W.M.P. Security Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 734 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

734
309 NLRB No. 110
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Cf. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 291 NLRB 755 (1988)
(briefs filed by the employer and the union set forth relevant facts
which were essentially undisputed); University of Vermont, 297
NLRB 291 (1989) (briefs filed by the employer, the union, and the
State set forth relevant facts which were essentially undisputed); and
Correctional Medical Systems, 299 NLRB 654 (1990) (state agency
had already conducted a hearing and issued relevant factual findings
which had been upheld by the state court).
In the Matter of W.M.P. Security Service Company.
Case AO–300
December 4, 1992
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On June 8, 1992, the Board issued an Advisory
Opinion advising the parties in the above proceeding
that the Board would assert discretionary jurisdiction
over W.M.P. Security Service Company, the Employer,
under its current standards, but that it was unable in
that proceeding to advise whether the Employer was
within the jurisdiction of the Act because Section
102.98(b) of the Board’s Rules provides that petitions
for an advisory opinion on such issues may only be
filed by a state or territorial agency or court. W.M.P.
Security Service Co., 307 NLRB 1479 (1992).
Thereafter, on October 14, 1992, the Hawaii Labor
Relations Board (HLRB), the state agency involved in
the prior proceeding, filed the instant Petition for Ad-
visory Opinion with the Board. The petition specifi-
cally requests that the Board now issue an opinion on
the jurisdictional issue which the Board had previously
declined to address in response to the earlier petition
for advisory opinion that was filed by the Employer.
Having duly considered the matter, we deny the
HLRB’s petition for an advisory opinion. Section
102.99 of the Board’s Rules, in relevant part, provides
as follows:
(b) A petition for an advisory opinion, when filed
by an agency or court of a State or territory, shall
allege the following:
. . . .
(4) The general nature of the business involved
in the proceeding and, where appropriate, the
nature of and details concerning the employing
enterprise.
(5) The findings of the agency or court or, in
the absence of findings, a statement of the evi-
dence relating to the commerce operations of
such business and, where appropriate, to the na-
ture of the employing enterprise.
Here, although the HLRB’s petition sets forth the gen-
eral nature of the Employer’s business (performing se-
curity and guard services at the U.S. Naval Air Station
at Barbers Point, Hawaii), it fails to set forth any rel-
evant findings or evidence relating to whether the Em-
ployer is exempt from the jurisdiction of the Board
under the standards set forth in Res-Care, 280 NLRB
670 (1986). Nor was any such evidence submitted by
the parties in response to the HLRB’s petition. Indeed,
none of the parties filed any statement whatsoever in
response to the HLRB’s petition, notwithstanding that
they were notified of their right to do so.1
Accordingly, as the present record is inadequate for
the Board to issue the requested opinion, the HLRB’s
Petition for Advisory Opinion is denied.