Ogden Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 1218 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ogden Security, Inc. and Service Employees Interna-
tional Union, Local 531, AFL-CIO. Case AO-198
July 27, 1977
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
A petition and a brief in support thereof were filed
on May 25 and June 6, 1977, respectively, by Ogden
Security, Inc., herein called the Petitioner, for an
advisory opinion, in conformity with Sections 102.98
and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, seeking
to determine whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the Petitioner.
In pertinent part, the petition and brief allege as
follows:
1. There is pending before the Connecticut State
Board of Labor Relations, herein called the State
Board, a representation petition, docket number E-
3970, filed by Service Employees International
Union, Local 531, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, seeking to be certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Petitioner's employ-
ees who are employed as security guards at the
Plainfield Greyhound Track, Plainfield, Connecticut.
On April 27, 1977, the Petitioner filed a representa-
tion petition with the National Labor Relations
Board, Case I-RM-1009, which was dismissed on
the grounds that the operations of the Petitioner were
an integral part of the dogracing industry over which
the Board has declined to assert jurisdiction; I and
that the employees described in the petition were
guards and the Union involved therein admits to
membership, or is affiliated directly to indirectly with
an organization which admits to membership, em-
ployees other than guards. 2
2. The Petitioner, with a principal place of
business in Boston, Massachusetts, is an independent
contractor which furnishes security services to the
Plainfield Greyhound Track, located in Plainfield,
Connecticut. The Petitioner has an annual gross
volume of business in excess of $500,000, and the
annual value of products and materials received at
Petitioner's principal place of business from outside
I Under Sec. 103.3 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as
amended, the Board will not assert jurisdiction in any proceedings
"involving the horseracing and dogracing industries."
2 See Sec. 9(bX3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
On March 31, 1977, prior to the Petitioner's filing of the representation
petition noted above, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with
this Board against the Petitioner, Case I-CA-12946. The charge was
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in excess of
$50,000.
3. The Union neither admits nor denies the
aforesaid commerce data and the State Board has
made no findings with respect thereto.
4. There is no representation or unfair labor
practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute
pending before this Board.
5. Although served with a copy of this petition,
no response, as provided by the Board's Rules and
Regulations, has been filed by any of the parties.
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.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the
opinion that:
I. The Petitioner is an independent contractor
which furnishes security services to the Plainfield
Greyhound Track, located in Plainfield, Connecticut.
2. As related above, the Petitioner's representa-
tion petition and the Union's unfair labor practice
charge were each dismissed by this Board pursuant
to Section 103.3 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions and Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. The thrust of
Petitioner's petition and brief is to question the
policy underlying Section 103.3 of the Board's Rules
and raises the issue whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the Petitioner "if a representation
petition were filed [with the Board] by a labor
organization which does not admit to membership,
and is not affiliated directly or indirectly with a labor
organization which admits to membership, employ-
ees other than guards." The Board's advisory opinion
proceedings are designed primarily to determine
questions of jurisdiction by application of the
Board's discretionary monetary standards to the
"commerce" operations of an employer. 3 Reconsid-
eration of Board policy or of its rules or consider-
ation of hypothetical issues such as presented herein
with respect to Section 9(b)(3) do not fall within the
intendment of the Board's advisory opinion rules.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
It is hereby ordered that, for the reasons set forth
above, the petition for an advisory opinion herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
dismissed on the same grounds as the Petitioner's April 27 representation
petition, viz, Sec. 103.3 of the Board's Rules and Sec. 9(bX3) of the Act.
:' See fbolel Corporation, 223 NLRB 800 (1976); Pennsylvania Labor
Relations Board (George Junior Republic), 215 NLRB 323 (1974); Globe
Securitr Sy'stems, Inc., 209 NLRB 35 (1974); Robert C Coleman. er al., 180
NLRB 529 (1969); International Air Service Inc of San Juan, Puerto Rico,
165 NLRB 584 (1967).
1218