Securtiy Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1166 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Security Services , Incorporated and Melvin E. Jones.
Case 7-CA-8852
August 31, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On March 10, 1972, Trial Examiner Thomas F.
Maher issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
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 reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds merit in Respondent's conten-
tion that the Trial Examiner committed prejudicial
error by refusing to allow counsel for Respondent to
examine the Charging Party, Melvin Jones, as an
adverse party under Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.'
In so ruling , we find that a charging party
discriminatee qualifies as an adverse party2 within
the meaning of Rule 43(b) and that the Trial
Examiner's ruling was not only erroneous but
prejudicial to Respondent's substantive rights.3
The complaint alleged in pertinent part that
Respondent discharged Melvin Jones because of his
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
In its answer, Respondent admitted the discharge of
Jones but denied the commission of an unfair labor
practice.
The Trial Examiner, chiefly on the basis of the
admissions of Respondent's executive vice president
and credited testimony of other employees, found
that the violation was committed as alleged.
At the hearing the General Counsel did not call the
Charging Party as a witness but instead presented his
case through the testimony of company officials and
various employees. Respondent at the end of the
presentation of his case requested permission to call
the charging party discriminatee as an adverse
witness under Rule 43(b). The Trial Examiner took
i Rule 43, Evidence (b) Scope of Examination and Cross- Examination
A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading
questions A party may call an adverse party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party, and interrogate him by leading
questions and contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had been
called by an adverse party, and the witness thus called may be contradicted
and impeached by or on behalf of the adverse party also and may be cross-
examined by the adverse party only upon the subject matter of his
examination in chief
2 In Black 's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed (1951), "Adverse" is defined as
Opposed, contrary, in resistance or opposition of a claim , application,
or proceeding . Having opposing interests , having interests for the
the position that Respondent should call him as its
own witness. Respondent elected not to call Jones as
its own witness and has excepted to the ruling of the
Trial Examiner.
The clearly stated purpose of Rule 43(b) is to allow
a party to call and interrogate an adverse party as if
the adverse party were called as a witness by that
party itself-in other words, so as to subject the
adverse party as a witness to cross-examination. That
is what Respondent here sought to do with Jones
before the Trial Examiner. This right to cross-
examine is "probably the most valuable tool that can
be employed to arrive at the truth of a disputed issue
of fact."4 Thus, we find the Trial Examiner's ruling
to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Respondent
in the trial of this cause. We further find that the
Trial Examiner's offer to allow Respondent to call
Jones as its own witness was clearly insufficient to
cure the error. In view of Jones' position as an
adverse party, Respondent understandably declined
an invitation to make Jones its own witness and,
further, to be prohibited the latitude of interrogation
which is permitted on cross-examination but prohib-
ited on direct.
We shall therefore reopen the hearing and remand
this case for full examination of Jones pursuant to
Rule 43(b) and for such other evidence as may be
properly offered by either party as bearing on
relevant matters which may be raised in the course of
such examination.
It is hereby ordered that the hearing be reopened
for the purpose of taking additional evidence as
specified herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 7 for the purpose of arranging such
reopened hearing, and that the Regional Director be,
and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon conclusion of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner shall prepare and
serve upon the parties a Supplemental Decision
containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations to the Board, and that, following
service of such Supplemental Decision upon the
parties, the provisions of Section 102.45 of the
preservation of which opposition is essential
That dictionary also sets forth, as the definition of "Adverse Interest," that-
The "adverse interest" of a witness , so as to permit cross-examination
by the party calling him, must be so involved in the event of the suit
that a legal right or liability will be acquired , lost, or materially affected
by the judgment, and must be such as would be promoted by the
success of the adversary of the party calling him Dinger v Friedman,
279 Pa 8, 123 A 641, 643
The Charging Party in the instant case clearly falls within these definitions,
and rule 43(b) is patently applicable
3 Cf Great Lakes Screw Corp 164 NLRB 149, 150, see also Spector
Freight System, Inc, 141 NLRB 1110
4 N L. R B v Ebner Bros Packers, 364 F 2d 565 (C A 5).
198 NLRB No. 174
SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED 1167
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
shall be applicable.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS F. MAHER, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
on July 27, 1971, by Melvin E. Jones, an individual, against
Security Services, Incorporated, Respondent herein, the
Regional Director for Region 7, of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a
complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board
on August 27, 1971, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. ), herein called the Act. In its
duly filed answer Respondent, while admitting certain
allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any
unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice a trial was held before me in Detroit,
Michigan, where all parties appeared, were represented by
counsel and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
present evidence and oral argument, cross-examine wit-
nesses, and file briefs. A brief was filed by Respondent on
December 10, 1971.
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including
the brief filed with me, and specifically upon my
observation of each witness appearing before me,i I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Security Services Incorporated, Respondent herein, is a
Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of
business at Farmington, Michigan, where it is engaged in
providing protective guard services for hire. During the
year ending September 30, 1971, Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, performed security
services valued in excess of $100,000 of which services
valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in Michigan
for designated companies, each of which annually pur-
chased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which are
shipped to the facilities of their respective corporations in
Michigan directly from outside the State of Michigan.
Upon the foregoing adrmtted facts I conclude and find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is stipulated by the parties and I accordingly conclude
i I have considered the testimony of all witnesses, including those whose
testimony I neither accept nor refer to In evaluating the testimony of each
witness I have relied specifically upon his demeanor and have made my
findings accordingly And while, apart from considerations of demeanor, I
have taken into account inconsistencies and conflicting evidence, my failure
to detail each of these is not to be deemed a failure on my part to have fully
considered it, Bishop and Malco, Inc, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161
2 The credited testimony of Dillion
3 Although considerable of my findings herein are based upon
Silvarman's testimony I find it incumbent to qualify the credence I place
upon him as a witness Throughout his testimony Allen Silvarman gave the
and find that International Union, United Plant Guard
Workers of America, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
In late June 1971 Melvin Jones, a guard employed by
Respondent, communicated with Dempsey Dillion, region-
al director of the Union, and inquired of the possibility of
organizing Respondent's employees. At a meeting between
the two thereafter Dillion gave Jones a supply of
application and authorization cards which Jones proceed-
ed to distribute among his fellow employees, enlisting their
membership in the Union.2 What transpired thereafter can
best be detailed by substantial reliance upon the testimony
of Respondent's executive vice president, Allen Silvarman,
called as a witness by General Counsel .3
On or about July 16, 1971, Silvarman summoned Melvin
Jones to the office and questioned him at length in the
presence of Alfred Lamb, designated as "Inspector" in the
organization and stipulated to be a supervisor, and Jerome
Silvarman, the office manager and brother of Allen
Silvarman. Silvarman stated that Jones was called to the
office to ascertain, among other things, "If he was or was
not soliciting for people to Join the Union." This activity, it
appears, came to Silvarman's attention through a "discipli-
nary action slip" dated the previous day, July 15, and
signed by Sgt. Gary Furtner. This slip, indicating on its
face the penalty of discharge which was not then carried
out, stated:
Officer was off duty on the Account. Soliciting personel
(sic) for a union for his own gain and profit without
sufficient o.k. from the company.
In conjunction with this disciplinary slip a written report of
the incident was filed with the Company, thus stating, in
part:
Officer was trying to get F & G drivers and Stationaries
at some of the Accts. to sign up for a union without
getting authorization from company ... .
Silvarman, in describing the interview with Jones, stated
that:
We asked him if he knew of anybody who was
soliciting, if he was organizing, and he denied any of
this.
When Jones denied the accusations he was reminded of
past infractions that had been noted in his personnel file
and was told that they expected him to do a good job
henceforth. This ended the interview and Jones continued
in his job, despite the fact that the disciplinary slip had
indicated he was to be discharged. Several days thereafter,
definite impression of studied evasion and obfuscation , which on one
occasion required a warning by me, on the record, that a continuation of
this pattern of answer to the questions propounded would not be tolerated
Nevertheless, his direct examination , as an adverse witness called by
counsel for the General Counsel under Rule 43(b) of the Rules of Federal
Procedure, developed an abundance of evidence in support of the
allegations in the complaint To the extent, therefore, that portions of Allen
Silvarman's testimony constitute admissions against his or Respondent's
interest herein, and to the further extent that portions of his testimony are
corroborated by the testimony of credible witnesses I shall rely on such
portions The remainder of his testimony I do not accept as credible.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on payday, the employees' paychecks were distributed with
a form attached, stating:
SECRET BALLOT
Check one box only and place in ballot box
I want a union at Security Services.
I don't want a union at Security Services.
This was done by Sgt. McNear, pursuant to Silvarman's
instructions. The mechanics of this operation were credibly
described by employee Pauszkiewicz, conveniently identi-
fied throughout the record and in Respondent's organiza-
tion as Mr. Alphabet. Thus the dispatcher gave him a
ballot to fill out, and when he filled it out he was given his
paycheck. The dispatcher took the ballot and without
looking at it or marking it placed it in a box provided for
the purpose. Upon tallying these ballots Silvarman noted
that Melvin Jones had not complied with the balloting
procedure, having signed his name and failed to indicate a
choice.
At about the same time, on July 18, employee Pausz-
kiewicz received a call from headquarters while on car
patrol. He was instructed to report at 5 p.m. to a new
assignment, North Detroit General Hospital. After he had
reported there he was met by St. McNear. Pauszkiewicz'
credited account of this meeting follows: 4
Sgt. McNear told me at this time the men in the
Company were trying to organize the Union, and I
would be approached by a gentleman from our
corporation in regard to joining the Union, and I was
to get all or any information on the man. All cards or
anything that was said. And deliver this to either Sgt.
McNear or Col. Silvarman.
Sgt. McNear then told Pauszkiewicz that it was his job to
do and that he would be fired if he did not do it as
instructed. Accordingly, when Jones approached him later
that evening and asked him to sign a union card
Pauszkiewicz agreed to do so. Jones told him that he did
not keep cards on his person but would bring him a card
the following day. As promised, Jones brought the card to
Pauszkiewicz on July 19, and he signed and returned it. He
also asked and received from Jones three additional cards,
as he had been instructed to do. Then, in accordance with
this instruction he called headquarters and was directed to
return with the information and the blank cards. Upon his
arrival he met with Silvarman, Sgt. Furtner who had
disciplined him earlier, and inspector Lamb. He turned the
blank cards over to Silvarman who inspected them and
then, returning them, instructed him to fill the cards in with
names and addresses he could glean from a telephone
book, using random social security numbers. Silvarman, by
his own admission, filled out one of these cards in this
fashion, saying "See how easy it is?"5 When asked at the
trial why he did this Silvarman replied that they were
interested in finding out where the signed card would go.
4 McNear was not called as a witness Silvarman confirmed the incident
5 Silvarman 's version of the overall incident conforms with Pauszkiewici
except the manner in which the liaison with Jones was established Thus he
described Pauszkiewicz, without identifying him, as a volunteer who was
anxious to inform on Jones and help the Company keep the Union out I do
not credit this version
6 There is a dispute among Respondent 's witnesses , Jones and Sgt
Donald Golden, and the testimony of Vice President Silvarman on this
Pauszkiewicz credibly testified that Silvarman instructed
him to return the cards to Jones.
At this point in his conversation with Pauszkiewicz
Silvarman told him that the Union had to be stopped from
coming in because if it came in the men would lose
advantages presently enjoyed, and would be required to
pay for their gun training. He then instructed Pauszkiewicz
to get all the information that he could on Jones, and
expressed the hope that the spurious cards would have the
effect of embarassing Jones with the Union and would
cause it to drop the campaign. Pauszkiewicz actually
turned over 10 cards to the Union and gave Silvarman a
written report of his total activities with respect to the
cards.
On July 26 another employee, John Jones, telephoned to
headquarters from his post at North Detroit General
Hospital and reported that Melvin Jones, the Charging
Party herein, had solicited him to join the Union.
Whereupon the full force of Respondent's investigatory
resources went into action, the final result of which was
Melvin Jones' discharge. A fuller chronology and analysis
of this event brings it into clearer forcus.
Employee John Jones, testifying for the Respondent,
stated that on January 25 he was called at home and told
not to report to his regular assignment at 1300 Lafayette
Street, but to take a new assignment at the North Detroit
General Hospital where Melvin Jones was regularly
assigned to duty at the main desk on the shift beginning 5
p.m. John Jones' assignment was to begin on the following
morning. On January 26 Melvin Jones checked in
sometime before 5 p.m., according to John Jones, and he
immediately engaged him in the conversation concerning
the Union, asking him to sign an authorization card.
Shortly thereafter, after 5 p.m., John Jones had occasion to
go to the main desk where Melvin Jones was stationed and
Melvin Jones again brought up the subject of the Union.
Whereupon John Jones returned to his duty station and
reported his conversation with Melvin Jones to Respon-
dent's headquarters.6 Shortly thereafter Sgt. Donald
Golden and Lt. James Butler appeared on the scene, at the
direction of Lamb of headquarters.? Jones repeated his
story to the two supervisors and was told to submit a
written report to headquarters. The supervisors then
proceeded to talk with Melvin Jones and after verifying the
fact that he had solicited John Jones for the Union relieved
him from duty, picked up his badge and other equipment,
and discharged him. The discharge slip given to Melvin
Jones described the circumstances justifying the discharge
as follows:
Interfering with another officer's duties (sic).
In defense of the action taken against Melvin Jones it is
Respondent's contention that he was not discharged for
soliciting for the Union but for interfering with another
subject Jones testified that he called headquarters in line of duty and
Silvarman testified they received the call , whereas Golden, who appeared on
the scene within a short period of time, emphatically denied headquarters
received a call and insisted that Silvarman was wrong in his testimony I do
not credit Golden and find that call was made.
7 The testimony of Silvarman John Jones also states that two supervisors
together interviewed him and thereafter met with Melvin Jones . I reject
Golden's testimony to the contrary
SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED
officer while on duty. In this respect it distinguishes the
July 26 action of discharge from the July 15 warning to
Jones which did not result in a discharge, but in a warning.
On that previous occasion Respondent claims that Melvin
Jones was reprimanded for violating a company rule
respecting solicitation. The rule read as follows and
appears in the Company's employee manual:
Solicitations and collections for any purpose without
specific approval by commanding officers
It seeks thus to distinguish the reasons for the discharge
and the earlier warning. Furthermore Respondent put into
the record documentary evidence of warnings given to
Melvin Jones for other transgressions during his term of
employment. -
B. Conclusions
A reading of Silvarman's testimony underscores Respon-
dent's antipathy towards the unionization of its employees
and its determination to thwart it. Thus, as summarized
above, Silvarman has virtually admitted to a variety of the
strategems traditionally used to unlawfully interfere with
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization
and to restrain and coerce them.
He called Jones to his office to question him about his
union activity among his fellow guards; specifically asking
him if he was organizing for the Union and who else was
soliciting for the Union. Several days later Silvarman
directed that a ballot be issued canvassing the employees'
choice for or against the Union; and in Pauszkiewicz'
testimony it is clear that the receipt of paychecks was
conditioned upon the return of such ballot. It is well
established that such interrogation and canvassing of
employees, occurring as it did here in the context of the
Employer's expressed opposition to the Union, constitutes
interference, restraint, and coercion to employees which I
conclude and find to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In addition Respondent, by Silvarman's directions to
Pauszkiewicz, conveyed to him by his supervisors (supra),
constituted instructions to spy on Melvin Jones and to
entrap him, and then, by returning to him spurious
authorization cards, to embarass Jones with the Union and
hopefully discourage it in its campaign to organize the
men. Citation of authority is certainly not necessary to
conclude and find, as I do, that such conduct on
Respondent's part as I have described constitutes the
grossest form of employee interference, restraint, and
coercion and I accordingly further conclude and find that
Respondent has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).
In such a context of unlawful activity to destroy the
organizing efforts of Melvin Jones and the Union it can
hardly be suggested that Respondent's rule prohibiting
solicitation was intended for or enforced for the legitimate
purpose of maintaining good order and efficient security
service. The rule, as previously stated, required advanced
company approval of any solicitation. However innocuous
this may appear in isolation, its breadth and the Respon-
dent's expressed motives in enforcing it destroy an
immunity it might otherwise have enjoyed. For this reason
" Although the rule as it thus appears in the Respondent's "Official
Officers' Manual" is grammatically an incomplete sentence, it is to be noted
that in the overall context of the publication the statement appears as an
1169
and in the context of its implementation I conclude that
the rule and the Respondent's enforcement of it by
warning Melvin Jones was a further interference, restraint
and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Melvin Jones was discharged within the week following
his interrogation and reprimand for soliciting in behalf of
the Union. I find the testimony of Vice President
Silvarman to be totally fatuous as it explains and seeks to
justify this action. Not only did he substantially admit to
the bulk of facts upon which I have based the foregoing
findings of violations, but in an effort, to justify the
discharge of Melvin Jones he engaged in a pattern of
obfuscation and contradiction that could serve only to
further implicate Respondent in the unlawful conduct
alleged. Jones was believed to be the instigator of the
Union, and he was called in and questioned about it; then
he was warned against a repetition of this activity. A trap
was devised to procure evidence of his activity by
instructing Pauszkiewicz, under threat of discharge, to
obtain from Jones the incriminating union cards, and then
to compromise him with the Union by returning falsely
signed cards.
Finally Respondent set a second trap to implicate Jones
by directing John Jones to be available for solicitation and
then to inform. My finding in this respect I base upon
inferences which flow from the general context in which
the event occurred. John Jones denied he was told to seek
out Melvin Jones for this purpose and report into
headquarters, but there is more suspicion than coincidence
to the sequence of Jones' work history at that time: He was
suddenly detailed to work with Melvin Jones, he immedi-
ately had occasion to report him to headquarters, and he
was thereafter reassigned to work in the Company's office,
certainly a more desirable situation. Furthermore, two
supervisors, Golden and Butler, almost immediately
appeared on the scene in answer to John Jones' report and
forthwith discharged Melvin Jones.
Viewed in the light of what had transpired since
Respondent's first suspicion of Melvin Jones' union
activity before June 15, what occurred to him on June 26
when he was discharged, and the manner in which it was
accomplished, permits of no other reasonable inference
than that he was discharged because of his union and
concerted activities. This I conclude and find to constitute
discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
and further interference, restraint, and coercion of employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(I).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activity of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described 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 threatening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
item of conduct for which a penalty is imposed, in this instance a warning
on the first offense, I week's suspension on the second, and discharge on the
third
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in certain respects,
and that it has discriminately discharged Melvin Jones. I
shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
this conduct, and because the nature of the unfair labor
practices committed here are of such gravity as to present a
threat of future violations of the Act I shall recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their statutory rights.
Affirmatively I shall recommend that Respondent
reinstate Melvin Jones to his former position with backpay
to be computed in the customary manner,9 with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum,10 and that it post
appropriate notice of compliance with such Order as the
Board issues.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act I hereby issue the following recommended:
iORDER"
Respondent Security Services, Incorporated, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning
their concerted or union activities or union membership.
(b) Polling their employees to determine their union
preferences.
(c) Publishing, maintaining, and/or enforcing a rule
prohibiting the solicitation by employees for any purpose
without specific approval of Respondent's supervisors or
officials.
(d) Discouraging membership in International Union,
United Plant Guard Workers of America, or any other
labor organization, by terminating the employment of their
employees and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate
them because they engaged in concerted and union
activities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees, or unlawfully discriminating
against them in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
deemed will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer reinstatement to Melvin E. Jones whom it
terminated and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate,
dismissing, if necessary, any individual hired since June 27,
1971.
(b) Make whole Melvin E. Jones in the manner set forth
in "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its Farmington, Michigan, headquarters, and
wherever else it maintains notices for employees, the notice
attached hereto as "Appendix." 12 Copies of the notice on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous places,
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision
what steps it has taken to comply therewith.13
9 F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289
iO Isis Plumbing & Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716
it In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
i2 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 be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
i3 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in wasting, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
concerning their union membership or activities.
WE WILL poll our employees to determine their
union preferences.
WE WILL NOT publish, maintain or enforce any rule
prohibiting solicitation by employees without our prior
approval.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna-
tional Union, United Plant Guard Workers of Ameri-
ca, or any other labor organization, by terminating the
employment of our employees or by thereafter failing
and refusing to reinstate them because they engaged in
concerted activities or union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce our employees or unlawfully discrim-
inate against them in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Melvin Jones to his
former position, dismissing if necessary anyone hired
since his discharge on June 27, 1971, and we will make
him whole for the losses occurred by him.
All of you, our employees, are free to remain or to
withdraw from, to become or to refrain from becoming
members of International Union, United Plant Guard
Workers of America, or any other labor organization.
SECURITY SERVICES,
INCORPORATED
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days. We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
1171
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500
Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit,
Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.