Globe Security Systems, Inc.

GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. 35 Globe Security Systems, Inc. and Local No. 2, Independent Union of Police & Protective Employ- ees, I.W.A. Case AO-153 February 13, 1974 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on November 8, 1973, by Globe Security Systems, Inc., herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion, in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking to determine whether the Board would assert jurisdic- tion over the activities of the Employer with respect to the dispute underlying the representation case pending before the New York State Labor Relations Board, herein called the State Board. Thereafter, on November 19, 1973, Local No. 2, Independent Union of Police & Protective Employees, I.W.A., herein called the Union, filed a response to the petition for an Advisory Opinion entitled "Respon- dent's Memorandum of Law"; on November 28, 1973, the Employer filed a response to the Union's memorandum; and, on December 13, 1973, the Union filed a reply to the Employer's response memorandum. In pertinent part, the petition, the Union's memo- randum of law, the Employer's response to the Union's memorandum, and the Union's reply thereto allege as follows: (1) On August 24, 1973. the Union filed a petition with the New York State Labor Relations Board, Docket No. SE-47029, for an investigation and certification of representative with respect to the unit of security guards, approximately 25 in number, at a branch of the New York City Community College, herein called Community College, located at 709 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York. (2) The Employer, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the business of providing plant protection and guard security services for a variety of types of customers located throughout the United States. It annually provides guard services valued in excess of $1 million to customers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and annually provides guard services valued in excess of $1 million to customers located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are engaged in interstate commerce. (3) The State Board has made no findings with respect to the aforesaid commerce data, and the Union does not dispute this data which the Employer supplied. (4) No representation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving this labor dispute is pending before this Board. (5) Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion, no response, as provided by the Board's Rules, has been filed by the State Board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that: The issue presented here is whether the Board would find the guard unit at Community College exempt from the Board's jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of the Act. The Union argues that the Board should follow the precedent set forth in The Wackenhut Corp., 203 NLRB No. 3, since the facts and circumstances therein are effectively the same as those herein, in which the Board found that Wackenhut's operations were exempt from the Board's jurisdiction. The Union further argues that, by the terms of the standard contract with New York City, Community College retains a substantial degree of control over the labor relations of the Employer.' The Employer, on the other hand, argues that its operations herein are different and distinct in nature from those in Wackenhut and that at a minimum it should be provided an opportunity to demonstrate that its system of organization and methods of operations are distinct from those- in Wackenhut. In Wackenhut, the Board affirmed the Acting Regional Director's Decision and Order on the basis of his findings of fact that the guard services provided by the employer under its contract with City College are intimately related to the latter's administration and educational purposes. For this reason, the Board concluded that, with regard to the guards employed by it to perform these services, the employer shares City College's exemption from the Board's jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Act. It has been well established that our Advisory Opinion proceedings are designed primari- ly to determine questions as to the applicability of the Board's discretionary jurisdictional standards to an employer's commerce operations.2 The entire submission by the Employer and the Union, as to whether the Wackenhut case governs herein, raises the basic issue of whether Section 2(2) of the Act precludes the assertion of jurisdiction-an issue which does not fall within the intendment of the Board's Advisory Opinion rules.3 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the 1 In Wackenhut. supra, in 1, the Board found it unnecessary to decide ' Ibid Chairman Miller declines to issue an Advisory Opinion in this whether or not the degree of control retained by City College concerning case because he believes the issue presented involves factual and legal such services would constitute a separate basis for declining to assert questions which cannot be resolved on the basis of the pleadings, and jurisdiction over the employer without a hearing. 2 See, e g, The Children's Village. Inc, 180 NLRB 1044, and cases cited 209 NLRB No. 18 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reasons set forth above, the petition for an Advisory determination of the merits of the jurisdictional Opinion herein be. and it hereby is, dismissed. The issue. Board's dismissal is not to be construed as a