GARDA CL GREAT LAKES, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 19, 2013

09-CA-087203 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

JD–15–13
Columbus, OH
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
GARDA CL GREAT LAKES, INC.
and Cases 9–CA–087203
9–RC–085968
UNITED FEDERATION OF SPECIAL
POLICE AND SECURITY OFFICERS, INC.
Joseph F. Tansino, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Eric Hult, Esq., (Littler Mendelson, P.C.), Columbus Ohio
for the Respondent.
Jack Deml, Gahanna, Ohio
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Columbus,
Ohio on January 28 and 29, 2013. The Union, the United Federation of Special Police and
Security Officers, filed the initial charge in this matter on August 13, 2012. The General
Counsel issued the complaint on December 5, 2012. He also consolidated the complaint with the
Union’s August 31 objections to conduct affecting the results of the representation election.
That election was held at Respondent’s Columbus, Ohio facility on August 30, 2012.1
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent, by its Director of Risk Management
Christine Bouquin, solicited employee complaints and grievances, promised employees
increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from
union organizational activity. Without specifying any individual agents, the Union objected to
the employer’s alleged solicitation of employee grievances and complaints, and promises to
remedy them during the critical period between the filing of its representation petition on

1 The Union withdrew its Objection #2 and portions of Objection #3. Objection 1 and the remaining
portions of Objection 3 are substantially coextensive with the allegations of the complaint. Objection 1 is
that the Employer solicited employees’ grievances and complaints and implicitly promised to remedy
them. The remaining portion of Objection 3 is that the Employer granted improvements in working
conditions and other benefits.
JD–15–13
2
July 25, 2012 and the Board’s representation election on August 30, 2012. The General Counsel
alleges similar violations by Respondent’s Safety and Health Manager Webster Lubema. The
General Counsel also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by providing
employees with a new refrigerator and free beverages and in cleaning Respondent’s Columbus
garage and repairing Respondent’s trucks. This allegation tracks the Union’s objection to 5
Respondent’s granting improvements during the critical period, including cleaning of the garage,
providing a new refrigerator stocked with free beverages and other benefits.
On the entire record2, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after
considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
15
Respondent, a corporation, provides armored truck and guard services nationwide. At the
Columbus, Ohio facility, where the alleged violations occurred, it annually purchases and receives
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside of Ohio. Respondent admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and that the Union, the United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers, is a 20
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent, which has its headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida, has over 200 facilities in 25
the United States and about 4,000 armored trucks. At the Columbus, Ohio branch it has between
14 and 16 armored trucks with which its employees pick up and transport cash from ATMs, banks
and similar institutions. Each truck is staffed by two driver/messengers, who trade off driving the
vehicle and sitting in the back of the truck, facing the rear. The two employees are separated by a
bulkhead. The employees in the truck are totally dependent on air conditioning and/or fans for 30
ventilation. Given the nature of their work, they cannot roll down the windows. The glass in the
vehicles is 3 inches thick and the employees wear 10 lb. bullet proof or resistant vests while in the
truck.
The armored trucks at the Columbus facility are generally 8-10 years old. By the summer 35
of 2012, the air conditioning in the trucks had been failing with regularity for several years.
During the summer, employees with regularity worked 12-13 hour shifts inside a truck in which
the temperature exceed 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Management at the facility accorded repairs to
the air conditioning very low priority despite regular employee complaints.
40
Employees had been complaining to management about the lack of air conditioning for
several years. Also, on July 22, 2011 somebody, most likely an employee, complained to the
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The complainant(s) stated that
the front, back or both areas of Respondent’s then 14 trucks did not have working air conditioning
and that approximately 35 employees were exposed to extreme heat since they could not roll down 45

2 Tr. 151, line 23 should read Eric Hult, rather than Timothy Fadel.
JD–15–13
3
the windows. OSHA did not conduct an on-site investigation of these complaints. Rather the
OSHA Area Director in Aurora, Illinois wrote Respondent a letter requesting that it investigate the
situation, make necessary corrections and advise OSHA of the results of the inspection.
On July 28, 2011, Mark Livingston, a Senior Vice President and General Counsel of 5
Garda, replied to OSHA. He stated that the Branch Manager and branch employees conducted an
in route air-conditioning verification of all active routes. The response essentially stated that the
air-conditioning on most trucks was in working order. Those trucks that had defects had been
repaired or were being repaired, R. Exh. 3. Suffice it to say that if this was an accurate picture as
of July 28, 2011, the situation had deteriorated markedly by July 2012. 10
Scott Jacks, the Columbus branch manager, who was terminated in mid-to late August
2012, was under the impression that it was company policy not to remove trucks from service on
account of non-functioning air conditioning, G.C. Exh. 5. Between 2010 and July 2012, when
employees complained to branch management about the lack of air conditioning, they were told 15
that Respondent was not required to provide the trucks with air conditioning, Tr. 34.3
Conditions inside the Columbus truck terminal also left much to be desired. The floors
and walls were filthy, there was oil on the floor which posed a slipping hazard and the eyewash
station required by OSHA was unusable.4 There were also numerous electrical hazards. The 20
restrooms were dirty and at least one did not have hot water or soap in the summer of 2012.
There was no potable water in the drivers’ area of the garage. There was a refrigerator from which
employees could purchase water or soda. Respondent did not supply the driver/messengers with
water to drink.
25
In the summer of 2012 Respondent’s upper level management became aware that there
were heat related issues at a number of its facilities that were producing employee complaints to
OSHA and union organizing drives.5 On June 20, 2012, Vincent Modarelli, a Senior Vice
President based in Wilmington, Delaware, exchanged emails with Robert Larmore, the branch
manager in Edison, New Jersey. These emails mentioned 7 calls to OSHA regarding air 30
conditioning issues, one of which was at the Edison Branch. Modarelli responded, “this is not a
coincidence…7 OSHA complaints re: A/C and then a union organization effort..get on top of this
and in front of your people starting NOW!,” Resp. Exh. 1.6
Between June 21 and June 28, 2012 Christine Bouquin, Garda’s newly hired Director of 35
Risk Management, began working on plans to address the heat-related OSHA complaints Garda

3 I note that all the employee testimony in this case is uncontradicted.
4 OSHA requires a functioning eye wash station where employees can get caustic substances in their
eyes.
5 Webster Lubema testified that Garda had received correspondence from OSHA concerning
insufficient air conditioning at facilities at Edison, New Jersey, Michigan, most of Garda’s California
branches, a couple of branches in Georgia and a couple in Texas. I infer all or most were received in the
summer of 2012, Tr. 239-40, because there appears to have been no corporate-wide effort to address these
complaints or inquires until the summer of 2012.
6 At hearing Respondent moved only for the admission of page 1 of the exhibit, which was incomplete.
On January 31, I granted the General Counsel’s unopposed motion to reopen the record to receive the
complete two-page exhibit.
JD–15–13
4
had been receiving. On June 28 she emailed Modarelli and others that consideration was being
given for certain branches to participate in a pilot program to test the effectiveness of cooling and
rehydration devices, Resp. Exh. 1. There is no evidence that attention was directed to problems at
the Columbus, Ohio branch until August 1, a week after the Union filed a representation petition.
5
On July 16, 2012 Xiomara Tennyson, who is apparently a team leader at Respondent’s
Needham, Massachusetts branch, wrote to Garda Vice-President Steve Morss about the air-
conditioning problems at that branch. She noted that 3 of those branches’ trucks broke down
during the previous week and that employees worked in temperatures of 115-120 degrees when
the air conditioning stopped working. Ms. Tennyson indicated that these conditions made it 10
difficult for her to respond to employees considering union representation, Exh. G.C. 13.
Later in July 2012 an employee from the Grand Rapids, Michigan branch was hospitalized
with a heat-related illness after the air conditioning in his truck stopped functioning. The State of
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration apparently conducted an on-site 15
inspection of the Grand Rapids facility on about July 26, G.C. Exh. 19.
On July 25, 2012, the Union filed a petition with the Board to represent all full-time and
regular part-time driver/messengers and vault custodians employed by Respondent’s Columbus,
Ohio facility. 20
On or about August 1, 2012, Respondent launched a pilot program to address the air
conditioning issues at its facilities, Among the management personnel involved in planning this
project were Christine Bouquin, Garda’s Risk Management Director, her boss, Lori Brown,
Respondent’s Chief Legal Counsel and Director of Human Resources, and Ivelices Linares, 25
Respondent’s Director of Labor Relations, all of whom are based in Boca Raton, Florida. In
selecting branches for this pilot project, Respondent considered complaints, citations, heat related
claims and potential union activity, G.C. Exh. 4. Linares specifically suggested the inclusion of the
Fairfield, New Jersey branch based on an imminent union representation election,
30
The final list of 7 branches for the pilot program appears to have been finalized on about
August 5, 2012. Union activity was obviously a material factor in compiling this list. Columbus
was placed at the top of the list. As there had not been any workers compensation claims, or heat
related illness or recent OSHA complaints filed by Columbus employees, I infer that the priority
given to Columbus was in large part a result of the representation petition filed on July 25. 35
Respondent was aware of union organizing activity at three of the other six branches included in
the pilot program, Edison, Fairfield and Needham. There is no evidence as to why Stamford,
Connecticut, Phoenix, Arizona or Wilmington, Delaware (other than the fact that VP Vincent
Modarelli worked there) were selected for the pilot program. There is no evidence one way or
another as to whether there was any union organizing activity at those three branches or whether 40
OSHA has expressed interest in conditions there.
Not included on the list of 7 pilot facilities was Grand Rapids, MI, where an employee had
been hospitalized earlier that summer due to non-functioning air conditioning, nor the branches in
California, Texas, Georgia and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, where OSHA complaints had been 45
filed or OSHA had made inquires of Garda.
JD–15–13
5
During the first week of August, Respondent identified 7 trucks at the Columbus branch
with cooling units that needed repair, G.C. Exh. 4.7 It embarked on a crash program to repair these
air conditioning units. The repairs were done either by Garda employees from other facilities or
outside contractors. The Columbus branch did not have mechanics on site.
5
On August 7, 2012, Christine Bouquin and Webster Lubema, Garda’s Health and Safety
Manager from Smyrna, Georgia, arrived at the Columbus facility. Neither had been to this facility
previously, and Columbus was the first Garda facility visited by Bouquin outside of the State of
Florida. Ivelices Linares arrived at the facility the next day to discourage the employees from
selecting union representation. Linares suggested or directed that Bouquin and Lubema visit the 10
Columbus branch prior to Linares’ arrival at the facility. This was deemed to a sufficient priority
that Garda’s rule that travel reservations be made 2 weeks in advance was ignored.
Of the seven pilot facilities, Bouquin only visited two, Columbus and Wilmington,
Delaware, the branch at which Vice President Vincent Modarelli was based. Bouquin did not visit 15
the Columbus facility after August 7-8, 2012; Lubema made several follow-up visits one of which
was prior to the August 30, 2012 representation election.
Bouquin found that the Columbus garage was dirty, the trucks were in disrepair, there was
oil on the floor, the eye wash station was unusable and the restroom did not have hot water. 20
Webster Lubema found what he considered to be many violations of OSHA and Department of
Transportation regulations, including electrical hazards. Garda hired an outside cleaning company
to correct some of these issues during or just after Bouquin and Lubema’s visit.
During her visit to the Columbus facility on August 7-8, Bouquin spoke to a number of 25
employees. She asked Jason Durbin and his partner why employee morale was low and what
Garda could do to improve it, Tr. 50-52. Durban complained about the cleanliness of the
bathrooms, oil on the floor, diesel soot covering the garage and lack of functioning air
conditioning. Bouquin responded sympathetically and implicitly, if not explicitly, promised to try
to remedy these complaints. She promised to provide drinking water for the drivers.30
During August, in addition to correcting the heat problems in the trucks, and cleaning the
garage, Respondent installed a refrigerator in the garage area from which employees could take
water in their trucks without paying for it.
35
Garda Senior Vice President Vince Modarelli and Labor Relations Director Ivelices
Linares were at the Columbus facility once or twice between August 7 and the August 30
representation election. Linares spoke at a mandatory meeting for unit employees on August 8 to
persuade them to vote against union representation, while Bouquin and Lubema were still at the
Columbus facility. Respondent did not present any evidence as to what Modarelli and/or Linares40
said to employees when they met with them. Since the employee testimony regarding what
Modarelli and/or Linares said is uncontradicted, I credit that testimony.

7 Respondent’s brief at page 7 states that “it late July, [Garda’s Risk Management Team] learned that
seven of the fourteen trucks at the Columbus Facility were “down” with faulty air conditioning.” There is
no evidence that the Risk Management Team knew of this prior to August 1, 2012. It certainly became
aware of this fact several days to a week after the Union’s representation petition was filed.
JD–15–13
6
Modarelli told employees that if they withdrew the representation petition and gave Garda
six months to make their working conditions better, that Modarelli would make sure that
employees were all happy. If not, Modarelli told employees they could have the Union without an
election, Tr. 57. On cross-examination, employee Jason Durbin testified that Linares did not say 5
she would make things better if employees voted no in the representation election, Tr. 62.
However, he made it clear that it was Modarelli who made the promises he testified to on direct,
rather than Linares, Tr. 63.
Scott Hall, another driver, read from an affidavit given to the Board on August 22, 2012 10
about a mandatory meeting with Ivelices Linares on August 8. He did not repudiate anything in
the affidavit, thus I find the facts as he stated them in the affidavit. Hall did not mention the
presence of Vincent Modarelli. However, Hall testified that Linares told employees that Garda
was told to terminate 17 employees in Fairfield, New Jersey for failure to pay union dues. He also
testified that:15
She also told us that Garda doesn’t have to negotiate with the Union, and basically that
negotiations with unions were a myth and that they didn’t do that at Garda, Tr. 82
I would note that if such comments were made they would be clear violations of Section 20
8(a)(1) and objectionable conduct that warrant ordering a second election. However, there is no
allegation regarding these speeches or conversations either in the complaint or in the Union’s
objections.
During her speech, Linares told the Columbus employees that they were at the top of the 25
list for replacement vehicles and were part of a pilot program regarding air conditioners, Tr. 104.
The day after the August 8 meeting, Garda mechanics from Louisville, Kentucky arrived at the
Columbus facility. They worked on the trucks’ air conditioning and installed six-inch fans on the
dashboards, Tr. 99.
30
The representation election was conducted on August 30, 2012. Of 41 eligible voters, 26
voted against union representation and 8 voted for the representation by the Charging Party Union.
Analysis
35
This case presents two different but related issues: 1) whether Garda (not as Respondent
contends, Christine Bouquin and Webster Lubema) violated the Act and committed objectionable
conduct in granting improvements to the working conditions of bargaining unit employees during
the critical period between the filing of the representation petition and the election; and 2) whether
the Respondent (rather than Bouquin and/or Lubema) violated the Act in soliciting employee 40
grievances and complaints and promising employees increased benefits and improved working
conditions.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also
conduct immediately favorable which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon 45
employees’ freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that
effect, N LRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 US 405 (1964). Justice Harlan noted in his opinion that,
JD–15–13
7
“the beneficence of an employer is likely to be ephemeral if prompted by a threat of unionization
which is subsequently removed.” That danger certainly exists in the instant case in which
Respondent’s heat-related issues appear to exist at many of its over 200 branches. With the
specter of unionization gone, one cannot presume that the improvements made at the Columbus
branch will be permanent or that conditions will not be allowed to deteriorate as they apparently 5
did after the 2011 OSHA inquiry.
As a general rule, an employer’s legal duty in deciding whether to grant improvements
while a representation proceeding is pending is to decide that question as if the Union were not on
scene. In determining whether a grant of benefits is unlawful the Board has drawn the inference 10
that benefits granted during the critical period are coercive, but has allowed the employer to rebut
the inference by coming forward with an explanation, other than a pending election, for the timing
of the grant or announcement of such benefits, Niblock Excavating, Inc., 337 NLRB 53 (2001);
Lampe, L. L. C., 322 NLRB 502 (1996); United Airlines Services Corp., 290 NLRB 954 (1988).
If the grant of such benefits is unlawful it constitutes an unfair labor practice and objectionable 15
conduct sufficient to order a rerun of the representation election.
The solicitation of grievances by an employer during an organizational campaign violates
the Act when the employer promises to remedy those grievances. The solicitation of grievances
alone is not unlawful, but it raises an inference that the employer is promising to remedy those 20
grievances. This inference is particularly compelling when, during an organizational campaign an
employer which had not previously had a past practice of soliciting grievances, institutes such a
practice or significantly alters its prior manner and methods of solicitation during the campaign,
Center Service System Division, 345 NLRB 729, 730 (2005).
25
Improvements in working conditions/increased benefits (Objection # 3, Complaint
paragraph 6).
The record is crystal clear that Respondent made tremendous improvements in the working
conditions of unit employees during the critical period, such as repairing the air conditioning of 30
the trucks, providing free potable water,8 cleaning the garage, cleaning and repairing the restrooms
and abating numerous hazardous conditions.
It is equally clear that the timing of these improvements was in large part motivated by
Respondent’s desire to have the employees vote against union representation in the August 30 35
representation election. With regard to the air conditioning/ heat issues, it is apparent that there
were serious issues at a number of Garda facilities. From this record, it appears that nothing was
being done to remedy those issues until Garda received inquiries from OSHA and became aware
of several union organizing drives in June and July 2012, see, e.g. Tr. 243-45. For example, there
is no indication that Respondent (or OSHA for that matter) followed-up on the July 2011 40
complaints to determine whether the air conditioning in the Columbus trucks was being properly
maintained.

8 Contrary to Respondent’s assertion in its brief, I find that providing free drinking water in the
circumstances of this case constitutes a material benefit and improvement in the working conditions of
Respondent’s armored truck crews.
JD–15–13
8
Upon receiving these complaints Respondent initiated a project to evaluate “hot spots”
within the company. This evolved into a pilot program or “Project Cool” under the direction of
Christine Bouquin, who Garda hired in late May 2012 as Director of Claims. In mid to late June,
Bouquin’s title was changed to Director of Risk Management. She and Webster Lubema, a health
and safety manager, were given responsibility for this effort in close co-ordination with higher 5
management officials, including Senior Vice President Vincent Modarelli, Human Resources
Director Lori Brown and Labor Relations Director Ivelices Linares.
In selecting facilities for its pilot program with regard to air conditioning and heat related
issues, Garda focused to a significant extent on the presence of union activity at the selected 10
facilities. Of the seven facilities selected for the pilot program, there was ongoing union activity so
far as this record indicates at four, Columbus, Edison, New Jersey, Fairfield, New Jersey and
Needham, Massachusetts. There is direct evident that Fairfield was included in the list due to an
imminent representation election, G.C. 4 page 2. I infer the same for Columbus.
15
There is no evidence that anyone in the Garda hierarchy above the Columbus branch
manager was aware of the 2012 air conditioning/heat issues at Columbus prior to the filing of the
representation petition on July 25, see, e.g. Tr. 162.9 There is no evidence that anyone inquired
about these matters. I infer that higher management learned that 7 trucks did not have functioning
air conditioning in response to an inquiry as to why a union representation had been filed.20
While it may be true that Respondent was genuinely concerned with these issues once
discovered, I infer they would not have come to higher management’s attention but for the filing
of the union’s petition. It is also clear that the correction of the heat and other issues at Columbus
was part and parcel of Garda’s efforts to convince its employees to vote against union 25
representation.
Solicitation of grievances and promises to remedy grievances (Objection # 1 and
Complaint paragraph 5)
30
The focus on the activities of Christine Bouquin and Webster Lubema in the complaint and
in the parties’ briefs is misplaced. Bouquin and Lubema, although agents of the Respondent,
were foot soldiers in Garda’s efforts to remedy problems at the Columbus facility and at the same
time discourage employees from selecting union representation. It is not their motivation that
matters in this case, but the motivation of Garda as a corporation.10 35
Respondent violated the Act by soliciting grievances and either explicitly or implicitly
promising to remedy these grievances in several instances. Christine Bouquin solicited grievances
and at least implicitly promised to remedy them in her conversation on August 7 with Jason
Durbin and his partner. The presence of officials from outside the Columbus branch to remedy 40

9 Respondent’s brief at page 17-18 suggests this is a factor to be considered in Respondent’s favor.
However, the knowledge of Respondent’s then branch manager, Scott Jacks, and its Assistant Manager
Terry Hupp (who replaced Jacks) is imputable to Respondent. Moreover, by virtue of the 2011 OSHA
inquiry, answered by corporate counsel, Garda was on notice that there were heat/air conditioning issues at
the Columbus branch. At a minimum, Respondent’s oversight of Jacks and other branch managers relating
to heat/air conditioning issues was very lax or non-existent prior to the summer of 2012.
10 Moreover, there is no evidence that Lubema solicited anyone.
JD–15–13
9
employee complaints was completely unprecedented and clearly motivated by the Union’s
representation petition.
Vincent Modarelli explicitly promised to remedy employee grievances if they did not
choose union representation. Additionally, Ivelices Linares, in telling Columbus employees that 5
they were at the top of the list for replacement vehicles, was also explicitly promising to remedy
employee complaints about the condition of their vehicles, including but not limited to the air
conditioning. Although the complaint allegations regarding solicitation of grievances and
promises to remedying them are limited to Bouquin and Lubema, the Union’s objection #1 is
phrased in terms of the Employer’s conduct. I find Modarelli’s and Linares’ conduct constitute 10
objectionable conduct and violations of Section 8(a)(1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent improved the working conditions of unit employees during the 15
critical period between the Union’s July 25, 2012 representation petition and the August 30, 2012
representation election, in an effort motivated in material part to dissuade unit employees from
selecting union representation.
2. The Respondent solicited employee grievances and complaints with the implicit 20
promise to remedy them during the critical period.
3. Respondent, Garda, CL Great Lakes, Inc., has engaged in objectionable conduct
necessitating the setting aside of the results of the August 30, 2012 election and the conduct of a
second election. By the same conduct it has committed unfair labor practices and violated Section 25
8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall 30
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Obviously, no reasonable person would order the Respondent to rescind the improvements
it made in the working conditions of unit employees. Thus, for this decision to have any impact at 35
all, I find it necessary to order that the attached notice be read aloud to employees so that they will
fully perceive that Respondent and its managers are bound by the requirements of the Act. The
reading of the notice will ensure that the information in the notice is disseminated to all employees
including those who do not consult Respondent’s bulletin boards, Homer D. Bronson Co., 349
NLRB 512, 515-16 (2007).. Thus, when a rerun election is conducted the employees will have a 40
full understanding of their statutory rights and may select or reject union representation
accordingly.
JD–15–13
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended11
ORDER5
The Respondent, Garda, CL Great Lakes, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from10
(a) Making improvements in the working conditions of employees to discourage them
from organizing or otherwise choosing union representation.
(b) Soliciting employee complaints and grievances and either implicitly or explicitly 15
promising to remedy them during a union organizing campaign.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
20
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a meeting or meetings, scheduled to
ensure the widest possible attendance, at which the attached notice is to be read to employees by
either a Senior Garda Vice President, its Director of Labor Relations, or official of equivalent 25
rank, or, at Respondent’s option by a Board agent in the presence of such an official.
Additionally, I hereby recommend that the results of the August 30, 2012 election be set
aside and that a new election be held at a time to be established at the discretion of the Regional
Director.30
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 19, 2013.
____________________35
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
40

11 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 purposes.
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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT make improvements in your working conditions in order to discourage you
from choosing union representation by the United Federation of Special Police and Security
Officers, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee complaints and grievances and implicitly or explicitly promise
to remedy them during a union organizing campaign by the United Federation of Special Police
and Security Officers, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT ask you to give us time to make you happy and suggest that you withdraw your
support for the United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers, or any other union, in
order to allow us an opportunity to improve your working conditions.
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, if you select union representation by the United Federation of Special Police and
Security Officers, or any other union, on request, bargain with the Union of your choice in good
faith and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of employment
for our employees in the bargaining unit.
GARDA CL GREAT LAKES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
550 Main Street, Federal Building, Room 3003, Cincinnati, OH 45202-3271
(513) 684-3686, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (513) 684-3750.