Marla Security Service

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rudolph R. Zawadzki d/b/a Maria Security Service and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America . and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114. Case 7-CA-9308 June 16, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a charge filed on February 18, 1972, by International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114, herein called the Union, and duly served on Rudolph R. Zawadzki d/b/a Marla Security Service, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7, issued a complaint on March 24, 1972, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on August 5, 1971, following a Board election in Case 7-RC-10515, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re- spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; and that, commencing on or about August 5, 1971, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collective- ly with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, although the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. The Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint. On April 17, 1972, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to transfer and continue the matter before the Board and for summary judgment, based upon the Respondent's failure to file a timely answer as required by Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Subsequently, on April 25, 1972, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent failed to file a response to Notice To Show Cause. On May 4, 1972, the Union ' On April 10, 1972 , counsel for the General Counsel mailed to the Respondent a registered letter advising the Respondent of the provisions of Sec 102 20 and 102 21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations The Respondent was further notified that if no answer was received by April 12, filed a statement in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority 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 Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Serves 8, as amended, provides as follows: The respondent shall, within 10 days from the service of the complaint, file an answer thereto. 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. 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 served on the Respondent specifi- cally stated that, unless an answer was filed to the complaint within 10 days from the service thereof, "all of the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted true and may be so found by the Board." The Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint within 10 days from the service of the- complaint, or at any other time.' No good cause to the contrary having been shown, in accordance with the rule set forth above, the allegations in the complaint against the Respondent are deemed to be true. Accordingly, we find as true all the allegations of the complaint against the Respondent.2 We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judg- ment. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an individual proprietor doing business under the trade name and style of Marla Security Service. 1972, a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed To date, there has been no response from the Respondent. 2 Wilson & Sons, 193 NLRB No 51, and cases cited therein. 197 NLRB No. 82 MARLA SECURITY SERVICE 629 Respondent is engaged in the business of providing uniformed guards for the protection of property of commercial and industrial customers in Michigan. For the year ending December 31, 1971, a represent- ative period, the Respondent furnished guard serv- ices valued in excess of $200,000, of which sum more than $50,000 was received from enterprises such as Essex International, Inc., Robert Hall Clothes; Federal Department Stores; Greenfield Construction Co., Cangano Contracting Corp., C & C Excavating Co., and Midwest Metal Molding, Inc. During the year ending December 31, 1971, each of these named enterprises purchased and received goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources located outside the State. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent 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. B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about August 5 , 1971, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Com- mencing on or about August 5, 1971, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since August 5, 1971, and at all times thereafter, refused to barga n collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal , Respon- dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain- ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part -time guards em- ployed by the Employer; but excluding all office clerical employees , supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 2. The certification On June 29, 1971, a majority of the employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 7 designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargain- ing with the Respondent . The Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in said unit on August 5, 1971, and the Union continues to be such exclusive representative within I the- meanings of Section 9(a) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing 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)(5) and ( 1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica- tion as beginning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropri- ate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Construction 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10). The Board , upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Rudolph R. Zawadzki d/b/a Marla Security Service, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All full-time and regular part-time guards employed by the employer; but excluding all office clerical employees, supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since August 5, 1971, the above-named labor organization has been and now is the certified and exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about August 5, 1971, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon- dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing 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 Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Rudolph R. Zawadzki d/b/a Marla Security Service, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time guards em- ployed by the employer; but excluding all office clerical employees, supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise 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) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Center Line, Michigan, office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ^;er, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 3 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 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Inter- national Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amalgamated Local Union No. 114, as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. MARLA SECURITY SERVICE WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in the bargaining unit described below , with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree- ment. The bargaining unit is: All full-time and regular part -time guards employed by the employer ; but excluding all office clerical employees, supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 631 Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200. RUDOLPH R. ZAWADZKI D/B/A MARLA SECURITY SERVICE (Employer)