## Facts

- International Protective Services, Inc. (IPS) provided armed security services at multiple federal buildings in Alaska under a federal contract.
- The guarded facilities included high-profile government offices and law-enforcement-related tenants, where continuous security coverage was significant.
- In March and April, security concerns were unusually elevated due to heightened bomb-threat risk associated with an Oklahoma City bombing anniversary period.
- The union and IPS were in unsuccessful contract negotiations; union leadership sought to time a strike to maximize leverage.
- The union withheld strike timing (and at times even the fact of an impending strike) from the federal facilities’ contracting and law-enforcement contacts, aiming to retain “surprise.”
- An earlier proposed strike date was reportedly reconsidered when some guards objected due to a perceived risk of harm to numerous military personnel present at a facility.
- On April 21, the union delivered demands and requested an immediate response; when IPS did not respond by noon, the union called a strike effective 12:00 p.m. the same day.
- The work stoppage occurred without sufficient advance warning to relevant federal authorities during a period of heightened security risk, and IPS discharged the strikers.
- An Administrative Law Judge ruled for IPS on unfair labor practice allegations; the Board reviewed that decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the union’s strike was protected concerted activity under NLRA § 7 when timed and executed as a surprise work stoppage in a heightened-risk security setting without adequate notice or precautions.
2. Whether IPS violated the NLRA by discharging the striking guards, or whether the strike’s unprotected character permitted termination.

## Decision

- The Board concluded the strike was unprotected because the union failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable risks to persons and property in the specific security context.
- The Board treated the union’s effort to “capitalize on the element of surprise” by withholding notice as supporting a finding of inadequate precautions.
- Because the conduct was unprotected, IPS’s discharge of the strikers did not constitute unlawful retaliation under the NLRA.
- The Board largely affirmed the outcome favorable to IPS reached by the ALJ.

## Legal Principles

- Although employees generally have a right to strike under NLRA § 7, strike activity may lose statutory protection when a union fails to take reasonable precautions to protect property or public safety from foreseeable harm.
- A deliberate surprise strike strategy—especially where advance notice would allow steps to mitigate serious, predictable risks—may evidence a failure to take reasonable precautions and render the strike unprotected.
- When a strike is unprotected, an employer may lawfully discipline or discharge participating employees without committing an unfair labor practice based solely on the work stoppage.

## Conclusion

The Board determined that a surprise strike by armed security guards at sensitive federal facilities during a heightened threat period, carried out without adequate notice or protective measures, was unprotected under the NLRA; accordingly, the employer’s discharge of the strikers was lawful.


Int'l Protective Servs., Inc., 339 N.L.R.B. 701 (2003)