Siro Security Service, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1266 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Siro Security Service, Inc. and Alvin Scott and Allied
International Union of Security Guards and Special
Police, now known as Federation of Special Police
and Law Enforcement Officers, Party to the Con-
tract
Allied International Union of Security Guards and
Special Police, now known as Federation of Special
Police and Law Enforcement Officers and Alvin
Scott and Siro Security Service, Inc., Party to the
Contract. Cases 29-CA-5751, 29-CA-5751-2, and
29-CB-2955
February 21, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On February 8, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel, Respon-
dent Union, and Respondent Company filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Siro
Security Service, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the
Respondent, Allied International Union of Security
Guards and Special Police, now known as Federation
of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers, Glen
Oaks, New York, it officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following sentence to paragraphs A, 2,
(b) and B, 2, (c) of the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order.
"Interest shall be added to the aforesaid reimburse-
ments in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
247 NLRB No. 157
Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, generally,
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
2. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
' Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Ioard's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products Inc.. 91 NLRB 544
(1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order to
provide interest on all fees and moneys reimbursable to employees thereunder.
We shall also modify his Appendixes A and B to conform with his
recommended Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or other reprisal because of their refusal to
sign membership cards for Allied International
Union of Security Guards and Special Police,
now known as Federation of Special Police and
Law Enforcement Officers, or any other labor
organization.
WE WIIL NOT give assistance and support to
the above-named Union, or any other labor
organization, in obtaining union application and
checkoff authorization cards, or in any other
manner proscribed by Section 8(a)(2) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WII.L NOT recognize or contract with the
above-named Union, or any successor thereto, as
the representative of our employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining, unless and until
said labor organization has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to, perform, or in any
way enforce our contract with the above-named
Union, effective April 18, 1977, or any modifica-
tion, extension, or renewal thereof, or any other
contract, agreement, or understanding entered
into with such labor organization, or any succes-
sor thereto, relating to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other terms and conditions of employment, unless
and until said labor organization shall have been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive representative of our employees;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall
require us to vary or abandon any wage, hour,
seniority, or other substantive feature of our
1266
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE, INC.
relationship with our employees which we have
established in the performance of said contract,
or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in the
above-named Union, or any successor thereto, by
discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees with respect to their hire and tenure oe
employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment in the absence of a valid union-security
clause requiring membership in a union as a
condition of employment.
WE WI.LL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because they have filed
charges with the National Labor Relations Board
or given testimony under the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge if they fail to sign checkoff authorization
forms for the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT require employees to apply for
membership in a labor organization prior to the
end of the 30-day grace period statutorily granted
employees under an otherwise valid union-securi-
ty clause requiring membership in a union as a
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT deduct initiation fees and dues
from employees' pay on behalf of a labor organi-
zation without voluntary written authorization
therefor.
WE WILL NOT give effect to checkoff authori-
zation forms coercively obtained from Arm-
strong, Marharath, Simon, McKenney, Butler,
McClary, Bolling, Garner, Corsale, Morris, Filli-
pi, Guarangno, Gogins, and all other employees
coerced by us or the above-named Union into
executing such forms.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Alvin Scott immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and, jointly and
severally with the above-named Union, make him
whole for any losses he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, with
interest.
WE WILL reimburse all our employees for all
fees and moneys deducted from their pay as a
result of our coercion in requiring them to
execute union application and checkoff authori-
zation cards on behalf of the above-named labor
organization, and, jointly and severally with said
labor organization, WE WILL reimburse all em-
ployees for all fees or moneys deducted from their
pay as a result of our coercion and the joint
coercion of said labor organization in the execu-
tion of such forms, with interest.
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE, INC.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Siro
Security Service, Inc., or any other employer, to
discharge or discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or other reprisal if they fail to apply for
membership in our Union at a time when our
Union is not their lawful majority bargaining
representative with a valid union-security clause
requiring membership in our Union as a condi-
tion of employment
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge if they do not execute checkoff authoriza-
tion forms.
WE WIL L NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge for failure to apply for membership in our
Union without according them the 30-day grace
period to which they are, in any event, statutorily
entitled under an otherwise lawful union-security
clause.
WE WILL NOT accept recognition from em-
ployers, or execute and give effect to a collective-
bargaining agreement with Siro Security Service,
Inc., effective April 18, 1977, or any other
employer, containing a union-security clause
requiring membership in our Union as a condi-
tion of employment at a time when our Union
does not represent an uncoerced majority of such
employees in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT give effect to checkoff authori-
zation forms coercively obtained from Siro Secu-
rity Service, Inc., employees by our Union or Siro
Security Service, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify Alvin Scott and Siro Security
Service, Inc., in writing, that we have no objec-
tion to the employment of Scott and request his
reinstatement.
1267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Siro
Security Service, Inc., make Alvin Scott whole for
any losses suffered by him as a result of the
discrimination against him, with interest.
WE WILL reimburse all Siro Security Service,
Inc., employees for all fees and moneys deducted
from their pay as a result of our coercion in
requiring them to execute union application and
checkoff authorization forms, and, jointly and
severally with Siro Security Service, Inc., reim-
burse all employees for all fees and moneys
deducted as a result of our coercion and the joint
coercion of Siro Security Service, Inc., in the
execution of such forms, with interest.
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL UNION OF SECU-
RITY GUARDS AND SPECIAL POLICE, NOW
KNOWN AS FEDERATION OF SPECIAL PO-
LICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS
DECISION
ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The
charges in this consolidated case were filed on July 7, 1977,'
and August 4. The complaint alleging violations of Section
8(a)(l), (2), (3), (4) and Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) issued on
October 31, 1977. The hearing was held on February 6, 27,
and 28 and March and 20, 1978, at Brooklyn, New York.
Respondent Union filed a brief and Respondent Company
filed a letter. Both have been considered.
The basic issues in this case relate to the recognition of the
Respondent Union by Respondent Company at a time when
the former allegedly did not represent an uncoerced majority
of employees in the appropriate unit. Subsidiary thereto are
issues with respect to the subsequent execution of a contract
containing a union-security clause requiring membership in
the Union as a condition of employment, the coercion of
employees to sign union application and check-off authoriza-
tion forms by threats of discharge and other forms of
assistance and coercion, and the final discharge of the
Charging Party allegedly because he refused to join Respon-
dent Union and filed charges in this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
Respondent Company, hereinafter called Siro, a New
York corporation, is engaged in the business of providing
uniformed guard security services for Off-Track Betting
Corporation (OTB), an agency providing legal off-track
parimutual betting in New York City and for other
organizations. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
'All dates are in 1977, unless otherwise indicated.
:The parties were unable to agree as to the inclusion of Lisroy Pierre. Pierre
was interviewed shortly before he began work on April 20. The record will not
Respondent Union, hereinafter called Allied, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
B. The Recognition of Allied
Respondent Company obtained a contract to provide
guard service for OTB about the middle of March and
commenced service on April 1. In late March Respondent
Union began its campaign to organize the guards serving
OTB. Prior to April I the OTB guards were employees of
Lance Security. Upon learning that Lance Security was to be
replaced with Siro, Daniel Cunningham, president of Allied,
ceased organizing activities until April 1. Beginning on that
date Cunningham assigned five or six organizers to speak to
Siro's employees at OTB sites and obtain pledge cards from
them. As of April 14 Cunningham had in his possession 37
cards which he believed to be cards signed by 37 OTB
guards employed by Siro. These cards were obtained in
several ways. An organizer would obtain pledge cards from
employees at an OTB jobsite. Employees, who had been
given cards by other employees, would sign and mail the
cards to Respondent Union. An organizer would revisit a
jobsite and collect cards that were obtained from other
employees by an employee solicitor. Cunningham himself
did not witness the signatures on the cards in his possession.
No organizer or employee-solicitor testified.
On April 14 Cunningham called the Siro office and asked
to speak to Al Katz, the president. Katz returned Cunning-
ham's call the same day, and Cunningham told Katz that
Cunningham had a majority of Katz' employees signed up.
On April 15 Katz and Cunningham met at a restaurant in
Brooklyn. Present on that occasion were Katz, Cunning-
ham, Louis Vitale (vice president of Siro), and Vincent
Ricardo, an organizer for Respondent Union. Katz asked
how many cards Cunningham had obtained. Katz agreed
that he would recognize the Union if Cunningham had a
clear majority. Cunningham handed the cards to Katz. Katz
reviewed and counted the cards. The count showed 37 cards.
Katz made a phone call and then told Cunningham that
Cunningham had a majority, but that Katz could not sign
any agreement because he wanted his attorney to see it. Katz
and Cunningham went over the terms of a proposed
contract, and it was agreed that they would sign a formal
contract on April 18. In fact, Katz and Cunningham met on
April 26, and a contract recognizing Respondent Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Siro's employees
in the below-described appropriate unit was executed effec-
tive April 18. The contract contains a statutory union-
security clause requiring membership in Allied as a condi-
tion of employment.
The appropriate contractual unit includes all employees of
Siro at O.T.B. sites, excluding executives, supervisors,
professional, confidential, clercial, and nonguard employees.
The parties stipulated2 that as of April 18 there were 52
support a conclusion that he was. in fact, employed on April 18. Accordingly.
Pierre is not included in the unit as of that date. The parties did not stipulate
1268
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE, INC.
employees in this unit as follows:'
Forbes, Arnold
Morris, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander
Melendez, Wilberto
Watson, Gladstone
Robinson, Willy
McKenney, Larry
Cruz, Eugene
Scott, Alvin
Marharath, Bala
Simon, Ronald
Diaz, Danilo
Gogins, Percy
Corsale, Christopher
Law, James
Gibbons, Ellsworth
Ramirez, Rudy
Riley, Patrick
Mercado, Henry
Lorenzano, Jose
Morales, Raul
Steward, Harold
Avollone, Harold
Walls, Russell
Fulton, James
Greene, Mark
Richardson, Bobby
Logan, Sammy
Brown, Artie
Thomson, Robert
Mendez, Kenneth
Germany, Jerry
Asbright, John
Domanoski, Frank
Parker, Michael
Bacchus, Karim
Valentin, Lucas
Troy, Reginald
Ishmael
Allen, Donnie
Meikle, Gary
Armstrong, Nathaniel
Jr.
Butler, Joseph
Gomez, Frank
Singleson, Alphonso
Benn, Boffy
Fillipi, Ubaldo
Hennessey, Dennis
Guaragno, Vincent
Barnes, Robert
Boiling, George
Jenkins, Mark
I find that on April 18 the appropriate unit consisted of 52
employees, whose names are set forth above.
Of these 52 employees, 28 testified.
Of the latter employees, 12, i.e., Simon, McKenney, Cruz,
Fulton, Germany, Ishmael, Marharath, Meikle, Butler,
Melendez, Wilson, and Scott testified that they did not sign
application or authorization cards for Allied on or before
April 18. Six employees, i.e., Corsale, Morris, Forbes,
Valentin, Gogins, and Mercado testified that they did not
remember signing such cards on or before April 18. One
employee, Gibbons, signed a card for the Union in April but
did not remember the exact date. One employee, Bolling,
signed an application card for the Union on April 7 but was
given the card by Respondent Company's chief supervisor,
James Garner, in the Company's office and was told that he
had to join the Union or be terminated.' One employee,
Robinson, signed a card for the Union on April 12 but on
Thursday of the same week was told by Garner that the card
had to be signed because Robinson had to be a union
employee to work for the Company. One employee, Watson,
signed a card for the Union dated April 14 in blank and did
not remember the date he signed it. However, with respect to
that card and a previous card, Watson signed these cards at
Respondent Company's office. The cards were given to
Watson by one of two men in the Company's office. Watson
as to Jonas Bright, who testified. Bright was employed by Siro in fall 1976 and
worked until the following June. However. there is no evidence that he was
employed in the appropriate unit. Accordingly, he is excluded.
' Wherever possible the spelling of employee names, which varies in the
record, conforms to the signatures of employees on signature cards or froms.
' Bolling testified that he was given the card either by Gardner or Vitale. In
view of Vitale's testimony that he did not give any employee a single purpose
application card for union membership as distinguished from a dual purpose
was told that the employees "have to sign this paper." Five
employees, i.e., Richardson, Fillipi, Guaragno, Armstrong,
and Logan testified that they signed cards for the Union
prior to April 18. 1 accord no weight to the testimony of
Walls which is inconsistent with a prior questionnaire given
by Walls to the General Counsel on September 29.
Four employees, i.e., McKenney, Corsale, Valentine, and
Ishmael testified that cards, obtained by the General
Counsel from Allied under subpena and purporting to bear
the signatures of these employees, had not in fact been
signed by them, and the signatures thereon were not their
signatures.
Cunningham testified that a number of cards were missing
from his files because of lack of attention to the file, but that
he had 25 cards at the time he received notice of the instant
proceeding. At that time he took those cards out of the file
and placed them in his personal drawer.
Respondent Union offered into evidence 20 cards to
establish that Cunningham believed he had a majority on
April 14. The cards were rejected on the ground that they
had not been authenticated, nor were these cards subse-
quently authenticated as to date and signature of employees
included in the appropriate unit.
C. The Requirement That Employees Sign Application
and Checkoff Authorization Forms
Subsequent to April 18
During the period from April 21 to June 24 six employees,
i.e., Simon, McKenney, Armstrong, Marharath, Butler, and
Scott testified that they were handed dual purpose applica-
tion and checkoff forms for Allied entitled "Application and
Check-Off Authorization Blank"' by Vitale or Garner and
told them that failure to sign these forms would lead to their
dismissal or they would not be able to work.
Jimmy McClary, an employee hired after April 18,
testified that in June Vitale handed McClary his pay
envelope, which included an Allied "Application and
Check-Off Authorization Blank." McClary asked what the
form was, and Vitale told McClary that it was a from for the
Union, and if the employees did not fill out the form they
would have to be fired.
Eight employees, i.e., Bolling, Corsale, Morris, Fillipi,
Guaragno, Gogins, Armstrong, and Scott received in the
mail from Respondent Union on or about May 7 a form
letter dated May 5 (G.C. Exh. 8) informing the recipient that
a contract had been signed covering security employees at all
OTB locations. The letter also stated, inter alia: "We have
enclosed a check-off authorization form which MUST be
filled out, signed, and returned to our office at once. This will
entitle you to the protection of benefits due to you as a union
member. Your failure to fill out this form will result in
termination of employment.... All forms must be re-
turned to our office no later than May 12th." Attached to
application and checkoff authorization form. I find, as indicated above, that
Garner gave Bolling the above card. Garner did not testify.
' This form included an application for union membership and authorized
the Employer to deduct from the employee's wages "initiation fees. monthly
dues, and assessments uniformly required by said Local Union as a condition
of acquiring or maintaining membership, and in compliance with the Labor-
Management Relation Act of 1947."
1269
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the letter was the above dual purpose "Application and
Check-Off Authorization Blank." The letter, signed by
Cunningham, was addressed to "ALL SIRO SECURITY
OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT O.T.B. SITES."
D. The Discharge of Alvin Scott
Alvin Scott applied for employment with Siro on March
15 and began work as an OTB guard on April 2. Prior to
such employment he had been employed by Siro from 1972
to 1975 and during that period had been promoted to
sergeant. Initially, Scott worked at several OTB locations. In
May or June at Scott's request he was transferred to the
OTB location at Fifth Avenue and 12th Street in Brooklyn.
On May 5 Scott received in the mail Respondent Union's
letter (G.C. Exh. 8) and a dual purpose Allied "Application
and Check-Off Authorization Blank." On May 12 Scott
found attached to' his check at the office the same dual
purpose form. Vitale told Scott that Scott had to sign the
form in order to be employed by Siro and that if he did not
join the Union he could be fired as a result of the union
contract Siro had with Allied. Scott replied that he was not
going to sign until he found out something further about the
Union. Thereafter, Scott had a number of conversations with
Vitale. Vitale told Scott that the Union had gone to
arbitration, Siro had lost, and therefore the employees were
in the Union whether they liked it or not. Scott had to sign
the dual purpose form or be fired. Scott said he was not
going to sign. In one conversation Scott said, "Why should I
join a union that is not offering me anything more than what
the company has already offered us then I had to pay dues
and wait a whole year to see what they could produce for the
next year." Vitale said that he did not blame Scott.
Thereafter Scott called the Union and about month later
in June Cunningham's assistant returned Scott's call. The
conversation lasted about 20 minutes. They spoke about
benefits of the Union and what the Union was going to do
for the Siro employees. Scott asked the assistant, "Why
should I pay you $96 a year to represent me?" Scott testified
that he already had Blue Cross and Blue Shield, that there
were no paid holidays, and that he would not get a vacation
until the next year. Scott told the assistant that Scott would
not pay $96 for the Union to represent him the first year and
not get any benefits from it.'
On June 9 when Scott picked up his check he discovered
that $18 had been deducted from his pay for the Union.
Scott asked Vitale why the money had been deducted from
Scott's pay. Vitale said that the Union had gone to
arbitration and won, that the Union would picket OTB if
they did not get the contract, and that OTB did not want
anyone to picket. Scott did, in fact, sign a card for the Union
on June 30 but never delivered it to the Union or Siro. Scott
had received another letter in the mail from the Union with
another dual purpose form. He filled out the form, signed it,
and placed it in his personal drawer. At no time did Scott
submit any checkoff or authorization card for Allied to
Allied or to Siro, and at no time did Scott authorize Allied to
represent him with respect to his employment at Siro.
' Art. IV of the contract (G.C. Exh. 28) provides for I I paid holidays and
refers to schedule C, which is not attached. Art. V provides for vacations.
Scott testified that he had never seen a copy of the contract.
Although Vitale could not recall the date, but though it
was sometime in May, an individual from the Union who
identified himself as "Vinny" called Vital and said "Mr.
Scott is causing a lot of trouble. Fire that bastard." Vincent
Ricardo was authorized by the Union to call employers
regarding their employees.
Respondent Union had not at the time of the hearing
requested the discharge of any other employee.
On May 24, at Scott's request, Vitale wrote and gave Scott
a letter attesting to his character to facilitate Scott's transfer
from the Air Force to the Army reserve. The letter read as
follows: "Mr. Alvin Scott has been in my employ since April
Ist. of this year as a Security Officer. His conduct has been
more than excellent, on time for assignments, works every
day that he is scheduled, performed his job in excellent
fashion and is a dependable individual."
Scott's shift began at 11:45 a.m. and terminated at 7:45
p.m. On June 20 Scott was late 1-1/2 hours. On June 23 he
was late 2-3/4 hours. Scott testified that on one of these
occasions Scott had reported for work but was called to the
telephone by the manager of the OTB office. Scott's wife was
on the phone. Scott told the manager that his daughter was
sick and the school wanted him to take her to the hospital.
The manager said, "Okay take the time off and bring her
back." Part of this time could have been Scott's lunch
period. On the second occasion Scott was bringing some boy
scouts back from upstate and was held up in traffic. When
he came through the tunnel, he reported to the OTB office in
Brooklyn and told Sal Bonno, the manager, that he had to
drop the children off at the Salvation Army and that he
would be back. Bonno said, "It is near your lunch time, pick
up your lunch, drive them home and come back." Scott
dropped the boys off, picked up a sandwich at Burger King,
and went to work. Bonno told Scott it was not necessary to
call Siro, that usually they call their own office first and their
office calls Siro. Bonno said, "Take the time. Don't take too
long in case security comes by and it is unattended by a
guard."
Scott was also 30 minutes late on July 8, 15 minutes on
July 18, 15 minutes on August 1, and 15 minutes on August
3. With respect to these periods of lateness, Scott testified
that on certain nights toward the end of the week he would
stay beyond 7:45 p.m. in the evening to 8 p.m. or 8:15 p.m.
Scott had an arrangement with the OTB manager that if
Scott worked overtime, for which OTB did not pay, the
manager would work it out. However, Scott did not receive
permission from Siro to come in late and work overtime.
On July 1 Vitale prepared and signed a written set of rules
and regulations for OTB security guards. The guards had
been verbally informed of these rules when they were hired.
The rules provided that lateness more than once or excessive
absentism without just cause may result in termination. The
rules also provided that insubordination towards Siro securi-
ty supervisory or OTB personnel will result in termination.
The rules provided further that making wagers or failure to
properly perform duties or to cooperate with OTB managers
can result in termination. The rules provided further that
leaving an assigned OTB location before completion of tour
will result in termination. With respect to this rule, failure to
1270
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE, INC.
notify Siro before leaving because of illness or emergency,
even if permission is received from the OTB manager, can
result in termination. The rules contain the following suffix
sentence: "In certain of the above violations, the under-
signed, or Siro Supervisory Personnel may not terminate if
they feel that the individual has a valid reason for violating
any of the rules or if the employee has displayed outstanding
prior service. However, this is strictly at the discretion of
these individuals."
On July 7 Scott filed his initial charge in this case alleging,
inter alia, that the Company had unlawfully deducted
initiation fees and dues for the Union from the pay of
employees.
On July 16 Vitale received a call from Milt Snyder, one of
OTB's office personnel. Vitale dealt with Snyder almost on a
daily basis. Snyder informed Vitale that Scott had been late a
total of approximately 5 hours on three different occasions.
Snyder was upset because Siro had charged OTB for a full 8
hours on each of the 3 days rather than the actual time
worked. Vitale informed Snyder that Vitale did not know
that the man was late, and that Vitale would immediately
change his system in detecting lateness. Prior to July 16
Snyder had not called to complain about the lateness of
Scott or any other employee. Snyder informed Vitale that
the manager at 459 Fifth Avenue had informed Snyder of
Scott's lateness. Vitale asked Snyder why Snyder had not
notified Vitale when Scott was late the first time on June 20.
Snyder replied, "That is a good question." Vitale spoke to
the OTB manager probably the same day. The manager
reviewed his records and verified the fact that Scott was late.
On July 17 Vitale instituted a policy to call each
individual location personally or with the help of his
assistant to determine if the guard was there and if he was on
time. On the same day or the next day Vitale called Scott at
his place of assignment and informed Scott of his lateness
and warned him. Scott did not deny being late. As a result of
Scott's lateness Vitale no longer considered Scott, as Vitale
had in the past, an outstanding employee. Moreover, Vitale
verbally changed his written rules for OTB security guards
to eliminate the last sentence so that no consideration would
be given to an outstanding employee in the future for
violation of the rules.
On July 18 Vitale wrote a letter to Scott, noting that Scott
had been late on June 20 and 23 and on July 8 and 18. Scott
was informed that he would be terminated if he were late at
any time in the future. The letter was delivered to Scott by
Garner on July 21. Garner asked for no explanation of
Scott's lateness, and Scott offered none.
On August I Vitale learned that Scott was 15 minutes late
that day but took no action to terminate him. Vitale testified
that he stretched the point because Scott was a good
employee, and Vitale understood that Scott was having some
problem in his mind relative to the Union. Scott was late 15
minutes on August 3, and Vitale terminated Scott by letter
of August 4 because of lateness on August I and 3, referring
to the warning letter of July 18. Garner handed Scott the
letter with Scott's pay check. Scott opened the letter and
read it. Garner said nothing to Scott, and Scott said nothing
to Garner.
In August Jimmy McClary, who was discharged by Siro
on September 9, had the last of several conversations with
Vitale concerning the Union. McClary asked where Alvin
Scott was. Vitale said, "Well, Alvin Scott has been fired."
Vitale then added, "By the way, you are just hanging by a
string."
Lateness and absenteeism are of tremendous importance
in Siro's guard business. Individual employees are told
immediately upon their employment that lateness or absen-
teeism cannot be tolerated unless there are very unusual
circumstances. Each employee is given a card informing him
that he must call one of several numbers if for any reason he
is not able to report for work at least 4 hours before
reporting time. The card notes that failure to comply may
lead to dismissal.
Subsequent to Scott's discharge three employees, i.e.,
McClary, Frank Dominoski, and Bobby Benn were dis-
charged by Siro for a combination of lateness, absenteeism,
and other reasons. Vitale testified that over a period from
September to February 1978 five additional employees were
discharged for lateness. In addition to these named employ-
ees, Vitale testified that numerous other employees were
discharged for lateness or absenteeism. Vitale estimated that
the rate of turnover for OTB employees was 300 percent
over a 6-month period.
On August 4, the day of his discharge, Scott filed his
second charge in this case.
On August 12 Siro refunded to Scott $25 for an initiation
fee and 32 for Union dues that had been deducted from
Scott's pay for the months of May, June, July, and August.
Analysis and Final Conclusions of Law
A. The Applicable Law
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and a union
violates Section 8(b) (1) (A) where the former extends, and
the latter accepts, recognition as the exclusive representative
of the employer's employees at a time when the union, in
fact, represents only a minority of the employees in the
appropriate unit. See International Ladies Garment Workers
Union AFL v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731 (1961). This is true
regardless of the fact that both union and employer believe
in good faith that the union enjoys majority support. Ibid.
The burden is on the General Counsel to establish that the
union does not represent a majority of the employees at the
time of recognition. Circumstantial evidence, amounting to
nothing more than conjecture, is not a substitute for proof of
lack of majority. See American Beef Packers. 187 NLRB
996, 997 (1971); Arthur L Morgan Union, Local No. 3 v.
N.LR.B., 463 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1972). On the other hand,
the General Counsel need not prove with mathematical
certainty that the union lacked majority support at the time
of recognition where there is evidence that the employer
unlawfully assisted a union's organizational campaign. See
District 65, Distributive Workers of America v. N.L.R.B., 593
F.2d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Department Store Food Corp. of
Penna., 172 NLRB 1203 (1968), enfd. 415 F.2d 74 (3d Cir.
1969).
In assessing the impact of employer assistance to a union,
the totality of circumstances must be considered in deter-
mining whether the employer's conduct was sufficiently
pervasive to taint the union's majority status. See Hartz
1271
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mountain Corporation, supra at 2645; International Associa-
tion of Mechanists; Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, etc.
v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72 (1940); Clement Inc., 165 NLRB
698 (1967), enfd. 407 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1969); Department
Store Food Corp. of Penna., supra. These circumstances
include improper conduct of the employer both before and
after recognition and execution of a collective-bargaining
agreement. Ibid. Where the General Counsel's evidence
amounts to a prima facie case of nonmajority status, failure
of respondent company and union to put on an adequate
defense warrants a finding of violations of Sections 8(a) (1)
and (2) and 8(b) (1) (A), respectively. See American Service
Corp. and its Wholly owned subsidiary Southern Linen
Supply & Laundry Co., Inc., 227 NLRB 13 (1976).
B. The Missing Evidence
This record would be more complete if certain individuals
with direct knowledge of critical events had testified.
Thus, Katz, the president of Siro, might have been able to
explain his hasty recognition of Allied the day after
Cunningham called and said that he had a majority of the
employees signed up. Katz would have been able to state for
the record why he was satisfied that a majority of OTB
employees had designated Allied to represent them merely
by looking at and counting 37 cards and making a phone call
to an unidentified person. Cunningham conceded that he
could not verify the validity of the cards in his possession.
He relied on the fact that some of the cards had been secured
by his organizers at OTB sites and others had been sent to
his office by mail. It would have been helpful to have Katz'
testimony that he did or did not recognize the signatures of
37 employees as the signatures of Siro employees. Vitale, not
Katz, was the operations manager of Siro and had inter-
viewed or hired OTB employees during the latter part of
March and the first 2 weeks of April. Vitale was present with
Katz at the April 15 meeting with Cunningham. Yet so far
as the record shows Vitale was not asked by Katz to look at
the membership cards to verify to the extent possible on such
a cursory examination the names of Siro employees and the
validity of the signatures.
Garner, Vitale's assistant and chief supervisor, did not
appear at the hearing to deny that he had threatened Bolling
on April 7 and Robinson on April 14 with loss of their jobs if
they did not sign or continue in effect application cards for
Allied. Nor is there any denial in the record by Garner that
he told Watson with respect to a union card dated April 14,
which Watson signed in blank, and a previous card signed by
Watson that Watson had to sign "this paper."
Neither Vincent Ricardo, Cunningham's assistant and
organizer, nor any other "Vinny" on Cunningham's staff
appeared at the hearing to deny that he was the "Vinny"
from the Union who called Vitale to tell him to fire Scott
because Scott was causing trouble.
Milt Snyder, a personnel employee of OTB with whom
Vitale was in almost daily contact, did not appear at the
hearing to testify as to his reason or reasons for waiting until
July 16, 9 days after Scott filed his initial charges in this
case, to report Scott's extensive lateness or absenteeism of
more than 4 hours on June 20 and 23.
Sal Bonno, the OTB manager at Scott's Fifth Avenue
jobsite, did not appear at the hearing to testify as the truth or
falsity of Scott's testimony that his absences on June 20 and
23 were for valid emergency reasons and that he had
Bonno's permission to be absent on those occasions. Nor was
Bonno available to be examined with respect to Scott's
testimony that on occasions he worked overtime for 15 or 30
minutes in the evening and that Bonno had agreed "to work
it out."
C. The Recognition of Allied and Related Conduct
It is my responsibility initially and that of the Board and
the courts ultimately to be assured that in the selection of an
exclusive bargaining representative employees have been
accorded that freedom of choice guaranteed by the statute.
At least 1 week before April 14 Garner coerced Bolling to
sign an application card for Allied under threat of discharge.
On April 14 Garner told Robinson that a card Robinson had
signed for the Union on April 12 had to be signed as a
condition of employment. Garner, Vitale's chief supervisor,
works in close association with and proximity to Vitale. He
takes instruction from Vitale not as a working supervisor or
leadman but as a trusted assistant. I do not believe that
Garner would take it upon himself unilaterally to acquire
Allied application cards during the first 2 weeks of April and
inform employees the cards had to be signed if they wanted
to work for the Company. It is logical to infer, and I do, that
Garner acted with the knowledge and at the instruction of
Vitale or Katz or both. Accordingly, I find that prior to
Katz' recognition of Allied as the majority representative of
Siro OTB employees Respondent Company undertook to
solicit and secure members for Allied under threat of
discharge.
Siro's campaign to assist Allied in obtaining union
members continued after recognition of Allied and the
execution of a contract effective April 18 requiring union
membership as a condition of employment. At least three
employees, Armstrong, Marharath, and Scott, were directed
by Vitale or Garner to sign dual purpose application and
checkoff authorization forms as a condition of employment
without according them the 30-day grace period to which
they were, in any event, statutorily entitled. Thereafter,
other employees were coerced by Garner and Vitale to sign
such application and check-off forms for Allied. With
respect to Scott, even though Vitale was well aware that
Scott had refused to become a member of the Union or to
authorize any check-off of initiation fees, dues, and assess-
ments from his pay, such monies were in fact deducted from
his pay by Respondent Company.
On May 5, well before the conclusion of the 30-day grace
period statutorily granted employees under an otherwise
lawful union-security clause, Respondent Union, enforcing
its contract of April 18, sent a letter to OTB employees
informing them they must sign an application for union
membership and a written checkoff of their initiation fees,
dues, and assessments by May 12 or face termination from
their employment with Siro.
I recognize that the General Counsel has not proved with
mathematical certainty that the Union lacked majority
status on April 15 or 18. To prove an absolute nonmajority
1272
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE. INC.
the General Counsel had to establish that 26 out of a unit of
52 OTB security guards had not selected Allied to represent
them on the above dates. Eighteen employees testified that
they did not sign cards for Allied prior to April 18 or could
not recall having done so. Several employees were coerced
by Garner into signing such cards prior to April 15. Only
five employees testified affirmatively that they had signed
membership cards for Allied voluntarily prior to April 18.
I take into consideration the fact that some cards in the
possession of Allied purporting to bear the signatures of Siro
OTB employees had not, in fact, been signed by those
employees. Four Siro employees so testified.
Although in possession of 20 additional cards allegedly
signed OTB security guards, Respondent Union made no
effort to introduce those cards into evidence with proper
identification. No organizer or employee-solicitor testified
for Respondent Union that such cards had been properly
obtained and signed.
Applying the principles set forth in the cases cited above, I
conclude that Respondent Union did not represent an
uncoerced majority of Siro's OTB employees in the appro-
priate unit on April 15 or 18.
I base this conclusion on the evidence adduced by the
General Counsel, the logical inferences drived therefrom, the
totality of circumstances (including the haste of Siro in
recognizing Allied without an adequate card check), Siro's
assistance to Allied in obtaining union cards from its
employees both before and after recognition of Allied, the
failure of Siro and Allied to accord employees their statutory
rights in the application of an otherwise lawful union-
security clause, the requirement of Siro and Allied that
employees execute check-off authorization cards as a condi-
tion of employment, the deduction of union initiation fees
and dues without such authorization, the evidence that some
cards upon which the Union relies in asserting its majority
status were obtained fraudulently, and the absence of
evidence sufficient to rebut the General Counsel's prima
facie case.
In these circumstances, whatever cards were in the
possession of Allied on April 15 and 18 are not a reliable
indication of employee choice. See Clement Bros. Inc.. supra:
American Beef Packers Inc.. 176 NLRB 338 (1969), enfd.
438 F.2d 331 (10th Cir.)
I find that Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act by the following conduct:
(1) Garner's coercion of Bolling on April 7 and Garner's
coercion of Robinson on April 14 to sign or continue in
effect application cards for Respondent Union as a condition
of employment at a time when Respondent Union was not
the lawful bargaining representative of these employees and
no lawful union-security clause was in effect.
(2) Vitale's or Garner's coercion of Armstrong, Marhar-
ath, and Scott to sign application and check-off authoriza-
tion forms for Allied prior to the end of the 30-day grace
period to which they were, in any event, statutorily entitled
under an otherwise lawful union-security clause.'
(3) Vitale's or Garner's coercion of Simon, Mckenney,
Armstrong, Marharath, Butler, and Scott to execute written
I Although the complaint does not specifically allege this unfair labor
practice with respect to Respondent Company and Respondent Union, it is
check-off authorization forms for Allied as a condition of
employment. ·
(4) Respondent Company's deduction of initiation fees
and dues from Scott's pay without written authorization.
(5) Respondent Company's recognition of Allied as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Siro OTB employees
on April 15 and the execution of a collective-bargaining
agreement effective April 18 containing a union-security
clause as a condition of employment at a time when Allied
did not represent an uncoerced majority of Siro's OTB
employees.
(6) Vitale's or Garner's coercion of Simon, Mckenney,
Armstrong, Marharath, Butler, and Scott during the period
from April 21 to June 24 to sign application and checkoff
authorization forms for Allied as a condition of employ-
ment.
(7) Vitale's coercion of McClary to sign an application
and checkoff authorization from for Allied in June as a
condition of employment.
I find that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by the following conduct:
(I) Accepting recognition as the exclusive representative
of Siro's OTB employees on April 15 and executing a
collective-bargaining agreement effective April 18 contain-
ing a union-security clause requiring union membership as a
condition of employment at a time when Respondent did not
represent an uncoerced majority of Siro's OTB employees.
(2) Threatening by letter of May 5 to cause the discharge
of Siro OTB employees if they did not by May 12 execute an
application and check-off authorization form for Allied: (a)
in derogation of the right of employees to voluntarily elect,
in any event, not to check-off initiation fees and dues
lawfully owed to a union; (b) without according employees
their 30-day grace period to which they were, in any event,
entitled under an otherwise lawful union-security clause; and
(c) at a time when Respondent Union was not the lawful
majority representative of these employees with a valid
union-security clause requiring membership in the Union as
a condition of employment.
The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
D. The Discharge of Alvin Scott
Admittedly, Scott was an outstanding employee. He also
impressed me as an outstanding person with the courage to
stand up for his convictions and the character to trouble
himself about the well being of others. Vitale's letter of May
24 praised him as a dependable individual whose conduct
was more than excellent and who performed his job in an
excellent fashion. Such an employer would seem to be
valuable asset in an industry where the turnover is 300
percent over a 6-month period. Prior to July 16 Vitale had
seriously considered promoting Scott to a supervisory
position. On that date, however, as a result of a phone call,
Scott's standing with Vitale plummeted to the status of an
average or less than average employee. As of that date,
Vitale no longer considered Scott an outstanding employee.
Moreover, as of that date Vitale found it necessary to
intimately related to the allegations of the complaint and was thoroughly
litigated at the hearing.
1273
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eliminate from Siro's written rules any favorable consider-
ation for an employee who had displayed outstanding prior
service.
Vitale's sudden low opinion of Scott, according to Vitale,
was due to a report from Snyder on July 16 that Scott had
been late a total of about 5 hours on three different occasions
beginning on June 20.
Snyder's call to Vitale and Vitale's reaction to it came 9
days after Scott filed his initial charges in this case. Those
charges related to Siro's unlawful recognition of, and
assistance to, Allied from April to June, as set forth above,
culminating in Siro's unlawful deduction of $18 from Scott's
pay on June 9.
Scott was an outspoken, if not the most outspoken,
opponent of Allied. He had made his position clear not only
to Vitale but to Cunningham's assistant, Ricardo, as well.
He would not join the Union or pay fees to it. Unlike the
other employees, he would not yield to coercion, and he
could not be persuaded by Vitale or Ricardo to accept Allied
as his bargaining representative. He was a troublemaker
among a group of otherwise quiescent employees. An Allied
representative called Vitale and told Vitale to fire Scott.'
When Scott filed charges with the board on July 9 the
trouble he made was irrevocable.
Under this statute an employer may fire an employee for
any reason or no reason provided it is not related to his
union or protected concerted activity. I am not called upon
to judge the reasonableness of Siro's policy to terminate an
employee for lateness of 15 minutes or even 5 minutes. The
question I have to decide is whether Scott's lateness of 15
minutes on two occasions, with the background of previous
lateness on four prior occasions, was the real reason for his
discharge on August 4.
Vitale's letter to Scott on July 18 notes that Scott was late
on four previous occasions and threatens to terminate Scott
for any future lateness. Vitale testified that after speaking to
Snyder, Vitale called Bonno and Scott, but Vitale did not
recall any explanation for Scott's lateness, particularly the
extensive periods of lateness or absenteeism on June 20 and
23. Scott's reasons for being late on those dates with specific
permission from Bonno would appear to be valid reasons, a
commendable service for boy scouts and an emergency trip
for a sick child. Vitale impressed me as a otherwise
reasonable, extremely competent, and perceptive person. At
the hearing he did not recall any explanation of lateness that
Scott may have given him and relied only on the fact that
Scott did not deny being late. Vitale's unawareness of Scott's
reasons for being late, his failure to investigate more
thoroughly why Scott was excessively late in view of Scott's
excellent record, and his failure to react with compassion, if
the facts were known to him, strike me as being out of
character. Vitale's letter of July 18 is cold and peremptory
and contrasts sharply with his high opinion of Scott, which
Scott had enjoyed just 2 days earlier. Scott was informed
bluntly that he would be terminated for any future lateness.
Vitale testified that he received this call from an individual who identified
himself as "Vinny" from the Union. As indicated above. Scott had spoken to
Cunningham's assistant. Ricardo, in June in a 20-minute conversation.
Ricardo was the only "Vinny" employed by Cunningham with the authority
to speak to employers about employees. It is logical to infer, and in the
absence of contrary testimony by Ricardo. I do infer and find that Ricardo
was the "Vinny" from the Union who called Vitale and told him to fire Scott.
This is harsh treatment of an extraordinary nature for an
employee who had reasonable explanations for being late
and a prior record of outstanding service.
Scott testified that he had had a conversation with Vitale
about overtime, but this was not developed on the record,
and Vitale made no mention of it. As indicated above, I do
not have before me the critical testimonies of Snyder and
Bonno.
Scott was discharged on August 4 in a letter as perempto-
ry and summary as the letter of July 18, based solely on the
report of Bonno that the record showed Scott to be late on
two occasions for periods of 15 minutes. Apparently Vitale
was satisfied that Scott was late and sought no further
communication with Scott.
I have considered the matter carefully, and I conclude
that Scott's lateness was a pretext and not the real reason for
his discharge.
I conclude, rather, that Scott was warned on July 18 and
finally discharged on August 4 because of his active
opposition to Allied as the bargaining representative of
Siro's OTB employees and because he filed charges with the
Board on July 7.
I base this conclusion on the timing and summary nature
of the warning and discharge letters of July 18 and August 4,
Siro's and Allied knowledge that Scott was an outspoken
opponent of Allied and had filed charges with the Board,
Vitale's attempt to coerce Scott into joining the Union and
paying fees to it, the Union's demand that Scott be fired
because he was causing trouble, Scott's status as an excellent
employee prior to his antiunion activity, Vitale's failure to
investigate thoroughly or take into consideration Scott's
reasonable explanations for his lateness, Siro's deduction of
fees for Allied from Scott's pay with knowledge that he had
not joined the Union or authorized such deductions, and
Siro's campaign to unlawfully assist Allied, as set forth
above.
By such conduct Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act.
By demanding that Respondent Company fire Scott,
Respondent Union caused and attempted to cause Respon-
dent Company to violate Section 8(a)(3) in violation of
Section 8(b)(1 )(A) and (2) of the Act.
The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing finding of facts, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER'
A. The Respondent, Siro Security Service, Inc., Brooklyn,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with discharge or other repri-
sal because of their refusal to sign membership cards for
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Hoard. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purp ses.
1274
SIRO SECURITY SERVICE. INC.
Allied International Union Security Guards and Special
Police, now known as Federation of Special Police and Law
Enforcement Officers or any other labor organization.
(b) Giving assistance and support to Allied International
Union of Security Guards and Special Police, now known as
Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers
or any other labor organization in obtaining union applica-
tion and checkoff authorization cards or in any other
manner proscribed by Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
(c) Recognizing or contracting with Allied International
Union of Security Guards and Special Police, now known as
Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers,
or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its
employees for purposes of collective bargaining unless and
until said labor organization has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative of such employees.
(d) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way enforcing
its contract effective April 18, 1977, or any modification,
extensions, or renewals thereof or any other contract,
agreement, or understanding entered into with Allied Inter-
national Union of Security Guards and Special Police, now
known as Federation of Special Police and Law Enforce-
ment Officers, or any successor thereto, relating to griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other terms and conditions of employment unless
and until said labor organization shall have been certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of employees;
provided, however, that nothing in this Decision and Order
shall require Respondent Company to vary or abandon any
wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its
relationship with its employees which Respondent Company
has established in the performance of this contract or to
prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may
have thereunder.
(e) Encouraging membership in Allied International
Union of Security Guards and Special Police, now known as
Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers,
or any successor thereto, by discharging or otherwise
discriminating against employees with respect to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment in the absence of a valid union-security clause
requiring membership in a union as a condition of employ-
ment.
(f) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because they have filed charges with the National
Labor Relations Board or given testimony under this Act.
(g) Threatening employees with discharge if they fail to
sign checkoff authorization forms for Allied International
Union of Security Guards and Special Police, now know as
Federation of Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers
or any other labor organization.
(h) Requiring employees to apply for membership in a
labor organization prior to the end of the 30-day grace
period statutorily granted employees under an otherwise
valid union-security clause requiring membership in a union
as a condition of employment.
'" In the event that 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 Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant To a Judgment
(i) Deducting initiation fees and dues from employees' pay
on behalf of a labor organization without voluntary written
authorization therefor.
(j) Giving effect to checkoff authorization forms coercive-
ly obtained from Armstrong, Marharath, Simon, McKen-
ney, Butler, McClary, Bolling, Garner, Corsale, Morris.
Fillipi, Guarangno, Gogins, and all other employees coerced
by Respondent Company or Respondent Union into execut-
ing such forms.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Alvin Scott immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and,
jointly and severally with Respondent Union make him
whole for all losses he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him with interest thereon to be
computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co..
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation. 231
NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(b) Reimburse Marharath, Simon, McKenney, Butler,
McClary, and Garner for all fees or monies deducted from
their pay for Allied International Union of Security Guards
and Special Police, now known as Federation of Special
Police and Law Enforcement Officers and reimburse similar-
ly all other employees coerced by Respondent Company into
making such payments; reimburse jointly and severally with
Respondent Union, Bolling and Armstrong for all such fees
and monies deducted from their pay for the aforesaid labor
organization by joint coercion of Respondent Company and
Respondent Union and reimburse in the same manner all
other employees similarly coerced.
(c) Post at its place of business at 32 Franklin Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York, copies of that attached notice marked
"Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided
for the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by its representatives, shall be posted by Respondent
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions
set forth in paragraph A, 2(c), above, as soon as they are
forwarded by the Regional Director copies of Respondent
Union's notice marked "Appendix B."
(e) Furnish to the said Regional Director signed copies of
the notice marked "Appendix A" for posting by Respondent
Union as hereinafter directed.
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payments records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Relations Hohard"
1275
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
analyze the amount of backpay due the discriminatee under
the terms of this recommended Order.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what
steps Respondent Company has taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent, Allied International Union of Securi-
ty Guards and Special Police, now known as Federation of
Special Police and Law Enforcement Officers, Glen Daks,
New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing and attempting to cause employers to dis-
charge or discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other repri-
sals if they fail to apply for membership in Respondent
Union at a time when Respondent Union is not the lawful
majority representative of these employees with a valid
union-security clause requiring membership in the Union as
a condition of employment.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge if they do not
execute checkoff authorization forms for Respondent Union.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge for failure to
apply for membership in the Union without according them
the 30-day grace period to which they are, in any event,
statutorily entitled under an otherwise lawful union-security
clause.
(e) Accepting recognition from employers, executing, and
giving effect to a collective-bargaining agreement containing
a union-security clause requiring membership in Respondent
Union as a condition of employment at a time when
Respondent Union does not represent an uncoerced majority
of employees in the appropriate unit.
(f) Giving effect to checkoff authorization forms coercive-
ly obtained from Armstrong, Marharath, Simon, McKenny,
Butler, all other employees coerced by Respondent UTnion or
Respondent Company into executing such forms.
(g) In any other manner restraining and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
" In the event that 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 Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant To a Judgment
(a) Notify Alvin Scott and Respondent Company, in
writing, that Respondent Union withdraws its objections to
the employment of Scott and requests his reinstatement.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Company make
Alvin Scott whole for all losses suffered by him as a result of
the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
paragraph A 2(a), above.
(c) Reimburse Corsale, Morris, Fillipi, Guarangno, and
Gogins for all fees and monies deducted from their pay and
received by Respondent Union as a result of Respondent
Union's coercion in the execution of their application and
checkoff authorization forms and similarly reimburse all
other employees coerced by Respondent Union into execut-
ing such forms; reimburse jointly and severally with Respon-
dent Company, Bolling and Armstrong for all such fees and
monies deducted from their pay for Respondent Union by
joint coercion of Respondent Union and Respondent Com-
pany and reimburse in the same manner all other employees
similarly coerced.
(d) Post at its offices copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."" Copies of said notice on forms to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent Union's representa-
tive, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by Respondent Union for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions
as set forth in paragraph B, 2(d), above, as soon as they are
forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent
Company's notice marked "Appendix A."
(f) Forward signed copies of Appendix B to the Regional
Director for posting by Respondent Company at its princi-
pal office 32 Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order Of the National
Labor Relations Board."
1276