Burns International Security Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES 11
Burns International Security Services, Inc. and
Laborers International Union of North America,
Local No. 1297, AFL-CIO. Case 28-CA-3071
January 3, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On July 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief ; the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions with a supporting brief and a brief
in answer to Respondent's exceptions ; and Respon-
dent filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's
cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by soliciting
grievances in order to induce employees to abandon
the Union and to refrain from seeking a union which
could be certified to represent guards. We disagree.
1. The unlawful solicitation of grievances, as
found by the Administrative Law Judge, was by
Manager Schofield at a meeting with employees on
January 17, 1974. The purpose of this meeting was to
dispel rumors being circulated which cast Respon-
dent in an unfavorable light and to announce a
layoff that was to be effected later in the day. It was
not the first meeting Schofield held with employees
to "clear the air." Unlike the previous meetings for
which employees were not paid , this meeting was a
protracted one, hence the employees were paid for
their time . Schofield asked for questions or com-
ments , but the record in no way establishes that this
constituted a solicitation of grievances calculated to
induce employees to forsake the Union. In conclud-
ing otherwise, the Administrative Law Judge places
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951 ). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Administrative
much reliance on the portion of the November 15
memorandum between members of management
which is quoted in his Decision. The memorandum,
however, only proposes that the "actual story"
regarding "wages and fringes" be properly explained
to the employees. There is no suggestion therein for
soliciting grievances and promising improved work-
ing conditions as a means of dissuading the employ-
ees from seeking union representation . Contrary to
the Administrative Law Judge, therefore, we find
that the General Counsel has not satisfied his burden
of proving the unlawful solicitation of grievances.
2. Like the Administrative Law Judge, we find
that Rose Marie Warren was discharged in violation
of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. However, while
we agree with him that the record establishes that
Warren was discharged on account of her union
activity, we place no reliance on his view that
"Schofield deliberately construed Bohi's report of
Warren's statement to her to indicate that Warren
personally was seeking to have Bums and Schofield
ousted from the airport."
But, even were we to assume that Head Supervisor
Bohi reported to Schofield, as Bohi in effect testified,
that she had learned from Warren that Warren's
activity in organizing the employees was fueled by a
"personal vendetta" against Schofield and Respon-
dent and that Schofield later discharged Warren
upon learning this; and that an employer is entitled
to discharge an employee whose union activity is
thus motivated, we would still find that the discharge
was unlawful. For, on the basis of the testimony
credited by the Administrative Law Judge, Warren
did not in fact advise Bohi of any such personal
animosity, and her union activity as shown by the
record was wholly protected by the Act.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Bums International Security Services, Inc.,
Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c):
"(c) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs
Law Judge to find that Respondent's manager, Christian Schofield , violated
Sec. 8(axl) by threatening its employees with a loss of jobs when, on
January 17, 1974, he explained the consequences of unionization . We are,
however, finding other instances of unlawful threats of loss of employment
and we are enjoining such misconduct in our Order. In view thereof, it
would be cumulative to find the additional threat alleged by the General
Counsel and it is therefore unnecessary to pass upon it.
2 See N.LRB. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21(1964).
216 NLRB No. I
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if they select a union as their bargaining representa-
tive."
2. Delete paragraph 1(d) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs accordingly.
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT request employees to engage in
surveillance of union activities of their fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
regarding their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
their jobs if they select a union as their bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
their jobs if they engage in activities on behalf of
Laborers International Union of North America,
Local No. 1297, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
aforesaid Union , or any other labor organization,
by discriminating against employees in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Patricia Galloway and Rose
Marie Warren immediate and full reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer
exist , to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges , and WE WILL make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered by them by reason of their
discriminatory discharges.
herein was issued on March 18 , 1974. The complaint
alleges that Bums International Security Services, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as Respondent , violated Section
8(ax l) and (3) of the Act. Respondent , by its answer, as
amended , denies that it engaged in conduct violative of the
Act.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Phoenix,
Arizona, on May 22 and 23 , 1974, before me. Appearances
were entered on behalf of the General Counsel and
Respondent, and briefs were timely received from said
parties on July 11 and 10, 1974, respectively.
Upon the entire record 1 in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an office and
place of business located at Phoenix , Arizona, is engaged
in the business of furnishing security guards services.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint,
which period is representative of its operations generally,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations , performed guard services valued in excess of
$50,000 for interstate airline companies within the State of
Arizona, at Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix,
Arizona. Said companies are engaged in interstate trans-
portation operations which constitute a link in the chain of
interstate commerce and they derive a gross revenue in
excess of $50,000 from said operations.
Respondent annually furnishes guard services valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the States of
Arizona and Delaware.
As admitted by Respondent, it is now, and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondent , the Union is, and has
been at all times material herein , a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act .2
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
BURNS INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT , Administrative Law Judge : Based on
a charge filed on January 22, 1974, by Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, LocalNo. 1297,AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as the Union, the complaint
Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
2 The General Counsel apparently concedes that the Umon admits to
membership, and is affiliated directly with an organization which admits to
A. The Issues
The issues are as follows:
1. Whether or not Respondent, during the period from
January 7, 1974, through January 17, 1974, by the conduct
of three of its admitted supervisors engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(ax 1) of the Act.
2. Whether or not, on January 17, 1974, Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Rose Marie Warren and
Patricia Galloway in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of
the Act.
membership, employees other than guards and, therefore , as provided in
Sec. 9(b)(3) of the Act , cannot be certified as the representative of
employees for a bargaining unit of guards.
BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES 13
B. Background Information
Since August 6, 1973, and continuing to the date of the
hearing, Burns has provided personnel security guards and
baggage inspection services at the east and west wing of the
Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, for
its clients American, Trans World, and Western Airlines
and Hughes Air West pursuant to verbal agreements.
Burns obtained said agreements after bidding by Bums
and four other security companies including Continental
Security Company. Christian Schofield is Respondent's
Phoenix branch manager and represents Respondent in its
dealings with a committee of its clients.
The incidents involved in this proceeding relate only to
Respondent's operations in the east wing, also referred to
herein as the Sterile Concourse. Said east wing is manned
by Respondent's employees 7 days per week and 24 hours
per day in three shifts of 8 hours each starting at 6 a.m.
Warren and Galloway, who, as above-mentioned, were
alleged to have been discharged for their union activities,
were regular full-time employees on the first shift. During
the time material herein, 17 employees were regularly
scheduled to work the first shift which required additional
full-time employees as well as "floaters" who worked on an
"on-call" basis. Each shift had a supervisor and, at times,
an assistant supervisor. At all times material herein the first
shift was supervised by Darlene Winton. She, in turn, was
supervised by a head supervisor who, at the time material
herein, was Deborah Bohi. She, in turn, reported to
Schofield. Respondent admits that all three are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
C. The Union Organizational Activity
According to the credited testimony of Warren, in mid-
December 1973, a representative of the Union introduced
himself to her and three other employees during one of
their breaks and asked them if they were interested in
union representation; a meeting was set up with the union
representative about a week later in the union offices in
which the employees discussed their grievances and
decided that they would talk to the other girls to see if
there were enough of them interested; and on January 4,
the union representative brought authorization cards to the
airport and asked Warren and several other employees
whether they were interested. Warren and several of the
other girls signed authorization cards and solicited signa-
tures . It appears that Warren was the principal leader in
the union organizational drive. Galloway credibly testified
that, on January 7, Warren and two other employees
informed her of the attempt to obtain union representation
and asked her if she were interested; she responded in the
affirmative and attended a union meeting a day or two
later . She further credibly testified that she distributed
authorization cards to other girls and gave the signed cards
to Warren. Winton credibly testified that she told Schofield
in the first week of January 1974 that the employees were
heatedly discussing unionization . Schofield testified that
prior to their discharge he considered Warren and
Galloway to be among the leaders in the Union's
organizational drive.
D. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
Galloway testified to a conversation she had with
Winton on January 7, 1974, in Respondent's office in the
west wing. It appears that Bohi was present at the time.
Winton asked her what she had "heard about the union."
Galloway's testimony as to what then ensued is as follows:
I told her at that point, I really didn't know a lot
about it, but it had been mentioned to me and that I
did know about it. But I didn't really-I wanted to
reserve judgment on anything until I could find out
what was going on.
She asked me-she felt that I was closer to the girls
than to her, and, of course, the girls weren't going to
tell her anything. So she asked me to try to obtain,
specifically, the name of the union, the name of the
man who had approached the girls, the girls' names
who were involved, specifically the leaders, and when I
got this information to relate it back to her, even if I
had to falsify myself and go along with the girls and
sign a union card in order to obtain this information,
that was fine.
Winton also testified with respect to the incident and her
testimony for the most part corroborates that of Galloway
although she placed the date of the incident about January
10. It appears that Galloway had a better recollection of
the exact date and her testimony with respect thereto is
credited. Winton, however, denied that she asked Gallo-
way who the instigators were and "to falsify herself by
signing a card to get information about the union."
Galloway was the more impressive of the two witnesses
and, therefore, her version of the conversation is credited.
It is alleged in paragraph 6(a) of the complaint that:
On or about January 7, 1974, Respondent, by
Deborah Bohi and Darlene Winton, requested employ-
ees to engage in surveillance of the Union activities of
their fellow employees.
It appears that there is no evidence to support the
allegation that Bohi engaged in the alleged conduct and,
therefore, that portion of the allegation should be dis-
missed. However, it is found that the above-outlined
credited testimony of Galloway does support the remain-
ing portion of the above allegation and it is concluded that
Respondent did, by Winton's conduct attempt to enlist
Galloway to engage in surveillance of the union activities
of her fellow employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Warren testified that on or about January 10 she had a
conversation with Winton concerning the Union. Warren's
testimony as to that conversation is as follows:
A. (Continuing.) She came up to me and said,
"What's this I hear about a union?" and I said, "What
do you mean?" She just more or less asked me, you
know, who wanted it, were the girls for it, who was
ramrodding the show, and what benefits would we get
out of it. If it was good for our girls, then she was all for
it, too.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. (By Mr. Kaplan) What were your responses to
these questions?
A. I tried to be a little vague with her because I
didn't want to specifically name anybody. I didn't
know what would come out of it. I didn't know why she
was so interested.
It does not appear that the above-quoted testimony was
contradicted. When Winton was asked whether she had
ever questioned an employee as to how she felt about the
Union she replied that she did not recall. In the
circumstances it appears that the above-quoted testimony
of Warren should be credited and it is concluded therefrom
that Respondent, by the conduct of Winton, did engage in
unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act as alleged in paragraph 6(b).
Both Bohi and Warren testified to a conversation they
had on January 16. Warren testified that she called Bohi
over to talk to her and in the course of the conversation she
told Bohi "that the girls wanted a union really bad and
they didn't care how they got it." She further testified that
Bohi replied "that if we would get a union in the airlines
would just terminate us, you know, the airlines would
terminate Burns because we could paralyze the whole
airport." Bohi did not contradict the above-quoted
testimony but, rather, in effect, corroborated it, and it is
credited. The clear and unmistakable inference to be
drawn from Bohi's statement is that the selection of the
Union as the employees' collective-bargaining representa-
tive would inevitably result in Respondent's losing its
contracts with the airlines and the consequent loss of jobs
by the employees. This prediction is unsupported by
objective evidence and, therefore, exceeds the boundaries
of permissible predictions allowed by Section 8(c) of the
Act. Consequently, it is concluded that Bohi's statement
constituted a violation by Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of the complaint.
N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 616-619
(1969); Wilbraham Manufacturing Corporation, 167 NLRB
333, 336 (1967).
In finding the above violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act I have not overlooked credited testimony that Winton
and Bohi indicated to employees that if the Union was
good for the girls, they were for it. This equivocal approval
of the Union did not effectively offset the coercive
conduct.
It is alleged that, on or about January 17, Respondent,
by Christian Schofield, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by soliciting grievances from its employees in order to
induce them to abandon their interest in and activities on
behalf of the Union (par. 6(d) of the complaint); by
threatening employees with loss of their jobs if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining represent-
ative (par. 6(e) of the complaint); and by informing its
employees of the futility of joining or supporting the Union
(par. 6(f) of the complaint). These allegations apparently
relate to his meeting with employees on January 17.
It appears that there were two meetings (held with the
first and second shifts), but evidence was received only
with respect to the meeting held with the first shift.
Although there had been previous meetings with employ-
ees, this was the first meeting for which the Respondent
paid employees to attend. Schofield testified that his
reason for paying the employees was that he expected the
meeting to be protracted and that previous meetings had
been of short duration. His said testimony is credited.
Schofield also testified as to the purpose of calling the
meeting, that it was to dispel rumors and to announce the
layoff which was to be effected later that day. He also
testified that he was concerned about the employees'
morale and performance and of a possibility of their
engaging in a walkout. While he was very careful to avoid
testifying that he solicited grievances from the employees,
it is evident that he managed to elicit their complaints by
requesting their comments. That one of the principal
objectives of calling the meeting was to dissuade the
employees from seeking union representation is evidenced
by a memorandum of January 15, 1974, between members
of management which contains the following:
We have been through this enough times for you to
advise Chris Schofield what to do. I will be calling
Schofield this morning to advise him further just how
we reject these kind of unions. We always can manage
that kind of a technical victory, but the problem would
seem to be the wages and fringes paid at the airport.
We have got to get out and talk to these women,
explaining what the actual story is before they go
running off to some independent guard union and we
get involved in some kind of full blown negotiations. I
am sure you will watch this one closely, as you always
do, and get back with the fact pattern.
It is concluded, therefore, that General Counsel sus-
tained, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegation
in paragraph 6(d) of the complaint that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting grievances
in order to induce employees to abandon the Union and to
refrain from seeking a union which could be certified to
represent guards. Reliance Electric Company, 191 NLRB 44
(1971); Shulman's Inc. of Norfolk, 208 NLRB 772 (1974). It
is noted that he blamed some of the employees' problems
on the supervisors and stated that there would be an
attempt to correct them. Also, it appears that Respondent
had not previously solicited grievances from employees.
Schofield further testified that he explained to the
employees that he was paying as much as he could possibly
pay based on what was charged the airlines. His testimony
as to what he stated to the employees continues as follows:
Q. Did you explain what might happen if you had
to approach the airlines to ask for more money?
A. Yes. I explained that if I had to approach the
airlines for more money they would simply not pay it.
And I explained also that if I was in a position,
forced in a position where I simply had to get more
money because the employees had put me in a position
where I absolutely had to pay more, that either the
airlines would just say goodbye to us or I would simply
have to cancel the job, my service to the airlines,
because it would not be profitable at all.
The above testimony of Schofield is credited. Schofield
appeared to be unusually sophisticated in labor law for a
BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES 15
layman and it is inferred that he would have refrained from
making a prediction of employees' loss of jobs, without
stating the objective basis for it. Consequently, it is
concluded that his above-quoted statements to the employ-
ees were not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as
contrasted with the above-mentioned statement by Bohi
which was found to be violative of the Act.
It is noted, however, that Warren further testified as
follows:
Yeah; he said , also, with the layoff and everything,
he said that if there were troublemakers on the shift
that they would be fired and weeded out, and that
being in security, if you had caused your former
employee this much trouble, it would be hard for you
to become reemployed, you know, in the security field.
The above testimony is credited. It is further noted that the
statement about firing troublemakers was made , according
to credited testimony of Warren, in context with a
statement that he did not have to recognize the Union.3 It
is inferred that the reference to troublemakers was a thinly
veiled allusion to employees who are active on behalf of
the Union. Thus it is concluded that by his threat to fire
troublemakers the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, as alleged in paragraph 6(e) of the complaint.
There is nothing in the record which apparently relates
to paragraph 6(f) of the complaint alleging that Respon-
dent informed its employees of the futility of joining,
assisting, or supporting the Union except a statement by
Schofield during the course of the meeting that Respon-
dent was not required to recognize the Union and chose
not to do so. It is apparent that this statement was
predicated on the provision of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act
which precludes the Board from certifying a union as a
bargaining representative of a unit of guards if it also has
as members nonguard employees . The General Counsel
apparently concedes that Section 9(b)(3) of the Act is
applicable to the Union involved herein. In the circum-
stances such a statement (which correctly states the
applicable law) cannot be found to constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Consequently it is concluded
that General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence the allegation that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct alleged
in paragraph 6(f) of the complaint.
E. The Discharges of Galloway and Warren
According to Schofield's testimony, it was he who
decided to discharge Galloway and Warren on January 17,
1974. It should be noted at the outset that their discharges
were effected in the context of an effort on the part of
Schofield to discourage employees from seeking union
representation.
He testified , in effect , that he discharged Galloway
because she reported for work on January 1, 1974, in an
intoxicated condition .4 Schofield credibly testified that
some time in December 1973 he was informed by the
airlines that he had to cut down the number of employees
on each shift. It appears that his contract was on a cost-
plus basis and that there was a decrease in the flow of
airline traffic. It further appears that on or about January
17, 1974, he decided to reduce the number of employees
per shift from 17 to 13. It is found from credited testimony
that Galloway did report to work on January 1 in a
befuddled state and that the employees had been previous-
ly warned they would be discharged if they reported unfit
to work on January 1. According to Galloway's credited
testimony, Bohi advised Galloway that Schofield felt it
would be best if she left for the day and that she asked
Bohi if she were going to be discharged to which Bohi
replied "No, definitely not." Also, according to her
credited testimony, Galloway phoned Bohi in the after-
noon and asked her if she was still employed by
Respondent to which Bohi replied that both she and
Schofield felt that Galloway was one of the best employees,
that her work was good, that Respondent did not want to
lose her, and that she was to report for work the following
morning . Further, according to Galloway's credited testi-
mony, she had a conversation with Schofield on January 2,
who assured her that the incident of her intoxication did
not create any problem and, in essence , stated she was to
forget the whole matter but to see that it did not happen
again . It appears from the record that Galloway was a
good employee and on occasions had been utilized as an
assistant shift supervisor.
Schofield testified that he did not discharge her on
January 1 for reporting in an intoxicated condition because
he knew that a layoff was imminent and because he was in
need of employees. He further testified that when he had to
make a selection of employees for layoff he decided to
include Galloway because of the January 1 incident. It
should be noted at this point that Schofield testified that he
left it to his subordinate supervisors to make the selection
of employees to be laid off except for Galloway and
Warren whom he personally selected for termination. As
noted above, Respondent shifted its position as to the
personnel action taken against Galloway, at first contend-
ing that she was laid off and later that she was discharged
on January 17. It is noted, however, according to the
credited testimony of Galloway that, when Bohi phoned
her on the night of January 17, Bohi told her that she was
being laid off because of the January 1 incident and that
she was not discharged, but might be recalled at a later
time.
It is inferred from Respondent's conduct at the time of
the January 1 incident and the assurances that Galloway
was given that Respondent had condoned her transgres-
sion on January 1. It is inferred, however, that after
Schofield learned that she was one of the leaders in the
union organizational drive he revived the incident as a
pretext for getting rid of her. It is further inferred from the
fact that Respondent hired new employees a week before
and a week after the so-called layoff on January 17 that
3 Apparently relying on the provision of Sec . 9(bX3) of the Act. This 17 (whether Galloway was discharged on that date or merely laid off then
statement is considered herembelow with respect to the allegation in par . and discharged at a later date ), but it appears from the record that there was
6(f) of the complaint . no intention to recall her after January 17.
4 There is confusion in the record as to Respondent 's action on January
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent used the pretext of a necessity for a layoff to
substantiate the validity of its alleged reason for terminat-
ing Galloway.
It is concluded that she was discharged on January 17 for
her activities on behalf of the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
Warren testified that she was notified on the night of
January 17 by Bohi that Schofield had decided to
discharge her because of her "attitude," the "things" that
she had said and her "days off problem.."s The above
testimony is credited . Schofield testified that he had no
intention of terminating Warren until Bohi reported to him
on January 17 that Warren stated to her, "The only reason
she was at the airport was to see you out." Schofield
further testified that he made no effort to check with
Warren , but relied on Bohi 's report . Bohi apparently told
Schofield about the above-mentioned conversation she had
with Warren on January 16. Bohi testified with respect to
the statement that Warren made to her on that occasion as
follows:
Q. (By Mr. Burrows) Miss Bohi, I'm not sure if it
was clearly brought out in the conversation of January
16th you had with Mrs. Warren where you told her that
if the girls started pushing a union the airlines may say
goodbye to Bums. How did Warren reply to that?
A. That she didn' t care and the girls didn't care
because they wanted a union and they were going to
get it one way or another.
Q. Did she say anything further?
A. Yes. Well, that she had talked with Continental
Security people about the problems at the airport and
with Burns, and that they would gladly take over the
job at any time; and that it would be a personal
vendetta to see Chris and Bums out of the airport.
Warren testified to that portion of the conversation on
January 16 as follows:
Q. Did you tell her during that conversation that
you personally wanted Burns or Chris out of the
airport?
A. No. The only time I mentioned Mr. Schofield in
that conversation was I told her that I thought Chris
was a wiser businessman than to let that situation get to
where it was.
Warren was the more convincing witness and her testimo-
ny as to what she stated to Bohi is credited . It is inferred
that Schofield deliberately construed Bohi's report of
Warren's statement to her to indicate that Warren
personally was seeking to have Burns and Schofield ousted
from the airport as a pretext for getting rid of Warren
because of her activities on behalf of the Union. As stated
hereinabove , Warren was the principal union activist and
Schofield was aware of her leading role in the Union's
organizational drive. It is clear that, prior thereto, she was
considered to be a good employee and it appears that on a
number of occasions she had acted as assistant shift
supervisor . Furthermore , Warren's testimony is credited
that, in December 1973, Bohi told her that Schofield
planned to groom her for assistant supervisory duties. It
does not appear reasonable that Schofield would have
discharged a good employee because of Bohi's report to
him (to which he testified) of remarks Warren made to her
without checking it out, had he not wanted to get rid of a
principal union advocates Furthermore, it is deemed
incredible that Schofield could have reasonably believed
her activities on behalf of the Union were to implement a
conspiracy with Continental Security Company to have
that company replace Respondent at the airport, as
Respondent contends.
Therefore, it is concluded that Warren was discharged
on January 17, 1974 , in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
And I think Debbie mentioned just about the same
thing to me because we wanted a union . And I said that
the feeling was that the girls didn 't care; they wanted a
representative , and they didn't care if it meant losing
their job or not. They just didn't care.
And I just explained that to her.
Q. (By Mr. Kaplan) Was anything said about a
vendetta?
A. Yes, I said that the girls felt , and they told me,
too, that they felt like it was a personal vendetta to get
that union in. They just wanted it that bad.
Q. Did you ever tell Debbie that you had a
personal vendetta against either Chris or Burns?
A. No, I wouldn't say that.
a It appears that, early in January 1974 , Bohi granted Warren days off on
weekends to accommodate her, because , she said , she did not want to lose
her as an employee . Schofield did not testify that the "days off" problem
was a factor in deciding to discharge her.
e The disciplinary action taken against Warren as contrasted with the
tolerance exhibited toward employee Connie McElroy, who was discharged
after three instances of insubordination including threats to the lives of
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in
section III , above, occurring in connection with its
operations set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices found herein and take certain affirmative action,
Winton and an assistant supervisor , indicates that the discharge was
predicated on the intensity of Warren's union advocacy rather than on her
alleged personal vendetta against Schofield and Respondent. It is noted that
in Winton's personnel report on Warren which apparently was written after
her discharge, she mentioned Warren 's poor attitude and one of the items
listed was as follows: "I found out she had a lot to do with trying to form a
union."
BURNS INTL. SECURITY SERVICES 17
as provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Patricia Galloway and Rose
Marie Warren were unlawfully discharged on January 17,
1974, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered
to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs, or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended
that Respondent be ordered to reimburse them for any loss
of pay they may have suffered as a result of its
discriminatory action against them in the manner set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293
(1950), together with 6-percent interest thereon in accord-
ance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by the conduct of Winton on January
'7, 1974, violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by requesting an
employee to engage in surveillance of the union activities
of her fellow employees.
4. General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent, by the conduct of
Bohi, violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act as alleged in
paragraph 6(a) of the complaint.
5. Respondent, by the conduct of Winton on January
10, 1974, unlawfully interrogated an employee in violation
of Section 8(aXl) of the Act, as alleged in paragraph 6(b)
of the complaint.
6. Respondent, by the conduct of Bohi on January 16,
1974, threatened employees with loss of their jobs if they
elect to have a union represent them , as alleged in
paragraph 6(c) of the complaint, in violation of Section
8(aXl) of the Act.
7. Respondent, by the conduct of Schofield on January
17, 1974, violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by soliciting
grievances from its employees in order to induce them to
abandon their interest in and activities on behalf of the
Union, as alleged in paragraph 6(d) of the complaint.
8. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
the conduct of Schofield on January 17 in threatening
employees with loss of their jobs for activities on behalf of
the Union, as alleged in paragraph 6(e) of the complaint.
9. General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
8(a)(l) of the Act by the conduct alleged in paragraph 6(f)
of the complaint.
10. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discriminatorily discharging Patricia Galloway and
Rose Marie Warren on January 17, 1974.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER?
Respondent, Burns International Security Services, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requesting employees to engage in surveillance of
union activities of their fellow employees.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees regarding their
union activities.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs if they
select the Union as their bargaining representative.
(d) Soliciting grievances from their employees in order to
induce them to abandon their interest in and activities on
behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization.
(e) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs if they
engage in activities on behalf of the Union or any other
labor organization.
(f) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or
any other labor organization, by discriminating against
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition thereof.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Patricia Galloway and Rose Marie Warren
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered by them by reason of their discriminatory
discharges in the manner set forth in the section hereina-
bove entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning its backpay
obligation under this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Phoenix, Arizona,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies
of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 28, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
8 In the event that the Board's 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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the
defaced , or covered by any other material. complaint of violations of the Act by the conduct of
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in Deborah Bohi set forth in paragraph 6(a) of the complaint
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what and the conduct of Schofield set forth in paragraph 6(f) of
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith . the complaint should be, and are hereby, dismissed.