NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes
of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested
to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
CDA Inc. and
United Government Security Officers of
March 26, 2007
decision and order
By Chairman Battista and Members
Kirsanow and Walsh
On December 27, 2006, Administrative Law Judge George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, 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 exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended
Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, CDA,
Inc.,
Dated,
___________________________________
Robert J.
Battista,
Chairman
__________________________________
Peter N. Kirsanow, Member
___________________________________
Dennis P.
Walsh,
Member
(seal)
National Labor Relations Board
Joseph A. Hoffmann, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ms. Bonnie Pitts, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
George Carson II,
Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the brief filed by the General Counsel, I make the following
Findings of Fact
i. jurisdiction
The Respondent, CDA, Inc., the Company, is a corporation
engaged in providing security services at various military installations in the
The Respondent, at the hearing, admitted that United Government Security Officers of America, International Union, and United Government Security Officers of America, Local 401, (jointly referred to herein as the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ii. alleged unfair labor practices
A. Overview
The Company provides security services at
On April 15, 2002, the
Although there are 8(a)(1) and (5) allegations in the complaint, the central issue in this case is whether the discharge of Pitts violated the Act.
B. Facts
In March, the Company’s prescribed uniform required the
wearing of long sleeved shirts. In southern
In April, Pitts called in sick about an hour before her shift began. Prior to this, Head had approved leave for a number of employees and had informed the employees scheduled to work that any absence would need to be supported by “some type of documentation.” The contract, article 10, section 10.11A, requires employees to call in at least 3 hours before their shift. Pitts called in only an hour before her shift and failed to provide a medical excuse. She explained to Head that she had a headache, that everybody knew she got headaches, and that she did not want to incur the expense of going to a physician who would be unable to do anything for her. Pitts was warned for an attendance violation. She filed a grievance.
On June 21, the
On June 22, Project Manager Head responded, in writing, to the foregoing request stating, “I’m not going to be harassed and map out every request for leave every time somebody doesn’t get his or her way.”
In late June, the Company was advised that it would be required
to provide security for a Freedom Fest celebration at
After Head published the memorandum, Union President Pitts called him and said that the Company needed to “offer overtime and look for volunteers” rather than scheduling the D-shift employees who would be off over the holiday. According to Head, Pitts also stated that he “couldn’t make them work and that they shouldn’t have to work.” Section 4.2 of the collective-bargaining agreement provides that temporary assignments shall be voluntary “unless there are no volunteers, in which case the Employer may require the least senior qualified employee to take the temporary assignment.”
Head did not offer overtime or seek volunteers. He believed that Pitts was speaking with employees because, following his conversation with her, he received calls from “some of the individuals that didn’t want to work.” Because of those calls, Head was unsure whether those employees would report. Although Head asserted that Pitts was “[t]elling people not to show up for work,” there is no evidence that she did so.
Head testified that “several people” refused to work and were terminated. Documentary evidence establishes that two employees, Robert Prueter and John Turner, did not report to work and were terminated. Pitts filed grievances on their behalf.
On July 8, Pitts filed a class action grievance that stated the name of the aggrieved as “D shift officers.” The grievance cites several articles of the collective-bargaining agreement including article 4, section 4.2, which, as already noted, provides that temporary assignments shall be voluntary “unless there are no volunteers, in which case the Employer may require the least senior qualified employee to take the temporary assignment.” The description of the grievance states, “Change in past practice. S/O’s [Security Officers] Dianna Smith, Sandy Adkins, Patricia Sherman, Sabrenia Nath, and Charlene Barry were required to work their regular days off. Some of these Officers had already made plans for those days.” The adjustment sought is “[t]hat this practice cease until negotiated on.” The grievance is signed by Pitts “for ‘D’ Shift officers.”
Project Manager Head, by a memorandum dated July 11, responded to the grievance filed by Pitts, citing a document that predates the collective-bargaining agreement, as follows:
The contingency plan required me to use my management
right to direct the work force to man all post [sic] and I was supposed to be
able to do it without harassment, coercion, or intimidation from the
The name of the individuals that have filed this grievance in opposition to the contingency plan have been forwarded to the COR [Contracting Officer Representative].
On July 18, Pitts was discharged. The termination document, dated July 18, and signed by Project Manager Head, states:
ON 8 JULY 2005 I
RECEIVED GRIEVANCE #54 LISTING 5 DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES THAT HAD TO WORK IN
SUPPORT OF FREEDOM FEST CONTINGENCY PLAN.
ON 14 JULY 2005 I
RECEIVED A DA FORM 2823 STATEMENT FROM DIANNA SMITH STATING THAT SHE NEVER
FILED OR WAS ASK [sic] TO FILE A GRIEVANCE. SHE STATES THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD THE
REQUIREMENTS OF HER JOB WHEN SHE TOOK IT.
THIS GRIEVANCE WAS
FILED WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF ANY OF THE NAMED AGGRIEVED. THE ONLY SIGNATURE
WAS BONNIE PITTS. THIS GRIEVANCE HAD BEEN FALSIFIED AND MISREPRESENTS AT LEAST
ONE OF THE PARTIES NAMED. UNDER THE IRP [Individual Reliability Program] 3-7
DISQUALIFYING FACTORS (8) FALSIFICATION. ANY KNOWING AND WILLFUL FALSIFICATION,
COVER-UP, CONCEALMENT, MISREPRESENTATION, OR OMISSION OF MATERIAL USED BY DoD
OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY. [sic] THIS ACTION HAS CAUSED A DISRUPTION TO THE
WORK FORCE.
ALSO YOU WERE
COUNSELED FOR ATTENDANCE OF 23 APRIL 2005 AND COUNSELED FOR INSUBORDINATION FOR
24 AND 29 MARCH 2005.
YOUR EMPLOYMENT
WITH CDA SECURITY IS TERMINATED.
Following the termination of Pitts on July 18, the Company placed her on suspension on the basis of legal advice while “they looked into it a little closer.” On August 8, Pitts was again informed that she was terminated. No additional reason for the termination was stated.
The DA For 2823 from Dianna Smith, to which the discharge document refers, was not offered as an exhibit. Although the document notes the prior discipline administered to Pitts, the “disruption in the work place” statement refers only to the alleged falsification.
Article 5, section 5.5 of the collective-bargaining
agreement grants the
The IRP [Individual Reliability Program] sets requirements for the contractor’s employees and, in Chapter 3-7 lists disqualifying factors which include disloyalty, criminal misconduct, and drug abuse. Disqualifying Factor 8, the factor cited in the discharge document, relates to falsification/refusal to answer. It states:
Any knowing and willful falsification, cover-up, concealment, misrepresentation, or omission of material used by DoD or any other Federal agency. Failing or refusing to answer or to authorize others to answer questions or provide information required by a Congressional committee, court, or agency in the course of an official inquiry when information is relevant to the evaluation of an individual’s reliability.
At the hearing, Contracting Office Specialist Nancy
Bledsoe, who is responsible for the security contracts at
Pitts had previously filed grievances on behalf of employees,
submitting them under her signature, “Bonnie Pitts for” the named employee. The
record reflects that such grievances were filed on May 10 on behalf of Tammy
Flanagan, on May 10 on behalf of Rachael Faber, on July 5 on behalf of Robert
Prueter, and on July 5 on behalf of John Turner. Head, acting on behalf of the
Company, denied the foregoing grievances. The denials do not mention or object
to the failure of the grievant to sign the grievances signed on their behalf by
Pitts. The denials of the grievance of Prueter and Turner are dated July 12. On
July 22, 4 days after Pitts’ discharge, Head sent a memorandum to the
Project Manager Head testified that he considered Pitt’s conduct, her uniform protest in March, her failure to provide a medical excuse in April, and her purportedly “[t]elling people not to show up to work,” to be insubordinate. When asked by counsel for the Respondent whether insubordination was the “the main reason” that he terminated her, Head answered, “yes.” When asked by Counsel for the General Counsel whether he was testifying that the grievance filed by Pitts on behalf of all D shift employees had nothing to do with her discharge, Head answered that he was “not saying it didn’t have anything to do with it. It did cause part of the disruption . . . it was going to cause a disruption.” When shown the discharge document that uses the term disruption only with regard to the purported falsification of the grievance, Head defensively answered, “I’m here to testify that it was all the actions.”
I do not credit Head’s response to his counsel’s question as to whether insubordination was “the main reason” for Pitts discharge or his assertion that it was “all the actions.” The discharge document clearly states and establishes that “the main reason” for her discharge was what Head deemed to be falsification in violation of IRP Chapter 3-7, disqualifying factor 8, by including Dianne Smith in the grievance without her knowledge or consent.
When recalled by the
Respondent, Head again referred to “a disruption to the workforce,” noting the
calls that he received from employees which left him unsure as to whether the
employees were going to report to work as scheduled. There is no evidence that
Pitts had any involvement in, or responsibility for, those calls. More
significantly, the discharge document does not accuse Pitts of counseling
employees not to report to work.
President Clifton Dates testified that Pitts was not fired
for her grievance activity but for “gross insubordination and not working with
our management team.” He felt that her alleged failure to work with management
was because Pitts “felt her loyalty [was] to the
Following her termination, Pitts sought work at various locations including a local tavern, the Office Lounge and Package Store, which is owned by Deborah Weaver. Pitts, as a customer at the Lounge, had informed Weaver of her discharge, explaining that it was for “filing a grievance.” Counsel for the General Counsel subpoenaed Weaver. She did not appear.4 I permitted the General Counsel to make an offer of proof, the substance of which follows:
Ms. Pitts on September 13, 2005, went there [to the Office Lounge] to apply for a job. Ms. Weaver told Ms. Pitts that she didn’t have anything available but asked for her name and information and for a contact number—for previous employer information. She wrote down Ronald Head's name and phone number where he could be reached. On September 16, she telephoned Ronald Head. She asked—she told Mr. Head that Bonnie Pitts had applied for a job and asked if she was dependable and punctual. Mr. Head said yes. He then said that Ms. Pitts had been suspended at the time, then said that Ms. Pitts had gotten involved in union doings, and the conversation ended. She'll [Weaver would] say that she did not ask Mr. Head if Ms. Pitts was involved in union activity.
Pitts did not testify whether she was seeking work as a bartender or in some other capacity, and she cited no past qualifications.
Project Manager Head, when testifying as an adverse witness, denied knowing anyone named Deborah Weaver. When recalled following the foregoing offer of proof, he testified that he had received a call from a woman regarding Pitts, but he “did not know her to be Ms. Weaver at the time.” He considered the call to be a “set up” because the caller was not asking the type of questions normally asked by a prospective employer. He did not recall being asked about attendance or ability to “get along with others.” The individual questioned whether Pitts was still employed or had any continuing relationship with the Company. He truthfully replied that Pitts had been terminated but remained President of the Local Union.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Company’s own document reflects that Pitts was discharged for an alleged misrepresentation in the course of the protected activity of filing grievances and that the discharge violated both Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The Respondent, through the testimony of Project Manager Head, contends that Pitts was discharged for insubordination and disruption. Project Manager Head acknowledged that Pitts was only counseled for being out of uniform in March. Although he referred to the April incident as “insubordination,” the discharge document refers to that discipline as “attendance.” The discharge document simply refers to the prior discipline that Pitts had received for attendance in April and insubordination in March. Head never explained how the July 8 grievance, which sought bargaining, not a monetary remedy, “was going to cause a disruption.”
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
1. The
8(a)(1) allegations
The complaint alleges that the Respondent, on July 11, “sent, or threatened to send, the name of employees who filed grievance to the United States Army’s Government Contracting Officer for possible punitive action.” The memorandum to Local 401 in which Head states that he is sending the names of the employees named in grievance #54 to “COR” does not mention punitive action. There is no evidence that the Contracting Officer Representative has any disciplinary authority regarding employees of the contractor. Neither Pitts nor any other union representative testified to the effect, if any, of sending the names of the employees named in the grievance to the COR. There is no evidence that the memorandum constituted a threat of punitive action for filing a grievance. I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
The complaint alleges
that the Respondent, by Project Manager Head, “told a prospective employer
about employees’ union activity in an attempt to interfere with their job
search.” Although Pitts had informed of Weaver that she had been discharged by
CDA for “filing a grievance,” the General Counsel points out that the complaint
allegation is predicated upon the intent of Project Manger Head. Although Head
had disciplined Pitts for insubordination and attendance, according to the
offer of proof, he assured Weaver that that Pitts was dependable and punctual.
Even if I credited only the statement in the offer of proof, Head’s truthful
reference to Pitts’ union activity would interfere with her job search only if
Weaver, the prospective employer, discriminated on the basis of a prospective employee’s
union sympathies. Weaver knew of Pitts’ union activity, and she had no position
to fill. Head did not seek to discourage Miler from hiring Pitts. James Group Services, 219 NLRB 158
(1975), Armstrong Rubber Co., 215
NLRB 620 (1974).
Insofar as Weaver had no position to fill, I cannot comprehend why Weaver would seek to contact Head regarding a nonexistent position other than at Pitts’ request. I credit Head’s testimony that his reference to Pitts’ union activity was a truthful response to Weaver’s questioning him as to whether Pitts had any continuing relationship with the Respondent. There was no interference with Pitts’ job search. I shall recommend that this allegation dismissed.
2. The
8(a)(5) allegations
The complaint alleges that the Respondent has failed and refused
to provide the
The decision in A-Plus Roofing, 295 NLRB 967, 970
(1989), confirms that “[a]n employer, pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,
has an obligation to provide requested information needed by the bargaining
representative of its employees for the effective performance of the
Respondent's duties and responsibilities. NLRB
v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
The complaint alleges that the Respondent, since July 18,
has refused to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the “supervision and
termination,” actually the suspension and termination, of Pitts; since August
8, has refused to meet and bargain regarding the termination of Pitts; and
since July has failed and refuse to process a grievance regarding requiring employees
to work on their regular day off. On July 19, Pitts filed a grievance regarding
her initial discharge, and on August 17 she filed a grievance regarding her
discharge on August 8. As already noted, on July 11, Project Manger Head
responded to the Union regarding the grievance requiring employees to work on
their day off stating that he used his “management right to direct the work
force to man all post[s].” Thereafter, by letter dated July 22, he informed the
3. The
Discharge of Bonnie Pitt
The Board, in Exxon
Mobil Corp., 343
It is well established that employees, under Section 7 of
the Act, have the protected right to file and process grievances, and the
discipline or discharge of employees for doing so is a violation of Section
8(a)(1). See, e.g., Prime Time Shuttle International,
314 NLRB 838, 841 (1994); Thor Power Tool
Co., 148 NLRB 1379, 1380-1381 (1964), enfd. 351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965).
The Board has long made clear that the grievance activities of union stewards
are especially important to the effectiveness of grievance-arbitration
machinery. Union Fork & Hoe Co.,
241 NLRB 907, 908 (1979);
I have not credited the testimony of Project Manager Head regarding the multiple reasons that he cited as being his reasons for discharging Pitts. When shifting reasons are given by a Respondent in order to justify a discharge, the Board has often inferred that the shifting reasons were given to hide the true reason for the discharge. In this case, the shifting reasons were given in an incredible attempt to negate the reason for discharge that was clearly stated on the Respondent’s discharge document dated July 18.
Project Manager Head asserted that he discharged Pitts for
insubordination, citing her conduct in March and April coupled with his belief
that she was causing disruption by counseling employees not to report for
Freedom Fest, but he did not do so. If, as he claimed in testimony, those were
the reasons for her termination, Head would have discharged Pitts well before
July 18. On July 11, Head responded to the grievance relating to the scheduling
of D shift employees by citing the management-rights clause in the contract. It
was not until the Respondent received the report of Dianna Smith that the
Respondent took any action against Pitts. Project Manager Head appears to have
been aware that he could not discipline Union President Pitts simply for filing
grievances. Notwithstanding that awareness, his refusal to provide information
regarding his approving or denying leave over Father’s Day, while asserting
that he was being “harassed,” reveals antipathy towards the filing of grievances
by the
The discharge document refers to the IRP section relating to falsification. That provision relates to falsification of “material used by DoD.” Contract Specialist Bledsoe testified that the grievance was not a document used by the Department of Defense. The Board, in Roadmaster Corp., 288 NLRB 1195 (1988), held that the union steward therein, although having actually forged the name of the grievant, had not falsified a company document because “grievance forms . . . cannot reasonably be considered company documents within the meaning of the Respondent's rule in this case.” In this case, the grievance was not a DoD document. It was not used by DoD. It was and is a union document. There was no falsification in violation of the IRP.
Furthermore, there was no falsification of any document. The group grievance names the affected D shift employees. Pitts did not forge any signatures. She, as President, signed the grievance on their behalf, “for ‘D’ Shift officers.” The fact that one or more of the affected employees “may not have been aware or may not have directly participated in . . .[the] decision” to file the grievance is immaterial. Brad Snodgrass, Inc., 338 NLRB 917, 923 (2003). The grievance was a grievance of the union claiming a change in past practice that was contrary to the contract.
As Counsel for the General Counsel points out in his
brief, the grievance does not claim that any D shift employee was complaining.
The grievance requests that that “this practice cease until negotiated on,” an
institutional remedy involving the
The General Counsel argues that Pitts was discharged for
her grievance filing and union activity, alleged in the complaint as both an
8(a)(1) and (3) violation. In this case, as in Roadmaster Corp., supra, there is evidence of animus towards
grievance filing activity. Project Manager Head’s June 22 response to the
I am mindful that the Board holds that “where an employer
admits that it discharged an employee for engaging in protected activity, a Wright Line analysis is inapplicable.
See, e.g., Phoenix Transit System,
337 NLRB 510 (2002), enfd. 63 Fed. Appx. 524 (D.C. Cir. 2003).” Allied Aviation Fueling of
The Respondent has not established that Pitts would have been discharged in the absence of her protected conduct. The alleged falsification of the grievance “was part of the res gestae” of her protected grievance filing activity. In fact, there was no falsification. I have not credited Project Head’s testimony, unsupported by any probative evidence, that Pitts engaged in any misconduct with regard to the work requirements for Freedom Fest. No such misconduct is stated in the discharge memorandum. President Dates’ references to Pitts’ loyalty further confirm the Respondent’s unlawful motivation. I find that the reasons offered by the Respondent at the hearing that vary from the clear language of the discharge document are pretextual. The discharge document cites Pitts for falsification in violation of disqualifying factor 8 in the IRP [Individual Reliability Program]. That provision relates to “material used by DoD.” Pitts did not falsify material used by the Department of Defense. As I have found, she falsified nothing. When the reason given for an adverse employment action is either false, or does not exist, the Respondent has not rebutted General Counsel’s prima facie case. Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981). Thus, even if a Wright Line analysis were applicable, the record establishes that the Respondent discharged Pitts because of her protected grievance filing activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. By discharging Bonnie Pitts on July 18, 2005, thereafter converting the discharge to a suspension, and by discharging her on August 8, 2005, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information it requested regarding requests for the day off on Father’s Day and the granting or denial of such requests and reasons for denials as requested by the Union on June 21, 2005, said information being relevant and necessary to the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees it represents, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Bonnie Pitts, it must offer her reinstatement and make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from August 8, 2005, to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The Respondent having failed and refused to provide the Union
with the information it sought regarding requests for the day off on Father’s
Day, the granting or denial of such requests, and reasons for denials as
requested by the
The Respondent must also post an appropriate notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, CDA, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaging in grievance filing activities for United Government Security Officers of America, International Union, and United Government Security Officers of America, Local 401, or any other union.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information regarding requests for the day off on Father’s Day, the granting or denial of such requests, and the reasons for denials as requested by the Union on June 21, 2005, said information being relevant and necessary to the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees it represents in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time security officers employed by the Employer to provide security at the Fort Rucker Army Base under the terms of any Federal Government’s Department of Defense contract with the Employer.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Bonnie Pitts full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Bonnie Pitts whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from
the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge, and within 3 days thereafter notify Bonnie Pitts in writing that
this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against her in any
way.
(d) Provide the Union with the information it sought regarding
requests for the day off on Father’s Day and the granting or denial of such
requests and reasons for denials as requested by the
(e) 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 designated 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, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility at
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated,
APPENDIX
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor
Relations Board had found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us
to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
We will not discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for engaging in grievance filing activities for United Government Security Officers of America, International Union, and United Government Security Officers of America, Local 401, or any other union.
We will not
fail and refuse to provide to the Union information that it has requested that
is relevant and necessary to the
All full-time and regular part-time security officers employed by the Employer to provide security at the Fort Rucker Army Base under the terms of any Federal Government’s Department of Defense contract with the Employer.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
We will, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Bonnie Pitts full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and we will make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
We will, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Bonnie Pitts and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against her in any way.
We will
promptly provide the Union with the information it sought regarding requests
for the day off on Father’s Day, the granting or denial of such requests, and
reasons for denials as requested by the
cda, inc.
.
1 The Respondent has not
excepted to the judge’s finding that its failure to provide requested
information to the
1 All dates are in 2005 unless otherwise indicated. The charge in Case 15–CA–17832 was filed on September 30 and amended on December 13.
2 Counsel for the General Counsel objected to the severance of the cases but not to the terms of the settlement, which were stated on the record and to which both the Respondent and Charging Party, a different union representing a different unit, agreed. In view of Counsel’s objection, rather than remanding Case 15–CA–17898 to the Region, I retained jurisdiction and advised the parties that, in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of the non-Board settlement, the alleged failure should be raised pursuant to an appropriate motion to me. Counsel stated that his objection was predicated upon a policy of the Region regarding severance. Case No. 15–CA–17898 involved a different Charging Party and a different unit. I perceived no basis for depriving the parties of an amicable settlement upon terms to which they agreed and to which the General Counsel had no objection.
All full-time and regular
part-time security officers employed by the Employer to provide security at the
Fort Rucker Army Base under the terms of any Federal Government’s Department of
Defense contract with the Employer.
4 I denied a motion to
adjourn the hearing for subpoena enforcement. See Ohmite Mfg. Co., 290
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
6 If this Order is
enforced by a judgment of a