American Building Maintenance Co.

AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. 185 American Building Maintenance Co. and American Federation of Guards, Local 1 (Ind.), Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5918. January 18, 1960 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On October 7, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled case,' finding the Employer's contract with the Inter- venor, Building Service Employees International Union, Local 193, to be a bar, and dismissing the petition. On October 12, the Peti- tioner filed a petition for reconsideration and thereafter the Inter- venor filed a reply in opposition.2 Upon reconsideration of this case, the petition for reconsideration, the Intervenor's reply, and the entire record herein, we make the following findings : The Petitioner urges (a contention first raised in its petition for reconsideration) that, on the basis of the Board's holding in Columbia- Southern Chemical Corporation,' the Employer's contract with the Intervenor cannot bar an election. The Board there found that a contract governing a guard unit composed of guards within the mean- ing of the Act 4 was not a bar where the recognized union admitted to membership employees other than guards, or was affiliated directly or indirectly with unions which admit to membership employees other than guards. The record in the instant case shows that the employees sought man public gates, check identity, and direct parking. Al- though they do not carry guns, they are uniformed and, according to section 6 of the above contract they have the regular duty of guarding personal and private property. Accordingly, we find these employees are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3) of the Act: In light of the Employer's testimony that it has contracts with other locals of the Intervenor's International covering window cleaners, janitors, and other nonguard employees, we also find that the Inter- venor is indirectly affiliated with locals which admit to membership employees other than guards. In these circumstances, we find that the contract is not a bar, and that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of these employees within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1 Unpublished. 2 The Board ' s Decision and Order of October 7, 1959, also dismissed the petition for an election as to CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc , which had been named in that petition as an employer . The petition for reconsideration does not question the dis- missal as to CBS, and we adhere to that Decision and Order in this regard. 8 Columbsa-Southern Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 1189, 1190. 4 Section 9 ( b) (3) defines a guard as one who "enforce ( s) against employees and other persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer's premises." 126 NLRB No. 26. 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer herein furnishes building maintenance, guard, and watchman service under contract for a number of employers, including CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., a radio and television network facility located in Los Angeles, California, and herein re- ferred to as CBS. The Petitioner seeks to represent all of the Employ- er's guards employed at CBS while the Employer and the Intervenor take the position that their existing contract unit covering "all em- ployees under the jurisdiction of Local 193" is appropriate. The con- tract does not describe the Intervenor's jurisdiction in terms of geo- graphical scope or employees covered, nor is there any record indica- tion as to the extent of the Intervenor's jurisdiction. The Employer furnishes about 16 guards plus supervisory personnel who are specifically hired to work at CBS and who are not inter- changed among guards working at different plants under contract with the Employer. In these circumstances, as there is no interchange among the Employer's guards, and as a larger unit indefinite in scope and based solely on the extent of the Intervenor's organization is clearly inappropriate, we conclude that a unit of guards at the CBS facility is appropriate.' Accordingly, we find that all guards and watchmen, including lead guards, employed by the Employer in its guard and watchman service operation located at the CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Los Angeles, California, broadcasting and television network facility, excluding the guard supervisor and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. There remains for consideration the question as to whether the Intervenor should be placed on the ballot. As noted in Columbia- Southern, supra, Congress did not intend that guards should be repre- sented by unions which are affiliated directly or indirectly with unions which admit to membership employees other than guards. In further- ance of this basic intent and as the Intervenor could not in any case be certified as the representative of the employees involved,' we will not place its name on the ballot. [The Board vacated the Decision and Order in Case No. 21-RC- 5918, dated October 7, 1959, except insofar as it dismissed the petition as to CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election. 5 Burns Detective Agency, 110 NLRB 995, 996 ; Endicott Johnson Corporation, 117 NLRB 1886, 1890. 9 Brookipn Piers, Inc., 88 NLRB 1364, at footnote 3.