John C. Mandel Security Bureau Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

MANDEL SECURITY BUREAU 117
John C. Mandel Security Bureau Inc. and Raymond
Leon Black . Case 29-CA-2417
March 2, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On October 5, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions 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.
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 and
hereby orders that John C. Mandel Security Bureau
Inc., New York, New York, its 'officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
violations by the Company in transferring Black from a job
because he engaged in concerted activities, and also later in
transferring him and thereafter terminating him because he
filed grievances against the Company and unfair labor
practice charges with the Board, and engaged in concerted
activities. Respondent filed an answer denying all the
alleged unfair labor practices. The issues were tried before
me at Brooklyn, New York, on June 5 and 6, 1972. At the
hearing Respondent took the position that the first transfer
of Black was pursuant to a reduction in force required by
its client, that the second transfer was for valid business
reasons, and that the termination was for cause. At the
conclusion of the hearing I reserved ruling on Respon-
dent's motion to dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence. As
indicated below, I now grant that motion in part.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and consideration of the briefs filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
Respondent , a New York corporation with its principal
office in New York City, is engaged in and around New
York City in providing guard and protective services and
related services to various clients who contract for such.
Approximately half of its business involves providing such
services to cooperative associations operating urban
renewal housing projects in the New York City area.
During the past year Respondent performed guard and
protective services and related services valued in excess of
$50,000 outside of, and for various enterprises located
outside of, the State of New York. To accomplish its
services Respondent employs numerous guards. It is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, (herein called the Act) was
originally consolidated with, and later severed from,
another proceeding (Case 29-CB-997). This surviving case
arises from charges filed June 8, 1971 (amended June 24),i
by Raymond Leon Black, an individual, against John C.
Mandel Security Bureau Inc (herein called the Respon-
dent or Company). Based on these charges, as well as those
as in Case 29-CB-997, a consolidated complaint issued
August 31 alleging, inter aka, that the Company had
committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by promising to reinstate Black to a
former job if he would cease certain protected activities,
withdraw certain unfair labor practice charges filed with
the Board, and not file future charges, and on another
occasion by offering him a promotion to induce him to
refrain from protective activities and from filing charges
with the Board.2 The complaint also alleges 8(a)(3)
I All dates herein are 1971 unless otherwise indicated
2 No charges under Section 8(a)(4) of the Act are involved in the present
II. THE EMPLOYEE INVOLVED AND HIS CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES
The Charging Party, Black, was first employed by
Respondent as a guard on July 14, 1970. He was
discharged June 18, 1971. When first hired he was assigned
to guard duty at the Arverne Urban Renewal Project, a
project of the Housing and Development Administration
of the city of New York. He continued to work at Arverne
until April 30, 1971 when he was reassigned. He refused
reassignment and for a period of about 2 weeks did no
work for Respondent. On May 14, he was again assigned to
work at Arverne beginning May 17 and continued working
there until June 4 when he was reassigned to a develop-
ment called the Luna Park Housing Project. He continued
working at Luna Park until June 18 when he was
discharged.
At the time he applied for employment with Respondent
he indicated that he had engaged in union activity on
behalf of the International Association of Machinists
during his immediate prior employment as a guard with
matter
202 NLRB No. 25
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Beatty Protective Service and that he had been fired
because of it. Nevertheless, Respondent hired him.
During his employment with Respondent Black engaged
in a variety of concerted protected activities. In April he
drew up, circulated among employees of the Company,
and sent to the Company office a petition accusing one
Lieutenant Brown, a supervisor, of unfairly assigning
employees. As a result Brown was reassigned. Again in late
April he circulated and sent to the office a petition
accusing another supervisor, Alfonso Cuttmo, of talking
improperly to employees and of cutting the staff. The
petition asked that Cuttino be removed as supervisor and
that one George Terry be promoted to the position. Two
weeks later management affected these changes. Also
during April and thereafter Black and other employees
(including two supervisors) discussed the subject of
vacation benefits and other benefits under a collective-
bargaining agreement between the Company and Interna-
tional Investigators and Officers Union (herein called the
Union). Black was also active in early May in requesting
from that Union a copy of the collective-bargaining
agreement . Company management knew of this request.
Between the time of his first transfer out of the Arverne
project on April 30, and his ultimate discharge on June 18,
Black sought the assistance of both the Union and the
Board. He first tried to begin a grievance procedure with
the Union because of his April 30 transfer from Arverne.
Then on May 10 he filed charges with the Board against
the Union (Case 29-CB-954) claiming the Union had
unlawfully refused to process his grievance. Two days later,
on May 12, he filed 8(a)(1) and (3) charges with the Board
against the Company (Case 29-CA-2392) based on his
April 30 transfer from Arverne. The complaint herein
alleges, and the answer denies, that on May 14 Inspector
Sullivan, admittedly a supervisor of the Company, prom-
ised to reinstate Black at Arverne if he would cease his
concerted activity withdraw the charges in both cases
mentioned above, and refrain from future charges. These
allegations are dealt with at a later point in this decision.
On May 17 Black in fact was reassigned to Arverne and on
May 19 he requested the Regional Office of the Board to
approve withdrawal of his charges in those cases. The
Regional Director approved withdrawal on June 3.
On June 2 Black filed a further grievance with the Union
against the Company claiming backpay for the 2-week
period following his April 30 transfer from Arverne. The
next day, June 3, he filed further charges with the Board
against the Company and the Union (Cases 2-CA-12376
and 2-CB-4991) alleging they had unlawfully entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement containing an illegal un-
ion-security clause. The complaint in the present matter
alleges that on June 4 the Company's Vice-President of
Operations Hans Kossler offered Black a promotion to
induce him to refrain from engaging in concerted activities
and from filing unfair labor practices against the Company
and the Union. This allegation also is dealt with later in
this decision.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The April 30, Transfer from Arverne
As noted above the complaint herein alleges that
Respondent's transfer of Black from the Arverne project
on April 30 violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent claims valid business reasons for the transfer.
As indicated above, prior to his employment with
Respondent Black had worked as a guard for Beatty
Protective Service. He claimed Beatty discharged him
because of union activities and filed unfair labor practice
charges with the Board based thereon. As a result of those
proceedings he was reinstated by Beatty on April 2 and
assigned to the 4 p.m. to midnight shift as a guard at the
John F. Kennedy Airport. Each night thereafter he worked
two jobs; upon completing his shift at midnight for Beatty,
he reported to Arverne for duty with Respondent on the
shift from 1 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Prior to April'30, Respondent employed about 45 guards
at Arverne. About nine of these, including Black, were
assigned to the I a.m. to 9 a.m. shift. On April 30 the total
force was reduced to 19 and the I a.m. to 9 a.m. shift to 5
or 6. Of those on his shift, according to the uncontradicted
testimony of Black, only one had more seniority than he.
The reduction at Arverne was carried out by Respon-
dent's Inspector Sullivan directing the guards who were not
kept on at that site, including Black, to report to
Respondent's office for reassignment. He complained to
Sullivan and threatened to file charges with the Board. But
he reported to the office as directed and in doing so also
complained to Respondent's dispatcher, Foye,3 that others
more junior than he had been kept on thejob. He showed
Foye the results of the Board proceeding against Beatty in
which he had filed charges. (There is no record evidence
indicating that Respondent had knowledge prior to this of
Black's current employment with Beatty). He threatened to
consult the Board about his transfer from the Arverne site.
Foye said he would talk to Inspector Sullivan. Later Foye
told Black that he had been picked for transfer from
Arverne because he had two jobs.
Foye offered Black another assignment at another site
on a shift commencing at 12 midnight. Black rejected this
because he could not report on time while holding his other
job at Beatty. Subsequently Foye offered him two other
assignments both of which Black rejected for the same
reason. When he complained to Foye that he was not being
offered shifts he could accept, Foye declared that it was
not Respondent's problem that Black had two jobs. After
April 30 Black remained unemployed by Respondent until
May 17 when he returned to duty at Arverne pursuant to a
reassignment by Inspector Sullivan on May 14.
The General Counsel's theory is that the April 30
transfer of Black is shown to be discriminatory by the
circumstances of his known concerted activities prior
thereto and the failure to follow seniority as to him in the
reduction at Arverne.
As to the first of these circumstances Respondent
persuasively points out that it hired Black in spite of his
3 It is not established in this record whether Foye is a supervisor
MANDEL SECURITY BUREAU 119
known union activity at Beatty and that it acted favorably
upon both his petitions respecting Brown and Cuttino.
Concerning the whole circumstance of the April 30
reduction at Arverne, including Respondent's failure to
follow seniority, the record shows that on April 13 the
Director of Arverne advised Respondent that, as of April
30, it was terminating all guard service, except that
beginning May 3 it required one armed guard at a cashier's
cage. By negotiation Respondent was able to soften the
reduction by persuading the director of Arverne that the
property would suffer by elimination of all guard service
and that elimination of the guard jobs would work a
particular hardship on those residents of Arverne em-
ployed as guards who risked losing their place of residence
as well as their employment. On April 28, as a result of
these negotiations, the director or Arverne agreed to retain
Respondent's services on a reduced basis on the condition
that it use guards who were residents of the area.
Immediately following the reduction on April 30, Respon-
dent employed 19 guards at Arverne, 17 of whom were
residents. The two exceptions were the single armed guard
who needed a license for a gun, and an older, feeble man
for whom Respondent at the moment had no other
appropriate assignment.
Black testified that after April 30, he observed certain
nonresidents on guard duty at Arverne. He could not
specify the dates on which he observed these. On the other
hand records of Respondent for the latter part of May,
which were available in the courtroom, did not corroborate
him in this. Records for May 22 and earlier were not
present at the hearing; no one produced them, nor did
anyone subpena them. Captain George Terry, who served
as one of Respondent's supervisors at Arverne, testified, as
did also Hans Kossler, Respondent's vice president in
charge of operations, that the guards who served after
April 30, with the two exceptions mentioned, were all
residents of the Arverne area. Considering that they agreed
and that the partial records support their version, I credit
them and do not credit Black in the matter.
In my view the evidence produced by Respondent
adequately explains the April 30 reduction at Arverne.
Considering all the evidence on this point, an inference of
discriminatory motive in the selection on Black for transfer
is not warranted. That portion of the complaint alleging his
transfer as discriminatory should be dismissed.
B. The Promise to Reinstate Black at Arverne
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that on
May 14, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising
to reinstate Black at Arverne providing he ceased his
concerted activities, withdrew unfair labor practice charges
he had filed with the Board, and would not thereafter file
further charges.
In addition to the activities of Black already referred to,
the record shows that following his April 30 transfer from
Arverne he filed with the Union a grievance against the
Company based on the transfer. On May 10 he filed unfair
labor practice charges with the Board against the Union
(Case 29-CB-954) asserting that the Union had violated
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by refusing to process his
grievance.
In the meantime in early May he also requested both
orally and in writing that the Union provide him with a
copy of its collective-bargaining agreement with Respon-
dent In this connection he approached one Gregory Velis,
union treasurer, who was employed by Respondent as a
bookkeeper . Velis asked him what he wanted the contract
for. Black replied he wanted to know has rights. An
argument ensued and Velis told Black he had better look
for anotherjob . On May 6 Black sent the union president a
letter requesting a copy of the agreement . He also
telephoned Foye, Respondent 's dispatcher , and advised
him he could save himself and the Company a lot of
trouble if he used his influence to have Velis send a copy of
the agreement . Foye agreed to see what he could do.
On May 12, Black filed with the Board 8 (a)(1) and (3)
charges against the Company (Case 29-CA-2392 ) based on
his transfer from Arverne.
His return to Arverne came about in the following
manner . On May 14 Black , although not on duty, was
present at Arverne at a time when one Tony Garcia, an
Arverne building superintendent , was complaining to
Respondent 's Inspector Sullivan that his shop had been
robbed of tools while the guard on duty was away from his
post . He threatened to take the matter up with the director
of Arverne . Black intervened in an effort to persuade
Garcia not to report the matter to the project director.
Garcia agreed provided Sullivan returned Black to guard
duty at Arverne because , in his words, nothing was stolen
when Black was on the job . Sullivan concurred , promising
to try to get Black back on the job . He and Black then
proceeded to Respondent's office where they conferred
with Respondent 's vice president of operations , Kossler.
Kossler was agreeable , but John Mandel Jr. (son of the
owner of the Company) was reluctant because , he said,
Black was a troublemaker and responsible for the uproar at
Arverne including the two petitions and the unfair labor
practice charges against the Company and the Union.
Sullivan promised him that Black would behave himself,
that there would be no more petitions , that he would mind
his own business , and that he would withdraw the charges
before the Board if he were reinstated . Respondent's
management agreed . He was reinstated and reported for
duty on Monday, May 17. On May 19, Black requested
withdrawal of his charges in Case 29-CB-954 against the
Union and Case 29-CA-2392 against the Company. On
June 4 the Regional Director approved these withdrawals.
The record does not reveal whether he was privy to the
conditions of the withdrawals . Based on the foregoing I
find that a condition of Black 's return was withdrawal of
the charges and forebearance from future charges and
concerted activities . Even though Black himself may have
been partially responsible for instigating this deal, future
rights of employees as well as the rights of the public may
not be traded away in this manner . I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in so conditioning
Black 's return to Arverne. See Kingwood Mining Co., 171
NLRB 125.
C. The Promotion and Transfer
The complaint alleges that on June 4 , Respondent
promoted Black in order to induce him to refrain from
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaging in concerted activities and from filing unfair
labor practice charges, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and
at the same time , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3),
transferred him from Arverne to another project called
Luna Park because he filed grievances and unfair labor
practice charges, and engaged in concerted activities.
Respondent denies these allegations.
On May 24, after Black 's return to Arverne the Union
sent him a copy of its current collective -bargaining
agreement with Respondent for the period beginning April
10, 1971. Among other things , the agreement provides for
compulsory arbitration of "any dispute or grievance by
either of the parties ." Receipt of this document , however,
did not satisfy Black because he was interested in what his
rights had been under the preceding contract . He then
asked Foye for a copy of the old contract . Foye said Black
would have to take it up with Union Treasurer Velis. Black
did so and Velis promised to give him a copy of the old
agreement on June 1. On June 1, Black came to
Respondent 's office where Velis worked for that purpose.
When he arrived John Mandel Sr., Respondent's
president, asked him what he wanted . He replied that Velis
had told him to pick up a copy of the old collective-
bargaining agreement. Black then overheard Mandel Sr.,
who was out of his presence , tell Velis that Black was not
entitled to a copy of the old agreement ; that he was only
entitled to the union bylaws. He also said that it was a
mistake for Black to have a copy of the new agreement,
that Velis should attempt to retrieve it from him, and that
he, Mandel Sr ., was not going to give Black a copy of the
old agreement . Velis then did in fact request Black to
return the copy of the new agreement already given him.
Black refused , whereupon Velis refused to give him a copy
of the old agreement . At about that point Mandel, Sr.,
approached Black and uttered an obscenity respecting the
Union.
At that same time Black obtained forms from the Union
on which he filed a grievance claiming 2 weeks' backpay
from the Company for the period April 30 to May 14. In
this same grievance he complained about the failure to give
him a copy of the old collective-bargaining agreement. It is
not clear , however , against whom this aspect of the
grievance was directed.
On June 3, Black filed further charges with the Board
against Respondent and the Union. These charges, filed in
Region 2 of the Board (Cases 2-CA-12376 and 2-CB-4991),
asserted that the collective-bargaining agreement between
them contained an illegal union -security clause. The record
does not show when Respondent learned of these charges.
On June 4, Respondent's Vice President Kossler wrote
Black as follows:
Your splendid performance has been brought to our
attention
Based on this, we promote you to the rank of
Lieutenant in our organization with a corresponding
raise in pay to $2.30 an hour.
We request that you report to our guard office at Luna
Park Housing at 2879 W 12th Street, Coney Island,
Brooklyn at 1 A.M Monday. Your steady assignment
will be at Luna Park Housing from 1 A.M. to 9 A.M.
on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Friday and Saturday.
This takes effect as of I A . M. Monday, June 7, 1971.
Kossler also verbally offered him the promotion and
transfer . Black refused the promotion , accusing Kossler of
trying to promote him so he could fire him. After receiving
the letter of promotion Black sent a letter to Respondent
refusing the promotion as well as the transfer to Luna
Park . He threatened to file unfair labor practices with the
Board if he were refused work at Arverne.
When he reported for duty at Arverne on Monday, June
7, he was told that he had been replaced and he should
report to Kossler. Kossler told him that he wished Black
were on their side instead of fighting them , that he should
try to work with the Union and that he could possible
become its president. Black rejected the idea of working
with the Union on the grounds that in 4 years it had not
had an election of officers . Kossler again offered him a job
at Luna Park , suggesting that he accept the promotion at a
later time , that the Company had some future plans for
more inspectors and Black had a good chance for such a
position . He gave Black 24 hours to think it over.
After thinking about the matter Black decided to accept
the transfer but reject the promotion , while at the same
time filing unfair labor practice charges based on the
transfer . He filed the charges on June 8 . He reported for
duty at Luna Park June 9 . His decision appears to have
been influenced by the loss, as of June 9, of his second job
with Beatty at Kennedy Airport . At Luna Park he was
assigned to the I a.m. to 9 a.m. shift , a reporting time he
was able to meet if he did not have the second job at
Kennedy. He continued at Luna Park until his discharge
on June 18.
Black 's approach in this whole matter is that he has
rights to continued employment at Arverne. On the other
hand Kossler testified regarding Black 's May 14 reassign-
ment to Arverne that "Black was assigned on a temporary
basis, which was understood ." According to Kossler, Black
was a temporary replacement and he, Kossler , actively
sought a resident of Arverne to replace Black . When he
found one he assigned the replacement to Arverne and
transferred Black . In contradiction of Black , Kossler
testified that except for Black all the guards at Arverne
were residents . I find that the weight of the testimony
sustains Kossler However , I do not find that he told Black
that the position was temporary . Black did not talk to
Kossler until after his discharge on June 18 . I find that no
one in Respondent 's management talked to Black about
the assignment at Arverne being temporary . I credit Black
in his testimony that no one said it was not a permanent
assignment and that he believed it was a permanent
assignment . It is patent that until recently it had been his
permanent assignment . On the other hand it is also
apparent that Respondent experienced substantial turn-
over in its guards.
In view of the nature of the work involved, Respondent's
dependence upon the will of its customers for the extent of
service to be provided , the uncontroverted evidence of the
reduction in service by the management of Arverne, the
substantial evidence that guards at Arverne were required
to be residents , and the uncontroverted testimony of
Kossler that he sought a resident of Arverne to replace
Black , I find that Black's reassignment to Arverne was not
MANDEL SECURITY BUREAU 121
permanent even though he was not so advised . Kossler
denied that he reassigned Black from Arverne to Luna
Park because of his protected activities . Respondent
needed him at Luna Park . He admittedly was a good
guard. Respondent had expressed appreciation for his help
in the problem with Garcia. He did violate his agreement
by filing further charges on June 3 and June 8; there is no
record evidence that Respondent knew of the June 3
charges when he was offered promotion and reassignment.
And June 8 was after he had been offered the Luna Park
assignment and could not have played a part in Respon-
dent 's motivation . In the circumstances I find that Black
was not transferred and offered promotion for discrimina-
tory reasons . Accordingly those allegations of the com-
plaint should be dismissed.
D. The Discharge
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that
Respondent terminated Black 's employment on June 18
because he had filed grievances and unfair labor practice
charges against Respondent and the Union and had
engaged in other concerted activities . He was in fact
discharged on June 18 and the only issue is the reason for
that discharge.
Black 's termination came about in the following manner.
On June 16 he was asked by the head porter of Luna Park,
John Devereaux , to unlock certain security locks in the
building he patrolled . Devereaux was an employee of Luna
Park , the cooperative housing project which contracted
with Respondent for guard services. Although he was not
certain the duties requested of him were properly within his
job function , Black performed them on June 16. But he
then asked his own supervisor , Captain Joe Jones, a
Mandel employee, whether the requested duties were part
of his job . Jones told him in his opinion it was not his job
but that of the head porter of Luna Park . On June 7
Devereaux again asked him to perform the same duties and
the two became involved in an argument over who should
perform the chores in question . At that point Neil Mellow,
assistant project manager of Luna Park , intervened by
telling Black that he was there to do what they told him to
do. According to Black , Mellow said "We hired you, we
tell you what to do." Black testified that he replied, "Mr , I
am not talking to you and I don ' t give a damn who you
are." Mellow then said he was going to get Black fired.
Prior to this incident Black knew Devereaux was an
employee of Luna Park but he did not know who Mellow
was. The circumstances of this incident are such, however,
that he must have realized during the incident that Mellow
had some capacity with the management of the project.
Mellow was as good as his word . He reported the
incident to Respondent 's supervising guard at Luna Park
and the next day called Respondent 's office and demanded
Black 's removal from Luna Park under threat of cancella-
tion of Respondent's contract He reported that Black had
been extremely abusive and had called Mellow obscene
names.
On June 18 Black worked his shift . At the end of the shift
he was called to Respondent 's office and discharged. He
was told they had received a call from someone in Luna
Park . On his request Respondent gave him a letter stating
that he was discharged for inefficiency . After his discharge
Black asked Foye , the company dispatcher , why he was
fired instead of transferred . Foye replied that Mandel, Sr.,
did not want Black in the Company any longer.
It is clear that Respondent and Luna Park are complete-
ly separate enterprises . Luna Park is a customer of
Respondent . It is also clear that Mellow , a Luna Park
official , requested the removal of Black from the job at
Luna Park . At the time he did not know Black had charges
pending with the Board . There is no evidence of collusion
between Luna Park and Respondent . In the circumstances,
Respondent was justified in removing Black from that job.
Moreover , the circumstances were such as to warrant
Respondent in terminating entirely the employment of an
employee who compromised i ts relationship with its
customer Central Steel Co., 182 NLRB 704.
The General Counsel argues that Black should not have
been fired ; that Respondent should have reassigned him to
a job elsewhere , and that its failure to do so was
discriminatory . He offered some evidence that other
employees who got into difficulties were reassigned by
Respondent rather than discharged . In none of those
instances , however , did it appear that the guard in
difficulty had a direct run-in with the customer 's manage-
ment or that the customer 's management sought removal
of the guard as a condition for continuing the guard service
contract.
In any case , the incident between Black and Mellow
provided Respondent with a valid reason for discharging
Black . There is no evidence which supports an inference
that in exercising this valid ground for discharge Respon-
dent acted pursuant to an unlawful motive rather than a
lawful motive . N.L.R.B. v. Fibers International Corporation,
439 F .2d 1311, 1315 (C.A. 1). Accordingly, I find that a
preponderance of the evidence fails to establish that the
discharge of Black on June 18 was discriminatory.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I , above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among
the several States. Those found to be unfair labor practices
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce and are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
2(6) and (7).
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including the posting of appropriate
notices.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By conditioning the reinstatement of Raymond Leon
Black to his former position as a guard at the Arverne
Urban Renewal Project upon his future forebearance from
protected concerted activities, his withdrawal of unfair
labor practice charges before the Board, and his future
forebearance from filing further unfair labor practice
charges, Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not committed unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the Act by transferring
Raymond Leon Black on April 30, by offering him
promotion and transfer on June 4, or by discharging him
on June 18.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 4
ORDER
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
5 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notices reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
6 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
John C. Mandel Security Bureau Inc., its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Conditioning employment of employees upon their
forebearance from protected concerted activities or with-
drawal of unfair labor practice charges pending before the
Board or the forebearance from filing future unfair labor
practice charges with the Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist a labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its premises, including its principal office and
branch offices, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
it 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
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
covered or defaced by any other material,
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that insofar as the complaint
alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein,
Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and as to those
matters the complaint is hereby dismissed.
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated Federal law by conditioning
reinstatement of Raymond Leon Black to his former
position as a guard at Arverne Urban Renewal Project
upon his forebearance from engaging in protected concert-
ed activities, his withdrawal of unfair labor practice
charges before the National Labor Relations Board, and
his forebearance from filing further unfair labor practice
charges:
WE WILL NOT condition the employment of employ-
ees upon their forebearance from exercising rights
guaranteed them under the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist a labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such'activities.
JOHN C. MANDEL SECURITY
BUREAU INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth
Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 221-
596-3535.