The Wackenhut Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION 1085
The Wackenhut Corporation and Jack Snow and Lo-
cal 2, International Union of Police and Protection
Employees, Independent Watchmen's Association,
Party to the Contract
Local 2 , International Union of Police and Protection
Employees, Independent Watchmen's Association
and Dominick Macchione and The Wackenhut Cor-
poration, Party to the Contract . Cases 29-CA-4630
and 29-CB-2288
November 22, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On July 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Re-
spondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and
the Respondent Union filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der, as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for
the reasons stated by him, that, by enforcing their
collective-bargaining agreement and its provisions
regarding union security and checkoff as to the Pan
Am site employees, Respondent Employer violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and the Re-
spondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. In doing so, we note the concession by
Respondent Employer that the Pan Am location
might be an appropriate unit, and the fact that the
Respondent Union did not offer proof that it repre-
sented an uncoerced majority of the employees at the
Pan Am site when Respondent Employer recognized
the Union as collective-bargaining representative of
those employees.'
Because the Respondents admitted that they fully
implemented their contract at the Pan Am site, the
Administrative Law Judge did not consider or decide
whether certain acts of the Company's alleged super-
Meyer, Inc, d/b/a Meyer's Thrifty Acres, 222 NLRB 176 (1976) Cf
Houston Division of the Kroger Co, 219 NLRB 388 (1975)
visors constituted independent violations of the Act.
The General Counsel excepts to the failure to find
additional 8(a)(1) and (2) violations, contending that
said conduct was unlawful whether or not the con-
tract was extended to cover the employees at the Pan
Am site. We find merit in the General Counsel's con-
tentions. Accordingly, we further find that Respon-
dent Employer, by the conduct of certain of its su-
pervisors,2 acting as agents of said Employer,
committed additional and independent violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act when they "re-
quired, urged, and solicited [Respondent Employer's]
employees to sign checkoff cards authorizing the de-
duction from their wages of dues and other moneys
to be paid over to Respondent-Union and threatened
them with discharge and other reprisals if they did
not do so."
The incidents in question occurred when the
guards came in to pick up their paychecks, at which
times the officer giving out the checks informed the
guards that receipt of a check was conditioned upon
signing a dues-checkoff authorization card. Employ-
ee Velez testified that on July 18, 197f, Lieutenant
Brown handed him a checkoff authorization card
and said "if you don't sign, you were fired." Employ-
ee McConney testified that on July 18, 1975, Lieu-
tenant Brown gave him a checkoff authorization card
and "told me to sign this here. He told me that if not,
I wouldn't be able to receive my check." Employee
Cretella testified that on July 18, 1975, Lieutenant
Berger gave him a checkoff authorization card and
told him to "`sign this and turn it in to him, it's a
union card, or I will not work or get paid this week."
The testimony of employees Velez, McConney,
and Cretella regarding these incidents was uncontra-
dicted. In fact, Office Manager Eric Brown testified
that, when he gave instructions to supervisors regard-
ing the distribution of dues-checkoff cards to em-
ployees, he "pointed out that if they received static
upon signing the Union dues-checkoff cards, that
they were to inform the employees titat failure to sign
would or could eventually lead in their discharge by
request of the Local." 3
2
We find that Lieutenant Berger and Lead Technician Brown (sometimes
referred to in testimony as Lieutenant Brown) are supervisors within the
meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act Testimony by Respondent Employer's
office manager indicated that lieutenants and lead technicians have authori-
ty "responsibly to direct" employees in the course of their duties They have
nearly identical authority and responsibilities with regard to the employees
whom they assign to posts they deploy employees to different areas, com-
municate information from management to employees, coordinate regard-
ing scheduling, give verbal reprimands and warnings, and expect the em-
ployees to obey their orders We find in addition that they were clearly
agents of the Company as they were admittedly acting under the Company's
instructions
3 At the hearing, several other guards testified that they met similar
threats of job loss or withholding of paychecks if they failed to sign dues-
Continued
226 NLRB No. 150
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Furthermore, in a memorandum dated October 6, APPENDIX A
1975, to "ALL TWC EMPLOYEES-JFK AIRPORT ," David
Egan , Respondent Employer's area manager for
Long Island , made the following statement:
Attached is a Check-Off Authorization Card
for Local 2, International Union of Police and
Protection Employees , Independent Watch-
men's Association.
Your employment at J.F.K. is covered by a
collective bargaining agreement which requires
membership in Local 2 , International Union of
Police and Protection Employees , Independent
Watchmen's Association after thirty (30) days of
employment.
In order to avoid employment difficulties it is
suggested that you give your immediate atten-
tion to this matter.
For those employees who have already signed
a check-off card it will be necessary for you to
complete and sign a second card as problems
have developed in the processing of those signed
by you at an earlier date.
It is thus clear , and we find , that the conduct and
statements described above interfered with the em-
ployees' Section 7 rights and constitute independent
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondents, The
Wackenhut Corporation, Rosedale, New York, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , and Local 2,
International Union of Police and Protection Em-
ployees, Independent Watchmen 's Association, New
York, New York, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order , as so modified:
1. Redesignate paragraph A, 1, (d) as paragraph
A, 1, (e), and insert the following as paragraph A, 1,
(d):
"(d) Threatening employees with loss of their fobs
and withholding of their paychecks for failing or re-
fusing to sign dues -checkoff authorization cards."
2. Substitute the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix A" for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
checkoff authorization cards However , further such findings would merely
be cumulative and would not affect the remedy in this case
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to
give evidence , the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act and has ordered us to post this notice and
carry out its terms.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to
Local 2, International Union of Police and Pro-
tection Employees , Independent Watchmen's
Association , or to any other labor organization
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize said union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of our employ-
ees at the Pan American terminal site, unless
and until said labor organization shall have
demonstrated its exclusive majority status pur-
suant to a Board-conducted election among said
employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bar-
gaining contract of April 4, 1975, with the
Union, insofar as it affects employees at the Pan
American terminal , but we will not vary or
abandon those wages, hours, or other substan-
tive features of our relations with our employees,
established in performance of said agreement, or
prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
jobs or withholding of paychecks for failure or
refusal to sign dues-checkoff authorization
cards.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act , except to the extent those rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 2,
International Union of Police and Protection
Employees, Independent Watchmen's Associa-
tion, make whole the employees to the Pan
American terminal site for dues and initiation
fees paid to the above -named labor organiza-
tion , plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per
year.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION
to refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
the above-named or any other labor organization.
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
heard at Brooklyn, New York, on March 22 through 24,
1976. Upon charges filed and served on October 8, 1975, in
both the above-noted cases, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 issued an order consolidating cases and a consoli-
dated complaint in this proceeding on December 31, 1975.'
alleging that The Wackenhut Corporation, herein called
Respondent-Company or Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and that Local 2, Interna-
tional Union of Police and Protection Employees, Inde-
pendent Watchmen 's Association , herein called Respon-
dent-Union or Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. Respondents filed answers generally denying
the commission of unfair labor practices.
Issue
Whether the Respondents unlawfully enforced their col-
lective -bargaining agreement and applied its union -security
provisions to the Company's employees at the Pan Amen-
can (sometimes called Pan Am) terminal thereby depriving
such employees of the right to chose their own bargaining
representative; or whether the Pan Am terminal site of the
Company constituted an accretion to the bargaining unit
described in the agreement.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The Respon-
dent-Union submitted a brief and the Respondent-Compa-
ny filed a letter setting forth its position, both of which
have been carefully considered
On the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Florida corporation, maintains its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Coral Gables, Florida,
and has various other places of business in the United
States including offices in Rockville Centre, called the
Long Island area office, and at Rosedale, New York, called
the JFK Airport office, where the Company has been en-
gaged in providing uniformed guards and performing po-
lice and protective services and related services. During the
year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent-
Company performed services valued in excess of $1 million
of which services valued in excess of $ 50,000 were per-
formed for various businesses located in States other than
' Unless otherwise noted all dates hereinafter refer to 1975
1087
the location of the Company. At the hearing the parties
stipulated and I find that the Respondent-Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent-Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent-Company provides uniformed guard service
and other protective services to clients throughout the
country. It obtains these jobs on the basis of competitive
bidding with other similar guard companies. Some of its
contracts are on the basis of 30-day purchase orders, and
others may be for a period of 1 year or at the most 2 years.
According to company witnesses there is a constant turn-
over and fluctuation as a result of the gaining or losing of
jobs due to the competitive bidding that occurs at the expi-
ration of the various agreements with clients.
In 1973 Respondent-Union was certified by the Board
for a unit of guards employed by the Company at the site
of the Fairchild Hiller plant in Long Island, New York.
Thereafter, in 1974 the Respondent-Union was also certi-
fied by the New York State Labor Relations Board for a
unit of guards employed by the Company at York College
in Queens, New York. Respondent-Company's labor rela-
tions counsel testified that in early 1975 the Company was
concerned about prospective problems which may derive
from the nonunion status of its guards at other locations in
the Long Island area. Its customers were afraid of the pos-
sibility of disruption in the services provided by the Com-
pany in the event of organizational activity among the
guards. He therefore checked the representative status of
the Company's employees in Long Island and found that
the York and Fairchild employees constituted more than
50 percent of the entire complement on Long Island. The
results showed that the Company employed 121 guards at
the York and Fairchild sites and 92 employees at a total of
13 other locations The Company met with the Respon-
dent-Union and on the basis of the Union 's representation
of the employees at the two major locations which totaled
more than the other locations, the Company extended rec-
ognition to the Union for "all of the security guards em-
ployed by it in Long Island, New York, operating from and
under the direction of the Company's Long Island office in
Rockville Centre New York." On April 4 the parties execu-
ted a collective -bargaining agreement covering this area
unit . Since at that time the Respondents already had indi-
vidual collective-bargaining agreements at each of the
York and Fairchild locations , the new agreement of April 4
contained an appendix A which incorporated the then ex-
isting wages and other conditions applicable to the York
employees , a similar appendix B applicable to the employ-
ees at Fairchild Hiller, an appendix C which was to be
applied to all other existing jobsites, and an appendix D
which would apply to newly acquired jobsites. The appen-
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dixes contained differences in wage schedules as well as
other benefits . It was envisioned that the agreement would
be renegotiated after the York and Fairchild agreements
had expired?
B. Facts
Shortly after the execution by Respondents of the con-
tract on April 4, the Company succeeded in obtaining the
work of providing guards at the Pan American terminal at
JFK Airport in Long Island, and commenced operations
there on May 11. According to David Egan, area manager,
there were 161 employees at Pan Am in the first week of its
operation. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of these em-
ployees had been employed by the former guards' contrac-
tors at Pan Am, about 5 percent consisted of employees
from other sites of the Company, and the balance were
new hires. Egan further stated that between May 11 and
October 8, the date of the filing of the charge herein, the
employee complement at Pan Am fluctuated to a high of
250. During the same period of time there would have been
some 200 to 230 employees at other Long Island jobsites.
On approximately July 18 and thereafter, dues-checkoff
authorization cards were distributed by the Company
among the employees at Pan Am. It is not necessary to
discuss the testimony adduced with respect to the status of
the Company's employees involved in the distribution who
are alleged to be supervisors or agents, as it is undisputed
that the collective-bargaining agreement between the Re-
spondents has been fully implemented at the Pan Am site
including the union-security provisions. Schedule D of the
agreement was applied regarding wages and other benefits
and conditions, and dues have been withheld from the pay
of the Pan Am employees.3 It is likewise undisputed that
the recognition granted to the Respondent-Union and the
effectuation of the April 4 collective-bargaining agreement
was not preceded by or based upon a submission of au-
thorization cards signed by the Pan Am employees.
The Company's Long Island operations are headquar-
tered in an area office in Rockville Centre and there direct-
ed by the area manager, David Egan. There are three
branch offices which are located in Rockville Centre (with-
in the area office), Melville in Suffolk County, and Rose-
dale. The Rosedale office handles all administrative and
operational functions for Pan Am and another client at
JFK, W.R. Keating.4 The hierarchy at the Rosedale office
consists of a branch manager, an office manager, a coordi-
nator, a secretary and a dispatcher. The branch manager is
concerned with overall management of the branch but
mainly with the operational functions, while the office
manager, Eric Brown, is responsible for all administrative
functions. Brown testified that his office is responsible for
all the administration pertaining to the guards at Pan Am
such as payroll, billing, insurance, supplies, and motor ve-
2 There is no contention by the General Counsel that the agreement of
April 4 was invalid and that is not in issue herein In this connection is it
noted that the April 4 agreement was executed beyond the 10(b) period
3 As a result of the Board investigation and proceedings, the deduction of
dues has been halted by the Company
4 A third client at JFK, Lufthansa, is directed by the Rockville Centre
branch office
hicles. Brown stated that with respect to the Company's
employees at Pan Am and Keating at JFK, the Rosedale
office performs the following functions: Hiring, firing, lay-
off, recall if necessary, promotions , assignment of employ-
ees to posts and shifts, discipline, direction of the work for
these two clients at JFK, the handling of employees' griev-
ances either by Brown or the branch manager depending
on whether the grievance involved administration or opera-
tion. Both Brown and Egan testified that the Rosedale of-
fice functions autonomously on a day-to-day basis. All
branch managers report to Egan who maintains daily con-
tact with them. He also visits the Rosedale office as well as
the Pan Am site on a regular basis during the course of
each week. Egan stated that the branch managers and of-
fice managers come to him only with problems but on a
day-to-day basis they operate by themselves.
At the Pan Am terminal the Company employs security
guards in uniform performing regular guard and security
duties and a number of teams engaged in predeparture
screening of passengers. During the May I I through Octo-
ber 8 period involved herein there were eight field supervi-
sors operating out of the Rosedale office. In addition there
were two lieutenants, two lead techicians,5 and a number of
sergeants.'
There is minimal interchange between the employees at
Pan Am and those at other Long Island sites of the Re-
spondent-Company. Egan stated that in an average week
there might be only one or two people working at Pan Am
who came from other sites. There would be possibly two to
four people who were stationed at Pan Am who might
work at another site. None of these exchanges were perma-
nent and the numbers refer to only one shift. Normally
guards working at one site have no contact with those at
other sites.
C. Analysis
Despite the Company's contention that the issue here is
not one of accretion, but rather "inclusion" of the Pan Am
employees within the Long Island area unit described in
the contract, the word "inclusion" in these circumstances is
a euphemism for accretion. Nor is there any substantial
unit question involved for on the basis of the facts detailed
above, the Pan Am site would constitute an appropriate
unit as would the Long Island areawide unit. The Respon-
dent-Employer in its brief admits that the Pan Am group
might be an appropriate unit and maintains that this is not
the issue in the case. In any case many of the factors con-
sidered by the Board in determining the question of accre-
tion are the same as those involved in determining appro-
priate units. While most of the relevant considerations in
the area of accretion have been determined by the Board in
representation proceedings at a point when unit determina-
S Lead technicians are in charge of the predeparture screening teams.
6 The General Counsel endeavored to show that the lieutenants, lead tech-
nicians, and sergeants are supervisors or agents of the Respondent-Compa-
ny in order to fix its responsibility for the distribution of the dues-checkoff
cards As has been noted the application of the union-security clause to the
employees and the distribution of the checkoff cards has been conceded by
the Company Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to determine for that pur-
pose whether these three categories are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act Nor is their status relevant to any other issue herein
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION 1089
tions are made , and the same factors may be involved in
deciding whether employees at a subsequently established
location should be absorbed into an existing unit , there is a
difference . As the court noted in Sheraton Kauai Corp. v.
N.L.R.B., 7 in cases where the accretion or absorption of a
facility into an existing larger unit is in issue , the employ-
ees' rights of self-organization under Section 7 of the Act
are even more clearly at stake than in initial representation
proceedings . In the latter, employees at each location have
an opportunity to participate in the resolution of the repre-
sentation issue . However , employees at a new location that
has been absorbed by accretion are denied that opportuni-
ty. Thus, in view of Section 7 rights, the defense of accre-
tion has been narrowly construed .' In circumstances which
have indicated that the larger areawide unit and a single
location may both be considered to be appropriate units
the Board has refused to add the employees to the larger
unit. The Board has said , "We will not, however , under the
guise of accretion , compel a group of employees , who may
constitute a separate appropriate unit to be included in an
overall unit without allowing those employees the opportu-
nity of expressing their preference in a secret election or by
some other evidence that they wished to authorize the
Union to represent them." 9
The usual factors considered by the Board in determin-
ing whether an accretion is valid militate against such a
determination in this case . There is no collective -bargain-
Ing history of bargaining in an areawide unit between the
Respondents . The collective -bargaining agreement creat-
ing such a unit was entered into just a little more than a
month prior to the commencement of the Company 's oper-
ations at Pan Am. Indeed before April the collective-bar-
gaining history was just the reverse as the Respondent-
Union had been certified to represent the Company's em-
ployees in individual separate units at York College and
Fairchild Hiller, and the remainder of the Long Island em-
ployees were unrepresented. Respondent -Company's man-
agers who testified agreed to the substantial autonomy ex-
ercised by the local Rosedale office . It is noted , in addition,
that the April 4 collective -bargaining agreement provided
for different wage scales and benefits at the various loca-
tions thus preserving the identity of the previous separate
units . There is almost no interchange and employees at Pan
Am acquire no seniority with respect to the other locations,
and vice versa . The Pan Am complement was almost en-
tirely newly hired , as Egan testified that only approximate-
ly 5 percent were employed by the Company at other loca-
tions before the opening at Pan Am . The balance were
either already employed at Pan Am by the predecessor of
the Company or were new hires. In this connection Re-
spondent-Company 's managers indicated that there is no
dearth of applicants for the guard positions . Perhaps the
most telling factor involved in this particular case is the
number of employees at Pan Am , the location sought to be
accreted . At the minimum , which was at the outset, the
Company commenced operating at Pan Am with 161 em-
ployees , representing some 40 percent of the entire area
unit on Long Island . However, during the short span of
1 429 F.2d 1352 (C A. 9, 1970)
s Sunset House, 167 NLRB 870 (1967 ), enfd 415 F.2d 545 (C A 9, 1969)
' Melbet Jewelery Co , Inc, 180 NLRB 107, 110 (1969)
time under scrutiny in this case , May 11 through October
8, there were periods when the number of employees at
Pan Am exceeded the total employed in the rest of the
Long Island area. Thus Egan testified that the number em-
ployed there at times was as high as 250 whereas the maxi-
mum employed by the Respondent-Company at other sites
failed to exceed 230. Cases decided by the Board and the
courts involving accretion issues invariably refer to the ab-
sorption of the smaller into the larger unit . Even assuming
the Pan Am group did not outnumber the balance of the
Long Island area taken as a whole , it clearly was larger by
far than any other individual location . It would appear that
the imposition of a collective -bargaining representative by
way of accretion on a unit of employees of this compara-
tive size would be a classical example of the tail wagging
the dog.
Respondents further have urged that approval of the ac-
cretion of the Pan Am location to the areawide unit would
lend itself to increased stability in collective-bargaining re-
lations since the guard industry, being a service type busi-
ness, involves great fluctuation among employers as they
constantly bid against one another to obtain relatively
short-lived contracts with their clients. This is the inverse
of the normal situation in which there is usually turnover
of employees rather than employers. In the guard industry,
according to the testimony herein, the employees often re-
main on the job , merely donning the uniform of the new
employer . In the instant case , as many as 25 or 30 percent
of the employees at Pan Am employed by the predecessor
company remained when the Respondent-Company took
over . In such circumstances , a labor organization having
bargaining rights at a given location may continue to enjoy
such status in the event the successor employer employs a
majority of the predecessor's employees .' In any case, the
invalidity of the attempt herein to accrete the Pan Am site
is not a blow against the areawide unit sought by the Re-
spondents in order to assure greater stability . On the basis
of the record herein an overall unit including Pan Am, as
previously noted , is appropriate but Pan Am employees in
this case cannot be included by way of accretion, at the
expense of their Section 7 rights to freely select a bargain-
ing agent if they so desire . In short the Respondents are
seeking a stable relationship via an unlawful shortcut.
Their goal in this case could have been obtained only if the
Respondent-Union had been properly designated as the
agent of the employees at Pan Am.
Accordingly, I find that , by enforcing their collective-
bargaining agreement and its provisions regarding union
security and checkoff as to the Pan Am site employees,
Respondent-Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act, and the Respondent -Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
10 See N L R B v William J Burns International Security Services, Inc,
406 U S 272 (1972)
11 Meyer, Inc, d/b/a Meyer's Thrifty Acres, 222 NLRB 18 (1976).
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent-Company described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent-Company unlawfully
recognized and rendered support to the Respondent-Union
at the Pan Am terminal at JFK Airport and unlawfully
imposed a contract with that union containing union-se-
cunty and checkoff provisions, I shall recommend that the
Respondent-Company withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from the Respondent-Union as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees at the Pan Am terminal
and cease giving effect at that location to its contract, with-
out, however, requiring the Respondent-Company to vary
any wage or other substantive features established under
the same contract.
As I have found violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (b)(2)
in the unlawful extension of the union-secunty contract to
the employees at Pan Am I shall recommend that the Re-
spondents be ordered, jointly and severally, to reimburse
the employees for dues and fees unlawfully exacted from
them with interest, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, The Wackenhut Corporation, is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local 2, International Union of Police
and Protection Employees, Independent Watchmen's As-
sociation is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully assisting and supporting the Respon-
dent Union, and by the unlawful extension of the union-
security contract to its employees at Pan Am, the Respon-
dent-Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
4. By obtaining recognition as the sole bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees at Pan Am, by submitting them
to the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining
agreement as found herein, and by unlawfully extending
the union-security contract to the employees at Pan Am,
the Respondent-Union restrained and coerced, and is re-
straining and coercing the employees of the Respondent-
Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 12
A. Respondent The Wackenhut Corporation, Rosedale,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support and assistance to Respondent-
Union or to any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing Respondent-Union as the bargaining
representative of any of its employees at its Pan Am site for
the purpose of dealing with the Company concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until
said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclu-
sive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election among the said employees at Pan Am.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
of April 4, 1975, between the Respondents, or to any exten-
sion , renewal, or modification thereof ( insofar as it applies
to employees at Pan Am): provided, however, that nothing
herein shall require the Respondent-Company to vary or
abandon any wages, hours, or other substantive features of
its relations with its employees at Pan Am which the Re-
spondent-Company has established in the performance of
a contract, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of
any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) In any other manner interfering with the rights guar-
anteed employees in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Re-
spondent-Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees at Pan Am for the purpose of dealing with
it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment unless and until said labor organization shall have
demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among its employees at the Pan
Am terminal site.
(b) Jointly and severally with the said Respondent-
Union reimburse its employees at Pan Am for any initia-
tion fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off pur-
suant to the aforesaid agreement or any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereof, or to any agreement
superseding it, plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION
(c) Post at its Rosedale branch office copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix A " 13 Copies of said no-
tice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 after being duly signed by Respondent-Company
or its representatives, shall be posted by Respondent-Com-
pany 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 Re-
spondent-Company to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places as set forth in (c) above, and
as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director,
copies of Respondent-Union's notice herein marked "Ap-
pendix B."
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
B. Local 2, International Union of Police and Protec-
tion Employees, Independent Watchmen's Association, its
officers, agents, and representatives shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agency of any of
Respondent-Company's Pan Am terminal employees for
the purpose of dealing with the Company concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment unless and until
said Respondent-Union shall have demonstrated its exclu-
sive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election among the employees at Pan Am.
(b) Giving effect to the April 4, 1975, collective-bargain-
Ing contract between the Respondent-Company and Re-
spondent-Union insofar as it affects employees at Pan Am,
or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees at the Pan Am site of the Respondent-Company in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent-Company
reimburse said Company's Pan Am employees for any ini-
tiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off
pursuant to the agreement applied to Respondent-
Company's employees or to any extension, renewal, modi-
fication or supplement thereof, or to any agreement su-
perseding it, plus interest set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(b) Post in the Respondent-Union's business office,
meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are
customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B." 14 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
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"
14Fn 13,supra
1091
by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent-
Union, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent-Union to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the
aforesaid notice for posting by Respondent-Company at its
Rosedale branch in places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be provided
by the Regional Director, after being signed by the Re-
spondent-Union, as indicated, shall be forthwith returned
to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give
evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act
and have been directed to take certain actions and to post
this notice.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of The Wackenhut Corpo-
ration at its Pan American terminal site, unless and
until we have demonstrated our exclusive majority
representative status pursuant to a Board conducted
election among the said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement dated April 4, 1975, between the Company
and ourselves, insofar as it applies to the Pan Ameri-
can terminal employees, or to any extension, renewal,
or modification thereof affecting the said employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
the aforementioned employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL jointly and severally with The Wackenhut
Corporation make whole the employees at the Pan
American terminal site for dues and initiation fees
paid by them to us, plus interest at the rate of 6 per-
cent per year.
LOCAL 2, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE AND
PROTECTION EMPLOYEES , INDEPENDENT WATCHMEN'S
ASSOCIATION