Security Guard Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SECURITY GUARD SERVICE, INC. 33
No response to the notice to show cause was thereafter filed with the
Board. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the notice, we
shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Security Guard Service, Inc ., Petitioner and Gus Rallis. Case
No. ^?8-UC-1. July 27,1965
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND AMENDMENT OF CERTIFIED UNIT
On September 17, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 28 certi-
fied Gus Rallis as exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of
all guards employed by the Employer at the NASA site at Organ,
New Mexico, excluding office clerical employees and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.1 There-
after, on January 15, 1965, the Employer filed a petition for unit
clarification and amendment of certification in which it requests the
National Labor Relations Board to exclude shift supervisors or ser-
geants from the previously certified bargaining unit on the ground
that events since the aforementioned certification show them to be
supervisors as defined in the Act.
A hearing was held upon the instant petition before Hearing Officer
L. L. Porterfield on February 8, 1965. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer
filed a brief which has been duly considered.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The supervisory status of the Employer's shift supervisors or ser-
geants was one of the principal issues litigated in the representation
proceeding in Case No. 28-RC-1211. In that proceeding, the Em-
ployer took the position that sergeants should be excluded from the
unit as supervisors, whereas the Petitioner contended they should be
included as rank-and-file employees. In the Decision and Direction
of Election in that case, issued August 19, 1964, the Regional Director
determined that sergeants were not supervisors within the meaning of
1 Case No . 28-RC-1211.
154 NLRB No. 5.
206-446-66-vol. 154-4
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act and they accordingly were included in the unit. The Em-
ployer did not request review of the Decision and the Petitioner was
certified as exclusive representative of the employees in the unit de-
scribed above.
On September 2, 1965, the Regional Director issued a complaint
alleging a violation of Section 8(a) (3) arising out of the discharge
of one of the Employer's sergeants.2 The Employer defended on the
ground that the sergeant admittedly discharged for union activity,
was a supervisor rather than an employee under the Act. The hear-
ing before the Trial Examiner was conducted on December 10 and 11,
1964, and the petition herein was filed on January 15, 1965. At the
hearing in this proceeding, the Employer introduced in evidence the
transcript of testimony in the unfair labor practice proceeding for
the purpose of showing the duties and responsibilities of shift super-
visors. It thus appears that both cases present the issue of the super-
visory status of guard sergeants.
On March 10, 1965, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in Case No. 28-CA-1091 in which he found that shift super-
visors or sergeants, such as the Charging Party involved therein,
were not supervisors as defined in the Act. As of this date, we are
adopting the carefully considered conclusions of Trial Examiner
Spencer in that case which are set forth in detail in his Decision.'
And upon consideration of the entire record in this case, we have
reached the conclusion, consistent with that arrived at in the unfair
labor practice proceeding, that shift supervisors or sergeants are not
supervisors as defined in the Act and should not be excluded from
the certified unit. We shall accordingly deny the Petition for Clarifi-
cation and Amendment of Certification.
[The Board denied the petition for unit clarification.]
2 Case No. 28-CA-1091.
3 Security Guard Service, Inc., 154 NLRB 8.
RCA Communications, Inc. and Operating Engineers Local Union
No. 3 International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-6313. July 27,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William F.
Roche. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
154 NLRB No. 2.