W.M.P. Security Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1992

307 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

823
307 NLRB No. 131
W.M.P. SECURITY SERVICE
1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority
in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
2 See Globe Security Systems, 137 NLRB 109, 110 (1962).
3 The Board looks to the totality of an employer’s operations in
determining whether the employer satisfies the Board’s jurisdictional
standards. See Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 84 (1958).
4 Indirect outflow refers to sales of goods or services within the
State to users meeting any of the Board’s jurisdictional standards ex-
cept solely an indirect inflow or indirect outflow standard. The
Board has previously taken notice that the U.S. Government is such
a user. See Mackie’s Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 221 NLRB 227
fn. 1 (1975).
5 See Command Security Corp., 293 NLRB 593 (1989), and cases
cited.
6 Nor is the instant Advisory Opinion intended to express any view
as to whether the Board would certify the Union as representative
of the petitioned-for unit under Sec. 9(c) of the Act. See generally
Sec. 101.40(e) of the Board’s Rules.
In the Matter of W.M.P. Security Service Company.
Case AO–295
June 8, 1992
ADVISORY OPINION
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
on April 27, 1992, W.M.P. Security Service Company
(the Employer) filed a petition for an advisory opinion
as to whether the Board would decline to assert juris-
diction over it on the basis of the Board’s current
standards or because the Employer is not within the ju-
risdiction of the Act. In pertinent part the petition al-
leges as follows:
1. A representation proceeding, Case 92–1(R) is cur-
rently pending before the Hawaii Labor Relations
Board (HLRB) in which Hawaii Teamsters and Allied
Workers, Local 996 (the Union) is seeking to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
2. The Employer, a California corporation, is a gov-
ernment contractor performing security and guard serv-
ices at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Barbers Point,
Hawaii. The Employer maintains and performs con-
tracts for the U.S. Government having a value in ex-
cess of $1 million per year.
3. The aforesaid commerce data has not been denied
by the Union and there has been no finding by any
agency or court with respect thereto.
4. There is no representation or unfair labor practice
proceeding involving the same dispute currently pend-
ing before the Board.
5. Although all parties were served with a copy of
the Petition for Advisory Opinion, none filed a re-
sponse.
Having duly considered the matter,1 we find as fol-
lows. First, based on the Employer’s commerce allega-
tions, we are of the opinion that, if there is statutory
jurisdiction under the NLRA, the Board would assert
discretionary jurisdiction over the Employer under the
Board’s current standards. The standard for asserting
discretionary jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises
such as the Employer is an annual minimum of
$50,000 inflow or outflow, direct or indirect.2 Here,
the Employer alleges that its annual revenues from its
contracts with the U.S. Government exceed $1 million.
Thus, assuming the Employer is a single employer
with respect to those contracts,3 the Employer would
clearly satisfy at least the $50,000 indirect outflow
standard.4
We are unable in this proceeding, however, to re-
solve the second issue raised by the Employer: whether
the Employer, although meeting the Board’s commerce
standards for asserting jurisdiction, is nevertheless out-
side the jurisdiction of the Act. The Board’s advisory
opinion proceedings under Section 102.98(a) are de-
signed primarily to determine whether an employer’s
operations meet the Board’s commerce standards for
asserting jurisdiction; issues relating to whether the
Board would decline to assert jurisdiction because the
employing enterprise is not within the jurisdiction of
the Act may appropriately be raised in an advisory
opinion proceeding only by a state or territorial agency
or court under Section 102.98(b).5
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based on
the allegations in the petition, the Board would assert
discretionary jurisdiction over the Employer under the
Board’s current standards if the Employer is subject to
the statutory jurisdiction of the Act. However, we are
unable in this proceeding to advise whether the Em-
ployer is within the statutory jurisdiction of the Act.6