Paragon Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 2014

360 NLRB No. 50 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

360 NLRB No. 50
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.
Paragon Systems, Inc. and Security, Police, and Fire
Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 3 and
International Union, Security, Police, and Fire
Professionals of America (SPFPA), and Its Local
3. Cases 21–CA–092902 and 21–CA–096930
February 21, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND SCHIFFER
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of a bilateral informal settle-
ment agreement. Upon a charge filed on November 8,
2012, by Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of
America (SPFPA), Local 3 (Local 3), and a charge filed
on January 23, 2013, by International Union, Security,
Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) (the
International Union), and its Local 3 (collectively, the
Union), the General Counsel issued a complaint against
Paragon Systems, Inc. (the Respondent) on March 28,
2013, alleging that it had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer.
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union entered
into a bilateral informal settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Regional Director for Region 21 on June
26, 2013. Among other things, the settlement agreement
required the Respondent to: (1) provide the Union with
information responsive to certain requests it made be-
tween July 15, 2012, and January 2, 2013; and (2) post
and mail appropriate notices.
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
reissue the complaint previously issued on March 28,
2013 in the instant cases. Thereafter, the General
Counsel may file a motion for default judgment with
the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The
Charged Party understands and agrees that the allega-
tions of the aforementioned complaint will be deemed
admitted and its Answer to such complaint will be con-
sidered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised
before the Board is whether the Charged Party default-
ed on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 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/Respondent at the
last address provided to the General Counsel.
By letter dated November 5, 2013, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 21 notified the Respondent that it was in
noncompliance with the terms of the settlement agree-
ment. Specifically, the letter stated that the Respondent
had failed to provide any of the information it had agreed
to provide to the Union, and had failed to post, copy, and
mail a notice to employees as agreed. The letter further
stated that, absent full compliance with the settlement
agreement by the close of business on November 19,
2013, the Regional Director would initiate default pro-
ceedings pursuant to the provisions of the settlement
agreement. The Respondent failed to comply.
Accordingly, pursuant to the noncompliance provision
of the settlement agreement, on December 6, 2013, the
Regional Director reissued the complaint, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with
the Board. On December 11, 2013, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be grant-
ed. 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
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 furnish requested information to the Union, and
failing to post and mail appropriate notices to employees.
Consequently, pursuant to the noncompliance provision
of the settlement agreement set forth above, we find that
the Respondent’s answer to the original complaint has
been withdrawn and that all of the allegations in the reis-
sued complaint are true.1 Accordingly, we grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following

1 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, an Alabama
corporation, with its principal office in Chantilly, Virgin-
ia, and facilities located in Covina and San Diego, Cali-
fornia, has been engaged in the business of providing
security services to agencies of the United States Gov-
ernment, including the Department of Homeland Securi-
ty and the Federal Protective Services, in several coun-
ties in the State of California, including San Diego, Los
Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Coun-
ties.
During the 12-month period preceding reissuance of
the complaint, a representative period, the Respondent, in
conducting its operations described above, provided ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 at various State of Cal-
ifornia locations to the Department of Homeland Securi-
ty and the Federal Protective Services, agencies of the
United States Government that are directly involved in
interstate commerce.
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 the International Un-
ion and Local 3 are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that Local 3 is an
agent of the International Union for purposes of griev-
ance processing.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals 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/or agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Leslie Kaciban Jr. President
Roman Gumul Director of Labor Relations
Megan Bittenbender Vice President of Human
Resources
Micheale Campoy Human Resources
-McCarthy Manager
Dannie Sims Regional Program Manager
Michael Persaud Assistant Program Manager
The following employees of the Respondent (Unit A)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All armed and unarmed security officers employed by
Respondent, performing guard duties as defined by
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act pursuant to Contract
HSCEW 9-08Q-00007 between Respondent and the
United States Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) for the provision of security services at certain
federal facilities in the Los Angeles and surrounding
areas, and excluding office clericals, managerial per-
sonnel, confidential personnel, supervisors (Lieutenants
and Captains) as defined by the Act, and all other per-
sonnel.
The following employees of the Respondent (Unit B)
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 armed and unarmed
security officers and lead security officers (Sergeants)
performing guard duties as defined by Section 9(b)(3)
of the Act employed by the Respondent in the counties
of San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial,
California, pursuant to a contract between Respondent
and the United States Department of Homeland Securi-
ty, Federal Protective Services (“DHS/FPS”) Contract
GS-07F-0420N or its successor(s); excluding all other
employees, temporary employees, office clericals,
managerial personnel, confidential personnel, and su-
pervisors as defined by the Act.
Pursuant to a certification of representative that issued
on July 6, 2007, the Association of Contract Employees
Security-Police and Detention Enforcement Ace/Spades
was the designated exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of Unit A, and was recognized as the repre-
sentative by the Respondent and its predecessor U.S.
Protect Corporation.
Since about March 14, 2009, the Association of Con-
tract Employees Security-Police and Detention Enforce-
ment Ace/Spades affiliated with the International Union,
whereby the International Union became the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Unit A,
and was recognized as such by the Respondent. That
recognition has been embodied in a collective-bargaining
agreement effective by its terms from August 1, 2010,
through September 30, 2013. At all times since at least
March 14, 2009, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of Unit A.
Since about June 2, 2011, and at all material times, the
Respondent has recognized the International Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Unit
B. This recognition has been embodied in a recognition
agreement dated August 31, 2011. At all times since
about June 2, 2011, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the
3
PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.
International Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Unit B.
A. Information Requests Relevant to Representation
of Unit A
Since about the dates set forth below, Local 3 has re-
quested, by electronic mail, that the Respondent furnish
it with the following information:
(1) July 15, 2012 and July 25, 2012:
(a) All Paragon Security Officers (“PSOs”) that
were not paid out for their personal and sick
days from August 2010 through 2011;
(b) All PSOs that were not paid out for their per-
sonal and sick days from August 2011
through 2012.
(2) July 31, 2012:
(a) Where does the CBA state that under Article
8, Section 5 employees do not get cash out for
their personal and sick days?
(b) What has happened to employees’ benefits of
three (3) personal days and three (3) sick days
for the last two (2) years?
(c) How does company track personal and sick
days?
(d) Why has company management told employ-
ees that personal and sick days are in a use or
lose category?
(3) September 24, 2012 and October 4, 2012:
(a) All PSOs who were not able to take a person-
al day off due to lack of staff (Article 10.2 of
the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA));
(b) Clarification of Article 8, Section 5 of the
CBA on cash out or not cash out.
(4) October 10, 2012:
(a) How is the company complying with Article
8, Section 5?
(b) Legal codes, statutes, decisions, and inter-
pretations which were used by [Respondent]
in making its determination on sick and per-
sonal days (Article 8, Section 5).
(5) September 25, 2012 and October 21, 2012:
(a) All PSOs who were not paid for the personal
days off;
(b) Clarification of Article 8, Section 5 of the
parties’ CBA regarding cashed out or not
cashed out.
(6) October 14, 2012 and October 26, 2012:
(a) Why was PSO Rodriguez’ request for a per-
sonal day off denied?
(b) How many rovers were available on October
5, 2012?
(c) How many officers were scheduled personal
day off on October 5, 2012?
(d) How many officers were scheduled for vaca-
tion on October 5, 2012?
(e) How many officers were scheduled for train-
ing on October 5, 2012?
(f) How many officers were unable to report to
work due to illness or on sick leave on Octo-
ber 5, 2012?
(g) Copy of leave request forms of all employees
granted leave for October 5, 2012;
(h) Copy of leave request forms of all employees
denied leave for October 5, 2012.
(7) October 25, 2012 and November 7, 2012:
(a) All reports, documents, statements, e-mails,
notes taken during phone calls, text messages
between management and the Federal Gov-
ernment connected to this investigation;
(b) All correspondence, including text messages,
e-mails, notes taken during phone calls be-
tween the company and management/super-
visors connected to this investigation;
(c) Copy of all incidents similar to this investiga-
tion and the results for the last two years;
(d) A copy of all correspondence, including text
messages, e-mail, and notes taken during
phone calls between management and super-
visors and Paragon Security Officers (PSOs)
connected to this investigation.
(8) October 27, 2012 and October 28, 2012:
(a) Why Mr. Escamirosa has not been made
whole;
(b) Bargaining notes taken during contract nego-
tiations;
(c) Internal memorandum regarding CBA Article
8, Section 5;
(d) Copies of all correspondence (letters, e-mails,
and text messages) between management and
supervisors dealing with compensation for
personal days;
(e) Copies of all documentation, statements,
e-mails, and notes taken during phone calls,
text messages and facsimiles between the
company and management and supervision.
(9) November 12, 2012 and November 14, 2012:
(a) Mr. Hall’s employee file, including counsel-
ing, write ups and disciplinary actions taken
by the company against Mr. Hall;
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) All documents, e-mail, text messages, notes
taken during phone calls, which led to Mr.
Hall’s suspension;
(c) All documents, text messages, notes taken
during phone calls which allow the company
to continue Mr. Hall’s suspension without
pay.
The information requested by Local 3, as described
above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the International
Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of Unit A. Since about
July 15, 2012, the Respondent has failed and refused to
furnish this requested information to Local 3.
B. Information Requests Relevant to Representation
of Units A and B
Since about September 10, 2012, and including, but
not limited to, September 18 and 19, October 10, 17, and
30, December 14 and 28, 2012, and January 2, 2013, the
Union, orally and by electronic mail, has requested that
the Respondent furnish it with the following information:
(1) a complete listing of all health and welfare (“h&w”)
payments made on behalf of bargaining unit em-
ployee Robert Leal for the past 6 months;
(2) a complete listing of the names of all employees
employed in either Local 52 or Local 3 bargaining
units that have taken Family Medical Leave under
the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) within the
last two (2) years and the dates of such leaves; and,
(3) a list of the h&w payments made on behalf of the
employees listed . . . above for a period of not less
than 30 days before FMLA leave, during FMLA
leave, and thirty days after FMLA leave.
The information requested by the International Union,
as described above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the
International Union’s performance of its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Units A
and B. Since about September 10, 2012, the Respondent
has failed and refused to furnish this requested infor-
mation to the Union.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, de-
scribed above, 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)(5)
and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
certain information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in Units A and B, we shall order the
Respondent to furnish the Union with the information
requested on the dates noted above.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Paragon Systems, Inc., Chantilly, Virginia,
Covina and San Diego, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Security, Po-
lice, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 3
and International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Pro-
fessionals of America (SPFPA), and its Local 3 (the Un-
ion) by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate bargaining units:
Unit A:
All armed and unarmed security officers employed by
Respondent, performing guard duties as defined by
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act pursuant to Contract
HSCEW 9-08Q-00007 between Respondent and the
United States Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) for the provision of security services at certain
federal facilities in the Los Angeles and surrounding
areas, and excluding office clericals, managerial per-
sonnel, confidential personnel, supervisors (Lieutenants
and Captains) as defined by the Act, and all other per-
sonnel.

2 In his motion for default judgment, the General Counsel requested
that the Board find the Respondent in noncompliance with certain
specific provisions of the settlement agreement, which required the
Respondent to provide requested information to the Union, and to post
and mail a notice to employees. Although the General Counsel’s mo-
tion also included a catchall request for “a full remedy,” it is not clear
what remedies would be granted in a “full remedy” that are not already
included in the settlement provisions. Accordingly, we construe the
General Counsel’s motion as a request to enforce the unmet provision-
of-information and notice-related provisions of the settlement agree-
ment, and we shall order those affirmative remedies.
5
PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.
Unit B:
All full-time and regular part-time armed and unarmed
security officers and lead security officers (Sergeants)
performing guard duties as defined by Section 9(b)(3)
of the Act employed by the Respondent in the counties
of San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial,
California, pursuant to a contract between Respondent
and the United States Department of Homeland Securi-
ty, Federal Protective Services (“DHS/FPS”) Contract
GS-07F-0420N or its successor(s); excluding all other
employees, temporary employees, office clericals,
managerial personnel, confidential personnel, and su-
pervisors as defined by the Act.
(b) 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) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in emails dated July 15, 2012, and July 25, 2012, re-
garding all Paragon Security Officers (PSOs) that were
not paid out for personal and sick days from August 2010
through 2012.
(b) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in an email dated July 31, 2012, regarding Article 8,
Section 5 of the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA)
and personal and sick days.
(c) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in emails dated September 24, 2012, and October 4,
2012, regarding all PSOs who were not able to take a
personal day off, and clarification of Article 8, Section 5
of the CBA.
(d) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in an email dated October 10, 2012, regarding com-
pliance with Article 8, Section 5 of the CBA and legal
codes, statutes, and decisions regarding Article 8, Section
5.
(e) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in emails dated September 25, 2012, and October 21,
2012, regarding PSOs who were not paid for personal
days off and clarification of Article 8, Section 5 of the
CBA.
(f) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in emails dated October 14, 2012, and October 26,
2012, regarding an employee’s denial of a personal day
off and the scheduling and leave of employees on Octo-
ber 5, 2012.
(g) Provide the Union with the information it request-
ed in emails dated October 27 and 28, 2012, regarding
employees being made whole, bargaining notes, internal
memoranda, correspondence and documentation pertain-
ing to Article 8, Section 5 of the CBA and compensation
for personal days.
(h) To the extent the Respondent has not already done
so, provide the Union with the information it requested in
emails dated October 25, 2012, and November 7, 2012,
regarding correspondence, documents, and similar inci-
dents related to the suspension of an employee.
(i) To the extent the Respondent has not already done
so, provide the Union with the information it requested in
emails dated November 12, 2012, and November 14,
2012, regarding an employee’s personnel file, and corre-
spondence leading up to that employee’s suspension.
(j) Provide the Union with the information it requested
both orally and in emails dated September 18, 2012, Sep-
tember 19, 2012, October 10, 2012, October 17, 2012,
October 30, 2012, December 14, 2012, December 28,
2012, and January 2, 2013, regarding health and welfare
payments and FMLA leave.
(k) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Chantilly, Virginia, Covina and San Die-
go, California, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if the Respondent customarily communi-
cates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(l) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix” to all current and
former bargaining unit employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since July 15, 2012.

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.”
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(m) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 21 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. February 21, 2014
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Nancy Schiffer, 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 do anything to prevent you from exercis-
ing the above rights.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide Security, Police, and
Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 3 and
International Union, Security, Police and Fire Profes-
sionals of America (SPFPA) and its Local 3 (Union) with
information that is relevant and necessary to its role as
your bargaining representative and to its ability to pro-
cess your grievances.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in e-mails dated July 15, 2012, and July 25,
2012, regarding all Paragon Security Officers (herein
PSOs) that were not paid out for personal and sick days
from August 2010 through 2012.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in an e-mail dated July 31, 2012 regarding Arti-
cle 8, Section 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(herein CBA) and personal and sick days.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in e-mails dated September 24, 2012, and Octo-
ber 4, 2012, regarding all PSOs who were not able to
take a personal day off, and clarification of Article 8,
Section 5 of the CBA.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in an e-mail dated October 10, 2012, regarding
compliance with Article 8, Section 5 of the CBA and
legal codes, statutes, and decisions regarding Article 8,
Section 5.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in e-mails dated September 25, 2012, and Octo-
ber 21, 2012, regarding PSOs who were not paid for per-
sonal days off and clarification of Article 8, Section 5 of
the CBA.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in e-mails dated October 14, 2012, and October
26, 2012, regarding an employee's denial of a personal
day off and the scheduling and leave of employees on
October 5, 2012.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested in e-mails dated October 27 and 28, 2012, re-
garding employees being made whole, bargaining notes,
internal memoranda, correspondence and documentation
pertaining to Article 8, Section 5 of the CBA and com-
pensation for personal days.
WE WILL to the extent we have not already provided it,
provide the Union with the information it requested in e-
mails dated October 25, 2012, and November 7, 2012,
regarding correspondence, documents and similar inci-
dents related to the suspension of an employee.
WE WILL to the extent we have not already provided it,
provide the Union with the information it requested in e-
mails dated November 12, 2012, and November 14,
2012, regarding an employee's personnel file, corre-
spondence leading up to that employee's suspension.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested both orally and in e-mails dated September 18,
2012, September 19, 2012, October 10, 2012, October
17, 2012, October 30, 2012, December 14, 2012, De-
cember 28, 2012, and January 2, 2013, regarding health
and welfare payments and FMLA leave.
PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.