Sentinel Protective Agency, Inc.

552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sentinel Protective Agency, Inc.' and Local 87, Inter- national Union of Police and Protection Employees, IWA, Petitioner. Case 2-RC-16413 June 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Howard Shapiro. After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 2, this proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Intervenor2 filed briefs in support of their respective positions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the, meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer recognized the Intervenor as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all its security guards on November 16, 1973, on the basis of signed authorization cards, and at that time signed a recognition agreement providing that the parties would meet for the purpose of collective bargaining no later than November 30, 1973. Starting in December, the Employer and Local 803 held discussions concerning terms and conditions of employment on several occasions and, on January 14, 1974, signed a collective-bargaining agreement which was to be effective February 1, 1974. On January 28, 1974, the Petitioner filed a petition for an election, accompanied by a sufficient showing of interest in the unit. The evidence shows that the Petitioner had started its organizing campaign among the Employer's employees a week or 10 days prior to January 28, 1974. The Intervenor contends that the petition is barred by the collective-bargaining contract executed by the Employer and the Intervenor or, in the alternative, by the recognition agreement executed on November 16. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar as it was not effective on the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner further contends that the recognition agreement signed between the Intervenor and the Employer is not a bar in that it was superseded by a recognition clause in the collective- bargaining agreement signed on January 14 which did not become effective until February 1, thereby creating a gap in recognition from the date of the contract's execution to its effective date. Because we find that, under the circumstances, recognition does bar the petition, we do not reach or pass upon the contention that the contract is not a bar. Petitioner does not contend that recognition was extended to the Intervenor after Petitioner began organizing; nor does it contend that the Employer was aware that it intended to launch an organizing campaign at the time it recognized the Intervenor. It does contend, however, that the Board should afford the employees an opportunity to choose whether they wish to be represented by the Petitioner or by the Intervenor, since more than 2 months elapsed from the date of the Employer's recognition to the time the contract was to become effective, and because employees showed dissatisfaction with representation by the Intervenor by supporting this petition. The Employer's recognition of the Intervenor followed an examination of authorization cards whereby the Employer satisfied itself that the Intervenor rightfully represented a majority of the employees in a unit which all parties have agreed is appropriate. Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor signed a preliminary agreement contem- plating, and providing the basis for, negotiation of a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement, as well as memorializing recognition of the Intervenor. We have previously held that the good-faith recognition of a labor organization on the basis of a demonstrated majority, when no other labor organi- zation is engaged in organizing, supports a presump- tion of continuing majority and bars an election for a reasonable period of time to permit the parties to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement.3 The Petitioner herein was not engaged in organizing the Employer's employees at the time the Intervenor was recognized but rather did not engage in such The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing . America. 3 Security Guards and Watchmen Local Union No. 803 , International 3 Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583; Timbalier Towing Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Company, Inc., 208 NLRB No. 89. 211 NLRB No. 61 SENTINEL PROTECTIVE AGENCY, INC. 553 organization until after the Employer and the such an agreement . We therefore find that the Intervenor had executed a collective-bargaining petition herein is barred by the prior recognition of agreement. Although that agreement was not to the Intervenor. We shall dismiss the petition. become effective until approximately 4 days subse- quent to the filing of the petition herein , we do not ORDER believe that the time lapsed between the recognition agreement and the effective date of the contract was It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and an unreasonable period for the parties to come to it hereby is, dismissed.