Bass & Bass Security

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 2003

340 N.L.R.B. 962 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 962
Bass & Bass Security and Local 819, Security Work-
ers of America. Case 29–CA–25420
October 31, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment1 in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the complaint. On a charge and an
amended charge filed by the Union on February 6 and
June 9, 2003, respectively, the General Counsel issued
the complaint on June 10, 2003, against Bass & Bass
Security (the Respondent), alleging that it has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent
failed to file an answer.
On July 7, 2003, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board. On July 10,
2003, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. 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 filed by June 24, 2003, all the
allegations in the complaint would be considered admit-
ted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General
Counsel’s motion disclose that, on June 25, 2003, the
Region, by letter and telephone, notified the Respondent
that unless an answer was received by July 1, 2003, a
Motion for Default Judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a domestic cor-
poration, with a facility located at 115-39 Dunkirk Street,

1 The General Counsel’s motion requests summary judgment on the
ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the com-
plaint. Accordingly, we construe the General Counsel’s motion as a
motion for default judgment.
St. Albans, New York (the St. Albans facility), has been
engaged in providing security guard services to various
New York City Department of Finance offices.
Based on a projection of its operations since about No-
vember 3, 2002, at which time the Respondent com-
menced its operations, the Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations described above, will
annually provide services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to New York City, an entity directly engaged in
interstate commerce.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that Local 819, Security Workers of
America (the Union) is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Jerry Bass has been the Respon-
dent’s president, and has been an agent of the Respon-
dent acting on its behalf, and a supervisor of the Respon-
dent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time security guards em-
ployed by Respondent at any and/all New York City
Department of Finance offices as provided in the
Agreement between Respondent and New York City,
but excluding all other employees, professionals and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
At all material times since at least 1997 until Novem-
ber 2, 2002, Exployer Investigation Agency (Exployer)
was engaged in the business of providing security guard
services to various New York City Department of Fi-
nance offices out of its New York City location and em-
ployed the employees of the Respondent in the unit.
At all material times since August 2002, until on or
about November 2, 2002, the Union was the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Exployer’s em-
ployees in the unit, for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and was recognized as such representative by Ex-
ployer. Such recognition was embodied in a collective-
bargaining agreement, which was effective from August
5, 2002, to August 4, 2005.
At all material times until about November 3, 2002,
when the Respondent took over the New York City De-
partment of Finance security guard contract, based on
Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union was the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit employees
employed by Explorer.
340 NLRB No. 110
BASS & BASS SECURITY 963
On or about a date presently unknown in late Au-
gust/early to mid-September 2002, the New York City
Department of Finance awarded the Respondent a con-
tract previously held by Explorer to provide security
guard services for various New York City Department of
Finance locations, effective about November 3, 2002.
About November 2, 2002, Exployer ceased providing
security guard services for the various New York City
Department of Finance offices and since then and at all
material times, the Respondent has been engaged in sub-
stantially the same business operations formerly engaged
in by Explorer, out of its St. Albans facility.
About November 3, 2002, the Respondent hired a ma-
jority of its employees in the unit from among individu-
als who were previously employees of Explorer, and
since then has continued to operate the same business as
Explorer in basically unchanged form.
By virtue of the conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has continued the employing entity and is a succes-
sor to Explorer.
At all material times since about November 3, 2002,
when the Respondent began operating pursuant to its
being awarded the New York City Department of Fi-
nance security guard contract, the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Re-
spondent’s employees in the unit based on Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Since about November 3, 2002, the Respondent unilat-
erally modified the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement by, inter alia:

(a) Changing the wages of unit employees.
(b) Ceasing to provide health benefits for unit
employees.
(c) Eliminating paid vacation and personal days
for unit employees.
(d) Decreasing paid holidays for unit employees,
including but not limited to Christmas and New
Year’s Day.

The subjects set forth above relate to wages and other
terms and conditions of employment of the unit and are
mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above without prior notice to the Union, and without
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with re-
spect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct.
About October 2, 2002, and January 28, 2003, the Un-
ion, by letter, requested that the Respondent recognize
and bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the unit.
On or about the following dates, by the following indi-
viduals, the Union orally requested that the Respondent
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
unit:

(a) On a date presently unknown in October 2002
by Vice President Parisi.
(b) On a date presently unknown in November
2002 by Vice President Parisi.
(c) On January 29, 2003, by President Sullivan.

Since about November 3, 2002, the Respondent has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit.2
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
and unilaterally modifying the unit employees’ terms and
conditions of employment since November 3, 2002, by,
inter alia, changing their wages, ceasing to provide them
with health benefits, eliminating their paid vacation and
personal days, and decreasing their paid holidays, includ-
ing but not limited to Christmas and New Year’s Day,
the Respondent has failed and refused, and is failing and
refusing, to bargain collectively and in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees, and has thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act. See NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406
U.S. 272 (1972).
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, we shall
order the Respondent to recognize and, on request, bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the unit employees, and if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment. In addition, we shall order the Respondent, on
request, to rescind the unlawful unilateral changes to
wages and benefits it made since November 3, 2002, and
to make the unit employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Re-

2 The complaint also alleges that, on a date presently unknown in
October 2002, the Respondent, by Jerry Bass, at the New York City
Department of Finance location in Queens, New York, told employees
that the Respondent did not want a union and that the employees did
not need a union. However, the complaint does not allege that this was
a violation of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 964
spondent’s unlawful conduct. In order to remedy the
Respondent’s unlawful termination of health benefits for
unit employees, we shall require the Respondent to re-
store the unit employees’ health benefits, and to make all
required benefit fund payments or contributions, if any,
that have not been made since November 3, 2002, in-
cluding any additional amounts applicable to such pay-
ments or contributions as set forth in Merriweather Opti-
cal Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 (1979).3 In addition, the
Respondent shall reimburse unit employees for any ex-
penses resulting from its unlawful termination of their
health benefits, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating,
252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.
1981). All payments to employees shall be computed in
the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971),
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Bass & Bass Security, St. Albans, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 819, Security Workers of America,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for
the unit described below:
All full-time and regular part-time security guards em-
ployed by Respondent at any and/all New York City
Department of Finance offices as provided in the
Agreement between Respondent and New York City
but excluding all other employees, professionals and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Unilaterally modifying the unit employees’ terms
and conditions of employment by changing their wages,
ceasing to provide them with health benefits, eliminating
their paid vacation and personal days, and decreasing
their paid holidays, including but not limited to Christ-
mas and New Year’s Day, without providing the Union
with notice and an opportunity to bargain with respect to
this conduct or its effects.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

3 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a benefit or other fund that have been accepted by the fund in lieu of
the Respondent’s delinquent contributions during the period of the
delinquency, the Respondent will reimburse the employee, but the
amount of such reimbursement will constitute a setoff to the amount
that the Respondent otherwise owes the fund.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and, on request, bargain in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) On request, rescind the unlawful unilateral changes
to wages and benefits it made since November 3, 2002,
and make the unit employees whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct, as set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Restore the unit employees’ health benefits, make
all required benefit fund payments or contributions, if
any, that have not been made since November 3, 2002,
and reimburse unit employees for any expenses resulting
from its unlawful termination of their health benefits,
with interest, as set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in St. Albans, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since November 3, 2002.
4 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.”
BASS & BASS SECURITY 965
(f) 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.
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 has 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 with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with Local 819, Security Workers of
America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative for the unit described below:
All full-time and regular part-time security guards em-
ployed by us at any and/all New York City Department
of Finance offices as provided in the Agreement be-
tween us and New York City but excluding all other
employees, professionals and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally modify the unit employ-
ees’ terms and conditions of employment by changing
their wages, ceasing to provide them with health benefits,
eliminating their paid vacation and personal days, and
decreasing their paid holidays, including but not limited
to Christmas and New Year’s Day, without providing the
Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain with
respect to this conduct or its effects.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL, on request, rescind the unlawful unilateral
changes to wages and benefits we made since November
3, 2002, and WE WILL make the unit employees whole,
with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct.
WE WILL restore the unit employees’ health benefits,
make all required benefit fund payments or contributions,
if any, that have not been made since November 3, 2002,
and reimburse unit employees for any expenses resulting
from our unlawful termination of their health benefits,
with interest.

BASS & BASS SECURITY