Burns International Security Services, Inc.

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