ADT Violated National Labor Relations Act, Threatened Employee over Union Activity

By Isabella Cheng, Published Apr 01, 2022, 09:24am EDT (Info+)

Referring to ADT's "lengthy record of unfair labor practices," a federal judge found that the company violated federal labor laws by unilaterally changing employment terms and threatening an employee who supported unionization.

IPVM Image

In this report, IPVM examines the complaints against ADT, the findings in the case, and decision from the National Labor Relations Board.

Executive *******

*** *** ***** ** **** ******** labor **** ** ************ ******** *** terms ** ********** *** ********* ********* and *** "************* *** *********** *********" over ***** ******* *** *** *****. This ******** ***** ** ******** *** a ********* *** ******** **** ****** into * ****** ******** ** ******** 2019. ******** *** ******** ******* **** represented ** * *****, *** ********* workers **** ***. *** ******** ** could ******** *********** ** *** ***** after **** ************* *** ******* *** the ******** ********* ******** ***, ******** pay, *******, *** ************ ******* ********** the ******* **** *** ******** *********.

Judge: *** ******** ***** ****

** ***** **, ****, ** ************** Law ***** ** *** ******** ***** Relations ***** (****) ***** *** ******** the ******** ***** ********* *** ** unlawfully *********** *********** **** * ********** established *** *******' *****. *** *****'***-**** ************:

************, ***** ***** ***** ********** [***]unlawfully ******** *********** **** *** ***** as it did not have “compelling circumstances” required by the Board in ADT Security Services, Inc., 355 NLRB 1388, 1388-9 (2010), to justify “a departure from its 26-year collective-bargaining relationship with the Union” in order to integrate unrepresented employees into a bargaining unit. [ALJD at 11]. [emphasis added]

*******, *** ***** ***** *** ** have "************" ******* *** *******' *** and ********, ** ********* ** ** labor ****:

***** ***** ******* ***** **********, ****** unlawfully ********* *********** **** *** *****,unilaterally ******* *** ********** **** *********’ ****** ** ************, ******** *** *** **** **** ***, *********** * ***** ****** **** *** ********** ******* **** ** ************* *********, *** ********** * *** *********** ****** ******, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. [emphasis added]

******* ****** *** ******** ****, *** union *** ***** * ********** ******* ADT **** *** ****.

** ******** ** *** *****'* ********, ADT***** ** ****** ** *** **, 2021, ****** *** **** ** ******* the ********.

Federal ***** **** ********

*** ***** **** *** ******** *** set *** ** *********** ***** ********* ***,** *.*. **** § ***. ************, *** ******** ******* *(*)(*), which ***** ** ******* ** ****** to "******* ************" (*.*. **** ********** decisions):

** ***** ** ******** ***** *********** **********—(*)** ****** ** ******* ************ **** the***************** ************,******* ** *** ********** ********* ***(*) ** **** *****.

*** **** ******** ******* *(*)(*), ***** makes ** ***** ** "******" ********* when **** ******* ** ******** ***** rights:

** ***** ** ******** ***** *********** **********—(*)** ********* ****, ********, ** ***************** *** ******** ** *** ****** guaranteed ********* *** ** **** *****;

NLRB ******* ********

*** **** *** ******. ** ******** 17, ****, *** **** ******* ** affirm *** *****'* ******** **** ***** 2021,******* ** *** ***** ********:

*** ******** ***** ********* ***** *** delegated *** ********* ** **** ********** to * *****-****** *****. *** ***** has ********** *** ******** *** *** record ** ***** ** *** **********, cross-exceptions, *** ****** *** ***decided ** ****** *** *****’* *******, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below. [emphasis added]

**** *** *** **** *** ******* from *** ** ******, *** *** did *** ***** ** *** ******* for *******.

[****** */**] ******** ** ****** **** ********** ********, ***** **, **** ** the ******* ******* ** ***** ** Appeals.

***** ***** ** *** ********* ***** level *** ********* ******** ** ****, with ~**% ** ******** ***** ******** fully ** ****,********* ** *** ****.

IPVM Image

Court: ***'* "******* ******" ** ****** ***** *********

*** ***** ********* * *****-***-****** *****(***) ******* *** ****** **** **** opinion **** ***** **** *** "*********** where * ********** ** ***** ** have * '********** ** ******* *** Act ** *** ******* ** **** egregious ** ********** ********** ** ** demonstrate * ******* ********* *** … fundamental ********* ******.'"

*** ** *** **** ******, *** judge ******:

**** ** ***** ** ********* **** based ** *** **********’* ******* ****** of ****** ***** *********.

*** ***** ***** * **** ********* against *** ******* **** *** ****, all ********* ***'* ***** *** **********, including:

  • ***, ***, *** **** **. **(****): "********** ******** ***** *** ***** directly **** *********."
  • ***, ***, *** **** **. **(****): "******** ********* ** *** ********* who ******* ** ********* ***** ********."
  • *** ******** ********, ***., *** **** 1388: "********** ******** *********** **** *** failed *** ******* ** ********* *** bargain."
  • ***, ***, **** ** ******* (**** 17, ****), ******* **** ** ******* (July **, ****) **: "********** ********* union ***************, ******** *********** **** *** union, ******* ** ******* *** ***** by **********-********** *********, *** ******** *************."
  • *** ***, **** ** ******* (*** 16, ****), ******* **** ** ******* (June **, ****): "****** ** ******* over *** ******* ** ******** *******, failed *** ******* ** ******* *** timely ******* ***** **** ********* *** relevant ***********."
  • ***, ***, *** **** **. ** (2015) [*********** ** **** *******]: "****** to ** ******* ***** **** ******** and ********* *********** ********)."

*** *** **** ******* ** *** judge ** ********* *** ******* **** Local ***, ******* *** ********** *******, and "**** ********** **** ********* ***** for *** ***** **** ******** ** the ****** ** *** **********’* ********** of *** ********** *******."

Local ***** *** **********

*** ***** ******** ** **** **** is **************** *********** ** ********** ******* ***** Union ***, ***** ********** "**********, ***********, *** service *********" ******** ** ***'* ********, Illinois ******, ********* ** *** **** judge's ******** ** ****. **** ***** was *** "********* **********-********** **************" ** ADT ***** ** *** ******** ********.

***** ****, ***** *** *** ******* into ********** **********-********** ********** (****) **** ADT, ***** ******* *** ******** *** employees *** ** ** ****, ******** guidelines, ********* **********, ***. *** **** were *** ******** ** * **** of *** ******, ** **** **** not **** *** ***** ***** ** the ********* ******* *** ***** *** ADT, ****** *** ******* **** *** judge ********* ** *** ********.

Rockford, ** *** *******, ** ******* ************

** ******** ****, *** ********, ******** ADT ****** *** *******, ********* *** offices **** ************ **** * ******** office ***** ** **********, *********, ************* halfway ******* ******** *** *******.

******** *** *** ******* ******, *** Rockford ***** ********* ** ******* ******** Illinois *** *** ******* ***** ********* to ******* ***** ** *********, ********* to *** *****'* ********:

***** ******* *, *** ****** ********-***** employees ********* ** ******* ******** ******** and ***** ***** *** ********** ** employment ***** *** ***, ********* ***** and ******, ******** *** ****. *** former *******-***** ********* ********* ** ******* areas ********* ** *********.

*** ***** ***** **** ***** ***'* CBAs "***** ******* ** *** ******* technicians," **** *** ******** ***********.

ADT ******* ** ****** ** ********** *********

****** *** ******** **** ********-******* *************, Rockford ********* **** ******* ** *** management **** *** ******** *****' ********** terms *** ********** ***** *** ****** after *** ****, *** ***** ******:

**** [**** ****, *** **** *******] echoed **** ********* ** ******* [***** Rowlett, ***** ***'* ********* ******** *******] when ** ******** ** ** *** effect **** *** **** ***** ********* have ** *** ******** *********’ ***** and ********** ** **********:they “***** ** ******* ***** **** [***] *** ********** ***** ** *** **** ***** **** **** **** **** ** ** ****** ********, ** ***** ** * ********* ********.” [emphasis added]

*** ** **** ***********, *** ******** techs *** *** ******* ** ******* over *** **** ***** ** ******** by *** *************, *** ***** **********:

***** **** **** **************, *** ***** did *** ****** ** ******* **** the ******* ** *** ******* ** the ******** ****** ** *** **** to **********.

ADT ********* *********** ** *****

******** *** ******* ***** ***** ** no ****** ** * ****** ** the *************, ******* * ****** ** **** **, 2020****** ******, *** ******** ******* *** ********* secretary ** ***** ***, ******* **** ADT ***** ******** *** *********** ** the ***** ** ****** **, ****, after *** ****-******* *** ***** ******.

***'* ********* *** *********** *********** ** that *** ******* *** ******** * petition ** ***** *************** **** "* majority ** *** *** ********* ** the **** ***** *** ********** **** in **********, **." ***'* ****** ** the ******* ** ***** *** ******:

**** ******** ****** **** *** ********-******* do *** **** ** ** *********** by *** ***** *** **** **** want *** ******* ** ******** *********** of *** ***** ***********. **** ******** was *** *********. ********, ** **** authenticated *** ******** *** ******** **** it ** ********* ** * ******** of *** ********* ** *** ********** unit.

*******, **** ******** ** ********* *** not **** **** *** * ******** employees, *** *****'* ******** ****. ** came **** *** * ******* *********, who ** ** ***** **** ******* by *** ********** ********* ******* *** and ***** ***.

*** ******** **** *** ****** *** the ******* ********* ****** ******** ** petition *** ***************. ** **** ******** that * ******* ******** **** "** was ****** ** *** *** ******, and *** ** *** ****** ** the ******* [***]."

Union ******* *** ********

** **** *, ****, ***** ***'* business ******* **** ****** ********* ** ADT's ********* *** *********** ***********, ******* that ***** *** "* ****** ** problems" ** ***'* ******.******'* ****** ** ********* **** *** ********** ********* ******* only ** *** ******** *********, *** continue ** **** ***** ***'* **************. Further, **** ** *** ******** ********* signed *** *************** ********:

***** *** *********** ********* **** ******** to **********, *** *** ********* ** apply *** ***** *** ********** ** the ***** *** ********** ********** ********* to **** ********** ****.To *** *********, *** *** ***** ******* *** ***** ** *** ***** *** ********* ** *** ***** ********* *** *** ** ******* ** *** ********** ********. The Rockford bargaining unit members who were transferred to Janesville continue to want Local 364 to represent them, and none **** ****** *** **** ********, as claimed by ADT.

******'* ****** **** ********* **** ***-******** employees **** *** ******* ** *** existing ********** ********* ******* *** *** Local ***:

** *** ****** **** * ******** was ****** ** ********* ******* ** the ******** ********** ****,Local *** *** ***** ******** **** **** *** ***** ** ** ******* ** ******** ********** ********** *********.

*********, *** ******** **** **** ******* employees *** "** ******* ** ***'* obligations ** *** ******** ********** ****."

******, *** ***** ****** **** ***** 364's ********. ******* *** ******** *************, the ******** *** ******* ********* ***** continued **** ***** ***-****** ***** *** schedules. ***** ** ** ***** ***** agreement **** **** *** ********** ************* Madison ***** **** ******** *********** *** just ******* ** *** ******.

ADT: ** ******** ** ***** ***

***** ***** *** ***** ** *** disagreeing **** ***'* ******** ** ******** recognition ** *** *****, ******* **** Local *** ******** ** **** *** 7 ***** **** * ****** ** bargain **** * *** *********, ** the ****-******* ********* *** *** ** expire ** ****** **, ****. *******, ADT ***** ********* ** ***** ***'* requests *** *** ******** *********** ** the *****, ********* ** *** *****'* decision:

*** *** ******** **** ********** ** the **********, ** ********, ******** *********** of *** ***** ** ****** **, as *** ********* ********** ********** ************** of *** ********** ****.

Unilateral ******* - ********, *****, *********** ******

***** ********* *, ****, ** *** CBA ******* *** *** ***** *** had ******* **** ** *** *********, ADT "*********** ******* ***** ********** ******* to **** *********’ ***** *** ********** of **********," ********* ** *** *****'* decision, *********:

  • ********: **********, ******** ********* ******* ******** pay ***** ******* * ***** **** day, ********** ** *** ***** **** worked *** ****. ***** *********** ***********, Rockford ********* **** "**** ** ***** per **** ** *** *** **** of ********."
  • ******** *** **** *****: **********, ******** employees *** ******** ******** **** *** sick ****. ***** *********** ***********, *** Rockford ********* **** ***** * "****-*** category ** **** **** ***" **** is "********* ** *** ***** ****** each ****."
  • *********** ****** ******: ******** ************ ********* previously *** ** ****** ** ************. However, ***** *********** ***********, ***** ********* were "******** **** *********' *********** ******* and, **********, ***** ************."

Threats **** *****

*** **** ********** * ******** ******** over *** ********** ** *******, *** judge **********.

***** *** *** ********** *********, ******** employees **** *** ******** ** **** bonuses. **** ******* ***** *** ******** recognition ** *** *****. *** ******** employees ****** ******** ** ******* "******* $200 *** $*** ***** *** ***** under *** ***** *********** ***********-***** ***** plan."

*******, *** ****** * ******** ********, David ********, **** *** ***** ***** disappear ** *** ********* **** ** unionize *****:

** ***** *******, **** [*** **** Manager] ******** ******** [******** ********] **** he ***** ** ********* *** ******* bonus ***** ** **********.He ******, *******, **** ** *** ********** **** ********* “** **** ** *** ***** **** **** **** ** ****, that you will not be part of the bonus program, the TFE program . . . ADT would not do both. That, you know if you are part of the Union, you can’t have the bonus program.” [emphasis added]

*** ******** ******** ********* **** *** at *** ****, ******* **** *******, too, ***** ** ********** ** *** employees **** ** ******** *****:

******** ******* **** ** **** **** part ** *** ***** ********** ***** be ** ** ***********.

**** ************ ******** ** * ******, according ** *** *****:

****’ [**** ****, *** **** *******]one-two ***** *********** ** ************* ***** *** ****** ****** in the early October conversation with Anderson [David Anderson, Rockford ADT employee] had ** ******* ***** **** ** **** *** ***** ********** ********. [emphasis added]

ADT *******/***** ****** **********

*** *** **** ******** ** * number ** ******* *** ***** ******, with *** ***** ***** ***** ******** out **** *** *** *** * track ****** ** ***** ********** ** the ****. ***** ***** ****** ********* ADT ******* ********** "****** *************" ********** ***************** ********* ****-**-**** ***** *********. ********** ***** *******, *** ******** legal, ********** ** * ******* **** for *** *** *** *****.

ADT: ** ********

*** *** *** ******* ** ****'* request *** *******. ** ** ******* a *****, ** **** ****** **** report.

Comments (1)

[UPDATE */**] ADT ***** ** ****** **** ********** ********, ***** **, **** ** the ******* ******* ** ***** ** Appeals.

**** **** ******** ** ***** **** appeal.

***'* ******* ******* ** *** **** hearing *** **** *** ******* ********* were ******** ** *** ********** ****, the *** ********* **** *** **** wrote:

*********, *** ********** ******** **** *** appropriate ********** **** **** ** ******* the ******* ********* ******* *** ***** attempted ** ****** *** ********** ** include **** ** ****** * ************** petition.

*** ***** ***** **** *** **** ultimately ******** ***'* *******. ******** *** Rockford *** ******* ********* **** ********** combined **** *** *** ******, **** still **** *********** **** *****, *** the **** ******** ** ****** *** merger, ******** *** **** ***-****** *****, etc.:

*** ***** ******** *** **********’* ********** that *** ********* *********** **** * single ************* ***** ***** **** ** the ******** ***** ** ********** ******** intact: *** ********** **** ******** ****** lists *** **** ** ***** ** employees; ********* **** ***** ********** **** home *** ******** *** **** ***** as ****** *** ******; *** ********* visited *** ******** ** * ****** basis ** **** ** *** **** off *****.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports