Stewart-Warner Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 31, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1736 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alemite and Instrument Divisions of Stewart-Warner Corporation and International Union of Profes- sional Security Guards, Petitioner. Case 13- RC-16423 31 January 1985 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 3 May 1984 the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in a unit of all security guards, sergeants, and lieutenants at the Employer's West Diversey Park- way and West Fullerton Street facilities in Chica- go, Illinois. The Employer filed a timely request for review of the decision, contending, inter alia, that the Regional Director erred by failing to find that Petitioner is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership employees other than guards, and that the Board is therefore precluded by Section 9(b)(3) of the Act from certifying Petitioner as the exclusive repre- sentative of the unit described above. The Board has considered the entire record in this case and makes the following findings. The Employer, a Virginia corporation, is en- gaged in the manufacture of electro-mechanical equipment at its Chicago, Illinois locations. On 26 January 1984' the Machinery, Scrap Iron, Metal and Steel Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Handlers, Alloy Fabricators, Theatrical, Exposition, Conven- tion and Trade Show Employees Union, Local No. 714, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, herein referred to as Local 714, filed a petition in Case 13-RC-16381 seeking to represent a unit of the Employer's security guards. On 8 February Local 714 withdrew its petition. Sometime in early February Michael A. Venda- freddo, the president of International Union of Pro- fessional Security Guards, the Petitioner herein, had a conversation with a friend identified in the record only as "Benny." Benny told Vendafreddo that the Employer's security guards desired union representation, but that Local 714 encountered a problem because security guards had to be orga- nized by a union which represents only guards.2 Vendafreddo told Benny that this information "sounded interesting." 3 About a week after his conversation with Benny, Vendafreddo met with Benny and Bob Riley, a 1 All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise Indicated 2 Vendafreddo testified that he was unsure what Benny does for a living or whether Benny is affiliated with Local 714 3 Vendafreddo testified that for a number of years he had wanted to start a labor union business agent and organizer for Local 714, at a restaurant near Local 714's office. Although the record does not reveal how this meeting was ar- ranged, Vendafreddo testified that Riley, a long- time friend of Vendafreddo's, "sought me as a person that could take off where they left off." In the meeting, Riley described to Vendafreddo the unsuccessful effort of Local 714 to organize the Employer's guards and said that the situation pre- sented an opportunity for Vendafreddo to start a labor organization. According to Vendafreddo, Riley then "reiterated . . . basically what we wanted to put together." Following this meeting, Vendafreddo began con- tacting several friends and acquaintances to solicit their assistance in becoming officers of a labor or- ganization. Sometime later in February, Venda- freddo contacted Bob Riley and asked for informa- tion regarding the next steps in organizing the Em- ployer's guards. Riley invited Vendafreddo to Local 714's offices, where Vendafreddo met with Riley and certain other officers and agents of Local 714 whom Vendafreddo had known for years. 4 At this meeting Riley explained that it would be necessary for Vendafreddo to obtain a showing of interest from the Employer's guards. Riley gave Vendafreddo a petition which had been prepared for this purpose, the text of which stated that employees signing the petition expressed their interest in joining Petitioner and understood that no dues would be required until Petitioner execut- ed a collective-bargaining agreement with the Em- ployer. By mid-March Vendafreddo had contacted nu- merous friends and had obtained the agreement of Dorothy Olinger, Dale Toni, and Ronald Maxwell to serve as officers of Petitioner. None of these in- dividuals had had any experience in forming or op- erating a labor organization. Sometime in mid- March Vendafreddo called a meeting attended by Vendafreddo, Olinger, Maxwell, Riley, and several of the Employer's guards. In the meeting Venda- freddo, with the consent of the prospective officers and the employees, appointed himself, Olinger, and Toni, president, secretary, and treasurer, respec- tively. Riley, who was ostensibly present to discuss Local 714's experience in attempting to organize the guards, spoke in support of Vendafreddo and the opportunity presented by Petitioner. In addi- tion, Riley produced and gave to Vendafreddo a 4 Vendafreddo testified that he had been to Local 714's offices four or five times before his initial conversation with Benny, and was a friend or neighbor of several officers or agents of Local 714 besides Riley 273 NLRB No. 215 STEWART-WARNER CORP 1737 showing of interest petition containing the signa- tures of some of the Employer's guards.8 Following this meeting, Riley presented Venda- freddo with a completed representation petition, re- quiring only Vendafreddo's signature. Vendafreddo signed the instant petition and turned it over to Pe- titioner's attorney, who filed the petition on 19 March. About 27 March Vendafreddo telephoned Riley and asked what procedures would follow the filing of the petition. Riley informed Vendafreddo that he would be contacted by the Board's Region- al Office and informed of further steps in the pro- ceeding. The record reflects that, at the time of the hearing herein, Petitioner had no funds or physical assets of any kind, and had not discussed with Local 714 the possibility of further assistance. The Regional Director found, and it is undis- puted herein, that Local 714 is a labor organization which admits to membership employees other than guards. Nevertheless, the Regional Director con- cluded that neither the extent nor the duration of Local 714's assistance to Petitioner established im- permissible affiliation between the Unions and thus found that the Board was not precluded by Section 9(b)(3) of the Act from certifying Petitioner as the exclusive representative of the guards herein. We disagree. Section 9(b)(3) of the Act states in relevant part that "no labor organization shall be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organi- zation which admits to membership, employees other than guards." The Board has held that assist- ance furnished a guards' union during its infancy by a union admitting to membership employees other than guards does not necessarily establish af- filiation between the unions. 8 Nevertheless, while 5 The petition was of a type originally shown to Vendafreddo by Riley in February Vendafreddo testified that Petitioner had engaged in no or- ganizing activities at the Employer's premises before the mid-March meeting 6 Wells Fargo Guard Services, 236 NLRB 1196 (1978) substantial latitude has been permitted in such cir- cumstances, indirect affiliation will be found where the extent and duration of assistance indicates that the guards' union lacks freedom and independence in formulating its own policies and deciding its own course of action."' Here, in the approximately 2 months from with- drawal of Local 714's petition in February to the hearing in April, Petitioner took almost no action independent of Local 714. Thus, Petitioner's presi- dent was a longtime friend of officers and agents of Local 714 and was "sought" by Local 714 to con- tinue organizational efforts among the Employer's guards immediately after Local 714 withdrew its own petition. Local 714 prepared the showing of interest petition circulated among the Employer's guards, including therein language which waived dues until a collective-bargaining agreement was obtained by Petitioner. In addition, Local 714 ob- tained employee signatures on this petition and pre- pared the representation petition which was filed by Petitioner with the Board. The record also re- veals that Petitioner has no assets or expertise sug- gesting its ability to function independently of Local 714, and Petitioner's president has been con- tinuously dependent on Local 714's officers for advice and assistance regarding every significant aspect of Petitioner's formation. Under all the cir- cumstances, we conclude that the extent and dura- tion of Petitioner's dependence on Local 714 indi- cates a lack of freedom and independence in for- mulating its own policies and supports a finding that Petitioner is indirectly affiliated with Local 714. 8 Accordingly, we are precluded by Section 9(b)(3) of the Act from certifying the Petitioner as the exclusive representative of the unit herein, and we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER The petition is dismissed. 7 Wackenhut Corp , 223 NLRB 1131 (1976) 8 See Magnavox Co, 97 NLRB 1111 (1952)