Globe Security Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 109 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. 109
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local No. 2772, United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Vulcan-Cincinnati , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(7) of the Act.
3. It would not effectuate the policies of the Act to issue an order against Respond-
ents herein.
The Trial Examiner recommends that this complaint be dismissed in its entiretly.
Globe Security Systems, Inc. and Security Officers and Watch-
men's Union , Local No . 1, International Brotherhood of Fire-
men and Oilers, AFL-CIO. Case No. A0-35. May 10, 1962
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Globe Security Systems, Inc., herein
called the Employer, for an advisory opinion in conformity with Sec-
tions 102.98 and 102199 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended.
A. In pertinent part, the petition alleges that :
(1) Security Officers and Watchmen's Union, Local No. 1, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, filed with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board,
herein called State Board, a petition (Docket No. 27, year of 1962)
for the certification as representative of various guards employed
by the Employer at the plant of Daroff & Sons, Inc., in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The State Board has not as yet made specific findings
as to its jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction over the Employer.
(2) The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business in Philadelphia and is engaged in the business of
providing plant protection services for employers located in 28 States.
The Employer annually furnishes guard services valued in excess of
$50,000 to employers at plants located outside of Pennsylvania ; and
it also annually furnishes guard services valued in excess of $50,000 to
local Pennsylvania employers, such as Daroff & Sons, Inc., who them-
selves annually ship goods valued in excess of $50,000 outside of
Pennsylvania.
(3) For the purposes of this Advisory Opinion, the Board has
taken official notice of the jurisdictional facts of recent proceedings
in which it asserted jurisdiction over the Employer's operations.'
(4) There are no representation or unfair labor practice proceed-
ings involving the Employer pending before this Board 2
'See, e . g., Cases Nos. 14-CA-2628 ( Intermediate Report Issued January 3, 1962) ;
14-RC-4167 ( consent election held November 2, 1961 ) ; 8-RC-4463 (petition filed Novem-
ber 2, 1961 , but dismissed on grounds other than jurisdiction).
z Since the filing of the petition herein , the Board 's records show that Case No.
5-RC-3783 is presently pending in the Board's Fifth Regional Office at Balt':more
Maryland.
137 NLRB No. 12.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. In its "Answer to Petition for Advisory Consent [sic]" the
Union alleges in pertinent part as follows :
(1) The Union either admits, or is without sufficient information,
knowledge, or belief, sufficient to admit or deny, all the allegations
of 'the petition for advisory opinion except that it denies the juris-
dictional facts alleged therein.
(2) The Union contends that the State Board presently has juris-
diction and that this Board will not assume jurisdiction because the
few employees involved are not in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act and because it is possible that this
Board, if it asserted jurisdiction, would not certify it for a unit of
guards under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer, with its principal place of business at Philadel-
phia, is engaged in the business of furnishing plant protection services
to employers located in 28 States. The Employer is in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act and the Board, in
the past, has asserted jurisdiction over employers engaged in this
industry, including the Employer herein. Burns Detective Agency,
110 NLRB 995; Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., 90
NLRB 532; American Building Maintenance Co., Case No. 21-RC-
5918, not published in NLRB volumes, and 126 NLRB 185; Globe
Security Systems, Inc., Cases Nos. 14-CA-2628, 14-RC-4167, and
8-RC-4463, not published in NLRB volumes.
2. The current standard for assertion of jurisdiction over service
enterprises, such as the Employer, which fall within the Board's statu-
tory jurisdiction requires an annual minimum of $50,000 inflow or
outflow, direct or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81;
see also Globe Security Systems, Inc., supra; American Building and
Maintenance Co., supra. As indicated. above, the Board has taken
official notice of the jurisdictional facts of earlier proceedings in which
jurisdiction was asserted over the Employer. Such jurisdictional facts
are substantially like the jurisdictional allegations herein. Although
the Union has generally denied the jurisdictional facts herein, it has
not affirmatively offered or asserted any countervailing allegations.
Under these circiunstances, we rely upon the jurisdictional facts al-
leged herein that the Employer furnishes annually in excess of $50,000
guard -services to companies located outside of Pennsylvania as well
as in excess of $50,000 guard services to local Pennsylvania companies
whose operations satisfy the Board's direct outflow standard. Such-
services constitute direct and indirect outflow as those terms are de-
fined in Siemons Mailing Service, supra, at p. 85. Accordingly, the
Employer's commerce operations come within the Board's statutory
jurisdiction and meet the current Siemons standard for the assertion.
of jurisdiction.
OMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., !NC. 111
3. The possibility that the Union would not be certified for a unit
of guards under Section 9(b) (3) if the Union filed a representation
petition with this Board is addressed to the merits of such a petition
and not to whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer herein. Advisory opinions are rendered only on the jurisdic-
tional issue as presented by the facts submitted. This Board will not
presume to render an opinion on the merits of a case or whether the
subject matter of a dispute is governed by the Act. See Board's State-
ments of Procedure, Section 101.40, and American Linen Supply Co.,
et al., 128 NLRB 639, at p. 641.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised, under Section 102.103
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on
the facts here present, this Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
Oman Construction Co., Inc. and William H. Nelson . Case No.
26-CA-1141. May 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1962, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Re-
port attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the ex-
ceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on September 18, 1961 , by William H. Nelson , an individual,
the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Twenty-sixth
137 NLRB No. 14.