C.P.P. Security Services

C.P.P. SECURITY SERVICES 315 California Plant Protection, Incorporated, d/b/a 2. The Employer contests Petitioner's status as a C.P.P. Security Services' and Brotherhood of labor organization. It questions the stability of Peti- Police and Security Officers, Local #3, Peti- tioner's structure and the participation of members tioner. Case 39-RC-141 in the organization. November 18, 1981 Also, the Employer disputes whether Petitioner acts with the purpose of advancing employee inter- DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ests instead of the interests of particular individuals. ELECTION Testimony at the hearing shows that Petitioner was formed in August 1980, that employees partici- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND pate in the organization, that its purpose is to rep- ZIMMERMAN resent employees on wages, hours, and other work- Upon a petition for representation filed on No- ing conditions, and its function is to negotiate bar- vember 14, 1980, under Section 9(a) of the Nation- gaining agreements with management. Petitioner is al Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was affiliated with the Federation of Special Police and held before Hearing Officer Thomas M. Good on Law Enforcement Officers (herein Federation), and December 11, 1980. Following the hearing and has a constitution and bylaws, officers, and an ex- pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor ecutive board. From the date of its formation to Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as the date of the hearing, a period of about 4 months, amended, and by direction of the Regional Direc- Petitioner had sought to organize employees, had tor for Region 1, this proceeding was transferred to discussed with employees complaints they had the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer against their employer, had met with employees filed a brief. who had signed union authorization cards and re- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ported to them about organizational progress, and National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- had filed several representation petitions and an tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- unfair labor practice charge. thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. We find that Petitioner is a labor organization The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. rulings made at the hearing and finds they are free The Employer's contentions, based in part on the from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.2 record in Burns International Security Services, Inc., Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the supra, that allegations of misconduct have been Board finds: made against Federation, with which Petitioner is 1. The Employer, a California corporation with affiliated, and certain Federation officials, do not corporate headquarters in Van Nuys, California, establish that Petitioner is unable to represent the maintains a branch facility in Rocky Hill, Connecti- interests of employees or is disqualified from repre- cut, also known as the Hartford office, where it is senting employees. See the discussion of these con- engaged in staffing and supplying security officers tentions in the Burns Decision at Appendix, Sup- to employers within the State of Connecticut. Be- plementary Objection No. 5. tween January 1, 1980, and December 11, 1980, the 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- Hartford office obtained gross revenues amounting ing the representation of certain employees of the to approximately $225,000 from services furnished Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(l) to Travelers Insurance Company; gross revenues and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. amounting to approximately $136,000 from services 4. The parties stipulated and we find that the fol- to The New Haven Register; and gross revenues lowing employees constitute an appropriate unit for amounting to approximately $90,000 from services the purposes of collective bargaining within the to The Farley Company. The parties stipulated that meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: these companies are employers within the jurisdic- All full-time and regular part-time security of- tion of the Board. ficers employed from the Employer's Rocky We find that the Employer is engaged in com- Hill, Connecticut, location, but excluding all merce within the meaning of the Act and that it supervisors,3 and professional employees as de- will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert ju- fined in the Act. risdiction herein. Some of the security officers are designated "ser- geants" and "lieutenants." These designations are I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. geants and "lieutenants." These designations are 2 The Hearing Officer took administrative notice of the records in based on a promotional system which confers in- Bally's Park Place, Inc., 257 NLRB No. 132 (1981); Burns International Security Services, Inc., 256 NLRB 959 (1981); Wells Fargo Guard Services ' The parties stipulated that field supervisors are supervisors within the Division of Baker Protective Services Inc., 236 NLRB 1196 (1978). meaning of the Act and should be excluded from the unit. 259 NLRB No. 39 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD creases in rank along with merit wage increases. rity Guards and Special Police (herein Allied). In Despite the designations, the sergeants and lieuten- support of its assertion that Federation is affiliated ants perform essentially the same duties as other se- with APPLE and Allied, the Employer relies upon curity officers. They do not schedule or assign evidence in Bally's Park Place, Inc., supra. In the work; they do not hire or fire or effectively recom- Decision in that case the Board found only a limit- mend such action. We find that the sergeants and ed relationship between Federation and APPLE lieutenants are not supervisors as defined in the and no present or past affiliation between them that Act, and we include them in the unit. would disqualify the petitioning organization in 5. Petitioner's president testified that Petitioner Bally's Park from certification to represent a does not admit to membership employees other guards' unit by virture of its affiliation with Feder- than guards and has not attempted to organize non- ation. The Board also found that the record in guards. He also testified that Federation does not Bally's Park failed to establish that Allied repre- admit to membership employees other than guards. sented employees other than guards, and, conse- The Employer contends, however, that under Sec- quently, any affiliation between Federation and quently, any affiliation between Federation and tion 9(b)(3) of the Act4 Petitioner may not be certi- Allied would not subject a labor organization affili- fled to represent a unit of guards because of its af- ated with Federation to disqualification from certi- filiation with Federation, which the Employer as- fication under Section 9(b)(3). serts is affiliated with organizations which admit non-guards to membership--the Association of Based upon these findings in the Bally's Park De- Public and Private Labor Employees (herein cision concerning Federation's relations to APPLE APPLE) and Allied International Union of Secu- and Allied we find that Petitioner here is not dis- qualified under Section 9(b)(3) from certification to 'Sec. 9(bX3) provides in pertinent part that "no labor organization represent a guards' unit because of its affiliation shall be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit with Federation. of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated di- [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote rectly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards." omitted from publication.]