Watchmanitors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 903 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

WATCHMANITORS, INC. 903
C. The nature of the dispute; applicability of the 8tatute-
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of a dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated.
In order to conclude that reasonable cause exists, the Board must
find some evidence in the record showing that : (a) A strike or a
concerted refusal, or an inducement or encouragement of employees to
.engage in a strike or concerted refusal to perform services for any
.employer occurred; and (b) any such action was for the purpose of
forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to em-
ployees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade,
,craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization
or in another trade, craft, or class.
The evidence is clear that Rafel at all times has desired and wanted
to employ Local 9 men, and it was only because of Local 9s persistent
refusal to refer men that Rafel resorted to other sources for needed
help. At no time has Local 9 indicated that if Rafel discharged its
employees it would furnish replacements, although Rafel has clearly
indicated its willingness to take such action. Under these circum-
stances, it can hardly be said that Local 9 sought to force Rafel to
assign work to its members or employees approved or cleared by Local
..9 rather than to other persons. Rather, Local 9 asserts various reasons
for its refusal, which relate primarily to the alleged character of
Rafel and its alleged failure to meet the Local's working standards.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the dispute in this
case is not over the assignment of work within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (D). It is therefore not a dispute within the meaning of
Section 10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notices of hearing.
.[The Board quashed the notices of hearing.]
Watchmanitors, Inc. and Independent Union of Plant Protection
Employees, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5939. August 24,1960
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 John. R. Coleman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
.from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
128 NLRB No. 98.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record' in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer 2
3. The Petitioner filed a petition on March 7, 1960, seeking an
election in a unit of guards. The Employer and the Intervenor, Local
254, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
contend that their collective-bargaining agreement, effective from
July 1, 1959, to July 1, 1961, covering all service and maintenance
employees of the Employer including the employees found herein
below to be guards, constitutes a bar to the petition. As the Inter-
venor admits to membership employees other than guards, and its
contract encompasses employees other than guards, we find that its
contract with the Employer is not a bar to an election in a unit of
guards .3
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct4
4. The Employer sells a combination watchman and janitor serv-
ice to banks, industrial plants, and office buildings in and around
Boston.
The Employer's employees sought to be represented by Petitioner
spend 10 to 90 percent of their time actively engaged in guard duties
such as patrolling and checking entrances of buildings in which they
are employed. During the entire time they are on duty they are re-
sponsible for the safety of the building and its contents, and are
required to report to the police any threat to the customer's property.
Some of these employees may wear uniforms or carry firearms, or
both. The employees spend that part of their time not spent in guard
duties, in general maintenance duties. On these facts, we find that
1 Following the close of the hearing the Employer stipulated additional commerce facts.
2 The Employer declined to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization. The
record shows that the Petitioner is an independent organization which admits to member-
ship only employees who perform guard duties , and that it represents such employees in
collective bargaining. We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) and that it is qualified under Section 9(b) (3) to represent the
guard unit petitioned for.
Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, was permitted
to intervene on the basis of its contract with the Employer covering the employees
involved.
8 Columbia -Southern Chemical Corporation , 110 NLRB 1189
* At the hearing the Employer challenged the Petitioner 's showing of interest on the
ground that its authorization cards had been procured through misrepresentation The
hearing officer properly refused to permit this contention to be litigated and informed the
Employer that any evidence in its possession supporting its contention should be sub-
mitted to the Regional Director within 5 working days after the close of the hearing.
No such evidence has been submitted . We are administratively satisfied that the Peti-
tioner has an adequate showing of interest in the unit found appropriate herein.
0. D Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516.
REMBRANDT LAMP CORPORATION 905
employees sought are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3)
of the Act.-'
The Petitioner would exclude six other employees who are engaged
full time in the performance of janitorial services on customers'
premises. Although these six employees are expected to take "some
action" if they observe a fire or break-in, the latter obligation appears
to be only incidental to their main duty of providing janitor service
8 hours a day. We therefore find, contrary to the Intervenor, that
these employees are not guards, and we exclude them from the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All regular full-time
and part-time I guards employed in and around Boston, Massachu-
setts, excluding employees engaged solely in janitorial duties, office
clerical employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 See American Building Maintenance Co., 126 NLRB 185; Laundry Owners Association
of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543 , 546; Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation,
106 NLRB 1383 . We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that its employees do
not fall within the Section 9 ( b) (3) definition of "guards" because they do not protect
the property of their own employer or enforce rules against their fellow employees. It is
well established that Section 9(b) (3) applies to those employees who protect property
belonging, not to their own employer , but, as here, to customers of their employer. See
Armored Motor Service Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 1139; N.L R B . v. American District
Telegraph Co. of Pa, 205 F. 2d 86 (CA. 3).
e McDonnel Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 967, 969.
As the parties do not agree on a formula with respect to the inclusion of part-time
employees , we shall, in accord with customary Board practice , include all regular part-
time employees in the unit.
Rembrandt Lamp Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW, AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7110.
August 04, 1960
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 Robert L. McCabe, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
128 NLRB No. 104.