Local 851, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 732 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Local 851, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 732 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bellagio, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (cadc, 2017-07-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Bellagio, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Servs., 278 NLRB at 569, we will disturb the Board’s determination only if it is “[un]supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,” 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e), (f); see Local 851, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 43 , 44 (2d Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807 v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Local 851 v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.1984) (per cu-riam) (armored car guards are “guards” for § 9(b)(3) purposes).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807 v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Local 851 v. NLRB, 732 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam) (armored car guards are "guards" for Sec. 9(b)(3) purposes). 59 For these reasons I would be guided by the Court's statement in NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 691 , 100 S.Ct. 856, 867 , 63 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), that although "we accord great respect to the expertise of the Board when its conclusions are rationally based on articulated facts and consistent with the Act ... [i]n this case ... the Board's decision satisfied neither criterion." As in American Shipbuilding Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300, 318 , 85 S.Ct. 955, 967 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent
v.
National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, Purolator Courier Corporation, Intervenor
1072.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 13, 1984.
732 F.2d 43
Published

732 F.2d 43

116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2386, 100 Lab.Cas. P 10,982

LOCAL 851, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner,
Purolator Courier Corporation, Intervenor.

Nos. 1072, 1026, Dockets 83-4219, 84-4019.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 9, 1984.
Decided April 13, 1984.

Stephen H. Kahn, New York City, for petitioner-cross-respondent.

David A. Fleischer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliot Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent-cross-petitioner.

Arnold E. Perl, Memphis, Tenn. (Richard M. Kobdish, Young & Pearl, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel), for intervenor.

Robert M. Baptiste, Wilma B. Liebman, Washington, D.C., for Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, amicus curiae.

O'Connor & Mangan, Long Island City, N.Y., for Truck Drivers Local 807, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, amicus curiae.

Elarbee, Thompson & Trapnell, Atlanta, Ga. (Robert L. Thompson, Brent L. Wilson, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel), for Pony Express Courier Corp., amicus curiae.

Before TIMBERS and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and METZNER, District judge[*].

PER CURIAM:

1

At issue is the board's determination that Purolator Courier's driver-employees are "guards" within the meaning of Sec. 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(b)(3). If they are, then Local 851 cannot admit them to membership along with its nonguard members without being barred from certification as a bargaining representative of the guards. The union contends that the board's interpretation of Sec. 9(b)(3) contravenes both the legislative history and purpose of that statute, because the Purolator employees do not "guard" any property, but are merely truck drivers employed by Purolator. The board and Purolator contend that the drivers are "guards" because, although unarmed, they wear uniforms, are entrusted with a wide variety of valuable commodities ranging from cash letters to controlled drugs and radioactive pharmaceuticals, are bonded and subjected to security clearance, are often given keys to the premises and security vaults of customers, are held responsible for the safekeeping of packages in their vehicles, and are required to insure that their entry or departure does not impair the security of customers' premises.

2

We are satisfied that the board's finding that the subject employees are "guards" is supported by substantial evidence, and that the board's consistent interpretation for thirty years of the statutory term to encompass more than "plant guards" comports with the statutory language and the legislative history. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 344 v. National Labor Relations Board, 568 F.2d 12, 15-16 (7th Cir.1978); Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 71 v. National Labor Relations Board, 553 F.2d 1368, 1372-74 (D.C.Cir.1977).

3

Accordingly, the petition to review is denied, and the cross-petition for enforcement is granted.

*

Hon. Charles M. Metzner, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation