Globe Security Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 1219 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1219
301 NLRB No. 157
GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings.
The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s
credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully ex-
amined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
The Respondent contends that the judge’s rulings and his conduct at the
hearing demonstrated bias against the Respondent. We disagree. Our review
of the record reveals no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prej-
udicial rulings, or demonstrated any bias.
The judge’s decision contains errors of fact that do not affect our decision.
We make the following corrections: (1) Gene McDonald was employed in the
Respondent’s corporate offices and was not assigned to the Respondent’s
McGuire station; (2) Sergeant Thomas Hinson and not employee Stephen Hart-
man was asked about employees Thomas Bivins’ involvement with Captain
Thomas Bone’s phone mail at Hartman’s September 16, 1988 unemployment
compensation hearing; and (3) Bone raised the question of Hartman’s petition
during a telephone call to Margaret (Mickey) Anderson a few days after the
September 16, 1988 unemployment compensation hearing.
2 Member Oviatt agrees that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated
against Steven Hartman by discharging him while only suspending a similarly
situated employee Thomas Bivins. He does not agree, however, that making
Hartman ‘‘whole’’ requires rescinding all discipline. Given that the crux of
this case is disparate treatment, Member Oviatt concludes that the proper rem-
edy is for Hartman to receive the same punishment that Bivins received, a 3-
day suspension without pay. See generally South Central Bell Telephone Co.,
254 NLRB 315 (1981), Miller Brewing Co., 254 NLRB 266 (1981), and Beth-
lehem Steel Corp., 252 NLRB 982 (1980).
Contrary to Member Oviatt, Members Cracraft and Devaney agree with the
judge that the Board’s traditional ‘‘make whole’’ remedy is appropriate to
remedy the Respondent’s unlawful discharge of Steven Hartman. The cases re-
lied on by our colleague represent the view of former Chairman Fanning only,
and he expressly based his limitation of the remedy in those cases on the fact
that the violation alleged and found was that the respondents imposed a
‘‘greater discipline’’ on union stewards than that imposed on rank-and-file
employees who also participated in unprotected walkouts. The present case,
unlike those cases, does not involve an allegation of disparate treatment; rath-
er, the evidence of disparate treatment supports the judge’s finding that Hart-
man’s discharge was unlawful.
Globe Security Systems, Inc. and Shelly Blum. Case
11–CA–12978
February 28, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
On February 28, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Irwin Kaplan issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Globe Security Systems,
Inc., Cornelius, North Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the recommended Order.
Jasper C. Brown Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Larry J. Rappoport, Esq. (Kleinbard, Bell & Brecker), of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRWIN KAPLAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
heard in Concord, North Carolina, on May 24 and 25, 1989.
The underlying charges giving rise to this proceeding were
filed on September 29, 1988, and amended on October 20,
1988. These charges and amended charges gave rise to a
complaint and notice of hearing dated November 10. 1988.
The gravaman of the complaint is that Globe Security Sys-
tems, Inc. (the Respondent or Globe), discharged employees
Stephen Hartman and Joyce H. Benoist, on or about August
3 and September 27, 1988, respectively, because the employ-
ees engaged in protected concerted activities and that the Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The Respondent filed an answer conceding, inter alia, ju-
risdictional facts and the supervisory status of certain indi-
viduals but denying that it committed any unfair labor prac-
tices. In essence, the Respondent contends that it discharged
Hartman and Benoist for wrongfully intercepting telephone
messages intended only for a high ranking company official.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after careful consideration of
the Respondent’s posttrial brief and General Counsel’s clos-
ing argument, I make these
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, provides security
guard services for Duke Power Company, its largest client,
at two nuclear power stations, including the McGuire Nu-
clear Station in the State of North Carolina, the location in-
volved here. In connection with the aforenoted business oper-
ations, the Respondent has, during a representative and mate-
rial 12-month timeframe, performed services valued in excess
of $50,000 for clients, such as Duke Power Company, which
in turn are directly engaged in interstate commerce. It is al-
leged, the Respondent admits, the record supports, and I find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Sequence of Events
As noted above, Globe is engaged in the business of pro-
viding security services. Globe has been providing security
guard services for Duke Power Company (Duke), its largest
customer, since 1972. Duke owns and operates nuclear gen-
erating facilities at the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire,
the facility involved here) and the Oconee Nuclear Station
(Oconee) both of which stations are serviced by Globe. The
security staff employed by Globe, at McGuire, consists of
approximately 145 uniformed employees, comprised of a
captain, 5 team lieutenants, 2 staff lieutenants, and the re-
mainder, security officers. Captain Thomas Bone is the sen-
ior or highest ranking Globe official at McGuire. He reports
1220 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 All dates are in 1988, unless otherwise indicated.
to Margaret (Mickey) Anderson, the nuclear manager at
Globe’s Charlotte office.
Stephen Hartman and Joyce Benoist, the alleged
discriminatees, were both employed as security officers at
McGuire. Hartman was employed by Globe from June 15,
1981, until August 3, 1988, at which time he was terminated.
Benoist was employed by Globe from December 17, 1984,
until September 27, 1988, when she was terminated. Accord-
ing to Respondent, Hartman and Benoist, were both termi-
nated for essentially the same type of misconduct: an unau-
thorized use of the phone mail system at McGuire in inter-
cepting Captain Bone’s messages after gaining access to his
private or secret code.
In 1987, Duke installed a new telephone system for its key
personnel which included a phone mail system. Captain Bone
was the only Globe official to have a private or secret access
code in the new phone mail system at McGuire. This per-
mitted Captain Bone to receive private messages from rank-
ing Duke and Globe officials including Anderson as well as
from family members. Basically, the new system worked as
follows: On those occasions when the captain was away from
his desk, the phone call would roll over after the fourth ring
into the phone mail system, from which the captain could re-
trieve the message by using his secret access code. Captain
Bone was given an hour or two of instruction on how to use
the new system at the time it was installed. According to
Captain Bone, he was unaware that any Globe employee had
gained access to his secret code until he read a note which
was left for him by Shift Lieutenant Steve Sellers on the
morning of August 1, 1988.1 That note stated, inter alia, that
Team Sergeant Thomas Hinson told Sellers that on August
1 that officer Hartman had listened in on Captain Bone’s
phone mail. (R. Exh. 6.) At that same time, Captain Bone
also read Hinson’s account of the incident in a separate state-
ment which Sellers had left along with his own note for the
captain. (R. Exh. 5—These notes or statements were typed
the following day and dated August 2.)
It is undisputed that Hartman intercepted Captain Bone’s
phone mail by using the latter’s private access code on Au-
gust 1 in the presence of Hinson. The incident occurred at
approximately 5 a.m. on August 1, approximately 1 hour be-
fore the shift change. Hinson had just come into the security
office area (SOA) when he noticed Hartman. As Hinson
moved closer to Hartman, the former heard and recognized
the voice of Gail Addis, Duke’s superintendent of adminis-
tration and station coordinator, which was coming from the
speaker phone with a message for Captain Bone. The SOA
is used, inter alia, as a meeting area and also for breaks and
as a lunchroom. No one else was in the area at the time.
Hartman then pressed a button and deactivated the speaker
which also terminated the call. As described by Hinson,
‘‘[Hartman] was almost in hysterical laughter.’’ Hinson ques-
tioned Hartman as to what he was doing and the latter read-
ily admitted that he accessed ‘‘the Captain’s personal secu-
rity code.’’ Hinson also testified that he told Hartman that
it was illegal but the latter denied any illegality asserting that
he had checked it out. Hinson left the SOA to look for his
immediate superior, Lieutenant Sellers, to report the incident.
(Tr. 273–280.)
According to Hartman, on the occasion in question, when
Hinson entered the SOA, Hartman invited him to listen to
the recorded call. Hartman testified that Hinson had listened
to messages from other access codes and ‘‘it didn’t seem like
there was any harm in him listening to it.’’ (Tr. 232.) Ac-
cording to Hinson, he had no prior knowledge as to whether
any employee had used the phone mail system. (Tr. 284.)
On August 1, Captain Bone, after reading the statements
left by Sellers and Hinson regarding Hartman’s intrusion into
his phone mail, immediately commenced an investigation. He
telephoned Sellers and Hinson for more information and
alerted Anderson at her Charlotte office that he would be
looking into the matter. Further, he had Hartman placed on
administrative hold and his duties suspended until arrange-
ments could be made for Hartman to come to the captain’s
office to give his account of the phone mail incident. Thus,
Hartman met with Captain Bone on August 2. No one else
was present.
At the August 2 meeting, Hartman admitted using Captain
Bone’s private access code. Bone asked Hartman how he ac-
quired the access code but Hartman was unwilling to divulge
the source. As for the particular incident, Hartman told Cap-
tain Bone that he had received a call from someone (Benoist,
but unnamed at that time) suggesting that he listen to a mes-
sage for the captain which also concerned Hartman. As noted
previously, that message was from Gail Addis of Duke. It
was about an investigation involving another officer on an
unrelated matter and Addis was informing the captain about
scheduling several employees for interviews, including Hart-
man, although the latter’s name was not expressly noted in
the message. Addis wanted Captain Bone to furnish a roster
of their hours. Hartman told Captain Bone at this meeting
that he (Captain Bone) would be surprised to learn how
many of the staff at McGuire had access to his private code.
Captain Bone noted his disappointment that Hartman had
gained entry into his phone mail and that he would probably
get back to Hartman the following day. Hartman acknowl-
edged that he used bad judgement. (Tr. 239.) In the mean-
time, Captain Bone continued to keep Hartman on adminis-
trative hold.
The next day, August 3, Captain Bone met with Anderson
at her Charlotte office and recommended that Hartman be
terminated. He told Anderson that he had discussed the mat-
ter with other members of the staff and had found nothing
to indicate that anyone else had entered his personal phone
mail system. According to Captain Bone, Anderson did not
agree or disagree but contacted legal counsel, Joseph Dych,
and one or two other high ranking Globe officials. After
Hartman’s file was reviewed, these other Globe officials
agreed that Captain Bone could terminate Hartman. That
same day, Captain Bone telephoned Hartman and told him
that he was terminated because he had entered his phone
mail which was an unauthorized use of the phone mail sys-
tem.
Captain Bone also told Hartman over the telephone on Au-
gust 3, that he was ‘‘a good security officer’’ and that he
‘‘hated’’ to have to discharge him. Further, the captain told
Hartman that in his opinion, had the latter ‘‘channeled his
energies into other directions and been more cooperative, he
could have been, probably, a lieutenant by now.’’ (Tr. 337.)
Captain Bone testified that Hartman asked him if the deci-
sion to terminate had anything to do with his complaint as
1221GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS
2 Hartman’s complaint regarding wages and hours will be treated more fully
infra.
3 While Bivins told the company officials that the practice of intercepting
phone messages was widespread, it became clear that Bivins was confused be-
tween the private code of Captain Bone (Code 666) and the general code
(Code 111) for department heads and their employees to receive messages.
(Tr. 46, 63–65; see also Captain Bone’s testimony (Tr. 349).)
to wages and hours2 and the backpay that Globe had to pay
its employees and the captain responded that he was unaware
that Hartman had been involved but in any event, he did the
right thing because everyone should be paid correctly. (Id.)
Hartman was told that he would have to discuss any recourse
rights with Lieutenant Jones and anything that he wanted to
put in writing would be directed to Gene McDonald (the
highest ranking Globe official at Duke’s nuclear stations).
After Hartman was told that he was terminated, Captain
Bone met with Anderson and they prepared a notice to all
security members regarding Hartman’s use of the captain’s
‘‘private code number to access his personnal [sic] messages
from the phone mail system.’’ (Hartman’s use was not spe-
cifically named, although reference was made to the dis-
charge of a security officer.) (R. Exh. 8.) Anderson, in the
notice, pointed out that this was a serious offense and that
management considered such use of phone mail as a ‘‘viola-
tion of trust and an invasion of privacy related to confidential
telephone conversations.’’
On September 6, Hartman had a so-called recourse meet-
ing with McDonald and Anderson at the Charlotte office.
(Under the Company’s policy, an employee is permitted to
request such a meeting in writing within 2 weeks after a dis-
charge.) Hartman gave his account of what he and Hinson
said to each other back on August 1 with regard to the phone
mail. Anderson asked Hartman if he would disclose the
names of other security members who were misusing the
phone mail. Hartman indicated a willingness to point to such
individuals on a roster but he did not want to name anyone.
He explained that if he named names he was fearful of miss-
ing some individuals. McDonald wanted to know whether
Hartman knew directly that other security employees had
misused the captain’s phone mail or only so rumored. Ac-
cording to Anderson, Hartman did not respond nor did they
press him on this issue. (Tr. 408–409.) Hartman wanted to
know if the discharge had anything to do with the wage and
hour complaint which he filed. Anderson stated that she had
no idea who filed the complaint and added that the Company
would want to pay its employees properly. McDonald ad-
vised Hartman that he would get back to him if the Company
changed its position on its decision to terminate him.
The next time the Respondent saw Hartman was at his un-
employment hearing on September 16. Hartman was at this
hearing on an appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits
and was represented by Shelly Blum, an attorney; the Re-
spondent’s team included its attorney, and Gene McDonald,
Mike Moylan (Anderson’s assistant), Captain Bone, and Ser-
geant Hinson. Blum argued that Hartman was wrongfully ter-
minated because he had circulated a petition among security
personnel which took issue with the Respondent’s new pay
system and in particular, the new pay stubs. That petition
contained the signatures of 58 employees at McGuire and at
the top of the list was Hartman’s name. (G.C. Exh. 2.) Ac-
cording to Captain Bone, prior to this hearing, he had not
seen the petition nor had he had any knowledge of its exist-
ence and he was shocked that it had not come to his atten-
tion. (Tr. 344–345.) At the hearing, Hartman recounted the
circumstances entering the captain’s phone mail including the
words he and Hinson exchanged on the occasion in question.
In doing so, Hartman, when questioned, identified Joyce
Benoist, for the first time, as the person who had given him
the information to access the captain’s phone mail. Hartman
was then asked whether Hinson was aware of any other secu-
rity officer who had accessed the captain’s code to gain entry
to his phone mail and Hartman named officer Thomas
Bivins. (The testimony of Bivins and Hinson is in conflict
with the former asserting and the latter denying that Hinson
was told of Bivins’ entry into the captain’s phone mail.)
After the unemployment hearing, Captain Bone telephoned
Anderson to advise her of the two new names (Benoist and
Bivins) that had come up regarding employee access to his
phone mail. Captain Bone told Anderson that he had not
known of the petition and asked her how long had she had
it. Anderson indicated to the captain that she had it for some
time. (At the instant hearing Anderson testified that she had
received the petition in late January or early February 1988.)
According to Captain Bone, he should not have been by-
passed and should have been told previously about the peti-
tion, particularly since there had been so many problems or
employee complaints about the new pay stubs at McGuire.
Bivins and Benoist were both summoned to appear at the
Charlotte office for separate interviews on the next duty day
which was Monday, September 19. Captain Bone had their
files which he had taken from McGuire to Charlotte. The
management officials at these interviews were Anderson, her
assistant, Moylan, and Captain Bone. At Bivins’ interview,
Anderson asked him if he was familiar with the Hartman sit-
uation and Bivins responded in the affirmative. Anderson
told Bivins that Hartman was terminated because of an unau-
thorized use of the captain’s code and inquired of Bivins if
he thought the punishment was too strict. Bivins again re-
sponded in the affirmative stating that he understood this to
be Hartman’s first offense. Anderson told Bivins that he had
been summoned to Charlotte to be questioned because Hart-
man identified him at his hearing as also having used the
captain’s access code. Bivins admitted doing so and asserted
that the practice was widespread.3 He represented that he had
accessed the captain’s code on only two occasions and he did
so only out of curiosity. Anderson asked Bivins if doing so
was the same as computer fraud or like opening up some-
one’s mail. Bivins did not agree that there was a connection
or that he did anything wrong. Bivins also noted that he told
Hinson that he had listened to the captain’s phone mail. (Tr.
50–51.) Anderson, Moylan, and Captain Bone pressed on
about moral rights and the Bible and punishment Bivins
faced from ‘‘higher places.’’ (Tr. 46–49.) At some point,
Bivins backed away and acknowledged to management that
he had invaded the captain’s privacy and he apologized. (Tr.
53–54.)
During this meeting with Bivins, Captain Bone held up a
folder and the petition (G.C. Exh. 2) and asked Bivins,
‘‘Why would you think somebody would resort to getting up
a petition?’’ Bivins stated that he did not know and noted
that his name wasn’t on it and had not seen the document.
(Tr. 49–50.) Anderson explained that the petition was about
the changes on the pay stubs; however, she also informed
1222 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bivins that these changes were saving the Company $1200
a month at McGuire. Bivins opined that a petition was not
a good idea noting that in the past, petitions were not pro-
ductive. According to Captain Bone, he introduced the sub-
ject of the petition at this meeting because he was upset that
the employees had bypassed him in the chain of command
and he wanted to find out their reasons. (Tr. 351.) Bivins
was told to return to work and that he would hear from the
Company later.
Benoist was next interviewed by the same management of-
ficials. (She, unlike Bivins, was one of the signatories to the
employee petition opposing the Respondent’s changed pay
stubs.) At the outset, Anderson told Benoist that her name
had come up at Hartman’s unemployment hearing in connec-
tion with access to Captain Bone’s phone mail. Benoist read-
ily admittted access to the captain’s code. She also confirmed
Hartman’s account that she had informed him of Addis’ mes-
sage to Captain Bone which at least in part pertained to Hart-
man. Anderson asked Benoist if she understood the serious-
ness of her actions. Benoist stated that she didn’t think there
was anything wrong with what she did calling it ‘‘rec-
reational.’’ She explained that she would listen to such phone
mail when there was little else to do at the station. (Tr. 123.)
Anderson testified that Benoist also pointed out in explaining
her actions that at times ‘‘she became quite bored and that
the job was very tedium [sic].’’ (Tr. 419.) Benoist confirmed
that she thought that at least part of her responsibilities were
boring and that ‘‘maybe I did express it [the way Anderson
testified].’’ (Tr. 124.) Anderson, who did virtually all the
questioning to that point, had to leave for a dentist appoint-
ment and left the remainder of the interview to Moylan and
Captain Bone.
Benoist testified that after Anderson departed, she apolo-
gized to Captain Bone for using his access phone. Moylan
asked her if she knew of others who had used the access
code. Benoist said that she did but did not want to disclose
their names because she didn’t want to get anyone else into
trouble. She asked Moylan whether she still had a job.
(Benoist had been summoned for this interview while she
was on vacation.) Moylan told her to finish her vacation and
report for work the following Monday.
On Monday, September 26, Benoist reported to work as
instructed by Moylan. She was scheduled to have her annual
physical that morning. However, Benoist was told by Lieu-
tenant Ludwig that she was temporarily relieved of her du-
ties. The next day, Benoist went to the Charlotte office
where she met with Anderson, Moylan, and Captain Bone.
Anderson told Benoist that she was terminated. According to
Benoist, in noting the reasons for her discharge, Anderson
linked her to a conspiracy with Hartman; that she had an atti-
tude problem calling the job boring; and, that she had been
suspended earlier in the year for 3 days without pay for not
fulfilling her security responsibilities. (R. Exh. 3.)
Bivins was suspended for 3 days without pay. According
to Anderson, before any decision was made for either
Benoist or Bivins, the matter was also discussed with
McDonald and Attorney Joe Dych. Dych assertedly rec-
ommended only a 7-day suspension for Benoist because of
a fear that she would file EEOC charges for ‘‘female harass-
ment.’’ (Tr. 422.) As for Bivins, management concluded that
he was contrite, confused, and did not know ‘‘exactly what
he was doing when he dialed into the system.’’ It was also
noted that there was nothing in Bivins’ file to indicate any
previous discipline. (Tr. 422–424.) Anderson contacted Craig
Fish, Addis’ assistant at Duke, and told him of Attorney
Dych’s views. According to Anderson, Fish stated that
Benoist was no longer trustworthy, and that Duke would not
permit her to work as a security guard at the station. (Tr.
425.) As for Bivins, Fish’s views were assertedly the same
as Anderson’s and he would continue to allow Bivins access
to McGuire. (Id.)
According to the General Counsel, Hartman and Benoist
were terminated, unlike Bivins (suspended for 3 days without
pay), because they were involved in the employee petition
and other protected concerted activities. As described below,
Hartman had long been active in challenging the Respondent
in matters dealing with wages, hours, and terms and condi-
tions of employment. Benoist’s activities had been largely
confined to matters related to the pay stubs and the related
employee petition.
During 1984 and into 1985 Hartman questioned the accu-
racy regarding the Company’s practice of paying overtime
and shift differentials and communicated his views on this
subject to many of the employees. Hartman testified as fol-
lows:
I talked with numerous other employees and told them
I felt that what I’d like to do is go down and take this
case before the wage and hour and I said, you know,
would you people be behind me and everyone that I
talked to said yes, they would be glad for me to go
down there [Tr. 160].
Sometime around mid-1985, Hartman went to the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, Employment Standards Administration,
Wage and Hour Division, in Charlotte, North Carolina, to
discuss the Respondent’s payment of overtime. Hartman
spoke with William LoPresti, compliance officer, and an in-
vestigation was commenced. As testified by Anderson, she
first learned about the wage and hour complaint around April
1986 when she heard from LoPresti on the telephone. Ander-
son denied that she knew or surmised that Hartman was re-
sponsible. She testified that LoPresti told her that it was the
agency’s policy not to disclose the name of the charging
party. LoPresti persuaded Anderson that the Company’s
method for computing overtime was incorrect. As a result the
Respondent reimbursed its employees at McGuire a total
amount of $15,831 and its Oconee employees a similar
amount. (R. Exh. 14.) By letter dated January 15, 1987, the
Respondent received notice from the Wage and Hour Divi-
sion that it had evidence that all the employees had been re-
imbursed and that the matter was closed. (Id.)
In early 1986, Hartman complained about the Respond-
ent’s disciplinary policy which led to a meeting at the Char-
lotte office with John Collins, then distinct manager, Captain
Bone, and Lieutenant Bobby Martin. Hartman testified, with-
out contradiction, that, at the outset, Collins noted that Hart-
man was a ‘‘fine security officer’’ and that up until that
point he had done an ‘‘excellent job.’’ However, Collins
added, that the Company could not countenance memos like
the one he typed on the subject of harassment. Collins then
showed Hartman his memo and remarked, ‘‘But things like
this [the memo], we cant have. When ball cutting time
comes, you’d be out on that limb by yourself.’’ (Tr. 163–
1223GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS
4 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980).
5 In assessing Hartman’s credibility, it is noted that his testimony, in certain
critical areas is corroborated not only by documents and other General Counsel
witnesses, but also by the Respondent’s witnesses, Anderson and Captain
Bone. As such, I find that Hartman’s testimony, in large part, is internally
consistent with the total record. It is noted, for example, that Anderson pro-
vided almost full corroboration of Hartman’s account of the September 1987
Continued
164.) At the instant hearing, Captain Bone did not question
Hartman’s account of Collins’ warning. (Tr. 369.)
In September 1987, Hartman met with Anderson to dispute
the Company’s method of computing weighted holiday pay.
Hartman testified that he was encouraged by other employees
to take up the matter with Anderson. It is undisputed, that
Hartman told Anderson that he rather work the problem out
with her than through Wage and Hour. (Tr. 168, 434.) They
spent approximately 1-1/2 hours going over figures and An-
derson finally concluded that Hartman was correct and some
adjustment was in order. By memorandum dated September
10, 1987, all security personnel at both the McGuire and
Oconee Nuclear Stations were notified of the adjustment to
correct payroll errors since May 1986. (R. Exh. 4.)
In January 1988, the Respondent issued new abbreviated
pay stubs. This new method did not delineate or disclose,
inter alia, shift differentials, and regular pay from nuclear
premium pay and holiday pay. Instead, all hours worked
were combined and the grand total noted. The new stubs cre-
ated much confusion and made it difficult for employees to
calculate their earnings. Also, it generated a great deal of dis-
cussion and complaints among employees and they in turn
complained to supervisors with little or no satisfaction. As
testified by Team Sergeant Hinson: ‘‘It was pretty common
that people were complaining about the condition of their
stubs.’’ (Tr. 293.)
According to Anderson, she was also unhappy with the
new pay stubs and had noted her concerns to other corporate
officials. However, she asserted that the pay stub changes
were cost saving and there was ‘‘not much I could do about
it.’’ (Tr. 392.) Peviously, payroll processing had been con-
tracted out to Control Data Processing (Control). In late
1987, Globe notified Control that due to ‘‘economic consid-
erations,’’ that Globe was ‘‘going to do our payroll proc-
essing in-house on our own computer.’’ (R. Exh. 15.) Ander-
son testified that the changes saved Globe $12,000 annually
per station.
Hartman learned from members of his security team and
other guards that they would be willing to sign a petition
protesting the new pay system. Thus, Hartman prepared and
circulated such a petition which was signed by 58 employees
and mailed it to Anderson. (G.C. Exh. 2.) Hartman’s name
headed the list which also contained Benoist’s signature. An-
derson acknowledged receiving the petition in late January or
early February 1988. According to Anderson, she filed the
petition away in her desk and took no action and did not
come across it until August 1988 when she hired her assist-
ant, Mike Moylan. Anderson explained that she tried to edu-
cate the employees about the new system but they continued
to raise questions. She asserted that as she could not do any-
thing to change the pay stubs, she did not view the petition
as important but rather only a rehash of employee com-
plaints. Anderson denied knowledge regarding the sender of
the petition and testified that she did not discuss the petition
with anyone until after the subject had come up at Hartman’s
unemployment hearing.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Hartman and Benoist
were terminated because of their concerted activities over
matters pertaining to pay and other terms and conditions of
employment. It is now settled that where an employer, with
knowledge of such concerted activities, takes adverse or dis-
ciplinary action against employees because they were so in-
volved, it thereby violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Meyers
Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984), reaffd. 281 NLRB
882 (1986); Joseph De Rario, DMD, P.A., 283 NLRB 592
(1987); Micro-Chart Co., 283 NLRB 1064 (1987).
The Respondent, on the other hand, contends, inter alia,
that the General Counsel failed to establish that the Respond-
ent had knowledge of the alleged concerted activities, as re-
quired under Meyers, or that there is a nexus between the ac-
tivities and the disputed terminations, as required under the
Board’s Wright Line4 test. The parties are in agreement that
a Wright Line analysis is in order.
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel has the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing enough
evidence to warrant an inference that the protected conduct
was a motivating factor in the employer’s disputed action.
Once accomplished, the burden shifts to the employer to
demonstrate that it would have taken the same action not-
withstanding the protected activities. (251 NLRB at 1089.)
Here, for reasons noted below, I find that the General Coun-
sel has satisfied its Wright Line burden by showing that the
terminations were based in whole or in part on protected
conduct. Noting that the burden then shifts to the Respond-
ent, I find that the Respondent demonstrated that it would
have taken the same action as to Benoist but not as to Hart-
man, even in the absence of the protected conduct. The fac-
tors supporting the General Counsel’s prima facie case are
noted as follows:
The record disclosed that Hartman and to a lesser degree
Benoist, had long been involved in efforts to reform the Re-
spondent’s pay policy and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment. Thus, the record disclosed that Hartman, back in
mid-1985, sought and obtained the assistance of the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, to correct the
Respondent’s method of computing overtime premium pay.
The Government’s investigation covered the period from
May 1984 to May 1986 and resulted in, inter alia, the Re-
spondent reimbursing its employees over $30,000. (R. Exh.
14.) In December 1985, Hartman prepared, signed, and cir-
culated a document or petition among security guard mem-
bers complaining about the Company’s failure to reduce
changes in policies and procedure to writing thereby creating
conflicts regarding certain job responsibilities. (G.C. Exh. 3.)
Benoist, and most, if not all members of Hartman’s team
signed that petition which was to the attention of Lieutenant
B. M. Martin.
Further, in September 1987, Hartman persuaded Anderson
to correct certain payroll errors. After a meeting which lasted
approximately 1-1/2 hours, Anderson acknowledged to Hart-
man that the Company made errors in calculating weighted
overtime. Hartman testified credibly that he informed Ander-
son that it was better to work out this adjustment with her
‘‘instead of going back [emphasis added] to the Federal wage
and hour.’’5 (Tr. 215.) The meeting led Anderson to notify
1224 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting. In essence, her testimony differed in one respect: Anderson testified
that Hartman told her that he did not want to go to Wage and Hour rather
than going ‘‘back’’ to that agency. (Tr. 434.) As for Anderson, I found her
in key areas to be conclusionary, vague, unresponsive, and elusive. In these
circumstances and on the basis of demeanor observations, I credit Hartman
where the testimony is in conflict.
all security employees by memorandum dated September 10,
1987, that ‘‘on your next pay check you may note a small
adjustment in your pay . . . to correct errors since May
1986.’’ (R. Exh. 4.)
Still further, in January 1988, Hartman composed, cir-
culated, and solicited employee signatures on a petition set-
ting forth employee opposition to the new pay system which
the Company had instituted earlier that month. Hartman’s
signature heads the list of 58 employee signatories, including
Benoist. (G.C. Exh. 2.) Anderson admits receiving and perus-
ing the document in late January or early February 1988.
Clearly, in these circumstances, under Meyers, the signatories
to the petition were engaged in protected concerted activities.
Additionally, the record disclosed, that Hartman discussed
this and other matters outlined above related to pay and other
terms and conditions of employment with employees and that
they encouraged him to take action to address their com-
plaints. Hartman, testified credibly and with corroboration
that with regard to some of these matters, he and other em-
ployees, sometimes concertedly, pressed their immediate su-
pervisors for answers without any satisfaction. (Tr. 168–172,
83, 87–93, 293.) On the state of this record, I find that Hart-
man and Benoist, to a lesser degree, engaged in protected
concerted activities within the meaning of Meyers. I turn
next to the other elements of the General Counsel’s prima
facie case.
According to the Respondent, the record is devoid of any
animus relative to the alleged protected concerted conduct.
The Respondent also argues that the employee petition pro-
testing the new pay system (G.C. Exh. 2) relied on so heav-
ily by the General Counsel, involved activity back in January
1988, approximately 6 to 7 months prior to the disputed dis-
charges and that such timing tends to militate against any
causal connection. First, as to ‘‘animus,’’ I find, contrary to
the Respondent, that the record supports this critical element.
For reasons noted above, I found that the employee petition
constituted protected concerted activity. It is undisputed that
Captain Bone was upset on learning of the petition, to wit,
that employees deemed it necessary to bypass him in the
chain of command in going directly to Anderson with their
written protest. This was highlighted when Bivins was inter-
viewed and Captain Bone (in the presence of Anderson) in-
terrogated him on this subject. Ostensibly, that interview was
to investigate Bivins’ conduct regarding the captain’s phone
mail. Clearly, Captain Bone interrogated Bivins because he
was strongly opposed to the petition. It is noted that Bivins
told Captain Bone that he opposed the need for such a peti-
tion and was not a signatory and was retained; whereas,
Hartman and Benoist were both terminated.
The record also revealed a number of other factors sup-
porting the finding that Respondent displayed animus vis-a-
vis protected concerted conduct. Thus, Hartman testified,
without contradiction, that back in early 1986, he was sum-
moned to Captain Bone’s office, where, in the presence of
Captain Bone and Lieutenant Martin, he (Hartman) was
warned by District Manager Collins that the Company would
not tolerate certain of his activities. At that time, Collins dis-
played for Hartman a memo (G.C. Exh. 3) which the latter
typed and signed along with most team members (including
Benoist), asking the Company to reform certain policies and
procedures. (Tr. 163–164.) It is noted that the essence of the
remarks ascribed to Collins on that occasion was confirmed
by Captain Bone. (Tr. 369.) Significantly, Collins did not
criticize Hartman’s performance as a security officer and
noted that up until the time of the memo, that Hartman had
done an excellent job.
Hartman, was not yet finished acting in concert with other
employees notwithstanding the words of warning by Collins.
Thus, as described previously, Hartman was responsible for
the employee petition protesting the new pay system in Janu-
ary 1988. I find it highly unlikely and reject Anderson’s as-
sertion that she paid no attention to the petition; that it was
unimportant; and, that she merely left it on her desk for ap-
proximately the next 6 months. In this regard, it is noted that
the petition, which was signed by 58 employees protesting
the new pay system made reference, inter alia, to the Depart-
ment of Labor’s previous involvement in correcting errors in
pay. As noted previously, on that occasion, the Company re-
imbursed its security staff over $30,000. Hartman was re-
sponsible for the petition in January 1988 as well as inviting
the earlier investigation by the labor department. In resolving
another pay dispute Hartman told Anderson in September
1987, that it was better to work it out between themselves
than for him to go back to the labor department. Such con-
duct was hardly lost on Anderson or other company officials.
Thus, at a meeting on June 24, 1988, with Anderson and her
supervisor, Norm Stevens, Hartman was interviewed and co-
operated in the investigation of another member of the staff;
however, Hartman also brought up issues that he raised in
the past such as the Company’s disciplinary policy. (Tr. 406–
407,440–442.) As testified by Anderson, Stevens told Hart-
man: ‘‘There is no doubt in our mind that [you are] a good
employee, however, you need to channel your efforts in more
positive direction.’’ (Tr. 406–407.)
In the context of the entire record, I am persuaded that the
Company’s efforts to exhort Hartman to ‘‘channel’’ his ener-
gies in other directions is akin to using code words to dis-
suade him from engaging in protected conduct. In this re-
gard, it is also noted as testified by Hartman, with corrobora-
tion from Captain Bone, that when the captain informed him
that he was terminated, he also told Hartman that he was a
valuable employee and had he ‘‘channeled’’ his activities in
a different direction, ‘‘[I (Hartman)] could have been a Lieu-
tenant by now.’’ (Tr. 178; 337–340.) The phone mail intru-
sions had only come to Captain Bone’s attention 2 days ear-
lier. As Hartman’s work ethic and overall job performance
was uniformly assessed by management from the good to ex-
cellent range, I am persuaded that the Respondent seized
upon the phone mail incident as a pretext; the real reason
having more to do with Respondent’s failure to get Hartman
to ‘‘channel’’ his energies away from protected concerted ac-
tivities.
As noted above, the Respondent also argues that the ‘‘tim-
ing’’ of its action militates against any causal connection
with the disputed protected conduct. Hartman and Benoist
were terminated approximately 6 to 7 months after the em-
ployee petition opposing the new pay system was submitted
to Anderson. Clearly, the hiatus factor here is not so dra-
1225GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS
6 I credit Bivins over Hinson. It is noted, inter alia, that Bivins was em-
ployed by the Respondent at the time he testified and as such, he testified
against his self-interest, a matter not to be treated lightly. As for Hinson, I
found that he was at times implausible and lacked candor. For example,
Hinson asserted that he first learned of the petition at the instant hearing; how-
ever, Hinson attended Hartman’s unemployment hearing where the subject of
the petition was given prominent attention. In view of the foregoing, the entire
record, and demeanor considerations, I credit Bivins.
matic or compelling to preclude any nexus being drawn.
Compare, TLT-Babcock, Inc., 293 NLRB 163 (1989), where
layoffs were found to be discriminatory although the pro-
tected activities occurred approximately 2 years and 10
months earlier. Clearly here, the Respondent did not consider
the disputed activities to be over in January or February
when Anderson received the petition. This is evident by Ste-
vens’ remarks to Hartman as late as June 24 about chan-
neling his energies in other directions and repeated by Cap-
tain Bone to Hartman in August. Still further, it is noted that
the same petition which Anderson asserted to be of no im-
portance, served as a basis of Captain Bone to interrogate
Bivins even after Hartman was discharged.
Having found that the General Counsel has made a prima
facie showing that the Respondent was at least, in part, un-
lawfully motivated by discharging Hartman and Benoist, I
turn now to consider whether the Respondent met its Wright
Line burden by demonstrating that it would have taken the
same action notwithstanding the protected conduct.
At the outset, I find that the Respondent had legitimate
reasons to challenge the conduct of employees who wrong-
fully and knowingly intercepted Captain Bone’s private mes-
sages. Its right to do so is further justified, where, as here,
the employees involved are security officers at a nuclear gen-
erating station, and their conduct amounts to a security
breach. Indeed, if this case did not involve other consider-
ations, I would understand and accept an employer’s refusal
to countenance such improper conduct. However, on the state
of this record, I am persuaded, and I find, that Respondent’s
reaction to the misconduct was influenced by other factors
and in Hartman’s case, he would not have been terminated
but for his protected activities.
The most telling factor militating against the Respondent’s
efforts to meet its Wright Line burden is that it failed to ade-
quately address the issue of disparate treatment. In this re-
gard, the record disclosed that both Bivin and Hartman are
good and respected officers; they had each wrongfully inter-
cepted Captain Bone’s private messages; both were either
contrite or, in Hartman’s case, he admittedly stated that he
used bad judgement; Bivins was merely suspended without
pay for 3 days and Hartman was terminated. Thus, the ques-
tion is why the disparate treatment. Captain Bone first sug-
gested that Bivins had a better attitude and expressed re-
morse but when pressed to amplify these observations, he ad-
mitted: ‘‘In actuality, there was no difference . . . .’’ (Tr.
372.) On the other hand, the General Counsel contends, the
record supports, and I find that the material differences be-
tween them all relate to Hartman’s protected activities.
As described in detail previously, Hartman had long been
involved in protected activities. These activities included the
petition he composed and circulated in early 1988. On the
other hand, it is not contended nor does the record show that
Bivins ever joined or supported such activities. Bivins, unlike
Hartman and Benoist, was not a signatory to the 1988 peti-
tion. In fact, Bivins told Captain Bone that such petitions did
not do any good and was not a good idea. Captain Bone for
his part was admittedly upset that employees did not come
to him before taking the petition to Anderson. Thus, it is
likely that Captain Bone and even Anderson’s assessment of
Bivins’ attitude was influenced by his (Bivins’) stated oppo-
sition to the petition.
It is noted, that Bivins, at the interview, first maintained
that he did not do anything wrong and in fact told his super-
visor, Sergeant Hinson, that he had tapped into Captain
Bone’s private line. Hinson denied that he had any such con-
versation. The Company assertedly believed Hinson.6 That
being so, I am at a loss to understand the Respondent’s gen-
erous assessment regarding Bivins’ attitude, while at the
same time, it did not accord Hartman similar attributes. For
example, according to Respondent, it also believed Hinson
over Hartman regarding their respective versions over the
phone mail incident; however, in Hartman’s case unlike
Bivins’, the Respondent stressed this point only against the
former. Similarly, both Anderson and Captain Bone spoke
favorably regarding Bivins’ cooperation. Again, this assess-
ment is not supported by the record, unless of course, it was
by not signing the employee petition. Thus, it is undisputed,
that Bivins did not convey in any manner that he would di-
vulge the names of other employees who had wrongfully
used phone mail. On the other hand, Hartman actually of-
fered to do this if the Company provided an employee roster.
Hartman offered to go down the roster and place a mark next
to the names of those employees who had intercepted the
captain’s phone mail. The Respondent’s reason for not pick-
ing up on Hartman’s offer does not have the ring of candor
and is hardly persuasive. According to Respondent, Hartman
did not delineate whether his knowledge was direct or predi-
cated on hearsay. In any event, if anything, it appears that
Hartman was more willing to cooperate than Bivins.
Hartman had never been suspended. The Respondent con-
ceded that he was an excellent security officer. (Tr 370–371.)
In early 1988, Captain Bone gave Hartman a letter com-
mending him for outstanding attendance. There, Captain
Bone also noted: ‘‘As in past years, you efforts are an excep-
tional example of interest, dedication and an example for the
entire force.’’ (G.C. Exh. 7.) Still later, in Hartman’s annual
evaluation, it is noted, inter alia, that his quality of work is
of high degree’’; that he is ‘‘conscientious about his job’’;
and, that ‘‘[he] works well with supervision and his peers.’’
(G.C. Exh. 6b.)
In view of the foregoing and the entire state of this record,
noting particularly that the Respondent treated Hartman, an
excellent employee, disparately, by discharging him and not
Bivins, I find that the Respondent has not satisfied its Wright
Line burden by showing that it would have taken the same
action absent his protected activities. Accordingly, I find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as al-
leged.
With regard to Benoist, I am persuaded that the Respond-
ent would have terminated her notwithstanding her protected
conduct. As noted previously, I have accepted the notion that
employees who knowingly intercept private messages meant
only for management engage in improper conduct. Here, the
misconduct is compounded because it involves a security
breach by a security officer at a nuclear generating station.
Benoist, unlike Hartman or Bivins, never acknowledged that
1226 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 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 objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
8 If this 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
her actions were wrong. Thus, while she apologized to Cap-
tain Bone, at the same time she continued to maintain that
she did nothing wrong. Benoist characterized her eaves-
dropping as ‘‘recreational,’’ which relieved her from the
boredom and tedium of the job. (Tr. 123–124.) As such,
Benoist’s attitude hardly inspires confidence that she would
refrain from similar conduct in the future. In contrast, Hart-
man acknowledged that he used bad judgement. Also, unlike
Hartman, the record is devoid of any evidence reflecting on
Benoist’s positive attributes as a security officer. Rather, the
record disclosed that earlier in the same year in which
Benoist was terminated, she had been suspended for 3 days
without pay for failing to complete her patrol.
The General Counsel noted that in discharging Benoist, the
Respondent referred to a conspiracy with Hartman. The
record is clear however that, in context, the comment related
solely to the phone mail. Thus, admittedly, Benoist told Hart-
man to access the captain’s private code because the message
pertained to him (Hartman). Further, it is noted that
Benoist’s termination report states that Benoist ‘‘conspired
with Hartman in the misuse of the phone mail.’’ (R. Exh. 2.)
On the total state of the record, noting particularly
Benoist’s cavalier attitude regarding the seriousness of the
misconduct involved with nothing in this record to dispel the
notion that she might repeat such misconduct, I am per-
suaded that the Respondent has met its Wright Line burden
and would have terminated her absent her protected conduct.
Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegation pertaining
to Benoist be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Globe Security Systems, Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Steven Hartman because he engaged in
protected concerted activities, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The unfair labor practice found in paragraph 2 above
affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The discharge of Joyce H. Benoist did not violate the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent unlawfully termi-
nated Steven Hartman for engaging in protected concerted
activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer Hartman
immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without preiudice to his seniority and other privileges, and to
make him whole for any loss of earnings as a result of the
unlawful action against him with backpay to be computed in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
I shall also recommend that any reference to Hartman’s
unlawful discharge be expunged from his employment
record.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended7
ORDER
The Respondent, Globe Security Systems, Inc., Cornelius,
North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they engage in con-
certed activity protected by the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Steven Hartman immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Expunge from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Steven Hartman and advise him in writing that
this has been done, and that evidence of the unlawful dis-
charge will not be used as a basis for future personnel action
concerning him.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, pesonnel records
and reports, and all of the records necessary to analyze back-
pay under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its North Carolina McGuire Nuclear Station
copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’8 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 11, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint allegation that
Joyce H. Benoist was unlawfully discharged be dismissed.
1227GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for engaging in con-
certed activities for your mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Steven Hartman immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
former seniority or any other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to his dis-
ciplinary discharge and WE WILL notify him that this has
been done and that evidence of his unlawful discharge will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against
him.
GLOBE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.