National Detective Agencies, Inc., of Washington, DC, provided security officers to various clients in the District of Columbia. Among these clients was the Inter-American Development Bank, "an international economic organization whose purpose is to aid in the economic development and growth of its member nations, who are primarily members of the Organization of American States." The Federation of Special Police petitioned the NLRB to represent National's employees, including those who worked at the bank.

National argued that the bank could require National to issue orders and regulations to its guards and to remove any guard the bank considered unsatisfactory. The bank had the right to interview all job applicants and to suggest wage scales. Consequently, National argued, the bank was a joint employer of the guards and, as an international organization, enjoyed "sovereign immunity" from NLRA jurisdiction. Therefore, these guards should not be included in the proposed bargaining unit.

How do you think the NLRB ruled on this argument? Is this case conceptually distinguishable from the Alcoa Seaprobe case in problem 10? [See National Detective Agencies, 237 NLRB No. 72, 99 L.R.R.M. 1007 (1978).]

Case Problem 2: Action Automotive, Inc., a retail auto parts and gasoline dealer, had stores in a number of Michigan cities. In March 2003, Local 40 of the Retail Store Employees Union filed a petition for a representation election. The union got a plurality of the unchallenged votes. But the challenged ballots could have made the difference.

The union challenged the ballots of the wife of the company's co-owner/president, who worked as a general ledger clerk at the company's headquarters, and of the mother of the three owners' brother who worked as a cashier in one of the nine stores. The company argued that since neither received any special benefits, neither should be excluded from the employee unit or denied their votes.

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. What arguments could you make to the Court for the union's view? For the company's view? [See NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc., 469 U.S. 970 (1985).]