X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order compelling respondent, Superior Protection, Inc., to bargain with United Government Security Officers of America, Local 229. HOLDING:Enforcement granted. Superior contends that enforcement should be denied on the sole ground that the collective bargaining unit certified by the NLRB improperly accreted employees hired after the representation election into the certified bargaining unit without the benefit of an election, thus improperly assigning to the accreted employees the certified unit’s choice of bargaining representative. The court finds there is no basis in the record warranting the conclusion that the union is attempting to accrete the new employees at the additional facilities to the certified unit. To the contrary, while the representation petition was pending before the NLRB, the union filed a separate representation petition seeking to be certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the new employees at the additional facilities as a separate and distinct bargaining unit. In fact, the union’s representation petition expressly classified the scope of the proposed unit as including “[a]ll sites other than locations in” the instant representation proceeding. Because the union has not sought to accrete the new employees into the existing unit, Superior’s reliance on Renaissance Ctr. P’ship, 239 N.L.R.B. 1247 (1979), and evidence of an alleged merger between the two groups of employees is misplaced. In Renaissance, the Board dismissed a union’s clarification petition that sought to accrete a numerically larger group of new employees to an existing bargaining unit, even though the evidence revealed that the two groups of employees merged and had become indistinguishable. Here, however, the union is not seeking to clarify the confines of the existing unit by accreting new employees in light of evidence of employee merger or consolidation, but instead is seeking to treat the new employees as a separate bargaining unit. The court rejects Superior’s contention that the new employees at the additional GSA facilities will automatically be accreted to the existing unit as a consequence of the unit certified by the NLRB. Superior is no doubt correct that the certified unit includes on its face all security employees staffing GSA facilities in the three-county area, the court states. But, contrary to Superior’s assertions, this does not mean that the new employees at the additional facilities have been, or necessarily will be, accreted to the certified unit: “[T]he Board . . . does not automatically accrete employees at a new [facility] solely because the unit description includes all the employer’s [facilities], present and future, in a geographic area . . . .” Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 310 N.L.R.B. 844 (1993). Indeed, as the substantive law regarding accretion indicates, a finding of accretion is far from automatic: The NLRB will permit an accretion only in the small class of cases warranting a finding that the new employees cannot be considered a separate appropriate unit and that they share an overwhelming community of interest with the pre-existing unit. This case does present some circumstances that would militate in favor of a finding of accretion by the NLRB, the court states, such as the fact that the new employees were acquired after the unit determination but likely would have been included in the certified unit if they had been present earlier. In rejecting Superior’s accretion argument, the NLRB recognized that “accretion would be inappropriate if the employees at the additional facilities numerically overshadow the employees that existed at the time of the election.” Thus, should the union alter its current course and eventually seek to accrete the new employees to the existing unit, Superior can raise this numerical objection among others in that proceeding. OPINION:Jerry E. Smith, J.; Davis, Smith and Dennis, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.