Pinkerton National Detective Agency

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 561 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

PINKERTON NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY 561
In view of the foregoing, and as the parties are in substantial agree-
ment that a unit of draftsmen and designers is appropriate, we find
that the following unit of employees of the Employer at its Fitchburg
plant, Fitchburg, Massachusetts, is appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All draftsmen and designers of the Employer at its Fitchburg,
Massachusetts, plant, excluding all employees in the reproduction
room, the drafting data and standards specialist, instruction book
technician leader, engineering technician, the drafting room steno-
typists, professional employees, guards, and.supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Pinkerton National Detective Agency and International Guards
Union of America. Case No. 17-CA-.297. June 2211964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent's excep-
tions, as well as cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision
and the entire record in this case, including the Respondent's excep-
tions, and the General Counsel's answering brief and cross-exceptions,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent;
147 NLRB No. 80.
756-236-65-vol. 147--37
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pinkerton National Detective Agency, its officers, agents, successors;
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.'
' Section 1 ( a) of the Recommended Order is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Interrogating its employees unlawfully as to their activity on behalf of the
Union ; threatening them with the loss of their jobs if they did not abandon the
Union ; and threatening to reduce their hours of work and to withdraw profit -sharing
benefits from them if the Union came into the plant.
The notice attached to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision is hereby amended by deleting the
word "job" after the word "including " in the second line of the first paragraph..
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges filed on September 25, October 3 and 30,
1963, and January 10, 1964, by International Guards Union of America , herein
called the Union , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called respectively the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Di-
rector for the Seventeenth Region ( Kansas City , Missouri ), issued a complaint dated
January 22, 1964, against Pinkerton National Detective Agency, herein called Re-
spondent , alleging that it had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National
Labor Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec . 151, et seq .) herein called the
Act, in that Respondent in September 1963, interrogated employees as to their union
sentiment and affiliations , threatened them with a reduction in working hours, wages,
and fringe benefits, and created an impression of surveillance of the union activities
of employees . Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Horace A.
Ruckel at Kansas City, Missouri , on February 20, 1964, at which the parties were
represented by counsel . Upon the close of the hearing the parties waived oral argu-
ment. Respondent later filed a brief.
Upon the record as a whole, and from my observation of the witness , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation , with its principal . office and place of busi-
ness at New York, New York, and is engaged in furnishing guard services throughout
the United States, including the State of Missouri. It annually furnishes guard
services valued in excess of $50 ,000 to customers located outside the State of New
York. The complaint alleges and Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union admits employees of Respondent to membership. . The complaint al-,
leges and Respondent 's answer admits ' that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. .
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union began organization of Respondent 's employees in September 1963_
This activity immediately came to Respondent 's attention . The question presented
by this record is whether certain inquiries and statements directed to guard em-
ployees by Thomas Fine, a guard captain and admittedly a supervisor , constitute
interference , restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Floyd Dirck , who had signed a union authorization card, testified that on the
evening of September 19, while he was on duty at the Union Wire Rope plant, Fine
visited him and, calling him to one side, stated that it had come to his attention that
Dirck had signed a union card . When Dirck , according to his testimony denied
that he had, Fine said , "I guess you know that if this goes through , you will go on a
40-hour week , no overtime , and you will lose your profit-sharing ." Continuing, Fine
PINKERTON NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY 563 '
asked if a certain other employee had signed a card. Shortly thereafter Dirck re-
turned to the guard office in the plant and there found Fine having an argument with
George Messer, a guard who worked with Dirck. • Messer testifiedithat Fine asked
him if he and Dirck had started "this business," and if he had signed'a union card.
Messer told him that he had. Fine then went on to say that he could be cut back
to a 40-hour week, could lose his profit sharing, and that the most that he could
then look forward to would be about $1.35 an hour.' According to Messer, Fine
did not ask him if there had been any' contact with him or if he had engaged in any
conversation with others while on the job..
Norman Johnson similarly testified that on the same evening Fine called on him
while he was on guard duty on another shift at the Union Wire Rope plant and asked
him if he had signed a union card. When Johnson said that he had, Fine told him
to call up the business representative and tell him to tear up the card, saying that if
he did not do so he might lose his job. According to Johnson, Fine also asked him,
though it does not appear in what sequence, if he had been spoken to by anyone
while on the job and reminded him of the rule prohibiting it.
The testimony of James Corrigan who had signed up;in the Union, is that Fine
also called on him at the Union Wire Rope plant after he had signed a union card,
and asked him if a union organizer had spoken to him. When Corrigan replied
in the negative Fine reminded him that Respondent had a profit-sharing plan and
warned him -that he might lose this benefit. Fine did not ask him specifically if he
had signed a union card and he did not volunteer the information.
The testimony of Luis Schneider, who was employed as a guard at the Cook Paint
and Varnish Company, is that Fine called on him while on duty and asked him if
he had ,joined the Union, to which Schneider replied only "What union?" Fine
did not ask him if he had been approached while on the job.
Fine's testimony is that he had been informed by a guard, whom he did not name,
that union representatives were talking to guards while on duty at the Union Wire
Rope plant. Accordingly, he consulted with his superior officer and they decided to
"determine how far this had gone, if there had been any violation of the guard
orders" and try to determine "how far it had gone in the violation" and the "contacts
that had been made."
Accordingly, Fine made •a "•routine inspection" at the plant in question. He
admitted talking with the guards whose testimony has been related. As to Dirck,
he told him that he had been having too many conversations with other guards and
with Union Wire Rope employees, and asked him if he had had any contact' with
union officials while he was on duty. He then went into the guard office to speak
to Messer and also "asked Messer if he had been contacted by any union officials,'-"
and told both him and Dirck that he did not want any business but company business
conducted on the job. He denied saying to either of them that they might lose over-
time pay and profit-sharing benefits. His remarks to.Johnson were, in substance;
similar. He did not testify as to any conversation with Schneider or Corrigan. He
denied generally that he had ever threatened employees because of their union
activity.
CONCLUSIONS
I credit the testimony of Duck, Messer, Johnson, Corrigan, and Schneider that
Fine asked them concerning their union affiliations or those of other employees, and
that he threatened Dirck, Messer, and Corrigan with the loss of overtime pay and
profit-sharing benefits because of their support of the Union, and threatened Johnson
with the loss of his job. I have found that when Respondent learned of the organiza-
tional activities of some of its employees it decided to investigate the matter not only,
according to Fine's own testimony, to determine whether these contacts had been
made while guards were on duty, in violation of a company rule, but to see "what
contacts had been made." I find it noteworthy that in at least two instances, Fine,
though asking if the guards had signed cards or had been approached by union
representatives, omitted to inquire if they had been approached while the -guards
were on duty. In my view, Respondent's concern was directed primarily to whether
its guards had become active in the Union and how far union organization had gone.
Only secondarily was it concerned as to whether the guards had talked to other
persons while on duty. Moreover, I credit those guards who testified that. Fine
warned 'them against -the Union-'by threatening them with the loss of overtime pay
and profit-sharing. benefits. -In so doing,. Respondent, through Fine, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. . . .
i Direk and Messer were being paid $1.25 per hour.
564. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Guards Union of America is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon the entire
-record in this case , it is recommended that Pinkerton National Detective Agency,
its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees as to their activity on behalf of the Union, and
"threatening to reduce their hours of work and to withdraw profit -sharing benefits
from them if the Union came into the plant.
(b) In any like or related manner intefering with , restraining , or coercing em-
iployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post at its offices at Kansas City, Missouri , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Seventeenth Region shall , after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by other material.
(b) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of this
Decision and Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.3
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to all allegations not
specifically found herein to have been in violation of the Act.
2'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
3 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic loss, including job loss
of overtime and loss of profit-sharing benefits, if they designate or attempt to
have international Guards Union of America, or any other labor organization,
selected as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union feelings,
sympathies, views, or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other cori-
IRVINGTON MOTORS, INC. 565
certed activities for the purpose of collective -bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that
such right is affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
PINKERTON NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue , Kansas City, Missouri , Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Irvington Motors, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local 1049 , affili-
ated with Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 2?-CA-1606. June 22, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1963, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision.
He also found that allegations of other unfair labor practices set forth
in the complaint had not been sustained. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
While we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, by
unilaterally making payments to salesmen who worked double shifts
and by unilaterally setting minimum quotas on gross profits from
I The Trial Examiner erroneously found that 6 weeks elapsed between the transmission
of Local 1049 's written proposals and the first negotiating meeting . The proposals were
transmitted by letter dated November 9, 1962, at most only 11 days before the first meet-
ing. The Trial Examiner also erred in finding that no discussion was directed to double
shifts or payment therefor , since there was uncontradicted testimony by the Union's
secretary-treasurer , Nat Trachman , to the contrary . We correct the Decision accordingly.
However, neither modification would alter the ultimate findings of the Trial Examiner.
147 NLRB No. 71.