Wackenhut Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 20, 2005

05-CA-031927 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 20, 2005)

JD–26–05
Takoma Park, MD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES

THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION,

and Case 5–CA–31927

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
(SEIU), AFL–CIO

Elicia L. Watts, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Marvin M. Goldstein and Elana Gilaad, Esqs.
(Proskauer Rose LLP), of Newark, New Jersey
for the Respondent.
Michael Artz, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the
Charging Party.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Washington,
D.C., on October 4–6, 2004.1 The charge was filed May 10 and the complaint issued on July 30.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Respondent, The Wackenhut Corporation, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) on several occasions from
February 20 to March 192 by threatening employees with retaliation or the loss of the
Respondent’s IMF contract if they formed a union, interrogating employees about union
organizing activities, engaging in surveillance and/or creating the impression of surveillance of
employee activities, and discouraging employees from organizing and accepting union literature
on public property in front of their workplace. In its answer to the complaint filed August 13, the
Respondent denied the allegations and asserted that the charging party has no rights under
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it is a mixed guard union under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.

At the hearing, the parties were afforded a full opportunity to call and examine
witnesses, present oral and written evidence, argue orally on the record and file posthearing
briefs. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,3 I make the
following
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2004.
2 Complaint par. 13 alleges that the last unfair labor practice occurred on March 5. However,
the pleading was conformed to the proof, based on documentation produced by Respondent
pursuant to the General Counsel’s subpoena. (GC Exh. 3(a), Tr. 67.)
3 The General Counsel’s motion to amend its brief, filed January 7, 2005, and Respondent’s
motion to strike other portions of the General Counsel’s brief, filed January 20, 2005, are denied
as either unnecessary clarification of the record or in the nature of unauthorized reply briefs.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
2

Findings of Fact

I. Jurisdiction

The Respondent, a Florida corporation with an office and place of business in Takoma
Park, Maryland, provides security services. During the 12-month period ending December 31,
the Respondent performed services in excess of $50,000 in the District of Columbia and States
outside of Maryland. The 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 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

A. The Respondent’s Contract with the International Monetary Fund

The Respondent had a security services contract with the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004 (the IMF contract).4 The IMF contract
covered three locations in the Northwest section of Washington, D.C. metropolitan area—the
IMF headquarters building at 19th and G Street, the International Square Building (ISB) at 10th
and I Streets, and the IMF building at 23rd Street and New Hampshire Avenue. Wackenhut
employed approximately 120–135 persons in connection with the IMF contract. Approximately
85 percent of those employees were customs protective officers (hereinafter referred to as
security guards or security officers).

Stewart Branam, the Respondent’s manager for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area, operated out of the Respondent’s Takoma Park, Maryland office, and was assisted there
by field support supervisor Jermaine Smith and training director Harold Bennette. Daily
operations under the IMF contract were supervised by project manager Alexander Steele from
his office at IMF Headquarters. Steele was assisted by Major Arthur Milling, Lieutenant Erin
Headen, Sergeant Alan Dade, as well as other captains, lieutenants, and sergeants at the three
IMF buildings. Captain Charles Rumsey was Wackenhut’s daily supervisor at the ISB. All were
considered supervisors.5

This controversy involves the IMF headquarters building and the ISB. The IMF
headquarters building takes up an entire square block. The building, as well as the space inside
of the cement barriers which bound the sidewalk around its perimeter, are restricted space. The
sidewalk area outside of the barriers was not restricted space. The ISB is a multi-tenant building
with a public lobby and a food court. Since Wackenhut only provided security on the floors
leased by the IMF, restricted space was limited to those floors and was separated from the
public space, that is, the elevator lobby area, by glass partitions and electronically locked glass
doors. On certain IMF floors, a security guard was stationed at a podium in the elevator lobby
area and would unlock the glass doors for an IMF guest after the completion of security
protocols. On other IMF floors, a security guard was stationed behind the glass partition. IMF
guests were permitted access through the glass doors in order to complete security protocols.6
4 On July 1, 2004, Wackenhut was replaced as the security provider for IMF following a
publicized bidding process.
5 Steele explained that “anyone with rank was considered to be a supervisor.” (Tr. 422.)
6 There was no dispute as to the areas that were considered restricted. (Tr. 31–34, 123,
389.)

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
3

B. The Respondent’s Policies and Procedures

1. The Respondent’s general policies and procedures

The Respondent’s general policies and procedures for security guards were contained in
the security guard handbook (handbook). A copy of the handbook was given to each security
guard at the time of hire and discussed during the mandatory training course.7 The relevant
portions of the handbook are:

Section I. General Information

3. Duties: You have been selected and placed in your present assignment after having
met certain requirements necessary to perform your duties. Your Supervisor will instruct
you as to what your work and responsibilities are. You should diligently follow your
duties and look to your Supervisor for guidance. He or she will answer any questions
concerning your job.

Section II. The Role Of The Security Officer—To Each Security Officer

2.6 Orders: A Security Officer will obey all order (sic) promptly and inform his or her relief
of all new orders issued. Willful disregard of orders and instructions will be cause for
disciplinary action.

2.7 Conduct While On Duty: a Security Officer: . . . Will carry on no unnecessary
conversations . . . Will not conduct outside business at the employment location or while
in Company uniform . . .

2.9 Reports: A Security Officer: Will be alert and observe everything that takes place
within sight and hearing of assigned post . . . Will make written reports on all observed
violations of law, client or Post Orders.

2.13 Visiting: Security Officers: Are prohibited from entering a working area of a client
more than ten (10) minutes before the start of their work shift and from remaining more
than ten (10) minutes after their shift has ended. Security Officers are not permitted to
enter any work area of a client for any purpose during their off-duty hours except as may
be expressly authorized by appropriate authorities. This prohibition does not apply to off-
duty employees entering a client’s premises as a member of the general public for
purposes for which the client’s business is held open to the general public. Will not
permit individuals to visit with them for the purpose of discussing personal or other
unofficial matters while on duty at a client’s premises.

2.14 Solicitation: Solicitation for any purpose by a Security Officer is prohibited while
either the person soliciting or the person being solicited should be performing job duties.
Distribution of any materials for any purpose by a Security Officer is prohibited at all
times in a client’s working area. Distribution of any materials for any purpose by a
Security Officer is prohibited in a client’s non-working areas while the person distributing
materials or the person receiving them should be performing job duties. Solicitation or
7 There was no dispute that security guards were on notice of all handbook and post
requirements. (Tr. 180, 334–335; R. Exh. 7.)

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
4

distribution of any materials for any purpose by non-employees is prohibited at all times
on the premises on TWC [The Wackenhut Corporation] and prohibited on client property
where prohibited by the client. Even though Security Officers are paid for the entire time
they are working at a client’s premises, this rule does not prohibit Security Officers from
engaging in solicitation during no more than the one-half hour period while Security
Officers are properly engaged in eating their meals and during periods, if any, when
Security Officers are properly not engaged in performing their work tasks. 8

2.15 Discipline: The following are not binding terms and conditions of employment. The
Company retains the absolute right to terminate any employee at any time without good
cause. Violations of any Rules and Regulations under Chapter 2 may result in
disciplinary action to include: . . . 3. Suspension: a temporary disciplinary layoff for
serious misconduct or repeated offenses. The employee doesn’t lose his or her job or
seniority rights, but loses his/her pay for the designated period of suspension. 4.
Dismissal: a result of a serious breach of a rule, standard, practice, policy or procedure.
Additionally, dismissal may result from repeated disciplinary problems of a less serious
nature. Grounds for immediate dismissal: the disciplinary process referenced above will
be followed in most instances of employee non-compliance, with the exception of the
following violations of prescribed standards which will result in immediate dismissal: . . .
11. Job performance that is unacceptable . . .

2. The Respondent’s post orders for the IMF buildings

The Respondent’s procedures for security guards assigned to the ISB were contained in
post orders, dated March 14, 2002. The post orders were discussed during initial security guard
training, as well as during subsequent on-the-job training. The post orders listed the direct
supervisor as the sergeant, the site supervisor as Captain Campbell and contained “access
control guidelines” governing access by IMF staff, guests of IMF staff, and visitors in general.
The access control guidelines were specifically geared toward access by IMF staff and their
guests. There were, however, two guidelines governing access by all visitors. Guideline 1 stated
that “[e]very person seeking access to Fund space will be required to have his/her identification
examined by authorized security personnel.” Guideline 7 said essentially the same thing—that
“[a]ll persons entering IMF space must either have a Fund or Bank issued ID card or a Fund
issued visitor pass. Any passes that do not have a picture must be verified with an appropriate
picture ID such as a driver’s license or passport.” 9

C. The Union Campaign

During the fall of 2003, the Union initiated a campaign to organize the three IMF
buildings. Union efforts consisted of literature distribution and meetings with interested
employees. Over the next 6 months, union organizers handed materials to security guards on at
least 10 occasions outside the ISB, in the ISB food court, and IMF Headquarters. The employee
meetings began in October 2003, when several ISB security guards met with Chad Sullivan, a
union organizer. Sullivan asked the security guards to distribute authorization cards to other ISB
employees. The cards were distributed by several security guards, including Anderson Carter
and Terry Purnell. Approximately 65 percent of ISB security guards returned the cards signed.

8 The General Counsel does not contend that Wackenhut’s solicitation policy is unlawful in
any respect.
9 Tr. 464–465; R. Exh. 8.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
5

By early 2004, Elizabeth O’Connor replaced Sullivan as the Union’s organizer at the ISB.
She went to that building to meet with security guards toward the end of their shift on February
18, 23, and 24. The officers included Carter and Purnell. On each occasion, O’Connor entered
the ISB and took the first floor elevator. O’Connor exited the elevator on floors where the
security guard posts were located to speak with employees. On these occasions, O’Connor was
also escorted by Sergeant Anthony Judd to second floor office space where security guards
normally signed-in and out for their shifts. IMF offices on the second floor were accessible only
through doors that required electronic pass keys. On all occasions, Judd also escorted
O’Connor out the building. O’Connor was not asked to sign a visitor’s log, wear a visitor’s badge
or otherwise present identification to Judd or other security guards. O’Connor was not advised
by any security guards that she was not authorized to be there. O’Connor also met with
workers in the food court of the ISB in March 2004.10

D. The Respondent’s Response to the Union Campaign

1. Steele’s response to Carter’s union activity

On February 20, 2004, Steele was notified that Carter met with union representatives at
the ISB on February 18. Steele responded by summoning Carter to his office at IMF
Headquarters.11 During the meeting, Steele told Carter the following: that the Respondent was
engaged as a service provider to IMF; that it was a violation of the Respondent’s rules to solicit,
for any purpose, while on duty; that it was a violation of the post orders to have any
unauthorized individuals, including the Union, on IMF property; that Carter was free to have
union-related conversations when off-duty; that Steele was concerned that the IMF “would be
uncomfortable” with the unionization of the company; that the Respondent was “in the process
of contract renewal” and union activity “could possibly jeopardize the contract;” that the IMF
could cancel the existing contract on 30-days notice; that employees would receive pay raises if
the Respondent was awarded the new contract; that, while a union contract might result in
increased wages, they might also result in a lowering of benefits—as was the case for
employees at the Fannie Mae worksite; that, if Carter wanted to continue organizing activities,
he should transfer to the Fannie Mae worksite. Steele then asked Carter what he wanted to do.
Carter responded that he did not want to jeopardize the Respondent’s contract and would
refrain from union activity at the ISB. Steele commended Carter for his decision and told him to
return to his post.12

10 Tr. 117–119, 208, 213–215, 221–223.
11 I credit Steele’s testimony on direct examination that he summoned Carter to his office
because union officials solicited on IMF property. (Tr. 390–391.) Steele attempted, however, to
change course on cross-examination: “I met with Carter because my concern about him
possibly abandoning his post conducting personal business on client property on company time.
The fact that it was Union was coincidental.” (Tr. 417.) I did not credit that testimony and find
that the Union’s presence and solicitation were significant factors in calling the meeting.
12 Steele and Carter each had credibility problems. Steele had limited recollection of critical
events and provided contradictory testimony. Carter was combative, evasive, and had a
selective memory. Nevertheless, with the exception of Carter’s testimony that he and Steele
briefly discussed a disciplinary issue relating to other employees, their testimony was fairly
consistent regarding Steele’s comments on February 20. (Tr. 258–270, 415–417, 432–435.)

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
6

2. Branam’s response to Carter’s union activity

On February 23, Carter met and discussed organizing activity with O’Connor at his post
on the 12th floor of the ISB. Thereafter, Carter escorted O’Connor to the elevator. Carter took
the elevator to the second floor, while O’Connor continued on to the first floor. On February 24,
O’Connor met with Carter, Sergeant Judd, and other employees in Judd’s office.13 On that
same day, Steele informed Branam about Carter’s February 18 violation of the Respondent’s
no-solicitation policy in connection with union organizers. Steele also told Branam that he spoke
to Carter about it, that a second violation occurred after that conversation and that another
security guard, Terry Purnell, was also implicated.14

On February 25, Branam directed Steele to have Carter report to the Respondent’s
Takoma Park office. The directive filtered down to Carter’s supervisor, Lieutenant Clark, who
notified Carter. Upon arriving at the Takoma Park office later that morning, Clark encountered
Bennette in the hallway. Bennette, who had been asked to witness Carter’s meeting with
Branam, asked Carter, “what’s going on?” Carter responded that he did not know.15 At some
point, Branam met them outside his office and took them into his office for a meeting. Bennette
and Captain Jeremiah Smith attended as witnesses. Branam began the meeting by asking
Carter if he knew why he was there. Carter said he suspected that it had to do with the Union.
Branam then asked, “can you tell me something about that?” At first, Carter denied any
knowledge, but then explained that certain persons came up to him at his post. Branam told
Carter that he was investigating the unauthorized entry of persons into IMF offices at the ISB
and wanted to know whether they identified themselves or signed-in. Carter responded that they
did not sign in and he did not know whether they were authorized to be in the building. Near the
end of the meeting, Branam asked Carter to provide him with a written statement about the
13 Carter considered Judd “to be a supervisor but not in reference to the Union” because
employees at the rank of sergeant or below were eligible to be union members. (Tr. 317–-318.)
14 Branam also lacked credibility. Initially, when called as a witness by the General Counsel,
he was “not exactly sure of the exact date,” but believed that his first discussion with Steele
about Carter’s policy violations occurred “in or around” February 26 or 27. (Tr. 25–26.)
Subsequently, after sitting through the entire hearing and being called on Respondent’s case,
Branam testified that Steele called him on February 24 and apprised him of Carter’s policy
violations. (Tr. 453.) It is consistent with the weight of the credible evidence and, therefore, likely
that Steele told Branam on February 24 that the unauthorized persons were union organizers.
(Tr. 391–393.) Branam’s testimony was also contradictory about his discussions with Steele.
Branam testified initially that Carter was on his post when he came into contact with
unauthorized persons, but subsequently testified that he could not recall Steele informing him
that Carter was in IMF space while the unauthorized persons were present. (Tr. 39–40.)
15 Carter testified that, as he arrived at the Takoma Park office on February 25, Bennette
asked him about meeting with the Union on February 24. Bennette recalled simply asking Carter
“what’s going on” and Carter responded that he did not know. (Tr. 265–266, 337–338.) As
previously noted, Carter had credibility problems. He had trouble giving straight answers and
could not recall many of the salient facts. Bennette, although he had trouble remembering the
correct month and what Carter was wearing, was otherwise credible. I adopted his testimony.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
7

incident.16 Branam then suspended Carter and directed him to turn-in his badge.17 He did not
offer to assign Carter to another location while the investigation was pending.18

On February 27, Carter received a telephone call from Branam’s secretary asking him to
come in for a meeting with Branam. Carter went to the Takoma office and, at Branam’s request,
wrote a statement in the reception area and submitted it to Branam.19 On April 1, Branam
formally terminated Carter for cause for violations of the handbook and the post orders.20

3. The Respondent’s statements to employees about union activity

During the morning of February 26, the Respondent held a roll call meeting in the
captain’s office on the second floor of the ISB. The meeting was attended by Steele, Milling,
Rumsey, Lieutenant Stacy Clark, and approximately 20–25 security guards. By this time,
security guards present at the roll-call knew that Carter and Purnell had been removed from
their posts.21 After roll-call and distribution of assignments, Steele addressed the security
guards. He told them that recent actions by certain security guards violated the Respondent’s
solicitation policy and post orders. Specifically, Steele informed the security guards that he was
aware that they had signed authorization cards and were trying to form a union. He explained
that he was neutral on the union issue, but stated that such activity on “company time while on
company property” violated Wackenhut policy as contained in the handbook. Steele then
16 Neither Carter nor Branam was entirely credible about the February 25th meeting. Carter
could not recall many details of the meeting and was unsure what was said and by whom. As
such, I did not credit Carter’s assertion that Branam came out of his office and chastised him for
meeting with union organizers after Carter’s discussion with Steele on February 18. (Tr. 275–
278.) Branam’s testimony was fraught with inconsistencies. Branam asserted that he was not
expecting Carter, there was no meeting, and they simply discussed scheduling on February 25.
However, Branam was unsure as to when Steele first contacted him about Carter and then
provided inconsistent dates. Instead, I relied on the credible testimony of Bennette and Smith in
reconstructing much of the meeting. Their testimony confirmed Carter’s assertion that Branam
directed him to report to his office and that a meeting was in fact held on February 25. (Tr. 265,
343–345, 365.) However, Bennette and Smith also established that it was Carter who first
mentioned the Union. (Tr. 339–343, 366–368.)
17 Carter testified that he was suspended at the February 25 meeting. (Tr. 268–269.)
Branam attempted to evade the issue of whether Carter was suspended at that time, but
conceded it nevertheless: “He was not working, and he was not allowed to go back to his post.”
[Tr. 455–456.]
18 Branam asserted that he offered to assign Carter to work at another security location
while the investigation was pending. In light of his contention that Carter committed a serious
security breach and was not allowed to return to his post, that assertion was farcical. (Tr. 467.)
19 Carter’s written statement was dated February 27 and he submitted it to Branam on that
day. (R. Exh. 6.) There is no credible evidence, however, that they had any further discussions
about the underlying facts at any time after February 25. (Tr. 279–282.)
20 Although received in evidence, I gave Branam’s letters of March 15 and April 1 little
weight, as there is no complaint allegation that Carter’s termination was illegal. (R. Exhs. 8–9.)
21 Dennis Brummell, a security guard present at the roll-call, heard the radio transmission
directing Carter to report to the major’s office, saw Captain Smith remove Carter’s personal
property from his post, and knew Carter and Purnell were active in the organizing campaign.
(Tr. 155–157.) Purnell, who was not called to testify, was also suspended following a meeting
with Branam. (GC Exh. 5.) There is no allegation, however, that Purnell was unlawfully
interrogated.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
8

explained that he “was still in the process of trying to find out whether or not the client would be
a bit disgruntled for lack of a better term, or at least concerned if in fact we were an organized
unionized workforce.” He further explained that the IMF “contract was in the process of being up
for bid, competitively bid, and that it may represent a problem,” but he “didn’t know.” Steele said
he “would find out and make them aware as soon as [he] did, but regardless of that, they were
not to conduct their business while on property while on their own time or our time.”22

Milling essentially repeated Steele’s comments regarding the Respondent’s solicitation
policy, but went further. He told the security guards that the Respondent “was a non-union
organization” and “that if we signed for the Union that it would not go well in the bid for the new
contract. And (sic) he said that a lot of companies, security companies would like to have the
contract. He said that if you think the Union is going to pay your salary, you must be out of your
mind, and then he said that, he said that if we join the Union, Wackenhut lose (sic) the contract,
he said guess what, said you don’t have a job, and a lot of people would like to have your job.”
Milling added that “I got cameras hooked up all over this building and on your post, and if I get a
report that any of you have been unionizing on or near your post, he said I will personally come
up to your post and escort you out the door.”23

On March 11, 2004, Branam issued a memorandum to security guards entitled “Officer
Solicitation.” In pertinent part, the memorandum reiterated the Respondent’s solicitation policy
and its respect for employees’ activities on personal time and outside the workplace.24 In late
March 2004, Jeremy Stone, the IMF security director, issued to the Respondent’s security
guards a written statement of the IMF’s “neutral stance” towards the unionization of vendor’s
employees and stated that the union campaign would have no bearing on the award of a new
contract. He also set forth his “understanding,” based on “conversations” with unspecified
persons, of the Respondent’s solicitation policy and respect for the rights of employees to form
or join a union.25

4. The Respondent’s response to flier distribution outside IMF headquarters on March 3

On March 3, at approximately 6:30 a.m., O’Connor and four other union organizers went
to the sidewalk area outside the headquarters building to solicit security guards. They spread
out around the block in order to solicit security guards reporting to work through the various
22 Steele’s testimony as to his statements at that meeting was fairly consistent with that of
Brummel. Given Steele’s uncertainty as to the IMF’s reaction to union activity, however, I find it
unlikely that he then predicted the loss of the IMF contract. (Tr. 150–154, 396–398.)
23 Two other security guards, Virgilio Custodio and Charles Berry, also provided testimony
about this roll-call meeting. However, I relied mainly on the testimony of Brummell as to what
Milling said. Brummell, who provided specific details of the meeting, had a calm, steady
demeanor and provided spontaneous answers. (Tr. 150–154.) Milling, on the other hand, was
not credible. He was very guarded and evasive in even recalling a roll-call meeting to discuss
the Union. When he did remember, he contradicted Steele and Brummell, stating that it was the
security guards who raised the question of whether union organizers could come onto their
posts and speak with them. (Tr. 102–106.) Custodio’s testimony seemed overly rehearsed and
he provided no information about Steele’s comments regarding the impact unionization would
have on Respondent’s contract renewal. (Tr. 350–353.) Berry had a scant recollection of the
meeting’s details and testified that the subject of the IMF contract never even came up. (Tr.
329–330.)
24 Tr. 69, 171, 399; R. Exh. 1.
25 R. Exh. 5.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
9

entrances of the headquarters building. Within minutes, Lieutenant Ellis Ware, the Respondent’s
assistant shift supervisor at IMF headquarters, came out of the building. O’Connor approached
him and asked whether he was employed by the Respondent. Ware replied that he would not
talk to her and remained standing 2–3 feet away with a walkie-talkie in his hand. At some point,
O’Connor asked Ware why he was still standing there and he replied, “I just want to keep you
company.” There was additional banter as to why she was there and, about 5–10 minutes later,
Steele and Milling came out. They too stood near O’Connor and, at her request, identified
themselves. However, they backed-up when she began taking pictures.26 Ware, Steele, and
Milling remained in the area a few more minutes and returned to the building. As the security
guard workshift had begun, O’Connor rounded up the other organizers and they left.27

5. The Respondent’s interrogation of employees on March 19

On March 19, Steel directed that Lieutenant Headen interview security guards at the ISB
“to see who had been approached by people, anyone soliciting information regarding the Union
during business hours.” Steele “wanted to know who had been approached by anyone that was
not authorized to be in the building to discuss union information. It was soliciting during business
hours, and he wanted to know who had been approached.”28 As Dade’s supervisor, she
directed him to assist her in interviewing the security guards.29

As security guards signed-in at approximately 8 a.m., Headen and Dade approached
them individually and asked to speak with them. Of the 21 security guards that signed-in, 20
agreed to speak with them. Headen and Dade asked each employee: “Have either Anderson
Carter, Terry Purnell, or Union Reps. ever approached you about joining a Union or have you
ever seen them handing out information?” After receiving answers, they had employees go into
“a little bit of detail.” Headen and Dade kept notes of each employee’s responses. After Headen
concluded her questioning, Captain Rumsey approached her and disclosed the names of 10
employees whom he believed had signed-up with the Union. Headen then generated a
spreadsheet of the information obtained from the employees and Rumsey, and gave it to
Steele.30 The spreadsheet, however, contained only two employee remarks about the Union.
Continued
26 I found O’Connor credible in her assertion that she encountered Ware at 6:30 a.m. before
having an opportunity to solicit an employee. (Tr. 122–132.) However, I did not find Ware
credible and, as such, did not credit his testimony that he acted upon a complaint from an
unidentified security guard that someone was “hindering” security guards as they entered the
building. In addition to failing to identify the security guard that allegedly complained, he was
unable to identify O’Connor in court. In light of his testimony that O’Connor took his photograph
and threatened him with legal action, it is highly unlikely that Ware, a security supervisor, would
have lacked such recollection or, at the very least, have investigated the circumstances of
O’Connor’s presence at that location. (Tr. 377–385; GC Exh. 6–9.)
27 I have not credited O’Connor’s uncorroborated hearsay testimony that, as she left to meet
the other organizers, she approached security guard Kevin Nettles and an unidentified security
guard, and that each allegedly told O’Connor that his supervisor told him not to speak with her.
(Tr. 132–133.) The General Counsel did not confront any of Respondent’s witnesses about such
statements. These witnesses included Milling, who testified before O’Connor, as well as Steele
and Ware, who testified after her.
28 Tr. 50–53.
29 Headen served as Steele’s administrative assistant and carried the rank of lieutenant.
She directly supervised Dade. Dade performed payroll duties and carried the rank of sergeant.
(Tr. 47–49, 76–78, 394.)
30 The additional testimony of Headen and Dade that their questions focused solely on such

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
10
_________________________
One employee stated that he overheard Carter and Purnell talk about the Union, but neither
ever approached him. Another employee reported that “Union people came on my floor around
November.” In addition, there was a notation at the bottom of the spreadsheet: “The majority of
the officers have been approached by Union Representatives on IMF Property, on duty,
between November 2003 and February 2004.”

Discussion

I. The Charging Party’s Rights as a Mixed-Guard Union

The Respondent’s third affirmative defense asserts that the Union “has no rights under
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it is a mixed guard union under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.”
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act states that the Board shall not

decide that any unit is appropriate for [the purposes of collective bargaining] if it
includes, together with other employees, any individual employed as a guard to enforce
against employees and other persons rules to protect property of the employer or to
protect the safety of persons on the employer’s premises; but no labor organization shall
be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such
organization admits to membership, or is affiliated, directly or indirectly with an
organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards.

The Respondent’s argument is without merit. Although Section 9(b)(3) prohibits Board
certification of a mixed-guard union, it “does not operate to prevent guard employees from
joining a labor organization, and this principle extends to labor organizations which also
represent non-guard employees.” See NLRB v. White Superior Division, White Motor Corp., 404
F.2d 1100, 1103 (6th Cir. 1968). Guards are “employees” within the meaning of Section 2(3)
and possess the same rights as nonguard employees under Section 7. See NLRB v. Bel-Air
Mart, Inc., 497 F.2d 322, 327 (4th Cir. 1974). Furthermore, Section 7 rights, as protected by
Section 8(a)(1), apply to any labor organization, without reference to mixed status or any other
limitation. It is clear, therefore, that the Union had a legal basis to seek redress under the Act.

II. The Respondent’s Threats and Interrogation on February 20

The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) on February
20 when Steele (1) told Carter that the Respondent could lose its IMF contract if employees
formed a union; (2) told Carter that raises might be eliminated if they formed a union; (3)
threatened Carter with transfer to a less desirable worksite if he continued to engage in
organizing activity on behalf of the union; and (4) interrogated Carter about his union
organizing activities. The Respondent contends that Steele properly interrogated Carter about
leaving his post and violating the Respondent’s solicitation policy, but denies that Steele
threatened or interrogated Carter about union activities. The Respondent further contends
that Steele’s discussion of the union campaign was merely the expression of a lawful opinion
as to the impact unionization might have on the IMF contract renewal, pay raises, and
benefits.

Carter’s actions in meeting with O’Connor while on duty may or may not have justified
disciplinary action. On the one hand, Sergeant Judd escorted O’Connor to his post and it can
activity during working hours at the ISB was not credible, as Headen conceded that the question
asked was the one at the top of the spreadsheet. (Tr. 54–56, 80–81; GC Exhs. 3, 3(a).)

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
11

be argued that Carter was simply following his supervisor’s orders. See Handbook, Sections
I.3 (Duties) and II.2.6 (Orders). On the other hand, Carter permitted O’Connor to visit with him
and engaged in personal business while on duty. See Handbook, Sections II.2.13 and II.2.14.
In any event, Steele’s comments—that union activity “could possibly jeopardize the contract”
and the IMF could cancel the existing contract on 30-days notice—was clearly “designed to
create uncertainty, if not fear, among the employees as to the adverse consequences of
choosing union representation.” See Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137, 142 (2002); Laidlaw
Transit, Inc., 297 NLRB 742, 743 (1990). It is of no consequence that Carter did not feel
threatened by Steele’s comments. The test is whether Steele’s statements could reasonably
be seen as a threat. Caterpillar, Inc., 322 NLRB 674, 675 (1996). Steele’s comments
suggested the loss of the IMF contract if the Union came in and were not based on objective
facts conveying the Respondent’s “belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond
his control.” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). Under the circumstances,
I conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening that union activity
could cause a contract cancellation or jeopardize contract renewal.

Steele also told Carter that employees would receive pay raises if the Respondent was
awarded the new IMF contract. Steele further explained that a union contract could result in
increased wages, but less benefits, as was the case with the Respondent’s security guards at
the Fannie Mae worksite. The General Counsel contends that such statements threatened the
elimination of raises if employees formed a union. I disagree. First, there is nothing coercive in
telling employees that there would be pay raises if the Respondent was awarded the new
contract. After all, there can be no pay raise without a contract. Second, Steele’s reference to
the lower wages/higher benefits of employees at the Respondent’s Fannie Mae worksite
provided Carter with insight into the give and take nature of collective bargaining. There is no
reasonable basis to believe, based on the record, that such a statement would have left
Carter with the impression that what security guards would ultimately receive depended on
what the Union could induce the Respondent to restore. See Earthgrains Co., 336 NLRB
1119, 1129 (2001). Under the circumstances, I conclude that Steele’s comments regarding
pay raises did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and shall dismiss that complaint allegation.

Steele also told Carter that he should transfer to the Respondent’s Fannie Mae worksite
if he wanted to continue his union activity. The record is devoid, however, of any information
that such an assignment would have subjected Carter to more onerous working conditions or
a longer commute to work. Carter asserted that he had never worked in Maryland and would
have had to undergo a new background check. I take administrative notice of the fact that
Fannie Mae’s corporate headquarters are located in the District of Columbia and it does not
have a regional office in Maryland.31 Nevertheless, the physical considerations of a transfer
are not the only consideration. Steele’s statement was made during the same conversation in
which Steele told Carter that continued union activity at the ISB building could jeopardize the
new contract. Under the circumstances, Steele’s transfer suggestion was intended to impede
or discourage union activity and I find that it violated Section 8(a)(1). Buckeye Electric Co.,
339 NLRB 334, 337 (2003).

Finally, Steele asked Carter whether he intended to continue with union activity. An
unlawful interrogation occurs when, under the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably
tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with employees in their exercise of Section 7 rights.
Performance Friction Corp., 335 NLRB 1117, 1126 (2001). The applicable factors in making
that determination include the place and method of the interrogation, the background thereof,
31 http://www.fanniemae.com/contact/index.jhtml?p=Contact+Us

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
12
the “nature of the information sought and the identity of the questioner.” Sea Breeze Health
Care Center, 331 NLRB 1131, 1142 (2000), citing Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984),
affd. 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Steele, one of the Respondent’s highest level managers,
asked Carter that question in his office and after telling him that continued union activity could
jeopardize renewal of the IMF contract. He left Carter with the obvious dilemma of transferring
to the Fannie Mae site or stopping his union activity. Under the circumstances, I find that
Steele interrogated Carter in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

III. The Respondent’s Interrogation and Threatened Surveillance on February 25

The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) twice on
February 25 when: (1) Bennette asked Carter whether he met with union officials the day
before; and (2) Branam gave Carter the impression that union activity by employees was
under surveillance. The Respondent denied these allegations, asserts that Bennette simply
asked Carter what was going on, and that Carter responded that he did not know. The
Respondent also denies that Branam created the impression of surveillance during his
meeting with Carter on February 25 (incorrectly referred to by the Respondent as having
occurred on February 27).

The credible evidence supports Bennette’s version that he was there to witness the
meeting, did not know its purpose and asked Carter what it was about. Accordingly,
Bennette’s statement to Carter on February 25 did not constitute an illegal interrogation in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and that complaint allegation is dismissed.

In the second instance, Branam interrogated Carter about the unauthorized entry of
persons onto his post and whether those persons identified themselves or signed-in as
required. Carter told Branam of his belief that he was there because of his union activity, but
there is no credible testimony that Branam specifically questioned Carter about his union
activity at this meeting. Carter did, however, admit to breaching security protocols set forth in
the handbook and post orders. The meeting concluded with Branam’s request that Carter
provide a written statement about the incident. Under the circumstances, the Respondent had
a legitimate security concern in interrogating Carter and did not create the impression of
surveillance in violation of the Act. See Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 333 NLRB 784 (2001).
Accordingly, I shall dismiss this complaint allegation.

IV. The Respondent’s Threats on February 26

The General Counsel asserts that Steele and Milling committed the following Section
8(a)(1) violations during the February 26 roll call meeting: (1) Steele and Milling threatened
employees that the Respondent’s IMF contract prohibited unions, that the Respondent would
lose the IMF contract if employees formed a union, that employees would not be paid a salary
by the union; and that the presence of a union would cause employees to lose their jobs; (2)
Steele and Milling threatened employees that union activity near their worksite would result in
termination and that employees belonged to their supervisors; and (3) Steele and Milling
engaged in surveillance and/or created the impression of surveillance of employees’ union
activities. The Respondent denied such allegations and contends that statements made by
Steele and Milling during the roll-call meeting served to re-educate security guards about the
Respondent’s solicitation policy due to the recent security breach at the ISB. The Respondent
also suggests that Branam’s memorandum of March 11 and the IMF memorandum issued in
late March ameliorated any legal harm or confusion as to the Respondent’s policies and
practices.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
13
Steele’s statements regarding the Respondent’s solicitation policy and security guards’
post responsibilities were appropriate, but he did not stop there. He went on to state his
awareness that security guards had signed authorization cards, suggested the IMF might be
“disgruntled” if the security guards unionized, and opined that unionization might present a
problem toward renewal of the IMF contract. Steele further intimated that employees should
refrain from further organizing activity until he received clarification from the IMF. Milling’s
comments were even more aggressive. He announced that the Respondent “was a non-union
organization,” that the Union would not pay security guards salaries if they unionized, that a
decision to unionize would cause the Respondent to lose the IMF contract, that he would use
the security cameras to monitor security guards, and if he found out that any security guards
were “unionizing on or near” their posts, they would be discharged.

Neither Steele nor Milling indicated the source of their information that employees had
signed authorization cards. Since there is no proof that employees signed cards during work
time or on IMF property, his statement gave the impression that even off-site union activity was
under surveillance. Jordan Marsh Stores Corp., 317 NLRB 460, 465 (1995); Keystone Lamp
Mfg. Corp., 284 NLRB 626, 627 (1987), enfd. 849 F.2d 601 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S.
1041 (1989). Under the circumstances, I find that Steele and Milling created the impression of
surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

Milling’s statements that he would monitor employee activity via cameras throughout the
ISB and physically remove any employee “unionizing on or near your post” was not improper.
Earlier testimony by Brummell clarified that Milling explained that it was “okay to talk about the
Union down in the food court, but its not all right to talk about the Union on your post.” The
Respondent’s security business included the surveillance of IMF property and the General
Counsel does not dispute that the Respondent was legitimately responding to security
breaches, violations of the handbook and post orders, and enforcing its solicitation policy. Under
the circumstances, general security purposes justified the use of security cameras and the
recording of protected concerted activity did not violate the Act. Lechmere, Inc., 295 NLRB 92
(1989), enfd. 914 F.2d 313 (1st Cir. 1990), revd. on other grounds, 502 U.S. 527 (1992); Liberty
Nursing Homes, 245 NLRB 1194 (1979); Lebanon Apparel Corp., 243 NLRB 1024 (1979).
Accordingly, I shall dismiss this complaint allegation.

Statements by Steele and Milling, however, that the IMF contract prohibited unions, that
unionization may present a problem toward renewal, that unionization would cause the
Respondent to lose the IMF contract and employees to lose their jobs, and that the Respondent
was “non-union,” constituted impermissible threats. Specifically informing employees that a
contract with a client prohibits unions is improper, unless the employer’s assertion is supported
by objective facts. TNT Logistics of North America, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 141, slip op. at 9–10
(2003). To the contrary, a subsequent IMF memorandum clarified that organization’s union
neutrality policy. Similarly, threatening employees with the loss of jobs if they unionized is also
improper. Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137, 142 (2002). Finally, Branam’s March 11 memorandum
did not serve to undo the illegality of the Steele and Milling statements. In order for an
employer’s voluntary repudiation conduct to be effective, it must be timely, unambiguous and
specifically address the misconduct. The misconduct must be free from other illegal acts, the
employer must not engage in illegal conduct following the repudiation, and there must be some
assurance the employer will not interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights. Passavant
Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978). Branam’s memorandum simply reiterated the
Respondent’s solicitation policy and respect for employees’ activities outside the workplace. It
made no mention of the coercive statements of February 26, much less retract them, and was
followed by subsequent illegal conduct (discussed below). Under the circumstances, I find that

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
14
Steele and Milling statements on February 26 violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees
with adverse action if they engaged in union activity.

V. The Respondent’s Surveillance of Employees’ Union Activity on March 3

The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when three
supervisors stood next to or near O’Connor for several minutes as she attempted to solicit
security guards arriving for work at IMF headquarters. The Respondent denies the surveillance
allegation and contends that the interaction between O’Connor and the supervisors was
prompted by a complaint that she was impeding the access of ISB security guards reporting to
work.

It is undisputed that O’Connor was, at all relevant times on March 3, standing on public
property—the sidewalk area beyond security barricades set up around IMF headquarters by
the Respondent. It is also undisputed that Steele, Milling, and Ware, all supervisors, were
standing next to or near O’Connor for varying lengths of time as she waited to speak with
security guards reporting to work. I did not, however, credit uncorroborated hearsay testimony
as to complaints about O’Connor by unspecified security guards or subsequent conversations
by O’Connor with unspecified security guards. Furthermore, there was no testimony that any
employees passed in the vicinity of O’Connor while the supervisors stood near her or that the
supervisors told her about employee complaints that she was impeding access to IMF
headquarters. What remains is a scenario in which supervisors stood around a union
organizer in an attempt to chill union activity. There was brief inconsequential banter between
O’Connor and Ware, followed a short time later by picture-taking by O’Connor to memorialize
the presence of the supervisors at that location.

Management officials may observe union activity on or near company premises without
violating Section 8(a)(1). Roadway Package System, 302 NLRB 961 (1991). When
observation constitutes more than ordinary observation of public union activity, however, it
amounts to unlawful surveillance. Loudon Steel, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 7 (2003);
Fairfax Hospital, 310 NLRB 299, 310 (1993), enfd. 14 F.3d 594 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied
512 U.S. 1205 (1994); Hoschton Garment Co., 279 NLRB 565, 566 (1986); Arrow Automotive
Industries, 258 NLRB 860 (1981), enfd. 679 F.2d 875 (4th Cir. 1982). Section 7 rights are
afforded to union employees, who are considered “employees” under the Act. NLRB v. Town
& Country Electric, Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 94–95 (1995).

Here, three of the Respondent’s supervisors stood next to or near O’Connor for about
10 to 15 minutes while she was positioned to distribute union literature on public sidewalk
space adjacent to the ISB. The physical proximity of the Respondent’s supervisors to
O’Connor had the effect of discouraging and impeding her from distributing material on public
property. Their presence made it difficult for O’Connor to place literature in employees’ hands,
much less communicate with or answer any questions employees might have about the
literature. As such, the unusual physical proximity of the supervisors to O’Connor had a
coercive and chilling effect on employee union activity. See Flexsteel Industries, 311 NLRB
257 (1993); Sands Hotel & Casino, 306 NLRB 172 (1992), enfd. 993 F.2d 913 (D.C. Cir.
1993). Under the circumstances, I find that Steele, Milling, and Ware violated Section 8(a)(1)
by engaging in surveillance and discouraging employees from organizing and accepting union
literature on public property in front of employees union activities.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
15
VI. The Respondent’s Interrogation of Employees on March 19

The General Counsel contends that the Respondent’s agents, Headen and Dade, on
March 19, interrogated employees about the union activities of employees. The Respondent
denies the allegation and asserts that Headen and Dade met with security guards in order to
investigate the February 24 security breach and, in any event, were neither supervisors nor
agents, and were not directed by Steele to interrogate security guards about union activities.

Section 2(11) of the Act defines a "supervisor" as

any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend
such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a
merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.

Headen and Dade carried ranks and were considered supervisors in the Respondent’s
personnel structure. However, the status of a supervisor under the Act “is determined by an
individual’s duties, not by his title or job classification. It is well settled an employee cannot be
transformed into a supervisor merely by the vesting of a title and theoretical power to perform
one or more of the enumerated functions in Section 2(11) of the Act.” See Chicago Metallic
Corp., 273 NLRB 1677, 1688–1689 (1985). As human resource personnel, Headen and Dade
undoubtedly interacted with security guards on personnel issues. There is no evidence, aside
from Headen’s supervision of Dade, that either of them had the power to hire, transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline, direct, or address the grievances
of ISB security guards. Thus, they would not be considered supervisors pursuant to Section
2(11) of the Act. Bowne of Houston, Inc., 280 NLRB 1222, 1223 (1986).

Nevertheless, the question remains whether Headen and Dade were acting as the
Respondent’s agents. The test for determining if an employee acts as an employer’s agent is
whether, under all the circumstances, “the employees would reasonably believe that the
employee in question was reflecting company policy and speaking and acting for management.”
Waterbed World, 286 NLRB 425, 426 (1987). Steele directed Headen to inquire about the union
activities of Carter, Purnell and union representatives on IMF property and during work time.
Headen directed her assistant, Dade, to assist her in carrying out that task. Headen and Dade,
in the presence of Captain Rumsey, met with security guards as they reported to work. Thus,
security guards had every reason to believe that Headen and Dade were there on behalf of
management. Furthermore, the inquiry by Headen and Dade, coming less than 1 month after
the coercive statements made by Steele and Milling at the February 26 roll-call, would have
been reasonably seen as a continuation of the Respondent’s antiunion campaign. Clearly,
Headen and Dade were acting as agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

As the Respondent’s agents, Headen and Dade approached security guards and asked
each one a question that was reflected on an employee spreadsheet: “Have either Anderson
Carter, Terry Purnell, or Union Reps. ever approached you about joining a Union or have you
ever seen them handing out information?” After receiving answers from 20 of 21 security
guards, Headen and Dade had them go into detail.

An employer question that tends to make employees act as informers regarding the
union activities of fellow employees is unlawful. Here, there was no legitimate reason for the
inquiry into the activities of Carter and Purnell as the two had been removed from their posts on
February 25 and the Respondent’s investigative inquiry into their conduct had concluded by

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
16

March 15. Hanover Concrete Co., 241 NLRB 936, 941 (1979). Under the circumstances, I find
that the Respondent’s interrogation of employees on March 19 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Furthermore, even if the Respondent did not authorize the exact questions posed by
Headen and Dade, it is responsible because the statements were within the agents’ general
scope of authority. See Local 3, IBEW, 312 NLRB 487, 490-491 (1993).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Wackenhut Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

2. Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL–CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. By telling employees that the International Monetary Fund would respond negatively
if employees formed a union, telling employees that the International Monetary Fund contract
prohibited unions, threatening employees with the loss or cancellation of the International
Monetary Fund contract, as well as the loss of their jobs, if the employees unionized, telling
employees that it was aware that they had signed union authorization cards, telling employees
that it was nonunion, telling Anderson Carter that he should transfer to the Fannie Mae worksite
if he wanted to continue his union activity and then asking him whether he intended to continue
with union activity, standing next to or near Elizabeth O’Connor on public property as she
attempted to distribute union literature to employees arriving for work, and asking employees
about the union activities of other employees, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).

4. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respondent has committed unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

THE REMEDY

Having found the Respondent has engaged in the above violations of the Act, it shall be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from such actions and take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act and post the
appropriate notices.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended32

ORDER

The Respondent, The Wackenhut Corporation, Washington, D.C., its officers, agents,
successors and assigns shall

1. Cease and desist from

32 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.

JD–26–05

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
17

(a) Telling employees that our contract with a third-party prohibits the formation of a
union or that the third-party would react adversely to the formation of a union, threatening
employees with the loss or cancellation of our contract with a third-party, as well as the loss of
their jobs, if the employees unionized, telling employees that we are aware that they signed
union authorization cards, telling employees that we are nonunion, telling employees that they
should transfer to another worksite if they want to continue with union activity, asking employees
whether they intend to continue with union activity, standing next or in close proximity to
employees or union organizers attempting to distribute union literature on public property, and
asking employees about their union activities or the union activities of other employees.

(b) 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.

2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

(a) Within 14 days and after service by the Region, post copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”33 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt 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 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 current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
February 20, 2004.

(b) 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint is dismissed insofar as it
alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

Dated, Washington, D.C. April 20, 2005

__________________________
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
33 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 National Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Relations Board.”
JD–26–05

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 coercively question you about your union support or activities or the union
support or activities of other employees.

WE WILL NOT tell you that we are nonunion, that our contract or other form of agreement with a
third-party prohibits the formation of a union, that the third-party will react adversely if you form a
union, or that the third-party will cancel or fail to renew the contract if you form a union.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss or your job if you engage in union support or activities.

WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union activities on public property.

WE WILL NOT tell you that you should or must transfer to another worksite if you want to
continue with union activity.

WE WILL NOT stand next to or in close proximity to you or any union organizer attempting to
distribute union literature on public property.

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.

THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION
(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.
103 South Gay Street, The Appraisers Store Building, 8th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202-4061
(410) 962-2822, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
JD–26–05

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, (410) 962-3113.