Coastal International Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 2015

362 NLRB No. 1 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Coastal International Security and International Un-
ion, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of
America (SPFPA), and its Amalgamated Local
287. Case 05–CA–094692
February 19, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS JOHNSON
AND MCFERRAN
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of a bilateral informal settle-
ment agreement. Upon a charge filed by International
Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of Ameri-
ca (SPFPA), and its Amalgamated Local 287 (the Union)
on December 11, 2012, the General Counsel issued the
complaint on March 28, 2013, against Coastal Interna-
tional Security (the Respondent) alleging, among other
things, that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
when it failed and refused to continue in effect all the
terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, effective by its terms from July 29, 2011, until July
31, 2014, by failing and refusing to terminate, upon the
Union’s valid request, employees who fail to become
members of the Union pursuant to the agreement’s un-
ion-security provisions. The Respondent filed an an-
swer.
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union entered
into a bilateral informal settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Regional Director for Region 5 on May
15, 2013. Among other things, the settlement agreement
required that the Respondent (1) upon the Union’s valid
request, honor and comply with all union-security provi-
sions contained in the collective-bargaining agreement;1

1 The collective-bargaining agreement contains the following provi-
sion entitled “Article 2-Union Security and Membership” which pro-
vides in pertinent part as follows:
All officers hereafter employed by The Employer in the classification
covered by this agreement shall become members of the Union not
later than the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of their
employment, or the date of the signing of this agreement, whichever is
later, as a condition of continued employment.
An officer who is not a member of the Union at the time this agree-
ment becomes effective shall become a member of the Union within
ten (10) days after the thirtieth (30th) day following the effective date
of this agreement or within ten (10) days after the thirtieth (30th) day
following employment, whichever is later, and shall remain a member
of the Union, to the extent of paying an initiation fee and the member-
ship dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining
membership in the Union, whichever employed under, and for the du-
ration of, this agreement.
and (2) post appropriate notices. The settlement agree-
ment also contained the following provision:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
issue a complaint that will include the allegations
spelled out above in the Scope of Agreement section.
Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for
default judgment with the Board on the allegations of
the complaint. The Charged Party understands and
agrees that all of the allegations of the complaint will
be deemed admitted and it will have waived its right to
file an Answer to such complaint. The only issue that
may be raised before the Board is whether the Charged
Party defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agree-
ment. The Board may then, without necessity of trial
or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the
complaint to be true and make findings of fact and con-
clusions of law consistent with those allegations ad-
verse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the
pleadings. The Board may then issue an order provid-
ing a full remedy for the violations found as is appro-
priate to remedy such violations. The parties further
agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be
entered enforcing the Board order ex parte, after service
or attempted service upon Charged Party/Respondent at
the last address provided to the General Counsel.
In June 2013, the Union advised the Respondent that
certain employees had failed to pay dues as required by
the union-security clause, despite repeated notices allow-
ing for reasonable grace periods for payment. The Union
requested that the Respondent discharge those employ-
ees.

Officers meet the requirement of being members in good standing of
the Union, within the meaning of this article, by tendering the periodic
dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
or retaining membership in the Union or, in the alternative, by tender-
ing to the Union the financial core fees and dues, as defined by the
U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734
(1963), and Beck v. Communications Workers of America, 487 U.S.
735 (1988).
In the event the Union requests the discharge of an officer for failure
to comply with the provisions of this article, it shall serve written no-
tice on the Employer requesting that the employee be discharged ef-
fective no sooner than two (2) weeks of the date of that notice. The
notice shall also contain the reasons for discharge. In the event the
Union subsequently determines that the employee has remedied the
default prior to the discharge date, the Union will notify the Employer
and the officer, and the Employer will not be required to discharge
that officer.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
In July 2013, the Respondent, by individual letters, in-
formed the employees that the Union had requested their
termination due to their failure to pay dues, and advised
them that if they did not resolve their dispute with the
Union they could be subject to progressive discipline,
consisting of verbal warning, followed by written warn-
ing, suspension and final warning, and finally termina-
tion in the event the dispute is unresolved 2 months after
the date of the verbal warning.
By letter dated August 21, 2013, the Regional Director
for Region 5 notified the Respondent’s attorney that the
Respondent was in noncompliance with the settlement
agreement. The letter stated that the Respondent had
failed to present any evidence that it had honored the
Union’s requests to comply with the collective-
bargaining agreement’s union-security provisions and
that if the Respondent did not remedy its noncompliance
within 14 days, the Regional Director would issue a
complaint and the General Counsel could seek default
judgment.
On August 27, 2013, the Region’s compliance officer
further informed the Respondent’s attorney that the Re-
spondent’s unilateral implementation of progressive dis-
cipline when responding to the Union’s request for com-
pliance with the union-security clause constituted a
breach of the settlement agreement and requested a cure.
The Respondent failed to comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement, on Novem-
ber 12, 2013, the Regional Director reissued the com-
plaint, and the General Counsel filed a Motion for De-
fault Judgment with the Board. On November 13, 2013,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. On November 26, 2013, the Re-
spondent filed a response. The General Counsel filed a
reply to the Respondent’s response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Re-
spondent asserts that it has not breached the settlement
agreement by failing to terminate employees upon the
Union’s request. Instead, the Respondent maintains that
the settlement merely requires it to abide by the terms of
the union-security clause, which, it contends, does not
require the Respondent to terminate employees who fail
to comply with that clause. Rather, the Respondent ar-
gues that it meets its contractual obligation to enforce the
clause by applying its regular progressive disciplinary
procedure to employees who are in default. The Re-
spondent avers that it has informed the Union that this is
its practice and that the practice is consistent with the
collective-bargaining agreement.2
In this regard, the Respondent argues that, while the
union-security clause permits the Union to request the
discharge of defaulting employees, it does not obligate
the Respondent to abide by that request and the settle-
ment agreement itself does not specify the manner in
which the Respondent is to enforce the provision. The
Respondent notes that during the settlement negotiations,
it rejected the General Counsel’s proposed language in
the Notice to Employees, which stated that the Respond-
ent would not refuse “to terminate,” upon the Union’s
request, an employee who failed to comply with the un-
ion-security clause. Instead, the Respondent notes, the
General Counsel agreed to its proposed language, which
states that the Respondent will not refuse to comply with
“all union-security provisions,” contained in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. Based on this, the Respond-
ent contends that it has not breached the settlement
agreement.
Finally, the Respondent argues that it “has no choice”
but to utilize progressive discipline in order to have suf-
ficient time to replace terminated employees. The Re-
spondent argues that its contract with the Federal Gov-
ernment to provide armed security at the Ronald Reagan
Building requires strict qualification and training for em-
ployees, which takes several months to obtain. The con-
tract further requires the Respondent to provide a speci-
fied number of security guards each day. The Respond-
ent contends that if it imposed immediate termination
under the union-security provision, it would default on
its government contract and jeopardize the safety and
security of employees and visitors to the Ronald Reagan
Building.
In his reply, the General Counsel argues that the plain
language of the union-security provision requires the
discharge, at the request of the Union, of employees who
are in derogation of their obligations under that clause.
The General Counsel notes that the language of the un-
ion-security provision refers only to discharge, not pro-
gressive discipline, and that the provision provides the
Respondent ample time to adequately staff the facilities
involved. Finally, the General Counsel contends that the
parties’ modification of the settlement’s Notice language
from that requiring “termination” to that requiring com-

2 The Respondent also argues that neither the complaint nor the set-
tlement agreement has any legal effect because the Board lacked a
quorum when the complaint was issued and when the parties entered
into the settlement agreement. See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct.
2550 (2014). For the reasons stated in Durham School Services, 361
NLRB No. 66, slip op. at 1–2 (2014) and Pallet Cos., 361 NLRB No.
33, slip op. at 1 (2014), we reject those arguments. See also Bluefield
Hospital Co., 361 NLRB No. 154 (2014).
3 COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
pliance with the union-security provision does not war-
rant a different result, as the provision itself clearly re-
quires termination.
We agree with the General Counsel. The settlement
agreement clearly and unequivocally requires the Re-
spondent to abide by the contract’s union-security provi-
sion that obligates the Respondent to discharge employ-
ees for failure to comply with that provision. The set-
tlement agreement states that the Respondent will
honor and comply with all union-security provisions
contained in [the] collective-bargaining agreement with
the [Union] . . . upon the [Union]’s valid request and
contemporaneous documentation that the [Union] has
fulfilled its obligations to the employee (e.g., notifying
the employee of precise amount of dues owed, the time
period in question, the method of computation, the con-
sequences of not complying, and a reasonable oppor-
tunity to meet the dues obligation)
Nothing in the union-security clause or in the settle-
ment agreement suggests that “the consequences of not
complying” means anything other than discharge. Fur-
ther, the requirement that “[a]ll officers hereafter em-
ployed by The Employer [ ] shall become members of
the Union [ ] as a condition of continued employment”
can only mean that employment is terminated when the
employee fails to comply, as any other interpretation
would render the clause meaningless. See Wire Products
Mfg. Corp., 329 NLRB 155, 160, 163 (1999).3 Similarly,
the provision that the “Employer will not be required to
discharge [the] officer” if “the Union subsequently de-
termines that the employee has remedied the default prior

3 In Wire Products the Board adopted the judge’s finding that the re-
spondent repudiated and refused to honor the contractual union-security
clause by failing to discharge employees who were delinquent in their
dues or fees payments. 329 NLRB at 160, 163. The relevant contract
provisions in that case provided:
Section 4.1: All employees in the bargaining unit must as a condition
of continued employment be either a member of the union and pay
union dues or pay an agency fee to the union, but not both.
Section 4.4: Any employee required to pay an agency fee, member-
ship dues, or initiation or reinstatement fee as a condition of continued
employment who fails to tender the agency fee, reinstatement, or peri-
odic dues uniformly required, shall be notified in writing of their de-
linquency. A copy of such communication shall be mailed to the
company not later than fifteen (15) days prior to such request that the
company take final action on the delinquency. (Emphasis in original.)
The Board rejected the respondent’s argument that the union’s re-
quest for “final action” did not require it to discharge an employee for
nonpayment of dues or fees. The Board explained that the “plain
meaning” of the union-security provision required the respondent, upon
proper notice, to take “final action,” which could only mean “dis-
charge;” otherwise, “the payment of dues or fees is neither a condition
of employment, nor a condition of continued employment and the union-
security provision is meaningless.” Id. (Emphasis in original.)
to the discharge date,” makes clear that the only circum-
stance where the Respondent is not obligated to dis-
charge an employee upon the request of the Union is
when the Union notifies the Respondent that the employ-
ee has cured the delinquency. Accordingly, the Re-
spondent was required to terminate employees upon the
Union’s request, provided the Union complied with its
requirements under the collective-bargaining agreement
and the Act.4 It is undisputed that the Respondent failed
to do so.
The Respondent’s contention that the union-security
provision is subject to the contract’s progressive disci-
pline procedure lacks merit. The two provisions are
wholly distinct. Article 7 of the collective-bargaining
agreement addresses discipline for employee misconduct
and includes a progressive discipline clause providing for
increasingly severe penalties with each additional of-
fense. Thus, article 7.1 describes discipline for “Unex-
cused Tardiness,” 7.3 addresses “Call Offs,” and 7.4
deals with 17 categories of ‘serious’ misconduct, includ-
ing alcohol and drug related offenses, weapons offenses,
insubordination, neglect of duty and assault.5 Moreover,
article 7 specifies that for some misconduct, such as tar-
diness and “call off,” particular disciplinary procedures
ensue, but that in other circumstances, the Respondent
has a degree of latitude in determining the consequences
that will result from an employee’s behavior.
In contrast, article 2, the union-security provision, is
self contained and describes the requirement of union
membership “as a condition of employment.” That arti-
cle further describes the means of maintaining such
membership in good standing and the consequences of a
failure to comply. There is no mention of misconduct or
“corrective progressive disciplinary action.” Although
the provision allows for the possibility that employees
may remedy membership default, the provision pro-
scribes only one outcome for failure to cure deficiencies:
discharge. Progressive discipline is plainly not an op-
tion.6

4 The parties’ negotiation to change to the wording of the settlement
agreement does not change the analysis. The original settlement pro-
posal provided that the Respondent would not refuse “to terminate” an
employee for failing to comply with the union-security clause. The
language agreed to by the parties—that the Respondent would comply
with “all union-security provisions”—does not mean that the union-
security provision requires anything less than discharge. Nor is there
any indication that the Respondent asserted as much when it proposed
the language change. As discussed above, the meaning of the clause is
clear, and thus the Respondent’s obligation under the language of the
settlement agreement is similarly clear.
5 Notably, art. 7 does not refer in any way to the failure to abide by
the union-security provision.
6 Member Johnson finds no need to pass on the merits of the Re-
spondent’s interpretation of the settlement agreement’s provisions. At
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
We also reject the Respondent’s argument that it
should not be required “immediately” to terminate em-
ployees, because such action would result in the Re-
spondent’s defaulting on its contract with the Federal
Government and would jeopardize the safety and securi-
ty of employees and visitors at the unit employees’
jobsite, the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington D.C.
Contrary to the Respondent’s contention, the union-
security clause does not require “immediate” termination
of defaulting employees. Instead, it provides for an ini-
tial 31-day grace period during which employees may
join the Union, followed by a requirement that the Union
give at least 2 weeks’ notice to the Respondent before a
discharge can be effectuated. Moreover, an employee
can cure any deficiencies and avoid discharge. Thus, this
timeline cannot fairly be described as requiring immedi-
ate discharge of an employee. Furthermore, such a gen-
eralized defense, without more, is not a defense to failure
to comply with the explicit terms of the contract. See
McIntyre Engineering Co., 293 NLRB 716, 717 (1989)
(rejecting as “not a valid defense . . . or a relevant con-
sideration” the company’s economic defense that it
would be unable to continue production if required to
terminate “a high percentage of crucial skilled personnel”
under the union-security provision); St. Johns Mercy
Medical Center, 344 NLRB 391, 393 (2005), enfd. 436
F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting company’s claim that
it should be exempt from contractual union-security pro-
vision due to its difficulty in recruiting and retaining reg-
istered nurses because of nursing shortage).
The noncompliance provision in the settlement agree-
ment provides that “[t]he only issue that may be raised
before the Board is whether the Charged Party defaulted
on the terms of this Settlement Agreement.” As de-
scribed, the Respondent has failed to comply with the
settlement agreement. The agreement further provides
that “[t]he Board may then, without necessity of trial or
any other proceeding, find all allegations of the com-
plaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to
the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings.”
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for
Default Judgment and find, pursuant to the noncompli-
ance provisions of the settlement agreement set forth

this point in time, over a year and a half after the Respondent notified
employees that the Union had requested their termination due to their
failure to pay dues, and advised them that if they did not resolve their
dispute with the Union they could be subject to progressive discipline
culminating in discharge, there is no claim that the Respondent has
taken any further action or that the employees have met their dues
obligations. In these circumstances, even under the Respondent’s in-
terpretation of the settlement agreement, there can be no factual dispute
that it has defaulted on that agreement.
above, that all of the allegations in the reissued complaint
are true.7
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a South
Carolina corporation with an office and place of business
in the District of Columbia and has been engaged in
providing security services to firms and institutions, in-
cluding the United States Government at the Ronald
Reagan Building and International Trade Center in the
District of Columbia.
In conducting its business operations described above,
during the calendar year ending December 31, 2012, the
Respondent performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 in states outside the District of Columbia.
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 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 the following individuals have
held the positions set forth opposite their respective
names and have been supervisors of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act:
Maureen Dolan Labor Relations Specialist
Sean Engelin Director of Labor Relations
Janet Gunn Vice-President of Human Resources
Justin Reilly Senior Legal Administrator
The following employees of the Respondent, the unit,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All Security Officer Employees within the unit work-
ing at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington,
D.C., excluding all other employees including Ser-
geants, Lieutenants, Captains, office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
Since at least sometime around July 2011, and at all
material times, the Respondent has recognized the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of

7 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994). Also, pursuant to the
noncompliance provisions, we find that the Respondent’s answer to the
original complaint has been withdrawn.
5 COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
the unit. This recognition has been embodied in a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, effective by its terms from
July 29, 2011, until July 31, 2014.
At all times since at least sometime around July 2011,
based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
Since about June 12, 2012, the Respondent failed to
continue in effect all the terms and conditions of the
agreement described above by failing and refusing to
terminate, upon the Union’s valid request, employees
who fail to become members of the Union pursuant to
the union-security provisions within the agreement de-
scribed above.
The terms and conditions of employment described
above are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above without the Union’s consent.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees within the meaning of Section
8(d) of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall order the
Respondent to comply with, upon the Union’s valid re-
quest, article 2 of the collective-bargaining agreement,
effective July 29, 2011, until July 31, 2014.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Coastal International Security, Inc., Wash-
ington, D.C., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with International Union, Security, Police, and
Fire Professionals of America (SPCA), and its Amalga-
mated Local 287 (the Union) as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees by fail-
ing and refusing to comply with article 2 of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, effective July 29, 2011, until
July 31, 2014, which requires that the Respondent termi-
nate, upon the Union’s valid request, unit employees who
fail to become members of the Union. The unit is:
All Security Officer Employees within the unit work-
ing at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington,
D.C., excluding all other employees including Ser-
geants, Lieutenants, Captains, office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon the Union’s valid request, comply with arti-
cle 2 of the collective-bargaining agreement, effective
July 29, 2011, until July 31, 2014.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility at the Ronald Reagan Building and Interna-
tional Trade Center in Washington, D.C. copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 5, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced 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 June 12, 2012.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 5 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.

8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted By Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 19, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated 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 International Union, Security, Po-
lice, and Fire Professionals of America (SPCA), and its
Amalgamated Local 287 (the Union) as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees by failing and refusing to comply with article 2 of the
collective-bargaining agreement, effective July 29, 2011,
until July 31, 2014, which requires that we terminate,
upon the Union’s valid request, unit employees who fail
to become members of the Union. The unit is:
All Security Officer Employees within the unit work-
ing at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington,
D.C., excluding all other employees including Ser-
geants, Lieutenants, Captains, office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, upon the Union’s valid request, comply with
article 2 of the collective-bargaining agreement, effective
July 29, 2011, until July 31, 2014.
COASTAL INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CA-094692 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.