Nevada Security Innovation Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 2004

341 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

NEVADA SECURITY INNOVATIONS, LTD. 953
Nevada Security Innovations, Ltd. and Federation of
Police, Security, & Correction Officers –
AFSPA. Case 31–CA–26020
May 18, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On December 22, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Jay
R. Pollack issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions1 and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Nevada Security Innovations,

1 We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5)
and (1) by refusing to bargain with the Union. The Respondent argues
that the Union transferred its bargaining rights to an affiliated local,
Local 2001, and that the Respondent, therefore, has no obligation to
bargain with the Union. In support of this argument, the Respondent
relies in part on the November 12, 2002 letter agreement between the
Union and Local 2001, in which Local 2001 agreed to provide “logisti-
cal assistance” to the Union. The Respondent also relies on certain
conduct by Local 2001 after the letter agreement.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent’s argument lacks merit.
In addition to the reasons stated by the judge, we emphasize that the
Respondent refused to bargain with the Union even before the Novem-
ber 12, 2002 letter agreement.
We further note that Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 277 NLRB 1353
(1985), relied on by the Respondent, is distinguishable. Sisters of
Mercy involved a clear and unequivocal attempt by the bargaining
representative, Local 417, to transfer jurisdiction to another local, Local
7. Local 417 notified the respondent that Local 7 had become the “of-
ficial representative” of the unit in accordance with “the stated wishes
of the majority” of the unit employees. Local 417 told the respondent
to “direct all future communications concerning wages, hours, and
working conditions” to Local 7. Under those circumstances, the Board
found that Local 417 unequivocally disclaimed interest in further repre-
senting the unit. Therefore, the respondent was not obligated to bargain
with Local 417. See id. at 1354. Unlike Sisters of Mercy, the evidence
in the present case fails to show an unequivocal disclaimer of interest
by the Union. Indeed, the November 12, 2002 letter agreement empha-
sized that the Union, not Local 2001, would be in charge of negotia-
tions on behalf of the unit. The February 18, 2003 written declaration
by the Union’s secretary-treasurer also clearly affirms the Union’s
consistent willingness to fulfill its role as the certified bargaining repre-
sentative for these unit employees. Accordingly, we agree with the
judge that the Respondent’s obligation to bargain with the Union was
not extinguished.
Ltd., Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Ann J. White, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Norman H. Kirshman, Esq. (Kirshman Harris & Rosenthal), of
Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Respondent.
Sidney H. Kalban, Esq., of New York, New York, for the Un-
ion.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in trial at Los Angeles, California, on October 20, 2003.
On November 14, 2002, Federation of Police, Security, & Correc-
tion Officers - AFSPA (the Union) filed the charge in Case 31–
CA–26020 alleging that Nevada Security Innovations, Ltd. (Re-
spondent) committed certain violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act). On
December 30, 2002, the Acting Regional Director for Region 31
of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a com-
plaint and notice of hearing against Respondent, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respon-
dent filed a timely answer to the complaint, denying all wrongdo-
ing.
On August 1, 2002, the Union was certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent’s security
officers employed at various Federal agencies, locations, and fa-
cilities. See Nevada Security Innovations, LTD., 337 NLRB 1108
(2002). The complaint alleges that the Union is the certified col-
lective-bargaining representative of a unit of Respondent’s secu-
rity officers and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union on request.
Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board
and the General Counsel filed a Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment. Respondent raised in its Motion for Summary, inter
alia, a defense that after certification of the Union, the Union
transferred its bargaining rights to an affiliated local union, Local
2001. Therefore, Respondent argued that it had no obligation to
bargain with the Union. The General Counsel alleged that the
Union remained the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
at all times since certification. The Union specifically denied that
a transfer of bargaining rights occurred.
On May 29, 2003, the Board issued an unpublished Order de-
nying both Motions for Summary Judgment. The Board found
“that neither the Respondent nor the General Counsel has shown
that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
Union transferred its bargaining rights.” The Board stated, “[F]or
this reason alone, we deny the General Counsel’s Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment.” For that reason, and for other reasons,
not relevant to this decision,1 the Board denied the Respondent’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Thus, the issue in the instant case is whether the Union trans-
ferred its bargaining rights to Local 2001, thereby privileging
Respondent’s refusal to bargain with the Union.
1 The Board overruled defenses that Respondent raised in this pro-
ceeding, which had been, previously dismissed in the representation
proceeding.
341 NLRB No. 126
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 954
The parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to in-
troduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to file briefs. On the entire record, from my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses,2 and having considered the
posthearing briefs of the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business
of providing security services to various Federal agencies in
California and Nevada. In the 12 months prior to the issuance
of the complaint, Respondent received revenue in excess of
$50,000 from the Federal Government. The Board found, dur-
ing the summary judgment procedure, that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and the Board found that the Union is a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
As stated earlier, on August 1, 2002, the Board issued a deci-
sion and certification of representative certifying the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent’s security officers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
California, and overruling Respondent’s objections to the
Board conducted representation proceeding. At footnote 2 of
the Board’s decision, 337 NLRB at 1109, the Board stated:

The Employer also contends that [the Union] should not be
certified because it intends to transfer its bargaining rights to
[Local 2001]. The hearing officer rejected this contention on
the ground that it raises a “post-election matter.” We agree.
If any post-certification changes in bargaining representative
were to occur, they may be addressed in appropriate subse-
quent proceedings. See, e.g., Goad Co., 333 NLRB 677
(2001) (employer did not violate Sec. 8(a)(5) when it refused
to bargain after the statutory bargaining representative trans-
ferred its representational responsibilities to another labor or-
ganization). Here, it is not clear that [the Union] intended,
upon certification, to transfer its bargaining rights . . . . If, af-
ter certification, [the Union] seeks to transfer bargaining
rights, the Board can deal with that in an appropriate case.

As stated earlier, upon cross motions for summary judgment,
on May 29, 2003, the Board ordered a hearing on the issue of
whether the Union transferred its bargaining rights to Local 2001,
after certification.
On August 15, 2002, the Union’s secretary-treasurer wrote
Respondent requesting that Respondent contact the Union to
begin collective bargaining. On August 30, Respondent
through its attorney replied that the Board was in error in certi-

2 The credibility resolutions have been derived from a review of the
entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due regard for the logic of
probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teachings of NLRB
v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). As to those witnesses
testifying in contradiction to the findings, their testimony has been
discredited, either as having been in conflict with credited documentary
or testimonial evidence or because it was in and of itself incredible and
unworthy of belief.
fying the Union as bargaining agent and that Respondent would
not bargain with the Union “unless the certification is deter-
mined to be enforceable.” On October 1, 2002, the Union
again requested that Respondent commence collective bargain-
ing. On October 29, Respondent’s attorney denied the request
to bargain, challenging the Board’s certification.
On November 12, 2002, the Union entered into an agreement
with its Local 2001 in San Pedro, California, providing that
Local 2001:3

1. Hold meetings with the membership [the bargaining
unit of Respondent’s employees].
2. Make up mailings to the membership.
3. Work with the leadership of Nevada Security Inno-
vations.
4. Keep up to date records of all complaints, unfair la-
bor practices and other items that need to be handled.
5. Keep the [Union] informed of [Local 2001’s] activi-
ties.

The last line of the agreement between the Union and its Local
2001 stated, “As the certified bargaining representative, the
National will, of course, be in charge of negotiations once the
Company agrees to sit down and bargain.” On November 14,
the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge alleging
a refusal to bargain by Respondent.
On December 5, 2002, Randy Brown, president of Local
2001, wrote Respondent stating,

On November 13, 2002, [the Union] informed me that
[the certified bargaining unit employees] were now part of
our local, Local 2001. It is as their representative that I
am now contacting you.
On December 1, 2002, the Local held its first united
local meeting to discuss the direction the Local would take
in beginning the collective bargaining process. With that
in mind, we are requesting to meet with you to discuss is-
sues of importance to the officers, relative to their pay and
benefits as well as working conditions, at the earliest pos-
sible opportunity.
As a result of your previous refusal to recognize the
vote and wishes of the employees, we feel that it is im-
perative to advise you that should you not respond to this
notification to commence negotiations in good faith prior
to December 31, 2002, the Local will have no choice to
consider initiation of job action.

Respondent did not answer Brown’s request for bargaining.
On December 13, 2002, Brown wrote the bargaining unit em-
ployees a letter entitled “welcome aboard” in which he stated
that the Union “was giving Local 2001 the opportunity to ex-
pand our service to our fellow Union Brothers and Sisters.”
Brown then welcomed the employees into Local 2001. Brown
further stated, “[T]o commence our efforts to represent you, we
have scheduled a meeting of the general membership to famil-
3 The Union’s small staff is located on the East Coast. The alleged
purpose of the November 12 agreement was to minimize travel ex-
penses for the Union. Local 2001, on the other hand, expected to ob-
tain new members for Local 2001 as a result of its efforts.
NEVADA SECURITY INNOVATIONS, LTD. 955
iarize you with the negotiation process.” On January 8, 2003,
Brown informed the members of Local 2001 that job action
against Respondent was imminent. When Respondent did not
respond to Brown’s December 5 request to bargain, Brown
organized some job actions at the Los Angeles International
Airport.
On January 10, 2003, Brown wrote the Federal General Ser-
vices Administration a letter in which he urged GSA not to
renew its contract with Respondent “until such time as good
faith negotiations have taken place and a collective bargaining
agreement is in place.”
While Brown is president of Local 2001, he holds no posi-
tion with the Union. Brown testified that before sending the
December 5, 2002 letter requesting bargaining to Respondent,
he sent a draft of the letter to the Union’s then business man-
ager.4 Brown received permission to send the letter. Brown
further testified that the shop steward for Respondent’s em-
ployees had informed him that the unit employees had voted to
become members of Local 2001. Howard Johannssen, presi-
dent of the Union, testified that the unit employees could
choose to be a separate local of the Union, members of an exist-
ing local of the Union, or members-at-large of the Union. Ac-
cording to Johannssen, the Union had not yet conducted such a
vote among the unit employees. While Brown testified that the
bargaining unit employees were members of Local 2001, Jo-
hannsen testified that the unit employees were members of the
Union. In the absence of a collective-bargaining agreement, the
bargaining unit employees were not paying dues to either the
Union or Local 2001.
I draw the inference that Brown and the business manager
expected that the bargaining unit employees would become
members of Local 2001 and that the Union and Local 2001
would share union dues pursuant to the Union’s procedures.
However, this procedure would take place after a collective-
bargaining agreement was in place. Under the Union’s normal
procedures after the contract is reached, the employees can
choose to be their own local, affiliated with an existing local or
members at large of the National Union.
On February 18, 2003, while the cross-motions for summary
judgment were pending, the Union’s secretary-treasurer, filed a
declaration which stated, “[S]o there can be no confusion . . .
FOSCO, the National Union, is the certified bargaining repre-
sentative for the unit employees and has never delegated au-
thority elsewhere nor authorized any person or other entity to
fulfill that role.”
Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent argues that subsequent to the certification, Re-
spondent transferred its representational rights to Local 2001.
It is well settled that it is the duty of an employer to bargain
solely with a statutory representative and no other person or
group. However, a bargaining representative “may . . . confer
upon an agent . . . authority to act on its behalf.” Goad Co., 333
NLRB 667 (2001); Rath Packing Co., 275 NLRB 255, 256

4 The Union’s business manager died prior to the instant hearing.
While the Union argues that there is no evidence to corroborate
Brown’s testimony that he received permission to send the December 5
letter, I credit Brown’s testimony.
(1985). Employers and unions have the right “to choose whom-
ever they wish to represent them in formal labor negotiations.”
General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir.
1969). Although a certified representative may delegate its
duties under a contract, it cannot delegate its responsibilities.
Goad Co., Id.; Mine Workers Local 17, 315 NLRB 1052, 1064
(1994); see also Reading Anthracite Co., 326 NLRB 1370
(1998).
In Goad, supra, the respondent-employer’s employees, for a
number of years, were represented by various locals of the
Plumbers Union. Eventually, Local 420 became the Plumbers
Union’s local representing the respondent-employer’s employ-
ees. The president of the Plumbers Union wrote the respon-
dent-employer advising him that the Plumbers Union was trans-
ferring jurisdiction over the bargaining unit employees to a
different local, Local 562. The respondent-employer subse-
quently refused to bargain with Local 562. An unfair labor
practice charge was filed against the respondent-employer and
the regional director dismissed the charge. That dismissal was
upheld on appeal. Thereafter, in an effort to circumvent that
determination, Local 420 and Local 562 entered into an agree-
ment in which Local 420 attempted to designate Local 562 as
the agent of Local 420 for “negotiating and servicing” the con-
tract with the respondent-employer including “other actions
comprising the duty of representation.” In addition, the two
locals executed a waiver absolving Local 420 for all liability
for Local 562’s actions.
The Board held that Local 429 did not simply enlist the aid
of an agent; rather it transferred its representational responsi-
bilities to Local 562, which was not the certified representative
of the employees. The Board found that the respondent-
employer had no obligation to bargain with Local 562 and dis-
missed the complaint.
Prior to Goad, supra, the Board, in Sherwood Ford, 188
NLRB 131 (1971), found no obligation to bargain where a local
union sought to substitute another local union as bargaining
agent. Sherwood Ford involved a local union, Local 1, whose
leadership was inexperienced in bargaining on behalf of auto-
mobile salesmen. That local sought to affiliate with Local 604,
an automobile salesmen’s local. Refusal to bargain charges
filed by Local 604 were dismissed when the investigation dis-
closed that the affiliation vote among members of Local 1 was
defective due to a lack of notice. Thereafter, on August 21,
1968, the members of Local 1 ratified a resolution which desig-
nated Local 604 as the “duly constituted representative” of
Local 1 “to appear on behalf of and represent” Local 1 in bar-
gaining with Sherwood Ford, Inc.” Id. at 132. Sherwood Ford
refused to bargain with representatives of Local 604. The Board
found no violation and adopted the decision of the trial exam-
iner whose discussion of the issue presented stated:

As Respondent could not lawfully have recognized
Local 604 as the bargaining representative of the employ-
ees, we turn to the question whether it was required to rec-
ognize that Local as the bargaining representative of Local
1. Setting aside for the moment the legalisms in which the
resolution [in which Local 1 appoints Local 604] is
couched, the record otherwise fully supports Respondent’s

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 956
contention that the August 21 maneuver was a patent at-
tempt to substitute Local 604 as the bargaining agent in
place of Local 1 and that it was a device, subterfuge, or
stratagem by which the two locals sought to circumvent
the earlier rulings of the Regional Director [who had held
there was no obligation to bargain with Local 604].
. . . .
Though the General Counsel cites authority for the
familiar principle that a statutory bargaining representative
may select outside experts and other advisors as personnel
of its bargaining team, [footnoted omitted] the facts in the
present case leave that principle without application, for
here the parties were attempting an outright substitution of
representatives, not just the association of expert aides.
[Id. at 133, 134.]

In the instant case, the Union never notified Respondent that
it had transferred its jurisdiction or representational responsi-
bilities to Local 2001. The Union never notified Respondent
that Brown or Local 2001 were its agents. Here, after Respon-
dent’s attorney notified the Union that Respondent would test
the Board’s certification, the Union entered into an agreement
with its Local 2001 providing that Local 2001; hold meetings,
make up mailings, work with the employee leadership of Re-
spondent, keep records and inform the Union of its activities.
The agreement clearly stated, “As the certified bargaining rep-
resentative, the National will, of course, be in charge of nego-
tiations once the Company agrees to sit down and bargain.”
Respondent had refused to bargain, citing disagreement with
the certification, prior to any demand to bargain by Brown.
The General Counsel and the Union argue that Brown did
not have authority to request bargaining with Respondent.
Section 2(13) of the Act, states: “In determining whether any
person is acting as an ‘agent’ of another person so as to make
such other person responsible for his acts, the question of
whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or
subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.” In determining
whether an individual is an agent of the employer, the Board
applies the common law principles of agency as set forth in the
Restatement (Second) of Agency Allegany Aggregates, 311
NLRB 1165 (1993); Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924, 925–926
(1989). Under the doctrine of apparent authority, agency status
may be established where the employer’s manifestations to a
third party supply a reasonable basis for the third party, to be-
lieve that the employer has authorized the alleged agent to do
the acts in question. Allegany Aggregates, supra at 1165. Thus,
either the employer must intend to cause the third person to
believe that the alleged agent is authorized to act for him, or the
employer should realize that its conduct is likely to create such
belief. Service Employees Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance),
291 NLRB 82, 83 (1988), statements of the putative agent do
not constitute evidence of agency status. MPG Transport, LTD,
315 NLRB 489, 493 (1994), enfd. 91 F.3d 144 (6th Cir. 1996);
Virginia Mfg. Co., 310 NLRB 1261, 1266 (1993), enfd. 27 F.3d
565 (4th Cir. 1994). While the General Counsel and the Union
argue that Brown acted outside his authority, the evidence es-
tablishes that Brown sent a draft of his request to bargain to the
Union’s business manager and received permission to send the
request to Respondent. Thus, the record here establishes that
Local 2001 (acting through Brown) was authorized by the Un-
ion’s business manager to be the Union’s limited agent and to
send the request to bargain.
The first issue is whether Brown was requesting bargaining
on behalf of Respondent or on behalf of Local 2001. Brown
stated that the employees were part of his Local and that he was
requesting bargaining on their behalf. He stated that he was
requesting bargaining based upon a meeting of the Local and
threatened job action by the Local. He later initiated job action.
Based on Brown’s actions, Respondent could assume that
Brown was seeking to substitute Local 2001 as the bargaining
representative. Thus, under Goad, supra, and Sherwood Ford,
supra, Respondent could refuse to bargain with Local 2001.
In the instant case, as distinguished from Goad and Sher-
wood Ford, the General Counsel seeks to compel the Respon-
dent to bargain with the certified bargaining representative and
not a purported agent or substituted representative. The fun-
damental issue is whether Respondent’s failure and refusal to
bargain with the Union is excused by Brown’s request that
Respondent bargain with Local 2001. I conclude that it does
not. Respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union. It
decided to test the Board’s certification and to refuse to bar-
gain, prior to Brown’s request to bargain. Thereafter, the Un-
ion agreed with Local 2001 that Local 2001 would act as its
agent. However, that agency was expressly limited by the Un-
ion’s retention of control over collective bargaining. Respon-
dent could ignore a request to bargain by Local 2001, or any
other labor organization, not the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees. However, the Union remains the ex-
clusive bargaining representative and did not waive its right to
bargain. Therefore, I find Respondent must still bargain collec-
tively with the Union. I further find that Respondent has failed
to carry its burden of proving that the Union had transferred its
bargaining rights and responsibilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing on and after August 15, 2002, to
meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist, to meet and bargain on request with the
Union, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of
their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by the
law, the Board shall construe the initial period of the certifica-
NEVADA SECURITY INNOVATIONS, LTD. 957
tion as beginning the date the Respondent begins to bargain in
good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB
785 (1962) ; Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd.
328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964);
Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd.
350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
On the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
the entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Nevada Security Innovations, Inc., Los
Angeles and Orange Counties, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to meet and bargain with Federation
of Police, Security, & Correction Officers - AFSPA as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, meet and bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:

Included: All full time and regular part time security officers
employed at various federal agencies locations and facilities
as set forth in Attachment B to the Stipulated Election
Agreement.

Excluded: Office clerical employees, professional employees,
all other employees, supervisors (including lead security offi-
cers) as defined in the Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Fa-
cilities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60

5 All motions inconsistent with this recommended order are hereby
denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and
recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
6 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.”
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily 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
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate
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 August 15, 2002.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
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 any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Federation of Police Se-
curity, & Correction Officers - AFPSA as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, meet and bargain with the Union and
put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bargaining
unit:

Included: All full time and regular part time security officers
employed at various federal agencies locations and facilities
as set forth in Attachment B to the Stipulated Election
Agreement.

Excluded: Office clerical employees, professional employees,
all other employees, supervisors (including lead officers) as
defined in the Act.

NEVADA SECURITY INNOVATIONS, LTD.