Akal Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 584 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 106
584
Akal Security, Inc. and United Government Security
Officers of America, Local 118. Cases 19–CA–
30891, 19–CA–30892, and 19–CA–30950
August 23, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND BECKER
On April 30, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB 122.1 Thereafter, the
Charging Party filed a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court
issued its decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB,
130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section 3(b) of the
Act, in order to exercise the delegated authority of the
Board, a delegee group of at least three members must be
maintained. Thereafter, the Board issued an order setting
aside the above-referenced decision and order, and re-
tained this case on its docket for further action as appro-
priate.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
2 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the members who participated in the original deci-
sion. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures applicable to
all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not assigned to the
panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case
at any time up to the issuance of this decision.
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order only to the
extent stated in the decision reported at 354 NLRB 122,
which has been set aside and which is incorporated
herein by reference.3 For the reasons stated in that deci-
sion, we reverse the judge and dismiss the allegation that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging
employees Lee Ryan and Stephen Winther for convening
a meeting with other employees on working time to con-
front fellow employee Bill Lopez about his perform-
ance.4

3 For the reasons stated in the Board’s prior decision, we disregard
the Respondent’s exceptions to the judge’s findings that Lead Court
Security Officer Denny Scieszinski is a supervisor and agent under Sec.
2(11) and (13) of the Act. See 354 NLRB 122, 122 fn. 1. In doing so,
however, we no longer rely on GFC Crane Consultants, Inc., 352
NLRB 1236, 1236 fn. 3 (2008), a case decided when the Board had
only two sitting members.
4 In addition, we observe that the General Counsel did not contend
that the period during which the meeting occurred was a protected work
stoppage. In fact, in his answering brief to the Respondent’s excep-
tions, the General Counsel expressly argued that it was not a work
stoppage.