National Association of Special Police and Security Officers (SecTek)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 2007

351 N.L.R.B. 77 (N.L.R.B. 2007)

351 NLRB No. 77
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
National Association of Special Police and Security
Officers and SecTek, Inc. Cases 5–CB–9981, 5–
CB–9985, and 5–CB–9986
December 21, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND KIRSANOW
The General Counsel seeks default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge filed by Sec-
Tek, Inc. (SecTek), the Employer, on May 19, 2006, in
Case 5–CB–9981, and on May 30, 2006 in Cases 5–CB–
9985 and 5–CB–9986, the General Counsel issued the
order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and
notice of hearing on June 29, 2007, against National As-
sociation of Special Police and Security Officers, the
Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(b)(3)
of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an answer.
On August 27, 2007, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereafter, on
August 30, 2007, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted.1 The Respondent
filed no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively stated
that unless an answer was received by the Regional Of-
fice on or before July 13, 2007, or postmarked on or be-
fore July 12, 2007, all the allegations in the complaint
would be considered admitted. Further, the undisputed
allegations in the General Counsel's motion disclose that
the Region, by certified letter dated July 24, 2007, noti-
fied the Respondent that absent the filing of an answer to
the complaint by August 7, 2007, a Motion for Default
Judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer, we grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Default Judgment.

1 On September 6, 2007, the General Counsel filed a corrected “page
2” of the Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, SecTek, a Delaware corporation
with an office and place of business in Reston, Virginia,
has been engaged in the business of providing security
guard and protective services pursuant to Federal gov-
ernment contracts.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, SecTek, in conduct-
ing its business operations described above, purchased
and received at its Reston, Virginia facility, products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia.
We find that SecTek is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act, and that National Association of Special Police
and Security Officers, the Respondent, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Caleb A. Gray-Burris has held
the position of executive director and has been an agent
of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13)
of the Act.
The following employees of SecTek, employed at the
United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), in Al-
exandria and Arlington, Virginia (the USPTO unit), con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and part-time security officers employed
by the Employer at its United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office locations in Alexandria, Virginia and Ar-
lington, Virginia, but excluding all other employees, of-
fice and professional employees, project managers, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Since about August 10, 2005, the Respondent has been
the designated exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the USPTO unit and, since then, the Respondent
has been recognized as the representative by SecTek.
This recognition has been embodied in a collective-
bargaining agreement, effective by its terms from Octo-
ber 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008, between SecTek and
the Respondent.
At all times since August 10, 2005, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Respondent Union has been the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the USPTO
unit.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
The following employees of SecTek employed at its
Metro One contract locations at the Arlington Finance
Center in Fairfax, Virginia, the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service in Arlington, Virginia, the Social Secu-
rity Administration in Camp Springs, Maryland, and
Metro Center One in Silver Spring, Maryland (the Metro
One unit), constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and part-time security officers and shift
supervisors employed by the Company at the contract
locations [identified above], but excluding the contract
manager and all other supervisors as defined by the
Act.
Since about late August 2004, the Respondent has
been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Metro One unit and, since then, has
been recognized as the representative by SecTek. This
recognition has been embodied in successive agreements,
including a collective-bargaining agreement, effective by
its terms from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006,
between SecTek and the Respondent.
At all times since late August 2005, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Respondent has been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Metro One
unit.
The following employees of SecTek, employed at the
Old Post Office Pavilion (OPO) in Washington, D.C.
(the OPO unit), constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time security officers em-
ployed by the Employer at the Old Post Office Pavilion
in Washington, D.C.; but excluding all site managers
(lieutenants), office clerical employees, professional
employees, managerial employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Since about December 3, 2004, the Respondent has
been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the OPO unit and, since then, has been
recognized as the representative by SecTek. This recog-
nition has been embodied in a collective-bargaining
agreement, effective by its terms from October 1, 2005 to
September 30, 2006, between the SecTek and the Re-
spondent.
At all times since December 3, 2004, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Respondent has been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the OPO unit.
Since on or about February 13, 2006, SecTek, by writ-
ten request to Caleb A. Gray-Burris, has requested that
the Respondent furnish it with the following information
for the USPTO, Metro One, and OPO bargaining units:
(a) pension plan description and copy of enrollment
package;
(b) identification of plan administrator, including name,
address, phone and point of contact;
(c) pension report evidencing names and balances asso-
ciated with each employee for all SecTek employees
who have received, or who currently are receiving,
union pension benefits with corresponding
amounts/hours paid by SecTek, Inc.;
(d) health plan description and copy of enrollment pack-
age for USPTO employees;
(e) identification of health plan administrator; including
name, address, phone and point of contact; and
(f) report evidencing participation of all employees who
have received, or who currently are receiving, the
Respondent Union’s health benefits with correspond-
ing amounts/hours paid by SecTek, Inc.
On March 6, 2006 and April 3, 2006, by written re-
quest to Caleb A. Gray-Burris, SecTek renewed its re-
quest for the information set forth above.
On April 6, 2006, and April 10, 2006, by written re-
quest to Caleb A. Gray-Burris, SecTek renewed its re-
quest for information.
On May 8, 2006, May 18, 2006, June 6, 2006, June 14,
2006, and July 11, 2006, by written request to Caleb A.
Gray-Burris, SecTek requested information concerning
the status of the implementation of the Union’s pension
plan or fund and the sums submitted by SecTek for con-
tributions to the pension plan or fund.
The information requested by SecTek, as described
above, is necessary for, and relevant to, SecTek’s polic-
ing and administration of the collective-bargaining
agreement.
At all times between February 13, 2006 and April 27,
2006, the Respondent failed and refused to respond to
SecTek’s request for the following information for the
USPTO unit:
• pension plan description and copy of enrollment
package;
• identification of plan administrator, including
name, address, phone and point of contact;
• pension report evidencing names and balances as-
sociated with each employee for all SecTek em-
ployees who have received, or who currently are
receiving, union pension benefits with correspond-
ing amounts/hours paid by SecTek, Inc.
NATIONAL ASSN. OF SPECIAL POLICE & SECURITY OFFICERS (SECTEK) 3
At all times between February 13, 2006 and April 27,
2006, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish
SecTek with the following information requested by it, in
a timely manner:
• health plan description and copy of enrollment
package for USPTO employees;
• identification of health plan administrator; includ-
ing name, address, phone and point of contact; and
• report evidencing participation of all employees
who have received, or who currently are receiving,
the Respondent Union’s health benefits with cor-
responding amounts/hours paid by SecTek, Inc.
At all times between February 13, 2006 and May 15,
2006, the Respondent has failed and refused to respond
to SecTek’s request for the following information for the
OPO and Metro One Units:
• pension plan description and copy of enrollment
package; and
• pension report evidencing names and balances as-
sociated with each employee for all SecTek em-
ployees who have received, or who currently are
receiving, union pension benefits with correspond-
ing amounts/hours paid by SecTek, Inc.
At all times since on or about May 18, 2006, the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to furnish SecTek with
the information requested by it concerning the status of
the implementation of the Respondent's pension plan or
fund and the sums submitted by SecTek for contributions
to the pension plan or fund.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing to provide the Employer with
information it requested by letters dated February 13,
March 6, April 3, 6, 10, May 8, 18, June 6, 14, and July
11, 2006 regarding unit employees, the Respondent has
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Employer, and has thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has failed and refused to fur-
nish the Employer with information that is necessary for
and relevant to the Employer’s policing and administra-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement in regards to
the health and pension plans of the units involved, we
shall order the Respondent to furnish the Employer with
the information it requested by letters dated February 13,
March 6, April 3, 6, 10, May 8, 18, June 6, 14, and July
11, 2006.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, National Association of Special Police and
Security Officers (NASPSO), Washington, D.C., its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish SecTek, Inc., the
Employer, with information that is necessary for and
relevant to the Employer’s policing and administration of
the collective-bargaining agreement.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Employer in a timely fashion the in-
formation it requested by letters dated February 13,
March 6, April 3, 6, 10, May 8, 18, June 6, 14, and July
11, 2006.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its business office and meeting places, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
Five, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 5 signed
copies of the notice for posting by SecTek, Inc., if will-
ing, in places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 21, 2007

2 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
Peter N. Kirsanow, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board had found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish SecTek, Inc.
with the information that is necessary for and relevant to
its performance of its duties under the collective-
bargaining agreement in regards to the health and pen-
sion plans of the Unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to
bargain collectively with SecTek, Inc., the Employer.
WE WILL furnish to the Employer in a timely fashion
the information it requested by letters dated February 13,
March 6, April 3, 6, 10, May 8, 18, June 6, 14, and July
11, 2006.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL POLICE
AND SECURITY OFFICERS (NASPSO)