Burns International Security Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 112 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Burns International Security Services, Inc. and Local
No. 63, International Guards Union of America.
Case 27-CA-5007
April 20, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
Upon a charge filed on July 26, 1976, by Local No.
63, International Guards Union of America, herein
called the Union, and duly served on Burns Interna-
tional Security Services, Inc., herein called the
Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 27, issued a complaint on August 27, 1976,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on June 25, 1971,
the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in a unit of Respondent's full-time and
regular part-time guards in the States of Colorado
and Wyoming. At all times material since June 25,
1971, the Union has been the representative for
collective-bargaining purposes of the employees in
that unit. On June 29, 1976, the Board issued a
Decision and Order in Case 27-CA-40811 finding
that Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union
on October 1, 1973, and thereafter, and ordering
Respondent, inter alia, to bargain with the Union
upon request. Since on or about July 2, 1976, the
Union has requested bargaining. Commencing on or
about July 6, 1976, Respondent has refused, and
continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the employees exclusive bargain-
ing representative. Further, since on or about July 6,
1976, Respondent has failed and refused to supply
information requested by the Union regarding names
and addresses of employees, work locations, etc.,
which is necessary for collective bargaining. On
September 7, 1976, Respondent filed its answer to the
I Reported at 225 NLRB 271.
2 Respondent in its answer to the complaint states, inter alia, that it is
without sufficient information or knowledge as to whether Local No. 63,
International Guards Union of America, is now, and has been at all times
material, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, which, under
Sec. 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, operates as a denial.
229 NLRB No. 8
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On November 18, 1976, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Subsequently, on November 26, 1976, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent admits
that it has refused to bargain and to supply the
requested information but specifically alleges that its
refusal to do so is warranted because of the pendency
of review proceedings timely filed by it in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
concerning the Board Order in Case 27-CA-4081
(225 NLRB 271) and because of Respondent's
continuing good-faith doubt as to the majority status
of said Union, which doubt will not be resolved until
a final judgment has been entered in the aforesaid
Case 27-CA-4081 and all procedures for review or
appeal therein have been exhausted or have not been
utilized within the times duly provided by law.
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior unfair
labor practice proceeding, and Respondent does not
offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in said earlier proceeding. We therefore find
that Respondent has not raised any issue which is
properly litigable in this proceeding.2
In its response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, however, Respondent reasserts that the
Board should not grant a Motion for Summary
Judgment where, as here, Respondent's obligation to
bargain with the Union is dependent upon the
resolution of an earlier related unfair labor practice
proceeding which is being judicially reviewed by a
However, as admitted by Respondent, this organization was certified on
June 25, 1971, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees, and the Board found this organization to be a
labor organization in related Case 27-CA-081. Accordingly, this issue was
litigated in the underlying unfair labor practice case and may not be
litigated herein. Teledyne, Landis Machine, 212 NLRB 73, 74, fn. 4 (1974).
112
BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES
U.S. court of appeals. We have considered Respon-
dent's argument and have concluded that there is
nothing in the circumstances herein to warrant
departure from our present policy of processing our
8(a)(5) summary judgment proceedings to a conclu-
sion pending court adjudication of a related Board
unfair labor practice proceeding. 3 We shall, accord-
ingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a New York corporation with its
principal office and place of business at Briarcliff
Manor, New York. It also maintains offices at
various other cities in the United States, including
Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado, the situs of
the instant dispute. In the latter offices Respondent
provides security services valued in excess of
$100,000 per annum to employers who meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards for direct inflow
and/or outflow. We find that the operations of
Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 63, International Guards Union of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time guards,
including sergeants employed by Respondent in
the States of Colorado and Wyoming, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional
3 Lube Devices, Inc., 201 NLRB 914, 915 (1973); Great Dane Trailers,
Inc., 191 NLRB 6, 7 (1971); and Porta-Kamp Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
189 NLRB 899, 900(1971).
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act,
including lieutenants and captains.
B. The Certification
On April 5, 1971, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 27 designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent. The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on June 25, 1971, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, as the Board
found in its June 29, 1976, Decision and Order, 225
NLRB 271.
C. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Since on or about July 2, 1976, and at all times
thereafter, the Union has requested Respondent to
bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all the employees in the
above-described unit. Since on or about July 6, 1976,
and continuing at all times thereafter to date,
Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative for collective-bargaining of
all employees in said unit. 4 Further, the Union has
requested that Respondent supply it with informa-
tion regarding names and addresses of employees'
work locations, etc., which information is necessary
for collective bargaining. And, since on or about July
6, 1976, Respondent has failed or refused to supply
the requested information.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
July 6, 1976, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and to supply information requested by the
Union regarding names and addresses of employees,
work locations, etc., which information is necessary
for collective bargaining, and that, by such refusals,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
4 As found in the earlier proceeding, Respondent's refusal to bargain
commenced prior to July 6, 1976. Thus, the refusal on this occasion
constituted a continuation of that unlawful conduct.
113
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and,
upon request, supply the requested information and
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Burns International Security Services, Inc., is
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local No. 63, International Guards Union of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time guards,
including sergeants employed by Respondent in the
States of Colorado and Wyoming, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, including
lieutenants and captains, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since June 25, 1971, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about July 6, 1976, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By refusing since on or about July 6, 1976, to
supply information requested by the Union regard-
ing names and addresses of employees, work loca-
tions, etc., which information is necessary for
collective bargaining, 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 refusals to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Burns International Security Services, Inc., Denver
and Colorado Springs, Colorado, 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 employment with Local No. 63,
International Guards Union of America, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time guards,
including sergeants employed by Respondent in
the States of Colorado and Wyoming, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
including lieutenants and captains.
(b) Refusing to supply the aforesaid labor organi-
zation with information necessary for collective
bargaining, including the names and addresses of
unit employees, work locations, and the like.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, supply the above-named labor
organization with information necessary for collec-
tive-bargaining including names and addresses of
unit employees, work locations, and the like.
(c) Post at its various facilities in Colorado and
Wyoming, wherever its employees customarily meet
114
BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES
and congregate, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 27,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Local
No. 63, International Guards Union of America,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the above-
named Union with information necessary for
collective bargaining including the names and
addresses of unit employees, work locations, and
the like.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive 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 agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time guards,
including sergeants employed by Respon-
dent in the States of Colorado and Wyom-
ing, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, including lieutenants and
captains.
WE WILL upon request supply the above-named
Union with information necessary for collective
bargaining including the names and addresses of
unit employees, work locations, and the like.
BURNS INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
115