Frontline Security Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 2019

367 NLRB No. 130 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

367 NLRB No. 130
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.
Frontline Security Services, Inc. and United Security
& Police Officers of America (USPOA). Cases
05–CA–162677 and 05–CA–162945
May 15, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement
agreement. Upon charges filed by United Security &
Police Officers of America (USPOA) (the Union) on
October 21 and 26, 2015, alleging that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, the Respond-
ent and the Union entered into an informal settlement
agreement, which the Regional Director for Region 5
approved on February 24, 2016.1 Among other things,
the settlement agreement required the Respondent to: (1)
post the notice to employees in prominent places for 60
consecutive days; (2) distribute the notice by email to all
employees, and forward a copy of that email with all of
the recipients’ email addresses to the Region’s compli-
ance officer; and (3) make whole the named employees
and the Union as identified in the backpay paragraph of
the settlement by paying to them the amounts identified
therein, including making appropriate withholdings for
each named employee.
The settlement agreement also contained the following
provision:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
issue a Complaint that includes the allegations covered
by the Notice to Employees, as identified above in the
Scope of Agreement section, as well as filing and ser-
vice of charge(s), commerce facts necessary to estab-
lish Board jurisdiction, labor organization status, ap-
propriate bargaining unit (if applicable), and any other
allegations the General Counsel would ordinarily plead
to establish the unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the
General Counsel may file a Motion for Default Judg-
ment with the Board on the allegations of the Com-
plaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that

1 All subsequent dates are in 2016, unless otherwise indicated.
all of the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed
admitted and that it will have waived its right to file an
Answer to such Complaint. The only issue that the
Charged Party may raise before the Board will be
whether it defaulted on the terms of this Settlement
Agreement. The General Counsel may seek, and the
Board may impose, a full remedy for each unfair labor
practice identified in the Notice to Employees. The
Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other
proceeding, find all allegations of the Complaint to be
true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law
consistent with those allegations adverse to the
Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings.
The Board may then issue an Order providing a full
remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to
remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a
U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered en-
forcing the Board Order ex parte, after service or at-
tempted service upon Charged Party at the last address
provided to the General Counsel.
By letter dated February 26, the Region’s compliance
officer sent the Respondent a copy of the approved set-
tlement agreement, with a cover letter advising the Re-
spondent to take the steps necessary to comply with it.
On March 15, by email, the Region’s compliance officer
inquired into the status of the Respondent’s compliance
with the terms of the settlement agreement.2 Having
received no response, the Region’s compliance officer,
by letter dated March 28, again sent the Respondent a
copy of the settlement agreement and the cover letter
soliciting the Respondent’s compliance.
By letter dated April 7, the Regional Director notified
the Respondent that it had failed to comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement, and that it must com-
ply and provide evidence of its compliance within 14
days, or the Region would institute default proceedings
against the Respondent. By email dated April 13, the
Region’s acting compliance officer again solicited com-
pliance with the settlement agreement and informed the
Respondent that confirmation of all posting requirements
must be submitted to the Region by April 15, and all
backpay must be submitted by May 2. Then, by email
dated April 27, the Region’s acting compliance officer
sent the Respondent the Regional Director’s earlier April
7 letter and a Certification of Posting form. This email
explained that the deadline for compliance was April 21,
and that the Region had not received any evidence of
compliance. By email dated May 3, the acting compli-

2 That same day, the Respondent’s counsel replied that she was no
longer representing the Respondent but was forwarding the Region’s
inquiry to the Respondent’s chief executive officer, Devonne Edwards.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
ance officer again notified the Respondent that the Re-
gion had not received any evidence of compliance.
On May 3, the Region received checks from the Re-
spondent, made payable to each of the named employees
in the backpay paragraph of the settlement agreement, for
the combined amounts of backpay, health and welfare
benefits, and pension payments required by the settle-
ment agreement. However, the Respondent failed to
make appropriate withholdings for each employee and
failed to submit interest checks for each employee. The
Respondent also did not provide checks for any pay-
ments owed to the Union, as required by the settlement
agreement.
On May 5, the Region received checks from the Re-
spondent for the interest payments owed to each of the
named employees in the backpay paragraph of the set-
tlement agreement. However, the Respondent did not
provide checks for any payments owed to the Union, as
required by the settlement agreement.
By letter dated May 10, the Region’s acting compli-
ance officer notified the Respondent that, although it had
submitted backpay checks to the Region, it continued to
be in noncompliance with the settlement agreement, spe-
cifically by failing to: (a) make appropriate withholdings
from each named employee’s backpay check; (b) make
whole the Union by payment in the amount identified in
the backpay paragraph of the settlement agreement; (c)
post the notice in prominent places for 60 consecutive
days; and (d) distribute the notice by email to all em-
ployees who work at the worksite, and forward a copy of
that email with all of the recipients’ email addresses to
the Region’s compliance officer. The Respondent was
further advised that the interest checks would be held by
the Region and would be distributed to the named em-
ployees after the Respondent submitted the corrected
backpay checks3; that interest would continue to accrue
until the Respondent complied with the settlement
agreement; and that thus the amount of interest owed to
each employee may change. The Respondent failed to
respond or comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the non-
compliance provisions of the settlement agreement, on
July 29, the Regional Director issued a consolidated
complaint based on breach of affirmative provisions of
settlement agreement (the complaint). On October 14,
the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment
with the Board. On October 17, the Board issued an or-
der transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice

3 According to the Region, the Respondent never submitted correct-
ed backpay checks. Thus, on September 27, the Region returned the
interest checks to the Respondent. On October 7, the checks were
returned to the Region as undeliverable.
to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted.
The Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the
motion are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by
failing to: (a) make appropriate withholdings from each
named employee’s backpay check; (b) make whole the
Union by payment in the amount set forth in the backpay
paragraph of the settlement agreement; (c) post the notice
to employees in prominent places for 60 consecutive
days; and (d) distribute the Notice by email to all em-
ployees who work at the worksite, and forward a copy of
that email with all of the recipients’ email addresses to
the Region’s compliance officer. Consequently, pursuant
to the noncompliance provisions of the settlement
agreement set forth above, we find that all of the allega-
tions of the complaint are true.4 Accordingly, we grant
the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a lim-
ited liability company with an office and place of busi-
ness in Landover, Maryland, and has been engaged in the
business of providing security services to State and Fed-
eral government agencies, including the Small Business
Administration in Washington, D.C.
In conducting its operations during the 12-month peri-
od ending June 30, 2016, the Respondent performed ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the
State of Maryland. Also during the 12-month period
ending June 30, 2016, the Respondent has conducted its
business operations in Washington, D.C., and the Board
asserts plenary jurisdiction over enterprises in Washing-
ton, D.C.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals have
held the positions set forth opposite their respective
names and have been supervisors of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act:

4 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
FRONTLINE SECURITY SERVICES 3
Leon Bryant Director of Operations
Frank Duran Chief Operations Officer
Devonne Edwards Chief Executive Officer
At all material times, Kimberly Miller held a position
within the Respondent’s payroll department and has been
an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(13) of the Act.
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time security officers,
corporals, and sergeants employed by the Employer at
the Small Business Administration, currently located in
Washington, D.C.; excluding all lieutenants, captains,
office clerical employees, professional employees,
managerial employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
On April 27, 2010, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
At all times since April 27, 2010, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
On January 30, 2014, the Respondent and the Union
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement encom-
passing the terms and conditions of employment of the
unit, effective from May 31, 2013, through April 30,
2016. On or about July 13, 2015, the Respondent and the
Union entered into an agreement amending portions of
the above collective-bargaining agreement.
Since about April 27, 2015, the Respondent failed to
continue in effect all the terms and conditions of the
amended collective-bargaining agreement described
above, by failing to remit dues and fees to the Union,
which had been deducted from unit employees’ pay.
Between about August 1, 2015, and October 1, 2015,
the Respondent failed to continue in effect all the terms
and conditions of the agreement described above by fail-
ing to pay a wage increase.
Between about August 2, 2015, and November 22,
2015, the Respondent failed to continue in effect all the
terms and conditions of the agreement described above
by failing to pay a health and welfare benefit increase,
and a pension contribution increase.
The terms and conditions of employment described
above are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. The Respondent engaged in the conduct
described above without the Union’s consent.
During the above period, the Respondent has failed
and refused to meet and bargain with the Union.
By the above conduct, the Respondent has failed and
refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the above conduct, the Respondent has been failing
and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees within the meaning of Section 8(d) of the
Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The Re-
spondent’s unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act, as requested by the General Counsel. Specif-
ically, we shall order the Respondent to comply with the
unmet terms of the settlement agreement approved by the
Regional Director for Region 5 on February 24.
Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent to make
whole the named employees and the Union as identified
in the backpay paragraph of the settlement agreement by
paying to them the amounts set forth therein, plus inter-
est, including making appropriate withholdings for each
named employee; to make whole unit employee Linzy
Youmans by paying her contractually-required wage
rates, pension benefit rates, and health and welfare bene-
fit rates for all hours worked as an employee; to preserve
and to make available to the Board or its agents all rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due for
Youmans;5 to compensate employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award; to post the notice to employees in prominent
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, for 60 consecutive days; and to
distribute the notice by email to all employees who work
at the facility, and to forward a copy of that email with
all of the recipients’ email addresses to the Region’s
compliance officer.
In limiting our affirmative remedies to those enumer-
ated above, we are mindful that the General Counsel is
empowered under the default provision of the settlement
agreement to seek “a full remedy for the violations found

5 In the backpay paragraph of the settlement agreement, the amounts
due to Youmans are listed as “TBD” (“to be determined”). The Re-
gion, in a letter to the Respondent dated May 10, 2016, stated that the
Respondent continued to be in noncompliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement by failing to, inter alia, “[p]rovide a spreadsheet
reflecting hours worked by employee Linzy Youmans at the Worksite
with supporting documentation.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
as is appropriate to remedy such violations.”6 However,
in his Motion for Default Judgment, the General Counsel
has not sought such additional remedies and we will not,
sua sponte, include them.7
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Frontline Security Services, Inc., Landover,
Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
1. Make unit employee Linzy Youmans whole by pay-
ing her contractually-required wage rates, pension benefit
rates, and health and welfare benefit rates for all hours
worked as a unit employee.
2. Remit $8,223.33, plus interest, to Region 5 of the
National Labor Relations Board to be disbursed to the
unit employees in accordance with the terms of the set-
tlement agreement approved by the Regional Director on
February 24, 2016.
3. Remit $9,788.01, plus interest, to Region 5 of the
National Labor Relations Board to be disbursed to the
Union in accordance with the terms of the settlement

6 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case
of noncompliance, the Board may issue such a full remedy.
7 See, e.g., Benchmark Mechanical, Inc., 348 NLRB 576, 578
(2006). The General Counsel specifically requested in his motion for
default judgment that the Board “issue a Decision containing findings
of fact and conclusions of law based on, and in accordance with, the
allegations of the consolidated complaint, remedying such unfair labor
practices, including requiring Respondent to comply with the terms of
the settlement agreement, and granting such other relief as may be just
and proper to remedy the violations described in the consolidated com-
plaint.” Motion at 8–9. We construe the General Counsel’s motion as
seeking enforcement of the unmet provisions of the settlement agree-
ment.
The General Counsel also requests that the Board order the Re-
spondent to remit to the Union all dues and fees it deducted from em-
ployees’ pay pursuant to valid dues-checkoff authorizations from Janu-
ary 15 to April 30, 2016, the date the collective-bargaining agreement
expired. However, the settlement agreement, which was executed on
February 24, provides only that the Respondent shall make whole the
Union by paying delinquent union dues totaling $9,788.01, plus inter-
est. Accordingly, as the General Counsel has asked that the remedy
require the Respondent to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement, we decline to order the Respondent to reimburse the Union
for dues and fees deducted from employees’ pay from January 15 to
April 30, 2016.
The General Counsel, in his “proposed order” attached to his mo-
tion, provides at par. (h) that “[i]n addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email,
posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
the Respondent customarily communicates with its members by such
means.” The settlement agreement, however, only provides that, in
addition to physical posting, the notice will be emailed to all employees
who work at the facility. Thus, we decline to order that the notice be
posted on an intranet or internet site, as this remedy was not included in
the settlement agreement. Rather, we shall order that the notice be
posted in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
agreement approved by the Regional Director on Febru-
ary 24, 2016.
4. Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order for employee Linzy Youmans.
5. Compensate employees for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 5, within
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar year(s).8
6. Post at its facility located at 409 Third Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”9 The notice shall be posted in the same
manner as agreed to in the settlement agreement. In ad-
dition to physical posting of paper notices, the Respond-
ent shall email a copy of the signed notice to all employ-
ees who work at the facility. The notice shall be emailed
in the same manner as agreed to in the settlement agree-
ment.
7. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 5 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. May 15, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

8 The settlement agreement provided that the Respondent would file
this report with the Social Security Administration, consistent with
existing Board law at the time the agreement was executed. See Don
Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014).
Subsequently, however, the Board, in AdvoServ of New Jersey, 363
NLRB No. 143 (2016), held that respondents should file these reports
with the Regional Director of the appropriate NLRB Region, rather
than with the Social Security Administration. Accordingly, we have
modified this portion of the Order and the notice to be consistent with
current Board law.
9 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.”
FRONTLINE SECURITY SERVICES 5
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, 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 fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with United Security and Police Offic-
ers of America (USPOA) (the Union), by failing to make
contractually-required remittances of deducted union
dues to the Union, the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time security officers,
corporals, and sergeants employed by the us at the
Small Business Administration, currently located in
Washington, DC; excluding all lieutenants, captains,
office clerical employees, professional employees,
managerial employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees in the
bargaining unit, by failing to make contractually-required
wage increases.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees in the
bargaining unit, by failing to make contractually-required
periodic pension benefit increases.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees in the
bargaining unit, by failing to make contractually-required
health and welfare benefit increases.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make the contractually-required remittance
of union dues, with interest, to the Union.
WE WILL pay employees for the wages, pension bene-
fits, and health and welfare benefits lost because of the
changes to terms and conditions of employment that we
made without bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL compensate employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and WE WILL file a report with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 5, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar year(s).
FRONTLINE SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CA-162677 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.