Walden Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 2018

366 NLRB No. 44 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 44
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Walden Security, Inc. and United Government Secu-
rity Officers of America, International Union
jointly with its Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 111,
173, 175, 220. Cases 14–CA–170110, 15–CA–
176496, 16–CA–170337, and 18–CA–170129
March 23, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN KAPLAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND EMANUEL
On July 7, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Melissa
M. Olivero issued the attached decision.1 The Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and it also
filed a motion to reopen and supplement the record.2 The
General Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent’s
motion to reopen and a motion to strike the Respondent’s
brief in support of exceptions. The Respondent filed a
brief in opposition to the General Counsel’s motion to
strike and in further support of its motion to reopen, the
General Counsel filed a motion to strike the Respond-
ent’s opposition brief and a response, and the Respond-
ent filed an opposition to the motion to strike.3
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to

1 We have amended the case caption to remove the United Security
Guards of America Locals 110, 152, 161, and 167. On September 19,
2017, the Board severed and remanded those portions of the consoli-
dated proceeding involving Locals 110, 152, 161, and 167. The next
day, the Acting Regional Director for Region 14 approved the with-
drawal of all allegations pertaining to these four locals based on a set-
tlement reached with the Respondent.
2 The Respondent’s motion to reopen and supplement the record is
denied because the Respondent has not demonstrated that the evidence
it seeks to add to the stipulated record is newly discovered or was pre-
viously unavailable. See Board’s Rules & Regulations Sec.
102.48(c)(1). Rather, it appears that the material the Respondent seeks
to introduce was in its possession at the time it agreed to submit these
cases to the judge on a stipulated record. Even under Sec. 102.48(b)(1)
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, which the Respondent argues is
the applicable rule for determining the propriety of its motion, the
Board has discretion to refuse to accept motions that seek to introduce
evidence that is not newly discovered and was available for introduc-
tion during the hearing. As the Board has previously explained, Sec.
102.48(b)(1) (formerly Sec. 102.48(b)) is not carte blanche for remedy-
ing errors or omissions in a party’s presentation of evidence during the
hearing. See Phelps Dodge Mining Co., 308 NLRB 985, 985 fn. 4
(1992), enf. denied on other grounds 22 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1994).
3 The General Counsel’s motions to strike are granted to the extent
that the Respondent’s briefs refer to, and argue from, evidence not
contained in the stipulated record. Such references and arguments have
been disregarded.
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,4 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Walden Security, Inc., a Tennessee corpora-
tion with facilities in Austin, Del Rio, San Antonio, Al-
pine, Waco, Beaumont, Lufkin, Marshall, Plano, Tyler,
Sherman, Texarkana, Abilene, Amarillo, Dallas, Fort
Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and Wichita Falls, Texas;
Alexandria, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, Lafayette
and New Orleans, Louisiana; Sioux City, Iowa; and Kan-
sas City, Springfield and Jefferson City, Missouri, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Changing the terms and conditions of employment
of its unit employees without first notifying United Gov-
ernment Security Officers of America, International Un-
ion and its Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 111, 173, 175,
and 220 (the Union) and giving the Union an opportunity
to bargain.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

4 We adopt the judge’s finding that, under extant precedent, the Re-
spondent was a “perfectly clear” successor because it expressed an
intent to retain the predecessor’s employees without making it clear that
employment would be conditioned on the acceptance of new terms and
conditions of employment. Chairman Kaplan notes that the judge’s
analysis relied on the interpretation of Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB
194 (1974), enfd. 529 F.2d 516 (4th Cir. 1975), in Creative Vision
Resources, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 91 (2016), enfd. 882 F.3d 510 (5th
Cir. 2018), Nexeo Solutions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 44 (2016), and Can-
teen Co., 317 NLRB 1052 (1995), enfd. 103 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997).
As previously stated, he disagrees with that interpretation. See First
Student Inc., A Division of First Group America, 366 NLRB No. 13,
slip op. at 7 (2018) (Chairman Kaplan, dissenting in part). However, he
recognizes that these decisions are extant precedent, which applies here
in the absence of three votes to overrule them. Moreover, he would
find that the Respondent here was a “perfectly clear” successor even
under a narrower interpretation of Spruce Up because it unequivocally
offered to employ any interested employee of the predecessor employer
without indicating prior to or simultaneously with that offer that there
would be new terms and conditions of employment.
Member Emanuel agrees that the Respondent was a “perfectly clear”
successor under the facts of this case. However, he is open to reexam-
ining the Board’s “expresses an intent to hire” standard in an appropri-
ate future case.
5 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to reflect the set-
tlement referred to above in fn. 1, to conform to the Board’s standard
remedial language for the violations found, and in accordance with our
decision in Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997). We shall also
substitute a limited bargaining order for the judge’s recommended
affirmative bargaining order in accordance with Mimbres Memorial
Hospital, 337 NLRB 998, 998 fn. 2 (2002), and we shall substitute a
new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the following appropriate bargaining
units:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 85, in the Western District of the
State of Texas in the cities of Austin, Del Rio, San An-
tonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other employees
including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 86, in the Eastern District of the
State of Texas in the cities of Beaumont, Lufkin, Mar-
shall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarkana, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 109, in the Western District of
the State of Louisiana in the cities of Alexandria,
Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 111, in the Eastern District of the
State of Louisiana in the city of New Orleans, exclud-
ing all other employees including office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 173, in the Northern District of
the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene, Amarillo,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and Wichita
Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 8th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 175, in the Northern District of
the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux City, excluding all
other employees including office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 8th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 220, in the Western District of
the State of Missouri in the following cities of Kansas
City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding all oth-
er employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
(b) Rescind the changes in terms and conditions of
employment for its unit employees that were unilaterally
implemented on or about December 1, 2015, including
temporarily suspending the 401(k) program, ceasing to
pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical examina-
tions, ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtaining
follow-up medical examinations, refusing to process
grievances, ceasing to pay lead court security officers at
the lead court security officer pay rate when they are not
performing lead court security officer duties, and ceasing
to offer major medical insurance coverage.
(c) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the changes uni-
laterally implemented on or about December 1, 2015, in
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 3
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s
decision.
(d) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
14, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities referenced above copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of
business or lost the contract for providing court security
officer services at any of the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since December 1, 2015.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 14 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 23, 2018

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of
employment without first notifying United Government
Security Officers of America, International Union and its
Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 111, 173, 175, and 220 (the
Union) and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
our unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the following bargaining
units:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
ing of UGSOA Local 85, in the Western District of the
State of Texas in the cities of Austin, Del Rio, San An-
tonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other employees
including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 86, in the Eastern District of the
State of Texas in the cities of Beaumont, Lufkin, Mar-
shall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarkana, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 109, in the Western District of
the State of Louisiana in the cities of Alexandria,
Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 111, in the Eastern District of the
State of Louisiana in the city of New Orleans, exclud-
ing all other employees including office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 5th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 173, in the Northern District of
the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene, Amarillo,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and Wichita
Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 8th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 175, in the Northern District of
the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux City, excluding all
other employees including office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Securi-
ty Officers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers
(SSOs), Lead Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs)
and Lead Federal Special Security Officers (LSSOs)
employed by the Respondent in the 8th Circuit consist-
ing of UGSOA Local 220, in the Western District of
the State of Missouri in the following cities of Kansas
City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding all oth-
er employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
WE WILL rescind the changes in terms and conditions
of employment for our unit employees that were unilat-
erally implemented on or about December 1, 2015, in-
cluding temporarily suspending the 401(k) program,
ceasing to pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical
examinations, ceasing to pay employees for time spent
obtaining follow-up medical examinations, refusing to
process grievances, ceasing to pay lead court security
officers at the lead court security officer pay rate when
they are not performing lead court security officer duties,
and ceasing to offer major medical insurance coverage.
WE WILL make affected employees whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits resulting from the changes
to their terms and conditions of employment that we
made on or about December 1, 2015, without first notify-
ing and, on request, bargaining with the Union, plus in-
terest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 14, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WALDEN SECURITY, INC.
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 5
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CA-170110 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.
Bradley A. Fink, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Fred B. Grubb, Esq., for the Respondent.
Jeffery Miller, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELISSA M. OLIVERO, Administrative Law Judge. The par-
ties herein waived a hearing and submitted the case for a deci-
sion by way of a Joint Motion and Stipulation of Facts (SOF)
on September 26, 2016. The United Government Security Of-
ficers of America, International Union jointly with its Member
Locals 85, 86, 109, 110, 111, 152, 161, 167, 173, 175, 220
(UGSOA or Union) filed unfair labor practice charges on Feb-
ruary 22, 2016, in Cases 14–CA–170110, 16–CA–170337, and
18–CA–170129, and on May 18, 2016, in Case 15–CA–
176496. The cases from NLRB Regions 15, 16, and 18 were
transferred to Region 14 on May 19, 2016. (GC Exh. 1(i)-(n).)
The General Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, con-
solidated complaint and notice of hearing on July 26, 2016.
(GC Exh. 1(o).) The consolidated complaint alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (Act) by implementing changes to employees’
terms and conditions of employment without prior notice to the
Union or affording the Union an opportunity to bargain. Re-
spondent has timely answered the complaint and denied the
allegations. (GC Exh. 1(q).)
The parties agree that the issues to be decided are:
1. Whether Respondent was a “perfectly clear” successor
under NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 294–295
(1972), and Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974), with
an obligation to bargain with the UGSOA and its locals prior to
setting initial terms and conditions of employment that differed
from those under the predecessor, Akal, as alleged in complaint
paragraph 17.1
2. Whether Respondent’s conduct with respect to the termi-
nation standard, as alleged in complaint paragraph 17(A)(ii),
constitutes a change in terms and conditions of employment
that would obligate Respondent to notify and bargain with the

1 The General Counsel has withdrawn paragraphs 17(A)(viii) and
17(A)(x) of the complaint. (SOF, para. 5S.)
UGSOA and its locals.2
(SOF, para. 6.)
On the entire stipulated record, including the briefs filed by
the parties,3 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, has been engaged providing secu-
rity services at various locations throughout the United States,
including federal courthouses in the Fifth and Eighth Judicial
Circuits in the States of Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana,
and Texas, from its headquarters in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Respondent performs services valued in excess of $50,000 in
states other than the State of Tennessee. 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 and its locals are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. (GC Exh. 1(o) and (q).)
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Akal’s Employee Bargaining Units
Prior to December 1, 2015, Akal Security, Inc. (Akal), pro-
vided court security officer services for federal courthouses in
the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits pursuant to a contract
with the United States Marshals Services (USMS). (GC Exh.
1(q), para. 3(a).) On December 1, Respondent commenced
providing court security services for federal courthouses in the
Fifth and Eight Judicial Circuits, and since then has continued
providing the same court security officer services as had been
provided by Akal in basically unchanged form and has em-
ployed as a majority of its employees individuals who were
previously employees of Akal. (SOF, para. 5H.)
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Western District of the State of Texas (West Texas
Unit):4
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 85, in the

2 Respondent denies complaint paragraph 17(C) with respect to
complaint paragraph 17(A)(ii), asserting that Respondent’s actions did
not constitute a change to terms and conditions of employment. (SOF,
para. 5T.) Respondent admits that it did not provide prior notice of this
alleged change to the collective-bargaining representatives of its em-
ployees or afford the representatives an opportunity to bargain with
respect to the conduct and the effects of the conduct. Id.
3 On November 4, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Strike Section
II(B) of the Charging Party’s Brief. The referenced section contains an
argument that Executive Order 13495 created perfectly clear successor
status on the part of Respondent. The Joint Motion and Stipulation of
Facts contain no mention of whether, or how, this Executive Order
might apply to Respondent. It would be improper for me to consider
facts outside of the record and, therefore, I have not considered Section
II(B) of the Charging Party’s brief.
4 The General Counsel alleges that this unit, and all of the other units
listed herein, constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Western District of the State of Texas in the cities of Austin,
Del Rio, San Antonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other
employees including office clerical employees and profes-
sional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Eastern District of the State of Texas (East Texas
Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 86, in the
Eastern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Beau-
mont, Lufkin, Marshall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarka-
na, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Western District of the State of Louisiana (West Lou-
isiana Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 109, in the
Western District of the State of Louisiana in the cities of Alex-
andria, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical employees
and professional employees as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Middle District of the State of Louisiana (Middle
Louisiana Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 110, in the
Middle District of the State of Louisiana in the city of Baton
Rouge, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Eastern District of the State of Louisiana (East Loui-
siana Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 111, in the
Eastern District of the State of Louisiana in the city of New
Orleans, excluding all other employees including office cleri-
cal employees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Southern District of the State of Iowa (Southern Iowa
Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 152, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa, excluding all other em-
ployees including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Southern District of the State of Iowa in Des Moines
and Council Bluffs (Des Moines Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit5 (sic) consisting of UGSOA Local 161,
in the Southern District of the State of Iowa in the cities of
Des Moines and Council Bluffs, excluding all other employ-
ees including office clerical employees and professional em-
ployees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Western District of the State of Arkansas (West Ar-
kansas Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 167, in the
Western District of the State of Arkansas in the following cit-
ies of Fort Smith, Fayetteville, El Dorado, and Texarkana, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Northern District of the State of Texas (North Texas
Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 173, in the
Northern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene,
Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and
Wichita Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Northern District of the State of Iowa (North Iowa

5 I take notice of the fact that the United States District Court,
Southern District of Iowa, is part of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. See
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/iowa-courts.
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 7
Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 175, in the
Northern District of the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux
City, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
Respondent employs the following unit of employees work-
ing in the Western District of the State of Missouri (West Mis-
souri Unit):
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 220, in the
Western District of the State of Missouri in the following cit-
ies of Kansas City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
From at least October 1, 2015 to about December 1, 2015,
the UGSOA and Locals 85, 86, 109, 110, 111, 152, 161, 167,
173, 175, and 220 had been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representatives of the West Texas, East Texas, West Louisiana,
Middle Louisiana, East Louisiana, Southern Iowa, Des Moines,
West Arkansas, North Texas, North Iowa, and West Missouri
Units employed by Akal and, during that time, UGSOA and its
locals had been recognized as such by Akal. (GC Exh. 1(o),
para. 6–16.) This recognition had been embodied in at least
one collective-bargaining agreement per unit, which was effec-
tive October 1, 2015 to about December 1, 2015. During this
time period, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, UGSOA and its
locals had been the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tives of the units listed above when they were employed by
Akal.6 (SOF, para 5K, GC Exh. 1(o), paras. 6–16.)
In its answer, Respondent denies complaint paragraphs 6(A),
7(A), 8(A), 9(A), 10(A), 11(A), 12(A), 13(A), 14(A), 15(A),
and 16(A) solely because each bargaining unit description in-
cludes the job classifications of Federal Special Security Offic-
ers (SSOs) and Lead Federal Special Security Officers
(LSSOs). (SOF, para. 5L). Respondent does not employ SSOs
or LSSOs at any of the federal courthouses at issue in these
cases. Id.
Respondent learned in the process of bidding the contract to
provide court security services for the federal courthouses in
the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits that the SSO and LSSO

6 The unit descriptions, as set forth above and in paragraphs 6(A),
7(A), 8(A), 9(A), 10(A), 11(A), 12(A), 13(A), 14(A), 15(A), and 16(A)
of the consolidated complaint, are the unit descriptions contained in
each of Akal’s corresponding collective-bargaining agreements de-
scribed paragraphs 6(B), 7(B), 8(B), 9(B), 10(B), 11(B), 12(B), 13(B),
14(B), 15(B), and 16(B) of the complaint. (GC Exh. 1(o); SOF, para.
5K.)
classifications were not utilized at any of the courthouses at
issue. Id. In fact, the SSO and LSSO classifications are not
used by the USMS at any of its locations. Id. These classifica-
tions are used by other federal agencies who desire to have
security services provided by a vendor to a particular location.
Id. Respondent admits that no other federal agency entered into
an agreement with Akal that would necessitate the use of SSOs
and LSSOs for the previous 3 years, but does not, and would
not, know if there are any such plans for the future in the Fifth
and Eighth Judicial Circuits. Id.
B. Provision of Court Security Services and Labor Relations
Prior to December 1, 2015
As noted above, prior to December 1, 20157, Akal Security,
Inc. (Akal), provided court security officer services for federal
courthouses in the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits pursuant to
a contract with the United States Marshals Services (USMS).
(GC Exh. 1(o) and (q), para. 3(A).)
Jeff Miller, Director, UGSOA International Union, is the
chief bargaining representative for the UGSOA International
Union, as well as its member locals representing bargaining
units which provide CSO and LCSO services in other federal
judicial circuits. (SOF, para. 5M.) Within the 2 years prior to
September 15, with the most recent occasion being August 18,
Miller had negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with
Respondent covering bargaining units in the Sixth Judicial
Circuit. Id. Miller was aware that Respondent and the UGSOA
tentatively agreed to remove the SSO and LSSO classifications
from unit descriptions in the Sixth Circuit because these classi-
fications were not utilized in any of the federal courthouses
where those units were located. Id.
Miller learned that Respondent had been awarded the con-
tract to provide court security officer services in the Fifth and
Eighth Judicial Circuits prior to September 15. (SOF, para. 5N.)
At the time Miller learned this, he assumed that Respondent
would propose removing the SSO and LSSO classifications
from the unit descriptions in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits be-
cause those classifications were not utilized at the federal
courthouses in those circuits. Id.
Prior to December 1, employees employed by Akal in the
bargaining units described in Complaint paragraphs 6 through
16, and as set forth above, could defer a portion of their wages
into a 401(k) account. (SOF, para. 5O.) Prior to December 1,
bargaining unit employees employed by Akal had a contractual
“just cause” standard for termination. (SOF, para. 5P.)
C. Transition from Akal to Respondent as Employer
Michael Walden serves as Respondent’s President, Amy
Walden serves as Respondent’s Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Abi Browning serves as Respondent’s Director of Hu-
man Resources, and Dana Smith serves as Respondent’s Hu-
man Resources Administrator. Respondent admits, and I find,

7 All dates infra are in 2015, unless otherwise noted. I note that the
General Counsel inadvertently used dates in 2016 in at least two places
in the Stipulation of Facts. (See SOF, paras. 5A and 5D.) From reading
the record, it is clear that the events at issue took place in 2015 and,
therefore, I correct those paragraphs to indicate that all events took
place in 2015.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
that M. Walden, A. Walden, Brown, and Smith are agents of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Between September 15 and October 8, Respondent distribut-
ed a transition letter to Akal’s employees stating:
Greetings from Walden Security!
It is our honor and privilege to inform you that Walden Secu-
rity has been chosen by the United States Marshals Service
(USMS) to administer the court security officer services con-
tract for your judicial circuit beginning December 1, 2015.
We are extremely pleased and humbled by this opportunity to
support the United States Judiciary and look forward to a long
and productive relationship.
We understand that successful support of the USMS begins
and ends with you, the court security officer (CSO) work-
force. To that end, we pledge our support to each of our new
security officers.
It is our belief that you will come to realize very quickly that
you have joined the premier security services provider in the
industry and that we are committed to providing exceptional
service to our clients. Everything we do is based on our phi-
losophy of “Setting the Standard by Setting the Example.”
As we progress through the transition of the court security of-
ficer contract in your circuit, we ask for your patience and as-
sistance in meeting all of the associated administrative re-
quirements. It is our intent for the administrative manage-
ment and support of the CSO workforce to be seamless and
remain constant.
We will be providing you much more information about
Walden Security in the weeks ahead, to include orientation
materials, benefit package details, information, policies, etc.
We look to a long and lasting professional relationship.
On behalf of everyone at Walden Security, we would like to
welcome you to our company.
(J. Exh. 1; SOF paras. 5A–C.) This letter was signed by M.
Walden and A. Walden.
Respondent further distributed a series of notices for town
hall meetings (town hall notices) to Akal employees in the Fifth
and Eighth Circuits between September 15 and October 8,
2015. (J. Exh., 2(a)–(aa).) Other than the locations and dates of
the various town hall meetings, these notices were nearly iden-
tical, and stated:
Join Our Team!
CSO TOWN HALL MEETING
Attention All CSOs in the [name of city] area
Date/Time [Dates and times]
Location [Location]
In the town hall session, you will meet the Walden Security
team, learn about our company, training, and benefits, com-
plete an employment application, ask questions, and more.
WHAT TO BRING:
Valid Driver’s License or
Passport and a copy
Copy of your
DD214/Copy 4 (if applica-
ble)
Social Security Card or
Birth Certificate and a copy
Copy of your POST cer-
tification from the Law
Enforcement Academy
Copy of your High
School Diploma or College
Certificate
Copy of primary group
health insurance card (front
and back)
For more information, please contact your LCSO or District
Supervisor.
(J. Exh. 2(a)–(aa); SOF para. 5D.) More than half of the town
hall notices also instructed employees to bring a copy of a
voided check for direct deposit. (J. Exh. 2(k), 2(l), 2(m), 2(n),
2(o), 2(p), 2(q), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 2(u), 2(v), 2(w), 2(x), 2(y), 2(z),
2(aa).) The town hall meetings were scheduled over a month-
long period, starting in El Paso, Texas, on September 19 and
ending on October 18 in Austin, Texas. (J. Exh. 2(a)–(aa).)
The transition letter was distributed to employees in both the
Des Moines Unit and West Arkansas Unit before the town hall
notices were distributed to those employees. (SOF, para. 5E.)
The record does not state whether employees in the remaining
bargaining units received the transition letters or town hall no-
tices first. Apart from the transition letter and town hall notic-
es, Respondent did not communicate with any of Akal’s em-
ployees in the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits about terms
and conditions of employment until after distributing these
documents. (SOF, para. 5F.)
D. Events Occurring on or after December 1, 2015
On December 1, Respondent commenced providing court
security services for federal courthouses in the Fifth and Eight
Judicial Circuits, and since then has continued providing the
same court security officer services as had been provided by
Akal in basically unchanged form and has employed as a ma-
jority of its employees individuals who were previously em-
ployees of Akal. (SOF, para. 5H.) Respondent hired 381 of
Akal’s 406 employees in the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits.
(SOF, para. 5G.) Furthermore, Respondent, in its answer, ad-
mitted that it has continued the employing entity and is a suc-
cessor to Akal. (SOF, para. 5I.)
Upon commencing operations on December 1, Respondent
admits it changed various terms and conditions of employment
without first notifying or bargaining with the Union. (SOF,
paras. 5T and 5U.) These changes included: ceasing to pay
employees the costs of obtaining follow-up medical examina-
tions; ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtaining fol-
low-up medical examinations; refusing to process grievances;
ceasing to pay lead court security officers at the lead court se-
curity officer rate when they are not performing lead court se-
curity officer duties; and ceasing to offer major medical insur-
ance coverage. (GC Exhs. 1(o) and 1(q).)
Bargaining unit employees were enrolled in Respondent’s
401k program on December 1, the date Respondent began op-
erations. (SOF, para. 5O.) However, this new program had a
90-day administrative waiting period before bargaining unit
employees could defer any portion of their wages into their
401k accounts. Id.
Respondent’s Policies and Procedures for Court Security Of-
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 9
ficers in the Fifth and Eighth Judicial Circuits (policy manual)
are contained in the record as Joint Exhibit 3. (SOF, para. 5Q.)
The policy manual was implemented on December 1. Id. The
policy manual contains the following provisions, pertinent here:
Section 1.3 STATUS OF AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT
a. This Policies and Procedures document is intended
to provide you with general information regarding Walden
Security’s policies and benefits to assist you during your
employment and should not be construed as a contract.
Unless you are covered by a collective bargaining agree-
ment, you are an at-will employee of Walden Security,
meaning that you are not guaranteed employment with
Walden Security of any specific duration and that you or
Walden Security can terminate your employment at any
time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice.
. . .
b. A collective bargaining agreement or the provisions
of a government contract take precedence over any con-
flicting [] applicable provisions of this Policies and Proce-
dures document and this policy of at-will employment
contained herein. No provision in this Policies and Proce-
dures document or in any document or statement and noth-
ing implied from any course of conduct shall limit the
Company’s or an at-will employee’s right to terminate
employment at-will or restrict any employee’s Section 7
rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
(Emphasis in original) (J. Exh. 3, p. 8.)
E. Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel and Charging Party take the position
that Respondent made clear statements in the transition letter
manifesting an intent to retain all the incumbent employees
and, therefore, became a perfectly clear successor when the
transition letter was distributed. Accordingly, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it unilaterally changed the
terms and conditions of employment upon its commencement
of operations on December 1. The General Counsel and Charg-
ing Party further take the position that the change of the termi-
nation standard from “just cause” to “at-will” was a mandatory
subject of bargaining and constituted an unlawful unilateral
change, violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. (SOF,
para. 7.)
Respondent maintains that it was not a perfectly clear suc-
cessor and was, therefore, free to establish its own terms and
conditions of employment without notifying the Charging Party
or affording it the opportunity to bargain. Respondent further
takes the position that the transition letter in no way manifested
an intent to retain all of the predecessor’s employees. Even if
the transition letter should be found to manifest such an intent,
and consistent with Spruce Up and its progeny, Respondent
maintains it has avoided perfectly clear successor status by
communicating an intent to change important terms and condi-
tions of employment both simultaneously with and prior to
distribution of the transition letter. Respondent also asserts that
the termination standard for bargaining unit employees re-
mained as “just cause” upon its commencement of operations
on December 1. (SOF, para. 8.)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards Regarding Successorship
In NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 281–295
(1972), the Supreme Court held that a successor employer is
not bound by the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated by the predecessor and is generally free
to unilaterally set initial terms and conditions of employment.
Creative Vision Resources, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 91, slip op. at
2 (2016). The Court explained that the duty to bargain will not
normally arise before the successor sets initial terms because it
is not usually evident whether the union will retain majority
status in the new work force until after the successor has hired a
full complement of employees. Id. The Court recognized,
however, that “there will be instances in which it is perfectly
clear that the new employer plans to retain all of the employees
in the unit and in which it will be appropriate to have him ini-
tially consult with the employees’ bargaining representative
before it fixes terms.” Id.
In Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974), enfd. per
curiam 529 F.2d 516 (4th Cir. 1975), the Board addressed the
“perfectly clear” exception, and found it was “restricted to cir-
cumstances in which the new employer has either actively or,
by tacit inference, misled employees into believing they would
all be retained without change in their wages, hours, or condi-
tions of employment, or at least to circumstances where the
new employer . . . has failed to clearly announce its intent to
establish a new set of conditions prior to inviting former em-
ployees to accept employment.” Creative Vision Resources,
LLC, 364 NLRB No. 91, slip op. at 3. Acknowledging that “the
precise meaning and application of the Court's caveat is not
easy to discern,” the Board reasoned that “[w]hen an employer
who has not yet commenced operations announces new terms
prior to or simultaneously with his invitation to the previous
work force to accept employment under those terms, we do not
think it can fairly be said that the new employer ‘plans to retain
all of the employees in the unit,’ as that phrase was intended by
the Supreme Court,” because of the possibility that many of the
employees will reject employment under the new terms, and
therefore the union's majority status will not continue in the
new work force. Id.
In cases subsequent to Spruce Up, the Board clarified that
the perfectly clear exception is not limited to situations where
the successor fails to announce initial employment terms before
it formally invites the predecessor’s employees to accept em-
ployment. Rather, a new employer has an obligation to bargain
over initial terms when it displays an intent to employ the pre-
decessor’s employees without making it clear that their em-
ployment will be on different terms from those in place with the
predecessor. Creative Vision Resources, LLC, supra, citing
Canteen Co., 317 NLRB 1052, 1053–1054 (1995), enfd. 103
F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, in applying the “perfectly
clear” exception of Burns, the Board scrutinizes not only the
successor’s plans regarding the retention of the predecessor’s
employees, but also the timing and clarity of the successor’s
expressed intentions concerning existing terms and conditions
of employment. Creative Vision Resources, LLC, at 7. Stated
another way, to avoid “perfectly clear” successor status, a new
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
employer must clearly announce its intent to establish a new set
of conditions prior to, or simultaneous with, its expression of
intent to retain the predecessor’s employees. Nexeo Solutions,
LLC, 364 NLRB No. 44, slip op at 6 (2016). Thus, a new em-
ployer that expresses a desire to retail the predecessor’s work
force without concurrently revealing to a majority of the in-
cumbent employees that different terms will be instituted, im-
properly benefits from the likelihood that those employees,
lacking knowledge that terms and conditions will change, will
choose to stay in the positions they held with the predecessor,
rather than seek employment elsewhere. Creative Vision Re-
sources, LLC, at 6.
B. Respondent is a Perfectly Clear Successor to Akal
In this case, the evidence establishes that Respondent is a
perfectly clear successor to Akal. Respondent’s transition letter
to Akal’s employees referred to them as “our new security of-
ficers.” The letter went on to state that “you have joined the
premier security services provider in the industry.” The letter
further stated, “As we progress through the transition of the
court security officer contract in your circuit, we ask for your
patience and assistance in meeting all of the associated admin-
istrative requirements.” The letter references Respondent’s
desire that administrative management of the work force re-
main seamless and constant. Respondent indicated it would be
providing Akal employees with information about Respondent
and its policies and benefits. Finally, the transition letter indi-
cated, “we would like to welcome you to our company.” In
summary, I find that Respondent’s transition letter overwhelm-
ingly indicated that Respondent would be retaining Akal’s
work force.
Moreover, the town hall meeting notices did not dispel Re-
spondent’s stated intent to retain Akal’s employees. These
notices stated that at the town hall meetings, employees would
meet Respondent’s team, learn about the company, training and
benefits, complete an employment application, and ask ques-
tions. Nothing in the notice indicates that completing an appli-
cation is more than a mere formality. No reference is made to
job interviews or that all employees would not be accepted.
Instead, the town hall notices invites Akal’s employees to “Join
Our Team.” Thus, I find that Respondent’s town hall notices
also manifested its intent to retain Akal’s employees.
I find this case analogous to Creative Vision Resources, LLC,
364 NLRB No. 91 (2016). In that case, the new employer dis-
tributed applications to the predecessor’s employees and told
them that those who wished to retain their jobs after the transi-
tion were required to complete an application and tax form; the
employer did not interview the employees. Id. at 2. The Board
noted that allowing a new employer to mollify a majority of the
predecessor’s employer into not seeking other work by avoid-
ing telling them about changes in their terms of employment
would be at odds with the Supreme Court’s decision in Burns
and the Board’s decision in Spruce Up. Id. at 6, citing S & F
Market Street Health Care, 570 F.3d 354, 359 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
(holding that the perfectly clear exception is intended to prevent
an employer from inducing possibly adverse reliance upon the
part of employees lulled into not looking for other work).
Thus, the Board found that a new employer that expresses an
intent to retain the predecessor’s work force without concur-
rently revealing that different terms will be instituted, improp-
erly benefits from the likelihood that those employees, lacking
knowledge that terms and conditions will change, will choose
to stay in the positions they held with the predecessor, rather
than seek employment elsewhere. Id. at 6. In this case, no ref-
erence was made by Respondent to making specific changes to
Akal’s terms and conditions of employment. Instead, Re-
spondent referred to seamless management, administrative
requirements, and continued employment. Therefore, I find, as
in Creative Vision Resources, LLC, that Respondent is a per-
fectly clear successor to Akal.
I further find this case analogous to Nexeo Solutions, LLC,
364 NLRB No. 44 (2016). In that case, the employees of the
predecessor were referred to as “founding employees” of the
new company and were told that the employer was excited they
would be moving on with them. Id. at 3. The employees of the
predecessor were not interviewed or tested. Id. at 4. Employees
were informed that they would, after the employer stated a
desire to hire them, later receive letters containing details of the
new employer’s pay and benefit plans. Id. The Board stated
that when a successor expresses a willingness to hire its prede-
cessor’s employees without mentioning changes in terms and
conditions of employment, the employees place significant
reliance on that statement and may forego other employment
opportunities. Id. at 8, citing Machinists v. NLRB, 595 F.2d
664, 674–675 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The Board found that by not
specifically mentioning it intended to make changes to employ-
ees’ terms and conditions of employment when it manifested an
intent to retain the employees, the employer was a perfectly
clear successor and was obligated to bargain with the employ-
ees’ representative before setting initial terms and conditions of
employment. Id. at 9. Similarly, in the instant case, Respondent
demonstrated a desire to hire Akal’s employees first in its tran-
sition letter and later in its town hall notices. However, Re-
spondent did not mention any specific changes to employee
terms and conditions of employment in these documents. By
failing to do so, Respondent became obligated to bargain with
the Union before setting initial terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
The case of Adams & Associates, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 193
(2016), cited by the General Counsel, is also instructive. In an
initial meeting with employees, the employer advised them that
it looked forward to a smooth transition, told them they were
doing a good job, told them it didn’t want to rock the boat, and
invited employees to apply for jobs. Id. at 2. The Board noted
that the relevant inquiry regarding perfectly clear successor
status is whether the successor planned to retain a sufficient
number of the predecessor employees to make it evident that
the Union’s majority status would continue in the new work
force. Id. At 4. The Board further stated that the bargaining
obligation attaches when a successor expresses an intent to
retain the predecessor’s employees without making it clear that
employment will be conditioned on acceptance of new terms.
Id. at 4, citing Canteen Co., 317 NLRB 1052, 1053–1054
(1995) enfd. 103 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1997). Ultimately, the
Board concluded that the employer became a perfectly clear
successor at the time of the meeting with employees when it did
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 11
not announce an intent to change employees’ terms and condi-
tions of employment. Id. at 5. Similarly, in the instant case,
Respondent’s transition letter indicated its intent to retain
Akal’s employees. Respondent did, in fact, retain a majority of
those employees. Respondent’s transition letter welcomed
employees to the company, asked for their patience in complet-
ing administrative requirements, stated that administrative
management would remain seamless and constant, and indicat-
ed it would tell employees more in the future. The town hall
meeting notices did nothing to dispel the indication that em-
ployees would be retained. Neither document mentioned any
specific changes to the terms and conditions of employment
enjoyed by employees under Akal. Thus, Respondent became a
perfectly clear successor at the time it distributed the transition
letters.
I find the cases cited by Respondent in its brief distinguisha-
ble from the instant case. For example, Respondent cites Data
Monitor Systems, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 4 (2016), where the
Board found that the new employer was not a perfectly clear
successor. In that case, the employer distributed employment
applications to the predecessor’s employees. Id. at 4. Howev-
er, unlike the instant case, the employer in Data Monitor re-
quired employees to complete a job interview, which the Board
found created a situation that was not the equivalent of an invi-
tation to accept employment. Id. Here, however, Respondent
made no reference to job interviews and indicated that employ-
ees were joining the company and that it looked forward to
seamless and constant management. Therefore, I find this case
distinguishable from Data Monitor.
I further find Paragon Systems, 364 NLRB No. 75 (2016)
distinguishable from the instant case. In that case, the Board
found that a new employer was not a successor because it did
not display an intent to retain the prior employer’s employees.
Id. at 4. The Board noted that a memo provided by the new
employer stating that it was “currently accepting applications”
and that all candidates must complete all parts of the applica-
tion process in order to be considered for employment, did not
demonstrate an intent to hire the prior employer’s employees.
Id. The new employer also required candidates to provide doc-
umentation such as driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and
transcripts. Id. at 1. Although Respondent here asked employ-
ees to provide documents in its town hall notices, it did not
mention that completing all parts of an application process was
necessary for continued employment. Instead the notices invite
employees to “Join Our Team” and learn more about the com-
pany. This language does not make clear that employees would
be competing for jobs or might not be hired. As such, I find the
circumstances of this case distinguishable from those in Para-
gon Systems.
Moreover, I reject Respondent’s argument that, because Mil-
ler assumed Respondent would propose removing the SSO and
LSSO classifications from the bargaining unit, the Union was
aware that Respondent intended to alter the terms and condi-
tions of employment for Akal’s employees. This argument
fails because Respondent never announced such an intent to
either the unit employees or the Union. Miller’s assumptions
do not equate to an announcement that Respondent sought to
somehow change the description of the bargaining units at issue
here. Avoiding perfectly clear successor status requires an
employer to clearly announce its intent to alter terms and condi-
tions before offering employment to the predecessor’s employ-
ees. Starco Farmers Market, 237 NLRB 373, 373 (1978).
Respondent made no such announcement and, as found above,
cloaked itself with perfectly clear successor status at the time it
sent the transition letters to unit employees. Thus, I reject Re-
spondent’s argument that, because the Union assumed Re-
spondent would seek to remove the SSO and LSSO classifica-
tions from the bargaining unit descriptions at issue, Respondent
could avoid perfectly clear successor status.
In sum, Respondent’s transition letter demonstrated a clear
desire to retain all or a majority of Akal’s employees by refer-
ring to them as “our new security officers,” and stating “you
have joined the premier security services provider in the indus-
try,” asking for patience during the administrative process, and
announcing a desire for seamless and constant management
during the transition. Respondent did nothing in the town hall
notices to dissipate the notion that the predecessor employees
were being retained. The record establishes that Respondent
did, in fact, retain a majority of Akal’s employees. Respondent
never announced that continued employment was dependent
upon acceptance of new terms and conditions of employment.
Moreover, Respondent did not announce any specific changes
to employees’ terms and conditions of employment concurrent-
ly with distribution of the transition letters or town hall notices.
As such, I find that Respondent became a perfectly clear suc-
cessor to Akal when it distributed the transition letter to Akal’s
employees.
C. The Bargaining Units are Appropriate
In its answer, denied the complaint paragraphs containing the
bargaining units at paragraphs 6(A), 7(A), 8(A), 9(A), 10(A),
11(A), 12(A), 13(A), 14(A), 15(A), and 16(A). (GC Exh. 1(q).)
Respondent did so because the descried units contain references
to SSO and LSSO positions and these positions are not used in
any of the courthouses at issue. (SOF, para. 5L.) In fact, SSOs
and LSSOs are not used by the USMS at any of its locations.
Id. Respondent was aware, at the time that it bid the contracts
for court security services in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, that
the SSO and LSSO classifications were not used at any of the
courthouses at issue. Id.
Critical to a successorship finding is whether the bargaining
unit of the predecessor employer remains appropriate for the
successor employer. Paramus Ford, Inc., 351 NLRB 1019,
1023 (2007). In Paramus Ford, the employer challenged the
appropriateness of a historical unit of service and parts depart-
ment employees. Id. As in Paramus Ford, the Union here has
represented the units of Akal’s employees as set forth in the
complaint. Under extant Board law, the unit sought by the
Union and alleged in the complaint need not be the only or
even the most appropriate unit; all that is required is that the
unit be an appropriate unit. (Emphasis in original.) Id. citing
Bartlett Collins Co., 334 NLRB 484 (2001); Gregory Chevro-
let, Inc., 258 NLRB 233, 238 (1981).
Regarding the appropriateness of historical units, the Board’s
longstanding policy is that a “mere change in ownership should
not uproot bargaining units that have enjoyed a history of col-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
lective bargaining unless the units no longer conform reasona-
bly well to other standards of appropriateness.” 351 NLRB at
1024. The party challenging a historical unit bears the burden
of showing that the unit is no longer appropriate. Id. The evi-
dentiary burden for such a showing is heavy. Id. “Compelling
circumstances” are required to overcome the significance of
bargaining history. Id. citing Cadillac Asphalt Paving Co., 349
NLRB 6, 9 (2007).
In this case, Respondent has not shown any compelling cir-
cumstances to overcome the appropriateness of the historical
bargaining unit set forth in the collective-bargaining agree-
ments between Akal and the Union. Merely stating that no
employees occupy the SSO and LSSO positions at this time
does not overcome Respondent’s heavy burden. Without any
evidence to the contrary, I find that the historical unit set forth
in the collective-bargaining agreement remains appropriate. As
such, I find that all of the bargaining units as set forth above
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
D. Respondent Violated the Act with Respect by Implementing
New Terms and Conditions of Employment on December 1
(Complaint Paragraphs 17(A)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii),
and (ix))
Upon beginning operations on December 1, Respondent ad-
mits it changed various terms and conditions of employment for
unit employees without first notifying or bargaining with the
Union. (SOF, paras. 5T and 5U.) These changes included:
ceasing to pay employees the costs of obtaining follow-up med-
ical examinations; ceasing to pay employees for time spent
obtaining follow-up medical examinations; refusing to process
grievances; ceasing to pay lead court security officers at the
lead court security officer rate when they are not performing
lead court security officer duties; and ceasing to offer major
medical insurance coverage. (GC Exhs. 1(o) and 1(q).) Fur-
thermore, bargaining unit employees were enrolled in Re-
spondent’s new 401(k) program, into which employees were
enrolled on December 1, had a 90-day administrative waiting
period. (SOF, para. 5O.)
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
when, as a perfectly clear successor to a predecessor, fails to
bargain with the Union to agreement or impasse prior to chang-
ing existing terms and conditions of employment for unit em-
ployees. Nexeo Solutions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 44 slip op. at
17. All of the above-listed changes were implemented by Re-
spondent after October 8, the latest date on which it distributed
transition letters and became a perfectly clear successor to
Akal. As Respondent admits that it implemented these changes
without first notifying the Union or affording it an opportunity
to bargain, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
E. Respondent did not Violate the Act with Respect to the
Termination Standard (Complaint Paragraph 17(A)(ii))
Respondent’s policy manual was implemented on December
1. (SOF, para. 5Q.) The policy manual contains the following
provision:
Section 1.3 STATUS OF AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT
a. This Policies and Procedures document is intended to pro-
vide you with general information regarding Walden Securi-
ty’s policies and benefits to assist you during your employ-
ment and should not be construed as a contract. Unless you
are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you are
an at-will employee of Walden Security, meaning that you
are not guaranteed employment with Walden Security of any
specific duration and that you or Walden Security can termi-
nate your employment at any time, for any reason, with or
without cause or notice.
. . .
b. A collective bargaining agreement or the provisions of a
government contract take precedence over any conflicting []
applicable provisions of this Policies and Procedures docu-
ment and this policy of at-will employment contained herein.
No provision in this Policies and Procedures document or in
any document or statement and nothing implied from any
course of conduct shall limit the Company’s or an at-will em-
ployee’s right to terminate employment at-will or restrict any
employee’s Section 7 rights under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
(Emphasis in original in heading; emphasis supplied in subpar-
agraph a) (J. Exh. 3, p. 8.) Thus, Respondent specifically an-
nounced that its at-will employment policy did not apply to
employees covered by a collective-bargaining agreement.
Respondent’s policy, by its own terms, did not apply to em-
ployees covered by a collective-bargaining agreement. I have
already found that Respondent was a perfectly clear successor
to Akal and was, therefore, obligated to bargain with the Union
before unilaterally changing unit employees’ terms and condi-
tions of employment. Generally, an employer is not required to
bargain with a union regarding terms and conditions of em-
ployment of non-unit employees, even if those terms and condi-
tions tangentially affect unit employees. Torrington Co., 305
NLRB 938, 941 (1991). See also KIRO, Inc., 317 NLRB 1325,
1337 (1995) citing Allied Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 171–178, 92 S.Ct. 383, 393–397, 30
L.Ed.2d 341 (1971) (collective-bargaining obligation under
Section 8(d) extends only to “terms and conditions of employ-
ment” of employees in appropriate bargaining unit). I am
mindful of the fact that these cases did not arise in a successor-
ship setting. However, the General Counsel and Charging Par-
ty fail to advance a persuasive reason, or case law in support of
their argument, as to why Respondent’s policy that applies to
only non-bargaining unit employees constituted a change in
terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit em-
ployees. As such, I recommend dismissal of Complaint para-
graph 17(A)(ii).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 85, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 13
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 85, in the
Western District of the State of Texas in the cities of Austin,
Del Rio, San Antonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other
employees including office clerical employees and profes-
sional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
3. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 86, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 86, in the
Eastern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Beau-
mont, Lufkin, Marshall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarka-
na, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
4. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 109, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 109, in the
Western District of the State of Louisiana in the cities of Al-
exandria, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette,
excluding all other employees including office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
5. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 110, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 110, in the
Middle District of the State of Louisiana in the city of Baton
Rouge, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
6. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 111, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 111, in the
Eastern District of the State of Louisiana in the city of New
Orleans, excluding all other employees including office cleri-
cal employees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
7. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 152, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 152, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa, excluding all other em-
ployees including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
8. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 161, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 161, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa in the cities of Des
Moines and Council Bluffs, excluding all other employees in-
cluding office clerical employees and professional employees
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
9. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 167, is a labor
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 167, in the
Western District of the State of Arkansas in the following cit-
ies of Fort Smith, Fayetteville, El Dorado, and Texarkana, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
10. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 173, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 173, in the
Northern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene,
Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and
Wichita Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
11. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 175, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 175, in the
Northern District of the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux
City, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
12. United Government Security Officers of America, Inter-
national Union jointly with its Member Local 220, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and
the exclusive representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the following employees who constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 220, in the
Western District of the State of Missouri in the following cit-
ies of Kansas City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
13. Between September 5 and October 8, 2015, and continu-
ing to date, Respondent has failed and refused to recognize
United Government Security Officers of America, International
Union, jointly with its Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 110, 111,
152, 161, 167, 173, 175, 220 (Union), as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate units described in
paragraphs 2 through 12, above, and thereby has violated and is
violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
14. On about December 1, 2015, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by implementing the following
changes to its employees’ terms and conditions of employment
without first notifying the Union or providing the Union an
opportunity to bargain: temporarily suspending the 401(k) pro-
gram; ceasing to pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical
examinations; ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtain-
ing follow-up medical examinations; refusing to process griev-
ances; ceasing to pay lead court security officers at the lead
court security officer pay rate when they are not performing
lead court security officer duties; and ceasing to offer major
medical insurance coverage.
15. The Respondent did not violate the Act in any other
manner alleged in the complaint.
16. Respondent’s above-described unlawful conduct affects
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I recommend that the Board order the Re-
spondent to recognize and bargain with the Union without fur-
ther delay and, additionally, to post the Notice to Employees
attached to this decision as an Appendix.
Having found that Respondent is a perfectly clear successor
to Akal, it shall, on request of the Union, to retroactively re-
store the terms and conditions of employment established by its
predecessor and rescind the unilateral changes it has made.
Respondent shall also make employees whole for any loss of
wages or other benefits they suffered as a result of Respond-
ent’s unilateral changes in the manner set forth in Ogle Protec-
tive Service, Inc.,183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502
(6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, Respondent shall remit any payments it owes to
employee benefit funds, including any additional amounts due
the funds on behalf of the unit employees in accordance with
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 15
Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979). Further,
Respondent shall reimburse unit employees for any expenses
ensuing from its failure to make any required contributions, as
set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 252 NLRB 891 fn.
2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such
amounts to be compounded in the manner set forth in Ogle
Protection Service, supra, with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, supra.
Finally, Respondent shall compensate affected employees for
the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
14, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each em-
ployee. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143
(2016).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
Respondent, Walden Security, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Unit-
ed Government Security Officers of America, International
Union jointly with its Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 110, 111,
152, 161, 167, 173, 175, 220 (Union), as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the appropriate units described in
paragraphs 2 through 12 of the Conclusions of Law, above.
(b) Implementing the changes to its employees’ terms and
conditions of employment without first notifying the Union or
providing the Union an opportunity to bargain, including by:
temporarily suspending the 401(k) program; ceasing to pay the
costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations; ceasing to
pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up medical
examinations; refusing to process grievances; ceasing to pay
lead court security officers at the lead court security officer pay
rate when they are not performing lead court security officer
duties; and ceasing to offer major medical insurance coverage.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate units concerning terms and conditions of
employment including suspending the 401(k) program, ceasing
to pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations,
ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up
medical examinations, refusing to process grievances, ceasing
to pay lead court security officers at the lead court security

8 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 pur-
poses.
officer pay rate when they are not performing lead court securi-
ty officer duties, and ceasing to offer major medical insurance
coverage, and, if an understanding is reached, embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement or signed agreements:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 85, in the
Western District of the State of Texas in the cities of Austin,
Del Rio, San Antonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other
employees including office clerical employees and profes-
sional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 86, in the
Eastern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Beau-
mont, Lufkin, Marshall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarka-
na, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 109, in the
Western District of the State of Louisiana in the cities of Al-
exandria, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette,
excluding all other employees including office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 110, in the
Middle District of the State of Louisiana in the city of Baton
Rouge, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 111, in the
Eastern District of the State of Louisiana in the city of New
Orleans, excluding all other employees including office cleri-
cal employees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 152, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa, excluding all other em-
ployees including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 161, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa in the cities of Des
Moines and Council Bluffs, excluding all other employees in-
cluding office clerical employees and professional employees
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 167, in the
Western District of the State of Arkansas in the following cit-
ies of Fort Smith, Fayetteville, El Dorado, and Texarkana, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 173, in the
Northern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene,
Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and
Wichita Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 175, in the
Northern District of the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux
City, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 220, in the
Western District of the State of Missouri in the following cit-
ies of Kansas City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
(b) On request of the Union, rescind the changes in terms
and conditions of employment for the unit employees that were
unilaterally implemented on about December 1, 2015, including
temporarily suspending the 401(k) program; ceasing to pay the
costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations; ceasing to
pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up medical
examinations; refusing to process grievances; ceasing to pay
lead court security officers at the lead court security officer pay
rate when they are not performing lead court security officer
duties; and ceasing to offer major medical insurance coverage.
(c) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings and oth-
er benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(d) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and
file with the Regional Director for Region 14, within 21 days of
the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the ap-
propriate calendar years for each employee.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of
its facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 14, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on
an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If 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 employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since September
15, 2015.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director of Region 14 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 7, 2017
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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
WALDEN SECURITY, INC. 17
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail to recognize and bargain with United Gov-
ernment Security Officers of America, International Union
jointly with its Member Locals 85, 86, 109, 110, 111, 152, 161,
167, 173, 175, 220 (Union), as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative in the appropriate units described
below.
WE WILL NOT implement changes to your terms and condi-
tions of employment without first notifying the Union and
providing the Union an opportunity to bargain, such as by:
temporarily suspending the 401(k) program; ceasing to pay the
costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations; ceasing to
pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up medical
examinations; refusing to process grievances; ceasing to pay
lead court security officers at the lead court security officer pay
rate when they are not performing lead court security officer
duties; and ceasing to offer major medical insurance coverage.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate units concerning terms and conditions of
employment, including suspending the 401(k) program, ceasing
to pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations,
ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up
medical examinations, refusing to process grievances, ceasing
to pay lead court security officers at the lead court security
officer pay rate when they are not performing lead court securi-
ty officer duties, and ceasing to offer major medical insurance
coverage, and, if an understanding is reached, embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement or signed agreements:
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 85, in the
Western District of the State of Texas in the cities of Austin,
Del Rio, San Antonio, Alpine, and Waco, excluding all other
employees including office clerical employees and profes-
sional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 86, in the
Eastern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Beau-
mont, Lufkin, Marshall, Plano, Tyler, Sherman, and Texarka-
na, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 109, in the
Western District of the State of Louisiana in the cities of Al-
exandria, Shreveport, Monroe, Lake Charles, and Lafayette,
excluding all other employees including office clerical em-
ployees and professional employees as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 110, in the
Middle District of the State of Louisiana in the city of Baton
Rouge, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 111, in the
Eastern District of the State of Louisiana in the city of New
Orleans, excluding all other employees including office cleri-
cal employees and professional employees as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 152, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa, excluding all other em-
ployees including office clerical employees and professional
employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 161, in the
Southern District of the State of Iowa in the cities of Des
Moines and Council Bluffs, excluding all other employees in-
cluding office clerical employees and professional employees
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 167, in the
Western District of the State of Arkansas in the following cit-
ies of Fort Smith, Fayetteville, El Dorado, and Texarkana, ex-
cluding all other employees including office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees as defined in the National La-
bor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
ent in the 5th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 173, in the
Northern District of the State of Texas in the cities of Abilene,
Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, San Angelo and
Wichita Falls, excluding all other employees including office
clerical employees and professional employees as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 175, in the
Northern District of the State of Iowa in the city of Sioux
City, excluding all other employees including office clerical
employees and professional employees as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
All full-time and shared position Federal Court Security Of-
ficers (CSOs), Federal Special Security Officers (SSOs), Lead
Federal Court Security Officers (LCSOs) and Lead Federal
Special Security Officers (LSSOs) employed by the Respond-
ent in the 8th Circuit consisting of UGSOA Local 220, in the
Western District of the State of Missouri in the following cit-
ies of Kansas City, Springfield, and Jefferson City, excluding
all other employees including office clerical employees and
professional employees as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the changes in
terms and conditions of employment for the unit employees that
were unilaterally implemented on about December 1, 2015,
including: temporarily suspending the 401(k) program; ceasing
to pay the costs of obtaining follow-up medical examinations;
ceasing to pay employees for time spent obtaining follow-up
medical examinations; refusing to process grievances; ceasing
to pay lead court security officers at the lead court security
officer pay rate when they are not performing lead court securi-
ty officer duties; and ceasing to offer major medical insurance
coverage.
WE WILL pay employees for the wages and other benefits lost
because of the unilateral changes to their terms and conditions
of employment that we made without first notifying and bar-
gaining with the Union, plus interest compounded daily.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 14, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WALDEN SECURITY, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CA-170110 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.