Purolator Courier Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

PUROLATOR COURIER CORP.
Purolator Courier Corp.' and Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen, Industrial and Allied
Workers and Helpers, Local Union 920, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and Teamsters, Freight, Tank Lines
and Automobile Industry Employees, Local
Union 988, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Petitioner.2 Case
23-RC-4916
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Patrick
M. Flynn. Following the close of the hearing on
September 17, 1980, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 23, on September 24, 1980, trans-
ferred this case to the Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner each filed a
brief with the Board.
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, having duly considered the Hearing
Officer's rulings made at the hearing, finds they are
free of prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in-
cluding the briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, a New York corporation, is
engaged in the business of safeguarding and trans-
porting commodities for customers throughout the
United States, including the State of Texas. The
parties stipulated that during the 12 months prior
to the date of the hearing, a representative period,
the Employer, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of
Texas. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act, and we find that the labor organi-
i The name of the Emploer appears as amended at he hearing
2 The name of Petltilner appears as amended at the hearing
254 NLRB No. 72
zation involved claims to represent certain employ-
ees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that the petition for a
unit of the courier/guards, 3 sorters, and mechanics
herein fails to raise a question concerning represen-
tation because the courier/guards in question are
employed as guards within the meaning of Section
9(b)(3) of the Act, and because Section 9(b)(3) pro-
hibits the Board from certifying, as a bargaining
representative for guards, any union which, like the
Petitioner, admits to membership employees other
than guards. The Petitioner concedes that it admits
nonguard employees to membership, but disputes
the Employer's position regarding the courier/
guards' status as statutory guards, which is the
issue before the Board.4
The undisputed evidence on the record discloses
that the Employer operates a nationwide system
for the overnight transportation of time-sensitive
commodities, and employs approximately 600 cou-
rier/guards at 18 or 19 field offices in its Texas-
Oklahoma region. These courier/guards pick up
commodities from customers and deliver them,
through a network of drop points, to their destina-
tions. The Employer's clients include all 12 dis-
tricts of the Federal Reserve System, banks, sav-
ings and loan institutions, mortgage companies,
retail establishments, manufacturing and engineer-
ing firms, energy concerns, and pharmaceutical
manufacturers. The Employer typically transports
for its clients cash letters from banks to clearing-
houses, payroll checks, unsigned credit cards,
credit card invoices, uncanceled checks, preprinted
blank checks, legal documents, food stamps, pre-
cious metals, artwork, furs, radioactive pharmaceu-
ticals, and seismological data for oil companies.
All of the courier/guards are bonded and must
pass a security clearance before being hired. They
do not carry firearms. They wear uniforms, sup-
plied by the Employer, consisting of shirt, trousers,
jacket, cap or hat, with an identifying company
logo. The Employer issues the uniforms to make its
employees readily identifiable to clients and local
law enforcement agencies. The courier/guards
make deliveries in vans owned by the Employer,
which are clearly identified as "Purolator Courier"
delivery vehicles. For a substantial number of the
I The petition states that the Petitioner seeks a unit which includes,
inter alia, "drivers, courier drivers, and] line drivers " The Em-
ployer avers that its employees who correspond to these classifications
are denoted by it as "courier/guards" A the hearing, the Petitioner
amended its unit request to refer to these employees as courier/guards
4In view of our dispiosition of this issue, we find it unnecessary to pass
on the Frniployer's coitentcion that the onl appropriate unit hereil i a
unit eincompassing all courier/gaards emplcld in the mployer's Texas-
Oklahoma regioln
599
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's clients,5 the courier/guards make pick-
ups and deliveries during nonworking hours, and
have access to clients' locked security vaults by
entry into the clients' locked premises. For each
delivery run which requires entry into customers'
locked premises, the dispatcher furnishes the couri-
er/guard on that run with all the keys needed for
entry into the customers' premises, for disengaging
any alarm systems, and for entering the customers'
security vaults. The keys are distributed at the be-
ginning of the shift, and the courier/guard returns
the set of keys after he has completed his rounds.
The courier/guards are held accountable for the
safekeeping of packages in their vehicles, as well as
for taking precautions when entering or leaving
customers' premises during nonworking hours.
In MDS Courier Service, Inc.,6 we reiterated our
determination made in Brink's Incorporated7 that
s DeWitt Evans, the Employcr's regional vice president fr tile Flcas-
Oklahoma region, testified without contradiction that over 1(X) of its
Houston customers have locked security vaults for which courier/guards
are issued keys
6 248 NLRB 1320 (1980)
7 226 NIRB 1182 (197t6)
"deliveries of nonnegotiable documents by un-
armed couriers to customer premises after closing
hours involve[s] protection by them of the employ-
er's customers' property within the statutory defini-
tion of a 'guard' in Section 9(b)(3) of the Act." 8 In-
asmuch as the testimony on this record, including
documentary evidence, demonstrates that the Em-
ployer's courier/guards, like the couriers in Brink's
and the drivers in MDS, are employed to protect
the valuable property of the Employer's customers,
we find those decisions controlling and conclude
that the courier/guards herein are guards within
the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. Accord-
ingly, as the Petitioner concededly admits employ-
ees other than guards to membership, it may not be
certified as the representative of the Employer's
courier/guards. We shall therefore dismiss the peti-
tion.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
' 24 N RB 132(
600