UGSOA - 220 CSO's IN WASHINGTON D.C FILE AN ELECTION TO DECERTIFY ( DUMP ) UGSOA

NLRB RULES SPFPA CAN REPRESENT 220 UGSOA COURT SECURITY OFFICERS IN WASHINGTON D.C. <!--break--> JULY 1 2005 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION FIVE MVM, INCORPORATED Employer and Case 5-RC-15873 INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY, POLICE & FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA (SPFPA) Petitioner and UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 80 Intervenor Decision and Direction of Election ISSUES Two issues are raised by the Intervenor in this proceeding: (1) whether the petition, filed on June 1, 2005, is barred by the existing collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor which, by its terms, is effective from July 31, 2002 until midnight on September 30, 2005; and (2) whether Petitioner is disqualified from representing the petitioned-for unit of court of court security officers and special security officers by virtue of Petitioner’s continuing representation, at the same locations of lead court security officers and lead special security officers all, of whom the Intervenor alleges to be supervisors.[1] CONCLUSIONS For the reasons that follow in this decision, and after careful consideration of the totality of the record evidence and the Petitioner’s and Intervenor’s respective factual and legal positions as stated in their post-hearing briefs, I find: (1) the petition was timely filed; and (2) the Intervenor has not met its burden of proof establishing that the lead security officers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Parties stipulated that in the event an election is directed the appropriate unit for the election is as follows: All full-time and regular shared position United States Marshal Service credentialed court security officers and special security officers assigned to the federal court houses and other United States Justice Department office buildings pursuant to the Employer’s contract with the United States Marshal Service for security within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 12th Circuit, but excluding all managers, supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act, office and/or clerical employees, lead court security officers or lead special security officers, temporarily assigned employees and substitute employees.[3] There are approximately 220 employees in the petitioned for unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION The National Labor Relations Board will conduct a secret ballot election among the employees in the unit found appropriate above. The employees will vote whether or not they wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY, POLICE & FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA (SPFPA) or UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 80 or NEITHER. The date, time, and place of the election will be specified in the notice of election that the Board’s Regional Office will issue subsequent to this Decision. [1] For the purposes of this case, the difference between court security officers and special security officers is immaterial. The difference is one of assignment: if a security officer is assigned to a courthouse, he is a court security officer; if a security officer is assigned to a non-courthouse site, he is a special security officer. Because the distinction is immaterial, lead court security officers and lead special security officers will both be referred to as “lead” and court security officers and special security officers will be referred to as “security officers.” [2] I have read and reviewed the record evidence, exhibits, Petitioner’s and Intervenor’s briefs and the cited case law carefully. My omission of other specific and relevant pieces of evidence or case law from my analyses in this Decision and Direction of Election should not be taken, nor construed as, an indication that I have not considered it in reaching my findings and conclusions. [3] The parties stipulated at the hearing that the sites involved herein are the U.S. Marshal’s office, main building; U.S. Attorney’s office, main building; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. Court of Appeals; U.S. Court of Claims; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Federal Drug Czar’s office; U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces; U.S. Court of Veteran Appeals; and an undisclosed safe house in the jurisdiction used by the U.S. Marshal Service. Dated: July 1, 2005 /s/WAYNE R. GOLD _____________________________________ Wayne R. Gold, Regional Director National Labor Relations Board, Region 5 103 S. Gay Street, 8th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Want to Know Whats Really Going on at UGSOA? Visit This Website Eye on UGSOA http://www.hm.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7213

<p>NLRB RULES SPFPA CAN REPRESENT 220 UGSOA COURT SECURITY OFFICERS IN WASHINGTON D.C.</p> <!--break--><p>JULY 1 2005</p> <p>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</p> <p>NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD</p> <p>REGION FIVE</p> <p>MVM, INCORPORATED</p> <p> Employer</p> <p>and Case 5-RC-15873</p> <p>INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY,</p> <p>POLICE &amp; FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF</p> <p>AMERICA (SPFPA)</p> <p> Petitioner</p> <p>and</p> <p>UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY<br /> OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 80</p> <p> Intervenor</p> <p>Decision and Direction of Election</p> <p> ISSUES</p> <p> Two issues are raised by the Intervenor in this proceeding: (1) whether the petition, filed on June 1, 2005, is barred by the existing collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor which, by its terms, is effective from July 31, 2002 until midnight on September 30, 2005; and (2) whether Petitioner is disqualified from representing the petitioned-for unit of court of court security officers and special security officers by virtue of Petitioner’s continuing representation, at the same locations of lead court security officers and lead special security officers all, of whom the Intervenor alleges to be supervisors.[1]</p> <p> CONCLUSIONS</p> <p> For the reasons that follow in this decision, and after careful consideration of the totality of the record evidence and the Petitioner’s and Intervenor’s respective factual and legal positions as stated in their post-hearing briefs, I find: (1) the petition was timely filed; and (2) the Intervenor has not met its burden of proof establishing that the lead security officers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. </p> <p> The Parties stipulated that in the event an election is directed the appropriate unit for the election is as follows:</p> <p> All full-time and regular shared position United States Marshal</p> <p> Service credentialed court security officers and special security </p> <p> officers assigned to the federal court houses and other United </p> <p> States Justice Department office buildings pursuant to the </p> <p> Employer’s contract with the United States Marshal Service for </p> <p> security within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 12th Circuit, </p> <p> but excluding all managers, supervisors as defined by the National </p> <p> Labor Relations Act, office and/or clerical employees, lead court </p> <p> security officers or lead special security officers, temporarily </p> <p> assigned employees and substitute employees.[3]</p> <p> There are approximately 220 employees in the petitioned for unit.</p> <p>DIRECTION OF ELECTION</p> <p>The National Labor Relations Board will conduct a secret ballot election among the employees in the unit found appropriate above. The employees will vote whether or not they wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY, POLICE &amp; FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA (SPFPA) or UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 80 or NEITHER. The date, time, and place of the election will be specified in the notice of election that the Board’s Regional Office will issue subsequent to this Decision.</p> <p> [1] For the purposes of this case, the difference between court security officers and special security officers is immaterial. The difference is one of assignment: if a security officer is assigned to a courthouse, he is a court security officer; if a security officer is assigned to a non-courthouse site, he is a special security officer. Because the distinction is immaterial, lead court security officers and lead special security officers will both be referred to as “lead” and court security officers and special security officers will be referred to as “security officers.” </p> <p>[2] I have read and reviewed the record evidence, exhibits, Petitioner’s and Intervenor’s briefs and the cited case law carefully. My omission of other specific and relevant pieces of evidence or case law from my analyses in this Decision and Direction of Election should not be taken, nor construed as, an indication that I have not considered it in reaching my findings and conclusions.</p> <p>[3] The parties stipulated at the hearing that the sites involved herein are the U.S. Marshal’s office, main building; U.S. Attorney’s office, main building; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. Court of Appeals; U.S. Court of Claims; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Federal Drug Czar’s office; U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces; U.S. Court of Veteran Appeals; and an undisclosed safe house in the jurisdiction used by the U.S. Marshal Service.</p> <p>Dated: July 1, 2005</p> <p> /s/WAYNE R. GOLD</p> <p>_____________________________________</p> <p>Wayne R. Gold, Regional Director </p> <p>National Labor Relations Board, Region 5</p> <p>103 S. Gay Street, 8th Floor</p> <p>Baltimore, MD 21202</p> <p>Want to Know Whats Really Going on at UGSOA? Visit This Website Eye on UGSOA</p> <p><a href="http://www.hm.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7213">http://www.hm.indymedia.org/newswire/display/7213</a></p>