NLRB, U. This case involves interpretation of the ruling in NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. Sterlingwale Corp. During this period, one of its former officers and the president of one of its major customers formed petitioner company, intending to engage in one aspect of Sterlingwale's business and to take advantage of its assets and its workforce.
Petitioner acquired Sterlingwale's plant, real property, equipment, and some of its remaining inventory, and began operating out of Sterlingwale's former facilities and hiring employees in September, , with an initial hiring goal of one full shift of workers.
In October, , the union that had represented Sterlingwale's production and maintenance employees for almost 30 years requested petitioner to recognize it as the bargaining agent for petitioner's employees, and to begin collective bargaining. Petitioner refused the request. At that time, a majority of petitioner's employees were ex-Sterlingwale employees, as also was true in mid-January, , when petitioner met its initial hiring goal of one shift of workers.
By mid-April, , petitioner had reached two shifts, and, for the first time, ex-Sterlingwale employees were in the minority. The same working conditions existed as under Sterlingwale, and over half of petitioner's business came from ex-Sterlingwale customers.
An Administrative Law Judge ALJ concluded that 1 petitioner was a "successor" to Sterlingwale, 2 the proper date for determining whether the majority of petitioner's employees were ex-Sterlingwale employees necessary to require petitioner to bargain with the union was not mid-April, when petitioner had two shifts working, but mid-January, when petitioner had obtained a "representative complement" of employees, 3 the union's October, , demand for bargaining necessary to trigger petitioner's.
