Renaissance Center Partnership

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1247 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

RENAISSANCE CENTER PARTNERSHIP
Renaissance Center Partnership, Petitioner-Employer
and International Union, United Plant Guard
Workers of America (UPGWA), Petitioner-Union.
Cases 7-RM-1127 and 7-UC-152
January 8, 1979
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
The Employer, Renaissance Center Partnership,
owns and manages the Renaissance Center, a com-
mercial development in downtown Detroit, Michi-
gan. The development includes four office towers,
numerous retail establishments. restaurants, parking
facilities, and the Detroit Plaza Hotel. On September
13, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 7 certified
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative
for all full-time and regular part-time security offi-
cers and guards employed by the Employer at the
Renaissance Center. The certified unit did not in-
clude security personnel employed by the Detroit
Plaza Hotel. Those persons have never been orga-
nized.
Early in 1978, the Employer and the Detroit Plaza
Hotel agreed that a single security force would be
more efficient, and consequently, on April 1, 1978,
the two groups were consolidated. The former hotel
security officers, as a result of the consolidation
agreement, are now employees of the Employer.2
They have been credited for their service at the hotel.
The Union seeks to clarify the existing bargaining
unit, which includes approximately 59 employees, to
include the approximately 67 former hotel security
officers and guards. The Employer contends that the
consolidation has affected the continuing representa-
tive status of the Union and that an election is neces-
sary to determine whether the former hotel employ-
ees desire representation. The Regional Director for
Region 7 issued a decision in this matter on May 8,
1978, in which he concluded that the former hotel
employees were an accretion to the existing certified
bargaining unit and that, accordingly, no question
concerning representation exists. He dismissed the
Employer's petition and clarified the certified unit.
The Employer, thereafter, in accordance with Section
I The Union and the Employer have been unable to conclude a collective-
bargaining agreement since certification.
The Regional Director notes in his decision that the consolidation mat
have resulted from the Employer's purchase of the hotel property We have
been unable to find any reference in the record to such a purchase hut
consider this information irrelevant to the proper resolution of the Issue
before us.
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, filed a request for review of the
Regional Director's decision. The Union filed an op-
position statement.
On June 28, 1978, the National Labor Relations
Board granted the request for review. The Employer
has filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
We disagree with the Regional Director's determi-
nation that the former hotel employees, under the
circumstances of this case, can be accreted to the
certified bargaining unit. Instead, we find that the
certified unit is no longer appropriate and that the
continuing representative status of the Union can be
resolved only by means of an election among all non-
supervisory security officers and guards employed by
the Employer at the Renaissance Center.
Prior to the April I consolidation, the two security
forces were readily distinguishable. Each was sepa-
rately supervised; each was responsible for a desig-
nated section of the complex; and each wore distinct
uniforms. Since the consolidation, the two groups
can no longer be separately identified. Now all secur-
ity officers are commonly supervised, enjoy identical
terms and conditions of employment, are randomly
assigned to sections of the complex,3 regularly inter-
act, perform identical duties, and wear identical uni-
forms.4 Simply put, the former hotel security employ-
ees and the members of the certified unit are now
indistinguishable.
The accretion doctrine ordinarily applies to new
employees who have common interests with mem-
bers of an existing bargaining unit and who would
have been included in the certified unit or are cov-
ered by a current collective-bargaining agreement. A
number of the factors which the Board considers
necessary for an accretion are present in this case.5
But the Board is cautious in making such a finding,
particularly when the accreted group numerically ov-
ershadows the existing certified unit, because it
would deprive the larger group of employees of their
3 The joinder has, of course, required the Employer to extend its security
services to the hotel. and consequently a new organizational configuration
has been formulated. The complex has been divided into six sectors. Each
sector is separatel) supervised Sector supervisors report to an assistant chief
who in turn reports to a chief Chiefs report to two deputy directors of
security. The deputies report to a director of security, and at the top of the
administrative pyramid Is a manager of security services.
4 Some of the officers are pros ided traditional police style uniforms and
others a blazer and slacks rhe kind of clothing depends on the officer's
particular assignment within the complex Where high visibility is required.
for example. nonsupersisors security personnel generally will he provided
wit h police sit le uniforms
See Brian In/tnts Wear ('ranpans. 235 NLIRB 1305 (1978)
1247
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statutory right to select their own bargaining repre-
sentative. 6 This right is a fundamental precept of the
Act, and we believe the Regional Director's decision
improperly discounts its significance. The number of
employees the Union desires to add to the certified
unit exceeds the number currently included in that
unit. The Union is thus seeking to resolve the status
of the former hotel security officers without provid-
ing them an opportunity to express their desires re-
garding representation.
The Union further argues that the certification-
year doctrine precludes the holding of an election at
this time and demands both that its continuing ma-
jority status be presumed and that the Employer's
petition be dismissed. The certification-year rule re-
quires a certified union's majority status to be honor-
ed for I year, and petitions filed during this time
period will usually be barred. The rule, however, is
clearly not without limited exceptions. The Board,
for example, will entertain a petition during the certi-
fication year when there occurs a radical fluctuation
in the size of the bargaining unit within a short pe-
riod of time and consequently the majority status of
the certified representative can no longer reasonably
be presumed.7 The consolidation of the two groups
has precipitously increased the size of the Employer's
security force and has completely obscured the sepa-
6 Worcester Stamped Metal Company, 146 NLRB 1683 (1964); Vincent
Price Laboratories, Inc., 220 NLRB 1387 (1975).
Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, 38 NLRB 404. 409
(1942); see also Ray Brooks v. N.LR.B., 348 U.S. 96 (1954).
rate identity of the certified bargaining unit which
existed prior to the consolidation. It is the kind of
unusual circumstance which justifies an exception to
the certification-year rule.
We therefore find that the Regional Director's de-
cision finding an accretion improperly disenfranchis-
es the former hotel employees and that the certified
unit is no longer appropriate because of the merger
of the two security groups and resultant intermixing
of the represented and the larger unrepresented work
forces. Rather, only the overall security force of the
Employer is now appropriate. Because the Union
claims to represent all of the Employer's guards and
security officers, a question concerning representa-
tion exists in the overall unit. We therefore order that
the Union's clarification petition be dismissed and
that the Employer's petition be reinstated.
Accordingly, an election among the following em-
ployees of the Employer must be conducted to de-
termine whether or not a majority desires representa-
tion by the Union:
All full-time and regular part-time security offi-
cers and guards employed by the Employer at
the Renaissance Center (including the Detroit
Plaza Hotel), but excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, tower supervisors, shift
supervisors, area supervisors, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
1248