Honor Guard Security Services,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Honor Guard Security Services, A Division of
Chemical Technology, Inc. and International
Guards Federation of Puerto Rico. Case 24-
CA-4427
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
Upon a charge filed on January 16, 1981, by In-
ternational Guards Federation of Puerto Rico,
herein called the Union, and duly served on Honor
Guard Security Services, A Division of Chemical
Technology, Inc., herein called Respondent. the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 24,
issued a complaint on February 24, 1981,' against
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge and amended complaint and notice of
hearing before an administrative law judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding. Re-
spondent failed to file an answer to the complaint.
On April 7, 1981, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on April 15, 1981,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. On April 27,
1981, Respondent filed a response to the Notice To
Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Rule 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer there-
to. The respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in
the complaint, unless the respondent is without
knowledge, in which case the respondent shall
so state, such statement operating as a denial.
The complaint was amended by an erratum issued on February 27.
1981
All allegations in the complaint, if no answer
is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not
specifically denied or explained in an answer
filed, unless the respondent shall state in the
answer that he is without knowledge, shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be
so found by the Board, unless good cause to
the contrary is shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on
Respondent specifically stated that, unless an
answer was filed to the complaint within 10 days
from service thereof "all the allegations in the
complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by [Re-
spondent] to be true and may be so found by the
Board." Further, according to the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, Respondent was advised by a cer-
tified letter dated March 12, 1981, that it had failed
to file an answer and that summary judgment
would be sought unless an answer to the complaint
was filed by March 20. 1981. No answer to the
complaint was filed by Respondent.
In its response to the Notice To Show Cause,
Respondent's president, William L. Devries, filed
with the Board a letter in which he contended,
inter alia, that an automobile accident incapacitated
him during the period of time as extended by the
Regional Director for the filing of an answer. Dev-
ries also alleged that Respondent is a small compa-
ny and therefore not represented by legal counsel.
Devries stated that Respondent took no action to
rebut the charges because it believed them to be ri-
diculous and mistakenly believed that the June 22
hearing date was the proper time to reply. Devries
denied the unfair labor practice charges and re-
quested that the motion for summary judgment be
denied as unfair and inappropriate in light of the
facts and circumstances. While this letter might set
forth justification for late filing of an answer, it
does not constitute an acceptable answer under the
requirements of Section 102.20. The complaint in
this case alleges numerous violations of the Act.
Respondent's one line general denial fails to specifi-
cally address any allegation and does not evidence
any serious effort by Devries to answer the com-
plaint.
As Respondent has not filed an answer which is
acceptable under the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions and as no good cause for its failure to do so
has been shown, in accordance with the rule set
forth above, the allegations of the complaint are
deemed to be admitted to be true and are so found.
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment. 2
Cf.VNeal B. Scott Commordlite. Inc.. 238 NLRB 321 1978).
258 NLRB No. 140
1070
HONOR GUARD SECURITY SERVICES
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, at all times material herein, has been
a District of Columbia corporation, and has main-
tained its principal office and place of business at
Washington, D.C., and an office and place of busi-
ness at the United States Coast Guard facilities lo-
cated in the city of San Juan and Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in providing secu-
rity and related services throughout Puerto Rico.
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations described above, annually per-
forms security services valued in excess of $50,000
for the United States Coast Guard at its various
facilities located in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been, at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Guards Federation of Puerto Rico
is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I)
On or about January 16, 1981, Respondent trans-
ferred its employee Julio Maldonado Lebron to a
less desirable work shift than he previously had
been assigned to, because he joined and assisted the
Union and engaged in other concerted activity for
the purposes of collective bargaining and mutual
aid and protection. Thus Respondent discriminated
in, and is discriminating in, regard to the hire and
tenure and terms and conditions of employment of
its employees, thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization. Accordingly, we find that Re-
spondent did thereby engage in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. The Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
Respondent's assistant general manager, Hector
Ramas Yordan, is a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act. Yordan interrogated
employees concerning their own and other employ-
ees' union membership, activities, and sympathies
on two occasions. His first interrogation was made
in or about the first or second of January 1981 at
Respondent's security post, "Stop 7-1/2," located
within the U.S. Coast Guard facility, in San Juan,
Puerto Rico. The second interrogation occurred on
or about January 8, 1981, at Respondent's security
post, "La Puntilla," also located within the U.S.
Coast Guard facility.
On or about January 7, 1981, Yordan solicited an
employer at Stop 7-1/2 to agree to a change in his
worksite in order to assign another employee, a
known union adherent, to a less desirable worksite
to isolate the adherent from other employees. On
or about the following day, Yordan informed an
employee at La Puntilla that Respondent would
create a security guard association to represent all
of its employees. Finally, on or about January 16,
1981, at Respondent's Isla Grande post located
within the U.S. Coast Guard facility, Yordan im-
pliedly threatened an employee with reprisals if he
or she refused to give a statement favorable to Re-
spondent to a Board agent who was investigating
charges in Case 24-CB-1 125.
Respondent's general manager, Juan Salgado, is
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act. On two occasions Salgado attempted to
influence the evidence employees would give to
the Board agent investigating unfair labor practices
filed with the Board. First, Salgado threatened an
employee with loss of benefits3 including a medical
plan in order to induce the employee to give evi-
dence favorable to Respondent. This threat was
made on or about January 19, 1981, at the Isla
Grande post in the presence of President William
L. Devries and Assistant General Manager Yordan.
Second, Salgado solicited and encouraged an em-
ployee to give false evidence to the Board agent in-
vestigating unfair labor practice charges. This act
occurred on or about February 5, 1981, at La Pun-
tilla.
Finally, on or about February 3, 1981, at La
Puntilla, Salgado interrogated an employee con-
cerning his filing of unfair labor practice charges
or his participation in Board proceedings.
We find that by each and all of the above acts of
Yordan and Salgado, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act. Accordingly, we find that Respondent did
I Although the complaint uses the word "profit," this is apparently an
error, as the General Counsel in his Motion for Summary Judgment uses
the word "benefits" when referring to this allegation of the complaint.
1071
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby engage in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. We have found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by transferring employee Julio Maldonado Lebron
to a less desirable work shift than he had previous-
ly been assigned to. We find it necessary, in order
to effectuate the purposes of the Act, to order Re-
spondent to offer Lebron full and immediate rein-
statement to his former job or, if this job no longer
exists, to an equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority rights or other rights and privileges.
We shall further order Respondent to make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as
the result of his unlawful transfer to a different
shift, by paying him the difference, if any, in com-
pensation received before and after the transfer
from the date of his transfer to the date Respond-
ent makes an offer of reinstatement, less net earn-
ings during said period, 4 with interest on any back-
pay owing to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed by Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977).5 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1961).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Honor Guard Security Services, A Division of
Chemical Technology, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' See Ogle Protection Service. Inc., 183 NLRH 682, 683 (1970).
s In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation. 250
NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forth therein
2. International Guards Federation of Puerto
Rico is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the act described in section III, A, above,
Respondent discriminated in, and is discriminating
in, regard to the hire, tenure, and terms and condi-
tions of employment of its employees, thereby dis-
couraging the union activities of its employees, and
thus engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By the acts described in section III, B, above,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced, and is interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing, employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and there-
by engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Honor Guard Security Services, A Division of
Chemical Technology, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Transferring or otherwise discriminating
against employees because of their union activities.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their and
other employees' union activities, membership, and
desires and the reasons for employees' filing of
unfair labor practice charges or participation in
proceedings before the Board.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals, if they
refuse to give statements favorable to Respondent
to any Board agent conducting an investigation in
a pending case.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of benefits,
including a medical plan, in order to induce them
to give evidence favorable to Respondent to any
Board agent conducting an investigation in a pend-
ing case.
(e) Informing employees that it has created or
will create a security guard association to represent
them.
(f) Soliciting and encouraging employees to give
false evidence to any Board agent concerning in-
vestigation of unfair labor practice charges.
(g) Soliciting employees to agree to a change in
their worksite in order to assign other employees
who are known union adherents to less desirable
1072
HONOR GUARD SECURITY SERVICES
worksites for the purpose of isolating the union ad-
herents from other employees.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer to Julio Maldonado Lebron immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if this
job no longer exists, to an equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority rights or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings suffered by him in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post in Spanish and English at its facilities
where employees are employed in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 24,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
6 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In-
ternational Guards Federation of Puerto Rico,
or any other labor organization, by transfer-
ring or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure or
other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to
their and other employees' union activities,
membership, and desires and the reasons for
employees' filing of unfair labor practice
charges or participation in proceedings before
the Board.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with re-
prisals if they refuse to give statements favora-
ble to Respondent to any Board agent con-
ducting an investigation in any pending cases.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss
of benefits, including a medical plan, in order
to induce them to give evidence favorable to
Respondent to any Board agent conducting an
investigation in any pending case.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that that
we are creating or will create a security guard
association to represent them.
WE WILL NOT solicit and encourage em-
ployees to give false evidence to any Board
agent concerning investigation of unfair labor
practice charges on file with the Board.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to agree to
a change in their work sites in order to assign
other employees who are known adherents of
International Guards Federation of Puerto
Rico, or any other labor organization, to less
desirable worksites for the purpose of isolating
union adherents from other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Julio Maldonado Lebron
immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position or, if this position no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority rights and other
rights and privileges, and WE WILL make him
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by him
by reason of his discriminatory transfer from
the shift on which he had previously worked,
plus interest.
HONOR GUARD SECURITY SERVICES,
A DIVISION OF CHEMICAL TECHNOL-
OGY, INC.
1073