American Building Maintenance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 185 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. 185
American Building Maintenance Co. and American Federation
of Guards, Local 1 (Ind.), Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5918.
January 18, 1960
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On October 7, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled case, ' finding the Employer's contract with the Inter-
venor, Building Service Employees International Union, Local 193,
to be a bar, and dismissing the petition. On October 12, the Peti-
tioner filed a petition for reconsideration and thereafter the Inter-
venor filed a reply in opposition.2
Upon reconsideration of this case, the petition for reconsideration,
the Intervenor's reply, and the entire record herein, we make the
following findings :
The Petitioner urges (a contention first raised in its petition for
reconsideration) that, on the basis of the Board's holding in Columbia-
Southern Chemical Corporation,' the Employer's contract with the
Intervenor cannot bar an election. The Board there found that a
contract governing a guard unit composed of guards within the mean-
ing of the Act 4 was not a bar where the recognized union admitted to
membership employees other than guards, or was affiliated directly
or indirectly with unions which admit to membership employees other
than guards. The record in the instant case shows that the employees
sought man public gates, check identity, and direct parking. Al-
though they do not carry guns, they are uniformed and, according to
section 6 of the above contract they have the regular duty of guarding
personal and private property. Accordingly, we find these employees
are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3) of the Act: In
light of the Employer's testimony that it has contracts with other
locals of the Intervenor's International covering window cleaners,
janitors, and other nonguard employees, we also find that the Inter-
venor is indirectly affiliated with locals which admit to membership
employees other than guards. In these circumstances, we find that the
contract is not a bar, and that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of these employees within the meaning
of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Unpublished.
2 The Board ' s Decision and Order of October 7, 1959, also dismissed the petition for an
election as to CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc , which had been named in that
petition as an employer . The petition for reconsideration does not question the dis-
missal as to CBS, and we adhere to that Decision and Order in this regard.
8 Columbsa-Southern Chemical Corporation , 110 NLRB 1189, 1190.
4 Section 9 ( b) (3) defines a guard as one who "enforce ( s) against employees and other
persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on
the employer 's premises."
126 NLRB No. 26.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer herein furnishes building maintenance, guard, and
watchman service under contract for a number of employers, including
CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., a radio and television
network facility located in Los Angeles, California, and herein re-
ferred to as CBS. The Petitioner seeks to represent all of the Employ-
er's guards employed at CBS while the Employer and the Intervenor
take the position that their existing contract unit covering "all em-
ployees under the jurisdiction of Local 193" is appropriate. The con-
tract does not describe the Intervenor's jurisdiction in terms of geo-
graphical scope or employees covered, nor is there any record indica-
tion as to the extent of the Intervenor's jurisdiction.
The Employer furnishes about 16 guards plus supervisory personnel
who are specifically hired to work at CBS and who are not inter-
changed among guards working at different plants under contract
with the Employer. In these circumstances, as there is no interchange
among the Employer's guards, and as a larger unit indefinite in scope
and based solely on the extent of the Intervenor's organization is
clearly inappropriate, we conclude that a unit of guards at the CBS
facility is appropriate.'
Accordingly, we find that all guards and watchmen, including lead
guards, employed by the Employer in its guard and watchman service
operation located at the CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.,
Los Angeles, California, broadcasting and television network facility,
excluding the guard supervisor and all other employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
There remains for consideration the question as to whether the
Intervenor should be placed on the ballot. As noted in Columbia-
Southern, supra, Congress did not intend that guards should be repre-
sented by unions which are affiliated directly or indirectly with unions
which admit to membership employees other than guards. In further-
ance of this basic intent and as the Intervenor could not in any case be
certified as the representative of the employees involved,' we will not
place its name on the ballot.
[The Board vacated the Decision and Order in Case No. 21-RC-
5918, dated October 7, 1959, except insofar as it dismissed the petition
as to CBS-Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
5 Burns Detective Agency, 110 NLRB 995, 996 ; Endicott Johnson Corporation, 117
NLRB 1886, 1890.
9 Brookipn Piers, Inc., 88 NLRB 1364 , at footnote 3.