CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC.

361 NLRB No. 38 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc. and United Security Professionals, Local 2. Case 18–CA–130606 August 29, 2014 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, HIROZAWA, AND JOHNSON This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Re- spondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bar- gaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed by the Union on June 12, 2014, the General Counsel issued the complaint on June 25, 2014, alleging that the Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to recognize and bargain following the Union’s certification in Case 18–RC–120181. (Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representation pro- ceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Sections 102.68 and 102.69(g). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer, admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 15, 2014, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but con- tests the validity of the certification on the basis of its position that the petitioned-for lieutenants are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representa- tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad- duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir- cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this un- fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord- ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.1 On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, the Respondent, a Delaware cor- poration with a principal office and place of business located in Springfield, Virginia and multiple worksites across the country, including the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Monticello, Minnesota (the Monticello, Minnesota facility), has been engaged in the business of providing security services. In conducting its operations described above, during the calendar year ending on December 31, 2013, the Re- spondent purchased and received at its Monticello, Min- nesota facility goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Minnesota. We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union, United Security Pro- fessionals, Local 2, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Certification Following the representation election held by mail bal- lot and concluded on April 9, 2014, the Union was certi- fied on April 16, 2014, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the follow- ing appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time lieutenants em- ployed by Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc. at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, ex- cluding all other employees, office clerical employees, managerial employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Union continues to be the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the unit employees under Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Refusal to Bargain By letter dated May 27, 2014, the Union requested that the Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit 1 Member Miscimarra would have granted review in the underlying representation proceeding. He agrees, however, that the Respondent has not raised any new matters that are properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding and that summary judgment is appropriate, with the parties retaining their respective rights to litigate relevant issues on appeal. 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees and, since June 11, 2014, the Respondent has refused to do so. We find that this failure and refusal constitutes an un- lawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing since June 11, 2014, to recog- nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of the 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, we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agreement. To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi- cation as beginning the date the Respondent begins to bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., Monticello, Minnesota, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with United Security Professionals, Local 2, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the following appropriate unit on terms and condi- tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All full-time and regular part-time lieutenants em- ployed by the Employer at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, managerial employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Monticello, Minnesota, copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac- es, 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 site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent 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 facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur- rent employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since June 11, 2014. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 18 a sworn certifi- cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. August 29, 2014 ______________________________________ Philip A. Miscimarra, Member ______________________________________ Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member ______________________________________ Harry I. Johnson, III, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 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.” 3 SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. 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 bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain with United Security Professionals, Local 2, as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining unit. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the fol- lowing bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time lieutenants em- ployed by us at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, managerial employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/18-CA-130606 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.