Brinks, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

BRINKS, INC. OF FLORIDA
Brinks, Incorporated of Florida and Local 555,
International Union of Police & Protection Em-
ployees, I.S.O.P.G.U. Case` 12-CA-10875
23 April 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS,
STEPHENS AND CRACRAFr
On 17 September 1986 Administrative Law
Judge Howard I. Grossman issued the attached de-
cisi6n. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board,has delegat-
ed its authority, in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has. considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief' and.has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Brinks, In-
corporated of Florida, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
' The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent has not
shown that Local 555, I.S.O.P.G U. is directly or indirectly affiliated
with Teamsters Local 390, we now the absence of any objective evidence
that the conduct of Local 555's officers was a ruse designed to disguise
the de facto' control by Local 390, as well as the absence of any evidence
that Local 390 even attempted to influence Local 555s affairs. As the
judge found , the circumstances of this case are distinguishable from
Board cases in which the fatal taint of affiliation has been established.
However , we emphasize that should evidence of Local 555's loss of inde-
pendence and separate identity and, purpose be forthcoming , the Re-
spondent's obligation to bargain with it concerning its guards may again
be called into question
Eduardo Soto, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey W. Pagano, Esq. (Seligman & Seligman), of New
York, New York, and Leo P. Rock Jr. , Esq. (Gray,
Harris & Robinson), of Orlando , Florida, for the Re-
spondent.
Stephen Davis, Esq, (Davis & , Davis), of New York, New
York, for Local 555.
Thomas J Pilacek, Esq. (Pilacek & Cohen), of Orlando,
Florida, and Peter Chiafalo , of Miami, Florida, for
Teamsters Local 390.1
DECISION
711
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HowARD I. GROSSMAN, Administrative Law Judge.
Local 555, International Union of Police & Protection
Employees, I.S.O.P.G.U. (Local 555 or the Petitioner)
filed a petition in Case 12-RC-6236 on 15 'March 1982
seeking to represent armored car guards employed by
Brinks, Incorporated of Florida (the Respondent or the
Company) at its Fort Lauderdale, Florida facility. The
petition was withdrawn, and a similar petition was filed
on 31 March 1982 in Case 12-RC-6244.
A first election was held on 3 June 1982, and the 'tally
of ballots showed six votes for and seven against the Pe-
titioner. The Petitioner filed objections which, after a
hearing, were sustained by ' the Board on 3 December
1982. Thereafter, on 11 January 1983, a second election
was held which resulted in eight votes cast for- and three
against the Petitioner, with no challenged ballots. On 14
January, 1983 the Company filed objections that, inter
alia, alleged ' that the Petitioner was "affiliated with
Teamsters Local 390, which admits nonguards to mem-
bership," and, therefore, that certification would violate
Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act).2
The Regional Director for Region 12 issued his Sup-
plemental Decision on Objections, Order and Certifica-
tion of Representative on 16 February 1983, in which he
overruled all the Company's objections and certified
Local 555 as the representative of the Company' s guards
at the Fort Lauderdale facility. With respect to the ob-
jections, the Regional Director noted the Company's evi-
dence concerning membership of the Petitioner's officers
in Teamsters Local 390, and rejected this evidence as a
basis for disqualification of Local 555. He also noted the
Company's position that one of the Petitioner's officers
was a business partner of Teamsters Local 390, and one
was a Teamsters Local 390 steward. This evidence was
rejected because it was not shown to be newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable . Finally, the Regional Di-
rector considered previously unavailable, company evi-
dence to the effect that Teamsters Local 390 President
Lark told the Company at a bargaining session that he
was prepared to act as an "interceding union" on behalf
of Local 555 and negotiate wages for the Fort Lauder-
dale employees. The Regional Director also noted evi-
dence from Locals 555 and 390 denying these conten-
tions . He rejected the Company's evidence on the
ground that, even if true, it did not establish that Local
555 had authorized Local 390 to' act on its behalf. 3
The Company thereafter filed a request for review, in
which it repeated the foregoing arguments and requested
a hearing.4 On 2 August 1983 the Board denied the re-
quest for review, Member Dennis dissenting in part.5
1 The Company served subpoenas on officers of Teamsters Local 390,
which, although not a party to the proceeding , made a special appear-
ance.
2 G.C. Exh 1(a), attachment 0
2 G.C. Exh 1(a), attachment R.
a G.C. Exh. 1(a), attachment S.
s G.C. Exh. 1(a), attachment T.
283 NLRB No. 110
712 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A complaint was issued on 14 September 1983, and al-
leged in essence that the Respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to recognize and
bargain with Local 555. On 21 September 1983 the Re-
spondent filed its answer admitting in -part and denying
in part the allegations in the complaint , and also filed a
motion to consolidate this case with another case, and to
incorporate the record in Case 12 -RC-6244. On 7 Octo-
ber 1983 the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment. Thereafter, on 19 October 1983 , the Board
issued a Notice to Show Cause why the motions should
not be granted , and the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed responses.
The Board denied the General Counsel 's Motion for
Summary - Judgment in its Decision and Order dated 27
August 1985 .6 It noted the Company's contention, that
the certification contravened Section 9 (b)(3) of the Act
because Local 555 was affiliated with Teamsters Local
390, an.organization which admits , to membership em-
ployees other than guards. The Board restated the estab-
lished rule prohibiting relitigation of issues in an 8(a)(5)
hearing that were or could have been litigated in a prior
representation proceeding in the absence of newly dis-
covered and previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances . In the instant case , the Board found such
special circumstances to exist because Local 555's possi-
ble affiliation with an organization which admitted non-
guards to membership would statutorily preclude its cer-
tification. The Board recited the Company 's evidence in
support of this contention as set forth above.
In denying the General Counsel's Motion for Summa-
ry Judgment, the Board remanded the proceeding to the
Regional Director for an evidentiary hearing before an
administrative law judge on Local 555's "alleged affili-
ation with an organization that admits nonguards to
membership." In the Order itself the Board directed a
hearing "on the Company's allegations that certification
of Local 555 . . . contravenes Section 9(b)(3) of the
Act."7
The Regional Director for Region 12 issued a notice
of hearing , and hearings were thereafter held before me
on 16 and 30 December 1985 and` 3, 7, and 8 January, 3,
10, and 21 February, and 28 and 29 April 1986 , either on
the-telephone or in Miami, Florida . Thereafter, the Com-
pany submitted a brief. On the entire record and on my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Procedural Rulings
At the hearing on, 30 December 1985 , I ruled that the
issues before me under the Board 's remand Order were
limited to evidence previously submitted by the Compa-
ny as described above and as set forth in the Board's de-
cision . Following a special appeal by the Company from
s 276 NLRB 1.
4 Id. at 2 The Board found no merit in the Company 's additional argu-
ment that it was entitled to a hearing on the alleged criminal background
of certain Local 555 agents.
this ruling, the Board reversed , and held that "all rele-
vant evidence" should be received on the Company's al-
legation that the certification of the Union "contravenes
Section 9(bX3) of the Act.""
The Company caused subpoenas to be served on vari-
ous officers of Local_ 555, the International Security Offi-
cers, Police and Guards Union (I.S.O.P.G.U.), and
Teamsters Local 390. The latter filed a petition to quash
the subpoena issued to its officer essentially on the
ground that it sought information irrelevant to the pro-
ceeding . Local 555 s counsel protested that the subpoe-
nas were so far-reaching as to constitute an invasion of
privacy.9
I denied the petition in part and granted it in part,
ruling that the Company was entitled to some of the re-
quested documents outright. As to others, I held that I
would examine them in camera and receive into - evidence
those portions which were relevant to this -proceeding.
Following a special appeal by the Company from this
ruling, the same was affirmed by the Board." Local 555
agreed to abide by this procedure . ` Thereafter, Il exam-
ined numerous documents submitted by Teamsters Local
390 and Local 555 pursuant to the subpoenas, turned
over to the Company those documents to which it was
entitled, and read into the record relevant portions of
other documents.
B. Teamsters Representation of Company Employees
in South Florida
The Company has facilities in West Palm Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, and Miami , Florida. Teamsters Local 390 at
relevant times represented company employees in the
West Palm Beach and Miami facilities , but not in Fort
Lauderdale . The parties stipulated that Teamsters Local
390 President Lark demanded recognition in the Fort
Lauderdale facility in February 1982 , and Lark testified
that he requested recognition there in almost every bar-
gaining session that he had with the Company. The
record contains two such demands in writing , in 1975
and 1981 .1 1 The Company did not comply with these re-
quests.
C. The Origin of Local 555
1. Kenneth Jordan
Kenneth Jordan was the principal organizer of Local
555. Jordan was a tractor-trailer driver at a Consolidated
Freightways terminal in the West Palm Beach area. Con-
solidated 's employees were represented by Teamsters
Local - 390. Jordan was a dues-paying member of Local
390 from 1976 to about 1984, when he stopped working
because of an injury sustained in an accident.
At times when he was organizing Local 555, Jordan
was also Local 390's steward at Consolidated
Freightways . The Company contends that this fact tends
8 G.C. Exh 5
9 Local 555 also filed a petition to quash.
la G.C. Exh 8.
" R. Exhs. 1, 4.
BRINKS, INC. OF FLORIDA
to establish impermissible affiliation between Local 555
and Local 390.
Jordan explained his, steward 's function as essentially
the resolution of, grievances. In this connection, he con-
sulted both with his Teamsters superiors and with man-
agement. He tried to resolve grievances without "going
to paper," i.e., becoming involved in formal proceedings.
Jordan denied that he ever engaged in "negotiations" at
Consolidated, by which, I infer, he meant contract nego-
tiations. Jordan testified that he received no pay from the
Teamsters as a steward. This testimony was corroborated
by Teamsters Local 390 President Lark.
The Teamsters bylaws provide that stewards are ap-
pointed by the Teamsters local president, unless he con-
siders an election to be advisable, and that the president
may relieve a steward of his duties at any time. The
steward's duties ,essentially are to examine dues books,
report the presence of nonunion employees, give the sec-
retary-treasurer addresses and telephone numbers, and
settle grievances.12 A steward's manual distributed by
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, of which
Jordan had a copy, defines the steward as "that person at
the worksite who handles the problems and concerns of
the employees and the employees' union." 1 a The manual
describes the steward's role in, resolving grievances,
which includes maintenance of constructive relations be-
tween management and the union, acting as spokesman
for the union, policing the agreement, attending union
meetings, and promoting unionism.14 Peter Chiafalo, a
Teamsters steward for 25 years ending in 1980, testified
that the Teamsters 'manual accurately defines the func-
tions of a steward. He denied that stewards have picket
line duties or attend executive board meetings (with oc-
casional exceptions) because only "elected" officers
attend such meetings.
The. foregoing steward's duties appear in section 7 of
article VII of Local 390's bylaws, entitled "Officers."
Other officers consist of the president, vice president,' s
secretary-treasurer, recording secretary, trustees, warden,
and conductors. Article VIII of the bylaws confers a
wide range of managerial and policymaking functions on
the executive board, whose members consist of the presi-
dent, vice president, secretary-treasurer, recording secre-
tary and three trustees. Wardens and assistant wardens
may attend board meetings only on invitation of the
president.16 There is no provision for attendance of
stewards at executive board meetings.
2. Organization of the Local
Jordan testified that his father, age 60, was an unarmed
security guard in Florida. Jordan's father had trouble on
his job, and relayed this to Jordan. The latter said that,
as a Teamsters steward, this annoyed him.
1 a R. Exh . 3, sSec. 7.
18 R. Exh . 8, p. 2.
14 Id. at 2, 3.
15 Although there is no express provision for a vice president in art.
VII, l infer that this is a missprint because that article skips from sec. 1
(president) to sec. 3 (secretary-treasurer), while art. VIII specifically
refers to a vice president. R Exh. 3.
16 Art. VIII, sec. 1 (R Exh. 3).
713
Jordan visited New York in early 1981, and at that
time saw Frank Mancini, secretary-.treasurer of the
I.S.O.P.G.U. Jordan, discussed his father's problems with
Mancini, who asked Jordan whether he would like to
take on the responsibility of a local in Florida. Jordan
said that he would think about it. He was "making good
money and had no headaches."
Mancini came down to Florida,on a fishing trip in the
spring of 1981, and invited Jordan and his son to go
along. Mancini asked Jordan whether he had made up
his mind, and Jordan answered affirmatively. Mancini
then gave Jordan "instructional lessons" on Section
9(b)(3), which "kind of amazed" Jordan. There were fur-
ther telephone conversations between the two on this
subject, and Jordan requested a charter. He received one
about June 1981.11
Jordan denied that he had any communication with
Teamsters Local 390 about his capacity as a Local 555
representative, _ although he did 'have communication
with the Teamsters as a Local 390 steward at Consolidat-
ed Freightways. Jordan also denied any communication
with any other Teamsters local. Teamsters Local 390
President Lark denied that anybody from Local 555 ever
discussed its organization with him. I credit Jordan's and
Lark's consistent and unrebutted testimonies on this
issue.
3. The first meeting and election of officers
Local 555's first meeting took place in June 1981 about
a week after Jordan received the charter. According to
Jordan, the purpose of the meeting was to establish a
union of security guards in Florida. Seven persons were
present at the first meeting: Jordan; his father, Charles
Jordan; John Pluchino;, Van Stafford; Marty Marciaro;
Sam Cannigliario; and Steve Hochhauser. Of these, Staf
ford and Charles Jordan had worked as security guards.
Although the record is not clear, the first meeting was
apparently held either' in an office or in Jordan's resi-•
dence.
Kenneth Jordan was elected president and Marciaro
vice president. Marciaro was an automobile mechanic in
1981 and a tractor-trailer driver in Miami in 1982. Mar.
ciaro's father, Vincent Marciaro, was then secretary-
treasurer of Teamsters Local 390, but did not attend any
Local 555 meetings. Marty Mart iaro resigned from
Local 555 about 1983.
John Pluchino was elected secretary-treasurer. He was
a member of Teamsters Local 390, and worked as a trac-
tor-trailer driver for one of the Ryder companies, where
he was a Local 390, steward for about -6 months in 1982.
In late 1983, Jordan asked Pluchino to resign from Local
555 because of 'alleged improprieties where he worked,
and Pluchino complied. Jordan testified that he consulted
,with attorneys before asking Pluchino to resign, but did
not consult with anybody else.
Steve Hochhauser was elected recording secretary.
Like Jordan, Hochhauser was employed at Consolidated
Freightways. Although the record is not specific, I infer
that Hochhauser, like Jordan,, worked as a truckdriver.
17 The charter was proffered to the Company during the hearing.
714 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As noted, Jordan, left work because of an accident in
1984.- About that time, according to the stipulation of the
parties; Hochhauser' became an "appointed" 8 Teamsters
steward at Consolidated, a position which he continued
to'hold at the time of the hearing.'-On the basis of this
stipulation, the Teamsters bylaws, and Chiafalo's testimo-
ny that stewards do not attend Local 390 executive
board meetings because only 'elected officers do so, I
-infer that the other Local 390 stewards, including Jordan
and Pluchino, were also appointed.
'Charles Jordan, Cannigliario, and Stafford became
trustees. Stafford was a member' of Teamsters Local 390.
'Jordan credidly testified that the individuals who were
present "didn't realize why we could only accept guards
[but] agreed to go on those guidelines of only guards."
Examination of Jordan by the Company's counsel
reads in part as follows`:
Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Jordan,' that with respect to
your Union right now, that currently you have no
members as such: is that true?
A. Yes.
Jordan further ' testified on cross-examination that
Local 555 was operating "temporarily" under the bylaws
of the International, but that it could not adopt bylaws
and a constitution "until [it had] members." Pursuant to
the Company's subpoena issued to Jordan, the "constitu-
tion of the Independent Watchman's Association" 19 was
turned over to the Company, and was utilized by it
during cross-examination of Jordan, but was not intro-
duced into evidence.. Jordan agreed that he was a
member of the Local 555 executive board according to
the provisions of this document, that the constitution re-
quired him to be bonded, and that, he was not bonded.
Local 555 records indicate that it held meetings begin-
ning about-July 1981.20 Jordan testified that they were
held, monthly. Although the evidence is somewhat
sparse, I conclude that some meetings were held in an
office, which was moved at one time, and that some
meetings were held in_ Jordan's residence after his injury
about 1984.
D. Teamsters Local 390 President Lark's Bargaining
Session with the Company in January 19&3
1. Summary of the evidence
As set -forth above, Local 555 won the second election
with respect to the Fort Lauderdale employees- on 11
January 1983. - Teamsters Local 390 President Lark met
with company officials in that month, ostensibly with re-
18 Pursuant to the Company,s request in its postheariag brief, the tran-
script is corrected by striking the word "acquainted" in L. 8 on p 1050
and substituting in lieu thereof the word "appointed."
19 Local 555 's counsel represented that the Independent Watchman's
Association was the former name of the current I.S.O.P.G.U, and that
the name was-changed in 1980.
20 In describing Local 555 documents on the record, I originally mis-
characterized a record, of sign-in sheets (with no substantive discussion)
as a record of meetings. Thereafter, I discovered the record of the meet-
ings, with some substantive discussion of them, and made their contents
available to the Company.
spect to the wages of Miami and West Palm Beach em-
ployees.21
Company District Manager Norman Whitcomb testi-
fied that Lark opened the meeting with the statement
that he was there to negotiate wages for Miami and Fort
Lauderdale employees. Company official Tom Cannon
corrected him, saying that the subject under discussion
was the wages of Miami and West-Palm Beach employ-
ees. At that point, according to Whitcomb, Lark said
that he understood - the Company had lost the election
with Local 555 in Fort. Lauderdale, and that he was
there to represent the -Fort Lauderdale employees. He
asked the Company whether it was aware that the prin-
cipals in Local 555 were members of Local 390. Lark
also said it would be easier to deal with him on behalf of
the Fort Lauderdale employees. The Company declined
to do so.
The testimony, of - former company executive Tom
Cannon, recorded in another proceeding, is substantially
the ,same. Lark said that he was ready to negotiate for
Miami and Fort Lauderdale, that the Company had lost
the election in Fort Lauderdale, that the president of
Local 555 was a member of the Teamsters, and that the
Company would be "better off dealing with the Team-
sters in the long run that the security union."22
The testimony of Local 39,0 President Lark is equivo-
cal on the question of whether it was he or company of-
ficial Cannon who first raised, the issue of the victory of
Local 555 in the 11 January election. And, Lark, conced-
ed, he may have said that some members of Local 555
were also members of Local 390. However, on the sig-
nificant issue of whether Lark claimed to represent
Local 555, the Local 390 president denied that he told
the Company that he was there to negotiate on behalf'of
Local 555, and denied that the latter had ever authorized
him to do so. He denied telling the Company that he was
prepared to act as an "interceding union" for Local 555.
Lark testified: ""What the Company did was took a state-
ment and turned it around to their advantage. I told the
Company that if th ey didn't want to deal with 2 unions,
I would negotiate a contract for the Fort Lauderdale
[employees] on behalf of Local 390."
Local 555 President Jordan denied that he ever talked
to Lark about the guard union.
2. Factual analysis
The evidence is insufficient to establish that Lark told
the Company that Local 390 was prepared to act as an
"interceding union" and to negotiate, for the Fort Lau-
derdale employees on behalf of Local 555. Lark himself
denied any assertion of such representative status and
there is no testimony from 'the company witnesses expli-
city affirming that Lark asserted such status. Indeed,
Company Official Cannon testified that Lark said the
Company would be "better off dealing with the Team-
sters." Local 555 never authorized Local 390 to act for
it. What Lark did tell the Company is that Local 390
21 The testimony of former company official Tom Cannon, recorded in
another- proceeding, fixes the date of the meeting as 19 January 1983 (R.
Exh. 7).
22 R. Exh. 7.
BRINKS, INC. OF FLORIDA
was prepared to represent the Fort Lauderdale employ-
ees if the Company did not want to deal with two
unions, and that this would be easier for the Company.
E. The Issue of Financial Assistance to Local 555
Teamsters Local " 390 President Lark denied that his
local gave any gifts or moneys to any affiliated local in
1983 other than the -International. He was then shown
the Local 390 LM-2 report to the Department of Labor
for 1083, signed by him, which shows $ 120 as a contribu-
tion, gift, or grant to an "affiliated labor organization."23
Lark stated that he did not know the recipient of the
$120, but said that it may have been for a party or retire-
ment dinner run by another Teamsters local. He denied
that the report meant that' Local 390 was affiliated with
any organization other' than the- International , and denied
that either he or Local 390, gave any money to Local
555.
The 1982 or 1983 tax return of Local 555 President
Jordan was submitted by Local 555 to the Company and
Jordan was interrogated on the basis of information in
this document. According to Jordan, he commingled
some of his own funds with those of the Local because
the latter did not have a bank account. He denied receiv-
ing money from any labor organization other than Local
555 and denied paying out money to any labor organiza-
tion. The only money ' that he received, other than a
return of expenses from Local 555, was his salary from
his employer and an inheritance.
The evidence is insufficient to establish that Local 390
- gave financial assistance to Local 555.
F. Jordan's Relationship with Antonio Abaroa
The parties stipulated that Antonio Abaroa was a
Teamsters Local 390 steward at the company location in
Miami from December 1981 through about August 1982,
and that he resigned about that time . The Company con-
tends that Local 55,5 President Jordan's relationship with
Abaroa establishes a conflict of interests on the part of
Local 555 sufficient to warrant revocation of the certifi-
cation. ,
Jordan testified that he received a telephone can from
Abaroa in early 1982 which he did not fully understand.
The two then met in, a restaurant, and thereafter had
telephone conversations in which ' Abaroa explained his
problems . He was having trouble with District Manager
Whitcomb, and was in danger of losing his job. Accord-
ing _ to ' Jordan 's hearsay report, Abaroa was apparently
dissatisfied with his representation ' by Teamsters Local
390. He asked Jordan to have the Teamsters "thrown
out" of the company location in Miami , and replaced by
Local 555 . Jordan replied that it was difficult to get a
union decertified, and that Abaroa needed the support of
a certain percentage of the employees . Abaroa spoke to
the Miami employees , with no results indicated by the
record.
Jordan said that he was "trying to be a Teamster stew-
ard," and that Abaroa 's request put him in "an extremely
bad spot." Jordan was both a Teamsters steward and the
23 R Exh. 5
715
organizer of Local 555 in Fort Lauderdale , he explained.
He had no interest in what was going on in Miami, and
believed it to be "none of [his ] business." "And without
the cards . . . I had no authority to go near it. And I
wouldn 't go near it," Jordan testified.
Local 555 records indicate that Abaroa was present at
a Local 555 meeting on 14 August 1983 . Jordan testified
that the principal subject of discussion at this meeting
was a possible strike at the Company in Fort Lauderdale,
and that a strike was authorized . Abaroa did not partici-
pate in this discussion, according to Jordan . He merely
stopped in to say, "Hello," and was in another room.
Jordan testified : "All that I was worried about is that I
got a hundred percent vote out of Fort Lauderdale. And
I [was at] a very heated meeting . That's all I was inter-
ested in. I wasn't involved with Miami , Tony Abaroa, or
anybody else , West Palm Beach wasn 't involved in it.
All I was interested in was Fort Lauderdale."
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The Issues
As set forth above, the Company's objection to the
second election which gave rise to this proceeding was
that Local 555 "is affiliated with Teamsters Local 390,
which admits nonguards to membership ," and that the
certification is thereby precluded by the Act. The Board,
however, has stated that the issue is whether the certifi..
cation of Local 555 "contravenes section 9(b)(3) of the
Act" (in any manner). That section, after authorizing the
Board 'to decide units appropriate for collective bargain..
ing, continues in relevant part as follows:
Provided, That the, Board shall not . . . (3) decide
that any unit is appropriate for such purposes if it
includes, together with other employees , any indi-
vidual employed as' a guard to enforce against em-
ployees and, other persons rules to protect, property
of the employer or to protect the safety of persons
on the employer's premises ; but no labor organiza-
tion shall be certified as the representative of em-
ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such orga-
nization admits to membership , or is affiliated di-
rectly or indirectly with an organization which
admits to membership , employees other than
guards.
Although the Board has concluded that special cir-
cumstances here warrant departure from the rule prohib-
iting relitigation of issues which were or,could have been
raised in the prior representation hearing , this proceeding
is still based on the Company's objection to the second
election and its request for a hearing , and is conducted
pursuant to the Board 's Rules and Regulations governing
such proceedings. It is well established that, in such
hearings, the burden of showing grounds for setting aside
an election is on the party seeking to do so.24
"'Emerson Electric Ca v. NLRB , 649 F.2d 589 (8th Cir. 1981), enfg.
247 NLRB 1365 ( 1980), IDAB, Inc., 269 NLRB 554, 570 (1984), enfd. 770
F.2d 991 (11th Cir. 1985).
716 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Issue of Whether Local 555 Admits Nonguards
to Membership
As noted above, the'Company's objection to the certi-
fication is that Local 555 is affiliated with Local 390,
which admits nonguards to membership. The Company
has not claimed that the certification is invalid because
Local 555 itself admits nonguards to membership. Yet
this question is an issue in this proceeding because of the
Baord's Order that relevant evidence be received on the
Company's allegation that `the certification "contravenes
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act." It is obvious that that section
would bar certification if Local 555 itself admits non-
guards to membership.
It is equally obvious that, although two of the Local
555 officers had worked as guards (Stafford and Charles
Jordan), the other officers had worked or were working
as nonguards. The issue is whether they had been admit-
ted to Local 555 "membership" as that term is used -in
Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959 defines a "member" of a labor organization as
.,any person who has fulfilled the requirements for mem-
bership in such organization,"25 and the National Labor
Relations Act memorializes "the right of a labor organi-
zation to prescribe its own rules with.respect to the ac-
quisition or retention of,membership."26
The problem in this case is that we do not know Local
555's ' rules for membership. Although a copy of the
International constitution, presumably containing the
membership rules, was delivered to the Company pursu-
ant to'its subpoena, the same was not introduced into
evidence. Local 555 President' Jordan repeatedly testified
on cross-examination by the 'Company that Local 555
"had no members," and was operating temporarily under
the International constitution. The Company presented
no evidence to rebut Jordan's testimony. Indeed, that tes-
timony was elicited by the Company.27
The fact that the newly certified labor organization
has not acquired any members does not make it defunct
or in any way invalidate the certification as long as it
continues in existence and is willing and able to represent
the employees. Hershey Chocolate' Corp., 121 NLRB 901,
911 (1958). This function Local 555 is clearly willing and
able to perform.
There' is no evidence that the organizers of Local 555
intend to flout the proscriptions of Section 9(b)(3). On
the contrary, they "agreed to go on the guidelines of
only guards" as members of the organization. Although
the record is unclear as to the date that they intend to
25 Sec. 3(o) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
provides-
"Member" or "member in good standing," when used in reference to
a labor organization; includes any person who has fulfilled the re-
quirements for membership in such organization, and who neither
has voluntarily withdrawn from membership nor has been expelled
or suspended from membership after appropriate proceedings con-
sistent with lawful provisions of the constitution and bylaws of such
organization.
26 Sec. 8(bx1XA) of the National Labor Relations Act. For discussion
of the legislative history and interrelationship of these sections of the two
statutes, see Hughes v.' Iron Workers Local 11, 287 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1961),
cert. denied 368 U.S 829 (1961).
27 See Pinkerton's Detective Agency, 124 NLRB 1076, 1078 (1959)
resign their nonguard jobs, presumably this would be
prior to formal acquisition of membership status. The
Board has previously accepted such statement of inten-
tion to abide by the requirements of the statute asrebut-
tal of other evidence suggesting acceptance of nonguards
into membership. International Security Corp., 223 NLRB
1129 (1976).28,The same inference is-warranted here.
I conclude-that the Respondent has not contended, nor
has it sustained its burden of establishing, that Local 555
admits-nonguards to membership.
C. The Divided Loyalty Issue
1. The-rationale of the status
The Company argues that ' certification is barred be-
cause of divided loyalty of Local 555 officers. The legis-
lative history of the divided loyalty rationale for enact-
ment of Section 9(b)(3) has recently been set forth by the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in pertinent part
as follows:
_ The conference chose the language, it said, because
it found persuasive the exposition by the lower
court in Jones & Laughlin, 154 F.2d 932 (6th Cir.),
that guards who belong to a union representing
plant employees would experience conflicting loyal-
ties in the event of a strike because their obligation
to the employer and the -community would be in-
compatible with their obligation to the striking
union.
The Board and reviewing courts have consistent-
ly found that although in enacting Section 9(b)(3)
Congress may have focused primarily °on the par-
ticular situation in Jones-& Laughlin, the broad lan-
guage which it chose - to use encompasses not
merely divided loyalties' at a company plant, but the
potential for divided loyalty that arises whenever a
guard is called upon 'to enforce the rules of his em-
ployer against any fellow union member ... .
It has' been held uniformly in the last thirty years
... that armored car security personnel ..: are
guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3)... .
The Potential for divided loyalty is present whether
or not the same employer is involved . . .
We are convinced that, based on the language
and legislative history of Section 9(b)(3), the Board
was warranted, in interpreting the section, as pro-
scribing Board direction to an, employer to bargain
with a mixed guard union, despite prior voluntary
recognition of that union. by the employer.. There is
sufficient-support for,the Board's conclusion that in
enacting the statute, Congress knowinly decreased
the stability of bargaining relationships in order to
further its objective of protecting employers from
the potential for divided loyalty. -
28 See also General Motors Corp., 80 NLRB 317, 318 (1948)
BRINKS , INC. OF FLORIDA
Teamsters Local 807 v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 5, 8-10, (2d Cir.
1985), denying review of 270 NLRB 787 (1984).
In the case of armored -car guards , as here, the Board
has stated as follows:
The danger of divided loyalty which Congress
sought to eliminate may not be quite so far-reaching
in the case of armored-car guards, but it is, never-
theless, present. A conflict of loyalty could arise,
for example, if the guards should be called upon to
deliver money or valuables to one of their custom-
ers whose employees were represented by the same
union as represented the armored-car guards and
the employees of the customer were on strike and
picketing the premises of the customer.,
Armored Motor Service Co.,' 106 NLRB 1139, 1140
(1953).29
2. The Company's application of the rationale
The Company appears to apply the foregoing rationale
to this case in two different ways. The first argument
reads as follows:
S. Hochhauser and K. Jordan, as being both offi-
cers and members of Teamsters Local Union No.
390, as well as being officers of Local 555, would
be caught in the classic conflict of loyalty dilemma
should the interests of , Teamsters Local Union No.'
390 collide with the interests of Local 555. Thus,
under such , circumstances, since Shop Stewards
served at the, discretion of the President, they are
bound to perform those acts and effectuate those
Local Union goals as are , directed by the President
of Teamsters Local Union No, 390. The interests of
Local 555 can be, and are at odds with the interests
-off Teamsters Local Union No. 390,due to the very
existence of Section 9(b)(3). Since K. Jordan and S.
I "ochhauser were and/or are Shop Steward Officers
of Teamsters Local Union No. 390, while at the
same time being President and/or Secretary-Treas-
urer Officers of Local 555, the conflict exists.S°
The Company points to the Abaroa incidents as exam-
ples of this,conflict:
There was' Abaroa, requesting that a guard union
organize the guard employees of Respondent's
Miami location, at a time when a petition .. .
would have been timely. There was Abaroa, com-
municating to a Local 555 , Officer, and Teamsters
Local 390 Officer that Teamsters Local 390 was
failing, to fairly, represent the employees.
What side did K. Jordan pick in this graphic ex-
ample of why the Board refuses to certify guard
unions affiliated with non-guard unions? K. Jordan
said' it all when he' testified: "I was trying to be a
steward."
29 See also Teamsters Local 344 (Purolator Security), 228 NLRB 1379
717
In other words, K. Jordan disregarded the needs
of employees who could have been represented by
a guard union, and followed the policy of the
Teamsters Local Union 390 President, who was ne-
gotiating the collective bargaining agreement with
Respondent. This is not a surmised conflict, rather
it is an example of those types of conflicts that Con-
gress sought to eliminate by the passage of Section
9(b)(3).3 i
In other language the Company appears to link the di-
vided. loyalty rationale to the statutory prohibition
against affiliation of a guard with a nonguard union:
Accordingly, the essence of Section 9(b)(3) is the
concept of divided loyalty. That is guards who
belong to a union which is comprised of or con-
trolled by non-guards would experience conflicting
loyalties to their employer and their union which
would be incompatible .... Divided loyalties are
concerns not only'present under the circumstances
in different units of the sanie,facility of an employ-
er, but the potential for divided loyalties also arises
whenever a guard is called upon to enforce the
rules of an employer against any fellow union
member of an affiliated union who is employed by a
different employer. 3 2
3. Discussion
As set forth above, the potential division of loyalty
which Congress sought to eliminate was that which a
guard'd might experience when caught ' in the dilemma of
trying to enforce his employer' s rules against his fellow
union members, either in his employer's plant or, in the
case of armored-car guards, during attempted deliveries
at another employer's plant. In either event, the entity
which .Congress sought to protect was the guard's em-
ployer or another employer.
There is no evidence that Congress sought to protect a
labor organization against potential division of, loyalty
when one of'its members or officers is a member or offi-
cer of another labor organization. Yet, this is what the
Company's argument amounts to. The Company con-
tends that the Local 555 officers, some of- whom were
also Local 390 stewards, were caught in "the classic con-
flict of loyalty" between two unions.
It is obvious that there was a conflict between the two
unions. It existed at the Company's Fort Lauderdale fa-
cility. It was there that Local 555 President Jordan and
his colleagues sought and obtained certification despite
the fact that Jordan was a Local 390 steward in another
area (West Palm Beach) and otherLocall 555 officers had
similar Local 390 affiliations. And it was at Fort Lauder-
dale that Local 390 President Lark unsuccesfully sought
recognition of Local 390 from the Company despite the
recent election result in favor of Local 555.
But this union competition is not the "conflict of loyal-
ty" with which Congress was concerned in enactment of
Section 9(b)(3). Neither Local 555 nor Local 390 is an
(1977) fd 568 F 2d 12 7th Ci 1977) T t L l 639 (D b, en . ( r. ; eams ers oca un ar.
Armored), 211 ;NLRB 687 (1974) 31 Id at 33-34.
30 R. Br 27. 32 Id at 30.
718 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer employing guards who are members of still an-
other labor -organization . Local 555 President Jordan did
not experience any divided loyalty between duties (as a
guard) owed to his employer (Consolidated Freightways)
and those owed to Local 555 or Local 390-Jordan was
a truckdriver not a guard.
Nor did Jordan owe any obligation to Abaroa or the
Company's employees at its Miami facility , there repre-
sented by the Teamsters . Local 555 was not certified as
the representative of the Company' s Miami employees-
it was certified for an entirely different unit , the employ-
ees in Fort Lauderdale. There is no evidence that Local
555 in- any way wavered from this responsibility. The
Company's argument that Local 555 was somehow obli-
gated to rescue other units elsewhere in the country
from representation by other labor organizations is with-
out precedent or logic.
As indicated, the Company also argues that divided
loyalty exists when a guard union is "controlled" by
nonguards or when a guard union is called on to enforce
rules against members of an "affiliated" union . This argu-
ment depends on the Company 's contention that Local
555 is directly 'or indirectly affiliated with a nonguard
union, an argument which I now consider.
D. The Affiliation issue
1. The Company's position
The Company relies on the fact that Local 555 officers
Jordan and Hochhauser (and, apparently, Pluchino), at
times, were Local 390 stewards when they were also
Local 555 officers, and that other Local 555 officers
were Local 390 members.
The Company's principal authority is Brinks, Inc., 274
NLRB 970 (1985). In that case a Teamsters local had
previously been recognized by the employer as the rep-
resentative of a unit of guard and nonguard employees.
After the employer withdrew recognition from the
Teamsters local, two employee guards composed bylaws
using 'the' Teamsters local's bylaws as a model . The first
meeting of guard employees was held at the Teamsters
local's office , at which two representatives of the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Teamsters
local president were present . Immediately thereafter, at
another meeting where only employee guards were
present, the previously composed bylaws were adopted
and officers were elected.
The- guard who was the main force behind the guard
union was also an elected trustee of the Teamsters local
and participated actively in its policymaking board. He
was also an active member of the Teamsters Joint Coun-
cil, and was paid an officer 's fee for each meeting of the
board or the council which he attended. This individual
was also a Teamsters local steward for the employer's
guard employees . The Teamsters and guard union
bylaws were similar in most respects, as were the author-
ization cards of the two unions. The guard union cards
were based on the Teamsters cards.
On this evidence the Board found that the guard union
was indirectly affiliated with the Teamsters local. It
relied principally on the fact that the individual primarily
responsible for the existence of the guard union was a
"paid officer and policymaker" of the Teamsters local,
and that the ' guard union's only meeting-occurred at the
Teamsters local's office immediately following , a discus-
sion attended by Teamsters officials . The Board conclud-
ed (id . at 971 fn. 4):
[T]he close affiliation of the [guard. union ] and [the
Teamsters local], including a common officer, had
existed for at least 10 months at the time, of the
hearing . We are not convinced that the [guard
union] is free to and does in fact set its own policies
and courses of action.
The Company relies on other cases - in which the
Board reached similar conclusions . In Armored Transport,
269 NLRB 683 (1984), a Teamsters local had previously
represented the unit, and the petition for the guard -union
was signed by two full-time representatives of the Team-
sters who negotiated and administered collective-bargain-
ing agreements . Further; the' Teamsters representatives
intended to keep their jobs with the Teamsters if they
were certified as representatives of the guards.- The
Board found that the two petitioners were , indirectly af-
filiated with the Teamsters based on their "employment
as full-time Teamsters business agents. ",Id. at 684.
In Stewart- Warner Corp, 273 NLRB 1736 (1985), a
Teamsters local filed and then withdrew a representation
petition. Following this , a series of conversations and
meetings took place : (a)- an unknown informant told the
individual who ultimately became the guard union presi-
dent that the Teamsters had "encountered a :,problem be-
cause security guards had to be organized - by a union
which represents only guards"; ' (b) a Teamsters business
agent and organizer told the future guard union president
that the Teamsters wanted him to "take off where they
left off," and, after soliciting interest in a guard union,
the future president asked ' the Teamsters business agent
for advice ' on -the next steps to take ; (c) the future guard
union president later met with Teamsters officers who
were his longtime friends at a Teamsters office, and was
given advice on securing a showing of interest, together
with a prepared ' petition; (d)' the future guard union
president and others who had agreed to be officers met
with the Teamsters business agent, who presented them
with a showing-of-interest petition signed by some of the
employer's guards; and (e) the Teamsters business agent
gave the future guard union president a -,completed repre-
sentation petition requiring only his signature and advice
on what to do after filing . The Board ruled that these
and other factors indicated a lack of freedom on the part
of the guard union in formulating its own policies, and
thus supported a finding of indirect affiliation.
In Wackenhut Corp., 223, NLRB 1131 (1976), the guard
union secretary-treasurer served as salaried assistant to
the president of the nonguard union (District 2, MEBA),
while the guard union president was himself employed
by District 2. A contract negotiated by the ' guard union
stated that it was "affiliated" with the nonguard union.
District 2's secretary-treasurer and the secretary to its
president were authorized to sign checks on behalf of the
guard union , and District 2 promised financial assistance
to the guard union if needed . District 2 also provided
BRINKS , INC. OF FLORIDA
free office space and business and secretarial services to
the guard union. The Board found that the latter did not
have "freedom and independence in formulating its own
policies and deciding its own course of action". (id. at
1132).
In Willcox Construction Co., 87 NLRB 371 (1949), a
guard union affiliated with the International Longshore-
men's Association (ILA) was dissolved, and, on the same
day, the International Watchman's Association (IWA)
was formed. Later, IWA granted a charter to a guard
union local. Despite assertions of independence of the
IWA and its local from any other labor organization, the
IWA president was also president of an ILA affiliate,
from whom he received expense allowances in addition
to his IWA salary. Three IWA vice presidents served as
officers of or delegates to ILA organizations, and partici-
pated in formulating IWA's policies. The Board found
that these facts evidenced indirect affiliation between the
IWA and the ILA.
2. Discussion
With the exception of the Local 390 stewardships of
Jordan, Hochhauser, and Pluchino, the-foregoing indicia
of indirect affiliation are- not present in this case. Thus,
the evidence is insufficient to establish that Local 390
gave financial or organizational assistance to Local 555.
The Board has concluded in another case that the ab-
sence of these two factors was sufficient to negate an in-
ference of indirect affiliation despite the fact that the
nonguard union allowed the guard union to use its meet-
ing hall and had the same attorney. Philadelphia College
of Medicine, 213 NLRB 259 fn. 3 (1974).33 ,
In this case, unlike some of those cited by the Compa-
ny, there was, no prior representation of the unit in ques-
tion by a nonguard union (Local 390), -followed by loss
of such representative, status and subsequent activity sug-
gesting an effort to circumvent Section 9(b)(3) ; with a
captive guard union. Local 390 did not represent the
Company's Fort Lauderdale guards, and there is no evi-
dence that it started Local 555 to gain such representa-
tion indirectly. The genesis of Local 555 was Jordan's
dissatisfaction with the working conditions of his father,
a guard.
The first guard union meeting did not take place on
nonguard union premises, and Local 390 did not provide
office space or secretarial services to Local 555. Local
390 officers did not speak to Local 555 officers about the
affairs of the latter union, nor attempt to bargain - with
the Company on its behalf. Local 555 was governed by
the constitution of its own International, not bylaws
modeled after those of the Teamsters,
The Company's case thus comes down to the Local
390 stewardships-Local 555 President Jordan at Con-
solidated Freightways until about 1984, Recording Sec-
retary Hochhauser at that location thereafter, and Secre-
tary-Treasurer Pluchino for about 6 months in 1982 at a
Ryder company.
as See also New York Hilton, 193 NLRB 313 (1971), Ingersoll-Rand
Co., 119 NLRB 601 ( 1957).
719
The Company argues that these Local 555 officers
were, as Local 390 stewards, also officers of Local 39034
and that their status as "common officers" establishes
direct or indirect affiliation of Local 555 with Local 390.
Because the duties of Local 390 stewards, are defined
by its bylaws in the section entitled "Officers," it may,
reasonably be inferred that Local 390 considers them to
be officers. However, the ;issue is whether they are offi-
cers with stature sufficient to establish that their concom-
itant participation in the operation of Local 555 manifests
its, "affiliation" with Local 390. They are not members of
the Local 390 executive board, which decides union
,policy, nor is there any evidence that they do in fact
exert influence on policy decisions. Rather, their function
is limited to the settlement of grievances at the plant
level. As Local 390 stewards, they are appointed by the
Local 390 president, serve at his pleasure, and-are not
compensated.
None of the "common officer" cases cited by the Re-
spondent involves individuals so limited in responsibility
and perquisites in their nonguard positions. All received
monetary compensation in one form or another for their
nonguard union duties35 : and,, unlike the facts here, the
records affirmatively show that their' ronguard union
jobs were continuing in nature. All had responsibilities
greater than the stewards' resolution of grievances here,
ranging from negotiation and administration of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements (in Armored Transport, supra)
up to the presidency of a nonguard union affiliate (Will-
cox Construction Co., supra).36
The Company argues that the Teamsters president's
removal power over Local 390 stewards evidences Local
390 control over Local 555 because some of the Local
555 officers were Local 390 stewards. However., it is at
least questionable that the unpaid Local 390 steward jobs
were more important to Jordan and his colleagues than
were the factors which motivated them to start a guard
union. Further, there is ,;no affirmative evidence of ' any
such attempt at control of,Loca1 555, and the Company's
argument is not a substitute for evidence. What the
Teamsters president's removal power does emphasize is
the disparity between the' status of Teamsters stewards
and that of the other officers considered by the Board in
the "common officer" cases. -
Because of these differences, I cannot conclude that
the stewardships of Jordan, Hochhauser, and Pluchino
are, standing alone, suffiient to warrant a finding that
Local 555 is indirectly affiliated with Local 390.
In the "common officer" cases; the Board did not base
its findings of affiliation merely on 'the existence of such
s'r The Company, cites Electrical Workers IBEW Local, 1392 v. NLRB,
786 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1986), enfg. 273 NLRB 1540 (1985); and Gould`
Corp., 237 NLRB 881 (1978), etf. denied 612 F.2d 728 (3d Cir. 1979).
These cases deal generally with the -issue of whether an employer 'may
single out a steward for selective discipline because he participated in an
unlawful work stoppage
95 I infer that the "full-time employment" of the Teamsters representa-
tives in Armored Transport, supra, was not gratuitous.
aea The fact that Local 555 Vice President Marciaro's father was a
Local 390 officer is not significant because, he did not attend any guard
union meetings, and there is no evidence that he has any influence over
its operations,
720 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officers. Rather, as the ultimate fact in each case, such
officers and other evidence showed that-the guard union
in question was not free to formulate its own policies and
courses of action. -
No such finding is warranted on the facts in this case.
Although Jordan and Hochhauser may have been dutiful
stewards- for the Teamsters in the West Palm Beach area,
they were, through Local 555, competitors of the Team-
sters for representation of the Company's guards in the
Fort Lauderdale facility. Local 555s independence from
Local 390 -is additionally demonstrated by the fact that
Jordan, its president, compelled Pluchino, also a Local
390 steward, to ' resign from Local 555.
For these, reasons I conclude that the Company has
not sustained its burden of establishing that Local 555
was directly or indirectly affiliated with a nonguard
union.37 -
In accordance with my findings above and on consid-
eration of the entire record,88 I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brinks, Incorporated of Florida is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 555, International Union of Police & Protec-
tion Employees, LS.O.P.G.U. is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.'
3. All'full-time and regular part-time guards employed
by the Respondent at its 1361 S.W. 20th Terrace, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida office, including drivers, messengers,
cashiers, assistant cashiers, and money room clerks; ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On 16 February - 1983 the above-named Union was
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid certification does not contravene Sec-
tion 9(b)(3) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about 24 August 1983, and at, all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all its employees in the appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, the Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act, 'and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices 'within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the,Act. -
87 Because of this conclusion , the second half of the Company's "di-
vided loyalty" argument , described above, is also without ment.
38 The record is corrected by inserting the word "may" between the
words "You" and "very" in L. 13 on p. 832 of the transcript.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed89
ORDER
The Respondent, Brinks, Incorporated of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with Local 555, International Union of` Police
& Protection Employees, I.S.O.P.G.U. as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time guards em-
ployed by the Respondent at its 1361 S.W. 20th
Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Florida- office, including
drivers, messengers, cashiers, assistant cashiers and
money room clerks; excluding all other employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""'
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply., -
39 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
40 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 Nation-
al 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 "
BRINKS , INC. OF FLORIDA
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Company's ob-
jections in Case 12-RC-6244 are overruled in their en-
tirety.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the prior Order de-
nying "the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment47L is vacated, and the same is granted as modified
here.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that to ensure the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit will be accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period pro-
vided by law, the initial period of certification shall be
construed as beginning, on the date the Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit.
" I Bnnks Inc of Florida, 276 NLRB 1 (1985).
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered u5 to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern-
ing ratite ' of pay, wages, wages, hours, and other terms
721
and conditions of employment with Local 555, Interna-
tional Union of Police & Protection Employees,
I.S.O.P.G.U. as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below.
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, on 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, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargain-
ing unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time guards em-
ployed by us at our 1361 S.W. 20th Terrace, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida office, including drivers, mes-
sengers, cashiers, assistant cashiers and money room
clerks; excluding all other employees and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
BRINKS , INCORPORATED OF FLORIDA