Atlas Guard Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Atlas Guard Service and Harry Sweda and John A.
Elston
Allied International Union of Security Guards and
Special Police and Harry Sweda and John A.
Elston. Cases 4-CA-7788, 4-CA-7990, 4-CB-
2676, and 4-CB-2771
May 16, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On December 28, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ness issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Atlas Guard
Service, East Orange, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, Allied
International Union of Security Guards and Special
Police, Flushing, New York, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 3 and 4
and July 13 and 14, 1976. The charges in Cases 4-CA-7788
and 4-CB-2676 were filed by Harry Sweda, an individual,
on January 5, 1976. Amended charges were filed on
February 20, 1976. The charges in Cases 4-CA-7990 and
4-CB-2771 were filed by John A. Elston, an individual, on
May 6, 1976. A consolidated amended complaint was
issued on May 20, 1976. The complaint alleged that Atlas
Guard Service, herein referred to as Atlas, has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the National
229 NLRB No. 106
Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
The complaint also alleged that Allied International Union
of Security Guards and Special Police, herein called the
Union, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(lXA) and (2)
of the Act. Both Atlas and the Union have denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the parties, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. THE BUSINESS OF ATLAS
Atlas Guard Service, a New Jersey corporation, provides
security services to various firms or facilities located in the
State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
the complaint, Atlas, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, has derived gross revenues valued in
excess of $500,000, and has provided services valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of New
Jersey. The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and
I find that Atlas is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Sequence of Events
The General Counsel contends that Atlas and the Union
violated Sections 8(aX1) and (2) and 8(b)(IXA), respective-
ly, by entering into a recognition agreement on June 3,
1975, whereby the Union was recognized as the bargaining
representative of Atlas' employees in both New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. The General Counsel contends that the two-
state unit is inappropriate and that the Union lacked a
majority of the Pennsylvania employees. The General
Counsel further contends that by entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement containing a union-security provi-
sion on August 1, 1975, and by enforcing such provision,
Atlas violated Section 8(aX)(I), (2), and (3) and the Union
violated Section 8(bXlI)(A) and (2) of the Act. The General
Counsel further contends that by requiring the employees
to sign dual-purpose cards, i.e., application for membership
and authorization to deduct union dues and assessments
from their pay, Atlas violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
and the Union violated Section 8(bX)(1)(A) and (2).
Both Respondents argue that the two-state unit is an
appropriate unit and recognition cannot be found unlawful
even if none of the Pennsylvania employees authorized the
Union to represent him. Both Respondents also contend
that the recognition of the Union cannot be found
unlawful under Section 10(b) of the Act. Their theory is
that the earliest charges were filed on January 5, 1976, and
thus the cutoff date would be July 5, 1975; the recognition
698
ATLAS GUARD SERVICE
occurred on June 3, 1975 - more than 6 months prior to
the filing of the charge. The General Counsel counters that
Section 10(b) is inapplicable because the Pennsylvania
employees were not made aware that the Union was on the
scene, let alone aware that the Union had been recognized
until latter August 1975 when they were first told a
contract had been executed between the parties and they
had to sign the dual-purpose cards or be terminated. Thus
the charges were filed within 6 months after the Pennsylva-
nia employees were first made aware of the existence of
bargaining relationship.
Atlas, through its Atlas East Division, furnishes security
services to customers in portions of New York City, all of
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Richard Lauer, Atlas' vice president and general manager
of the Atlas East Division, is the operating head of the
division and is headquartered in East Orange, New Jersey.
Directly under him is Regional Operations Manager
Peppin. Below Peppin in the supervisory chain of com-
mand are the district managers. The district manager in
New Jersey is responsible for the locations Atlas services in
New Jersey. The district manager in Pennsylvania, Joseph
Nichols, is responsible for the Pennsylvania locations. On
June 3, 1975, Atlas and the Union entered into an
agreement whereby the Union was granted recognition as
the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (G.C. Exh. 2(a)). The
collective-bargaining agreement, containing a union-secu-
rity clause, was executed on August 1, 1975 (G.C. Exh.
2(b)). Inadvertently, the description of the unit in the
contract was limited to New Jersey. By amendment
executed by September 2, 1975, the Pennsylvania employ-
ees were added to the description of the unit (G.C. Exh.
2(c)). During this period, Atlas employed about 150 guards
at its approximately 30 New Jersey locations. Its customers
in New Jersey were all commercial or industrial.' The only
customer serviced in Pennsylvania is the U.S. Government
and all the facilities serviced are located in Philadelphia. At
the time of the recognition agreement, Atlas employed
approximately 64 guards at four locations in Philadelphia.
Daniel Cunningham, the Union's president, testified that
in early February 1975 he presented authorization cards to
Elliot Liebowitz, an official of Atlas' parent company,
Servisco, and requested recognition. According to Cun-
ningham, Liebowitz acknowledged the Union had over 50
percent but said he would have to contact the owner before
recognition could be granted. Cunningham further testified
all the terms of a contract were then agreed upon in March
after negotiations with Atlas' then president, DeGilio.
When asked the reason why the recognition agreement was
not executed until June and the collective-bargaining
agreement until August, Cunningham testified it was
because the Company wanted its incoming president,
Reinerts, to sign the documents. But Liebowitz was the one
who signed the recognition agreement in June on behalf of
Atlas. Reinerts succeeded DeGilio as president in the latter
I In addition, Atlas had about 60 employees at the Newark Airport.
Unlike its other employees, those at the Newark Airport are involved with
baggage checking and predeparture screening. About 90 percent of them are
women. The Newark Airport employees are represented by a labor
organization not involved herein. Neither the other New Jersey employees
nor the Pennsylvania employees had been represented by any labor
organization.
part of June or July and signed the contract on behalf of
Atlas. Yet, elsewhere in his testimony, Cunningham stated
the contract was prepared by the Union in March but
DeGilio would not sign it until it was approved by Atlas'
counsel who wanted certain changes made. At another
point, Cunningham testified as follows:
I met again several times in March and April, and in
April we consummated the details of the contract, April
or May . ... we had negotiated down to the monetary
items and the holidays and so on.
Cunningham also testified Atlas was reluctant initially to
grant recognition to the Union until they agreed on a
contract. No Atlas official testified concerning the recogni-
tion or negotiations. Lauer testified he was not privy to any
negotiations between the parties but did hear DeGilio and
Cunningham talk about a contract sometime in March at
an affair honoring Cunningham's predecessor. He did not
recall any specifics of the discussion.
Lauer testified he learned from Reinerts the first week in
August that a collective-bargaining agreement had been
executed. He sent a memorandum, dated August 27, to
District Manager Nichols informing Nichols that Atlas had
entered into a contract with the Union covering the guards
in Pennsylvania. The memorandum stated in part:
All Philadelphia guards must sign one of the enclosed
checkoffs to authorized deductions from the pay. The
signed applications are to be returned to me no later
than September 19, 1975 and deductions will begin with
the first pay due in October. [G.C. Exh. 4].
Accompanying the memorandum were the dual-purpose
cards - applications for membership and authorizations
to deduct dues, initiation fees and assessments. (G.C. Exh.
5.) These cards had been forwarded to Lauer by the Union.
Also enclosed with the memorandum and the cards were
copies of an undated two-page letter from Cunningham
captioned "To The Employees of Atlas Guard Service."
(G.C. Exh. 9.) The letter recited that the Union had
achieved a "recognition agreement" authorizing the Union
to represent "all their guards as a bargaining unit." The
letter went on to recite specific benefits achieved. The
second page contained the following typewritten sentence.
"Enclosed you will find two forms which must be filled out
as required and returned to our office on or before July 10,
1975."2 The typewritten part of the sentence beginning
with "our office" had been lined out and substituted
therefor were the printed words, "Atlas home office before
September 19, 1975." This two-page letter, as altered, was
received by Nichols from Lauer together with the batch of
cards and Lauer's memorandum.3 Upon receipt of this
material from Lauer, Nichols handed out the dual-purpose
cards, together with the two-page union letter to a number
of guards and told them they must sign the cards or they
would be terminated. Nichols was unable to reach all the
2 The second card accompanying the letter was a union card identifica-
tion form.
3 The record does not disclose who altered the sentences. Cunningham
had no recollection of the letter itself being sent. Lauer was not questioned
on this point.
699
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guards and instructed each of the persons in charge of a
location to so instruct the employees. The testimony of the
individuals in charge of each of the Philadelphia locations
disclosed they carried out his instructions and told the
guards they would be terminated if they did not sign the
cards.4 The Philadelphia guards thereafter executed the
dual-purpose cards.
Cunningham testified that when he presented authoriza-
tion cards to Liebowitz in February he had with him in
excess of 85 cards.5 He was unaware who had signed cards,
whether they were New Jersey or Philadelphia employees
or both. Although subpenaed to produce the cards, he said
the cards could not be found. He testified that two union
organizers had done the "soliciting." He testified they left
the Union's employ after the contract had been executed
and speculated they had taken the cards with them.
To support Respondents' contention that the Philadel-
phia employees were aware that the Union was in the
picture, Cunningham testified that a letter was mailed to
both the New Jersey and the Philadelphia employees
notifying them of the recognition. (G.C. Exh. 8). The letter,
dated June 10, addressed "To All Atlas Security Officers
Employed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," recited that
"after lengthy negotiations with your employer, we have
agreed upon the following benefits to be included into a
collective-bargaining agreement which is now in the
process of being drafted." The letter also stated that there
was enclosed an "Authorization form which will permit
dues deductions by your employer and also make union
membership possible." The letter went on to say that the
contract contained a union-security clause. Cunningham
testified that he obtained the addresses of the employees
from the pledge cards and from payroll lists furnished to
him by Liebowitz immediately upon recognition in June.
General Counsel's Exhibit 9, referred to supra, was
substantially similar in content to the June 10 letter except
for the reference to returning the cards. Cunningham's
signature is rubber stamped, the letter is undated, and he
had no recollection of this letter being sent to the
employees. Nichols, who was the district manager directly
responsible for the Philadelphia operations, testified that
the first he knew of a collective-bargaining relationship was
in a telephone conversation only a few days before he
received Lauer's August 27 memorandum. Lieutenants
Payne and Hays testified they had never seen Cunning-
ham's letter of June 10. Seven Philadelphia guards testified
at the hearing. Rather than unduly prolong the hearing, the
parties agreed that if certain other Philadelphia guards had
testified, they would have testified in the manner stipulated
to concerning their knowledge of the Union, the two union
letters, or their signing of union cards. Based upon their
testimony, I find that approximately 48 Philadelphia
guards had either never heard of the Union until the end of
August or early September, had never seen the June 10
letter, and first saw the undated letter or signed a card in
September when Nichols received the material from Lauer.
4 Captain Kessler and Lieutenants Hays and Payne.
I There were about 150 employees in New Jersey and about 64 in
Philadelphia.
6 International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL CIO v. N.LR.B.,
463 F.2d 907 (C.A.D.C., 1972); Russell-Newman Manufacturing Company,
In substance, the employees were unaware of the Union
being on the scene until after the contract was executed.
I find it incredible of belief that, if the June 10 letter was
sent to the guards in Philadelphia as well as New Jersey, 75
percent of the employees in the Philadelphia locations
would not have received the letter. Accordingly, I find that
the June 10 letter was not sent to the guards employed at
the Philadelphia locations. Nor were these employees
apprised of the Union's undated letter until after Lauer
forwarded copies to Nichols on August 27, together with
the dual-purpose cards. Finally, I find that at no time prior
to early September were the Philadelphia employees ever
told that the Union was their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
B. The 10(b) Question
Section 10(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part that
no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor
practices occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing
of the charge. Both Respondents contend that since the
initial unfair labor practice charge was filed on January 5,
1976, more than 6 months after the Union was recognized
by Atlas, i.e., June 3, 1975, neither the recognition nor the
contract can be attacked. I find this argument without
merit because the Philadelphia employees were not made
aware of the fact that the Union was even on the scene or
even attempting to organize them until after the contract
was executed. The first knowledge the guards at Philadel-
phia had of the Union was in the beginning of September
1975 when they were informed by Nichols or the onsite
supervisors that a collective-bargaining agreement was in
existence between Atlas and the Union and they had to
become members of the Union. Accordingly, I find unfair
labor practice charges were timely filed in January 1976.6
C. Appropriateness of the Unit
On June 3, Atlas recognized the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the guards in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. On August 1, a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, containing a union-security clause, was executed. I
have already found that the Philadelphia employees were
unaware of the Union's interest until after the contract was
executed. 7
The General Counsel contends that the bargaining unit
agreed upon by the parties, i.e., the two-state unit is
inappropriate and the Philadelphia guards alone represent
an appropriate unit. The Respondents, on the other hand,
argue that the two-state unit is appropriate. The question as
to whether the New Jersey and Philadelphia locations
together constitute a single appropriate bargaining unit can
be answered upon a consideration of the essential factors
present.
There is no history of collective bargaining. As stated
above, the Atlas East Division covers portions of New
York City, all of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Inc., 167 NLRB 1112 (1967); Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of
Greater New York, Inc., 194 NLRB 1122 (1972).
' As noted above, the only guards in Pennsylvania were employed in
Philadelphia locations.
700
ATLAS GUARD SERVICE
West Virginia. The operating head of the division is its
general manager and vice president, Lauer. Directly under
him in supervising the division is the regional operations
manager, Peppin. They are headquartered in East Orange,
New Jersey. Below Peppin in the supervisory chain of
command is a district manager in each State, responsible
for the facilities serviced in his State. During the 1975
period material herein, Atlas employed about 150 guards at
approximately 30 locations in New Jersey, excluding the
Newark Airport employees. All Atlas' customers in New
Jersey were commercial or industrial accounts. In Pennsyl-
vania, Atlas' only account was the U.S. Government and
the only locations serviced in the Commonwealth were in
Philadelphia where about 64 guards were employed in four
locations in the Philadelphia area. The nearest New Jersey
location is 64 miles from Philadelphia.
All employees in the Atlas Division are paid by mail
from Atlas' date processing location in New Castle,
Pennsylvania. The onsite supervisor at the location pre-
pares timesheets for the guards at his location. This
information is then transmitted to the district manager
who, in turn, forwards it to Lauer in East Orange. Lauer
then furnishes this information to the data processing
facility. The payroll is prepared at New Castle and payroll
checks are forwarded from there.
The rates of pay for guards is determined by the billing
cost. Atlas attempts to pay in direct wages a certain
percentage of the billing cost. No fringe benefits have been
paid to the guards except where the contract with the
customer requires certain fringe benefits to be paid to the
guards working at the customer's location. As stated above,
Atlas does not have the U.S. Government as a customer in
New Jersey whereas in Philadelphia the Government is the
only account. In New Jersey it is Atlas alone who
determines the rates of pay for its guards. Government
contracts specify the rate of pay to be paid to guards at a
given location with an additional compensation of 16 cents
an hour to cover the cost of health and welfare benefits.
The guard however is free to keep this additional
compensation or use it as he sees fit. The contract entered
into between Atlas and the Union establishes a minumum
rate of pay for guards. Insofar as the Philadelphia
employees, their rate of pay is determined by the location
where they work and the rate is established by U.S.
Government specifications. The rates of pay for New
Jersey guards are lower than the rates fixed for the
Philadelphia employees. Since the contract was executed,
the Philadelphia employees no longer received the 16 cents
additional compensation. These moneys are forwarded by
Atlas to the Union for its welfare fund.
The employees are hired by the district manager who is
responsible for the overall supervision of the guards at the
various locations in the State. In charge at the locations are
what are called onsite supervisors, either a captain,
lieutenant, or sergeant, depending on the size of the
location. There is no interchange of onsite supervisors
between New Jersey and Pennsylvania and very little, if
any, interchange of employees from one State to the other.
In Philadelphia, interchange of guards between the
facilities in the city is fairly common. All the employees in
Philadelphia are required to be armed and the Government
requires 40 hours of training for guards employed at its
facilities. In New Jersey, only about 5 of the 150 guards,
employed at two locations, are required to be armed. The
industrial and commercial accounts do not require a
training period for guards. Each district appears to be a
separate administrative entity. I find that the Philadelphia
unit is presumptively an appropriate unit based upon the
separate supervision, the interchange among employees
between the locations, and the similarity in wages and
working conditions. But this is not to say a grouping of
different areas is necessarily inappropriate. The existence
of an appropriate unit, that is to say the Philadelphia unit,
does not compel a finding that another unit would
necessarily be inappropriate. The Act does not mandate
that the unit recognized by parties be the optimum unit; it
must be an appropriate unit. Thus the issue to be resolved
is whether the New Jersey and Philadelphia unit is an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Respondents point to a centralized labor policy to
support the theory that the two-state unit is appropriate.
But the record before me shows that Lauer, general
manager of the entire division, was not even consulted in
the negotiations leading up to the contract. He first learned
of the contract after the execution. In determining the
appropriateness of the two-state unit, were we to consider
primarily the centralized labor policy, this would support a
finding that a divisionwide unit, rather than an arbitrary
carving out only of a two-state unit, would be appropriate.
It appears to me that the grouping of the New Jersey and
Philadelphia employees into one bargaining unit was an
arbitrary grouping of employees in two areas where there is
an insufficient community of interest with the closest New
Jersey facility where Atlas guards are employed 64 miles
distant from Philadelphia. And as found heretofore, no
attempt was even made to organize the Philadelphia
employees nor were they apprised of the Union's interest
until after the collective-bargaining agreement was execut-
ed. In view of the foregoing, I find that the bargaining unit
consisting of the guards in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to
be inappropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Concluding Findings
As stated above, the Union did not represent a majority
of the Philadelphia employees at any time material herein.
The contract executed between the parties contained a
union-security clause requiring employee membership. The
employees were coerced into becoming members. A
provision to Section 8(aX3) of the Act mandates that for a
union-security clause in a contract to be effective there
must be an appropriate collective-bargaining unit. Here the
unit was inappropriate. As in the case of an improper
accretion, the Philadelphia unit is found to be an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
and the employees there were deprived of a voice in
selecting their bargaining representative. I find that the
recognition itself, at a time when the Union did not
represent a majority of the Philadelphia employees,
violated Section 8(aXI) and (2) and 8(b)(IXA) of the Act. I
further find that by enforcing the collective-bargaining
agreement and its provisions regarding union security as to
the Philadelphia employees, Atlas violated Section 8(aXI),
701
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2), and (3) and the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
The contract entered into and effective on August 1,
1975, required that employees "shall on the 30th day
following the beginning of their Employment, or the
signing of this Agreement, whichever is later, be and
remain Members of the Union in good standing as a
condition of Employment" (art. II). The record shows that,
on or about September 2, Nichols received Lauer's
memorandum with the cards and the Union's two-page
undated letter. The material had earlier been forwarded to
Lauer from the Union. Atlas, through Nichols and its
onsite supervisors, then coerced the employees into signing
the cards upon threats of discharge. The cards were not
only applications for membership, but also authorizations
to deduct dues, initiation fees, and assessments. Even if the
Respondents' defenses as to the other allegations of the
complaint were valid, the conduct in requiring the
employees as a condition of employment to sign the dual-
purpose cards constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) and 8(b)(1)(A). 8 Also unlawful of these provisions of the
Act was the requirement that the Philadelphia employees
execute these cards by September 19. Although the
contract was executed and effective on August 1, the
Philadelphia employees were not made aware of its
existence until the first week in September. Under these
circumstances, they were not afforded the required 30-day
grace period in which to become members of the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Atlas
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Atlas Guard Service is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Allied International Union of Security Guards and
Special Police is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By assisting and recognizing the Union as the
bargaining representative for its employees in Pennsylva-
nia; by maintaining, applying, and enforcing a collective-
bargaining agreement containing union-security provisions
as to these employees; by requiring employees to sign
checkoff authorizations for union dues and fees; and by
failing to provide at least a 30-day grace period for
employees to apply for membership in the Union, Atlas has
engaged in, and is continuing to engage in, unfair labor
a Luke Construction Company, Inc., 211 NLRB 602 (1974); American
Screw Co., 122 NLRB 485 (1958).
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act.
4. By obtaining recognition as the bargaining represen-
tative for Atlas' employees in Pennsylvania in the absence
of support from a majority of the employees located there;
by maintaining, applying, and enforcing a collective-
bargaining agreement containing union-security provisions
as to these employees; by requiring employees to sign
checkoff authorizations for union dues and fees; and by
failing to provide at least a 30-day grace period for
employees to apply for membership in the Union, the
Union restrained and coerced, and is restraining and
coercing, the employees of Atlas in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of
Section 8(b)(X 1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Atlas unlawfully recognized and
rendered support to the Union at its Pennsylvania facilities
and unlawfully imposed and enforced a collective-bargain-
ing contract containing union-security provisions, I shall
recommend that Atlas withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from the Union as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of its Pennsylvania employees and cease giving effect
at those facilities to its contract, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any
superseding contract unless and until the Union is certified
by the Board as such representative. However, nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring Atlas to vary or
abandon the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive
features established in the performance of said contract,
except as described immediately below.
I shall also recommend that Atlas and the Union be
required, jointly and severally, to reimburse all Atlas'
employees in Pennsylvania for dues and fees unlawfully
exacted and to reimburse said employees for the 16-cent-
per-hour supplement withheld from their wages since
execution of the agreement, with interest, as set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 9
A. Atlas Guard Service, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
702
ATLAS GUARD SERVICE
(a) Contributing support and assistance to the Union or
to any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing the Union as the bargaining representa-
tive of its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities for the
purpose of collective bargaining unless and until said labor
organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority
representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among the said employees.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
with the Union, or to any extension, renewal, modification,
or supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract,
insofar as it affects its employees at its Pennsylvania
facilities provided, however, that nothing contained herein
shall be construed as requiring Atlas to vary or abandon
the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features
established in the performance of said contract, except as
described in "The Remedy."
(d) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs for
failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorization
cards.
(e) Requiring employees to become members of the
Union or any other labor organization pursuant to any
union-security provision in any agreement with the Union
or any other labor organization without affording employ-
ees the required 30-day grace period.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by any agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees at its Pennsylvania facilities unless and until
said labor organization shall have demonstrated its
exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among said employees.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Union make whole its
employees at its Pennsylvania facilities in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" for any losses in pay or other
benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or
other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid
agreement, with interest at 6 percent per annum.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze and compute the amount of moneys due under
the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Pennsylvania district office and at all
facilities where its Pennsylvania employees are employed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 'O
Copies of the said notices on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by
Atlas' representative, shall be posted by Atlas immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
'0 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Atlas to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
B. Allied International Union of Security Guards and
Special Police, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agent of any of
Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facilities unless and
until said Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority representative status pursuant to a Board-con-
ducted election among said employees.
(b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
with Atlas, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract insofar
as it affects Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facilities.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of their employment
for failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorization
cards.
(d) Requiring employees to become members of the
Union pursuant to any union-security provision in any
agreement without affording employees the required 30-
day grace period.
(e) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees of Atlas in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Atlas make whole Atlas'
employees at is Pennsylvania facilities in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" for any losses in pay or other
benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or
other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid
agreement, with interest at 6 percent per annum.
(b) Post in conspicuous places in the Union's business
office, meeting halls, and places where notices to its
members are customarily posted copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B." i Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Union, shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the
aforesaid notice for posting by Atlas at its facilities where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall,
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
I See fn. IO, supra.
703
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after being signed by the Union, as indicated, be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Allied
International Union of Security Guards and Special
Police, or to any other labor organization of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize said Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees employed
at our Pennsylvania facilities unless and until said labor
organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority representative status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election among the said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
contract with the Union, insofar as it affects employees
at our Pennsylvania facilities, but we will not vary or
abandon those wages, hours, or other substantial
features of our relations with our employees established
in performance of said agreement, or prejudice the
assertion by employees of any rights they have
thereunder; except that the 16-cent per hour supple-
ment to the hourly rate of pay will be reinstituted and
paid directly to the employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their
jobs for failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff
authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT require employees to become members
of any labor organization pursuant to any union-
security provision in an agreement with any union
without affording employees the required 30-day grace
period.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Allied Interna-
tional Union of Security Guards and Special Police,
make whole our employees employed at our Pennsylva-
nia facilities for the 16-cent-per-hour supplement
withheld from their wages since the execution of the
August 1975 contract and for any other losses in pay or
other benefits and for any initiation fees, dues,
assessments, or other moneys paid or checked off
pursuant to said contract, plus interest at the rate of 6
percent per year.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
ATLAS GUARD SERVICE
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining agent of
any of the employees of Atlas Guard Service at its
Pennsylvania facilities unless and until we have
demonstrated our exclusive majority representative
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among
said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement of August 1975 with Atlas insofar as it
applies to Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facili-
ties.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their
employment for failing or refusing to sign dues-check-
off authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT require employees to become members
of the Union pursuant to any union-security provision
in any agreement without affording employees the
required 30-day grace period.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees of Atlas in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Atlas Guard
Service make whole its employees at its Pennsylvania
facilities for the 16-cent-per-hour supplement withheld
from their wages since the execution of the August 1975
contract and for any other losses in pay or other
benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments,
or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to said
contract, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per year.
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF SECURITY
GUARDS AND SPECIAL
POLICE
704