General Service Employees Union Local No. 73

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

GENERAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 73
General Service Employees Union Local No. 73,
affiliated with Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO and Andy Frain, Inc. and Allied
Security, Incorporated-Cbicago. Cases 13-CC-
942, 13-CC-947, and 13-CP-327
June 21, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On November 29, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and Respondent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
Allied Security, Incorporated-Chicago, herein
called Allied Security, is engaged in the business of
providing contract security guard service. The
complaint alleged, inter alia, that Respondent, a
labor organization which admits into membership
employees other than guards, made threats to picket
and/or did picket Allied Security and its customers
on 3 separate dates with an object of forcing Allied
Security to recognize or bargain with Respondent as
the collective-bargaining representative of Allied's
guard employees. At the hearing, Respondent with-
drew its answer and amended answer, but did not
admit that it had committed any unfair labor
practices. The parties also agreed to the language of a
proposed "Order" which provided, inter alia, that
Respondent refrain from picketing or threatening to
picket Allied Security in any manner for 30 days
from the receipt by Allied Security of a letter by
Respondent disclaiming any interest in organizing its
employees.
The General Counsel then moved for summary
judgment and the motion was granted. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge found that Respondent has
violated Section 8(bX)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and in his recommended Order
adopted the language proposed by the parties. In his
Conclusion of Law 4, the Administrative Law Judge
concluded that Respondent had violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by threatening to picket and by
picketing Allied Security and its customers for a
230 NLRB No. 52
period in excess of 30 days without a valid representa-
tion petition having been filed Respondent and the
General Counsel have excepted to the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 4 and that
portion of his recommended notice based thereon on
the grounds that the complaint does not allege that
Respondent picketed or threatened to picket Allied
Security and its customers for a period in excess of 30
days without a valid petition having been filed under
Section 9(c) of the Act. The General Counsel further
contends that since Respondent admits nonguards
into membership it cannot be certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of Allied Securi-
ty's guards by virtue of Section 9(bX3) of the Act
and, therefore, Respondent may not picket or
threaten to picket Allied Security, notwithstanding
the "thirty days" language of Section 8(bX7)(C). In
support thereof, the General Counsel relies, inter alia,
on General Service Employees Union Local No. 73,
affiliated with Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO (A-I Security Service Co.), 224 NLRB 434
(1976), and Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No. 71, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Wells Fargo
Armored Service Corporation), 221 NLRB 1240
(1975). We find merit in these exceptions. According-
ly, we shall amend Conclusion of Law 4, as set forth
below, and shall also substitute an appropriate
notice.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the Administrative
Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 4:
"4. By threatening to picket and by picketing
Allied Security, Incorporated-Chicago, and its cus-
tomers for the purpose of forcing or requiring Allied
Security, Inc., to recognize and bargain with the
Respondent as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees when the Respondent has not
been certified as the representative of such employ-
ees and cannot be so certified by virtue of the
provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, the Respon-
dent herein violated Section 8(b)(7XC) of the Act. All
of the aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close,
intimate, and substantial effect on commerce be-
tween the several states."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Service
Employees Union Local No. 73, affiliated with
351
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting in part:
I disagree with my colleagues that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act as alleged in
the consolidated complaint.'
Although Respondent does not contest the com-
plaint allegations that the employees of Allied
Security, Incorporated-Chicago are guards within
the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, I cannot-
as a matter of fact or law-accept that conclusion.
The consolidated complaint alleges that Allied
Security is in the business of providing contract
security guard services. In other words, it provides
guards for its customers, not for itself. In my
concurring opinion in Brink's, Incorporated, 226
NLRB 1182 (1976), I took the position that the term
"guard" applies only to an employer's own plant
protection employees. Clearly, the employees of
Allied Security do not fit within that definition.
Accordingly, I would find that none of Allied
Security's employees here are guards within the
purview of Section 9(b)(3). Thus, since there is no
allegation that picketing for an object of recognition
occurred for more than 30 days without the filing of
a petition for an election, and inasmuch as a threat to
picket does not, in my view, invoke the proscription
of Section 8(b)(7)(C),2 I perceive no basis for finding
that the Union has violated that section of the Act. 3 I
would, therefore, dismiss the complaint in Case 13-
CP-327.
I I agree with their finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX4Xi) and
(iiXB) of the Act.
2 See my dissent in General Service Employees Union Local No. 73 (A-I
Security Service Co.). 224 NLRB 434.
3 See my dissent in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 344
(Purolator Security, Inc.), 228 NLRB 1379 (1977).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individ-
ual employed by any person engaged in interstate
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of
his employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods,
articles, or commodities, or to perform any
services, and WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or
coerce any person engaged in interstate com-
merce or in an industry affecting interstate
commerce where, in either case, the object thereof
is to force or require said person, or any other
person, to cease doing business with Andy Frain,
Inc., or Allied Security, Incorporated-Chicago, or
to force or require Andy Frain Inc., or Allied
Security, Incorporated-Chicago to recognize us
as the collective-bargaining representative of its
employees unless we have been certified pursuant
to Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT picket or 'threaten to picket
Allied Security, Incorporated-Chicago, where an
object thereof is to force or require Allied
Security, Incorporated-Chicago, to recognize or
bargain with us as the representative of guards
employed by Allied Security, Incorporated-Chi-
cago, or forcing or requiring employees of Allied
Security, Incorporated-Chicago, to select us as
their collective-bargaining agent, when we have
not been certified as the representative of such
employees and cannot be so certified by virtue of
the provisions of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify Allied Security, Incorporated-
Chicago, that we do not have any interest in
organizing their employees or in being recognized
by it as a bargaining agent, and WE WILL refrain
from picketing Allied Security, Incorporated-
Chicago, for a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of said letter of disclaimer.
GENERAL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL No. 73,
AFFILIATED WITH
SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge:
This case came on for hearing before me at Chicago,
Illinois, upon a consolidated unfair labor practice com-
plaint1 issued by the Regional Director for Region 13
which alleges that Respondent General Service Employees
The principal docket entries in this case are as follows: Charge filed
against Respondent by Andy Frain, Inc., in Cases 13-CC-942 and 13-CP-
326 on August 10, 1976; charge filed against Respondent by Allied Security.
Inc., in Case 13-CP-327 on August 23, 1976, and amended on September
23, 1976; charge filed against Respondent by Allied Security, Inc., in Case
13-CC-947 on September 23, 1976; consolidated complaint issued against
Respondent in Cases 13-CC-942 and 13-CP-326 on August 20, 1976;
complaint issued in Case 13-CP-327 on September 10, 1976; order
consolidating Cases 13-CC-942, 13-CP-326, and 13-CP-327 on September
9, 1976; amended complaint in Case 13-CC-942 issued on October 4, 1976;
352
GENERAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 73
Union Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, unlawfully picketed or
threatened to picket Andy Frain, Inc.,
2 and Allied Security,
Incorporated, and customers thereof in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. As
part of a settlement of this matter which was concluded by
the parties, the Respondent, without admitting the comm is-
sion of any unfair labor practices, withdrew its answer and
amended answer, whereupon the General Counsel moved
for summary judgment. Under Section 102.20 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, any
allegation not specifically denied by a respondent's answer
is deemed to be admitted. Since there was no answer before
me, there was no material issue of fact to be tried, so the
General Counsel's motion for summary judgment was
granted. Accordingly, I find as a fact upon the record in
this case that the Respondent did, by the acts and conduct
alleged in the consolidated complaint herein, violate
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 8(bX7)(C) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Andy Frain, Inc., and Allied Security, Incorporated
(Chicago), are, respectively, employers engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent General Service Employees Union
Local No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to picket United Air Lines with an
object of forcing or requiring United Air Lines to cease
doing business with Andy Frain, Inc.; by picketing with an
object of forcing Car Carriers, Inc., to cease doing business
with the Ford Motor Corporation, with the further object
of forcing the Ford Motor Corporation to cease doing
business with the Hertz Corporation, and for the further
object of forcing the Hertz Corporation to cease doing
business with Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), and
also to force Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago) and
Frain to bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees, the Respondent
herein violated Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (iiXB) of the Act.
4. By threatening to picket and by picketing Allied
Security, Incorporated (Chicago), and its customers for a
period in excess of 30 days without a valid representation
petition having been filed, for the purpose of forcing or
consolidated complaint issued in Cases 13-CP-327 and 13-CC-947 on
October 5, 1976: charge in Case 13-CP-326 withdraw on October 6. 1976;
order further consolidating cases omitting Case 13-CP-326 issued on
October 11, 1976; Respondent's answer filed on a date not apparent from
record; Respondent's amended answer filed on a date not apparent from
record; hearing held in Chicago, Illinois, on November 8, 1976.
2 Respondent admits, and I find, that the Charging Party Andy Frain.
Inc., is an Illinois corporation which maintains its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the business of providing
personnel for crowd control, baggage inspection, passenger screening, and
related services. Dunng the preceding calendar year, a representative
period, it has performed such services valued in excess of $500.000 of which
S50,000 were performed in States other than Illinois. Accordingly, it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7)
requiring Allied Security, Inc., to recognize and bargain
with the Respondent as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of its employees, the Respondent herein violated
Section 8(bX7X)(C) of the Act. All of the aforesaid unfair
labor practices have a close, intimate, and substantial effect
on commerce between the several states.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent herein has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other
action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act. As the parties have agreed to the language of a
proposed Board Order, and as the proposed order
substantially remedies the unfair labor practices found
herein, I will recommend said order to the Board.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record herein
considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I make the following recommended:
ORDER3
Respondent General Service Employees Union Local
No. 73, affiliated with Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening, coercing, and restraining United Air
Lines or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling,
handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products
of Andy Frain, Inc., or to cease doing business with Andy
Frain, Inc., or forcing or requiring Andy Frain, Inc., to
recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of its employees, unless Respondent has
been certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
(b) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by
Car Carriers, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage
in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any service; or
(c) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Car Carriers,
Inc., Ford Motor Corporation, Hertz Corporation, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
of the Act. Charging Party Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), is an
Illinois corporation which maintains its principal place of business in Oak
Park, Illinois, where it is engaged in providing contract security guard
service. During the past calendar year, a representative period, it has
purchased and shipped goods and services from Illinois to points and places
located outside the State of Illinois. Accordingly. it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. The Respondent is
a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
353
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affecting commerce, where in either case, as set forth in
paragraphs (b) and (c) hereof, an object thereof is forcing
or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Allied
Security, Incorporated (Chicago), or forcing or requiring
Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its
employees, unless Respondent has been certified as the
representative of such employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act.
(d) Picketing or threatening to picket Allied Security,
Incorporated (Chicago), where an object thereof is to force
or require Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), to
recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the represen-
tative of guards employed by Allied Security, Incorporated
(Chicago), or forcing or requiring employees of Allied
Security, Incorporated (Chicago), to select the Respondent
as their collective-bargaining agent, when Respondent has
not been certified as the representative of such employees
and cannot be so certified by virtue of the provisions of
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Send to Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), a
letter containing the following text and signed by Respon-
dent's General Counsel:
This is to advise you that the General Service
Employees Union, Local No. 73, affiliated with Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, does not
In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
have any interest in organizing your employees, or in
being recognized by you as the representative of your
employees, or in obtaining or negotiating with you a
labor agreement covering your employees.
(b) Refrain from picketing or threatening to picket Allied
Security, Incorporated (Chicago), in any manner whatsoev-
er for a period of 30 days from the receipt by Allied
Security, Incorporated (Chicago), of the letter referred to in
paragraph (a) hereof.
(c) Post at its office and meeting hall in Chicago, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 13, after being duly signed by its authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, including all places where
notices to members are customarily placed. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 13 signed
copies of said notice for posting by Andy Frain, Inc., and
Allied Security, Incorporated (Chicago), if they are willing,
at all locations where said employers normally post notices
to their employees.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within twenty days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
354