Dunbar Armored, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 139 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1
326 NLRB No. 139
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Board volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the
Executive 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.
Dunbar Armored, Inc. and International Union,
United Plant Guard Workers of America
(UPGWA) and its Local 506.1 Case 4–CA–
27245
September 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge filed on June 26, 1998,2 the Act-
ing General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on July
30, 1998, alleging that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act
by refusing the Union’s request to bargain following the
UPGWA’s certification in Case 4–RC–19348. (Official
notice is taken of the “record” in the representation pro-
ceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265
NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer,
with affirmative defenses, admitting in part and denying
in part the allegations in the complaint.
On August 28, 1998, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in
Support. On August 31, 1998, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to
Show Cause why the motion should not be granted.
Thereafter, on September 22, 1998, the Charging Party
filed a Statement in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.3
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to rec-
ognize and bargain, but attacks the validity of the certi-
fication on the basis of the Board’s unit determination in
the representation proceeding. The Respondent also
alleges that the Union is directly or indirectly affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a non–

1 Herein individually called UPGWA and Local 506, respectively,
and collectively called the Union.
2 In its Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Sup-
port, the Acting General Counsel states that “[T]here was only one
charge filed in Case 4-CA–27245 and it was both filed and served on
June 26, 1998. The Second Amended Charge referred to by Respon-
dent in its Answer involved Case 4–CA–27143 which is not the sub-
ject of the instant Motion.”
3 Member Hurtgen did not participate in the underlying representa-
tion case. He agrees for institutional reasons with this decision be-
cause the Respondent has not raised any new matters in this proceed-
ing.
guard union, and therefore is not certifiable pursuant to
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §159(b)(3).4
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior represen-
tation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previ-
ously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any spe-
cial circumstances that would require the Board to reex-
amine the decisions made in the representation pro-
ceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not
raised any representation issue that is properly litigable
in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Maryland
corporation, with a branch facility in Cinnaminson, New
Jersey, herein called the Cinnaminson branch, has been
engaged in the business of providing armored car carrier
services for the transport of money and other valuable
items throughout the United States.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations, performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 outside the States of Maryland and New Jersey.
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.5
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held May 7, 1998, the
UPGWA was certified on May 18, 1998, as the exclu-
sive collective–bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:

4 As set forth in the Acting General Counsel’s Memorandum in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, the issue of the appropri-
ateness of the unit was considered and decided by the Board and Re-
gional Director in the underlying representation proceeding. The issue
of the Union’s alleged affiliation with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters was raised in the Respondent’s Motion to Revoke Certifi-
cation. The Acting Regional Director considered the Respondent’s
Motion and issued an Order Denying Motion to Revoke Certification
on August 20, 1998. On September 28, 1998, the Board denied review
of the Order. We therefore find that the Respondent’s defenses do not
raise any issues warranting a hearing.
5 Although the Respondent’s answer to the complaint states that it is
without knowledge as to whether the Union is a 2(5) labor organiza-
tion, the Respondent failed to raise this issue in the underlying repre-
sentation proceeding. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent is
precluded from now litigating the matter in this proceeding. See
Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill, 306 NLRB 732 fn. 1 (1992); and Wickes
Furniture, 261 NLRB 1062, 1063 fn. 4 (1982).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
All full–time and regular part–time driver/guards, dis-
patchers and vault employees employed by Respon-
dent at the Cinnaminson branch, excluding all cash
room employees, clerical employees, Branch Manag-
ers, Vault Managers, Operations Managers, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
The UPGWA continues to be the exclusive represen-
tative under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On or about May 19, 1998, the Union, by letter, re-
quested that the Respondent recognize and bargain, and,
since on or about May 19, 1998, the Respondent has
failed and refused. We find that this failure and refusal
constitutes an unlawful failure and refusal to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By failing and refusing on and after May 19, 1998, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective–bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease
and desist, to recognize and bargain on request with the
Union, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody
the understanding in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period
provided by the law, we shall construe the initial period
of the certification as beginning the date the Respondent
begins to recognize and bargain in good faith with the
Union. Mar–Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962);
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817
(1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Dunbar Armored, Inc., Cinnaminson, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union,
United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA) and
its Local 506, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, em-
body the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full–time and regular part–time driver/guards, dis-
patchers and vault employees employed by Respon-
dent at the Cinnaminson branch, excluding all cash
room employees, clerical employees, Branch Manag-
ers, Vault Managers, Operations Managers, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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 Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices 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 current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since May 19, 1998.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 30, 1998
Sarah M. Fox, Member
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
Peter J. Hurtgen, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

6 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.”
DUNBAR ARMORED, INC. 3
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
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International Un-
ion, United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA)
and its Local 506, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
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 Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:
All full–time and regular part–time driver/guards, dis-
patchers and vault employees employed by us at our
Cinnaminson branch, excluding all cash room em-
ployees, clerical employees, Branch Managers, Vault
Managers, Operations Managers, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
DUNBAR ARMORED, INC.