Garda CL Atlantic Inc,
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.
Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. and United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers, Inc. Case 22–CA–196340
July 24, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on April 4, 2017, by United Federation of Special Police and Security Officers, Inc. (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on April 17, 2017, alleging that Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union's request to recognize and bargain with it following the Union’s certification in Case 22– RC–170477. (Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.
On May 17, 2017, the General Counsel filed with the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 19, 2017, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but contests the validity of the Union’s certification of representative on the basis of its contentions, raised and rejected in the underlying representation proceeding, that the Union was improperly certified because the Board agent improperly instructed eligible employees that they were not entitled to vote unless they were guards, coerced them, discouraged them from voting, and interrogated them. In addition, in its answer to the complaint the Respondent also admits that it has refused to meet and bargain with the Union in order to test the Union’s certification in Federal court.1
1 Also in its answer to the complaint, the Respondent asserts as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that the complaint is barred based on the
All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP