PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 8, 2016

09-CA-162681 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 8, 2016)

JD–65–16
Louisville, KY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.
and Cases: 09–CA–162681
09–CA–162706
THE PROTECTION & RESPONSE
OFFICERS OF AMERICA, INC.
Daniel A. Goode, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Laura M. Hagan, Esq., for the Respondent.
Jacqueline Taylor, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRA SANDRON, Administrative Law Judge. This matter arises out of a consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing (the complaint) issued on January 29, 2016, against Paragon
Systems, Inc. (the Respondent or the Company), stemming from 8(a)(5) and (1) unfair labor
practice charges filed by The Protection & Response Officers of America, Inc. (PROA or the
Union).
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a trial in Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 26, 2016, at which I
afforded the parties full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence.
Issues
(1) On about September 1, 2015,1 following PROA’s certification on August
26 and replacement of the International Union, Security, Police and Fire
Professionals of America (SPFPA) as the collective-bargaining representative of
unit employees, did the Respondent unlawfully announce and implement changes
in employees’ health insurance and 401(k) benefit plans without providing PROA
with notice and an opportunity to bargain over those changes? The Respondent’s
primary defense is that it was required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to

1
All dates hereinafter occurred in 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–65–16
2
(2) implement those changes because the SPFPA trust funds would no longer
accept contributions on behalf of unit employees.2
(3) Since on about September 18, has the Respondent failed and refused to
furnish PROA with information that it requested on September 18, 23, and 5
October 2, concerning the changes in the health insurance and 401(k) benefit
plans, which information was relevant and necessary for PROA to perform its
duties as the collective-bargaining representative?
Witnesses and Credibility10
The General Counsel called John Kabakova, PROA’s international president. The
Respondent called Francesa Thompson, the Company’s benefits compensation administrator;
and Kenneth Miller, regional vice president of Humanomics, the benefits consultant for SPFPA.
15
The salient facts in this case are substantially stipulated and thus undisputed, and
resolution of the issues is not dependent on credibility resolution.
Facts
20
Based on the entire record, including testimony, documents, and stipulations, as well as
the posttrial briefs that the General Counsel and the Respondent filed, I find the following.
The Nature of the Respondent’s Business
25
The Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business in Herndon, Virginia,
is engaged in provided security at various Federal government facilities in approximately 30
states, including a facility located in Louisville, Kentucky. The Respondent has admitted Board
jurisdiction as alleged in the complaint, and I so find.
30
PROA’s Replacement of SPFPA
Prior to August 26, SPFPA represented the bargaining unit, consisting of all of the
Respondent’s armed and unarmed security officers performing guard duties as defined by
Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, assigned to Federal facilities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The35
unit consists of approximately 88 employees.
When the employees were represented by SPFPA, the Respondent made health insurance
and 401(K) benefit payments on their behalf to a trust fund established by SPFPA. The
employees were not enrolled in the Company’s own health insurance and 401(k) benefit plans.40
Pursuant to a petition that PROA filed on July 7, a mail ballot election was conducted. A
count took place on August 18: PROA received 52 votes and SPFPA 10, with two challenged

2
Although the Respondent has further asserted that its actions were also required by the Service Contract
Act, the Respondent provided no evidence of this, either testimonial or documentary. See the Respondent’s
counsel’s concession at Tr. 113 that her sole witness offered no testimony about this statute. Accordingly, I deem
such defense abandoned and will not further address it.
JD–65–16
3
ballots. Consequently, PROA was certified on August 26 as the collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
In late August, the Company received notification from SPFPA that the SPFPA trust fund
would no longer accept contributions for health and welfare or 401(k) benefits on behalf of unit 5
employees.
On about September 1, the Respondent sent letters to employees advising them that they
now had the option to enroll in the Company’s health insurance (Anthem Blue Cross for
medical) and 401(k) plans, and had 30 days to elect benefits. Throughout September, employees 10
did enroll, although the record does not reflect how many did so.3 Their benefits were effective
as of September 1. It is stipulated that the Respondent began enrolling unit employees in its own
health and retirement benefit plans without notifying PROA and affording it an opportunity to
bargain. It is further stipulated that at present, unit employees are still enrolled in the
Respondent’s health and welfare and 401(k) programs.15
Thompson testified that the Respondent was obligated by law, specifically the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), to immediately provide new medical coverage to replace that offered by
SPFPA. She also testified that employees had to elect benefits within 30 days, based both on the
ACA and the Company’s policy, or lose coverage; thus, they had to be enrolled in the new 20
insurance by September 30. However, she cited no specific provisions of the ACA, and the
Respondent’s counsel had no citations available to present.4 Moreover, the mere reference in the
Respondent’s brief (at 4) to 26 U.S.C. Section 4980H (ACA), without any explanation or
elaboration, or cited authorities stating that it imposed any requirements on the Respondent, is
meaningless. Therefore, I can make no findings of fact regarding ACA’s impact and, 25
accordingly, cannot find reliance on ACA a viable defense to the Respondent’s admitted
unilateral changes.5
The hourly cost for the new health insurance and 401(k) plans did not change, but
nothing in the record addresses whether any changes occurred in benefits, out-of-pocket 30
deductibles, or other terms, that made the new plans less or more desirable for employees. In
any event, the SPFPA plans were no longer an option. PROA does not have its own benefit trust
funds.
The Union’s Bargaining and Information Requests35
The Union, by an August 31 email from Union Attorney Jacqueline Taylor to Roman
Gomul, the Respondent’s vice president, requested bargaining.6 I credit Kabakova’s
uncontroverted testimony as follows. Taylor, Gomul, and Kabakova had a brief telephone
conference call on September 3. The Union requested bargaining and, at Gomul’s request, 40

3 See Jt. Exh. 14 at 2–7 (benefit packet receipt acknowledgment forms).
4 Tr. 69.
5 In light of this, I need not consider GC Exh. 2 and Kabakova’s testimony that FJC Security Service, another
company at which PROA took over the bargaining unit from SPFPA, held health insurance deductions in trust for
more than 30 days after the SPFPA trust fund stopping taking payments and until it negotiated an agreement with
PROA.
6 Jt. Exh. 3.
JD–65–16
4
scheduled a second conference call on September 11. They had the September 11 call as
scheduled. Taylor started off by stating that the Company had not yet presented its collective-
bargaining proposal and that the Union was still waiting for it. There was no mention of health
and welfare benefit programs in either conversation, and Gomul said nothing about the
Respondent already enrolling employees in its own health and welfare plans. The Union first 5
became aware of this when employees in mid-September so informed Kabakova and then PROA
President John Kelly.
On September 15, the Respondent made a proposal on health and welfare, including
proposed amounts of monthly payments toward qualified medical plans,7 which proposal the 10
Union did not accept.
The parties stipulated to the following:8
(1) The Union made the following information requests, as alleged in paragraph 8 of 15
the complaint:9
A. On September 18, by email, “[A]ll health insurance plans which the
Company proposes to present to bargaining unit employees. . . .”
20
B. On September 23 and 24, orally and by email, “[A] copy of any proposed
insurance/benefit plan and any documents proposed to be presented to
bargaining unit employees in this connection. If bargaining unit
employees have already been presented with such information, the Union
requests the date this information was presented to them, what documents 25
or other information was presented to them, and the effective date of this
change.”
(The Union also requested a description (summary plan) of any 401(k) plan.)10
30
C. On October 2, by email, the following: any documents submitted to
bargaining unit employees wherein they were requested to enroll in any
health and welfare plan, including any application signed by or submitted
to bargaining unit employees, any enrollment form signed by or submitted
to bargaining unit employees, and any acknowledgment form or other 35
document setting forth how bargaining unit employees’ health and welfare
benefits are to be allocated.
(2) All of the above requested information was necessary for, and relevant to, the
Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining 40
representative.

7 R. Exh. 1.
8 Tr. 15–18.
9 Jt. Exhs. 4, 5, 8. I have changed the quoted portions to conform to the actual wording in the documents.
10 See Jt. Exh. 7. The Union later requested negotiations over a 401(k) plan or plan modification. See Jt.
Exh. 10.
JD–65–16
5
(3) In response to PROA’s information requests, the Respondent provided only the
2015 summary description of the health insurance benefits (by email of
September 25), and six unit employee acknowledgment forms (by email of
October 19).11
5
Thus, the Respondent admittedly did not furnish the Union with all of the employee
acknowledgement forms; the entire Company health and welfare benefits plan, including where
the health and welfare sums are directed; or the 401(k) summary plan.
The Respondent has never asserted that any of the requested information did not exist, 10
sought clarification of the requests, or advised the Union that it believed all responsive
documents had been provided. Nor has the Respondent ever claimed that obtaining or furnishing
the information would be burdensome or that the Union acted in bad faith.
Analysis and Conclusions15
Changes in health insurance and 401(k) benefit plans
Health insurance benefits are a mandatory term of employment. Caterpillar, Inc., 355
NLRB 521, 522 (2010) (changes in drug prescription program); Coastal Derby Refining Co., 312 20
NLRB 495, 497 (1993) (coverage for working spouses); Trojan Mining & Processing, Inc., 309
NLRB 770, 771 (1992). Similarly, retirement benefits for current employees are also a
mandatory subject of bargaining. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 404 U.S. 157, 180
(1971); Mississippi Power Co., 332 NLRB 530, 530–531 (2000), enfd. in relevant part 284 F.3d
605 (5th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion); Midwest Power Systems, Inc., 323 NLRB 404 (1997), 25
enf. mem denied on other grounds 159 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
As Judge David Goldman stated in Latino Express, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 112, slip op. 12
(2014), “Board precedent has long been settled that, as a general rule, an employer with an
obligation to collectively bargain may not make unilateral changes in mandatory subjects of 30
bargaining without first bargaining to a valid impasse,” citing NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962). The Respondent does not allege impasse. Two other bases on which an employer may
lawfully make unilateral changes are that the union engaged in delay tactics or that the employer
had economic exigencies that compelled prompt action. See Pleasantview Nursing Home, Inc.,
335 NLRB 961, 962 (2001), revd. in part on other grounds 351 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2003); Bottom 35
Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373, 374 (1991), enfd. 15 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1994). The
Respondent has asserted neither.
Rather, the Respondent has averred that it was required by law, more specifically, the
ACA, to begin implementing the change to its Company-provided health benefit and retirement 40
plans on about September 1. Clearly, complying with Federal mandates would be a valid
defense. However, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating this; indeed,
the Respondent offered no evidence, either testimonial or documentary, in support of its
assertion. Accordingly, the Respondent has failed to establish that it was required by law to act
unilaterally. 45

11 Jt. Exhs. 6, 14.
JD–65–16
6
In Mcofire Paving Corp., 359 NLRB No. 10 (2012), the Board specifically addressed the
situation where one labor organization replaces another as the employees’ collective-bargaining
representative, and payments into the earlier representative’s benefit funds can no longer be
made. The Board cited precedent in other contexts and stated that “they involve similar policy 5
considerations and are instructive,” concluding:
They establish that when an employer is faced with the discontinuation of existing
benefits owing to circumstances beyond the employer’s control, it is not permitted
unilaterally to replace the benefits or to remit benefit contributions directly to the 10
unit employees because doing so would be inconsistent with the statutory duty to
bargain. Nor is the employer permitted to do nothing and simply allow
employees to be stripped of benefits. Rather, the employer must provide the
union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the development and
its impact on unit employees.15
359 NLRB at slip op. 7 (emphasis added). The Board therefore concluded that the Respondent
was required to timely notify the successor union of the discontinuation of the benefits and to
bargain over securing alternative benefits.
20
The Respondent (R. Br. at 3) cites Mcofire for the proposition that a company does not
violate the Act by unilaterally enrolling employees in a company’s health insurance plan after a
new union is certified. However, that case is distinguishable. There, the unilateral enrollment
followed several bargaining sessions between the employer and the successor union. Of
particular significance, in deeming such enrollment lawful, the Board relied “only on the fact”25
that the union stated during negotiations that the employees accepted the insurance plan offered
by the respondent, albeit “under protest.” Mcofire at slip op. 8. Here, in contrast, the Union was
not notified in advance of any changes in health insurance or 401(k) provisions and, ipso facto,
did not evince agreement to anything that the Respondent did unilaterally, including enrolling
employees into its own health insurance and 401(k) plans.30
The fact that PROA did not have its own benefit trust fund is irrelevant; the Union could
have attempted to negotiate for better employee benefits under the Company’s plans or from
other sources had it been given the opportunity. Similarly irrelevant is the Respondent’s
representation (R. Br. at 4–5) that the parties have engaged in negotiations after September and 35
been unable to reached agreement on health insurance benefits. Had the Respondent afforded
the Union advance notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to September 1, there is no telling
what might have resulted. Instead, the Respondent’s failure to do so precluded any possibility of
agreement at the time.
40
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
announcing and implementing changes to unit employees’ health and welfare and 401(k) benefit
plans without first affording the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.
45
JD–65–16
7
Failure to provide requested information
An employer is obliged to supply information requested by a collective-bargaining
representative that is relevant and necessary to the latter’s performance of its responsibilities to
the employees it represents. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt 5
Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). The parties stipulated that the information that the Union
requested regarding health and welfare benefits was relevant and necessary.12 The conclusion is
the same for information regarding the 401(k) plan, since retirement benefits constitute another
mandatory subject of bargaining. The Respondent has never claimed that any of the requested
information did not exist, sought clarification of the requests, advised the Union that it believed 10
all responsive documents had been provided, contended that obtaining or supplying the
information would be burdensome for the Company, or accused the Union of acting in bad faith.
The parties further stipulated that the Respondent did not furnish everything that was
requested; more specifically, the Respondent did not furnish the complete Company health and 15
welfare plans, more than just a few of the employee acknowledgment forms, or other information
pertaining to the enrollment of employees in its plan or full information about its operation.
Moreover, the Respondent did not furnish any information regarding the new 401(k) plan.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by not 20
furnishing the Union with all of the relevant and necessary information that it requested on
September 18, 23 and 14, and October 12.
The General Counsel argues in his brief (GC Br. at 17, 17 at fn. 7) that the limited
information the Respondent did provide was not timely provided and that this should be found an25
additional violation, on the basis that the matter was closely connected to allegations in the
complaint and was fully litigated. See Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 334 (1989),
enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990). He points out that he raised unreasonable delay in his
opening statement even though it is not alleged in the complaint.
30
More specifically, he said (at Tr. 20), “Respondent provided very few responsive
documents and delayed in providing those documents. . . .” However, after this passing
statement, nothing further whatsoever was said about undue delay during the remainder of the
trial, and no one asked the Respondent’s sole witness (Thompson) any questions regarding the
matter of the timing of furnishing the documents, including any explanation of why they were 35
not provided earlier. At no time during the course of the trial did the General Counsel request an
amendment to the complaint to include such an allegation.
In these circumstances, I disagree with the General Counsel’s assertion that the matter
was fully litigated. Rather, I conclude that the Respondent was not placed on proper notice that 40
the General Counsel was contending such a violation and, hence, not given a fair opportunity to
offer evidence on its behalf. See, Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC, 357 NLRB 2344, 2345 (2012);
United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 29, 308 NLRB 1155,1158, 1158 fn. 13 (1992); NLRB v.

12 The stipulation comports with Board precedent. See Honda of Haywood, 314 NLRB 443, 443 (1994), in
which the Board stated, “[T]he carrier of a health benefit plan is as much a component of a health and welfare plan
as are the levels of coverage,” in finding that requested information thereon was presumptively relevant and should
have been provided to the bargaining representative.
JD–65–16
8
Homemaker Shops, Inc., 724 F.2d 535, 542 et. seq. (6th Cir. 1984). Therefore, I will not
entertain a violation based on unreasonable delay in providing information. In any event, such a
violation is essentially subsumed by the broader violation of failing and refusing to furnish all of
the requested information.
5
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
10
2. The Protection & Response Officers of America, Inc. (the Union) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the following conduct, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and violated Section 15
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
(a) Announcing and implementing changes in health insurance and 401(k)
benefit plans without affording the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain,
20
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with information that it
requested regarding the changes in health insurance and 401(k) benefit plans, which information
was relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining
representative.
25
Remedy
Because I have found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.30
Because the Respondent unilaterally implemented new health insurance and 401(k)
benefit plans, I ordinarily would order the Respondent to rescind those changes and restore the
status quo ante as it existed prior to September 1, 2015, upon the Union’s request. The General
Counsel requests rescission (GC Br. Attachment A, proposed notice). However, rescission 35
assumes that there is something to which to revert, and it is undisputed that due to circumstances
outside of the Respondent’s control (i.e., SPFPA’s trust fund policy), return to the status quo
would be impossible. Ordering rescission potentially could jeopardize employees’ health
insurance and 401(k) benefits coverage. In these particular circumstances, I will not order
rescission but will order the Respondent to restore the status quo ante as far as restoring to40
employees the same benefits that they enjoyed prior to September 1, 2015, if the Union so
requests.
The Respondent is ordered to bargain with the Union over health insurance and 401(k)
benefits until such time as they reach an agreement or a lawful impasse based on good-faith 45
negotiations.
JD–65–16
9
The Respondent is further ordered to make any unit employees whole for any loss of
benefits and any additional expenses that they may have suffered as a result of its unilateral
conduct. See Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d
940 (9th Cir. 1981). The make-whole remedy shall be computed in accordance with Ogle
Protection Service, Inc.,183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), plus interest5
computed as set forth in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 5 (2010),
In addition, the Respondent shall compensate employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file a report with the 10
Regional Director for Region 9, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years. See Advoserv of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016); Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a
Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014).
15
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended13
ORDER
20
The Respondent, Paragon Systems, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
25
(a) Announcing or implementing any changes in health insurance or 401(k)
benefits, or other mandatory subjects of bargaining, without affording The Protection &
Response Officers of America, Inc. (the Union) prior notice and an opportunity to bargain.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information about the 30
new health insurance and 401(k) benefits that the Union requested on September 18, September
23 and 24, and October 2, 2015, or any other information that is relevant and necessary for the
Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 35
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.
40
(a) On request by the Union, restore the health and insurance benefits that
existed prior to September 1, 2015.

13 If 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.
JD–65–16
10
(b) On request by the Union, bargain over health insurance and 401(k)
benefits until the parties reach an agreement or a lawful impasse.
(c) Make employees whole by reimbursing them, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of the decision, for any loss of benefits and any additional expenses they 5
incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in health insurance and retirement benefits that were
implemented effective as of September 1, 2015.
(d) Provide the Union with all of the information regarding health insurance
and 401(k) benefits that it requested on September 18, 23 and 24, and October 2, 2015.10
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of its Kentucky
facilities at which unit employees work, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”14
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and 15
maintained for 60 consecutive 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, posting on an intranet or an internet set, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not 20
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 facility 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 September 1, 2015.25
(f) 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.
30
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 8, 2016

14
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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
An employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act must collectively bargain with the
labor organization that represents its employees concerning wages, hours, and working
conditions.
The Protection & Response Officers of America, Inc. (the Union) represents a unit of our armed
and unarmed security officers performing guard duties and assigned to Federal facilities in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
WE WILL NOT announce or implement changes to your health insurance and 401(k) benefits, or
other benefits, without affording the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide the Union with the information that it requests
concerning your health insurance and 401(k) benefits, or with other requested information that is
relevant and necessary for the Union to fulfill its duties as the collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise
of your rights under Section 7 of the Act, as set forth at the top of this notice.
WE WILL, on the Union’s request, restore the health insurance and 401(k) benefits that existed
prior to September 1, 2015.
WE WILL, on the Union’s request, bargain over the changes in health insurance and 401(k)
benefits that we made effective as of September 1, 2015, until the Union agrees to the changes,
we and the Union bargain to a collective-bargaining agreement, or we and the Union reach a
lawful impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL make employees whole by reimbursing them for any loss of benefits and additional
expenses they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in health insurance and 401(k)
benefits that we made effective as of September 1, 2015.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information regarding health insurance and 401(k) benefits
that it requested on September 18, 23 and 24, and October 2, 2015.
PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal Agency created in 1935 to enforce
the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether
employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by
employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or
election petition, you may speak confidentially to an agent with the Board's Regional Office set
forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board's website: www.nlrb.gov.
John Weld Peck Federal Building, 550 Main Street – Room 3003, Cincinnati, OH
Telephone: (513) 684-3686; Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/09–CA–162681 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (513) 684-3769.