Hawk One Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 2010

355 NLRB No. 185 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

355 NLRB No. 185
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.
Hawk One Security, Inc. and Service Employees In-
ternational Union, Local 32BJ and Local 21,
United Government Security Officers of Amer-
ica, Party in Interest. Case 5–CA–35150
September 21, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the complaint. Upon a charge filed by the
Union on August 17, 2009, the General Counsel issued
the complaint on November 30, 2009, against Hawk One
Security, Inc. (the Respondent) alleging that it has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3), (2), and (1) of the Act. The Re-
spondent failed to file an answer.
On February 25, 2010, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. On Febru-
ary 26, 2010, 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 no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively stated
that unless an answer was received by December 14,
2009, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for de-
fault judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are
true.
Further, the undisputed allegations in the General
Counsel’s motion disclose that by letter dated December
9, 2009, counsel for the Respondent notified the Re-
gional Director that she was withdrawing as the Respon-
dent’s legal representative in this case. The General
Counsel’s motion further states that the Respondent no
longer maintains an office address at the location where a
copy of the complaint had been sent by regular mail. On
February 2, 2010, the General Counsel sent a letter to the
home address of the Respondent’s president, with a copy
of the complaint attached, stating that a motion for de-
fault judgment would be filed if an answer to the com-
plaint was not filed by February 12, 2010. The General
Counsel attached to its motion a copy of the U.S. Postal
Service online tracking information, which indicates that
this letter was delivered by Federal Express on February
3, 2010. The Respondent failed to file an answer.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer, 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, a District of Co-
lumbia corporation with an office and place of business
in the District of Columbia, has been engaged in the
business of providing security services.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, the Respondent, in
conducting its business operations described above, has
provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to entities
located within the District of Columbia, including to the
Washington Area Sanitation Authority, and has provided
services valued in excess of $50,000 to entities located
outside the District of Columbia.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. We further find that United Government
Security Officers of America; Local 21, United Govern-
ment Security Officers of America (UGSOA Local 21);
and Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ
(the Union) are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Necea Thompson has held the
position of the Respondent’s co-owner and has been a
supervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
From about December 1, 2008, until about May 31,
2009, Batesia Baynes1 held the position of the Respon-
dent’s interim commander. Additionally, prior to De-
cember 1, 2008, and at all times since June 1, 2009,
Baynes has held the position of the Respondent’s director
of payroll. Since at least December 1, 2008, Baynes has
been a supervisor of the Respondent within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respon-
dent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

1 The complaint refers to both “Batesia” Baynes and “Batsea”
Baynes. However, it appears that the reference to “Batsea” Baynes is a
typographical error.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
From about December 1, 2008, until about May 31,
2009, Mark Bryant held the position of the Respondent’s
major. Additionally, since about June 1, 2009, Bryant
has held the position of the Respondent’s commander.
Since at least December 1, 2008, Bryant has been a su-
pervisor of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act and an agent of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
At all material times, Ava Ramey has held the position
of UGSOA Local 21’s trustee, and has been an agent of
UGSOA Local 21 within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in
the following conduct:
1. Between about May 5 and 20, 2009, the Respondent
created the impression among its employees that their
union activities were under surveillance by the Respon-
dent, by issuing the employees so-called “just cause”
notices, which explicitly informed the employees that the
Respondent was aware that they had attended meetings
conducted by the Union.
2. On about May 6, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Baynes at its main office located at 1400 Eye
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (the Respondent’s of-
fice), promulgated, and has since maintained, a rule pro-
hibiting its employees from discussing their terms and
conditions of employment with anyone who, in the Re-
spondent’s view, does not have a need to know.
3. On about May 6, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Baynes at its office, interrogated its employees
about their union membership, activities, and sympa-
thies, and about the union membership, activities, and
sympathies of their coworkers.
4. On about May 12, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Bryant at its worksite at 51 N Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., interrogated its employees about their
union membership, activities, and sympathies, and about
the union membership, activities, and sympathies of their
coworkers.
5. On about May 13 and 20, 2009, the Respondent,
acting through Baynes at its office, promulgated, and has
since enforced, a rule prohibiting its employees from
going outside a chain of command established by the
Respondent and, thus, prohibiting its employees from
discussing wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment with anyone who is not in the Respon-
dent’s management, referred to by the Respondent as
“outsiders.”
6. On about May 13 and 20, 2009, the Respondent,
acting through Bryant at its office, interrogated its em-
ployees about their union membership, activities, and
sympathies, and about the union membership, activities,
and sympathies of other employees.
7. On about May 13 and 20, 2009, the Respondent,
acting through Baynes at its office, promulgated and en-
forced a rule prohibiting its employees from discussing
with their coworkers, or anyone else, what took place in
investigatory and disciplinary meetings conducted by the
Respondent.
8. On about May 13, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Baynes at its office, interrogated its employees
concerning their union membership, activities, and sym-
pathies, and about the union membership, activities, and
sympathies of their coworkers.
9. On about May 20, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Bryant at its office, threatened its employees
with discharge if they did not answer questions concern-
ing the union membership, activities, and sympathies of
themselves and their coworkers.
10. On about May 20, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Thompson at its office, told employees their
activities on behalf of the Union were tantamount to
sabotage and would not be tolerated.
11. On about May 20, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Bryant at its office, promulgated, and has since
enforced, a rule prohibiting its employees from distribut-
ing material or soliciting on behalf of any labor organiza-
tion except United Government Security Officers of
America and/or UGSOA Local 21.
12. Since about May 5, 2009, the Respondent, acting
through Bryant, Thompson, and Baynes, rendered assis-
tance and support to UGSOA Local 21 by permitting
Ava Ramey to attend and actively participate in the so-
called “just cause” meetings where the Respondent
committed the unfair labor practices described above in
paragraphs 2, 3, and 5–11; and by promulgating and en-
forcing the rule described above in paragraph 11 prohib-
iting its employees from distributing material or solicit-
ing on behalf of any labor organization except United
Government Security Officers of America and/or
UGSOA Local 21.
13. On about May 20, 2009, the Respondent suspended
employees Carlene Olobayo, Lakia Hayes McDuffie,
Keith Pugh, Karen Freeman Cunningham, and possibly
other employees whose names are currently unknown.
14. Between about May 3 and 20, 2009, the Respon-
dent issued so-called “just cause” disciplinary notices to
employees Rodney Durham, Keith Pugh, Carlene Olo-
bayo, Lakia Hayes McDuffie, Loretta Lee, Vitinna Fos-
ter, and possibly other employees whose names are cur-
rently unknown, and forced those employees to attend
meetings pursuant to the notices without compensation.
HAWK ONE SECURITY, INC. 3
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described in
paragraphs 13 and 14 above because the named, and pos-
sibly other, employees of the Respondent joined or as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and
to discourage employees from engaging in these activi-
ties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1–11,
the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1).
2. By the conduct described above in paragraph 12, the
Respondent has been rendering unlawful assistance and
support to a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
3. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 13
and 14, the Respondent has been discriminating in regard
to the hire or tenure, or terms and conditions of employ-
ment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent’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 cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by suspending employees Carlene
Olobayo, Lakia Hayes McDuffie, Keith Pugh, Karen
Freeman Cunningham, and possibly others whose names
are currently unknown, we shall order the Respondent to
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).2 The Respondent shall also be required to re-
move from its files all references to the unlawful “just
cause” disciplinary notices and suspensions of Olobayo,
McDuffie and Pugh, the unlawful suspension of Cun-
ningham, the unlawful “just cause” disciplinary notices

2 In the complaint, the General Counsel seeks interest compounded
on a quarterly basis for any backpay or other monetary awards. Having
duly considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to deviate
from our current practice of assessing simple interest. See, e.g., Rogers
Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005).
to Durham, Lee, and Foster, and possibly others whose
names are currently unknown, and to notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the suspensions
and/or “just cause” disciplinary notices will not be used
against them in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Hawk One Security, Inc., Washington,
D.C., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Creating the impression that employees’ union ac-
tivities are under surveillance by issuing “just cause”
notices informing them that it was aware that employees
had attended meetings conducted by the Union.
(b) Promulgating and enforcing rules prohibiting its
employees from (i) discussing their terms and conditions
of employment with anyone who, in the Respondent’s
view, does not have a need to know; (ii) going outside a
chain of command established by the Respondent and,
thus, prohibiting its employees from discussing wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
with anyone who is not in the Respondent’s manage-
ment, referred to by the Respondent as “outsiders”; (iii)
discussing with their coworkers, or anyone else, what
took place in investigatory and disciplinary meetings
conducted by the Respondent; and (iv) distributing mate-
rial or soliciting on behalf of any labor organization ex-
cept United Government Security Officers of America
and/or UGSOA Local 21.
(c) Interrogating employees about their or other em-
ployees’ union membership, activities, or sympathies.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge if they did
not answer questions concerning the union membership,
activities, and sympathies of themselves and their co-
workers.
(e) Telling employees that their activities on behalf of
the Union were tantamount to sabotage and would not be
tolerated.
(f) Suspending employees because they join or assist
the Union and engage in concerted activities, and to dis-
courage them from engaging in these activities.
(g) Issuing “just cause” disciplinary notices to employ-
ees and forcing them to attend meetings pursuant to the
notices without compensation because they joined or
assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities,
and to discourage employees from engaging in these ac-
tivities.
(h) Rendering assistance and support to UGSOA Local
21 by permitting a trustee of UGSOA Local 21to attend
and actively participate in the so-called “just cause”
meetings, and by promulgating and enforcing a rule pro-
hibiting its employees from distributing material or solic-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
iting on behalf of any labor organization except United
Government Security Officers of America and/or
UGSOA Local 21.
(i) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole Carlene Olobayo, Lakia Hayes
McDuffie, Keith Pugh, Karen Freeman Cunningham, and
other similarly situated employees, for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of their unlaw-
ful suspensions, with interest, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files all references to the unlawful “just cause”
disciplinary notices and suspensions of Carlene Olobayo,
Lakia Hayes McDuffie, and Keith Pugh, the unlawful
suspension of Karen Freeman Cunningham, the “just
cause” disciplinary notices to employees Rodney Dur-
ham, Loretta Lee, and Vitinna Foster, and other similarly
situated employees and, within 3 days thereafter, notify
them in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful suspension and/or “just cause” disciplinary no-
tices will not be used against them in any way.
(c) 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 re-
cords 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.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Washington, D.C., copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility

3 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.”
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since May 5, 2009.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 21, 2010
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
Brian E. Hayes, 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 vio-
lated 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 create the impression that your union ac-
tivities are under surveillance by issuing “just cause”
disciplinary notices informing you that we are aware that
you have attended meetings conducted by the Union.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce a rule prohibit-
ing you from discussing your terms and conditions of
employment with anyone who, in our view, does not
have a need to know.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce a rule prohibit-
ing you from going outside a chain of command estab-
HAWK ONE SECURITY, INC. 5
lished by us and, thus, prohibiting you from discussing
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with anyone who is not in our management,
referred to by us as “outsiders.”
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce a rule prohibit-
ing you from discussing with your coworkers or anyone
else what took place in investigatory and disciplinary
meetings.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce a rule prohibit-
ing you from distributing material or soliciting on behalf
of any labor organization except United Government
Security Officers of America and/or UGSOA Local 21.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your or other em-
ployees’ union membership, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge if you refuse
to answer questions concerning your union membership,
activities, or sympathies, or those of your coworkers.
WE WILL NOT tell you that your activities on behalf of
the Union are tantamount to sabotage and will not be
tolerated.
WE WILL NOT suspend you because you join or assist
the Union or engage in concerted activities or to discour-
age you from engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT issue “just cause” disciplinary notices to
you and force you to attend meetings pursuant to the no-
tices without compensation because you joined or as-
sisted the Union or engaged in concerted activities or to
discourage you from engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT render assistance and support to UGSOA
Local 21 by permitting a trustee of UGSOA Local 21to
attend and actively participate in the so-called “just
cause” meetings, or by promulgating and enforcing a rule
prohibiting you from distributing material or soliciting
on behalf of any labor organization except United Gov-
ernment Security Officers of America and/or UGSOA
Local 21.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Carlene Olobayo, Lakia Hayes
McDuffie, Keith Pugh, Karen Freeman Cunningham, and
other similarly situated employees for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of their unlaw-
ful suspensions, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files all references to the unlawful “just
cause” disciplinary notices and suspensions of Carlene
Olobayo, Lakia Hayes McDuffie, and Keith Pugh, the
unlawful suspension of Karen Freeman Cunningham, the
unlawful “just cause” disciplinary notices to Rodney
Durham, Loretta Lee, and Vitinna Foster, and other simi-
larly situated employees and, within 3 days thereafter,
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the unlawful suspensions and/or unlawful “just cause”
disciplinary notices will not be used against them in any
way.
HAWK ONE SECURITY, INC.