Lawrence Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 70 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lawrence Security , Inc. and International Union of
Guards and Watchmen , Independent. Case
19-CA-7137
November 25, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on June 10, 1974, and amended
on July 15, 1974, by International Union of Guards and
Watchmen, Independent, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Lawrence Security, Inc., herein called
the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 19, issued a complaint on July 16, 1974, against
Respondent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, com-
plaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that on May 29, 1974, fol-
lowing a Board election in Case 19-RC-6783, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate;' and that,
commencing on or about June 20, 1974, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to
date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative, and to furnish
the Union with a current list of home addresses of unit
employees, although the Union has requested and is
requesting it to do so. On July 24, 1974, Respondent
filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint.
On August 5, 1974, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that Respondent was attempting to
relitigate issues previously determined in the underly-
ing representation proceeding. Subsequently, on Au-
gust 22, 1974, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
'Case 19-RC-6783, as the term "record" is defined in Secs 102 68 102 69(g)
of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended See LTV
Electrosystems, Inc, 166 NLRB 938 (1967, enfd 388 F.2d 683 (C A 4,
1968), Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd 415 F 2d 26
(C A. 5, 1969), Intertype Co. v Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (D C VA, 1957),
Follett Corp, 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A. 7, 1968), Sec
9(d) of the NLRA
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent there-
after filed a Statement in opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and Statement in Op-
position to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Re-
spondent admits the factual allegations , but denies the
validity of the election and consequent certification be-
cause of union misconduct prior to and during the
election in the underlying representation proceeding
and irregularities in the selection and use of the polling
place. The General Counsel contends that Respondent
merely seeks review of the Board's certification and
that its affirmative defense consists solely of matters
which previously had been raised before the Board and
rejected. We agree with the General Counsel.
Our review of the record herein, including the record
in Case 19-RC-6783, reveals that an election con-
ducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election on November 8, 1973, resulted in a
vote of 32 to 17 in favor of the Union with 7 ballots
challenged. Respondent filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election in which it
alleged, in substance, that: (1) The Union paid em-
ployees' parking fees at the place of election; (2) em-
ployees were instructed by the Union to leave their
names with a parking attendant from whom the Union
secured the names ; (3) Respondent's proposed voting
place was rejected and Respondent was not notified of
the location selected until it received the official elec-
tion notice; (4) the Union falsely accused Respondent
of delaying the election; and (5) the union literature
promised a waiver of initiation fees if the Union won
the election. After investigation, the Regional Director
issued his Report on Objections in which he recom-
mended that Respondent's objections be overruled in
their entirety and the Union be certified. Respondent
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's re-
port as it pertained to three objections and a supporting
brief in which it requested the Board to set aside the
election.
In its Decision and Certification of Representative
issued May 29, 1974,2 the Board adopted the Re-
gional Director's findings and conclusions, with
modification, and his recommendation to overrule the
objections to the election. The Board, accordingly, cer-
2 210 NLRB 1048.
215 NLRB No. 8
LAWRENCE SECURITY, INC.
tified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the stipulated appropriate unit.
The contentions of the Respondent in this unfair labor
practice proceeding are the same as those advanced in
the underlying representation case , which the Board
has previously considered and rejected.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence or special cir-
cumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate
issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior
representation proceeding.'
All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior re-
presentation proceeding, and the Respondent does not
offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that
any special circumstances exist herein which would
require the Board to rexamine the decision made in the
representation proceeding. We therefore find that the
Respondent has not raised any issue which is properly
litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. We
shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Oregon corporation with facilities
located in California, Oregon, and Washington, is en-
gaged in the business of providing guards and security
services to business firms in the aforementioned States.
During the past year, a representative period, Respond-
ent had a gross volume of business exceeding $500,000,
sold goods and services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Ore-
gon, and purchased and received goods and services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from vendors
located outside the State of Oregon.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, the Respond-
ent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Guards and Watchmen, In-
dependent , is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U S 146, 162 (1941),
Rules and Regulations of the Board , Secs 102 69(c)
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
71
The following employees of the Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective -bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer who
are working in or out of the Seattle, Washington,
district office, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act and those employees working in
the Tri-Cities, Washington, vicinity and in Van-
couver, Washington, who are currently repre-
sented by another labor organization.
2. The certification
On November 8, 1973, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 19 designated the Union as their re-
presentative for the purpose of collective bargaining
with the Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
said unit on May 29, 1974, and the Union continues to
be such exclusive representative within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about May 31, 1974, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respond-
ent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of all the employees in
the above-described unit and to provide it with a cur-
rent list of home addresses of unit employees. Com-
mencing on or about June 20, 1974, and continuing at
all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative for collective
bargaining of all employees in said unit and'to provide
the information requested.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since
June 20, 1974, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, 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.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that
it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive re-
presentative of all employees in the appropriate unit,
and provide the Union with the information requested,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the approri-
ate unit will be accorded the services of their selected
bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we
shall construe the initial period of certification as begin-
ning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in
good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac
Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Com-
merce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226,
229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5, 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Com-
pany, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and
the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lawrence Security, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. International Union of Guards and Watchmen,
Independent, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees employed by the Employer who are
working in or out of the Seattle, Washington, district
office, excluding all office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act
and those employees working in the Tri-Cities, Wash-
ington, vicinity and in Vancouver, Washington, who
are currently represented by another labor organiza-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. Since May 29, 1974, the above-named labor organ-
ization has been and now is the certified and exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about June 20, 1974, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees of Respondent in
the appropriate unit and provide the Union with a
current list of home addresses of unit employees, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced , and is in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section
7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant of Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Lawrence
Security, Inc., its officers, agents , successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment with International Union of Guards
and Watchmen, Independent, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:
All employees employed by the Employer who
are working in or out of the Seattle, Washington,
district office, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act and those employees working in
the Tri-Cities, Washington, vicinity and in Van-
couver, Washington, who are currently repre-
sented by another labor organization.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with a current list
of home addresses of employees in the above-men-
tioned unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
LAWRENCE SECURITY, INC. 73
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named la-
bor organization as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and provide the Union with
a current list of the home addresses of employees in the
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Seattle, Washington, district office
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 19 after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event that this 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 to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment with International
Union of Guards and Watchmen, Independent, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with a
current list of home addresses of employees in the
below-mentioned unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the right guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and
provide the Union with a current list of home
addresses of employees in the bargaining unit, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody each un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All employees employed by the Employer
who are working in or out of the Seattle, Wash-
ington, district office, excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act and those em-
ployees working in the Tri-Cities, Washington,
vicinity and in Vancouver, Washington, who
are currently represented by another labor or-
ganization.
LAWRENCE SECURITY, INC