Burns International Security Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

BURNS IN'I'ERNA II()NAI. SI:cL:RII Y SRVICI-S. INC' 959
Burns International Security Services, Inc. and
Power Plant Police and Security Officers, Local
1, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-14245
June 29, 1981
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
The Board has considered objections to an elec-
tion held August 7, 1980,' and the Acting Regional
Director's report recommending disposition of
same. The Board has reviewed the record in light
of the exceptions and brief, the Employer's motion
for an order directing the Regional Director for
Region 4 to transmit to the Board the complete in-
vestigative file, and its letter supplementing that
motion. 2
First we consider the question of which of the
Employer's objections are properly before us. The
Employer filed timely objections on August 14,
1980. These objections alleged four acts of union
misconduct: (1) electionering and loud talking near
the polls; (2) misrepresentation that selection of the
Petitioner would guarantee certain benefits; (3)
misuse of a Board document; and (4) improper
waiver of initiation fees. Later, some 47 days after
the election, the Employer filed "Supplementary
Objections," alleging further misconduct which it
claimed was newly discovered. The subjects of
these late-filed objections were: (1) an alleged mis-
representation as to the contents of collective-bar-
gaining agreements with other employers; (2) an al-
leged misrepresentation of provisions in the Peti-
tioner's constitution; (3) a generalized contention
that the Petitioner created the impression that the
Board supported it; (4) an alleged misrepresentation
regarding the Petitioner's policies on calling strikes;
and (5)-(8) several allegations of facts which, ac-
cording to the Employer, disqualify the Petitioner
from certification regardless of the fairness of the
election. A month later, 77 days after the election,
the Employer filed a set of "Second Supplementary
Objections." These objections repeated the general-
ized contentions of the creation of the impression
that the Board favored the Petitioner in the elec-
tion and alleged additional grounds for disqualify-
ing the Petitioner from certification.
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election. The tally was 54 fr, and 21 against the
Petitioner; there were no challenged ballots.
2 In a further submission on the merits of the Employer's obictions,
the Employer would have the Board consider. as a basis for settlling aside
the election herein, the Union's informing employees that it has had r
porte communications with the Board As this alleged misconduct c-
curred after the election the fairness of hich e are here reiewilg, it
cannot constitute a basis for setting such election aside herefore. e
find that the Employer's contentions swih respect to this edemce are
without merit
256 NLRB No. 165
The Acting Regional Director accepted the Enm-
ployer's Supplementary Objections and Second
Supplementary Objections, although late-filed, be-
cause he read our decision in American Safety
Equipment Corporation, 234 NLRB 501 (1978), as
requiring him to do so. In American Safety, the
Board restated its position with respect to a Re-
gional Director's obligation in conducting investi-
gations of timely filed objections. We held that it is
within the Regional Director's discretion to deter-
mine the scope of the investigation but, "if he re-
ceives or discovers evidence during his investiga-
tion that shows that the election has been tainted,
he has no discretion to ignore such evidence and it
is reversible error if he fails to set aside the elec-
tion." Here, the Acting Regional Director did not
exercise his discretion to accept the late-filed objec-
tions, but felt constrained by the above-quoted lan-
gauge to consider them. Thus, he interpreted
American Safety as establishing that the failure to
file these objections within the time provided by
the Board's Rules and Regulations can no longer
serve as a basis for refusing to consider them. T fis
is not what we intended. In American Safety, the
Regional Director discovered unalleged miscon-
duct in the course of his investigation and, ua
sponte, properly set the election aside. Entertain-
ment of a whole new set of objections, on the
other hand, would vitiate our requirement that par-
ties file timely objections. Being inundated with
successive sets of objections, the Regional Direc-
tor, if he had to investigate each new allegation,
could be prevented from or unduly delayed in con-
cluding his investigation.
The line between evidence discovered during the
investigation and new, untimely objections will not
always be glaringly clear. The difficulty lies in bal-
ancing the desirability of insuring that the election
results truly reflect the free choice of the employ-
ees against the potential mischief inherent in per-
mitting an objecting party to take control over the
investigation away from the Regional Director.
The scheme of our objections procedure allows
the losing party 5 working days after the results
are tallied in which to discover the possibility of
serious misconduct which might warrant setting
the election aside and file objections. The objecting
party is given a further, limited period of time in
wich to complete its private investigation of that
alleged misconduct and promptly turn results over
to the Regional Director, who then investigates
and takes appropriate action as expeditiously as
thoroughness allows. The Regional Director's in-
vestigation is neither to be perfunctory nor, ordi-
narily, protracted. If material facts are in dispute
the administrative investigation is suspended and
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
the dispute is resolved through a hearing. But the
scope of the investigation, as we made clear in
American Safety, is within the informed discretion
of the Regional Director. The investigation is in his
or her hands; the period during which the investi-
gation proceeds was never intended to provide
more time for the objecting party to extend its own
investigation in the hope of finding a basis for ob-
jection that lies beyond the matters covered in the
Regional Director's investigation.
The objecting party may bring to the Regional
Director's attention any newly-discovered evidence
that bears directly on the timely objections, for
such evidence is more apt to aid than to encumber
him. The interest in insuring the employees were
not coerced also warrants the Regional Director's
consideration of unrelated misconduct, unknown to
the objecting party at the time the objections were
filed, the existence of which comes to its attention
while the Regional Director is conducting his in-
vestigation. However, since consideration of such
matters might enlarge the scope and delay the con-
clusion of the investigation, they normally should
be considered only upon presentation of clear and
convincing proof that they are not only newly dis-
covered, but also, previously unavailable. We deem
this limitation necessary in order to discourage
both the piecemeal submission of evidence and the
leisurely continuation of private investigations
while the investigation should be under the control
of the Regional Director.3
Applying these principles to the instant case, we
find that none of the late-filed objections contain
evidence bearing on the timely objections, and that
although the Employer makes the bare assertion
that they contain previously unavailable evidence,
it has not demonstrated this. The Employer repre-
sents only that it discovered the evidence underly-
ing its Second Supplementary Objections because
of its continuing investigation. The only connec-
tions between the late and the timely objections are
too remote to warrant their consideration as part of
the Regional Director's investigation. thus, Supple-
mentary Objections 1, 2, and 4 allege material mis-
representation, placing these objections in the same
general category as timely Objection 2, but they
refer to separate incidents that are dissimilar to
those alleged in the timely objection. Supplemen-
tary Objection 3 and Second Supplementary Ob-
jection 1 refer to the same type of conduct as is al-
leged in timely Objection 3, but throw no light on
the validity of the timely objection. 4
3 We expect that previously unavailable evidence. when truly ecoun-
tered, usually will have come to the objecting party's attention unsolicit-
ed, not through a continuation of its own investigation.
4 Timely Objection 3 alleges that the Employer found a Board bro-
chure. into which a piece of the Petitioner's campaign literature had been
Supplementary Objections 5, 6, 7, and 8 and
Second Supplementary Objections 2, 3, and 4 are
not objections to the conduct of the election at all.
They are, as noted above, challenges to the qualifi-
cation of the Petitioner to be certified by the
Board. Such challenges are normally made before
the election, since determination of that issue may
forestall the holding of the election and the ex-
penditure of the amounts of time and money that
representation elections entail. Nevertheless, since
challenges to the qualification of a labor organiza-
tion may be made even after certification, we are
constrained to entertain them at this intermediate
stage.
In summary, we find that the Acting Regional
Director properly considered on the merits the
Employer's timely Objections 1-4, Supplementary
Objections 5-8, and Second Supplementary Objec-
tions 2-4. As the Employer has excepted to the
Acting Regional Director's recommendation that
all these objections be overruled, they are before us
on the merits. We dismiss Supplementary Objec-
tions 1-4 and Second Supplementary Objection I
as untimely.
The Employer has moved for transmittal of the
Regional Director's investigative file. The evidence
needed to resolve the merits of the timely objec-
tions and the necessity of a hearing is before the
Board. Similarly, the evidence needed to resolve
the challenges to the Petitioner's qualification,
which do not constitute election objections, is
before the Board. This evidence is before the
Board because the Employer has submitted it to us
with its exceptions. Consequently, we need not rule
on the Employer's motion.
The Acting Regional Director, in considering
each of the timely objections and the challenges to
the Petitioner's qualification, accepted the evidence
submitted in support of the Employer's contentions
at face value and, analyzing that evidence in the
light of undisputed physical facts, decided that
none of it established a basis for setting the election
aside or disqualifying the Petitioner. In some in-
stances, the Acting Regional Director relied sec-
ondarily on other evidence, obtained during the in-
vestigation, as providing an additional ground for
inserted, at various employee oirk place, on he da hefore the lection
Supplementary Objection 3 and Second Supplementary Objection I bohth
allege that "at arious times during the course of the representation elec-
tion campaign." the Petitiioner created the impression that he Board sup-
ported the Petitioner in its organizing and campaign efforts. In atlempt-
ing to substantiate these later versiOns of the objection, the Employer
submitted no additional evidence of conduct occurring within the critical
period-after the date on which the instant petition was filed. herefore,
the question of whether the late-filed objections alleging creation (of the
impression of Board favoritism are properly before us is largely aca-
demic. We shall consider only the eidence presented in support of the
original objection
BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES. INC 061
overruling an objection. Thus, in disposing of Ob-
jection 4, relating to an alleged improper waiver of
initiation fees, the Acting Regional Director found
the Employer's evidence, even if accepted as true,
insufficient to demonstrate any impropriety attrib-
utable to the Petitioner, but added that it appeared
the Petitioner affirmatively informed employees
that the waiver of initiation fees and dues was not
contingent on the signing of authorization cards.
After reviewing all of the evidence the Employ-
er submitted to the Acting Regional Director and
to us, we agree with the Acting Regional Direc-
tor's disposition of the matters before us, adopt his
findings, the relevant portions of which are at-
tached as a Appendix, and find that the Employer
has not raised any issues requiring a hearing. Since
everything essential to our review of the question
of whether the Employer has made a prima facie
case for setting aside the election is before us, the
proper interpretation of Section 102.(g) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations is not an issue here.
The Sixth Circuit and we agree on this principle.
See Reichart Furniture Company v. N.L.R.B., 107
LRRM 2552 (6th Cir. 1981); NL.R.B. v. Curtis
Noll Corporation Curtis Industries Division, 634 F.2d
1027 (1980). But even to the extent that we rely, as
the Acting Regional Director did, on his investiga-
tive findings based on evidence that is not before
us, we act within the principles adopted by the
courts. For we need not review those factual find-
ings of the Acting Regional Director that are not
in dispute, and none is in dispute. Those findings
do not conflict with the evidence the Employer
has proffered but help to place it in a context
proper for examining its significance. In order to
demonstrate that factual issues exist, the party ex-
cepting to the Regional Director's finding "must
show what evidence will be presented to support a
contrary finding." Reichart Furniture Company v.
N.L.R.B., supra. This the Employer has not done.5
Finally, because the Employer has not made a
prima facie showing in connection with any of its
timely objections, or demonstrated that material
factual issues exist as to the correctness of the
Acting Regional Director's findings, we reject the
Employer's contention that the Acting Regional
Director's investigation was inadequate. that con-
tention is supported by nothing except speculation
as to what an "adequate" investigation might have
produced. While the Regional Director must con-
s Because we assume the truth of the Employer's factual presentations,
and find that they do not raise a substantial or material issue requiring a
hearing, our action is consonant with the decision in Anchor Inns. Inc
d/b/a Anchor Inn ltolel of St. Croix %s. N L. R. B, 106 LRRM 2860, 90 LC
¶12,658 (3d Cir. 1981), cited b the Employer in support of the colnten-
tion that a hearing is necessary. There, the court criticized the Board for
refusing a hearing without assuming the truth of the evidentiary facts set
forth in the objections.
scientiously attempt to ascertain whether alleged
objectional conduct really occurred, it is, as Ameri-
can Safety reaffirms, within his discretion not "to
seek out [additional] evidence that would warrant
setting aside the election." N.L.R.B. v. Singleton
Packing Corp., 418 F.2d 275, 280 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, we shall certify the Petitioner.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Power Plant Police and
Security Officers, Local 1, and that Pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the foregoing labor organization is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
following appropriate unit for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time
guards employed by the Employer at the
Philadelphia Electric Company Peachbottom
Atomic Power Station, R.D. #1, Delta, Pa.
Excluded: All other employees, office clerical
employees, shift sergeants and supervisors and
professionals as defined in the Act.
APPENDIX
Objection I
In this Objection, the Employer contends that there
were two separate violations of the Board's rule etab-
lished in Milchem, 170 NLRB 362, regarding discussions
with voters waiting to cast ballots. The election was con-
ducted in a conference room in the rear of a fire hall.
The entrance to the room was about 45 feet from the
doors. The Objection states that a group of employees
were gathered approximately 15 yards from the front
door entrance to the fire hall during the morning voting
session. Thus, these employees were approximately 90
feet from the actual polling area and were not within
sight of the polling area. The Employer does not assert
that these employees were acting as agents of the Peti-
tioner or that any of them made remarks to employees
waiting in line to vote or in the polling area itself. There
was no evidence that any of the employees outside of the
fire hall were electioneering or that they made any coer-
cive statements. Accordingly, I find that the presence of
voters outside the polls did not interfere with the em-
ployee's freedom of choice and is not a basis for setting
aside the election. Stephenson Equipment Company, 174
NLRB 865, 867.
The Employer also alleges that during the afternoon
session Herman Jaffe, business representative of the Peti-
tioner, engaged in conversations with voters at the front
door of the fire hall which, as noted previously, was
about 45 feet from the entrance of the conference room
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in which the voting was being conducted. The line of
voters never extended outside the conference room and
the voting area was set up so that the table, ballot box,
and booth were out of sight of the main area of the first
floor of the fire hall where the fire company's trucks
were parked. There was no evidence presented as to the
subject matter of any conversations which occurred. The
Board Agent conducting the election did not establish a
no-electioneering area. As any remarks Jaffe may have
made were not directed to prospective voters in the poll-
ing area or in line waiting to vote and were not in con-
travention of any establish no-electioneering area, I find
the alleged conduct of Jaffe does not constitute a basis of
for setting aside the election. Accordingly, I find that
Objection I lacks merit. Harold W. Moore & Son, 173
NLRB 1258; Marvil International Security Service, 173
NLRB 1260.
Objection 2
In this Objection, the Employer contends that the Pe-
titioner made gross misrepresentations in a letter, at-
tached hereto as Appendix 1, at a time which did not
provide the Employer with an adequate opportunity to
respond. The letter, allegedly distributed on August 5,
1980, does not constitute a basis for setting aside the
election. While it does contain representations that the
employees will have certain benefits in the event they
select the Petitioner as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, the Board has long held that employees under-
stand that a union cannot obtain increased wages and
benefits just by winning an election, but that benefits
must be obtained through collective-bargaining. The
Smith Company, 192 NLRB 1098. Moreover, in a letter
dated June 12, 1980, which was distributed by the Em-
ployer, in response to an alleged Union statement that "a
union means more money and benefits for you." the Em-
ployer stated, "Burns can only get for you what the
client is able to give-union or no." Accordingly, I find
that the employees were able to evaluate the statements
in the August 5 letter, and that Objection 2 lacks merit.
Objection 3
[In this Objection] they alleged misuse of Board mate-
rial by the Petitioner during the campaign so as to create
an impression that the Board was aligning itself with or
endorsing Petitioner's campaign. The cartoon attached
hereto as Appendix 2 was allegedly distributed to em-
ployees inside the Board's publication "Your Govern-
ment Conducts An Election" on August 6, 1980. This
piece of campaign propaganda could not reasonably have
been construed by employees to have been a part of the
Board leaflet as it made no reference to the Board and it
was clearly headed "Federation of Special Police and
Law Enforcement Officers" with the offices and tele-
phone numbers of that organization. Furthermore, the
Board's publication sets forth employee rights, conduct
which may not be engaged in by a union as well as that
prohibited by an employer, and a statement that the
Board does not endorse any choice in the election. Ac-
cordingly, I find that this alleged distribution did not in-
terfere with the employees' freedom of choice and is not
a basis for setting aside the election. Hall-Brooke Hospi-
tal, a Division of Hall-Brooke Foundation, Inc., 244 NLRB
91.
Objection 4
In this Objection, the Employer contends that the Pe-
titioner improperly waived initiation fees and dues in
order to induce employees to sign authorization cards. In
support of this Objection, the Employer presented only
hearsay evidence that one employee told another em-
ployee that the second employee should sign a union au-
thorization card in order to escape the union dues and
initiation fee payment which she would otherwise have
to pay later. The Employer presented no evidence that
the employee who made the settlement about waiver of
initiation fees and dues was an agent of the Petitioner.
Further, there was no evidence that the Petitioner knew
of, authorized, or condoned any such statements that
may have been made. Moreover, the investigation dis-
closed that on numerous occasions, the Petitioner told
employees that initiation fees had been waived because
all employees would be charter members with this Em-
ployer, and never indicated that this waiver was in any
way contingent upon the employees' signing Union au-
thorization cards. Accordingly, I find that Objection 4
lacks merits. Allied Metal Hose, Inc., 219 NLRB 1135;
Firestone Steel Products Co., 235 NLRB 548; cf. Savair
Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270.
Supplementary Objection No. 5
In this Objection, the Employer contends that the Pe-
titioner is disqualified from representing employees be-
cause of its "inability to act with the single-minded pur-
pose of protecting and advancing employee interest in-
stead of the interests of certain individuals." The facts
advanced by the Employer in support of its position all
pertain to the Federation of Special Police and Law En-
forcement Officers (hereinafter Federation), with which
the Petitioner is affiliated. The Employer claims that an
official of the Federation stated to employees of another
employer, "You will probably hear we are Mafia. But if
we make a dollar and you make a dollar, who cares?" It
further asserts that the President of the Federation is
presently under investigation by the United States Justice
Department's Organized Crime Strike Force regarding
his activities with the Federation. In support of these
two assertions, the Employer presented only magazine
and newspaper articles containing unattributed and un-
substantiated reports that an investigation was being con-
ducted and that the statement had allegedly been made.
The Employer also asserts that the Federation is under
investigation by the United States Attorney concerning
alleged forgeries of Federation authorization cards in a
representation proceeding. In support of this contention,
the Employer presented a letter to it from the Board's
Region 2 office indicating that a representation matter
has been forwarded to the United States Attorney con-
cerning possible forgeries of union authorization cards.
Finally, the Employer asserts that the Federation recent-
ly called for an illegal strike of guards which it claims to
BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 963
represent at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in
Buchanan, New York. In support of this assertion, the
Employer submitted a newspaper article indicating that a
strike had occurred at the Plant.
Obviously, the mere fact that a Union or its officials
have been accused of misconduct, or that allegations
against them are being investigated, does not establish
that the allegations are true or that Union officials have
engaged in the alleged conduct. But even if misconduct
were disclosed by an investigation, it would not warrant
withholding certification. The Board has consistently de-
clined to interpret the Act as barring the certification of
a labor organization based upon reputed ties to organized
crime, or even the prior criminal conviction of an officer
of the union. Alto Plastics Manufacturing Company, 136
NLRB 850; Whittlesea Checker Taxi, Inc., 237 NLRB
1038, Carroll Contracting and Ready Mix, Inc., 247
NLRB 890. In Alto Plastics Manufacturing Company,
supra at 851, the Board stated:
[I]t must be remembered that, initially, the Board
merely provides the machinery whereby the desires
of the employees may be ascertained, and the em-
ployees may select a "good" labor organization, a
"bad" labor organization, or no longer organization,
it being presupposed that employees will intelligent-
ly exercise their right to select their bargaining rep-
resentative.
As neither the allegation of ties to organized crime nor
the investigation of a union official by a law enforcement
agency is a proper basis for refusing to certify Local 1, I
find that Supplementary Objection 5 lacks merit.
Supplementary Objection No. 6
In this Objection, the Employer contends that the Pe-
titioner is not a bona fide labor organization wihtin the
definition of Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations
Act because of "its amorphous and changing structure,
vague as to membership participation." In support of this
Objection, the Enployer presented excerpts of testimony
by Herman Jaffe, a business representative for the Peti-
tioner, in a 1978 hearing in Wells Fargo Guard Services,
Division of Baker Protection Services, Inc., Case No. 4-
RC-13051. Jaffe was testifying on behalf of the Feder-
ation concerning the issue of whether is was it was affili-
ated indirectly with a non-guard union. While the Board
in that case did note inconsistencies and contradictions in
Jaffs testimony, it nonetheless held that the Federation
was not disqualified from being certified. Wells Fargo
Guard Services, Division of Baker Protective Service, Inc.,
236 NLRB 1196.5 The constitution and by-laws of the
I The Board's decisions in Douglas Oil Colmpanv. 197 NI.RB 308 and
International Brotherhood of Service Station Operators of .merica ki 'a In-
ternational Brotherhood Fessional Servicei. 215 NLRB 81 1, relied upon by
the Employer, are inopposite. In those cases the Btoard found the organl-
zation therein invovled not to he a bona fide collective bargaining repre-
sentative in large part because it was being operated for the benefit of
one individual, while the Petitioner herein does, in fact., negotiate mean-
ingful collective bargaining agreements with empioers concerning the
wages, hours and working conditions of emplosees
Federation were filed with the Labor Management Serv-
ices Administration in 1976, and they have not been sub-
stantially changed since that time. The investigation dis-
closed that the Petitioner has at least four collective bar-
gaining agreements with the employers, and that the
Federation has numerous other contracts with employ-
ers. Accordingly, I find that the Employer's Supplemen-
tary Objection No. 6 lacks merits.
Supplementary Objection o. 7
In this Objection, the Employer contends that the Pe-
titioner should be disqualified from representing security
guards at a nuclear power plant under the United States
Department of Energy's Security Policies and Practices
Relating To Labor Management Relations because the
Petitioner has in the past threatened strikes at nuclear
facilities. In support of this Objection, the Employer sub-
mitted copies of letters from the Petitioner's president to
the Employer threatening unspecified "job action" unless
the Employer desisted from alleged harassment of the
Petitioner's supporters. This ambiguous statement, which
did not result in any strike or other action does not in
any way established that the Petitioner would not
comply with the requirements of the Department of
Energy. Accordingly, I find that Supplementary Objec-
tion 7 lacks merit.
Supplementary Ojection No. 8 and Second Supplementary
Objection No. 2
These Objections will be treated together as they
allege that the Petitioner is disqualified from representing
the employees in the unit herein because it is affiliated di-
rectly and indirectly with organizations that admit non-
guards to membership. In support of its contention, the
Employer asserts that the Petitioner has maintained of-
fices in the same office building in Bridgeport, Connecti-
cut as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local
1040. It presented evidence that a certified letter ad-
dressed to the Federation at the aforementioned address
was signed for by an A.K. Sedlack on September 2, 1980
and asserts that A.K Sedlack has been employed in a
clerical position by Teamsters Local 1040 for approxi-
mately 5 years. The Emplyer additionally presented evi-
dence that one Abe Ferreira is an official of the Petition-
er and that in late February, 1980, he delivered handbills
on behalf of Teamsters Local 1040 to a hospital in
Bridgeport, Connecticut. Finally, the Employer presents
portions of testimony from a hearing in Bally s Park
Place, Inc., Case No. 4-RC-14233, concerning conduct
of officials of the Federation in conjunction with an offi-
cial of an organization known as the Association of
Public and Private Labor Employees (APPLE).
In Wells Fargo Guard Services, Division of Baker Protec-
tion Services, Inc.. supra, the Board held that the Feder-
ation was not affiliated with a labor organization which
admits to membership employees other than guards. In
so doing, it specifically considered the involvement be-
tween the Federation and APPLE, and found that the
Petitioner was not disqualified on that ground. In the
same case the Board found that activities similar to those
relied upon the Employer here, such as the sharing of an
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office and an isolated incident of picketing assistance, not
unlike the handbiling assistance, alleged herein. The fact
that the Petitioner and Teamsters Local 1040 may addi-
tionally share in employing the services of clerical em-
ployees would not warrant a different result. According-
ly, I find that the Employer's Supplemental Objection
No. 2 lacks merit." [Footnote omitted.]
Second Supplementary Objections Nos. 3 and 4
In these Objections, the Employer asserts that the Pe-
titioner is disqualified from certification because of
misuse of Board processes. Specially, it relies upon an af-
fidavit given by the President of Centurion Armored
Service, Inc. in connection with the investigation of
Cases Nos. 4-CA-9815 and 4-CA-9912 in which there
was testimony that he never agreed to a 24 page collec-
tive bargaining agreement which he asserted a repre-
sentative of the Federation attached to a recognition
agreement which he had signed. The other evidence
relied upon by the Employer is testimony from the hear-
ing in Bally's Park Place, Inc., 4-RC-14233 that Daniel
Cunningham, President of the Federation and Herman
Jaffe threatened to break the legs of an employer official
if he didn't sign a contract with them.
No disposition has ever been made with respect to the
contention of Centurion as those charges were with-
drawn after Centurion resolved its dispute with the Fed-
eration. With respect to the claim that representatives of
the Petitioner may have threatened physical violence to
an employer, this conduct would not, without more, dis-
qualify the Petitioner from being certified as the collec-
tive bargaining representative of the employees herein.
See Alto Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, supra. Ac-
cordingly, I find that the Employer's Supplementary Ob-
jections Nos. 3 and 4 lack merit. 7
7 The remaining "sordid" history of the Federation and Centurion re-
ferred to in Second Supplementary Objection No 3 consists of two union
deauthorization petitions hich were withdrawn and the unfair labor
practice charge against Centurion in Case No 4-CA-11379 in which the
Federation alleged that Centurion had discharged guards because of their
support of the Federation and which the Federation subsequently wtllh-
drew with no determination having been made by the Region on the
merits