Burns Security Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

989
309 NLRB No. 162
BURNS SECURITY SERVICES
1 302 NLRB No. 123 (not reported in Board volumes).
2 Burns Security Services, 300 NLRB 298 (1990), and 296 NLRB
113 (1989) (together, Burns I). In the underlying representation pro-
ceeding in Burns I (Case 25–RC–8557), the Board found appropriate
a unit of firefighters and other employees and, after conducting an
election, certified the United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO as
the bargaining representative of employees in the unit. The Respond-
ent refused to bargain, and the Board found that the refusal violated
Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1).
3 BPS Guard Services v. NLRB, 942 F.2d 519 (Burns II).
4 The Board denied the Union’s request to file a response out of
time. Member Devaney would have granted the Union’s request.
BPS Guard Services, Inc., d/b/a Burns Security
Services and International Union, United Plant
Guard Workers of America (UPGWA). Cases
25–CA–21110 and 25–RC–8958
December 16, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On April 30, 1991, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in Case 25–CA–
21110, finding that the Respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain
with the Union in an appropriate unit for which it had
been certified on December 12, 1990, in Case 25–RC–
8958.1 The unit found appropriate comprised all of the
Respondent’s full-time and regular part-time security
officers who performed guard services for Bethlehem
Steel Corporation at its Burns Harbor, Indiana facility.
The unit excluded, among others, the firefighters (in-
cluding drivers) employed by the Respondent at the
Burns Harbor plant, whom the Board in a previous
case had found not to be guards within the meaning
of Section 9(b)(3).2 The Respondent contended that the
firefighters were guards, as it had previously, and
based its refusal to bargain on the ground that the unit
certified was inappropriate because it did not include
all guards employed by the Respondent at the Burns
Harbor facility.
On August 21, 1991, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied enforcement of the Board’s Order in
Burns I.3 The court based its decision on its finding,
contrary to the Board’s, that the firefighters in question
were statutory guards.
On July 30, 1992, the Board reopened the captioned
case and advised the parties that it was reconsidering
its decision and would notify them of whatever action
it decided to take.
On November 3, 1992, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why it should not, in light of the court’s
decision in Burns II, (1) find that the Respondent’s
firefighters employed at the Burns Harbor facility are
statutory guards, and that the only appropriate unit in
Case 25–RC–8958 consists of all guards, including
firefighters, employed by the Respondent at that facil-
ity; (2) revoke the Union’s certification; and (3) vacate
the earlier Decision and Order in Case 25–CA–21110
and dismiss the complaint. The General Counsel filed
a response urging no opposition to the Board’s pro-
posed actions, and advising that the Union had filed a
petition seeking to represent the firefighters involved
in Burns I and Burns II.4
No cause having been shown why the Board should
not take the actions proposed above, we find, in light
of the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Burns II, that the
Respondent’s firefighters employed at the Burns Har-
bor facility are statutory guards, and that the only ap-
propriate unit in Case 25–RC–8958 consists of all
guards, including firefighters, employed by the Re-
spondent at that facility.
ORDER
It is ordered that Cases 25–CA–21110 and 25–RC–
8958 are consolidated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union’s certifi-
cation in Case 25–RC–8958 is revoked.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision and Order
in Case 25–CA–21110 is vacated and the complaint is
dismissed.