing representative of these employees, but since about February
16, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the West Lake unit.
The complaint next alleges that all nonsupervisory janitorial
employees employed by OneSource Facility Services, Inc.
(OneSource), at 1415 Louisiana, Houston, Texas (Louisiana
and/or the Wedge Building), excluding all other employees,
including office employees, guards, managers, and supervisors
as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes, and that on about November 29,
2005, a majority of these employees selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, and from about November
29, 2005, to November 13, 2006, based upon Section 9(a) of
the Act, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees employed by OneSource at the Wedge.
On about January 31, the Union requested that Respondent

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the
year 2007.
PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON 597
recognize and bargain with it as the bargaining representative
of these employees, but since about February 16 the Respon-
dent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of these em-
ployees.
It is further alleged that all nonsupervisory janitorial em-
ployees employed by ABM Janitorial Services (ABM), at 5177
Richmond, Houston, Texas (Richmond), excluding all other
employees, including office employees, guards, managers, and
supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit
for collective-bargaining purposes, and that on about November
29, 2005, a majority of the ABM employees at Richmond se-
lected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative,
and from about November 29, 2005, to December 1, 2006,
based upon Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of ABM
at Richmond. It is alleged that at all times since about Decem-
ber 1, 2006, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent’s employees in the unit, and that on about April 3 the
Union requested that the Respondent recognize and bargain
with it as the bargaining representative of these employees, but
since about April 3 the Respondent has failed and refused to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of these employees. It is alleged that
by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in each of
these three units, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act. Respondent’s principal defenses herein are that it
is not a successor to Sanitors, OneSource, or ABM in that it did
not employ a majority of the existing employees in each of
these three locations and, additionally, that each individual
location does not represent an appropriate unit, and therefore
there can be no finding of a violation herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union has been a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. BACKGROUND
This case involves the janitorial employees at West Lake, the
Wedge Building, and the Richmond facility, all large office
buildings located in Houston, Texas. For many years the Union
has conducted campaigns in major cities of the United States
whose purpose is to organize commercial office maintenance
employees. The campaign is entitled “Justice for Janitors” and
has been successful in approximately 27 cities across the coun-
try. In 2004, the Union targeted Houston and the major janitor-
ial contractors employed in the city. On August 3, 2005, the
Union signed a neutrality agreement with the five of the largest
employers in the area. Stated briefly, the agreement provided
that a card check would be conducted by the American Arbitra-
tion Association (the AAA), and if it was determined that if a
majority of the unit employees of any of the signatories signed
authorization cards for the Union, that employer or those em-
ployers were obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employer’s
unit employees. This agreement states that it covers nonsuper-
visory janitorial employees employed in commercial buildings
in excess of 100,000-square feet in the “Houston area market.”
As part of the agreement, the Union agreed not to solicit em-
ployees while they were at work. Sanitors, OneSource, and
ABM signed this agreement along with two other employers
not involved herein; the Respondent did not. The only unit
exclusions are route janitors, who perform work at multiple
locations, office, and supervisory employees.
A card check was conducted for the employees of Associated
Building Service GCA, an employer not involved herein, on
November 16, 2005; on November 17, 2005, for the OneSource
employees; on November 21, 2005, for the Sanitors employees;
and on November 29, 2005, for the ABM employees. On No-
vember 29, 2005, the vice president for Elections for the AAA
issued a Certification of Results stating: “Upon counting valid
representation cards from employees of the four contractors, it
was determined that SEIU Local 5 met the 50% plus one filing
threshold with each contractor as outlined in the Neutrality
Procedure Agreement.” These four employers created an asso-
ciation and bargaining began in early April 2006; a collective-
bargaining agreement (the Agreement), was entered into later in
the year and was ratified by the union membership on about
November 21, 2006. Although the four employers bargained
through an association, and signed the same agreement, that
Agreement states:
It is recognized that this agreement is between each company
individually and the Union, and the parties specifically agree
that neither the Agreement nor the negotiations leading
thereto shall constitute evidence, or create any claim, of a
multi-employer bargaining association or multi-employer
bargaining unit. To the contrary, the parties agree that multi-
employer bargaining does not exist among the parties.
The recognition clause of the Agreement states that each em-
ployer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent
for “certain non-supervisory janitorial employees in the Hous-
ton, Texas Area Market” employed at office buildings in excess
of 100,000-square feet, but excluding other designated proper-
ties, as well as route janitors who work at multiple locations,
office employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dan
Schlademan, vice president of Service Employees International
Union No. 1, testified that, although the Agreement does not
specifically refer to day porters/maids, who perform cleaning
and maintenance work during the day, sometimes at the request
of the tenants, they are included in the unit along with full-time
or part-time employees, and day and evening employees. The
Agreement further states that seniority shall be determined by
job location.
In about late summer or early fall of 2006 there was some
discussions during bargaining about the possibility that some of
the newly organized contractors might be replaced at some
buildings by a nonunion contractor. The contractors told the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD598
union representatives that by raising wages and other benefits
their cost of doing business would increase and make it easier
for nonunion employers to take work away from them. Shortly
thereafter, the Union received notice from Sanitors that they
had received notice of termination of their contract at West
Lake, and in about October 2006 the Union received notice
from OneSource that they were losing the contract at the
Wedge Building and that the Respondent had obtained the con-
tract to perform the maintenance work at both buildings. In
both situations, the Union employed its “normal protocol,”
instructing the unit employees at these facilities to apply for
employment with the Respondent. On January 31, 2007,
Schlademan wrote to Brent Southwell, CEO of the Respondent:
As you should know, SEIU is the exclusive bargaining
representative of the janitorial employees at the following
locations in Houston, Texas: [the Wedge Building, West
Lake and four other buildings not involved herein].
As you also know it has come to our attention that PJS
has obtained the cleaning accounts at these locations, pre-
viously cleaned by Union Signatory Employers. PJS is ac-
cordingly a successor employer, and is obligated under
law to engage in collective bargaining with SEIU.
Please contact me within 10 business days so that we
may begin the bargaining process. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you have any questions or need addi-
tional information.
Southwell responded to Schlademan by letter dated February
16, 2007:
I am in receipt of your January 31, 2007 letter. PJS is
not a successor employer. PJS has no obligation to bargain
with the SEIU. PJS has no obligation to recognize the
SEIU as the exclusive bargaining representative of the PJS
employees who work in the locations identified in your
letter.
Furthermore, the SEIU never had majority support of
these employees at the time PJS started cleaning the loca-
tions identified in your letter.
In about January or February 2007, the Union was notified
by unit employees at the Richmond Building that ABM had lost
the contract to perform janitorial services at the building, and
that the Respondent would be performing the work at the build-
ing. As a result, on April 3, 2007, Schlademan sent a letter to
the Respondent that was, basically, identical to his January 31,
2007 letter, except that it named the Richmond Building. The
Union received no response to this letter.
IV. THE FACTS
A. Preliminary Issues
The issue herein is whether the Respondent is a successor to
Sanitors at West Lake, OneSource at the Wedge, and/or ABM
at the Richmond Building. This determination is initially de-
pendent upon whether the Respondent employed a majority of
the unit employees at each of these facilities on the appropriate
date, and whether certain job classifications, such as day porters
and maids and floaters, should be included or excluded from
this determination. Finally, the Respondent defends that even if
it employed a majority of the predecessor’s employees on the
appropriate date, it is not obligated to recognize and bargain
with the Union because the Respondent’s operation lacked
substantial continuity with the predecessors’ operations, and the
unit is an not an appropriate one. In making these determina-
tions, each of the three buildings employee complements will
be discussed separately, and comparisons of the employee com-
plements will be made as of the dates of the transfer of opera-
tions, as well as the dates when the Union requested recogni-
tion.
A further preliminary issue requiring discussion is the exis-
tence of two summaries of employees employed at West Lake,
Louisiana, and Richmond on the date it commenced operations
at these facilities, as well as a listing of “Present Day” employ-
ees at these facilities that was prepared by the Respondent.
Glenda Agietos, Respondent’s human resources manager, pro-
vided an affidavit to the Board during the investigation of this
matter. Attached to her affidavit were lists of nonsupervisory
employees that Respondent employed when it commenced
operations at West Lake, Louisiana, and Richmond, as well as
lists of the “present day” complement of employees at these
locations. These lists were received in evidence as General
Counsel’s Exhibits 20, 22, and 24–27. Agietos testified that in
compiling these lists, she reviewed the payroll records and
consulted with Jose Menjivar, Respondent’s vice president of
operations, who agreed that these documents “were true and
correct.” In addition, by letter dated May 9, counsel for the
Respondent provided the Board with its statement of position in
this matter. Attached to this statement of position were the
identical employee lists that were attached to Agietos’ affidavit
(GC Exhs. 20, 22, and 24–27). At the hearing, however, the
Respondent, through Agietos, moved into evidence (as R. Exhs.
3, 4, and 5) three different lists that she identified as the staffing
at West Lake, Louisiana, and Richmond. Counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party objected to
these summaries arguing that the prior summaries represented
the correct listing of employees at these buildings. Briefly
stated, I found Agietos’ attempted explanation for the latter lists
unclear, at times, contradictory, and not credible. It is clear that
Respondent’s Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 include employees not previ-
ously included on General Counsel’s Exhibits 20, 22, and 24–
27, but Agietos never satisfactorily explained why they were
included on the former, but not the latter lists, and why the
original list prepared by the Respondent needed to be corrected.
Further, counsel for the Respondent attached the original em-
ployee lists to its statement of position to the Board on May 9.
As I can find no convincing explanation as to why the original
lists (GC Exhs. 20, 22, and 24–27) were incomplete and had to
be corrected, and as of May 9 the Respondent continued to
believe that these lists were correct, I have used these lists pre-
pared by the Respondent as the true and correct lists of employ-
ees at these locations, rather than the lists it later prepared–(R.
Exhs. 3, 4, and 5).
Another issue that needs discussion prior to an analysis of
the composition of the units before and after the Respondent
obtained the contracts to perform the maintenance work at these
locations, is the inclusion or exclusion of day porter/maids.
While a large majority of the maintenance employees work in
PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON 599
the evening from about 5:30 to 9 p.m. or 10 p.m., in the ab-
sence of the tenants of the building, a few employees work at
each of these buildings during the day to perform repair or
maintenance work at the request of, or for the immediate bene-
fit of, the tenants. So, for example, if the air-conditioner mal-
functions, a toilet gets clogged, or light bulbs need replacing,
the tenant will notify building management, who will notify the
day porter/maid of the maintenance problem and the employee
will, presumably, repair the malfunction. Although the Agree-
ments do not refer to day porter/maids, Schladerman’s credible
uncontradicted testimony establishes that the units included
them, as well as day and evening employees, full- and part-time
employees.
Maria Dominguez, Enrique Sapon, Alejandro Hernandez,
and Rogelio Alcantar, were each employed as day por-
ters/maids by the Respondent, as well as the predecessor em-
ployers—ABM for Dominguez and Sapon, and OneSource for
Hernandez and Alcantar. They testified that they continued to
perform the same work for the Respondent that they performed
for OneSource and ABM. Their testimony establishes that the
principal differences in their work and the work of the other
maintenance employees is that they work during the day, usu-
ally 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., take orders from an
employee of the building, rather than their employer, and use
supplies and tools supplied by the building. There is no evi-
dence that these day porters/maids have any contact, or inter-
change with, the evening janitorial workers at the buildings.
Dominguez testified that she cleans the doors and the elevator,
checks to make sure that the bathroom has its required supplies,
and performs other jobs requested by the building engineer.
Sapon testified that he picked up the trash in the parking area,
changed light bulbs when necessary and answered calls from
the secretary of work that needed to be done. Hernandez testi-
fied that his principal responsibility was maintenance of the air-
conditioning, electrical, and plumbing. In this regard, he repairs
sinks and other plumbing issues, and fixes the thermostats and
the air vents. Alcantar testified that he performs electrical work
at the building, plumbing work in the bathrooms, checks the
air-conditioning system, moves furniture, and picture frames.
He does not clean restrooms, vacuum, or wax floors.
Determining whether day porters/maids are a part of the bar-
gaining unit of the janitorial service employees at each of the
buildings depends on whether they have a community of inter-
est with each other. I find that they do. Although they work
different shifts and have different supervision (the day por-
ters/maids are supervised by the building manager), they basi-
cally perform the same work at the same location, with the
same equipment. In addition, the uncontradicted credible testi-
mony of Schlademan and Christine Prescott, human resources
director for ABM, and Kari Huber, a manager for OneSource,
establishes that they were included in each of the units prior to
the Respondent obtaining the contracts to perform the work at
these locations. I therefore find that day porters/maids should
be included in the unit at each of these locations.
There is also an issue of the inclusion or exclusion of “float-
ers.” Menjivar testified that floaters go “. . . from building to
building, wherever we need him. I guess that’s where the term
‘floater’ comes in.” Floaters cover for the housekeepers who
are out sick, on vacation, or are absent for any other reason. In
addition, some of the floaters are trained to perform specialty
work, such as waxing, and perform that work at whatever
building requires it. Because the floaters do not work in any
one location, and replace absent employees, I find that they do
not have a community of interest with the other employees in
the building and should not be included in any of the units dis-
cussed below.
In addition to the obvious mathematical determination of
majority status, it must be determined at what date/dates to
determine majority status and what group or groups of employ-
ees represent an appropriate unit herein. As to the first issue,
the law is clear and was stated succinctly in Royal Midtown
Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 296 NLRB 1039, 1040 (1989):
Successorship does not automatically carry with it the obliga-
tion to bargain with the union that represented the predeces-
sor’s employees. Nor does the fact that the union represents a
majority of the successor’s employees in an appropriate unit
operate alone to invoke the bargaining obligation; and this is
so even when the successor has attained a ‘substantial and
representative complement’ of employees. The bargaining ob-
ligation—albeit potentially present when successorship and
representative complement are established—must be trig-
gered by a demand for recognition or bargaining.
The Supreme Court stated in Fall River Dying Corp. v. NLRB,
482 U.S. 27, 52 (1987): “The successor’s duty to bargain at the
‘substantial and representative complement’ date is triggered
only when the union has made a bargaining demand.” Simi-
larly, the administrative law judge in Paramus Ford, Inc., 351
NLRB 1019, 1023 (2007), stated: “The Board will normally
assess whether an employer is a successor as of the time a un-
ion makes its demand for recognition and bargaining, provided
the employer has already hired a substantial and representative
complement of employees.” Based upon the above, as the Un-
ion’s bargaining request for West Lake and Louisiana was
dated January 31, and its bargaining request for Richmond is
dated April 3, those are the dates for determining the Union’s
majority status among the employees at those locations, as it
seems clear that by those dates the Respondent employed a
substantial and representative complement of employees at
each of these locations.
B. West Lake
Sanitors had the janitorial service contract for West Lake un-
til November 6, 2006, when the Respondent obtained the con-
tract to perform the work at that facility.2 The Respondent iden-
tified the following 16 employees as being employed at West
Lake when it commenced operations there on November 6,
2006:
Cruz Ardon Vacuum Specialist
Alejandra Barrios Restroom Specialist
Douglas Cruz Cleaner
Maria Flores Night Time Cleaner

2 The Respondent lost the contract to perform this work at West
Lake in November 2007. It therefore claims that the successorship issue
relating to West Lake is moot.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD600
Claudia Garcia Cleaner
Martha Gonzales Light Duty
Elmer Guevara Cleaner
Esmeralda Guevara Night Time Cleaner
Samuel Hernandez Utility Specialist
Jose Linares Vacuum Specialist
Eduardo Palomera Floor Man
Omar Perez Floor Man
Maria Reyes Day Porter/Maid
Ricardo Rios Cleaner
Juvel Vargas Light Duty
Cindy Velasquez Day Porter/Maid
Sanitor’s records state that, of these employees, it employed
the following employees at West Lake at the time that it lost the
contract to perform the maintenance work at the facility on
November 6, 2006:
Douglas Cruz
Maria Flores
Claudia Garcia
Martha Gonzales
Elmer Guebara, a/k/a Guevara
Jose Linares
Eduardo Palomera
Ricardo Rios
Juvel Vargas
In addition, as alleged by counsel for the General Counsel in
his brief, Sanitors issued a W-2 to a Maria Reyes in 2006 set-
ting forth wages of almost $16,000. The address and social
security number from her W-2 match those from Respondent’s
records.
As stated above, the Union’s request for recognition at West
Lake is dated January 31. Pursuant to the Respondent’s sum-
mary, two of its employees at West Lake when it commenced
operations on November 6, 2006, Esmerelda Guevara and
Samuel Hernandez left the Respondent’s employ at West Lake
prior to January 31. I therefore find that on November 6, 2006,
when the Respondent took over the maintenance work at West
Lake, 10 of the 16 employees that it employed at that facility
had previously worked at that facility for Sanitors. I further find
that on January 31, when the Union requested recognition at
that facility, 14 employees were employed at West Lake, 10 of
whom had previously been employed there by Sanitors.
Counsel for the General Counsel, in his brief, alleges that the
situation at Louisiana and Richmond was different than West
Lake in that when the Respondent commenced operations at
these two locations, its initial employee complement was not
composed of a majority of employees previously employed by
the predecessor employers, OneSource and ABM, but that by
the time the Union requested recognition at these locations,
January 31 for Louisiana and April 3 for Richmond, a majority
of the employees at these buildings was composed of former
employees of OneSource and ABM at these locations.
C. Louisiana
OneSource had the janitorial service contract for Louisiana
until November 13, 2006, when the Respondent obtained the
contract to perform this work. The Respondent identified the
following 12 employees as being employed at Louisiana when
it commenced operations at that facility on November 13, 2006:
Martha Aburto Light Duty
Cruz Ardon Vacuum Specialist
Rosalva Arias Day Porter/Maid
Irma Barajas Light Duty
Guillermo Garza Vacuum Specialist
Norberto Mata Cleaner
Juan Mejia Utility Specialist
Diana Moreno Light Duty
Rosa Moreno Light Duty
Omar Perez Floor Man
Imenda Torres Vacuum Specialist
Dalia Villeda Light Duty
OneSource’s payroll records state that, of these employees, it
employed Garza and Mejia prior to losing the contract to Re-
spondent. Of these 12 employees listed above, Barajas (on Jan.
30), Diana Moreno (on Jan. 17), and Torres (on Nov. 28, 2006)
left the Respondent’s employ at Louisiana prior to January 31.
Respondent’s “Present Date” employment list for Louisiana
lists the following 15 employees:
Lazara Almanza Light Duty
Rosalva Arias Day Porter/Maid
Ana Campos Light Duty
Trinidad Contreras Light Duty
Walter Coronado Utility Specialist
Guillermo Garza Vacuum Specialist
Maria Medina Restroom Specialist
Juan Mejia Utility Specialist
Rosa Moreno Light Duty
Arturo Ramirez Utility Specialist
Mark Ramirez Vacuum Specialist
Ramiro Rodriguez Vacuum Specialist
Samuel Ruiz Vacuum Specialist
Orlando Savacay Vacuum Specialist
Cristina Uribe Light Duty
In addition to Garza and Mejia, of these employees, the follow-
ing employees had been employed by OneSource prior to los-
ing the contract at Louisiana: Lazara Almanza, Arturo Ramirez,
Samuel Ruiz, and Orlando Saracay. Further, although not con-
tained on the Respondent’s present day list for Louisiana, Jesus
Fuentes had been employed by OneSource as a day porter at
Louisiana from October 2005 until it lost the contract at Louisi-
ana, and the parties stipulated that Fuentes has been continu-
ously employed by the Respondent at Louisiana since Novem-
ber 13, 2006, when Respondent obtained the contract to service
the building. Also not contained on Respondent’s “Present
Day” list for Louisiana, Alejandro Hernandez testified that he
had previously been employed by OneSource as a day mainte-
nance employee at Louisiana for about 2 years and when they
lost the contract, he began working for the Respondent, taking
direction from the same supervisor as when he was employed
by OneSource. Hernandez also testified that he is familiar with
employee Yane Campos, and that she was employed by One-
Source at Louisiana prior to his employment at the building and
continued to work there “for a few months” after the Respon-
PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON 601
dent took over the maintenance at the building. Regilio Alcan-
tar testified that he was employed by OneSource as a day main-
tenance employee at Louisiana for about 10 months until they
lost the contract. At that time he began working for the Re-
spondent at Louisiana performing the same work that he had
done for OneSource.
Based upon the above, I find that at the time that the Union
made its request for bargaining on January 31, the Respondent
employed 19 unit employees at Louisiana: the 15 on the list,
plus Fuentes, Alejandro Hernandez, Yane Campos, and Regilio
Alcantar, and that 10 of them had previously been employed at
that location by OneSource.
D. Richmond
The Respondent acquired the contract to perform mainte-
nance work at Richmond effective December 1, 2006; the Un-
ion’s letter to the Respondent requesting recognition is dated
April 3. The Respondent identified the following 18 employees
as those whom it employed when it began operations at Rich-
mond on December 1, 2006:
Gloria Aguirre Lead Cleaner
Heriberto Alvarado Vacuum Specialist
Marina Benites Light Duty
Ancelmo Castro Vacuum Specialist
Rosalva Cruz Light Duty
Jesus Gonzales Vacuum Specialist
Teresa Gutierrez Light Duty
Carmen Hernandez Light Duty
Virginia Hernandez Day Porter/Maid
Maria Luna Restroom Specialist
Adriana Manchu Light Duty
Diego Mazariegos Vacuum Specialist
Vincent Medrano Vacuum Specialist
Fredy Rosales Light Duty
Bacillo Ruiz Light Duty
Lorena Solorzano Light Duty
Juan Tax-Tzoc Vacuum Specialist
Maria Vallecios-
Hernandez Vacuum Specialist
The following employees in the original complement of em-
ployees of the Respondent at Richmond were previously em-
ployed by ABM at that location:
Rosalba Cruz (Martinez)
Heriberto Alvarado
Marina Benites
Carmen Hernandez
Maria Luna
Diego Mazariegos
Of these employees, the following separated their employment
at the facility prior to April 3: Castro (Dec. 22, 2006), Gutierrez
(Dec. 5, 2006), Mazariegos (Feb. 21), Medrano (Dec. 19,
2006), Ruiz (Mar. 17), Solorzano (Dec. 5, 2006), Tax-Tzoc
(Mar. 19), and Vallecios-Hernandez (Jan. 3).
The “Present Day” complement of employees at Richmond
compiled by the Respondent lists the following:
Heriberto Alvarado Vacuum Specialist
Marina Benites Light Duty
Jesus Cardozo Day Porter/Maid
Francisco Caxaj Vacuum Specialist
Rosalva Cruz Light Duty
Carmen Hernandez Light Duty
Virginia Hernandez Day Porter/Maid
Maria Luna Restroom Specialist
Adriana Manchu Light Duty
Juan Morales Vacuum Specialist
Santos Robles Vacuum Specialist
Omar Rodriguez Vacuum Specialist
Fredy Rosales Light Duty
Of these 13 employees of the Respondent, the following 7 had
been employed by ABM at Richmond: Alvarado, Benites, Car-
dozo, Cruz, Hernandez, Luna, and Juan Morales. As regards
Morales, Christine Prescott, the regional human resources di-
rector for ABM, testified that he was employed by ABM at
Richmond until mid-September 2006 and was not employed by
ABM at that facility at the time that they lost the contract on
November 30, 2006. However, an examination of the payroll
records of ABM and the Respondent establish that the Juan
Morales who was employed by ABM at Richmond until mid-
September 2006, is the same individual who was hired by the
Respondent at that facility on December 20, 2006. Morales was
not employed at Richmond by ABM immediately prior to the
Respondent obtaining the contract to perform the work at
Richmond on December 1. In fact, he had ceased his employ-
ment with ABM over 2 months earlier. The Board counts em-
ployees such as Morales toward a union’s majority status of the
successor employer if the employee’s absence was “not a self-
initiated withdrawal from the work force” or “an abandonment
of interest in the unit.” Derby Refining Co., 292 NLRB 1015,
1016 (1989). As counsel for the General Counsel did not elicit
any evidence explaining Morales’ absence from mid-September
through December 20, 2006, I agree with counsel for the Re-
spondent in his brief and find that he should not be included in
determining the Union’s majority status at Richmond. In addi-
tion to the named employees, both ABM and the Respondent
employed day porters/maids at Richmond. Maria Dominguez
and Enrique Sapon each testified that they originally worked
for ABM as a porter at Richmond and continued performing the
same job for the Respondent when it obtained the contract to
perform the maintenance work at Richmond. I therefore find
that at the time that the Union requested recognition and bar-
gaining at Richmond, Respondent employed 12 janitorial em-
ployees and 2 day porters/maids, for a total of 14 employees.
Eight of these employees had previously been employed by
ABM. I therefore find that a majority of the Respondent’s em-
ployees at Richmond had previously been employed by the
predecessor, ABM.
V. ANALYSIS
There are numerous issues herein that must be analyzed in
determining whether the Respondent is a successor to Sanitors
at West Lake, OneSource at Louisiana, and/or ABM at Rich-
mond.
In NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 283
(1972), the Supreme Court found that where the bargaining unit
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD602
was unchanged from predecessor to the successor, and a major-
ity of the successor’s employees had previously been employed
by the predecessor, the Board could not be faulted for ordering
the new employer to bargain with the union. In Fall River, su-
pra at 43, the Supreme Court stated that the focus of these cases
should be “based on the totality of the circumstances of a given
situation,” whether the successor employer has “. . . continued
without interruption or substantial change, the predecessor’s
business operations.” The Court further stated that in determin-
ing whether there has been “substantial continuity” between the
operations of the predecessor and successor employers, the
Board should examine a number of factors: whether the busi-
ness of both employers is essentially the same, whether the
employees are performing the same jobs for the same supervi-
sors and under the same working conditions, and whether the
successor employer is employing the same production process,
and producing the same product for the same customers. There
can be no doubt that the Respondent’s operations at the three
locations satisfies all of these factors. The “business” of Sani-
tors, OneSource and ABM was to clean office buildings; Re-
spondent’s business is the same. A number of the employees
testified about the work they performed for the Respondent as
well as their former employer.
Maria Dominguez who initially worked for ABM and then
for the Respondent at Richmond, testified that the work was
“the same” for both and she reported to the same building su-
pervisor while employed by both ABM and the Respondent.
Heriberto Alvarado, who was employed at Richmond by ABM,
then by the Respondent, testified that his job responsibilities
and tools were the same for both employers. The only differ-
ence was that he worked an extra half hour a day for the Re-
spondent. He had never transferred to work in another building
and, to his knowledge, neither had other employees at the facil-
ity. Juan Mejia, who had been employed at Louisiana by One-
Source, then by Respondent, testified that his work at both was:
“The same. Vacuum and mop the kitchen.” His work days were
the same for both, but he worked an additional half hour a day
for the Respondent. During his employment with the Respon-
dent, neither he nor any other employee, as far as he knows,
was transferred to work in another building. Enrique Sapon,
who was also employed at Richmond by ABM, then by Re-
spondent, testified that the work he performed for both was
“essentially the same.” Alejandro Hernandez, who was em-
ployed by OneSource then by the Respondent at Louisiana,
testified that the work that he performed for both was “exactly
the same” with the same building manager supervising him.
Regilio Alcantar, who had been employed first by OneSource
and then by the Respondent at Louisiana, testified that the work
for both was “. . . all the same, doing the same thing.” It is clear
from the above that the employees are performing the jobs and
under the same working conditions for the Respondent as they
did for Sanitors, OneSource and ABM. It is also clear that the
Respondent is producing the same product (cleaning) for the
same customers (West Lake, Louisiana, and Richmond) as did
Sanitors, OneSource, and ABM.
As for the remaining factor in Burn, supra, whether the al-
leged successor is employing the same production process, the
Respondent alleges a difference in this area because of its
unique cleaning system, its OS1 Cleaning system. Menjivar
testified that the Respondent employs this uniform cleaning
system, companywide, and it is the only company in the Hous-
ton area employing the system. It is employed at all its loca-
tions, including the ones involved herein. The system employs
unique equipment, such as vacuums and vacuum bags, as well
as mop buckets, wringers, and chemicals. Further, all of its
employees receive approximately 2 hours training in the operat-
ing system which has distinctive features not employed by any
other cleaning contractor in the area. Unlike other cleaning
contractors whose employees perform all the cleaning tasks in a
certain area, known as zone cleaning, the Respondent’s em-
ployees spend all their time on specific tasks. Some employees
vacuum for the entire 4 hours, others are on light duty, respon-
sible for picking up trash and doing the dusting, and the utility
specialist sweeps and mops the floors. Although this OS1 sys-
tem may be unique to the area, even if it is superior to the zone
cleaning system apparently employed by other cleaning con-
tractors, something I am not competent to rule on, its purpose is
still to clean office buildings. Further, the individuals referred
to above who were employed by both ABM and the Respon-
dent testified that their work was the same under both employ-
ers. In Tree-Free Fiber Co., 328 NLRB 389 (1999), the Board
stated: “The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that the
‘substantial continuity’ analysis in successor cases is to be
taken primarily from the prospective of the employees, i.e.,
whether ‘those employees who have been retained will under-
standably view their job situations as essentially unaltered.’”
Citing Fall River, supra at 43, and Golden State Bottling Co. v.
NLRB, 414 U.S. 168. 184 (1973). See also Lincoln Park Zoo-
logical Society, 322 NLRB 263, 264 (1996).
On the basis of all of the above, including the fact that a ma-
jority of the employees of the Respondent at the critical time
had previously been employed by Sanitors, OneSource, or
ABM, and viewed their work as, basically, unchanged, I find
that the Respondent is a successor employer to Sanitors at West
Lake, OneSource at Louisiana, and ABM at Richmond. Burns
and Fall River, supra. The Respondent defends, however, that
even if it employed a majority of the predecessors’ employees
at each of these three locations, and even if there is a substantial
continuity between the predecessors’ operations and its opera-
tions, it is not a successor employer obligated to recognize and
bargain with the Union because West Lake, Louisiana, and
Richmond are not, individually, appropriate units, i.e., because
of the unified nature of the Respondent’s operation, only a
Houstonwide unit of Respondent’s locations is appropriate.
In Trane, 339 NLRB 866, 870 (2003), a representation case,
the Board stated that it has long held that a petitioned-for sin-
gle-facility unit is presumptively appropriate “. . . unless it has
been so effectively merged into a more comprehensive unit, or
it is so functionally integrated, that it has lost its separate iden-
tity.” The party opposing the single location unit bears a heavy
burden of rebutting its presumptive appropriateness. The fac-
tors that the Board examines to determine whether this burden
was satisfied include (1) central control over daily operations
and labor relations, including the extent of local autonomy; (2)
similarity of employee skills, functions and working conditions;
(3) the degree of employee interchange; (4) the distance be-
PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON 603
tween the locations; and (5) bargaining history, if any exists. In
November or December 2006, the Respondent employed ap-
proximately 850 employees in the 150 buildings that it serviced
in the Houston area. As regards the central control of labor
relations, Agietos testified that the Respondent has a centralized
HR department in its main office in Houston; the Respondent
does not maintain any HR office, or HR employees at West
Lake, Richmond, or Louisiana. Respondent’s payroll depart-
ment is also centralized with common payroll practices, poli-
cies, vacations and holidays, and wage ranges for all its loca-
tions, including the three involved herein. Further, Respondent
maintains its payroll records centrally, rather than at any of the
buildings that it services and employs a standard employment
application for all locations.
At each of these three buildings Respondent employs a pro-
ject manager with an office at the building in which they are
employed. Received in evidence were five employee warning
notices for attendance violations that were issued to employees
at Louisiana by the local supervisors in June. Other than these
warning notices, there is no clear evidence of what authority, if
any, is held by these local supervisors, although Agietos testi-
fied that the building supervisors and area managers “. . . will
come to me for counsel . . . to determine if there’s misconduct
and disciplinary action is warranted.” As regards the similarity
of skills, there is little or no question that this is present in the
three buildings involved herein as well as all of the buildings
that the Respondent maintains. Agietos testified that all em-
ployees receive the same orientation and training and the work
of all seems to be quite similar. The degree of employee inter-
change is not as clear cut. Menjivar testified that the Respon-
dent occasionally receives requests from employees to transfer
to a different building; this usually occurs if the employee
moved and found a building closer to where he/she lives. In
those situations, the Respondent reviews the request and honors
the request if a position is available. He testified that employees
Anna Ramirez and Gloria Aguirre were given temporary trans-
fers from the buildings that they had been employed in to work
in the Wedge Tower for about 2 weeks, but he cannot recall
why they were transferred. Arias, Alvarado, and Mejia testified
that they have never been transferred to work in another build-
ing by the Respondent, and Alvarado and Mejia also testified
that they know of no other employee of the Respondent who
has transferred to another building. Counsel for the Respon-
dent, in his brief, refers to Respondent’s Exhibit 9 to establish
an interchange of employees to different buildings maintained
by the Respondent, in particular employees Virginia Hernandez
and Jesus Cardozo. I note that although both Hernandez and
Cardozo worked in more than one building maintained by the
Respondent, some of the work performed in particular build-
ings was “Tag Work,”3 and for both, a large percentage of their
work was in a single building.
The next category, the distance between the locations,
clearly works in the Respondent’s favor. It had approximately

3 “Tag work” is work requested by the customer that is outside the
scope of the work specified in the contract. For the most part it is spe-
cialty work performed by special service personnel, and the customer
pays extra for this work.
150 cleaning accounts in the area, some a mile or 2 from the
Richmond and Louisiana buildings. The final category, bar-
gaining history, is more difficult. The employers originally
involved in the Union’s organizational attempt formed an asso-
ciation that bargained with, and eventually agreed upon a con-
tract with the Union. However, that contract specifically stated
that multiemployer bargaining does not exist among the parties,
and it was in effect for a short period of time at West Lake,
Louisiana, and Richmond, when the Respondent obtained the
contract to perform the maintenance work at these locations.
I find that the Respondent has not sustained its burden of re-
butting the appropriateness of the West Lake unit, the Louisi-
ana unit, and the Richmond unit. The cases are clear that it is
not necessary that the requested unit be the most appropriate
unit, or that there are no others that are more appropriate. All
that is required is that the requested unit be an appropriate unit.
Phoenix Resort Corp., 308 NLRB 826, 827 (1992); Hartford
Hospital, 318 NLRB 183, 191 (1995); J. C. Penny Co., 328
NLRB 766 (1999). I believe that it is clear from the above that
while a Houston areawide unit of the Respondents maintenance
employees would be an appropriate unit, West Lake, Louisiana,
and Richmond each also represents an appropriate unit. In addi-
tion, as the evidence establishes that the Respondent main-
tained, at least, local autonomy at each of these buildings that is
an additional reason for finding them to each be appropriate
units. North Hills Office Services, 342 NLRB 437 fn. 3 (2004).
Based upon all of the above, I find that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act by failing to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the bargain representative of the
maintenance employees at West Lake, Louisiana, and Rich-
mond facilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent is a successor to Sanitors, OneSource,
and ABM at each of the following: the West Lake facility, the
Louisiana facility, and the Richmond facility.
4. The following employees of the Respondent constitute an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
(a) All nonsupervisory janitorial employees employed at 580
West Lake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas, but excluding all
other employees, including office employees, guards, managers
and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) All nonsupervisory janitorial employees employed at
1415 Louisiana, Houston, Texas, but excluding all other em-
ployees, including office employees, guards, managers and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) All nonsupervisory janitorial employees employed at
5177 Richmond, Houston, Texas, but excluding all other em-
ployees, including office employees, guards, managers and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
5. By failing to recognize or bargain with the Union, the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD604
described appropriate units, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) (5) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act. In that regard I recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees at the locations involved herein, and if an agreement
is reached, reduce the agreement to writing. However, the evi-
dence establishes that effective November 16, 2007, the Re-
spondent ceased performing the janitorial service at West Lake.
Counsel for the General Counsel in his brief argues that this
does not foreclose me from issuing an effective remedy herein
for the West Lake facility. I disagree. While the remedy for
Louisiana and Richmond clearly would be an order to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union, that remedy would be a cha-
rade for West Lake because the Respondent has had no em-
ployees there for over 9 months and there would be nobody to
bargain with, or to bargain for.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]