Local 32E, Service Employees International Union, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 786 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

786 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 32E, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Wackenhut Corpora-
tion. Case AO-275
June 14, 1990
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
Pursuant to Sections 102.98(a) and 102.99 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, on March 27 and April 19, 1990, Local 32E,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
(the Union) filed a petition and supporting brief, re-
spectively, requesting an advisory opinion whether
the Board would assert jurisdiction. In pertinent
part, the petition and brief allege as follows:
1. A decertification petition, Case 29-RD-654, is
currently pending before the Board's Regional
Office which seeks to decertify the Union as repre-
sentative of a unit of security officers employed by
Wackenhut Corporation (the Employer) at the Aq-
ueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga Race Tracks in
Ozone Park, Elmont, and Saratoga Springs, New
York.
2. The Employer provides security services at
the aforementioned racetracks pursuant to a con-
tract with the New York Racing Association.
3. The Regional Office has not yet made any
findings in the decertification proceeding with re-
spect to the Employer's commerce operations.
Upon information and belief, however, the Union
denies that the Employer meets the Board's com-
merce standards.
On April 4, 1990, the Regional Director for
Region 29 filed a motion to intervene in opposition
to the Union's petition for advisory opinion. The
Regional Director notes that a hearing has already
been held in the pending decertification proceeding
and that a full record had been developed on the
jurisdictional issue.
Having duly considered the matter,' we deny
the Union's request for an advisory opinion. We do
so for three reasons. First, there is no proceeding
alleged to be pending before any state agency or
court that would make such an immediate jurisdic-
tional opinion necessary.2 Second, as alleged in the
petition and confirmed in the Regional Director's
motion to intervene, there is a statutory representa-
tion proceeding pending before the Board's Re-
gional Office in which all jurisdictional issues may
be resolved.3 Third, although the Union denies that
the Employer satisfies our commerce standards, it
is clear from the other allegations and arguments in
its petition and brief that the primary issue on
which the Union seeks a determination is whether
the Employer is within the horseracing-industry ex-
emption4-an issue which is beyond the scope of
the Board's advisory opinion proceedings under
Section 102.98(a).5 We find that any one of these
three reasons, by itself, is sufficient to warrant
denial of the Union's request.
Accordingly, it is ordered that, for the reasons
set forth above, the petition for advisory opinion is
dismissed.
1 We grant the Regional Director's motion to intervene
2 See J. G. Coward, Jr. Ditching Service, 139 NLRB 351 (1962), and
Sec. 102 .98 (a) of the Board's Rules
2 See Humboldt General Hospital, 297 NLRB 258 (1989)
4 See Sec 103 3 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
5 See Pari-Mutuel Clerks Local Union 328 (Jefferson Downs), 267 NLRB
174 (1983).
298 NLRB No. 115