United Security & Police Officers of America (USPOA) (MVM, Inc.)

NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA 325 National Union United Security & Police Officers of America and Danyeta Jones and Fidelis Njinkeng. Cases 05–CB–112215 and 05–CB– 114849 March 26, 2015 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS JOHNSON AND MCFERRAN The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agreement. Upon a charge filed by Danyeta Jones on August 28, 2013, an amended charge filed by Jones on November 4, 2013, a charge filed by Fidelis Njinkeng on October 17, 2013, and an amended charge filed by Njinkeng on November 19, 2013, the Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint on November 26, 2013, against National Union United Security & Police Offic- ers of America (the Respondent), alleging that it violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Subsequently, the Respondent executed an informal settlement agreement, which was approved by the Acting Regional Director for Region 5 on March 12, 2014.1 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed, among other things, to distribute the notice by email to all members and employees of MVM, Inc., employed in the bargaining unit represented by the Respondent, and to forward a copy of that email and a list of all of the recipients’ email addresses to the Re- gion’s compliance officer. The Respondent also agreed to notify all bargaining unit employees in writing of their rights under NLRB v. General Motors, 373 U.S. 734 (1963), and Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), and to provide the Regional Director with copies of all correspondence the Respondent received from employees in response to its General Motors/Beck notice. The Respondent also agreed to provide the Re- gional Director with all records showing dues payments to the Respondent from bargaining unit employees from September 7, 2012, to the present. The Respondent also agreed to recognize as objecting nonmembers Fidelis Njinkeng (as of May 17, 2013), and Danyeta Jones and Princess Griffith (both as of Aug. 17, 2013), and to retroactively reduce the amount of dues and fees they were charged during that time period. The Respondent also agreed to provide Jones and Griffith with information setting forth the percentage of the re- duction in dues and fees charged to Beck objectors, the basis for that calculation, notice of an opportunity to challenge that calculation, and the procedure for chal- 1 All dates are in 2014, unless otherwise specified. lenging the Respondent’s calculation. The Respondent further agreed to refund with interest, to the extent not already refunded, those portions of dues and fees collect- ed or charged at the full member rate rather than the ob- jecting nonmember rate from Njinkeng since May 17, 2013, from Jones and Griffith since August 17, 2013, and from any other employees who first paid dues on or after February 28, 2013, who filed a Beck objection, and to provide copies of these refund checks to the Regional Director. The Respondent agreed to reimburse employ- ees for retroactive dues paid after February 28, 2013, for the period covering April 1 to September 7, 2012. The Respondent further agreed to provide Griffith, Jones, and Njinkeng copies of the Respondent’s 2013 statements of expenses for representational and nonrepresentational activities. The settlement agreement also contained the following provision: The Charged Party agrees that in case of non- compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no- tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem- edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will issue a complaint that will include the allegations spelled out above in the Scope of Agreement section. Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for default judgment with the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The Charged Party understands and agrees that all the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted and it will have waived its right to file an Answer to such complaint. The only issue that may be raised before the Board is whether the Charged Par- ty defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other proceeding, find all allegations of the complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. The Board may then issue an order providing a full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered en- forcing the Board order ex parte, after service or at- tempted service upon Charged Party/Respondent at the last address provided to the General Counsel. The exhibits attached to the General Counsel’s memo- randum in support of Motion for Default Judgment, as well as the exhibits attached to the Respondent’s re- sponse, document the substantial postsettlement corre- 362 NLRB No. 37 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 326 spondence occurring from March through June 20142 between the Respondent and the Regional Office con- cerning compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. According to the exhibits, which indicate that the Respondent did not meet compliance deadlines on June 9 and 17, the Region’s compliance officer in- formed the Respondent’s attorney by email dated June 23 that she had recommended that the Region file a motion for default judgment, noting that the Respondent had consistently ignored every deadline the Region had pro- vided. The compliance officer’s recommendation al- lowed that “[i]f the evidence arrives before [the motion] is filed, or shortly thereafter, we can always deviate from that course . . . .” By letter dated July 25, the Regional Director informed the Respondent that it had failed to comply with several provisions of the settlement agreement, and if its non- compliance was not cured by August 8, the Region would initiate default proceedings, including reissuing a complaint and filing a motion for default judgment with the Board. The Respondent did not respond. Accordingly, having received no response to his July 25 letter and pursuant to the terms of the noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement, the Acting Re- gional Director issued a consolidated complaint on Au- gust 15, alleging that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), and, on August 18, filed a motion to transfer the case to the Board and for default judgment, with exhibits at- tached. On August 21, the Board issued an order trans- ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. On Sep- tember 4, the Respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, with exhibits attached. On September 18, the General Counsel filed a reply to the Respondent’s response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent has failed to comply with numerous terms of the settlement agreement. The Respondent admits some of these alle- gations, responds to others, and implicitly argues that it had cause not to comply with the settlement agreement. For the following reasons, we find the Respondent’s ar- guments unavailing. The General Counsel first alleges that the Respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to distribute 2 The parties have appended as exhibits email correspondence be- tween the Respondent’s counsel and the Region dated March 5, 18, 24, April 14, May 29, June 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, and 23. the notice to employees and members by email to all employees in the MVM bargaining unit represented by the Respondent, and to forward a copy of that email and a list of all the recipients’ email addresses to the Re- gion’s compliance officer.3 The Respondent admits that it did not distribute the notice to the unit employees or to the compliance officer. The General Counsel also alleges that the Respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to notify all bargaining unit employees in writing of their Beck rights.4 Although the Respondent asserts, in its response to the Notice to Show Cause, that it issued the Beck no- tice to employees by mail on July 23, it does not contend that it notified the Region that it had done so. Nor did it provide the Region with a copy of the Beck letter sent to employees, as required by the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the General Counsel’s assertion that the Respondent failed to fulfill this requirement of the set- tlement agreement stands. The General Counsel further contends that default judgment is warranted because the Respondent failed to provide the Regional Director with copies of all corre- spondence the Respondent received from employees in response to its Beck notice. The Respondent asserts that only one member has indicated a desire to become a Beck objector and that the Respondent intends to process the correspondence it has received from that member pursuant to the requirements of the settlement agreement. Although the Respondent included a letter from a Beck objector as an exhibit attached to its response to the mo- tion for default judgment, the Respondent does not dis- pute the General Counsel’s contention that it has not ful- filled its obligation under the settlement agreement to provide such correspondence to the Regional Director. Next, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent failed to provide the Regional Director with all records showing dues payments to the Respondent from bargain- ing unit employees from February 2014 to the present. 3 Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, the General Counsel does not allege that the Respondent failed to sign and post the notices for 60 days or send labels to the Region for mailing of the notices. 4 The Respondent argues that two provisions of the settlement agreement are inconsistent: the Respondent reads attachment A, secs. 2 and 6, to require it to provide a Beck notice to the charging parties and all bargaining unit members, while sec. 3 requires the Respondent to submit a copy of the Beck notice to the Region before sending it to unit members. We find the Respondent’s argument unavailing. The Re- spondent submitted its proposed Beck notice, and proposed correspond- ence apprising bargaining unit members of their rights under the set- tlement agreement, to the Region on March 18. Its claim that it be- lieved the settlement agreement required approval prior to its issuance was addressed in correspondence dated June 23, when the compliance officer informed the Respondent that prior approval was not required and the Respondent should issue the Beck notice immediately. NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA 327 In its response, the Respondent contends that it provided the records as attachments to a March 5 email to the Re- gion, but in support it submitted only a copy of a March 5 email without any such attachments. The General Counsel next alleges that the Respondent has failed to refund with interest, to the extent not al- ready refunded, those portions of dues and fees collected or charged at the full member rate rather than the object- ing nonmember rate from Njinkeng since May 17, 2013, from Jones and Griffith since August 17, 2013, and from any other employee who first paid dues on or after Feb- ruary 28, 2013, and filed a Beck objection, and to provide copies of these refund checks to the Regional Director. The General Counsel further alleges that the Respondent has not reimbursed employees for retroactive dues paid after February 28, 2013, for the period covering April 1 to September 7, 2012.5 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent has included copies of checks to Jones and Njinkeng dated August 7, 2014, with the memorandum “Reimb. Union Dues Paid.” The Re- spondent does not contend that it has reimbursed Griffith or any other employees or that it has provided copies of any refund checks to the Regional Director. Thus, the General Counsel’s allegations are undisputed. The General Counsel further contends that default judgment is warranted because the Respondent failed to: recognize as objecting nonmembers Njinkeng (as of May 17, 2013), and Jones and Griffith (both as of Aug. 17, 2013); retroactively reduce the amount of dues and fees they were charged during those periods, and provide them with information setting forth the percentage of the reduction in dues and fees charged to Beck objectors, the basis for that calculation, notice of an opportunity to challenge that calculation, and the procedure for chal- lenging the Respondent’s calculation; and provide them with copies of the Respondent’s 2013 statements of ex- penses for representational and nonrepresentational activ- ities. The Respondent does not specifically respond to these allegations. Instead, it broadly asserts that “[t]he only item, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement . . . which remains unaccomplished is the electronic No- tice.”6 We find that this response fails to raise any mate- 5 The Respondent acknowledges that the settlement agreement re- quires reimbursement of retroactive payments to Ronald McMillan and Jones but then contradicts itself by stating that “[t]here has been confu- sion as to whether Ronald McMillian [sic] or the Charging Party, Fi- delis Njinkeng are [sic] entitled to reimbursement under the settlement agreement.” However, attachment A, par. 5 of the settlement agree- ment explicitly states that McMillan is entitled to reimbursement. Any purported confusion, therefore, is unwarranted. 6 To the extent that the Respondent’s statement can be construed as an assertion that it has substantially complied with the settlement agreement, that claim is belied by its numerous admissions of noncom- rial issues of fact with regard to the specifics of the Gen- eral Counsel’s detailed allegation and, as such, fails to show cause why the motion for default judgment should not be granted. See generally Bristol Manor Health Care Center, 360 NLRB 38, 39 (2013) (“Although the Re- spondent asserts generally that it has complied with each and every request . . . the Respondent has not established that it has fully complied with the settlement agreement . . . .”). Finally, the Respondent’s opposition to the Notice to Show Cause asserts that it “has one full-time employee and no administrative staff,” thereby suggesting that its ability to comply was affected by its lack of staff. The Respondent’s assertion is unavailing. The exhibits at- tached to the General Counsel’s motion are comprised of correspondence in which the Region repeatedly informed the Respondent of its obligations under the settlement agreement and established several deadlines for compli- ance, each of which the Respondent disregarded, before the Respondent informed the Region of its staffing issue on June 20. See generally Odaly’s Management Corp., 292 NLRB 1283, 1284 (1989) (respondent’s belated as- sertion, that it did not know that it had to file answer to the complaint, unavailing in light of Region’s repeated warnings that answer was required). Further, to the ex- tent the Respondent contends that it lacked adequate re- sources to timely comply with the settlement agreement, this too is unavailing. See Provider Services Holdings, LLC, 356 NLRB 1434 (2011) (“it is well settled that ‘preoccup[ation] with other aspects of [the] business’ does not constitute good cause”) (citing Dong-A Daily North America, 332 NLRB 15 (2000), and Lee & Sons Tree Service, 282 NLRB 905 (1987)). In addition, we note that the Respondent contends that compliance was delayed because the Region correspond- ed with the Respondent’s counsel rather than its staff, but this contention is belied by representations of the Re- spondent’s counsel that she was in communication with the Respondent’s staff about compliance issues. For these reasons, we find that the Respondent has failed to show cause why the General Counsel’s motion should not be granted.7 pliance, discussed above. See generally Robert Bosch Corp., 256 NLRB 1036, 1052 (1981). Cf. Deister Concentrator Co., 253 NLRB 358, 359 (1980). 7 Member Johnson questions whether the General Counsel has clear- ly shown that the Respondent defaulted on the settlement agreement by failing to notify employees of their General Motors/Beck rights and by failing to provide the Regional Director with records showing dues payments by employees. However, he agrees that the Respondent has defaulted on other obligations imposed by the settlement agreement. Inasmuch as the default provision may be invoked for “noncompliance DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 328 In sum, we find that the Respondent has failed to com- ply with numerous terms of the settlement agreement, as detailed in the motion for default judgment. Consequent- ly, pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the set- tlement agreement set forth above, we find that the Re- spondent’s answer to the original complaint has been withdrawn and all of the allegations in the reissued com- plaint are true.8 Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all material times, MVM, Inc., a California corpora- tion with an office in Ashburn, Virginia, and offices and worksites in the Greater Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area, has been engaged in the business of providing con- tract security services to various firms and institutions, including the National Institutes of Health facilities in Baltimore, Maryland. During the 12-month period ending August 28, 2013, a representative period, the Employer, in conducting its business operations described above, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Maryland, including in the District of Columbia. During the 12-month period ending August 28, 2013, a representative period, the Employer, in conducting its business operations described above, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 within the State of Maryland for the United States Government at the National Insti- tutes of Health facilities in Baltimore, Maryland. We find that the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. We further find that, at all material times, the Respondent, National Union United Security & Po- lice Officers of America, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Assane Fay - Executive Director of National Union Celedo Kemngang - President of Local 208 with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement” (emphasis added), he concurs in granting the General Counsel's motion. 8 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994). At all material times, Local Union No. 208, United Se- curity & Police Officers of America (USPOA) has been an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(13) of the Act. At all material times since July 28, 2011, the Respond- ent has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the following employees of MVM, Inc. (the bargaining unit), pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time security officers as- signed to (“Government” or “Client”) at (the “Site”), employed by Employer pursuant to its Contract with the Government for the provision of security at said fa- cilities; but excluding all managers, supervisors, office and/or clerical employees, temporarily assigned em- ployees, substitute employees, and all non-security em- ployees of the Employer. At all material times since August 8, 2012, the Re- spondent and the Employer have maintained and en- forced a collective-bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment in the bargaining unit, including the following union-security provision: Article 18: Union Security and Membership All officers hereafter employed by the Employer in the classification covered by this Agreement shall become members of the Union not later than the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of their employment, or the date of the signing of this Agreement, whichever is later, as a condition of con- tinued employment. All employees covered by this Agreement who are not members of the Union and choose not to become members of the Union, shall, as a condition of continued employment, pay to the Union an agency fee as established by the Union. An officer who is not a member of the Union at the time this Agreement becomes effective shall be- come a member of the Union within ten (10) days after the thirtieth (30th) day following the effective date of this Agreement or within ten (10) days after the thirtieth (30th) day following employment, whichever is later, and shall remain a member of the Union, to the extent of paying an initiation fee and the membership dues uniformly required as a condi- tion of acquiring or retaining membership in the Un- ion, whichever employed under, for the duration of, this Agreement. Officers meet the requirement of being members in good standing of the Union, within the meaning of this Article, by tendering the periodic dues and initi- ation fees uniformly required as a condition of ac- NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA 329 quiring or retaining membership in the Union, or, in the alternative, by tendering to the Union financial core fees and dues, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. General Motors Corporation, 373 U.S. 734 (1963) and Beck v. Communications Work- ers of America, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). The Respondent expends the moneys collected pursu- ant to the union-security provision described above on activities germane to collective bargaining, contract ad- ministration, and grievance adjustment (representational activities); and on activities not germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance ad- justment (nonrepresentational activities). Since about February 28, 2013, and continuing to date, the Respondent has failed to inform bargaining unit em- ployees of the following information under General Mo- tors and Beck: i. that they have the right to be or to remain a nonmember; ii. that they have a right as a nonmember to ob- ject to paying for nonrepresentational activities and to obtain a reduction in fees for such nonrepresenta- tional activities; iii. that they have the right to be given sufficient information to enable them to intelligently decide whether to object; and iv. that they have the right as nonmembers to be apprised of any internal union procedures for filing objections (as described in (ii) and (iii) above). Since about February 28, 2013, and continuing to date, the Respondent has obligated Danyeta Jones, Fidelis Njinkeng, and other bargaining unit employees to pay dues for months they were not provided notice of their Beck rights. Since about February 28, 2013, the Respondent has failed to make available to nonmember employees a pro- cedure for filing Beck objections despite obligating em- ployees under a union-security agreement. Since about February 28, 2013, the Respondent has re- quired bargaining unit employees to agree to payroll de- ductions as the sole means of satisfying their financial obligations to the Respondent. Since in or around May 2013, the Respondent has sought retroactive dues and core fees from bargaining unit employees for a period prior to the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement identified above. About August 17, 2013, Jones and unit employee Prin- cess Griffith notified the Respondent that they objected to the payment of dues and fees for nonrepresentational activities. Since about August 17, 2013, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize Jones and Griffith as ob- jecting nonmembers, and has continued to seek from said employees full dues and fees as a condition of their con- tinued employment with the Employer. Since about August 17, 2013, the Respondent has failed to provide Jones and Griffith with a detailed ap- portionment of its expenditures for representational ac- tivities and nonrepresentational activities. This infor- mation is necessary for Jones and Griffith to evaluate the Respondent's apportionment of dues and fees for repre- sentational activities and nonrepresentational activities. Since in or around August 2013, the Respondent has required bargaining unit employees to complete dual- purpose membership/authorization cards as a condition of the Respondent’s not seeking to have the Employer discharge them under the union-security provision. Since in or around August 2013, the Respondent has failed to give bargaining unit employees an accounting of the core and noncore fees. About June 24, July 9, August 13 and 19, 2013, the Respondent requested that the Employer discharge bar- gaining unit employees, including Jones and Njinkeng, for the nonpayment of dues and fees, and thereby at- tempted to cause the Employer to discharge these em- ployees. The Respondent engaged in this conduct with- out previously advising the employees of their rights under General Motors and Beck. The Respondent en- gaged in this conduct because the employees were not members of the Respondent, failed to execute checkoff authorizations, failed to pay dues when they were under no obligation to do so, and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. MVM, Inc. (the Employer), is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by: • failing, since February 28, 2013, and continuing to date, to inform bargaining unit employees of their rights under General Motors and Beck; • obligating, since February 28, 2013, and contin- uing to date, Danyeta Jones, Fidelis Njinkeng, and other bargaining unit employees to pay dues for months they were not provided notice of their General Motors and Beck rights; DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 330 • failing, since February 28, 2013, to make avail- able to nonmember employees a procedure for filing Beck objections despite obligating em- ployees under a union-security agreement; • requiring, since February 28, 2013, bargaining unit employees to agree to payroll deductions as the sole means of satisfying their financial obli- gations to the Respondent; seeking, since May 2013, retroactive dues and core fees from bar- gaining unit employees for a period prior to the execution of the collective-bargaining agree- ment with the Employer; • failing and refusing, since August 17, 2013, to recognize Jones and Griffith as objecting non- members, and seeking from said employees full dues and fees as a condition of their continued employment with the Employer; • failing, since August 17, 2013, to provide Jones and Griffith with a detailed apportionment of its expenditures for representational activities and nonrepresentational activities; requiring, since August 2013, bargaining unit employees to complete dual-purpose membership/authori- zation cards as a condition of the Respondent’s not seeking to have the Employer discharge them under the union-security provision; and • failing, since August 2013, to give bargaining unit employees an accounting of the core and non-core fees. 4. The Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by requesting, on June 24, July 9, August 13 and 19, 2013, that the Employer discharge bargaining unit employees, including Jones and Njinkeng, for the non-payment of dues and fees, thereby attempting to cause the Employer to discharge these employees, with- out previously advising the employees of their rights under General Motors and Beck, because the employees were not members of the Respondent, had failed to exe- cute checkoff authorization, and failed to pay dues when they were under no obligation to do so, and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initia- tion fees and periodic dues. 5. Such unfair labor practices affected commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, we shall order the Respondent to notify all bargaining unit em- ployees of their right to elect nonmember status and to file objections pursuant to General Motors and Beck, and make employees whole for any dues and fees exacted on or after February 28, 2013, for nonrepresentational activ- ities, in the manner set forth in Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260 (1997), affd. sub nom. Cecil v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 1311 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 529 U.S. 1066 (2000), all unit employees who, after receiving notice of their General Motors and Beck rights, elect nonmember status and file objections, and process the objections of Jones and Griffith as the Respondent would have other- wise done, in accordance with the principles of Califor- nia Saw & Knife Works, 320 NLRB 224 (1995), enfd. sub nom. Machinists v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom. Strang v. NLRB, 525 U.S. 813 (1998), as having elected nonmember status and filed Beck objections. Any amounts to be reimbursed under our Order are to be with interest at the rate pre- scribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), com- pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Additionally, we shall order the Respondent to com- pensate objecting unit employees for the adverse tax con- sequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum amounts. Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, National Union United Security & Police Officers of America, Washington, District of Columbia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing to inform employees whom it seeks to obli- gate to pay dues and fees under a union-security clause of their right under NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963), to be and remain nonmembers, and of the right of nonmembers under Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), to object to paying for un- ion activities not germane to the Respondent's duties as bargaining agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activities. (b) Obligating bargaining unit employees to pay full dues for months when they were not provided notice of their General Motors and Beck rights. (c) Failing to make available to nonmember employees a procedure for filing Beck objections despite obligating employees to pay dues and fees under a union-security agreement. (d) Requiring bargaining unit employees to agree to payroll deductions as the sole means of satisfying their financial obligations to the Respondent. NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA 331 (e) Seeking retroactive dues and core fees from bar- gaining unit employees for a period prior to the execu- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement with MVM, Inc. (f) Failing to recognize and give effect to employees’ requests to be objecting nonmembers in a timely fashion. (g) Demanding that employees pay full union dues, as a condition of employment, after they requested to be objecting nonmembers. (h) Failing to inform objecting nonmembers of the ba- sis for its calculation of the percentage reduction in dues and fees for objectors for union activities not germane to the Respondent’s duties as bargaining agent, and their right to challenge the figures. (i) Requiring bargaining unit employees to complete dual-purpose membership/authorization cards as a condi- tion of the Respondent’s not seeking to have MVM, Inc., discharge them under the union-security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement. (j) Attempting to cause MVM, Inc., to discharge em- ployees pursuant to a union-security clause without first providing employees notice of their rights under General Motors and Beck. (k) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing 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) Notify in writing all bargaining unit employees of their right to be and remain nonmembers, and of the rights of nonmembers to object to paying for union activ- ities not germane to the Respondent's duties as bargain- ing agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activities. This notice must include sufficient in- formation to enable employees intelligently to decide whether to object, as well as a description of any internal union procedures for filing objections. (b) Recognize Danyeta Jones and Princess Griffith as objecting nonmembers since August 17, 2013, and Fi- delis Njinkeng as an objecting nonmember since May 17, 2013. (c) For each accounting period since August 17, 2013, provide Jones and Griffith and, for each accounting peri- od since May 17, 2013, provide Njinkeng with verified information setting forth the Respondent’s major catego- ries of expenditures for the previous accounting year, distinguishing between representational and nonrepresen- tational functions, and the percentages of each category and of its total expenditures that it considers chargeable and nonchargeable, and informing them of their right to challenge the Respondent’s figures. (d) Notify in writing those employees whom the Re- spondent initially sought to obligate to pay dues or fees on or after the dates when they sought to become object- ing nonmembers, of their right to elect nonmember status and to file Beck objections with respect to one or more of the accounting periods covered by the complaint. (e) With respect to any employees who, with reasona- ble promptness after receiving the notices prescribed in paragraph 2(d), elect nonmember status and file Beck objections, process their objections in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (f) Reimburse with interest any nonmember unit em- ployees who file Beck objections with the Respondent for any dues and fees exacted from them for nonrepresenta- tional activities, in the manner set forth in the remedy section. (g) Notify employees, including Danyeta Jones and Fidelis Njinkeng, that the Respondent will not cause or attempt to cause MVM, Inc., to discharge employees pursuant to a union-security clause without first provid- ing employees notice of their rights under General Mo- tors and Beck. (h) Compensate objecting employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump- sum backpay awards. (i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Washington, District of Columbia, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted. In addition to physi- cal 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 Re- spondent customarily communicates with its members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (j) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver to the Regional Director for Region 5 signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for posting by the Em- ployer at its Baltimore, Maryland facility, if it wishes, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. 9 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.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 332 (k) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 5 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. 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 vio- lated 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 to inform employees whom we seek to obligate to pay dues and fees under a union-security clause of their right under NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963), to be and remain nonmem- bers, and of the right of nonmembers under Communica- tions Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), to object to paying for union activities not germane to our duties as bargaining agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activities. WE WILL NOT obligate bargaining unit employees to pay full dues for months when they were not provided notice of their General Motors and Beck rights. WE WILL NOT fail to make available to nonmember employees a procedure for filing Beck objections despite obligating employees to pay dues and fees under a union- security agreement. WE WILL NOT require bargaining unit employees to agree to payroll deductions as the sole means of satisfy- ing their financial obligations to us. WE WILL NOT seek retroactive dues and core fees from employees for a period prior to the execution of our col- lective-bargaining agreement with MVM, Inc. WE WILL NOT fail to recognize and give effect to em- ployees’ requests to be objecting nonmembers in a timely fashion. WE WILL NOT demand that employees pay union dues, as a condition of employment, after they have requested to be objecting nonmembers. WE WILL NOT fail to inform objecting nonmembers of the basis for our calculation of the percentage reduction in dues and fees for objectors for union activities not germane to the Respondent’s duties as bargaining agent, and their right to challenge our figures. WE WILL NOT require bargaining unit employees to complete dual-purpose membership/authorization cards as a condition of our not seeking to have MVM, Inc., discharge them under the union-security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL NOT attempt to cause MVM, Inc., to dis- charge employees pursuant to a union-security clause without first providing employees notice of their rights under General Motors and Beck. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL notify in writing all bargaining unit employ- ees of their right to be and remain nonmembers, and of the rights of nonmembers to object to paying for union activities not germane to the Respondent's duties as bar- gaining agent, and to obtain a reduction in dues and fees for such activities. This notice will include sufficient information to enable employees intelligently to decide whether to object, as well as a description of any internal union procedures for filing objections. WE WILL recognize Danyeta Jones and Princess Grif- fith as objecting nonmembers since August 17, 2013, and recognize Fidelis Njinkeng as an objecting nonmember since May 17, 2013. WE WILL, for each accounting period since August 17, 2013, provide Jones and Griffith and, for each account- ing period since May 17, 2013, provide Njinkeng with verified information setting forth the major categories of our expenditures for the previous accounting year, dis- tinguishing between representational and nonrepresenta- tional functions, and the percentages of each category and of our total expenditures that we consider chargeable and nonchargeable, and informing them of their right to challenge our figures. WE WILL notify in writing those employees whom we initially sought to obligate to pay dues or fees on or after the dates when they sought to become objecting non- members of their right to elect nonmember status and to file Beck objections with respect to one or more of the accounting periods covered by the complaint. WE WILL, with respect to any employees who, with reasonable promptness after receiving the notices pre- scribed above, elect nonmember status, file Beck objec- tions, and process their objections. WE WILL reimburse with interest any nonmember unit employees who file Beck objections with us for any dues NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA 333 and fees exacted from them for nonrepresentational ac- tivities. WE WILL notify unit employees, including Danyeta Jones and Fidelis Njinkeng, that we will not cause or attempt to cause MVM, Inc., to discharge employees pursuant to a union-security clause without first provid- ing employees notice of their rights under General Mo- tors and Beck. WE WILL compensate objecting employees for the ad- verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards. NATIONAL UNION UNITED SECURITY & POLICE OFFICERS OF AMERICA The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CB-112215 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.