Federation of Special Police & Law Enforcement OfficersDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 13, 1979242 N.L.R.B. 1076 (N.L.R.B. 1979) Copy Citation DECISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers and International Bureau for Protection and Investigation, Ltd. & Mendik Realty Company, Inc. and Local 32B-32J, Service Employees Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO. Case 2-CD-571 June 13, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, ANI) TRUESDAI.E This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by International Bureau for Protection and Investigation, Ltd., herein called IBPI or the Em- ployer, and Mendik Realty Company, Inc., herein called Mendik, alleging that Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers, herein called Respondent or Federation, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro- scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer and Mendik to continue the assignment of certain work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Local 32B 32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called SEIU. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in this mat- ter before Hearing Officer Peter D. Conrad on No- vember 15, 1978. All parties appeared and were af- forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Charging Par- ties and SEIU filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board had delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, includ- ing the submitted briefs, the Board makes the follow- ing findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The parties stipulated, and we find, that: (a) IBPI, a New York corporation having its office and principal place of business in New York, New York, is engaged in the business of providing uni- formed guard services. It annually derives gross rev- enues in excess of $500,000, of which more than $50,000 is derived from services performed for enter- prises located outside the State of New York. (b) Mendik, a New York corporation with its office and principal place of business in New York, New York, is engaged in the management of commercial properties. During the past year Mendik, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the same period, Mendik derived revenues in excess of $50,000 from enterprises which are themselves engaged in in- terstate commerce and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. The parties stipulated, and we find, that IBPI and Mendik are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7} of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Respon- dent Federation and SEIU are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute On June 1, 1978, Mendik commenced management operations at an office tower located at 866 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York (herein referred to as UN Plaza). As a member of the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. (herein referred to as RAB), which is a multiemployer bargaining associ- ation, Mendik is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with SEIU. Pursuant thereto, SEIU repre- sents all building service employees employed by Mendik at UN Plaza. In furtherance of its duties as managing agent, Mendik continued to employ, inter alia, three em- ployees of the former managing agent who fall into the unclassified category, described as "others," of the collective-bargaining agreement noted above. The duties of these employees include patrolling the build- ing and inspecting for signs of suspicious activity, fire, and other hazardous conditions. Notwithstanding their duties, Mendik contends that these employees are fire watch personnel and not security personnel. As a result of a survey conducted by a security consulting firm in July 1978, Mendik decided to re- tain the services of an outside security agency to pro- vide uniformed guard services at UN Plaza. Thus, in September 1978, Mendik arranged for IBPI to regu- larly provide security guards and other security ser- vices at UN Plaza. Thereafter, IBPI supplied, inter alia, two uniformed guards during the hours of 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday and two guards for a 12-hour shift on Saturdays and Sundays. The 242 NLRB No. 64 1076 FEDERATION OF SPECIAL POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS duties of the IBPI guards include patrolling and se- curing the building and looking for intruders. Pursu- ant to a collective-bargaining agreement with IBPI, Federation represents all security guards employed by IBPI in the States of New York and New Jersey. On September 18, 1978, SEIU submitted a griev- ance to the joint industry grievance committee of RAB concerning the subcontracting of the above-de- scribed security work by Mendik. SEIU claimed, inter alia, that Mendik had violated the terms of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement by failing to maintain the contractual wages and benefits for all employees in the building, including the IBPI employees. SEIU further demanded that all employees working in the building become members in good standing in SEIU in accordance with the union-security clause of the contract. Subsequently, on a date which remains unclear, Mendik forwarded a copy of SEIU's grievance to Robert Gray, secretary-treasurer of IBPI. Thereafter, Gray advised Daniel Cunningham, president of Fed- eration, that IBPI would have to hire members of SEIU instead of members of Federation to perform security work at UN Plaza. In response thereto Cun- ningham threatened to strike IBPI at all of its loca- tions, including UN Plaza.' On November 8, 1978, SEIU amended its griev- ance by deleting the demand that IBPI employees become members of SEIU. The amended grievance demanded only that the employees of IBPI working at UN Plaza receive wages and benefits as provided by the collective-bargaining agreement between SEIU and Mendik. On the basis of the amended grievance, SEIU argued at the 10(k) hearing that it no longer claimed the work of the uniformed security guards as performed by the IBPI employees at UN Plaza. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the performance of security services at 866 United Nations Plaza. C. Contentions of the Parties The Charging Parties contend that SEIU's dis- claimer is offered in bad faith and is ineffective to terminate the work assignment dispute.2 As to the i The work in dispute has at all times in question been assigned to employ- ees represented by Federation. Employees represented by SEIU have contin- ued to perform their own work as before. 2 In a letter dated April 12, 1979, counsel for IBPI moved for the Board to reopen the record to admit an arbitration award involving SEIU and an employer adrmttedly unrelated to this proceeding; IBPI argued that the award evidenced SEIU's continuing desire to obtain the work in dispute, notwithstanding its asserted disclaimer. By letter dated April 16, 1979, coun- sel for SEIU urged the Board to deny IBPI's request as the award referred to merits, the Charging Parties assert that the assign- ment of the disputed work to employees represented by Federation is proper and is supported, inter alia, by considerations of efficiency and economy of opera- tions. SEIU contends that the notice of hearing must be quashed because it has disclaimed interest in the work which had previously been assigned to the em- ployees of IBPI. SEIU also contends that, assuming arguendo that the disclaimer is ineffective to terminate the work assignment dispute, the Board should quash the notice of hearing as the facts do not disclose the existence of a dispute between competing groups of employees claiming the right to perform certain tasks. SEIU asserts that to the extent that Mendik has sub- contracted work previously preformed by its mem- bers, the real dispute is between SEIU and Mendik, citing Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local 107, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent (Safeway Stores, Incorporated), 134 NLRB 1320 (1961). Federation neither presented evidence of its own at the hearing nor filed a brief with the Board. As to the merits, it contended at the hearing that pursuant to the union-security clause in its collective-bargaining agreement with IBPI only Federation members may be employed by IBPI. D. Applicability of the Statute It is well established that before the Board may proceed with a determination of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. This involves determining, inter alia, whether there are competing claims to the dis- puted work between rival groups of employees. We have held that "a jurisdictional dispute no longer ex- ists where ... one of the competing unions or parties effectively renounces its claim to the work."' As indicated above, SEIU initially submitted a grievance alleging, inter alia, that Mendik had vio- lated the terms of their collective-bargaining agree- ment by subcontracting the security work at UN Plaza which, it asserted, was under the jurisidiction of SEIU. However, according to SEIU's brief, as the subcontracting of security work by Mendik to IBPI, whose employees are represented by Federation, had by IBPI involved a proceeding unrelated to the instant matter and an em- ployer not currently before the Board. We agree with counsel for SEIU for the reasons noted by him. Accordingly. IBPl's request to introduce the above arbitration award into the record is hereby denied. 'General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66. of the Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America (Georgia-Pacific Corporation), 209 NLRB 611, 612 (1974), quoting Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO (C & S Construction Co., Inc.), 206 NLRB 807 (1973). 1077 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not resulted in the displacement of employees repre- sented by SEI U, the latter amended its grievance and disclaimed interest in the work. In so doing, SEIU limited its grievance to Mendik's compliance with the existing wage and benefit structure of the collective- bargaining agreement. We conclude that the above indicates that SEIU has effectively renounced its claim to the work which has been assigned to employees represented by Feder- ation, and that the amended grievance concerns mat- ters outside the confines of Section 8(b)(4)(D). More- over, there is no evidence that SEIU has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its disclaimer of the work. We find, on the entire record, that there are currently no competing claims to the disputed work within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) and (10)(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is- sued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed. 1078 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation