Loomis Armored US, Inc - Decision Summary

Loomis Armored US, Inc. (32-CA-025316, et al.; 364 NLRB No. 23) Stockton, CA, June 9, 2016.

The full Board, with Member Miscimarra dissenting, found that where an employer of a unit of security guards voluntarily recognizes a “mixed-guard” union (a union that has both guard and non-guard members) as the unit’s bargaining representative, the employer may not later, after the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement has expired, withdraw recognition without demonstrating that the union has lost its majority support.In making this finding, the Board overruled Wells Fargo Corp., 270 NLRB 787 (1984), rev. denied sub nom. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807 v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1985), cert denied 474 U.S. 901 (1985).In Wells Fargo, the Board interpreted the Act’s Sec. 9(b)(3), which bars a mixed-guard union from being “certified” by the Board as the representative of a guards unit, to permit an employer to withdraw its voluntary recognition in the absence of a collective-bargaining agreement.The Respondent in this case had withdrawn recognition from the four Charging Parties, each a local union of the Teamsters, solely in reliance on Wells Fargo; and the administrative law judge, applying Wells Fargo as the controlling authority as he was required to follow, dismissed the complaint.On exception, the Charging Parties and the General Counsel pursued their contention that Wells Fargo was wrongly decided. The Board found that requiring an employer of guards (like other employers covered by the Act) to show loss of majority support before withdrawing the recognition it had previously chosen to give to a mixed-guard union is more in keeping with the Act’s goals of promoting stable bargaining relationships and protecting employees’ right to their choice of representation, while still preserving the employer’s right initially to withhold such recognition where the employer perceives a potential conflict of interest between guard and non-guard employees.However, the Board decided not to apply its decision to pending cases and accordingly dismissed the complaint in this case.In dissent, Member Miscimarra defended the holding of Wells Fargo as the better interpretation of Sec. 9(b)(3).The charges were filed by Teamsters Locals 853, 150, 542, and 396.Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued his decision on January 11, 2012. Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra, Hirozawa, and McFerran participated.