|RETAIL AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES|||||CASE NO. 280|
|UNION, LOCAL 1015, AFL-CIO,||||
|v.|||||OPINION AND ORDER|
|METROPOLITAN TECHNICAL COMMUNITY||||
|COLLEGE AREA, a division of the||||
|State of Nebraska,||||
For the Petitioner: William Stillmock
For the Respondent: Robert Cannella
Before: Judges Wall, Kratz & Green.
This case brings before us the request of Local 1015, Retail and Professional Employees Union, for an election after determination of the appropriate unit, among office clerical employees employed by the respondent. We find that we have jurisdiction of the parties and of the dispute.
Petitioner already represents, by virtue of an election and certification in our case number 255, a unit of guards and security personnel on respondent's campus. We have previously held units of police, guard, or security officers to have a separate community of interest from other employees of the same employer. University Police Officers Union v. University of Nebraska, 3 CIR 223/237, 3 CIR Adv. 335 (1977). The Supreme Court has also previously upheld our determination not to permit units with natural conflicts of interest to be represented by monolithic units. NAPE v. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 3 CIR 137-1, 3 CIR Adv. 83, aff'd. 197 Neb. 178, 247 N.W. 2d 319 (1976). The same conflict of interest presents itself here between security and regular personnel as between supervisors and line employees.
Petitioner's counsel has made a commendable attempt to show bargaining unit autonomy within the local union. We read the Local By-Laws and the Constitution of the International Union to permit or require the overriding of that alleged autonomy in a sufficient number of instances that the conflict of interest would continue if representation by the same local union were permitted.
ORDERED, that respondent's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is denied, that respondent's Motion to Dismiss issustained, and the Petition is dismissed.