Federation of Special Police & Law Enforcement Officers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1076 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

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