Purolator Courier Corp.

PUROLATOR COURIER CORP. Purolator Courier Corp.' and Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen, Industrial and Allied Workers and Helpers, Local Union 920, affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Teamsters, Freight, Tank Lines and Automobile Industry Employees, Local Union 988, affiliated with International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Petitioner.2 Case 23-RC-4916 January 14, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND TRUESDALE Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Patrick M. Flynn. Following the close of the hearing on September 17, 1980, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Di- rector for Region 23, on September 24, 1980, trans- ferred this case to the Board for decision. There- after, the Employer and the Petitioner each filed a brief with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board, having duly considered the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing, finds they are free of prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- cluding the briefs, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, a New York corporation, is engaged in the business of safeguarding and trans- porting commodities for customers throughout the United States, including the State of Texas. The parties stipulated that during the 12 months prior to the date of the hearing, a representative period, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Texas. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and we find that the labor organi- i The name of the Emploer appears as amended at he hearing 2 The name of Petltilner appears as amended at the hearing 254 NLRB No. 72 zation involved claims to represent certain employ- ees of the Employer. 3. The Employer contends that the petition for a unit of the courier/guards, 3 sorters, and mechanics herein fails to raise a question concerning represen- tation because the courier/guards in question are employed as guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, and because Section 9(b)(3) pro- hibits the Board from certifying, as a bargaining representative for guards, any union which, like the Petitioner, admits to membership employees other than guards. The Petitioner concedes that it admits nonguard employees to membership, but disputes the Employer's position regarding the courier/ guards' status as statutory guards, which is the issue before the Board.4 The undisputed evidence on the record discloses that the Employer operates a nationwide system for the overnight transportation of time-sensitive commodities, and employs approximately 600 cou- rier/guards at 18 or 19 field offices in its Texas- Oklahoma region. These courier/guards pick up commodities from customers and deliver them, through a network of drop points, to their destina- tions. The Employer's clients include all 12 dis- tricts of the Federal Reserve System, banks, sav- ings and loan institutions, mortgage companies, retail establishments, manufacturing and engineer- ing firms, energy concerns, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Employer typically transports for its clients cash letters from banks to clearing- houses, payroll checks, unsigned credit cards, credit card invoices, uncanceled checks, preprinted blank checks, legal documents, food stamps, pre- cious metals, artwork, furs, radioactive pharmaceu- ticals, and seismological data for oil companies. All of the courier/guards are bonded and must pass a security clearance before being hired. They do not carry firearms. They wear uniforms, sup- plied by the Employer, consisting of shirt, trousers, jacket, cap or hat, with an identifying company logo. The Employer issues the uniforms to make its employees readily identifiable to clients and local law enforcement agencies. The courier/guards make deliveries in vans owned by the Employer, which are clearly identified as "Purolator Courier" delivery vehicles. For a substantial number of the I The petition states that the Petitioner seeks a unit which includes, inter alia, "drivers, courier drivers, and] line drivers " The Em- ployer avers that its employees who correspond to these classifications are denoted by it as "courier/guards" A the hearing, the Petitioner amended its unit request to refer to these employees as courier/guards 4In view of our dispiosition of this issue, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Frniployer's coitentcion that the onl appropriate unit hereil i a unit eincompassing all courier/gaards emplcld in the mployer's Texas- Oklahoma regioln 599 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer's clients,5 the courier/guards make pick- ups and deliveries during nonworking hours, and have access to clients' locked security vaults by entry into the clients' locked premises. For each delivery run which requires entry into customers' locked premises, the dispatcher furnishes the couri- er/guard on that run with all the keys needed for entry into the customers' premises, for disengaging any alarm systems, and for entering the customers' security vaults. The keys are distributed at the be- ginning of the shift, and the courier/guard returns the set of keys after he has completed his rounds. The courier/guards are held accountable for the safekeeping of packages in their vehicles, as well as for taking precautions when entering or leaving customers' premises during nonworking hours. In MDS Courier Service, Inc.,6 we reiterated our determination made in Brink's Incorporated7 that s DeWitt Evans, the Employcr's regional vice president fr tile Flcas- Oklahoma region, testified without contradiction that over 1(X) of its Houston customers have locked security vaults for which courier/guards are issued keys 6 248 NLRB 1320 (1980) 7 226 NIRB 1182 (197t6) "deliveries of nonnegotiable documents by un- armed couriers to customer premises after closing hours involve[s] protection by them of the employ- er's customers' property within the statutory defini- tion of a 'guard' in Section 9(b)(3) of the Act." 8 In- asmuch as the testimony on this record, including documentary evidence, demonstrates that the Em- ployer's courier/guards, like the couriers in Brink's and the drivers in MDS, are employed to protect the valuable property of the Employer's customers, we find those decisions controlling and conclude that the courier/guards herein are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. Accord- ingly, as the Petitioner concededly admits employ- ees other than guards to membership, it may not be certified as the representative of the Employer's courier/guards. We shall therefore dismiss the peti- tion. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' 24 N RB 132( 600