Governed United Security Professionals (Golden SVCS, LLC)

373 NLRB No. 66 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. Governed United Security Professionals (Golden SVCS, LLC) and Sheldon N. Fraser. Case 05– CB–299530 June 11, 2024 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, PROUTY, AND WILCOX On August 18, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Mi- chael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions with supporting argument, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions1 and brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3 AMENDED REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and to take certain steps to effectuate the policies of the Act. Although the judge, in his recommended order, required the Respondent to reimburse “any bargaining-unit em- ployee who attempted to revoke dues checkoff authoriza- tions following the certification of results in” the deau- thorization election, his recommended remedy identified only seven named individuals who, in addition to the Charging Party, were entitled to reimbursement. We shall order the Respondent to reimburse, in addition to the Charging Party, any employee who, on or after January 1 In its answering brief, the General Counsel urges the Board to dis- regard the Respondent’s exceptions, asserting that they fail to comply with Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. We decline to do so. Although the Respondent's exceptions do not fully comply with the Board’s Rules, they are not so deficient as to warrant striking, partic- ularly in light of the Respondent’s pro se status. See generally A.P.S. Production/A. Pimental Steel, 326 NLRB 1296, 1297 (1998) (“The Board typically has shown some leniency toward a pro se litigant's ef- forts to comply with our procedural rules.”). 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis- trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand- ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. The judge stated that, after the certification of the results of a deau- thorization election, unit employees were permitted to withdraw from the 18, 2022, notified the Respondent that the employee wished to revoke their dues-withholding authorization.4 The amount to be refunded shall include any dues or fees the Employer deducted from the paychecks of any such employee since January 18, 2022, less any amounts al- ready directly refunded to the employee.5 Interest on the reimbursements shall be at the rate prescribed in New Ho- rizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre- scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, Governed United Security Professionals, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to honor employees’ requests to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations after the cer- tification of results of an affirmative deauthorization vote. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) To the extent it has not already done so, honor the requests of Sheldon N. Fraser and any other similarly sit- uated employees who notified the Respondent, on or after January 18, 2022, to revoke their dues-checkoff authori- zations. (b) Reimburse Sheldon N. Fraser and any other simi- larly situated employees who attempted to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations, on or after January 18, 2022, for the dues or fees deducted from their wages and remitted to the Respondent since January 18, 2022, less any amounts already directly refunded to the employees, with interest in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s decision as amended in this decision. bargaining unit. However, the certification only rescinded the Respond- ent’s authority to require unit employees to make payments to the Re- spondent as a condition of employment; it did not authorize unit employ- ees to individually withdraw from the bargaining unit. 3 We have amended the remedy and modified the judge’s recom- mended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language, and we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. 4 Whether there are additional employees entitled to reimbursement can be determined in the compliance stage. 5 The judge’s recommended Order provided reimbursement for all adversely affected unit employees who attempted to revoke dues checkoff authorizations following the certification of results in Case 05– UD–282185 on January 12, 2022, and for the amount to be refunded to include any dues or fees the Respondent deducted from the paychecks of any such employee since January 18, 2022, less any amounts already di- rectly refunded to the employee, with interest. We adopt this expanded remedy contained in the judge’s recommended Order in the absence of exceptions. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 (c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig- nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces- sary to determine the reimbursements due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Baltimore, Maryland facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees and mem- bers are customarily posted. Further, if the Respondent maintains bulletin boards at the Federal Communications Commission Headquarters located at 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC, the Respondent also shall post the at- tached notice on each such bulletin board during the post- ing period. In addition to physical posting of paper no- tices, 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 members by such means. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) 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 Employer at its offices at the Federal Communications Commission Headquarters, if it wishes, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 5 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 11, 2024 6 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and accessible by a substantial complement of employees and members, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility in- volved in these proceedings is closed or not accessible by a substantial complement of employees and members due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and is accessible to a substantial complement of employees and members. If, while closed or not accessible by a substan- tial complement of employees and members due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with employees and members by ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS 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 vi- olated 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 ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to honor your request to revoke your dues-checkoff authorization after the certifi- cation of results of an affirmative deauthorization vote. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL honor the requests of Sheldon N. Fraser and anyone else who notified us, on or after January 18, 2022, to revoke their dues-checkoff authorizations. WE WILL reimburse, with interest, Sheldon N. Fraser and anyone else who attempted to revoke their dues- checkoff authorizations, on or after January 18, 2022, for electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” 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 Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” GOVERNED UNITED SECURITY PROFESSIONALS (GOLDEN SVCS, LLC) 3 the dues or fees deducted from their wages and remitted to us since January 18, 2022, less any amounts that we have already refunded them directly. GOVERNED UNITED SECURITY PROFESSIONALS The Board’s decision can be found at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CB-299530 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Rela- tions Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940. Stephanie Cotilla Eitzen, Esq., for the General Counsel. Kent Emery, Pro Se, of Baltimore Maryland, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Washington, D.C., May 16, 2023. Pursuant to a charge filed by the Charging Party, Sheldon N. Fraser, on July 13, 2022,1 a complaint issued on January 25, 2023, alleging that the Respondent, Governed United Security Professional (Golden SVCS, LLC), violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)2 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) on and after January 18 by failing and refusing to recognize the revocations of dues checkoffs authori- zations and fees by the Charging Party and similar-situated em- ployees after a successful deauthorization election. The Re- spondent’s defense essentially denied receiving notice of the rev- ocations or asserted that employee-members did not comply with its constitution and bylaws applicable to membership revoca- tions. On the entire record,3 including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Golden SVCS, LLC (the Employer), is a limited liability com- pany with an office and place of business in Oak Ridge, Tennes- see, and has been engaged in the business of providing contract security services to industry and government agencies. In con- ducting its operations during the 12-month period ending 1 All dates are in 2022 unless otherwise indicated. 2 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). December 31, 2022, the Employer performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in the District of Columbia and States other than the State of Tennessee. The Respondent, headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, admits that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Respondent’s Operations The Employer provides armed security guard services at the Federal Communications Commission facility (FCC building) located at 45 L Street, NE, Washington, D.C. The Respondent is the collective-bargaining representative of employes in the fol- lowing bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time armed security guards employed by Golden SVCS, LLC at Federal Communi- cations Commission Headquarters building, currently lo- cated at 45 LStreet NE, Washington, DC, but excluding all of- ficeclerical employees, professional employees, managerial employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The current collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Employer and the Respondent is in effect from April 1, 2021, to March 30, 2024. There were approximately 72 employees in the bargaining unit in between April 1, 2021, and date of the hearing.4 The following union security clause at Article II, Section 1 of the CBA requires membership in the union as a condition for continued employment by the Employer: An employee who is not a member of the Union at thetimethis Agreement becomes effective shall become a member of the Union within ten (10) days after the thirty- first (31st) day fol- lowing the effective date of this Agreement or within ten (10) days after the thirtieth (30th) day following employment, whichever is later, as a condition of continued employment, and shall remain a member of the Union, to the extent of paying an initiation fee and the membership dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the Union, for the duration of this Agreement. Employees meet the requirement of being members of the Un- ion, within the meaning of this Article, by tendering the peri- odic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the Union, or, in the alternative, by tendering into the Union financial core fees and dues, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. Gen- eral Motors Corporation, 373 U.S. 734 (1963) and Beck v. CommunicationsWorkersofAmerica,487U.S.735(1988). Id. Article II, Section 2 of the CBA requires the Employee “to deduct initiation fees and Union dues or service fees for propor- tionate share payments from the wages of officers who voluntar- ily authorize the Employer to do so on a properly executed 3 The General Counsel’s July 7, 2023 unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted. 4 GC Exh. 8. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 check-off authorization card provided by the Union.” Dues and fees from the bi-weekly paychecks of unit employees and remits them to the Respondent within 15 days of the first regular payday of the month. Additionally, the Employer is required to provide a monthly summary of dues deductions to the Respondent listing the unit employees, their social security numbers, and the indi- vidual amounts deducted. The Respondent’s constitution and bylaws have been in effect since 2020. Article VII, titled “Dues,” Section B of the Union’s Constitution and Bylaws provides the procedure by which a unit employees may revoke their dues authorizations: The membership dues shall be collection through the employer’s payroll deductions. Upon the member completing the Union Membership Form it shall be submitted to his/her employer’s administrative/payroll officer; along with a copy of the same to the Union Office. Members who wish to revoke paying union dues must request by certified mail to the Union by ten days after signing the card. If they do not, they can re- quest on their next anniversary date.”5 Between January 5, 2021 and August 17, 2021, 36 bargaining- unit employees signed authorization cards and had anniversary dates.6 The Respondent emailed this information to Susan Brooks, the Employer’s payroll specialist, who processed the au- thorization cards and deducted dues and fees from unit em- ployee’s bi-weekly paychecks. As required under the CBA, Brooks remits the dues collected to the Respondent every month. However, the required list of employees from whom they were deducted is not provided on a monthly basis.7 In 2022, 31 em- ployees had dues and fees deducted from their paychecks. From January 1, 2023, to April 21, 2023, 15 employees had dues or fees deducted from their paychecks.8 B. Deauthorization Vote On August 30, 2021, Samuel Browning, a unit employee, filed a petition for a deauthorization petition in Case 05-UD-282185 to rescind the CBA’s security clause. Between December 14, 2021, and January 4, 2022, the majority of bargaining-unit em- ployees in Case 05–UD–282185 voted to deauthorize their CBA’s security clause requiring union membership as a condi- tion of employment. On January 12, the Regional Director of Region 5 certified that vote (the certification). Thus, from that point on, unit employees were permitted to withdraw from the bargaining unit, revoke their checkoff authorization, and con- tinue working for the Employer.9 5 It is undisputed that an “anniversary date” is the same date that an employee signed the check-off authorization card for dues. (Jt. Exh. 6 at 5; Tr. 174). 6 Jt. Exh. 7 at 3. 7 It is undisputed that Emery does not receive a list of employees with their dues deductions in addition to the remitted dues and fees directly deposited into the Respondent’s account every month. (Tr. 171-172.) 8 GC. Exhs. 9–25. 9 Jt. Exhs. 3–5. 10 Emery did not dispute Fraser’s credible testimony regarding these conversations. (Tr. 104–106.) C. Unit Employees Attempt to Revoke Their Dues Authorization One or 2 days after the certification, employee Sheldon Fraser spoke to Kent Emery, the Respondent’s president, by telephone. He asked Emery if he would cease deducting dues and withdraw- ing as labor representative. Emery replied, “No, we are going to stay on for a while.” During subsequent telephone conversa- tions, told Fraser that employees were dissatisfied with the Re- spondent’s representation and wanted Emery to withdraw repre- sentation and stop deducting dues.”10 Ricky Williams, another unit employee, spoke with Emery by telephone shortly after January 14, the date of the first paycheck after the election. Unbeknown to Emery, Fraser was listening while muted through a three-party connection with Williams. Williams told Emery that dues were still being deducted from employees’ paychecks but Emery avoided the question. They spoke again 2 weeks later without any resolution.11 Browning also called Emery with the same request but was unable to reach him. He left several voicemail messages on the organization’s telephone line for Emery, and emailed and text messaged him. Emery did not respond.12 On February 5, Browning emailed Emery, asking why the Re- spondent was still representing the employees after losing the election and if he was aware that they no longer had to pay union dues. Emery forwarded it Fraser on the same day, stating that he did not understand the email or know who Browning was, and asked if Fraser “still wanted us to come down.” Fraser forwarded Emery’s response to Williams.13 Browning also created a template for himself and bargaining employees to use to ask Emery to stop deducting dues from their paychecks: I, Officer __________, of the Federal Communications Com- mission 45 L St NE Washington DC 20002 security contract, no longer consent to having Union dues taken out of my paycheck for the Union of Governed United Security Profes- sionals (GUSP). I have lost faith in the union and no longer believe they have my best interest in mind. I don’t feel ade- quately represented by GUSP. I am requesting that Golden Ser- vices stop taking union dues out of my paycheck effective im- mediately.14 On February 7, Browning signed the template, emailed an electronic copy to Emery, and distributed it to coworkers. Browning then drafted a letter based on the template, expressing the employees’ dissatisfaction and requesting that the Respond- ent revoke their dues authorizations. Nearly every unit employee signed the letter, including Fraser, Williams, and Daryl Moore, 11 Fraser corroborated Williams credible testimony regarding this con- versation, which Emery did not recall. Without an explanation of the process to revoke his dues authorization, Williams never submitted a written request to Emery prior to leaving the company in June. (Tr. 104, 107–108, 159–161, 163, 167; Jt. Exh. 11.) 12 Emery’s evasive questioning of Browning essentially conceded that he did not respond to Browning’s messages to stop deducting dues. (Tr. 17–21, 110–112, 169–170, 175.) 13 Emery conceded that he received the email. (GC Exh. 3.) 14 GC Exh. 2. GOVERNED UNITED SECURITY PROFESSIONALS (GOLDEN SVCS, LLC) 5 and Fraser mailed it to Emery in February. Emery never re- sponded and the Respondent continued to deduct employees’ dues.15 On February 9, Emery went to the FCC building to meet with employees about issues involving union representation. Emery met with 8 or 10 employees for about 7 hours. While they talked about other issues such as understaffing, overtime, and commu- nication between employees and representatives, no one brought up the issue of dues deductions.16 D. Employees Begin Notifying the Employer Browning resigned from the Employer on June 29, leaving Fraser to continue the effort to eliminate employees’ union dues deductions. On June 26, Fraser emailed Emery and copied the Employer’s human resources office, stating that union dues were still being deducted even though employees won the election in January. They also asked that dues deductions cease immedi- ately and employees be refunded all deducted since the elec- tion.17 The June 26 email made its way to Michelle Martin, the Em- ployer’s president. Martin followed up by asking Emery to ex- plain to employees the process for stopping dues deductions, not- ing that the Employer “told them that they have to work through the Union.” Emery replied that he would “speak with them.” Martin concluded the email exchange by asking Emery, “What is your policy? Out of curiosity.”18 On July 8, Fraser sent Emery another email requesting a copy of the Respondent’s constitution and bylaws in order to ascertain the process for stopping dues deductions. In the email request, Fraser noted that “it seems impossible to reach you over the phone these days.”19 Emery did not respond to Fraser’s request. Fraser did have a subsequent contentious telephone call with Emery about stopping the dues deductions. However, the meet- ing concluded without Emery telling Fraser how employees could stop their dues deductions.20 Between July 8 and July 26, nine employees emailed Emery and Susan Brooks, the Employer’s payroll specialist, asking that their dues deductions cease because of the election—Luke Bis- coe, Jared Everitt, Zachary Hunter, Kandice Faulkner, Samuel Seward, Larry Hawkins, Jr., Elgin Sherman, Daryl Moore, and Paris Preston.21 Brooks told Fraser and the other employees that 15 Fraser corroborated Browning’s testimony that he sent the letter signed by about 30 employees. (Tr. 25–30, 113–115.) Browning, who also tried to revoke check-off authorization soon after the deauthoriza- tion election, had dues deducted from his paycheck until the end of his employment in June 2022. (Tr. 17–22.) 16 Emery admitted receiving two requests to stop dues deductions prior to February 9. (Tr. 176–177.) 17 GC Exh. 26. 18 Although not specified, Brooks was likely referring to Fraser’s June 26 email. (Tr. 63.) 19 GC Exh. 6. 20 Emery testified that Fraser was the only employee that he spoke to after Martin’s email because Fraser was the point-person for the employ- ees. (Tr. 121, 183, 193–194). 21 GC Exhs. 27-36. 22 Brooks explained that the Employer’s initial policy required em- ployees to go through the Respondent who would then notify her to cease they had to notify the Respondent to instruct the Employer to stop deducting dues.22 After conversing with Emery, Fraser contacted Ben Palewicz, the Region 5 agent that oversaw the election. Fraser also filed an unfair labor practice charge on July 13. Thereafter. Fraser received a copy of the Respondent’s constitution and bylaws from Palewicz. Since some employees’ anniversary dates for checkoff authorization were approaching, Palewicz advised Fra- ser to send certified mail revoking his dues as soon as possible. In late June or early July, Fraser assisted other employees who were at or near their anniversary dates in writing individual let- ters to stop their dues and fees deductions. He then sent a packet via certified mail to the Respondent containing revocation re- quests from the following eight employees: Biscoe, Moore, Everitt, Sherman, Hawkins, Eleanor Ebotarrey, Shea Loska, Rashad Kilpatrick, and Preston.23 Emery received that batch of letters and, on August 5, notified Brooks to stop dues deductions for five of the employees—Moore, Biscoe, Sherman, Ebotarrey, and Larry Hawkins.24 On or about October 3, Emery called Brooks expressing inter- est in raising the unit employees’ dues deductions. The issue of employees seeking to revoke their dues authorizations also came up. Brooks asked Emery why he stopped dues deductions for some employees and not others. Emery answered that he only stopped dues deductions for employees that notified him through certified mail because that was the procedure in the organiza- tion’s constitution and bylaws. With respect to Fraser, Emery testified that his deductions continued because he did not receive a certified letter from him.25 Prior to October 4, Palewicz informed Martin that the Em- ployer should cease dues deductions upon request from an em- ployee and certified mail was unnecessary. Martin passed those instructions along to Brooks and, from that point on, Brooks uni- laterally stopped deducting dues upon receiving email requests. Brooks would forward employee’s email requests to stop dues deductions to Emery and copy him on responses to employee re- quests.26 E. The Respondent Ignored Email Requests to Cease deductions. Otherwise, she would tell employees that she would have to assess a union fee in lieu of deductions. (Tr. 63; GC Exh. 29.) 23 GC Exh. 5. 24 I did not credit Emery’s testimony that he ignored the requests for Kilpatrick, Preston, and Everitt because they did not come by certified mail. He vaguely responded that he received, “I don’t know, six or seven officers to be removed, have the dues revoked from that point on.” He also conceded that this was the only time he directed Brooks to stop de- ducting union dues. (Tr. 118–119, 122–124, 129, 145–146, 174, 184, 188, 191–192; GC Exh. 35.) 25 Brooks’ email to Martin is not clear as to whether she or Emery raised the issue of dues revocations. (Tr. 77–78, 131, 189–190; GC Exhs. 7.) 26 On cross-examination, Brooks conceded that Emery did nothing to prevent Brooks from stopping dues revocations. However, the record is clear that, with the exception of his August 5 email, Emery consistently ignored employees’ requests to revoke their dues authorizations. (Tr. 63– 64, 80, 91–92.) DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 Deducting Dues Between July 26, 2022, and May 8, 2023, the following eight employees had their dues deductions cease on or shortly after their email requests were received by the Employer: Biscoe (July 26); Hawkins (July 26); Sherman (July 26); Moore (July 26), Kwabena Sawyer (February 7); Amadu Dumbaya (February 8); Ethan Jorge (February 9); and D’Andre Ishmael (May 8).27 Between June 26, 2022 and May 9, 2023, however, the email requests of the following six employees went ignored by the Re- spondent and the Employer and their dues deductions did not stop until a significant amount of time elapsed: Fraser—re- quested on June 26 and February 7 but did not stop until Febru- ary 7; Everitt—requested on July 8 but did not stop until August 26; Hunter—requested on July 8 and February 9 but did not stop until February 9; Faulkner—requested on July 13 but did not stop until August 26; Preston—requested on July 15 but did not stop until August 26; and Seward—requested on July 15 and May 9 but did not stop until May 9.28 LEGAL ANALYSIS I. APPLICABLE LAW Section 7 of the Act gives employees the right to “refrain from any or all of such [labor organizing] activities except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment. . .” Consistent with that right, the Board recognizes the ability of employees to resign their union membership at any time without restriction. Machinists Local 1414 (Neufeld Por- sche-Audi), 270 NLRB 1330, 1336 (1984), approved in Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985). A union must act “promptly give effect” to a member’s resig- nation when it is received. “When an employee mails his resig- nation notice to the union, the effective time and date of the res- ignation is 12:01 a.m. local time the day after it is mailed.” Pat- tern Makers (Michigan Model Mfrs. Assn.), 310 NLRB 929, 930 (1993). A union that fails to promptly act on such a request is deemed to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 492 (United Parcel Service, Inc.), 346 NLRB 360, 363 (2006) (union unlawfully delayed 3 to 10 days before honoring valid member- ship revocations). For a checkoff authorization agreement, “its implementation must comply with certain statutory conditions. Foremost is the safeguard that the employee’s participation be purely voluntary and free from compulsion.” NewPort News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 253 NLRB 721, 726 (1980), enfd. 663 F.2d 488 (4th Cir. 1981); See also Atlanta Printing Specialties, 215 NLRB 237, 237 (1974) (recognizing that Section 302(c)(4) of the Act guarantees a right to “(1) a chance at least once a year to revoke [check-off] authorization”). A union’s failure to honor an employee’s request to revoke a checkoff authorization re- strains and coerces employees in their exercise of their Section 7 rights to refrain from union activity, violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Bedford Can Mfg. Corp., 162 NLRB 1428, 1432 27 GC Exhs. 18, 24, 42. (1967) (if “the intent to cancel the existing checkoff authoriza- tion was clear, there was no need that such revocations be stated in any particular form.”); Penn Cork & Closures, Inc., 156 NLRB 411, 413–415 (1965), enforced, 376 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1967) (letter signed by 57 employees effectively revoked their checkoff authorizations because successful deauthorization vote rendered those authorizations “vulnerable to revocation regard- less of their terms”). Employee requests to revoke check-off authorization are timely if they are made after the certification of the deauthoriza- tion election results. United Workers of America, Local 621, 360 NLRB 714, 714–715 (2014) (the “general rule” is “that the cer- tification of results of an affirmative deauthorization vote is the date when employees may effectively revoke checkoff authori- zations given or renewed while a union-security clause was in effect.”), quoting Albert Van Luit & Co., 234 NLRB 1087, 1087 (1978). II. THE SECTION 8(B)(1)(A) ALLEGATIONS A. Employees Revoke Their Dues Checkoff Authorizations Between December 14, 2021, and January 4, the majority of bargaining-unit employees voted to deauthorize their CBA’s se- curity clause requiring union membership as a condition of em- ployment. On January 12, the Regional Director certified those results, thereby nullifying the security clause. As a result, em- ployees’ checkoff authorizations became “vulnerable to revoca- tion regardless of their terms.” Penn Cork, 156 NLRB at 414; Bedford Can, 162 NLRB at 1432. Following the certification, Fraser and similarly situated em- ployees sent multiple requests to Emery revoking their checkoff authorizations. The requests were made verbally by telephone and through letters and emails. Fraser made verbal requests, sent a letter, and emailed Emery many times revoking his check-off authorization. Williams and Browning both made verbal re- quests to Emery to stop deducting their dues. At least 14 em- ployees sent Emery emails requesting to stop the deductions. Similar to the letter sent by 57 employees in Penn Cork that read “no dues shall be deducted from our wages,” Browning sent a signed letter to Emery with the signatures of most of the bargain- ing-unit employees. See 156 NLRB at 413. In addition, the email template that Browning drafted for bargaining-unit em- ployees stated unambiguously “I am requesting that Golden Ser- vices stop taking union dues out of my paycheck effective im- mediately.” Because the employees clearly communicated their intent to revoke check-off authorization, it did not matter whether the requests were made verbally, by email or letter— certified mail or uncertified mail. Bedford Can, 162 NLRB at 1432 (not necessary for revocation “to be stated in any particular form” where “intent to cancel the existing checkoff authorization was clear”). B. The Respondent Failed and Refused to Recognize Dues Revocation Requests By improperly applying the procedures of the Respondent’s constitution and bylaws to the employees’ efforts to resign, Em- ery frustrated the purpose of the deauthorization election in 28 GC Exhs. 18, 24, 42–43. GOVERNED UNITED SECURITY PROFESSIONALS (GOLDEN SVCS, LLC) 7 violation of Section 8(ab)(1)(A). Those procedures stated that checkoff authorizations could only be revoked by certified mail on the member’s anniversary date or within 10 days of the anni- versary date. However, those requirements were no longer valid because the union security clause was null and void following the certification. Accordingly, the Respondent unlawfully re- strained the at-will right of employees to revoke their checkoff authorization regardless of the timing. Penn Cork, 156 NLRB supra at 414 (“outstanding checkoff authorizations originally ex- ecuted while a union-security provision is in effect become vul- nerable to revocation regardless of their terms.”). The record also established that Emery failed or refused to honor employees’ requests after the election to revoke their checkoff authorizations in a timely manner and continued de- ducting dues and fees. See Oil Workers Local 1-591 (Texaco Re- fining), 283 NLRB 5 (1987). The many revocation requests made by employees were refused or simply unanswered, except for five employees. Emery ignored the verbal requests to stop dues deductions from Browning, Fraser, and Williams. He ig- nored Williams’ request and simply changed the topic. He flatly refused Fraser’s request: “No, we are going to stay on for a while.” The signed letter sent by Browning on behalf of approx- imately 30 employees also went unanswered. Emery also ig- nored Fraser’s multiple telephone calls requesting for a copy of the Respondent’s constitution and bylaws. By failing or refusing to promptly honor employees requests to revoke their dues checkoff authorizations and continuing to deduct union dues and fees, the Respondent further violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A). See International Brotherhood of Teamsters Lo- cal 385 (Walt Disney) 366 NLRB No. 96, slip op., at 1–2 (2018) (union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by ignoring charging parties’ letters, telephone calls, and/or in-person inquiries regarding the valid revocation of their dues checkoff authorizations). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Golden SVCS, LLC (the Employer) is an employer en- gaged 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 since on or about January 18, 2022 by: (a) Failing and refusing to recognize the revocations of dues deduction authorization of the Charging Party and similarly sit- uated employees, made after the results of the deauthorization election were certified, and continuing to accept from the Em- ployer the dues and/or fees deducted from the pay of the Charg- ing Party and similarly situated employees; (b) Applying procedures in its Constitution and Bylaws to the Charging Party and similarly situated employees to refuse to recognize their revocations; and (c) Receiving assistance and support from the Employer by de- ducting money from employees’ wages and remitting money 29 Complaint pars. 7–10 and 11(c); Jt. Exh. 7, par. 3; GC Exhs. 2–3, 5, 9–34, 36–43. 30 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility involved in to the Respondent notwithstanding the certification of results in the deauthorization election and the revocation requests. 3. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices at its place of business at the Federal Com- munications Commission Headquarters Building, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC, I shall order it to cease and desist there- from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Based on the complaint and the record,29 in addition to the Charging Party, the Respondent shall be required to reimburse the following similarly situated bargaining unit employees for the dues and fees unlawfully deducted from their paychecks after notifying the Respondent on or after January 18, 2022 of the rev- ocation of their dues checkoff authorizations: Ricky Williams, Samuel Browning, Jared Everitt, Zachary Hunter, Kandice Faulkner, Parris Preston, and Samuel Seward. See Voith Indus- trial Services, Inc., 363 NLRB 1038, 1042–1045 (2016) (remedy included employees “similarly situated” as the charging party where respondent was fully apprised of the class of potential dis- criminatees and the issue was fully and fairly litigated at the hearing). ORDER The Respondent, Governed United Security Professionals, Baltimore, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Collecting dues and agency fees from employees who have requested, after a deauthorization election, to revoke their au- thorization to have union dues and fees deducted from their pay; (b) In any like manner, interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole any bargaining-unit employee who attempted to revoke dues checkoff authorizations following the certifica- tion of results in Case 05–UD–282185 on January 12, 2022. The amount to be refunded will include any dues and/or fees the Em- ployer deducted from the paychecks of any such employee since January 18, 2022, less any amounts already directly refunded to the employee, with interest. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post in prom- inent places at its facility located at 5602 Baltimore National Pike, Suite #607, Baltimore, MD (Respondent’s Facility), and at any bulletin boards it maintains at the Federal Communications Commission Headquarters located at 45 L Street NE, Washing- ton, DC (FCC Facility), copies of the notice marked “Appen- dix.”30 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional these proceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted. The Respondent will fully cooperate with any requests by the Regional Director to obtain access to the Re- spondent’s Facility to agents of the Regional Director for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this posting requirement. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma- terial. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, text, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with the employees it represents by such means. In addition, the Respondent shall also copy and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former employees in the bargaining unit who were employed by Golden SVCS, LLC at the FCC Facility at any time since January 18, 2022. Those notices will be signed by a re- sponsible official of the Respondent and show the date of mail- ing. The Respondent will provide the Regional Director with written confirmation of the date of mailing and a list of names and addresses of members and/or employees to whom the notices were mailed. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 5, a sworn certification of respon- sible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C., August 18, 2023 APPENDIX A 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 be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILLNOT refuse to recognize employee requests to revoke dues-checkoff authorizations from bargaining-unit employees where, in a Board election, employees have rescinded the Un- ion’s ability enforce a union-security clause in a collective-bar- gaining agreement. WE WILL NOT apply a procedure in the Union’s Constitution and Bylaws regarding dues deduction authorizations to refuse to recognize employee requests to revoke dues-checkoff authoriza- tions where, in a Board election, employees have rescinded the Union’s ability to enforce a union-security clause in the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. WE WILL NOT continue to receive union membership dues and/or fees from bargaining-unit employees when the Union’s ability to enforce a union-security clause in its collective- bar- gaining agreement was rescinded in a Board election and when employees have requested to revoke their dues-checkoff author- izations. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILLmake whole, with interest, all current and former bar- gaining unit employees employed by Golden SVCS, LLC at the FCC Headquarters building who attempted to revoke their dues check-off authorization following the certification of results in NLRB Case 05–UD–282185, and had dues and fees deducted since January 18, 2022, less any amounts already refunded to the employee. GOVERNED UNITED SECURITY PROFESSIONALS The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CB-299530 or by using the QR code be- low. 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. the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” 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 Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”