NLRB Rules Mix-Guard Unions Cannot Intervene in a 9(b)3 Security Union NLRB Election to appear on the ballot or otherwise take advantage of the Board’s Election Processes
- United Federation LEOS-PBA
- Mar 25
- 2 min read
March 25, 2026
Paragon Systems Inc. United Federation LEOS-PBA Law Enforcement Officers Security & Police Benevolent Association and International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and California Protective Security Officers Association (CPSOA) and United Trades & Transportation Workers Union Local 323.
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PROUTY, MURPHY, AND MAYER
The issue presented in this case is whether the Board should reconsider University of Chicago, 272 NLRB 873 (1984). In that case, the Board held that where—as here— a petitioned-for unit consists of “guards” within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, it will not permit a mixed guard-nonguard union (i.e., a labor organization that admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards) to intervene to appear on the ballot or otherwise take advantage of the Board’s election processes. Id. at 876.1 On June 7, 2024, the Party in Interest—an admitted mixed guard-nonguard union—filed a motion to intervene in these proceedings. On June 11, 2024, the Acting Regional Director issued an Order Denying Motion to Intervene, citing University of Chicago. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Party in Interest filed a timely request for review, contending that the Board should overrule University of Chicago; the Party in Interest also requested a stay of this proceeding. On July 24, 2024, the Board issued an order staying the election and granting the request for review, as it raised substantial issues warranting review. Having carefully considered the entire record in this proceeding, including the request for review, we have decided not to reconsider University of Chicago at this time. We accordingly affirm the Acting Regional Director’s denial of the Party in Interest’s motion to intervene.
ORDER The Order Denying Motion to Intervene is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Regional Director for further action consistent with this Decision.2 Dated, Washington, D.C. March 25, 2026
"This was the right decision made by the NLRB Board in Washington DC today. There are only a handful of 9(b)3 security Unions in the United States that only admit "guards" as defined under the NLRA. Our union United Federation is one of the largest 9(b)3 security unions in the United States today. To allow a mix-guard union to appear on a NLRB ballot for statistical purposes only serves no purpose at all, other than to confuse those security officers / PSO's / Law Enforcement officers voting in such an election. I commend both the NLRB and our attorney Jon Axelrod who presented our legal arguments protecting every Section 9(b)3 security union right afforded under the NLRA. This is a precedented case that protects us all for years to come". Noted Charles Chip Strebeck President of the United Federation LEOS-PBA Law Enforcement Officers Security & Police Benevolent Association.
Comments