Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. v. International Union, Security, Police

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 5, 2016

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY, POLICE AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA, together with its LOCAL No. 646 Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES C. CACHERIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Inter-Con Security System, Inc.’s (“Inter-Con” or “Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 16]. For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and enters Judgement in favor of Defendants.

I. Background

The following facts are taken from the parties’ Local Rule 56(B) statements and are undisputed[1] unless otherwise indicated. Inter-Con is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Pasadena, California. (SOF, ¶ G1.) Inter-Con also maintains offices within the Eastern District of Virginia in Lorton, Virginia. (Id.) Inter-Con is an employer within the meaning of the Labor Management Relation Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (“LMRA”). (Id. at ¶ G2.) Defendants International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America and its Local No. 646 (collectively, “the Union” or “Defendants”) are labor organizations within the meaning of the LMRA. (Id. at ¶ G3.) The Union maintains an office in Roseville, Michigan. (Id.)

Plaintiff provides security services for public and private sector clients in the United States and abroad. (Id. at ¶ G4.) Inter-Con holds a contract to provide security services for the United States Department of State at approximately eighty facilities including the State Department headquarters at the Harry S. Truman Building in Washington, D.C. (“Main State”). (Id. at ¶ G5.) Inter-Con employs approximately 200 people at the Main State site, including uniformed armed protection officers, unarmed security officers, and K-9 unit officers. (Id. at ¶ G6.) In addition to protecting the Main State building itself, Inter-Con is responsible for securing all of the property located inside the building, including top-secret classified materials. (Id. at ¶ G7.)

The Union is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for Inter-Con security officers who work at Main State. (Id. at ¶ G8.) On December 15, 2013, Inter-Con and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) that covers the bargaining unit employees at Main State. (Id. at ¶ G9.) Article 23.1 of the CBA, titled “Management Rights”, reads as follows:

The Management and operation of the business of Employer and the direction of the workforce are rights vested exclusively in Employer, unless expressly abridged by the terms of this Agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Making and enforcing rules to assure orderly and efficient operations.
B. Determining Employee’s qualifications and competencies and the right to hire, transfer, promote or demote.
C. Suspending and discharging.

(CBA, Pl.’s Ex. 1, Attach. D, [Dkt. 17-5] at 51.) Article 14.1 of the CBA, titled “Discipline/Discharge for Just Cause”, provides as follows:

Employees may be disciplined or discharged for just cause. In the event of a discharge or disciplinary action by the Company, the Employee will be given a written reason for the Employee’s discharge or disciplinary action. Upon receiving the written reason for the disciplinary action, the Employee will be provided with an opportunity to respond to the charge in writing. In the event of disciplinary action by the Company, in which the Company requests the presence of the Employee, the Employee will be provided Union representation if it is requested by the Employee. The Company agrees to give the Union two (2) business days to arrange for a Shop Steward or other Union Official to attend the meeting.
In the event of a discharge or disciplinary action by the Company, the Company will give the Employee notice of the violation prior to the issuance of official discipline in the form of a “Notice of Violation.” The notice of violation is not disciplinary action. The Employee will have the opportunity to respond to the charge in writing on the “Notice of Violation” form. The Company will take a written Employee response into consideration when reviewing the incident and determining if official discipline is warranted.
Should it be determined that discipline is warranted at the level of a suspension based on the Inter-Con Services Corporation Policy Statement of Disciplinary Action, the Company will notify the Employee of the suspension in writing. Upon final determination of disciplinary action, every effort will be made to schedule an Employee’s suspension in a timely fashion, however, suspensions will be scheduled in a manner that minimize financial and operation impact to the Company.

(Id. at 43.) Article 6.8 sets forth an arbitration procedure for the resolution of grievances, providing:

6.8 Arbitration Procedure
Grievances that have been timely processed in accordance with the requirements of the previous paragraphs and remain unsettled shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures and limitations.
***
6.8.5 Arbitrator’s ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.