The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

W M. J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, ' c. 451
in establishing that the layoffs and the terminations were illegally motivated and it
will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in these respects.
As it does not appear that Barnes had knowledge of the Union at the time he
ordered a notice posted canceling the vacations, it will be recommended that this
allegation be dismissed as well.
In view of Barnes' admission that after he returned from his trip he discovered
what he had at the plant and that everyone lost raises, it is found as alleged that
the Company violated Section 8^(a)(3) of the Act by denying pay raises to Eakin
and Hill because of the self-organization of the employees.
3. The conduct affecting the results of the election
Under a Board order in Case No. 16-RC-2730, dated October 31, 1960, the Trial
Examiner was directed to resolve issues raised by a certain objection to conduct
affecting results of an election held August 26, by making findings of fact and
recommendations as to the disposition of the issues raised relating to conduct alleged
to have been engaged in by Roberts and Larkins a few days prior to the election.
As no evidence was introduced as to Larkins' and Roberts' conduct at the times
involved, it is recommended that this objection be overruled.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several Sates, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to pay raises as to R. J. Eakin and James Hill,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in section C, 1, the 'Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and •(7) of the Act.
5 The Respondent has not discriminated regarding vacations, layoffs, or dis-
charges as alleged.
6. The Respondent has not engaged in conduct affecting the results of the election
of August 26, 1960.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc. and
Independent Union of Plant Protection Employees . Case No.
2-IRC-11296. Noveiaber 17, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Harding, hearing
134 NLRB No. 36.
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 employees
of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner and the Watchmen's Union, both of which are inde-
pendent guard unions, seek an election in a unit composed of guards
employed by the Employer. The Employer and Local 238, which is
affiliated with an international union admitting to membership em-
ployees other than guards, contend that their current agreement should
bar an election at this time. Recognizing that this position is in conflict
with the present Board policy as announced in Columbia-Southern
Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 1189,2 the Intervenor requests the
Board to reverse the rule that a contract covering a unit of guards
only, entered into by a union affiliated with a nonguard union, cannot
operate to bar an election. For reasons hereinafter indicated, the
Board has decided to reconsider and reverse the contract-bar rule
enunciated in the Columbia-Southern decision.
Section 9(b) (3) of the Act performs two functions. First, it pre-
cludes the Board from finding any unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining if that unit contains both guard and nonguard
employees; second, it precludes the Board from certifying a labor or-
ganization as the representative of employees in a guard unit if such
labor organization admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or
indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, em-
ployees other than guards.
The distinction implicit in the language bears careful note. A unit
containing both guard and nonguard employees is inappropriate for
any purpose. Conversely, a unit composed exclusively of guard em-
ployees is appropriate. The only limitation in the latter instance is
that the labor organization representing such employees cannot be
"certified" if in other aspects of its operation it admits nonguard em-
ployees to membership or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an
organization which does so.3
'Security and Protective Employees Union, Local 238, Building Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 238), and International Guards' and
Watchmen's Union, Independent (herein called Watchmen's Union), intervened on the
basis of a current contract and showing of interest cards, respectively.
2 See also American Building Maintenance Co., 126 NLRB 185.
3 We do not read Senator Taft's statement referred to in the dissenting opinion herein,
as obliterating, or even as inconsistent with, the distinction which the Act explicitly
draws.
WM. J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. 453
In Colwm,bia-Southern, however, the Board held that a contract for
a unit of guards' would not at any time during its term bar a petition
for representation if the contracting union admitted to membership
or was affiliated directly or indirectly with a union which admitted to
membership employees other than guards. We are now of the view
that this holding exceeds the statutory requirement of Section 9 (b) (3)
and, indeed, frustrates the scheme of that section. Congress could
readily have declared a guard unit inappropriate if the representative
of that unit admitted nonguards to-membership or was a direct or in-
direct affiliate of a labor organization which did so. Congress did
not so declare, and the preceding statutory language covering the
"mixed guard unit" compels the conclusion that this omission in the
latter situation was deliberate. It follows, in our view, that a contract
unit comprised exclusively of guards is not invalidated merely because
the representative of that unit admits to membership,, or is affiliated
with an organization which admits to membership nonguard
employees.
Accordingly, we perceive no basis in the instant case for withhold-
ing the application of our normal contract-bar .rules. The applica-
tion of these rules is not contingent on a prior certification. So long
as there is a lawful exclusive bargaining agreement covering em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, the Board's contract-bar rules are
applicable.
No contention is made here that the unit in the instant case, com-
prised exclusively of guards, is inappropriate. Nor is any contention
made that the bargaining agreement is otherwise unlawful. Con-
trary to our decision in Columbia-Southern, we hold hgre-that the
statutory proscription in Section 9(b) (3) against certification of cer-
tain guard units does not preclude the application of the Board's
contract-bar rules to contracts covering such units. Accordingly, we
shall no longer apply the rule announced in the Columbia-Southern
case.
. The 2-year contract now in dispute does not expire until June 30,
1962.6 As the petition was filed herein on April 5, 1961, more than
,150 days before the termination date of the contract, we find that its
filing was untimely. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 We find that the employees in the unit involved herein are guards as defined in sec-
tion 9(b) (3) of the Act . William. J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., Case
No. 2-RC-10312, not published in NLRB volumes.
5 To the extent that Columbia -Southern , supra, and other prior cases are inconsistent
with our decision herein, they are hereby overruled.
$ The record shows that on March 18 , 1960 , an election was held in the unit involved
herein, on the petition of the Watchmen's Union, in Case No. 2-RC-10312. Local 238
did not appear on the ballot. After a majority of the voting employees voted "no union,"
Local 238 proved its continuing majority status to the Employer , and although its then
current contract had not expired , entered into a new 2-year contract now urged as a bar
to these proceedings. One year and eighteen days later, the instant petition was filed.
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
I am still of the view, subscribed to by a unanimous Board in the
Columbia-Southern case, supra, that it was the basic intent of Congress
that guards should not be represented by a union which, as here, is
affiliated with a nonguard union. As indicated in that case, Senator
Taft made it clear at the time the applicable provision of the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, was considered, that guards could
have the protection of the Act "only if they had a union separate and
apart from the union of the general employees." Accordingly, I
would, consistent with the Columbia-Southern, case, hold that the in-
stant contract covering a guard unit is not a bar and I would direct
an election.
Chrysler Corporation ( Mo-Par Building ) and International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , AFL-CIO
Chrysler Corporation : McKinstry Division and International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Chrysler Corporation: Parts Division (Stearns Building) and
International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 7-RC-787, 7-RC-1000, and 7-RC-132.2. November, 17, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1960, the International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Union), filed its motion to amend certifications. By
its motion, the Union seeks to add to the existing office clerical bargain-
ing unit at the Employer's Center Line facility certain other office
clerical employees who are also employed at the Center Line facility,
but who have heretofore been unrepresented.
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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The existing clerical unit at Center Line consists principally of em-
ployees from a number of formerly separate units for which the Union
had been certified or recognized. In R-2961 (1941) (36 NLRB 157),
the Union was certified for the office clerical employees at the Em-
ployer's Marysville parts depot. On May 15 and October 3, 1950, and
April 23, 1951, respectively, the Union was also certified for the office
clerical employees at the Employer's Mo-Par Building (Case No. 7-
134 NLRB No. 41.