Local 32E, Service Employees International Union

LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 771 Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the AFL-CIO and Cadillac Fairview Shopping Cen- said recommended Order. ters (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria. Case 2- CP-700 DECISION December 17, 1981 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DECISION AND ORDER EDWIN H. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard on January 26, 1981, on a corn- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND plaint which issued November 3, 1980, and on a charge ZIMMERMAN filed on October 17, 1980, by Cadillac Fairview Shop- ping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria (herein On April 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge called the Charging Party or Employer). The complaint Edwin H. Bennett issued the attached Decision in alleges, inter alia, that Local 32E, Service Employees In- this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed an ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent exception, and the General Counsel filed a letter- or the Union), violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- by its picketing of the Employer for recognition in a unit Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- of guards, notwithstanding that the Union could not be tion, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposi- certified for such unit because it admits to membership tion to Respondent's exception. employees other than guards. An answer was filed by Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent by its attorneys of record, Miller & Bush, in National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- which it specifically denied certain allegations of the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- complaint and made no response to certain other allega- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. tions. The allegations specifically denied were that the The Board has considered the record and the at- Employer employed guards within the meaning of Sec- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act; that Respondent admits to mem- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- fent could not be certified for a guard unit by virtue of its ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law admissions policy and the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act (par. 8 (b) of the complaint). ~~~~~~~ORDER By its failure to specifically deny the other allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have ad- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor mitted the following allegations: service of the charge; Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the jurisdictional allegations of the Employer; and the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended fact that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, that Respondent is a labor organization Order of the Administrative Law Judge and within the meaning of the Act, that certain officials are hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 32E, agents of Respondent, that Respondent threatened to and Service Employees International Union, AFL- did picket the Employer for an object of compelling the CIO, Elmsford, New York, its officers, agents, and Employer to recognize Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its guards and security officers 'We find no merit in Respondent's only exception which contends that and to force or require said employees to accept Re- the Administrative Law Judge's failure to grant it a further postponement spondent as their collective-bargaining representative, of the hearing was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of Respondent's a t R rii - right to a hearing. The record shows that Respondent's counsel received and t h at Respondent could not be certified as the llec- a postponement pursuant to its request for a new Board hearing date, tive-bargaining representative of said employees nor and, subsequent to the establishment of such new hearing date, estab- could it file a valid petition pursuant to Section 9(b)3) of lished a trial court hearing date which created a conflict with the Board the Act (par. 13 of the complaint). Further, by failing to hearing date previously agreed upon and established by Respondent's described above was in violation of counsel. deny that its conduct described above was in violation of ' In the absence of exceptions on the merits, we adopt pro forma the Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act that also is deemed ad- Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Respondent mitted. Nevertheless, presumably because of the specific violated Sec. 8(bX7XC) of the Act by threatening to picket the Employ- denials as aforesaid and the apparent inconsistencies in er, and by picketing the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the employees of the Employer to accept or select Respondent as the the answer, a hearng was conducted at which the Gen- collective-bargaining agent of its guard employees, although Respondent eral Counsel proceeded as if it was put to its proof on all cannot be certified as a representative of such employees by virtue of material allegations. Notwithstanding proper and suffi- Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act, inasmuch as it admits to membership employees cient notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to have other than guards. Member Fanning also finds it unnecessary in this proceeding to reach any representative appear on its behalf and the hearing the merits. However, it is his position that Sec. 8(b)(7XC) of the Act does was conducted with the General Counsel and the Charg- not prohibit threats by a union to picket an employer with an object to ing Party introducing evidence by way of witnesses and require recognition of a unit guards, nor does it bar a nonguard union exhibits from engaging in any picketing to gain recognition and bargain for a unit of guards. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (Certain Teed Upon the entire record, including my observation of Corp.), 240 NLRB 462 (1979), and cases cited in his dissent therein. the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera- 259 NLRB No. 100 LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 771 Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the AFL-CIO and Cadillac Fairview Shopping Cen- said recommended Order. ters (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria. Case 2- CP-700 DECISION December 17, 1981 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DECISION AND ORDER EDWIN H. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard on January 26, 1981, on a com- By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND plaint which issued November 3, 1980, and on a charge ZIMMERMAN rile d on October 17, 1980, by Cadillac Fairview Shop- ping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria (herein On April 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge called the Charging Party or Employer). The complaint Edwin H. Bennett issued the attached Decision in alleges, inter alia, that Local 32E, Service Employees In- this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed an ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent exception, and the General Counsel filed a letter- o r t h e U n i o n), v io l at ed S ec t io n 8(b)(7)(C) of the National brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's L ab o r Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- by its picketing of the Employer for recognition in a unit Decision, and an answer to Respondent s excep- J J no itsadnththeUoncudote of guards, notwithstanding that the Union could not be tion, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposi- certified for such unit because it admits to membership tion to Respondent's exception. employees other than guards. An answer was filed by Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent by its attorneys of record, Miller & Bush, in National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- which it specifically denied certain allegations of the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- complaint and made no response to certain other allega- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. tions. The allegations specifically denied were that the The Board has considered the record and the at- Employer employed guards within the meaning of Sec- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act; that Respondent admits to mem- briefs.and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- bniefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- ent could not be certified for a guard unit by virtue of its ings,/ and conclusions of the Administrative Law admissions policy and the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act (par. 8 (b) of the complaint). ORDERwBy it s failure t o specifically deny the other allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have ad- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor m i t te d t he following allegations: service of the charge; Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- t h e jurisdictional allegations of the Employer; and the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended fa c t t h a t it is en g ag ed in c o mm er c e w it h in t h e mea n ing of the Act, that Respondent is a labor organization Order of the Administrative Law Judge and within the meaning of the Act, that certain officials are hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 32E, agents of Respondent, that Respondent threatened to and Service Employees International Union, AFL- did picket the Employer for an object of compelling the CIO, Elmsford, New York, its officers, agents, and Employer to recognize Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its guards and security officers 'We find no merit in Respondent's only exception which contends that and to force or require said employees to accept Re- the Administrative Law Judge's failure to grant it a further postponement spondent as their collective-bargaining representative, of the hearing was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of Respondent's j, 1.1 » i- not j .1. n right to a hearing. The record shows that Respondent's counsel received a n d t h a t Respondent could not be certified as the collec- a postponement pursuant to its request for a new Board hearing date, tive-bargaining representative of Said employees nor and, subsequent to the establishment of such new hearing date, estab- could it file a valid petition pursuant to Section 9(b)(3) of lished a trial court hearing date which created a conflict with the Board the Act (par. 13 of the complaint). Further, by failing to heaing date previously agreed upon and established by Respondent's ^ ^ ^ described above was in violation of I In the absence of exceptions on the merits, we adopt pro forma the Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act that also is deemed ad- Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Respondent mitted. Nevertheless, presumably because of the specific violated Sec. 8(bX7XC) of the Act by threatening to picket the Employ- denials as aforesaid and the apparent inconsistencies in er, and by picketing the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring ,, , . ihi--i..i.<- the employees of the Employer to accept or select Respondent as the the answer, a hearing was conducted at which the Gen- collective-bargaining agent of its guard employees, although Respondent eral Counsel proceeded as if it was put to its proof on all cannot be certified as a representative of such employees by virtue of material allegations. Notwithstanding proper and suffi- Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act, inasmuch as it admits to membership employees cient notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to have other than guards. n ersnai apa i bhl d e aig Member Fanning also finds it unnecessary in this proceeding lo reach any representative appear on its behalf and the hearing the merits. However, it is his position that Sec. 8(b)(7XC) of the Act does was conducted with the General Counsel and the Charg- not prohibit threats by a union to picket an employer with an object to ing Party introducing evidence by way of witnesses and require recognition of a unit guards, nor does it bar a nonguard union exhibits. from engaging in any picketing to gain recognition and bargain for a unit of guards. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (Certain Teed Upon the entire record, including my observation of Corp.), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). and cases cited in his dissent therein. the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera- 259 NLRB No. 100 LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 771 Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the AFL-CIO and Cadillac Fairview Shopping Cen- said recommended Order. ters (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria. Case 2- CP-700 DECISION December 17, 1981 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DECISION AND ORDER EDWIN H. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard on January 26, 1981, on a com- By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND plaint which issued November 3, 1980, and on a charge ZIMMERMAN rile d on October 17, 1980, by Cadillac Fairview Shop- ping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria (herein On April 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge called the Charging Party or Employer). The complaint Edwin H. Bennett issued the attached Decision in alleges, inter alia, that Local 32E, Service Employees In- this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed an ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent exception, and the General Counsel filed a letter- o r t h e U n i o n), v io l at ed S ec t io n 8(b)(7)(C) of the National brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's L ab o r Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- by its picketing of the Employer for recognition in a unit Decision, and an answer to Respondent s excep- J J no itsadnththeUoncudote of guards, notwithstanding that the Union could not be tion, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposi- certified for such unit because it admits to membership tion to Respondent's exception. employees other than guards. An answer was filed by Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent by its attorneys of record, Miller & Bush, in National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- which it specifically denied certain allegations of the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- complaint and made no response to certain other allega- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. tions. The allegations specifically denied were that the The Board has considered the record and the at- Employer employed guards within the meaning of Sec- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act; that Respondent admits to mem- briefs.and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- bniefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- ent could not be certified for a guard unit by virtue of its ings,/ and conclusions of the Administrative Law admissions policy and the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act (par. 8 (b) of the complaint). ORDERwBy it s failure t o specifically deny the other allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have ad- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor m i t te d t he following allegations: service of the charge; Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- t h e jurisdictional allegations of the Employer; and the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended fa c t t h a t it is en g ag ed in c o mm er c e w it h in t h e mea n ing of the Act, that Respondent is a labor organization Order of the Administrative Law Judge and within the meaning of the Act, that certain officials are hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 32E, agents of Respondent, that Respondent threatened to and Service Employees International Union, AFL- did picket the Employer for an object of compelling the CIO, Elmsford, New York, its officers, agents, and Employer to recognize Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its guards and security officers 'We find no merit in Respondent's only exception which contends that and to force or require said employees to accept Re- the Administrative Law Judge's failure to grant it a further postponement spondent as their collective-bargaining representative, of the hearing was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of Respondent's j, 1.1 » i- not j .1. n right to a hearing. The record shows that Respondent's counsel received a n d t h a t Respondent could not be certified as the collec- a postponement pursuant to its request for a new Board hearing date, tive-bargaining representative of Said employees nor and, subsequent to the establishment of such new hearing date, estab- could it file a valid petition pursuant to Section 9(b)(3) of lished a trial court hearing date which created a conflict with the Board the Act (par. 13 of the complaint). Further, by failing to heaing date previously agreed upon and established by Respondent's ^ ^ ^ described above was in violation of I In the absence of exceptions on the merits, we adopt pro forma the Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act that also is deemed ad- Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Respondent mitted. Nevertheless, presumably because of the specific violated Sec. 8(bX7XC) of the Act by threatening to picket the Employ- denials as aforesaid and the apparent inconsistencies in er, and by picketing the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring ., , . ihi--i..i.<- the employees of the Employer to accept or select Respondent as the the a ns w e r, a hern w a s conducted at which the Gen- collective-bargaining agent of its guard employees, although Respondent eral Counsel proceeded as if it was put to its proof on all cannot be certified as a representative of such employees by virtue of material allegations. Notwithstanding proper and suffi- Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act, inasmuch as it admits to membership employees cient notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to have other than guards. n ersnai apa i bhl d e aig Member Fanning also finds it unnecessary in this proceeding lo reach any representative appear on its behalf and the hearing the merits. However, it is his position that Sec. 8(b)(7XC) of the Act does was conducted with the General Counsel and the Charg- not prohibit threats by a union to picket an employer with an object to ing Party introducing evidence by way of witnesses and require recognition of a unit guards, nor does it bar a nonguard union exhibits. from engaging in any picketing to gain recognition and bargain for a unit of guards. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (Certain Teed Upon the entire record, including my observation of Corp.), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). and cases cited in his dissent therein. the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera- 259 NLRB No. 100 LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 771 Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the AFL-CIO and Cadillac Fairview Shopping Cen- said recommended Order. ters (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria. Case 2- CP-700 DECISION December 17, 1981 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DECISION AND ORDER EDWIN H. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard on January 26, 1981, on a com- By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND plaint which issued November 3, 1980, and on a charge ZIMMERMAN rile d on October 17, 1980, by Cadillac Fairview Shop- ping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria (herein On April 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge called the Charging Party or Employer). The complaint Edwin H. Bennett issued the attached Decision in alleges, inter alia, that Local 32E, Service Employees In- this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed an ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent exception, and the General Counsel filed a letter- o r t h e U n i o n), v io l at ed S ec t io n 8(b)(7)(C) of the National brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's L ab o r Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- by its picketing of the Employer for recognition in a unit Decision, and an answer to Respondent s excep- J J no itsadnththeUoncudote of guards, notwithstanding that the Union could not be tion, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposi- certified for such unit because it admits to membership tion to Respondent's exception. employees other than guards. An answer was filed by Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent by its attorneys of record, Miller & Bush, in National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- which it specifically denied certain allegations of the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- complaint and made no response to certain other allega- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. tions. The allegations specifically denied were that the The Board has considered the record and the at- Employer employed guards within the meaning of Sec- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act; that Respondent admits to mem- briefs.and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- bniefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- ent could not be certified for a guard unit by virtue of its ings,/ and conclusions of the Administrative Law admissions policy and the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act (par. 8 (b) of the complaint). ORDERwBy it s failure t o specifically deny the other allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have ad- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor m i t te d t he following allegations: service of the charge; Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- t h e jurisdictional allegations of the Employer; and the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended fa c t t h a t it is en g ag ed in c o mm er c e w it h in t h e mea n ing of the Act, that Respondent is a labor organization Order of the Administrative Law Judge and within the meaning of the Act, that certain officials are hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 32E, agents of Respondent, that Respondent threatened to and Service Employees International Union, AFL- did picket the Employer for an object of compelling the CIO, Elmsford, New York, its officers, agents, and Employer to recognize Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its guards and security officers 'We find no merit in Respondent's only exception which contends that and to force or require said employees to accept Re- the Administrative Law Judge's failure to grant it a further postponement spondent as their collective-bargaining representative, of the hearing was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of Respondent's j, 1.1 » i- not j .1. n right to a hearing. The record shows that Respondent's counsel received a n d t h a t Respondent could not be certified as the collec- a postponement pursuant to its request for a new Board hearing date, tive-bargaining representative of Said employees nor and, subsequent to the establishment of such new hearing date, estab- could it file a valid petition pursuant to Section 9(b)(3) of lished a trial court hearing date which created a conflict with the Board the Act (par. 13 of the complaint). Further, by failing to haring date previously agreed upon and established by Respondent's ^ ^ ^ described above was in violation of I In the absence of exceptions on the merits, we adopt pro forma the Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act that also is deemed ad- Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Respondent mitted. Nevertheless, presumably because of the specific violated Sec. 8(bX7XC) of the Act by threatening to picket the Employ- denials as aforesaid and the apparent inconsistencies in er, and by picketing the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring ., , . ihi--i..i.<- the employees of the Employer to accept or select Respondent as the the a ns w e r, a hern w a s conducted at which the Gen- collective-bargaining agent of its guard employees, although Respondent eral Counsel proceeded as if it was put to its proof on all cannot be certified as a representative of such employees by virtue of material allegations. Notwithstanding proper and suffi- Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act, inasmuch as it admits to membership employees cient notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to have other than guards. n ersnai apa i bhl d e aig Member Fanning also finds it unnecessary in this proceeding lo reach any representative appear on its behalf and the hearing the merits. However, it is his position that Sec. 8(b)(7XC) of the Act does was conducted with the General Counsel and the Charg- not prohibit threats by a union to picket an employer with an object to ing Party introducing evidence by way of witnesses and require recognition of a unit guards, nor does it bar a nonguard union exhibits. from engaging in any picketing to gain recognition and bargain for a unit of guards. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (Certain Teed Upon the entire record, including my observation of Corp.), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). and cases cited in his dissent therein. the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera- 259 NLRB No. 100 LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 771 Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the AFL-CIO and Cadillac Fairview Shopping Cen- said recommended Order. ters (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria. Case 2- CP-700 DECISION December 17, 1981 STATEMENT OF THE CASE DECISION AND ORDER EDWIN H. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard on January 26, 1981, on a com- By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND plaint which issued November 3, 1980, and on a charge ZIMMERMAN rile d on October 17, 1980, by Cadillac Fairview Shop- ping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria (herein On April 23, 1981, Administrative Law Judge called the Charging Party or Employer). The complaint Edwin H. Bennett issued the attached Decision in alleges, inter alia, that Local 32E, Service Employees In- this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed an ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent exception, and the General Counsel filed a letter- o r t h e U n i o n), v io l at ed S ec t io n 8(b)(7)(C) of the National brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's L ab o r Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), Decision, and an answer to Respondent's excep- by its picketing of the Employer for recognition in a unit Decision, and an answer to Respondent s excep- J J no itsadnththeUoncudote of guards, notwithstanding that the Union could not be tion, and the Charging Party filed a brief in opposi- certified for such unit because it admits to membership tion to Respondent's exception. employees other than guards. An answer was filed by Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Respondent by its attorneys of record, Miller & Bush, in National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- which it specifically denied certain allegations of the tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- complaint and made no response to certain other allega- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. tions. The allegations specifically denied were that the The Board has considered the record and the at- Employer employed guards within the meaning of Sec- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act; that Respondent admits to mem- briefs.and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- bership employees other than guards; and that Respond- bniefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- ent could not be certified for a guard unit by virtue of its ings,/ and conclusions of the Administrative Law admissions policy and the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. the Act (par. 8 (b) of the complaint). ORDERwBy it s failure t o specifically deny the other allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have ad- Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor m i t te d t he following allegations: service of the charge; Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- t h e jurisdictional allegations of the Employer; and the lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended fa c t t h a t it is en g ag ed in c o mm er c e w it h in t h e mea n ing of the Act, that Respondent is a labor organization Order of the Administrative Law Judge and within the meaning of the Act, that certain officials are hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 32E, agents of Respondent, that Respondent threatened to and Service Employees International Union, AFL- did picket the Employer for an object of compelling the CIO, Elmsford, New York, its officers, agents, and Employer to recognize Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its guards and security officers 'We find no merit in Respondent's only exception which contends that and to force or require said employees to accept Re- the Administrative Law Judge's failure to grant it a further postponement spondent as their collective-bargaining representative, of the hearing was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of Respondent's j, 1.1 » i- not j .1. n right to a hearing. The record shows that Respondent's counsel received a n d t h a t Respondent could not be certified as the collec- a postponement pursuant to its request for a new Board hearing date, tive-bargaining representative of Said employees nor and, subsequent to the establishment of such new hearing date, estab- could it file a valid petition pursuant to Section 9(b)(3) of lished a trial court hearing date which created a conflict with the Board the Act (par. 13 of the complaint). Further, by failing to heaing date previously agreed upon and established by Respondent's ^ ^ ^ described above was in violation of I In the absence of exceptions on the merits, we adopt pro forma the Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act that also is deemed ad- Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions that Respondent mitted. Nevertheless, presumably because of the specific violated Sec. 8(bX7XC) of the Act by threatening to picket the Employ- denials as aforesaid and the apparent inconsistencies in er, and by picketing the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring ., , . ihi--i..i.<- the employees of the Employer to accept or select Respondent as the the a ns w e r, a hern w a s conducted at which the Gen- collective-bargaining agent of its guard employees, although Respondent eral Counsel proceeded as if it was put to its proof on all cannot be certified as a representative of such employees by virtue of material allegations. Notwithstanding proper and suffi- Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act, inasmuch as it admits to membership employees cient notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to have other than guards. n ersnai apa i bhl d e aig Member Fanning also finds it unnecessary in this proceeding lo reach any representative appear on its behalf and the hearing the merits. However, it is his position that Sec. 8(b)(7XC) of the Act does was conducted with the General Counsel and the Charg- not prohibit threats by a union to picket an employer with an object to ing Party introducing evidence by way of witnesses and require recognition of a unit guards, nor does it bar a nonguard union exhibits. from engaging in any picketing to gain recognition and bargain for a unit of guards. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (Certain Teed Upon the entire record, including my observation of Corp.), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). and cases cited in his dissent therein. the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera- 259 NLRB No. 100 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the er's logo as well as a security patch, and a name tag is Charging Party, I make the following: worn on the shirt front which shows name and rank. In addition they wear shields with an identifying number FINDINGS OF FACT and rank as well as the words "Galleria Security." The uniforms also reflect the rank of the wearer by the usual military emblems for sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. The Employer operates a shopping mall in the city of All the security personnel carry flashlights approximate- White Plains, New York, called the Galleria, in which ly 18 inches, which also can be used as a defensive approximately 150 retail establishments of various kinds weapon, two-way radios, and handcuffs. are situated on 4 levels. The mall is open for shopping 6 Captain Robert Jackson, a former New York City days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on Sunday from police officer, testified in great detail concerning the noon to 5 p.m. Among the tenants from whom the Em- duties and functions of the security force which is under ployer annually derives gross revenues in excess of his overall supervision. All the security employees re- $100,000 is a large department store known as Abraham ceive training from the city of White Plains police de- and Strauss from whom revenues are derived in excess partment in matters such as the applicability of state laws of $25,000 annually. Abraham and Strauss in turn has pertaining to shoplifting, criminal trespassing, harassment revenues in excess of $500,000 annually, and has goods and assault, first aid, self-defense, and how to detain and and materials delivered to its New York State locations arrest a criminal suspect When the mall is closed to the from outside said State in excess of $50,000 annually. personnel patrol the grounds to guard public, security personnel patrol the grounds to guard The answer, as noted, does not deny and I now find that against unauthorized entry and fire hazards. Any intrud- the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- er is placed under arrest and a call is made to the White ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Respond- Plais police department If they have reason to believe ent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section suspicious situation, such as unlocked doors to there is a suspicious situation, such as unlocked doors to 2(5) of the Act. a store, they notify either the police or the owner of the 1i. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES store and guard the area until such authorities arrive. When the mall is open for normal business, they are con- The mall opened for shopping to the public on August cerned with insuring the safety of customers and security 1, 1980, but appears to have had many employees work- generally within the mall and its stores. Again, they ing prior to that date who became covered by a collec- patrol the grounds to observe for any suspicious or il- tive-bargaining agreement entered into between the Em- legal activity such as shoplifting or disorderly conduct. ployer and the Union on said date.' In said agreement If they apprehend a shoplifter they place that person the Union was recognized as the exclusive collective-bar- under arrest by escorting the individual to the security gaining representative of the approximately 80 "House- office within the mall and call for the police. When re- keeping Employees" at the mall engaged in custodial and quired, they engage in surveillance of a store in order to cleanup work. Specifically excluded from the unit were, identify and apprehend shoplifters. They control crowds among others, "all security employees." The agreement individuals, and they apply first aid in the contains union-security and dues-checkoff clauses which a nd unruly idual and plce apply first m the case of an accident and place a call for appropriate medi- have been applied to the unit employees. In the perform- have been applied to the unit employees. In the perform- cal assistance. They will issue notices to disruptive or ance of their housekeeping duties the employees wear sorderly individuals prohibiting them from reentering various uniforms depending upon their particular job. dis vThus, those who were engaged primarily in cleaning the mall under penalty of arrest for criminal trespass. In T sicleaning the performance of their duties they are required to fill functions wear a brown colored outfit while those work- t h e erformance of their duties they are require to fill ing in the food service areas wear red and white pin- out written reports in detail describing any arrests they stripe jackets. The only equipment used by them are make, illegal activity they observe, or accidents they those incidental to and required by their assignments, attend to e.g., mops, brooms, cleaning paraphenalia, etc. Respond- No other employees of the Employer perform any of ent's agent servicing the agreement is one Joan Kelly the duties delineated above and most of the tenants in who has met on occasion with the members of the Em- the mall depend for their security on the services fun- ployer's managerial staff to discuss various issues arising ished by the Employer as performed by the security thereunder. force. It was estimated by Jackson that perhaps no more In addition to a cleaning service, the Employer also than six of the merchants in the mall employ individuals provides security and protective services at the mall. To in a security or guard capacity, and then only during accomplish this objective it employs a security force of business hours. However, even in those instances the 25 persons both full and part time, working three shifts a Employer's security force renders assistance as a regular day, 7 days a week, thus furnishing 24-hour coverage, practice, and, when the mall is closed, it is the Employ- These 25 employees are directed by 5 sergeants, 2 lieu- er's security force alone that guards against breaking and tenants, and 1 captain. They all wear military type uni- entering and against fire hazards. forms and a police type hat with the Employer's logo On September 5, Henry F. Chartier, Respondent's pin on the front. The uniform, which consists of a brown president, wrote to the Employer's manager of the mall, shirt and slacks, has on the arm of the shirt the Employ- Larry Brown, stating that the Union had been designated by the Employer's "security guards" as their "collective- Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter are in 1980. bargaining agent" and for that reason he was scheduling 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the er's logo as well as a security patch, and a name tag is Charging Party, I make the following: worn on the shirt front which shows name and rank. In addition they wear shields with an identifying number FINDINGS OF FACT and rank as well as the words "Galleria Security." The uniforms also reflect the rank of the wearer by the usual military emblems for sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. The Employer operates a shopping mall in the city of All the security personnel carry flashlights approximate- White Plains, New York, called the Galleria, in which ly 18 inches, which also can be used as a defensive approximately 150 retail establishments of various kinds weapon, two-way radios, and handcuffs. are situated on 4 levels. The mall is open for shopping 6 Captain Robert Jackson, a former New York City days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on Sunday from police officer, testified in great detail concerning the noon to 5 p.m. Among the tenants from whom the Em- duties and functions of the security force which is under ployer annually derives gross revenues in excess of hi, overall supervision. All the security employees re- $100,000 is a large department store known as Abraham ceive training from the city of White Plains police de- and Strauss from whom revenues are derived in excess partment in matters such as the applicability of state laws of $25,000 annually. Abraham and Strauss in turn has pertaining to shoplifting, criminal trespassing, harassment revenues in excess of $500,000 annually, and has goods and assault, first aid, self-defense, and how to detain and and materials delivered to its New York State locations arest a criminal suspect. When the mall is closed to the from outside said State in excess of $50,000 annually. prity personnel patrol the grounds to guard The answer, as noted, does not deny and I now find that against unauthorized entry and fire hazards. Any intrud- the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- er is placed under arrest and a call is made to the White ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Respond- Plains police department. If they have reason to believe ent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section t suspicious situation, such as unlocked doors to 2(5) of the Act. a store, they notify either the police or the owner of the II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES store and guard the area until such authorities arrive. When the mall is open for normal business, they are con- The mall opened for shopping to the public on August cerned with insuring the safety of customers and security 1, 1980, but appears to have had many employees work- generally within the mall and its stores. Again, they ing prior to that date who became covered by a collec- patrol the grounds to observe for any suspicious or il- tive-bargaining agreement entered into between the Em- legal activity such as shoplifting or disorderly conduct. ployer and the Union on said date.' In said agreement If they apprehend a shoplifter they place that person the Union was recognized as the exclusive collective-bar- under arrest by escorting the individual to the security gaining representative of the approximately 80 "House- office within the mall and call for the police. When re- keeping Employees" at the mall engaged in custodial and quired, they engage in surveillance of a store in order to cleanup work. Specifically excluded from the unit were, identify and apprehend shoplifters. They control crowds among others, "all security employees." The agreement and unruly individuals, and they apply first aid in the contains union-security and dues-checkoff clauses which c an accident and place a call for appropriate medi- have been applied to the unit employees. In the perform- c assistance. They will issue notices to disruptive or ance of their housekeeping duties the employees wear disorderly individuals prohibiting them from reentering various uniforms depending upon their particular job. . varius uifors deendig upn thir prticlar ob. the mall under penalty of arrest for criminal trespass. In Thus, those who were engaged primarily in cleaning t h e pefom n e of t dutie s t a r require to il functions wear a brown colored outfit while those work- t h e Performance of their duties they are required to fill ing in the food service areas wear red and white pin- mutwktten reports in detail describing any arrests they stripe jackets. The only equipment used by them are m a k e , '"^al activity they observe, or accidents they those incidental to and required by their assignments, e.g., mops, brooms, cleaning paraphenalia, etc. Respond- No other employees of the Employer perform any of ent's agent servicing the agreement is one Joan Kelly t h e duties delineated above and most of the tenants in who has met on occasion with the members of the Em- the mall depend for their security on the services fun- ployer's managerial staff to discuss various issues arising ish e d by t h e Employer as performed by the security thereunder. force. It was estimated by Jackson that perhaps no more In addition to a cleaning service, the Employer also t h an six of the merchants in the mall employ individuals provides security and protective services at the mall. To i" a security or guard capacity, and then only during accomplish this objective it employs a security force of business hours. However, even in those instances the 25 persons both full and part time, working three shifts a Employer's security force renders assistance as a regular day, 7 days a week, thus furnishing 24-hour coverage,. practice, and, when the mall is closed, it is the Employ- These 25 employees are directed by 5 sergeants, 2 lieu- er's security force alone that guards against breaking and tenants, and 1 captain. They all wear military type uni- entering and against fire hazards. forms and a police type hat with the Employer's logo On September 5, Henry F. Chartier, Respondent's pin on the front. The uniform, which consists of a brown president, wrote to the Employer's manager of the mall, shirt and slacks, has on the arm of the shirt the Employ- Larry Brown, stating that the Union had been designated by the Employer's "security guards" as their "collective- 'Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter are in 1980. bargaining agent" and for that reason he was scheduling 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the er's logo as well as a security patch, and a name tag is Charging Party, I make the following: worn on the shirt front which shows name and rank. In addition they wear shields with an identifying number FINDINGS OF FACT and rank as well as the words "Galleria Security." The uniforms also reflect the rank of the wearer by the usual military emblems for sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. The Employer operates a shopping mall in the city of All the security personnel carry flashlights approximate- White Plains, New York, called the Galleria, in which ly 18 inches, which also can be used as a defensive approximately 150 retail establishments of various kinds weapon, two-way radios, and handcuffs. are situated on 4 levels. The mall is open for shopping 6 Captain Robert Jackson, a former New York City days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on Sunday from police officer, testified in great detail concerning the noon to 5 p.m. Among the tenants from whom the Em- duties and functions of the security force which is under ployer annually derives gross revenues in excess of hi, overall supervision. All the security employees re- $100,000 is a large department store known as Abraham ceive training from the city of White Plains police de- and Strauss from whom revenues are derived in excess partment in matters such as the applicability of state laws of $25,000 annually. Abraham and Strauss in turn has pertaining to shoplifting, criminal trespassing, harassment revenues in excess of $500,000 annually, and has goods and assault, first aid, self-defense, and how to detain and and materials delivered to its New York State locations arest a criminal suspect. When the mall is closed to the from outside said State in excess of $50,000 annually. prity personnel patrol the grounds to guard The answer, as noted, does not deny and I now find that against unauthorized entry and fire hazards. Any intrud- the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- er is placed under arrest and a call is made to the White ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Respond- Plains police department. If they have reason to believe ent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section t suspicious situation, such as unlocked doors to 2(5) of the Act. a store, they notify either the police or the owner of the II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES store and guard the area until such authorities arrive. When the mall is open for normal business, they are con- The mall opened for shopping to the public on August cerned with insuring the safety of customers and security 1, 1980, but appears to have had many employees work- generally within the mall and its stores. Again, they ing prior to that date who became covered by a collec- patrol the grounds to observe for any suspicious or il- tive-bargaining agreement entered into between the Em- legal activity such as shoplifting or disorderly conduct. ployer and the Union on said date.' In said agreement If they apprehend a shoplifter they place that person the Union was recognized as the exclusive collective-bar- under arrest by escorting the individual to the security gaining representative of the approximately 80 "House- office within the mall and call for the police. When re- keeping Employees" at the mall engaged in custodial and quired, they engage in surveillance of a store in order to cleanup work. Specifically excluded from the unit were, identify and apprehend shoplifters. They control crowds among others, "all security employees." The agreement and unruly individuals, and they apply first aid in the contains union-security and dues-checkoff clauses which c an accident and place a call for appropriate medi- have been applied to the unit employees. In the perform- c assistance. They will issue notices to disruptive or ance of their housekeeping duties the employees wear disorderly individuals prohibiting them from reentering various uniforms depending upon their particular job. . varius uifors deendig upn thir prticlar ob. the mall under penalty of arrest for criminal trespass. In Thus, those who were engaged primarily in cleaning t h e pefom n e of t dutie s t a r require to il functions wear a brown colored outfit while those work- t h e Performance of their duties they are required to fill ing in the food service areas wear red and white pin- mutwktten reports in detail describing any arrests they stripe jackets. The only equipment used by them are m a k e , '"^al activity they observe, or accidents they those incidental to and required by their assignments, e.g., mops, brooms, cleaning paraphenalia, etc. Respond- No other employees of the Employer perform any of ent's agent servicing the agreement is one Joan Kelly t h e duties delineated above and most of the tenants in who has met on occasion with the members of the Em- the mall depend for their security on the services fun- ployer's managerial staff to discuss various issues arising ish e d by t h e Employer as performed by the security thereunder. force. It was estimated by Jackson that perhaps no more In addition to a cleaning service, the Employer also t h an six of the merchants in the mall employ individuals provides security and protective services at the mall. To i" a security or guard capacity, and then only during accomplish this objective it employs a security force of business hours. However, even in those instances the 25 persons both full and part time, working three shifts a Employer's security force renders assistance as a regular day, 7 days a week, thus furnishing 24-hour coverage,. practice, and, when the mall is closed, it is the Employ- These 25 employees are directed by 5 sergeants, 2 lieu- er's security force alone that guards against breaking and tenants, and 1 captain. They all wear military type uni- entering and against fire hazards. forms and a police type hat with the Employer's logo On September 5, Henry F. Chartier, Respondent's pin on the front. The uniform, which consists of a brown president, wrote to the Employer's manager of the mall, shirt and slacks, has on the arm of the shirt the Employ- Larry Brown, stating that the Union had been designated by the Employer's "security guards" as their "collective- 'Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter are in 1980. bargaining agent" and for that reason he was scheduling 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the er's logo as well as a security patch, and a name tag is Charging Party, I make the following: worn on the shirt front which shows name and rank. In addition they wear shields with an identifying number FINDINGS OF FACT and rank as well as the words "Galleria Security." The uniforms also reflect the rank of the wearer by the usual military emblems for sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. The Employer operates a shopping mall in the city of All the security personnel carry flashlights approximate- White Plains, New York, called the Galleria, in which ly 18 inches, which also can be used as a defensive approximately 150 retail establishments of various kinds weapon, two-way radios, and handcuffs. are situated on 4 levels. The mall is open for shopping 6 Captain Robert Jackson, a former New York City days a week from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on Sunday from police officer, testified in great detail concerning the noon to 5 p.m. Among the tenants from whom the Em- duties and functions of the security force which is under ployer annually derives gross revenues in excess of hi, overall supervision. All the security employees re- $100,000 is a large department store known as Abraham ceive training from the city of White Plains police de- and Strauss from whom revenues are derived in excess partment in matters such as the applicability of state laws of $25,000 annually. Abraham and Strauss in turn has pertaining to shoplifting, criminal trespassing, harassment revenues in excess of $500,000 annually, and has goods and assault, first aid, self-defense, and how to detain and and materials delivered to its New York State locations arest a criminal suspect. When the mall is closed to the from outside said State in excess of $50,000 annually. prity personnel patrol the grounds to guard The answer, as noted, does not deny and I now find that against unauthorized entry and fire hazards. Any intrud- the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- er is placed under arrest and a call is made to the White ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Respond- Plains police department. If they have reason to believe ent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section t suspicious situation, such as unlocked doors to 2(5) of the Act. a store, they notify either the police or the owner of the II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES store and guard the area until such authorities arrive. When the mall is open for normal business, they are con- The mall opened for shopping to the public on August cerned with insuring the safety of customers and security 1, 1980, but appears to have had many employees work- generally within the mall and its stores. Again, they ing prior to that date who became covered by a collec- patrol the grounds to observe for any suspicious or il- tive-bargaining agreement entered into between the Em- legal activity such as shoplifting or disorderly conduct. ployer and the Union on said date.' In said agreement If they apprehend a shoplifter they place that person the Union was recognized as the exclusive collective-bar- under arrest by escorting the individual to the security gaining representative of the approximately 80 "House- office within the mall and call for the police. When re- keeping Employees" at the mall engaged in custodial and quired, they engage in surveillance of a store in order to cleanup work. Specifically excluded from the unit were, identify and apprehend shoplifters. They control crowds among others, "all security employees." The agreement and unruly individuals, and they apply first aid in the contains union-security and dues-checkoff clauses which c an accident and place a call for appropriate medi- have been applied to the unit employees. In the perform- c assistance. They will issue notices to disruptive or ance of their housekeeping duties the employees wear disorderly individuals prohibiting them from reentering various uniforms depending upon their particular job. . varius uifors deendig upn thir prticlar ob. the mall under penalty of arrest for criminal trespass. In Thus, those who were engaged primarily in cleaning t h e pefom n e of t dutie s t a r require to il functions wear a brown colored outfit while those work- t h e Performance of their duties they are required to fill ing in the food service areas wear red and white pin- mutwktten reports in detail describing any arrests they stripe jackets. The only equipment used by them are m a k e , '"^al activity they observe, or accidents they those incidental to and required by their assignments, e.g., mops, brooms, cleaning paraphenalia, etc. Respond- No other employees of the Employer perform any of ent's agent servicing the agreement is one Joan Kelly t h e duties delineated above and most of the tenants in who has met on occasion with the members of the Em- the mall depend for their security on the services fun- ployer's managerial staff to discuss various issues arising ish e d by t h e Employer as performed by the security thereunder. force. It was estimated by Jackson that perhaps no more In addition to a cleaning service, the Employer also t h an six of the merchants in the mall employ individuals provides security and protective services at the mall. To i" a security or guard capacity, and then only during accomplish this objective it employs a security force of business hours. However, even in those instances the 25 persons both full and part time, working three shifts a Employer's security force renders assistance as a regular day, 7 days a week, thus furnishing 24-hour coverage,. practice, and, when the mall is closed, it is the Employ- These 25 employees are directed by 5 sergeants, 2 lieu- er's security force alone that guards against breaking and tenants, and 1 captain. They all wear military type uni- entering and against fire hazards. forms and a police type hat with the Employer's logo On September 5, Henry F. Chartier, Respondent's pin on the front. The uniform, which consists of a brown president, wrote to the Employer's manager of the mall, shirt and slacks, has on the arm of the shirt the Employ- Larry Brown, stating that the Union had been designated by the Employer's "security guards" as their "collective- 'Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter are in 1980. bargaining agent" and for that reason he was scheduling LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 773 September 11 for Brown to meet with him to discuss an tions are insufficient to warrant reversal." The Board "agreement covering wages, hours, working conditions therefore affirmed the dismissal of the petition. 3 and benefits for such employees." At or about the same time, a business agent of Respondent, Joseph DiBucci, Ill. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS had a few telephone conversations with Brown in which had a few telephone conversations with Brown in which Section 8(b)7(C), inter alia, prohibits a labor organiza- DiBucci stated that a majority of the security guards had tion from picketing for a recognitional or organizational designated Respondent as their collective-bargaining rep- objective beyond a reasonab rion organizational resentative and accordingly Respondent was requesting objective beyond a reasonable period of time not to that the Employer sign a collective-bargaining agree- exceed 30 days However, such picketing is not pro- ment. scribed if within that reasonable time the labor organiza- On September 30, Brown replied by letter to Chartier tion has filed a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the that on advice of counsel the Employer would not rec- Act. In the instant case, the Union did file such a petition ognize Respondent as the bargaining agent for the secu- in which it claimed that a substantial number of employ- rity guards. On October 17, Brown had a telephone con- ees in the proposed unit wished to be represented by it versation with Raymond McDonough, Respondent's vice for purposes of collective-bargaining and that it desired president, in which the latter again stated that Respond- to be certified as such representative, thereby seeking to ent represented a majority of the guards and that it avoid any restraint on its picketing. But Section 9(b)(3) would be "mutually beneficial" if they could sit down of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "no labor or- and work out an agreement. According to Brown, when ganization shall be certified as the representative of em- he replied that the Employer would not recognize Re- ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organiza- spondent in a guard unit, McDonough stated, "[H]ow tion admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or in- many trucks, truck drivers do you think will cross over directly with an organization which admits to member- and make deliveries at the Galleria? How many con- ship, employees other than guards." Harmonizing Sec- struction workers do you think will cross over and work tions 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(bX3) of the Act the Board, with in those stores?" court approval, held in General Service Employees Union On Monday, October 20, at approximately 8 a.m. Re- Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees Internation- spondent began picketing on the perimeter of the mall. al Union, AFL-CIO (A- Security Co.), 224 NLRB 434 Approximately 15 to 20 pickets including security em- (1976) (see fn. 9 and cases cited therein), enfd. 578 F.2d ployees, patrolled at the public entrances with picket 361 (D.C. Cir. 1978), that a union which is disqualified signs bearing Respondent's name and a legend stating from certification because of the applicability of Section that the employees were on strike. The picketing contin- that the employees were on strike. The picketing contin- 9(b)(3) may not avail itself of the statutory right granted ued on almost a 24-hour basis until it was enjoined by a o ii i ii i temporary restraining order issued by a Federal district th e r gnitins t ngg n gion i court pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act on October 24 etg. Such picket by a disqualfied unon, or even a 1980. During the course of that picketing on or about threat to picket, constitutes a violation of Section October 23, Kelly, who was present during the picket- 8(b)(7)(C). Under these circumstances, it is reasoned that ing, told Brown that the picketing would cease if a con- any period of picketing by a union which carries the tract were signed. In her district court testimony, Kelly 9(b)(3) disqualification would be unreasonable because no swore that the purpose of the picketing was to secure valid petition could be filed. Accord: General Service recognition of the guards. One of the Employer's guards Employees Union Local No. 73. affiliated with Service Em- who participated in the picketing activity, Donna Varian, ployees International Union AFL-CIO (Active Detective told Captain Jackson at the picket line, that the employ- Agency), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). The General Counsel ees were picketing in order to have Respondent repre- and the Charging Party assert that the facts and circum- sent them. On October 22, Respondent filed a petition 2 in stances of the case at bar place Respondent's picketing the National Labor Relations Board's Region 2 office in and threats thereof squarely within the rationale of the Case 2-RC-18864, in which, inter alia, it requested an aforesaid holdings. I agree. election in a unit consisting of "customer security per- In the first place, notwithstanding the Union's denial sonnel" excluding all others. The petition further re- that it admits to membership employees other than ferred to the fact that a request for recognition had been guards, the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes made on September 5. On October 23, the petition was otherwise.4 Guards are defined by Section 9(b)(3) of the dismissed by the Regional Director for the stated reason that Respondent admitted to membership employees This ruling was brought to my attention in the Charging Party's other than guards, that the unit consisted of guards as brief defined by Section 9(bX3) of the Act and consequently The Board action upholding the dismissal of the Union's petition in Respondent could not be certified pursuant to the provi- Case 2-RC-8864, including the underlying reasons for the Regional Di- rector's finding that Sec. 9(bX3) disqualified the Union from obtaining a sions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. On January 12, 1981, certification for the unit of guards requested, is binding on me. Drivers the Board issued a "Ruling on Administrative Action" in Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 71, affiliated with which the Board considered the Union's request for International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and review of that dismissal and "concluded that the allega- Helpers of America (Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation), 221 NLRB 1240, 1242 (1975). However, because the General Counsel litigated these issues fully and is not seeking to rely solely on the previously made ad- 2 The petition was signed by Algernon M. Miller, of the Miller & Bush ministrative findings, it is only appropriate that I address the issues on the law firm as the Union's general counsel. basis of the record evidence. LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 773 September 11 for Brown to meet with him to discuss an tions are insufficient to warrant reversal." The Board "agreement covering wages, hours, working conditions therefore affirmed the dismissal of the petition. 3 and benefits for such employees." At or about the same time, a business agent of Respondent, Joseph DiBucci, 111. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS had a few telephone conversations with Brown in which „. oi\-/\ r 11 i had afew elephne cnveration wit Brow in hich Section 8(b)7(C), inter alia, prohibits a labor organiza- DiBucci stated that a majority of the security guards had t fr o m picke t ngf r a reogito a o r o rgan i a t designated Respondent as their collective-bargaining rep- t o n f ro m pbjci o f o r a recogstionalb r o rganizational resentative and accordingly Respondent was requesting objective beyond a reasonable period of time not to that the Employer sign a collective-bargaining agree- e x c e ed 30 d a v s. However, such picketing is not pro- ment. scribed if within that reasonable time the labor organiza- On September 30, Brown replied by letter to Chartier t io n has riled a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the that on advice of counsel the Employer would not rec- A c t , I n t h e instant case, the Union did file such a petition ognize Respondent as the bargaining agent for the secu- in which it claimed that a substantial number of employ- rity guards. On October 17, Brown had a telephone con- ees in the proposed unit wished to be represented by it versation with Raymond McDonough, Respondent's vice for purposes of collective-bargaining and that it desired president, in which the latter again stated that Respond- to be certified as such representative, thereby seeking to ent represented a majority of the guards and that it avoid any restraint on its picketing. But Section 9(b)(3) would be "mutually beneficial" if they could sit down of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "no labor or- and work out an agreement. According to Brown, when ganization shall be certified as the representative of em- he replied that the Employer would not recognize Re- ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organiza- spondent in a guard unit, McDonough stated, "[H]ow tion admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or in- many trucks, truck drivers do you think will cross over directly with an organization which admits to member- and make deliveries at the Galleria? How many con- ship, employees other than guards." Harmonizing Sec- struction workers do you think will cross over and work tions 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(bX3) of the Act the Board, with in those stores?" court approval, held in General Service Employees Union On Monday, October 20, at approximately 8 a.m. Re- Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees Internation- spondent began picketing on the perimeter of the mall. al Union, AFL-CIO (A-] Security Co.), 224 NLRB 434 Approximately 15 to 20 pickets including security em- (1976) (see fn. 9 and cases cited therein), enfd. 578 F.2d ployees, patrolled at the public entrances with picket 361 (D.C. Cir. 1978), that a union which is disqualified signs bearing Respondent's name and a legend stating from certification because of the applicability of Section that the employees were on strike. The picketing contmn- . thattheemplyee wee onstrke. he icktingconin- 9(b)(3) may not avail itself of the statutory right granted ued on almost a 24-hour basis until it was enjoined by a o l o to engag i r i temporary restraining order issued by a Federal district o t h e r l a b o r organizations to engage in recogaltional pick- court pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act on October 24, S- s u c h p^ ^S by a disqualified union, or even a 1980. During the course of that picketing on or about t h r e a t t o picket, constitutes a violation of Section October 23, Kelly, who was present during the picket- 8(b)(7)(C). Under these circumstances, it is reasoned that ing, told Brown that the picketing would cease if a con- any period of picketing by a union which carries the tract were signed. In her district court testimony, Kelly 9(b)(3) disqualification would be unreasonable because no swore that the purpose of the picketing was to secure valid petition could be filed. Accord: General Service recognition of the guards. One of the Employer's guards Employees Union Local No. 73. affiliated with Service Em- who participated in the picketing activity, Donna Varian, ployees International Union AFL-CIO (Active Detective told Captain Jackson at the picket line, that the employ- Agency), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). The General Counsel ees were picketing in order to have Respondent repre- and the Charging Party assert that the facts and circum- sent them. On October 22, Respondent filed a petition 2 in stances of the case at bar place Respondent's picketing the National Labor Relations Board's Region 2 office in and threats thereof squarely within the rationale of the Case 2-RC-18864, in which, inter alia, it requested an aforesaid holdings. I agree. election in a unit consisting of "customer security per- In the first place, notwithstanding the Union's denial sonnel" excluding all others. The petition further re- that it admits to membership employees other than ferred to the fact that a request for recognition had been guards, the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes made on September 5. On October 23, the petition was otherwise.' Guards are defined by Section 9(b)(3) of the dismissed by the Regional Director for the stated reason that Respondent admitted to membership employees 3This ruling was brought to my attention in the Charging Party's other than guards, that the unit consisted of guards as brief. defined by Section 9(b)<3) of the Act and consequently IThe Board action upholding the dismissal of the Union's petition in Respondent could not be certified pursuant to the provi- Case 2-RC -8864, incl uding the un derlying r easons for the Regional D i- rector's finding that Sec. 9(bX3) disqualified the Union from obtaining a sions Of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. On January 12, 1981, certification for the unit of guards requested, is binding on me. Drivers the Board issued a "Ruling On Administrative Action" in Chauffeus Warehousemen and Helpers. Local Union No. 71. affiliated with which the Board considered the Union's request for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and review of that dismissal and "Concluded that the allega- Helpers of America (Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation), 221 NLRB 1240, 1242 (1975). However, because the General Counsel litigated these issues fully and is not seeking to rely solely on the previously made ad- 2 The petition was signed by Algernon M. Miller, of the Miller & Bush ministrative findings, it is only appropriate that I address the issues on the law firm as the Union's general counsel. basis of the record evidence. LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 773 September 11 for Brown to meet with him to discuss an tions are insufficient to warrant reversal." The Board "agreement covering wages, hours, working conditions therefore affirmed the dismissal of the petition. 3 and benefits for such employees." At or about the same time, a business agent of Respondent, Joseph DiBucci, 111. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS had a few telephone conversations with Brown in which „. oi\-/\ r 11 i had afew elephne cnveration wit Brow in hich Section 8(b)7(C), inter alia, prohibits a labor organiza- DiBucci stated that a majority of the security guards had t fr o m picke t ngf r a reogito a o r o rgan i a t designated Respondent as their collective-bargaining rep- t o n f ro m pbjci o f o r a recogstionalb r o rganizational resentative and accordingly Respondent was requesting objective beyond a reasonable period of time not to that the Employer sign a collective-bargaining agree- e x c e ed 30 d a v s. However, such picketing is not pro- ment. scribed if within that reasonable time the labor organiza- On September 30, Brown replied by letter to Chartier t io n has riled a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the that on advice of counsel the Employer would not rec- A c t , I n t h e instant case, the Union did file such a petition ognize Respondent as the bargaining agent for the secu- in which it claimed that a substantial number of employ- rity guards. On October 17, Brown had a telephone con- ees in the proposed unit wished to be represented by it versation with Raymond McDonough, Respondent's vice for purposes of collective-bargaining and that it desired president, in which the latter again stated that Respond- to be certified as such representative, thereby seeking to ent represented a majority of the guards and that it avoid any restraint on its picketing. But Section 9(b)(3) would be "mutually beneficial" if they could sit down of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "no labor or- and work out an agreement. According to Brown, when ganization shall be certified as the representative of em- he replied that the Employer would not recognize Re- ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organiza- spondent in a guard unit, McDonough stated, "[H]ow tion admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or in- many trucks, truck drivers do you think will cross over directly with an organization which admits to member- and make deliveries at the Galleria? How many con- ship, employees other than guards." Harmonizing Sec- struction workers do you think will cross over and work tions 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(bX3) of the Act the Board, with in those stores?" court approval, held in General Service Employees Union On Monday, October 20, at approximately 8 a.m. Re- Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees Internation- spondent began picketing on the perimeter of the mall. al Union, AFL-CIO (A-] Security Co.), 224 NLRB 434 Approximately 15 to 20 pickets including security em- (1976) (see fn. 9 and cases cited therein), enfd. 578 F.2d ployees, patrolled at the public entrances with picket 361 (D.C. Cir. 1978), that a union which is disqualified signs bearing Respondent's name and a legend stating from certification because of the applicability of Section that the employees were on strike. The picketing contmn- . thattheemplyee wee onstrke. he icktingconin- 9(b)(3) may not avail itself of the statutory right granted ued on almost a 24-hour basis until it was enjoined by a o l o to engag i r i temporary restraining order issued by a Federal district o t h e r l a b o r organizations to engage in recogaltional pick- court pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act on October 24, S- s u c h p^ ^S by a disqualified union, or even a 1980. During the course of that picketing on or about t h r e a t t o picket, constitutes a violation of Section October 23, Kelly, who was present during the picket- 8(b)(7)(C). Under these circumstances, it is reasoned that ing, told Brown that the picketing would cease if a con- any period of picketing by a union which carries the tract were signed. In her district court testimony, Kelly 9(b)(3) disqualification would be unreasonable because no swore that the purpose of the picketing was to secure valid petition could be filed. Accord: General Service recognition of the guards. One of the Employer's guards Employees Union Local No. 73. affiliated with Service Em- who participated in the picketing activity, Donna Varian, ployees International Union AFL-CIO (Active Detective told Captain Jackson at the picket line, that the employ- Agency), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). The General Counsel ees were picketing in order to have Respondent repre- and the Charging Party assert that the facts and circum- sent them. On October 22, Respondent filed a petition 2 in stances of the case at bar place Respondent's picketing the National Labor Relations Board's Region 2 office in and threats thereof squarely within the rationale of the Case 2-RC-18864, in which, inter alia, it requested an aforesaid holdings. I agree. election in a unit consisting of "customer security per- In the first place, notwithstanding the Union's denial sonnel" excluding all others. The petition further re- that it admits to membership employees other than ferred to the fact that a request for recognition had been guards, the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes made on September 5. On October 23, the petition was otherwise.- Guards are defined by Section 9(b)(3) of the dismissed by the Regional Director for the stated reason that Respondent admitted to membership employees 3This ruling was brought to my attention in the Charging Party's other than guards, that the unit consisted of guards as brief. defined by Section 9(b)<3) of the Act and consequently IThe Board action upholding the dismissal of the Union's petition in Respondent could not be certified pursuant to the provi- Case 2-RC- 8864, including the underlying reasons for the Regional D i- rector's finding that Sec. 9(bX3) disqualified the Union from obtaining a sions Of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. On January 12, 1981, certification for the unit of guards requested, is binding on me. Drivers the Board issued a "Ruling On Administrative Action" in Chauffeus Warehousemen and Helpers. Local Union No. 71. affiliated with which the Board considered the Union's request for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and review of that dismissal and "Concluded that the allega- Helpers of America (Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation), 221 NLRB 1240, 1242 (1975). However, because the General Counsel litigated these issues fully and is not seeking to rely solely on the previously made ad- 2 The petition was signed by Algernon M. Miller, of the Miller & Bush ministrative findings, it is only appropriate that I address the issues on the law firm as the Union's general counsel. basis of the record evidence. LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 773 September 11 for Brown to meet with him to discuss an tions are insufficient to warrant reversal." The Board "agreement covering wages, hours, working conditions therefore affirmed the dismissal of the petition. 3 and benefits for such employees." At or about the same time, a business agent of Respondent, Joseph DiBucci, 111. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS had a few telephone conversations with Brown in which „. oi\-/\ r 11 i had afew elephne cnveration wit Brow in hich Section 8(b)7(C), inter alia, prohibits a labor organiza- DiBucci stated that a majority of the security guards had t fr o m picke t ngf r a recgniio a o r o rgan i a t designated Respondent as their collective-bargaining rep- t o n f ro m pbjci o f o r a recogstionalb r o rganizational resentative and accordingly Respondent was requesting objective beyond a reasonable period of time not to that the Employer sign a collective-bargaining agree- e x c e ed 30 d a v s. However, such picketing is not pro- ment. scribed if within that reasonable time the labor organiza- On September 30, Brown replied by letter to Chartier t io n has riled a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of the that on advice of counsel the Employer would not rec- A c t , I n t h e instant case, the Union did file such a petition ognize Respondent as the bargaining agent for the secu- in which it claimed that a substantial number of employ- rity guards. On October 17, Brown had a telephone con- ees in the proposed unit wished to be represented by it versation with Raymond McDonough, Respondent's vice for purposes of collective-bargaining and that it desired president, in which the latter again stated that Respond- to be certified as such representative, thereby seeking to ent represented a majority of the guards and that it avoid any restraint on its picketing. But Section 9(b)(3) would be "mutually beneficial" if they could sit down of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "no labor or- and work out an agreement. According to Brown, when ganization shall be certified as the representative of em- he replied that the Employer would not recognize Re- ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organiza- spondent in a guard unit, McDonough stated, "[H]ow tion admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or in- many trucks, truck drivers do you think will cross over directly with an organization which admits to member- and make deliveries at the Galleria? How many con- ship, employees other than guards." Harmonizing Sec- struction workers do you think will cross over and work tions 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(bX3) of the Act the Board, with in those stores?" court approval, held in General Service Employees Union On Monday, October 20, at approximately 8 a.m. Re- Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees Internation- spondent began picketing on the perimeter of the mall. al Union, AFL-CIO (A-] Security Co.), 224 NLRB 434 Approximately 15 to 20 pickets including security em- (1976) (see fn. 9 and cases cited therein), enfd. 578 F.2d ployees, patrolled at the public entrances with picket 361 (D.C. Cir. 1978), that a union which is disqualified signs bearing Respondent's name and a legend stating from certification because of the applicability of Section that the employees were on strike. The picketing contmn- . thattheemplyee wee onstrke. he icktingconin- 9(b)(3) may not avail itself of the statutory right granted ued on almost a 24-hour basis until it was enjoined by a o l o to engag i r i temporary restraining order issued by a Federal district o t h e r l a b o r organizations to engage in recogaltional pick- court pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act on October 24, S- s u c h p^ ^S by a disqualified union, or even a 1980. During the course of that picketing on or about t h r e a t t o picket, constitutes a violation of Section October 23, Kelly, who was present during the picket- 8(b)(7)(C). Under these circumstances, it is reasoned that ing, told Brown that the picketing would cease if a con- any period of picketing by a union which carries the tract were signed. In her district court testimony, Kelly 9(b)(3) disqualification would be unreasonable because no swore that the purpose of the picketing was to secure valid petition could be filed. Accord: General Service recognition of the guards. One of the Employer's guards Employees Union Local No. 73. affiliated with Service Em- who participated in the picketing activity, Donna Varian, ployees International Union AFL-CIO (Active Detective told Captain Jackson at the picket line, that the employ- Agency), 240 NLRB 462 (1979). The General Counsel ees were picketing in order to have Respondent repre- and the Charging Party assert that the facts and circum- sent them. On October 22, Respondent filed a petition 2 in stances of the case at bar place Respondent's picketing the National Labor Relations Board's Region 2 office in and threats thereof squarely within the rationale of the Case 2-RC-18864, in which, inter alia, it requested an aforesaid holdings. I agree. election in a unit consisting of "customer security per- In the first place, notwithstanding the Union's denial sonnel" excluding all others. The petition further re- that it admits to membership employees other than ferred to the fact that a request for recognition had been guards, the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes made on September 5. On October 23, the petition was otherwise.- Guards are defined by Section 9(b)(3) of the dismissed by the Regional Director for the stated reason that Respondent admitted to membership employees 3This ruling was brought to my attention in the Charging Party's other than guards, that the unit consisted of guards as brief. defined by Section 9(b)<3) of the Act and consequently IThe Board action upholding the dismissal of the Union's petition in Respondent could not be certified pursuant to the provi- Case 2-RC- 8864, including the underlying reasons for the Regional D i- rector's finding that Sec. 9(bX3) disqualified the Union from obtaining a sions Of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. On January 12, 1981, certification for the unit of guards requested, is binding on me. Drivers the Board issued a "Ruling On Administrative Action" in Chauffeus Warehousemen and Helpers. Local Union No. 71. affiliated with which the Board considered the Union's request for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and review of that dismissal and "Concluded that the allega- Helpers ojfAmerica (Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation), 221 NLRB 1240, 1242 (1975). However, because the General Counsel litigated these issues fully and is not seeking to rely solely on the previously made ad- 2 The petition was signed by Algernon M. Miller, of the Miller & Bush ministrative findings, it is only appropriate that I address the issues on the law firm as the Union's general counsel. basis of the record evidence. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act as individuals employed "to enforce against employ- those who violate such rules and laws. Such individuals ees and other persons rules to protect property of the long have been recognized as guards within the meaning Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the Em- of Section 9(b)(3) even where, as here, certain of the ployer's premises." Quite apart from whether the Union protective duties they perform are designed to secure by virtue of its ties to its parent international organiza- and safeguard not only their employer's property, i.e., tion is directly or indirectly affiliated with an organiza- the premises of the mall proper, but also the property of tion which admits to membership employees other than their employer's customers such as the merchandise in guards, and quite apart from whether the Union by the stores. Purolator Courier Corp., 254 NLRB 599 virtue of its represenative status elsewhere itself admits (1981) and cases cited therein; The Wackenhut Corpora- to membership employees other than guards (matters the tion, 196 NLRB 278 (1972); see, generally, Drivers, General Counsel would have hoped to prove had Re- Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Local No 71, af spondent appeared and complied with certain subpenas), l wit nnin , the evidence is overwhelming that with respect to the ad h ner onal er of eamer very Employer herein the Union represents employees Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. very Employer herein the Union represents employees N other than guards and admits such persons to member- N.LR.B., 553 2d 1368, 1372, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ship. The collective-bargaining agreement between the It is clear therefore and I find that Respondent admits Union and the Employer as applied to the housekeeping to membership employees other than guards, that it was unit is conclusive proof on this issue. The testimony es- seeking recognition for a unit of guards, and that pursu- tablishes without any doubt whatsoever that there are ant to Section 9(b)(3) of the Act it could not file a valid approximately 80 employees within this unit whose petition and could not be certified in such unit. Conse- duties consist solely of the performance of custodial and quently, if the Union picketed or threatened to picket for janitorial chores such as cleaning floors, polishing glass such recognitional objective the violation would be com- and chrome, and cleaning tables in food areas, and that plete. they use standard cleaning equipment and materials. In The Union admits that it has engaged in picketing for no sense can they be considered guards and it is clear recognition of the individuals found here to be guards they are not. Further, not only does Respondent repre- and no more need be said on that score. Furthermore, sent these employees but it compels their membership the record evidence demonstrates conclusively that Re- pursuant to the union-security and checkoff provisions in spondent's picketing was for the prohibited recognitional the collective-bargaining agreement. objective. Thus, the picketing on October 20 closely fol- The second question to be determined is whether or lowed numerous demands for recognition starting in not the Respondent was seeking to represent a unit of early September, a petition filed on October 22 and dis- guards. Although the Union's answer admits that it was missed on October 23, Respondent's agent, Kelly, and picketing the Employer to force it to recognize and bar- one of the picketing guards conceded that the picketing gain with it as the representative of the Employer's was to obtain recognition and Kelly also told the Em- guards and security officers, the answer also somewhatrenti inconsisteny d. ployer's representative, Brown, during the course of the inconsistently denies that the Employer employed indi- * i - viduals as guards and security officers. In view of this, I picketing, that such activity would cease if a collective- place no reliance on Respondent's answer in finding that bargaining agreement would be negotiated. In addition, it demanded to be recognized as the bargaining agent for on McDonough told Brown, during the the Employer's guards as that term is defined by the Act. course of a prepicketing conversation in which recogni- The evidence leaves no doubt that the "security person- tion was requested that "how many trucks, truckdrivers nel" encompassed by the Union's petition are statutory do you think will cross over and make deliveries at the guards. The uniforms they wear and the equipment they Galleria? How many construction workers do you think carry are typical of such employees and aid them in per- will cross over and work in those stores?" These state- forming their duties which includes apprehending sho- ments in labor parlance are susceptible to no other inter- plifters and other law violators. They protect the secu- pretation than that a picket line would be established rity of merchandise against theft from the stores in the which in fact is what occured. As such they constitute a mall, and they guard and protect the premises of the threat to picket for recognition as alleged in the com- mall itself. They perform safety functions by administer- plaint. ing first aid, attending to the injured, and securing com- Under the circumstance described above, Respondent's petent medical help when needed. Their training by the picketing and threat thereof constitute clear violations of White Plains police department is required so that they Section 8(b)(7)(C), for as the court stated in Drivers, may fulfill effectively the function of arresting wrongdo- Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. ers and barring such persons from the premises of the 71, etc. [Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation], 553 mall and they are required to have a knowledge of appli- F.2d 1368 at 1377 (1977), enfg. 221 NLRB 1240 (1975). cable criminal laws to carry out these protective func- "To tolerate continued picketing after dismissal of the tions. They also patrol the mall's premises to guard Union's petition would bestow on petitioner greater against fire as well as theft. Thus, they are trained to and rights than are afforded qualifying unions, and would, in function in the capacity of protecting the safety of per- particular clothe the Union with a coercive power under sons and the safeguarding of property by responsibly ob- circumstances in which Congress clearly did not intend serving and reporting infractions of the rules and laws it to exist and by physically securing property and apprehending 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act as individuals employed "to enforce against employ- those who violate such rules and laws. Such individuals ees and other persons rules to protect property of the long have been recognized as guards within the meaning Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the Em- of Section 9(b)(3) even where, as here, certain of the ployer's premises." Quite apart from whether the Union protective duties they perform are designed to secure by virtue of its ties to its parent international organiza- and safeguard not only their employer's property, i.e., tion is directly or indirectly affiliated with an organiza- the premises of the mall proper, but also the property of tion which admits to membership employees other than their employer's customers such as the merchandise in guards, and quite apart from whether the Union by the stores. Purolator Courier Corp., 254 NLRB 599 virtue of its represenative status elsewhere itself admits (1981), and cases cited therein; The Wackenhut Corpora- to membership employees other than guards (matters the tion, 196 NLRB 278 (1972); see, generally, Drivers, General Counsel would have hoped to prove had Re- chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 71. af- spondent appeared and complied with certain subpenas), filiaed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the evidence is overwhelming that with respect to the C a uffeursJWrehonan Helpers of amers. very Employer herein the Union represents employees CN a . r.B.rs, 553F. o 2 W W CT ^d 138 37,17 (..Ci.17 v 7 other than guards and admits such persons to member- *' R *& * 5 53 ^ 13 68, 1372, 1373 (D C r. 19 77). ship. The collective-bargaining agreement between the It is cle a r therefore and I find that Respondent admits Union and the Employer as applied to the housekeeping to membership employees other than guards, that it was unit is conclusive proof on this issue. The testimony es- seeking recognition for a unit of guards, and that pursu- tablishes without any doubt whatsoever that there are ant to Section 9(b)(3) of the Act it could not file a valid approximately 80 employees within this unit whose petition and could not be certified in such unit. Conse- duties consist solely of the performance of custodial and quently, if the Union picketed or threatened to picket for janitorial chores such as cleaning floors, polishing glass such recognitional objective the violation would be com- and chrome, and cleaning tables in food areas, and that plete. they use standard cleaning equipment and materials. In The Union admits that it has engaged in picketing for no sense can they be considered guards and it is clear recognition of the individuals found here to be guards they are not. Further, not only does Respondent repre- and no more need be said on that score. Furthermore, sent these employees but it compels their membership the record evidence demonstrates conclusively that Re- pursuant to the union-security and checkoff provisions in spondent's picketing was for the prohibited recognitional the collective-bargaining agreement. objective. Thus, the picketing on October 20 closely fol- The second question to be determined is whether or lowed numerous demands for recognition starting in not the Respondent was seeking to represent a unit of early September, a petition filed on October 22 and dis- guards. Although the Union's answer admits that it was missed on October 23, Respondent's agent, Kelly, and picketing the Employer to force it to recognize and bar- one of the picketing guards conceded that the picketing gain with it as the representative of the Employer's was to obtain recognition and Kelly also told the Em- guards and security officers, the answer also somewhatrepresentative, Brown, during the course of the inconsistently denies that the Employer employed indi- p t sc iv wu ca if a c1etv viduals as guards and security officers. In view of this, I Pbeiing, that such activity would cease if a coldctive- place no reliance on Respondent's answer in finding thatbargaining agreement would be negotiated. In addition, it demanded to be recognized as the bargaining agent for the Employer's guards as that term is defined by the Act. cours e o f a prepicketing conversation in which recogni- The evidence leaves no doubt that the "security person- tion was requested that "how many trucks, truckdrivers nel" encompassed by the Union's petition are statutory do you think will cross over and make deliveries at the guards. The uniforms they wear and the equipment they Galleria? How many construction workers do you think carry are typical of such employees and aid them in per- will cross over and work in those stores?" These state- forming their duties which includes apprehending sho- ments in labor parlance are susceptible to no other inter- plifters and other law violators. They protect the secu- pretation than that a picket line would be established rity of merchandise against theft from the stores in the which in fact is what occured. As such they constitute a mall, and they guard and protect the premises of the threat to picket for recognition as alleged in the com- mall itself. They perform safety functions by administer- plaint. ing first aid, attending to the injured, and securing com- Under the circumstance described above, Respondent's petent medical help when needed. Their training by the picketing and threat thereof constitute clear violations of White Plains police department is required so that they Section 8(b)(7)(C), for as the court stated in Drivers, may fulfill effectively the function of arresting wrongdo- Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. ers and barring such persons from the premises of the 71 etc. [Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation], 553 mall and they are required to have a knowledge of appli- F.2d 1368 at 1377 (1977), enfg. 221 NLRB 1240 (1975). cable criminal laws to carry out these protective func- "To tolerate continued picketing after dismissal of the tions. They also patrol the mall's premises to guard Union's petition would bestow on petitioner greater against fire as well as theft. Thus, they are trained to and rights than are afforded qualifying unions, and would, in function in the capacity of protecting the safety of per- particular clothe the Union with a coercive power under sons and the safeguarding of property by responsibly ob- circumstances in which Congress clearly did not intend serving and reporting infractions of the rules and laws it to exist." and by physically securing property and apprehending 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act as individuals employed "to enforce against employ- those who violate such rules and laws. Such individuals ees and other persons rules to protect property of the long have been recognized as guards within the meaning Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the Em- of Section 9(b)(3) even where, as here, certain of the ployer's premises." Quite apart from whether the Union protective duties they perform are designed to secure by virtue of its ties to its parent international organiza- and safeguard not only their employer's property, i.e., tion is directly or indirectly affiliated with an organiza- the premises of the mall proper, but also the property of tion which admits to membership employees other than their employer's customers such as the merchandise in guards, and quite apart from whether the Union by the stores. Purolator Courier Corp., 254 NLRB 599 virtue of its represenative status elsewhere itself admits (1981), and cases cited therein; The Wackenhut Corpora- to membership employees other than guards (matters the tion, 196 NLRB 278 (1972); see, generally, Drivers, General Counsel would have hoped to prove had Re- chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 71. af- spondent appeared and complied with certain subpenas), filiaed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the evidence is overwhelming that with respect to the C a uffeurs, Warehonan Helpers of amers. very Employer herein the Union represents employees CN a . r.B.rs, 553F. o 2 W W CT ^d 138 37,17 (..Ci.17 v 7 other than guards and admits such persons to member- *' R *& * 5 53 ^ 13 68, 1372, 1373 (D C r. 19 77). ship. The collective-bargaining agreement between the It is cle a r therefore and I find that Respondent admits Union and the Employer as applied to the housekeeping to membership employees other than guards, that it was unit is conclusive proof on this issue. The testimony es- seeking recognition for a unit of guards, and that pursu- tablishes without any doubt whatsoever that there are ant to Section 9(b)(3) of the Act it could not file a valid approximately 80 employees within this unit whose petition and could not be certified in such unit. Conse- duties consist solely of the performance of custodial and quently, if the Union picketed or threatened to picket for janitorial chores such as cleaning floors, polishing glass such recognitional objective the violation would be com- and chrome, and cleaning tables in food areas, and that plete. they use standard cleaning equipment and materials. In The Union admits that it has engaged in picketing for no sense can they be considered guards and it is clear recognition of the individuals found here to be guards they are not. Further, not only does Respondent repre- and no more need be said on that score. Furthermore, sent these employees but it compels their membership the record evidence demonstrates conclusively that Re- pursuant to the union-security and checkoff provisions in spondent's picketing was for the prohibited recognitional the collective-bargaining agreement. objective. Thus, the picketing on October 20 closely fol- The second question to be determined is whether or lowed numerous demands for recognition starting in not the Respondent was seeking to represent a unit of early September, a petition filed on October 22 and dis- guards. Although the Union's answer admits that it was missed on October 23, Respondent's agent, Kelly, and picketing the Employer to force it to recognize and bar- one of the picketing guards conceded that the picketing gain with it as the representative of the Employer's was to obtain recognition and Kelly also told the Em- guards and security officers, the answer also somewhatrepresentative, Brown, during the course of the inconsistently denies that the Employer employed indi- p t sc iv wu ca if a c1etv viduals as guards and security officers. In view of this, I Pbeiing, that such activity would cease if a coldctive- place no reliance on Respondent's answer in finding thatbargaining agreement would be negotiated. In addition, it demanded to be recognized as the bargaining agent for the Employer's guards as that term is defined by the Act. c o u r se of a prepicketing conversation in which recogni- The evidence leaves no doubt that the "security person- tion was requested that "how many trucks, truckdrivers nel" encompassed by the Union's petition are statutory do you think will cross over and make deliveries at the guards. The uniforms they wear and the equipment they Galleria? How many construction workers do you think carry are typical of such employees and aid them in per- will cross over and work in those stores?" These state- forming their duties which includes apprehending sho- ments in labor parlance are susceptible to no other inter- plifters and other law violators. They protect the secu- pretation than that a picket line would be established rity of merchandise against theft from the stores in the which in fact is what occured. As such they constitute a mall, and they guard and protect the premises of the threat to picket for recognition as alleged in the com- mall itself. They perform safety functions by administer- plaint. ing first aid, attending to the injured, and securing com- Under the circumstance described above, Respondent's petent medical help when needed. Their training by the picketing and threat thereof constitute clear violations of White Plains police department is required so that they Section 8(b)(7)(C), for as the court stated in Drivers, may fulfill effectively the function of arresting wrongdo- Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. ers and barring such persons from the premises of the 71 etc. [Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation], 553 mall and they are required to have a knowledge of appli- F.2d 1368 at 1377 (1977), enfg. 221 NLRB 1240 (1975). cable criminal laws to carry out these protective func- "To tolerate continued picketing after dismissal of the tions. They also patrol the mall's premises to guard Union's petition would bestow on petitioner greater against fire as well as theft. Thus, they are trained to and rights than are afforded qualifying unions, and would, in function in the capacity of protecting the safety of per- particular clothe the Union with a coercive power under sons and the safeguarding of property by responsibly ob- circumstances in which Congress clearly did not intend serving and reporting infractions of the rules and laws it to exist." and by physically securing property and apprehending 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act as individuals employed "to enforce against employ- those who violate such rules and laws. Such individuals ees and other persons rules to protect property of the long have been recognized as guards within the meaning Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the Em- of Section 9(b)(3) even where, as here, certain of the ployer's premises." Quite apart from whether the Union protective duties they perform are designed to secure by virtue of its ties to its parent international organiza- and safeguard not only their employer's property, i.e., tion is directly or indirectly affiliated with an organiza- the premises of the mall proper, but also the property of tion which admits to membership employees other than their employer's customers such as the merchandise in guards, and quite apart from whether the Union by the stores. Purolator Courier Corp., 254 NLRB 599 virtue of its represenative status elsewhere itself admits (1981), and cases cited therein; The Wackenhut Corpora- to membership employees other than guards (matters the tion, 196 NLRB 278 (1972); see, generally, Drivers, General Counsel would have hoped to prove had Re- chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 71. af- spondent appeared and complied with certain subpenas), filiaed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the evidence is overwhelming that with respect to the C a uffeursJWrehonan Helpers of amers. very Employer herein the Union represents employees CN a . r.B.rs, 553F. o 2 W W CT ^d 138 37,17 (..Ci.17 v 7 other than guards and admits such persons to member- *' R *& * 5 53 ^ 13 68, 1372, 1373 (D C r. 19 77). ship. The collective-bargaining agreement between the It is cle a r therefore and I find that Respondent admits Union and the Employer as applied to the housekeeping to membership employees other than guards, that it was unit is conclusive proof on this issue. The testimony es- seeking recognition for a unit of guards, and that pursu- tablishes without any doubt whatsoever that there are ant to Section 9(b)(3) of the Act it could not file a valid approximately 80 employees within this unit whose petition and could not be certified in such unit. Conse- duties consist solely of the performance of custodial and quently, if the Union picketed or threatened to picket for janitorial chores such as cleaning floors, polishing glass such recognitional objective the violation would be com- and chrome, and cleaning tables in food areas, and that plete. they use standard cleaning equipment and materials. In The Union admits that it has engaged in picketing for no sense can they be considered guards and it is clear recognition of the individuals found here to be guards they are not. Further, not only does Respondent repre- and no more need be said on that score. Furthermore, sent these employees but it compels their membership the record evidence demonstrates conclusively that Re- pursuant to the union-security and checkoff provisions in spondent's picketing was for the prohibited recognitional the collective-bargaining agreement. objective. Thus, the picketing on October 20 closely fol- The second question to be determined is whether or lowed numerous demands for recognition starting in not the Respondent was seeking to represent a unit of early September, a petition filed on October 22 and dis- guards. Although the Union's answer admits that it was missed on October 23, Respondent's agent, Kelly, and picketing the Employer to force it to recognize and bar- one of the picketing guards conceded that the picketing gain with it as the representative of the Employer's was to obtain recognition and Kelly also told the Em- guards and security officers, the answer also somewhatrepresentative, Brown, during the course of the inconsistently denies that the Employer employed indi- p t sc iv wu ca if a c1etv viduals as guards and security officers. In view of this, I pbagting that such activity would cease if a coldctive- place no reliance on Respondent's answer in finding thatbargaining agreement would be negotiated. In addition, it demanded to be recognized as the bargaining agent for the Employer's guards as that term is defined by the Act. c o u r se of a prepicketing conversation in which recogni- The evidence leaves no doubt that the "security person- tion was requested that "how many trucks, truckdrivers nel" encompassed by the Union's petition are statutory do you think will cross over and make deliveries at the guards. The uniforms they wear and the equipment they Galleria? How many construction workers do you think carry are typical of such employees and aid them in per- will cross over and work in those stores?" These state- forming their duties which includes apprehending sho- ments in labor parlance are susceptible to no other inter- plifters and other law violators. They protect the secu- pretation than that a picket line would be established rity of merchandise against theft from the stores in the which in fact is what occured. As such they constitute a mall, and they guard and protect the premises of the threat to picket for recognition as alleged in the com- mall itself. They perform safety functions by administer- plaint. ing first aid, attending to the injured, and securing com- Under the circumstance described above, Respondent's petent medical help when needed. Their training by the picketing and threat thereof constitute clear violations of White Plains police department is required so that they Section 8(b)(7)(C), for as the court stated in Drivers, may fulfill effectively the function of arresting wrongdo- Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. ers and barring such persons from the premises of the 71 etc. [Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation], 553 mall and they are required to have a knowledge of appli- F.2d 1368 at 1377 (1977), enfg. 221 NLRB 1240 (1975). cable criminal laws to carry out these protective func- "To tolerate continued picketing after dismissal of the tions. They also patrol the mall's premises to guard Union's petition would bestow on petitioner greater against fire as well as theft. Thus, they are trained to and rights than are afforded qualifying unions, and would, in function in the capacity of protecting the safety of per- particular clothe the Union with a coercive power under sons and the safeguarding of property by responsibly ob- circumstances in which Congress clearly did not intend serving and reporting infractions of the rules and laws it to exist." and by physically securing property and apprehending LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 775 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW gaining representative of employees who function as 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- guards, or forcing or requiring employees who function ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. as guards to accept or select Respondent as their collec- 2. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. tive-bargaining representative, under circumstances d/b/a The Galleria is an employer engaged in commerce w h er e Responden h s not been certified as the repre- within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the s e n t a tiv e o f s u c h employees and cannot be certified by Act. virtue of the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. 3. Since on or about September 5, 1980, Respondent 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- 3. Since on or about September 5, 1980, Respondent f t has demanded that the Employer recognize and bargain fectuate the policies of the Act: with it as the representative of guard/employees al- (a) P o s t in conspicous places at its business offices, though Respondent has not been, at any relevant time, e eton g ha l ls y an d all paces where notices to members the certified or recognized collective-bargaining repre- customarily are posted copies of the attached notice sentative of said employees. marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said notice, on forms to 4. Respondent admits into membership employees be provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, other than guards and is barred by Section 9(b)(3) of the sh a ll, a ft er be n g d u ly s g n ed b a n authorized repre- Act from obtaining certification as the collective-bargain- sentative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for ing representative of employees in a bargaining unit com- dia tely upon receip thereo f an d b e maintabned by it for prised of guards. 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be 5. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not by threatening to picket the Employer, and by picketing altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as Regional Director for Region 2 for posting by the Em- the representative of the Employer's guards, or forcing ployer, if willing, at all locations where notices to its em- or requiring the employees of the Employer to accept or ployees customarily are posted. to select Respondent as their collective-bargaining agent, (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- although Respondent has not been certified as a repre- n g w t h n 20 as f ro m th e date of this Order, what sentative of such employees and cannot be certified by s t p s Respondent h as tken to comply herewith. virtue of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. virtue o f Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. unfair In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfairAPPENDIX labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist POSTED BY ORDER OF THE therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the policies of the Act. An Agency of the United States Government Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: threaten to picket Cadillac Fairview Shopping ORDER 5 Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an object thereof is to force or require that Employer The Respondent, Local 32E, Service Employees Inter- to recognize or bargain with Local 32E, Service national Union, AFL-CIO, Elmsford, New York, its offi- Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the cers, agents, and representatives shall: collective-bargaining representative of employees 1. Cease and desist from picketing, causing to be pick- who function as guards, or force or require employ- eted, or threatening to picket Cadillac Fairview Shop- ees who function as guards to accept or select ping Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an Local 32E as their collective-bargaining representa- object thereof is forcing or requiring Employer to recog- tive, under circumstances where Local 32E has not nize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar- been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees and In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the cannot be certified by virtue of the provisions of Rules and Regulations ofthe National Labor Relations Board, the find- Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and LOCAL 32E SERVICE EMPLOYEES INER- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. NATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 775 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW gaining representative of employees who function as 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- g uar d s, o r f o r c i ng o r r e qui r i n g employees who function ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. a s g ua r d s t o ac c ep t o r selec t Respondent as their collec- 2. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. tive-bargaining representative, under circumstances d/b/a The Galleria is an employer engaged in commerce w h er e Respondent h as not been certified as the repre- within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the s en t ativ e o f s u c h employees and cannot be certified by Act. virtue of the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. 3. Since on or about September 5, 1980, Respondent 2 . T ak e th e following affirmative action designed to ef- has demanded that the Employer recognize and bargain fectuate the policies of the Act: with it as the representative of guard/employees al- ( a ) P o s t in conspicious places at its business offices, though Respondent has not been, at any relevant time, me etin g ha l ls, an d a ll places where notices to members the certified or recognized collective-bargaining repre- customarily are posted copies of the attached notice sentative of said employees. m a r k ed "Appendix."' C o p ies o f sa id n o tic e , o n f o r m s t o 4. Respondent admits into membership employees be provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, other than guards and is barred by Section 9(b)(3) of the sh a ll, a f t er be in g d u l y sig n ed by a n authorized repre- Act from obtaining certification as the collective-bargain- se nta tiv e o f Respondent, be posted by Respondent imme- ing representative of employees in a bargaining unit com- dia te ly upon rec eip t th e reo f an d b e maintained by it for prised of guards. 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be 5. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not by threatening to picket the Employer, and by picketing al te r e d , d ef ac ed , o r c o v er ed by any o t he r m at er ial . the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the ( b ) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as Regional Director for Region 2 for posting by the Em- the representative of the Employer's guards, or forcing ployer, if willing, at all locations where notices to its em- or requiring the employees of the Employer to accept or ployees customarily are posted. to select Respondent as their collective-bargaining agent, ( c ) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- although Respondent has not been certified as a repre- in g , w it h in 20 days f r o m t h e date of this Order, what sentative of such employees and cannot be certified by s tep s Respondent h as taken to comply herewith. virtue of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.---- 6v The aforesaid unfair labor t ractices are unfair laInrn" th e e ve n t th at this Ord e r is e n forced by a Judgment of a United 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by practices affecting commerce Within the meaning of Sec- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfairAPPENDIX labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist POSTED BY ORDER OF THE therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the policies of the Act. An Agency of the United States Government Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: threaten to picket Cadillac Fairview Shopping ORDER 5 Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an object thereof is to force or require that Employer The Respondent, Local 32E, Service Employees Inter- to recognize or bargain with Local 32E, Service national Union, AFL-CIO, Elmsford, New York, its offi- Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the cers, agents, and representatives shall: collective-bargaining representative of employees 1. Cease and desist from picketing, causing to be pick- who function as guards, or force or require employ- eted, or threatening to picket Cadillac Fairview Shop- ees who function as guards to accept or select ping Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an Local 32E as their collective-bargaining representa- object thereof is forcing or requiring Employer to recog- tive, under circumstances where Local 32E has not nize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar- been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees and 1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the cannot be certified by virtue of the provisions of Rules and Regulations ofthe National Labor Relations Board, the find- Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTER- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. NATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 775 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW gaining representative of employees who function as 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- g uar d s, o r f o r c i ng o r r e qui r i n g employees who function ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. a s g ua r d s t o ac c ep t o r selec t Respondent as their collec- 2. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. tive-bargaining representative, under circumstances d/b/a The Galleria is an employer engaged in commerce w h er e Respondent has not been certified as the repre- within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the s en t ativ e o f s u c h employees and cannot be certified by Act. virtue of the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. 3. Since on or about September 5, 1980, Respondent 2 . T ak e th e following affirmative action designed to ef- has demanded that the Employer recognize and bargain fectuate the policies of the Act: with it as the representative of guard/employees al- ( a ) P o s t in conspicious places at its business offices, though Respondent has not been, at any relevant time, me etin g ha l ls, an d a ll places where notices to members the certified or recognized collective-bargaining repre- customarily are posted copies of the attached notice sentative of said employees. m a r k ed "Appendix."' C o p ies o f sa id n o tic e , o n f o r m s t o 4. Respondent admits into membership employees be provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, other than guards and is barred by Section 9(b)(3) of the sh a ll, a f t er be in g d u l y sig n ed by a n authorized repre- Act from obtaining certification as the collective-bargain- se nta tiv e o f Respondent, be posted by Respondent imme- ing representative of employees in a bargaining unit com- dia te ly upon rec eip t th e reo f an d b e maintained by it for prised of guards. 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be 5. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not by threatening to picket the Employer, and by picketing al te r e d , d ef ac ed , o r c o v er ed by any o t he r m at er ial . the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the ( b ) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as Regional Director for Region 2 for posting by the Em- the representative of the Employer's guards, or forcing ployer, if willing, at all locations where notices to its em- or requiring the employees of the Employer to accept or ployees customarily are posted. to select Respondent as their collective-bargaining agent, ( c ) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- although Respondent has not been certified as a repre- in g , w it h in 20 days f r o m t h e date of this Order, what sentative of such employees and cannot be certified by s tep s Respondent h as taken to comply herewith. virtue of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.---- 6v The aforesaid unfair labor t ractices are unfair laInrn" th e e ve nt that this Ord e r is e n forced by a Judgment of a United 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by practices affecting commerce Within the meaning of Sec- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfairAPPENDIX labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist POSTED BY ORDER OF THE therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the policies of the Act. An Agency of the United States Government Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: threaten to picket Cadillac Fairview Shopping ORDER 5 Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an object thereof is to force or require that Employer The Respondent, Local 32E, Service Employees Inter- to recognize or bargain with Local 32E, Service national Union, AFL-CIO, Elmsford, New York, its offi- Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the cers, agents, and representatives shall: collective-bargaining representative of employees 1. Cease and desist from picketing, causing to be pick- who function as guards, or force or require employ- eted, or threatening to picket Cadillac Fairview Shop- ees who function as guards to accept or select ping Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an Local 32E as their collective-bargaining representa- object thereof is forcing or requiring Employer to recog- tive, under circumstances where Local 32E has not nize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar- been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees and 1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the cannot be certified by virtue of the provisions of Rules and Regulations ofthe National Labor Relations Board, the find- Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTER- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. NATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 775 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW gaining representative of employees who function as 1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- g uar d s, o r f o r c i ng o r r e qui r i n g employees who function ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. a s g ua r d s t o ac c ep t o r selec t Respondent as their collec- 2. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Centers (U.S.) Ltd. tive-bargaining representative, under circumstances d/b/a The Galleria is an employer engaged in commerce w h er e Respondent has not been certified as the repre- within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the s en t ativ e o f s u c h employees and cannot be certified by Act. virtue of the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. 3. Since on or about September 5, 1980, Respondent 2 . T ak e th e following affirmative action designed to ef- has demanded that the Employer recognize and bargain fectuate the policies of the Act: with it as the representative of guard/employees al- ( a ) P o s t in conspicious places at its business offices, though Respondent has not been, at any relevant time, me etin g ha l ls, an d a ll places where notices to members the certified or recognized collective-bargaining repre- customarily are posted copies of the attached notice sentative of said employees. m a r k ed "Appendix."' C o p ies o f sa id n o tic e , o n f o r m s t o 4. Respondent admits into membership employees be provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, other than guards and is barred by Section 9(b)(3) of the sh a ll, a f t er be in g d u l y sig n ed by a n authorized repre- Act from obtaining certification as the collective-bargain- se nta tiv e o f Respondent, be posted by Respondent imme- ing representative of employees in a bargaining unit com- dia te ly upon rec eip t th e reo f an d b e maintained by it for prised of guards. 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be 5. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not by threatening to picket the Employer, and by picketing al te r e d , d ef ac ed , o r c o v er ed by any o t he r m at er ial . the Employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the ( b ) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as Regional Director for Region 2 for posting by the Em- the representative of the Employer's guards, or forcing ployer, if willing, at all locations where notices to its em- or requiring the employees of the Employer to accept or ployees customarily are posted. to select Respondent as their collective-bargaining agent, ( c ) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- although Respondent has not been certified as a repre- in g , w it h in 20 days f r o m t h e date of this Order, what sentative of such employees and cannot be certified by s tep s Respondent has taken to comply herewith. virtue of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.---- 6v The aforesaid unfair labor t ractices are unfair laInrn" th e e ve nt that this Ord e r is e n forced by a Judgment of a United 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by practices affecting commerce Within the meaning of Sec- Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfairAPPENDIX labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist POSTED BY ORDER OF THE therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effectuate the policies of the Act. An Agency of the United States Government Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: threaten to picket Cadillac Fairview Shopping ORDER 5 Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an object thereof is to force or require that Employer The Respondent, Local 32E, Service Employees Inter- to recognize or bargain with Local 32E, Service national Union, AFL-CIO, Elmsford, New York, its offi- Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the cers, agents, and representatives shall: collective-bargaining representative of employees 1. Cease and desist from picketing, causing to be pick- who function as guards, or force or require employ- eted, or threatening to picket Cadillac Fairview Shop- ees who function as guards to accept or select ping Center (U.S.) Ltd. d/b/a The Galleria, where an Local 32E as their collective-bargaining representa- object thereof is forcing or requiring Employer to recog- tive, under circumstances where Local 32E has not nize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar- been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees and 1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the cannot be certified by virtue of the provisions of Rules and Regulations ofthe National Labor Relations Board, the find- Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and LOCAL 32E, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTER- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. NATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO