National Detective Bureau, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC. 7
National Detective Bureau, Inc., and National Private
Detective Bureau , Inc. and Union Fraternal de Segu-
ridad de Puerto Rico . Case 24-CA-3210
June 6, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On February 26, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, National Detective Bu-
reau, Inc., and National Private Detective Bureau,
Inc., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
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,
enfd 188 F .2d 362 (C A. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's Decision , we reject
Respondent 's contention that because Quinones was a probationary employ-
ee he could lawfully be discharged for any reason It is well established that
the Act protects a probationary employee from discriminatory discharge
because of his union activity. See, e .g., Loose Leaf Metals Company, 181
NLRB 202, 206, Lapeer Metal Products Co, 134 NLRB 1518, 1520.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
tried at Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, on November 13, 14, and
15, 1972.' The charge was filed by the Union on June 29 and
the complaint was issued on October 3. The issues raised are
i All dates are in 1972 unless otherwise noted.
whether Respondent, National Detective Bureau, Inc., and
National Private Detective Bureau, Inc.,2 violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights and whether Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee
Rafael Diaz Franquiz about May 29, by discharging em-
ployee Edgardo Quinones about May 30, by discharging
employees Angel L. Diaz, Angel L. Otero, Angel L. Falcon,
and Wouter Bordewyk about June 9, and by discharging
employee Pedro Rosirio Maldonado about June 16.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
counsel for General Counsel and Respondent, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The complaint as amended alleges, the answer admits,
and I find and conclude that at all times material Respon-
dent National Detective Bureau, Inc., a corporation of
Puerto Rico, has maintained offices in Ponce and Santurce
where it has been engaged in the business of providing
security guard services; during the 12-month period ending
August 31 Respondent National Private Detective Bureau,
Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation, in the course and conduct
of its business, has performed services valued at in excess of
$50,000 for governmental agencies of Puerto Rico and for
employers directly engaged in interstate commerce; and, as
stipulated, Respondent National Detective Bureau, Inc.
and National Private Detective Bureau, Inc., "are common-
ly owned, managed, supervised . . ., their labor relations
policy is commonly formulated and effected," and said
"corporations constitute a single employer for the purposes
of this proceeding." I find and conclude that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulated, and I find
and conclude that the Charging Party Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction: The Union Commences its Organizational
Drive; The Representation Proceedings
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find and
conclude that at all times material Julio L. Gordian was
president of Respondent; Benjamin Negron Vazquez was
director of Respondent; and that both Gordian and Negron
were agents of Respondent acting on its behalf and supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Lorenzo Sierra testified that he is president of the Charg-
ing Party Union; his Union initiated a drive to organize
2 The name was amended by stipulation of the parties at the hearing.
3 Respondent, in its answer, also admits the supervisory status of Lt. Jesus
Beltran, Sgt Maximino Rodriquez, and Sgt Juan B Rodriquez, as alleged
Respondent further admits that Accountant Julio Rivera was at all times
material its agent, as alleged
204 NLRB No. 7
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's security guards during March; and initially
he contacted a number of Respondent's guards, including
Angel L. Otero, Angel L. Diaz, and Angel.L. Falcon. Sierra
testified that the above named guards "got together with us
and they decided that they would name a committee. . . "
to "organize the guards...... Thereafter, according to
Sierra, the Union assisted by the employees distributed or-
ganizational literature to Respondent's workers and solic-
ited their signatures on union membership cards. Sierra
testified that, in addition to the three employees named
above, employees Rafael Diaz Franquiz and Edgardo Qui-
nones Joined the Union's organizational effort.
Sierra also testified that he attended a union meeting
where the employees selected Angel L. Otero and Angel L.
Diaz as members of a "committee to represent them."
Thereafter, by letter dated June 1, Sierra notified
Respondent's Director, Negron, that Otero was designated
as "steward-representative" of the Union. Subsequently, by
letter dated June 7, Sierra notified Negron that both Otero
and Diaz were in fact "appointed as steward-representatives
.... In addition, Sierra testified that during the cam-
paign he gave blank union membership cards to, inter alga,
employees Angel L. Otero, Rafael Diaz Franquiz, Angel L.
Diaz, Angel L. Falcon, Wouter Bordewyk, and Edgardo
Quinones. Otero, Falcon, Quinones, and Diaz Franquiz
signed union cards. As discussed below, the employees also
solicited the signatures of their coworkers.4
Further, Sierra testified that he gave organizational leaf-
lets and handbills to Otero, Falcon, Diaz, Bordewyk, and
other employees during the campaign. He recalled that the
employees distributed the handbills to their coworkers.
And, Sierra related that on June 9, Otero, Falcon, and Bor-
dewyk distributed the union handbills and membership
cards to their coworkers on the sidewalk in front of
Respondent's office. On that day, as Sierra testified,
Respondent's guards were being paid by company represen-
tatives at the office.5
As stipulated by the parties, a petition for a representa-
tion election was filed in Board Case 24-RC-4750 on June
15 by Union Fraternal de Guardias de Seguridad de Puerto
Rico (Charging Party Union) naming National Detective
Bureau, Inc., as Employer for a unit of all guards of the
Employer in the metropolitan San Juan area. Sindicato de
Guardianes y Ramas Anexas de Puerto Rico intervened in
said proceeding on the basis of a contract executed by that
labor organization with National Private Detective Bureau,
Inc., on June 2, effective July 2, for a unit, in effect, of all
guards of Employer in the metropolitan San Juan area
("employed in Employer's offices at 316 De Diego Ave.,
Santurce, including the areas of Caguas, Bayamon and Car-
olina"). A request to proceed in the representation case was
filed by Union Fraternal de Guardias de Seguridad de Puer-
to Rico on June 30 notwithstanding the 8(a)(1) and (3)
charge filed on June 29 by the Union in the instant unfair
Sierra testified that he gave a number of additional blank cards to, inter
a/ia, employees Bordewyk and Angel L Diaz
5 Relying upon demeanor , I credit the testimony of Sierra as stated above
His testimony is in large part corroborated by the testimony of the various
employees involved (discussed infra) and generally impressed me as a truthful
account of the events recited herein
labor practice proceeding. An agreement for consent elec-
tion was executed on July 3 by National Detective Bureau,
Inc., and the two unions, Petitioner (Charging Party) Union
Fraternal de Guardias de Seguridad de Puerto Rico and
Intervenor Sindicato de Guardianes y Ramas Anexas de
Puerto Rico, for an election to be held on July 21 in a unit
of all guards employed by said Employer at its place of
business located at 316 De Diego Ave., Santurce (in effect,
a unit of all guards in San Juan metropolitan area including
Caguas, Bayamon, and Carolina). At the election, of a total
of approximately 177 eligible voters, 50 voted for Petitioner
Union Fraternal de Guardias de Seguridad de Puerto Rico;
29 voted for Intervenor Sindicato de Guardianes y Ramas
Anexas de Puerto Rico; 24 cast ballots against the partici-
pating labor organizations; and there were six challenges
which were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. Of the six challenged voters, five are alleged discn-
minatees in the instant unfair labor practice proceeding;
namely, Angel L. Diaz, Angel L. Otero, Angel L. Falcon,
Wouter Bordewyk, and Edgardo Quinones.
B. The Discharge of Rafael Diaz Franquiz
Rafael Diaz Franquiz testified that he started working for
Respondent in July 1971 and was discharged on May 29,
1972.' Diaz Franquiz explained that he generally worked in
the office and that, as part of his assigned duties, he "would
take care of calls from the guards, the problems that hap-
pened during the night, and [he] would pass [these prob-
lems] on to the supervisors, and they would take care of the
problems and solve them." During most of his employment,
Diaz Franquiz worked from 5 p.m. to I a.m., Monday
through Thursday, and from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday.7
Diaz Franquiz was generally the only person in the office
during the night shift; however, Respondent also employed
supervisors who were out to the field and they maintained
contact with the office. Diaz Franquiz explained the job, as
follows:
If there was any call from a guard, I would have to take
it down on my book, and . . . if it was about some
problem like a guard having been left at his post, then
I would have to notify the supervisors so that the super-
visor would do as he saw fit, and from there on the
supervisor would handle the case.8
In addition, Diaz Franquiz testified that he would "clean
the office"; "do some guard duty without a uniform"; pay
employees; help type duty rosters; and deliver papers or
contracts for his Employer.
Diaz Franquiz explained that he first learned of the
Union's campaign during March. He recalled that about
March, Company President Julio Gordian questioned
6 Diaz Franquiz initially had been referred to Respondent by the Depart-
ment of Labor as part of its "Job 70" training program
During his last few months of employment, Diaz Franquiz was assigned
day work in the office from 8 a in to 5 p m because Arnoldo Claudio was
out sick Claudio worked in the office and his duties included , inter aha,
preparation of the duty roster with Director Negron. Diaz Franqutz ex-
plained that his wages were about $64 per week and this amount was less than
the salary of an "armed guard" and more than the salary of an "unarmed
guard "
8 Diaz Franquiz' Job in the office was described, inter a/ia, as "night clerk"
or "desk clerk "
NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC.
Diaz Franquiz in the office, "whether [he] knew something
about the union movement.... " Diaz Franquiz denied
any knowledge of the campaign and nothing else was said.
A few days later, according to Diaz Franquiz, Company
Director Negron spoke to Diaz Franquiz in Negron's office
in the presence of Accountant Rivera and President Gordi-
an. Negron, according Diaz Frai quiz, told Diaz Franquiz
"that they had been saying that somebody named Diaz
[who] worked for the Company in the office was organizing
a union and that they had been told it was" Diaz Franquiz.
Diaz Franquiz denied any involvement in the Union. Neg-
ron also said, according to Diaz Franquiz:
... nothing could be done to me [Diaz Franquiz] be-
cause there was no proof, but that if it was me, I should
be careful because I could be discharged, that it was
not convenient for me to get into that , neither for me
nor for my daughter... .
Diaz Franquiz testified that shortly thereafter, Negron
again spoke to him in the office in the presence of Gordian
and Rivera. Diaz Franquiz related:
. Captain Negron told me that they had told him
again that it was me who was organizing the union and
that if I had any union cards, because he had been told
that I was the one handing out the cards ... , that the
best thing that I could do was to turn in the cards and
withdraw and everything would be forgotten.
Diaz Franquiz again told Negron, "it was not me." Subse-
quently, Negron again spoke to Diaz Franquiz in the office
in the presence of Gordian and Rivera. Diaz Franquiz testi-
fied:
He [Negron] told me that he had been to my house
where my mother-in-law was present and he had identi-
fied himself as a member of the [Charging Party Union]
to see if he could find some union card or something
... but he did not achieve this and he told me that
since he had not been able to get anything . . . I would
not be fired because they had no proof, but that he
would continue investigating and that I have a daugh-
ter and a wife to support.
Again, Diaz Franquiz denied any involvement in the Union
campaign.
Diaz Franquiz, according to his testimony, worked on
Friday May 26. He was off duty on Saturday and Sunday,
May 27 and 28. He had been instructed by Sgt. Juan Rodri-
quez that he would have to work on Monday, May 29, a
holiday. Diaz Franquiz testified that he had been sick that
weekend and, consequently, was about an hour or more late
starting for work on Monday. However, before he left his
home that morning, a Company guard (Alfredo Andino)
drove up in the Employer's jeep and informed Diaz Fran-
quiz at his home that he had been fired. Diaz Franquiz
thereafter went to the office. No one in the office, including
Accountant Rivera, explained to Diaz Franquiz why he had
been fired. However, Rivera apprised Diaz Franquiz that
Diaz Franquiz could collect the money owed to him in a few
9 Diaz Franquiz testified that prior to the above incident , Respondent's
Sgt. Juan B. Rodriquez spoke to him in the office. Rodriquez told Diaz
Franquiz "that he [Rodriquez] had heard about a union movement and that
he was not quite sure who they were , but that they were saying that it was
somebody named Diaz"
9
days.
Diaz Franquiz acknowledged in his testimony that he had
been a drug addict prior to March 1971. Thereafter, as Diaz
Franquiz explained, he submitted himself to a state con-
trolled and regulated methadone treatment program.10 Diaz
Franquiz was under such treatment during his entire em-
ployment with Respondent. Diaz Franquiz testified that he
never "had to" inform his Employer about his treatment.) I
Further, Diaz Franquiz testified that "about a month before
[he] was fired," Director Negron "told [him] that they were
going to make [him] administrator of the company replacing
Mr. Claudio.... " Diaz testified that he previously had
been given a $4 weekly wage increase. In addition, Diaz
Franquiz acknowledged that he did not join the Charging
Party Union and support the campaign until shortly after
he was fired.
The only two witnesses called by Respondent to testify
were Director Negron and Lt. Beltran.[ Negron testified
that Diaz Franquiz was Negron's assistant; that Diaz Fran-
quiz performed this job during his last two months of em-
ployment; that Diaz Franquiz was paid $1.85 per hour for
a 40-hour week; and that Diaz Franquiz had replaced Ar-
noldo Claudio during the first week of April " more or less."
Negron claimed that Diaz Franquiz "substituted for" Neg-
ron when Negron "left the office"; that Diaz Franquiz "as-
signed the hours to the guards and supervisors"; that Diaz
Franquiz "assigned the days off to guards and supervisors";
and that Diaz Franquiz "relayed the orders to the guards
and supervisors and all types of work that was related to the
direct supervision between supervisors and guards." Negron
claimed that Diaz Franquiz was "a part of management"
because Negron assertedly had "delegated on him [Diaz
Franquiz] all the authority when [Negron] left the office."
Negron claimed that Diaz Franquiz gave "orders" and "in-
structions" to guards, supervisors and the secretary.
Negron further testified that the last day Diaz Franquiz
worked was May 26. Negron claimed that Diaz Franquiz
was terminated,
Because I came to the conclusion, after an investigation
which I ordered, and from an evaluation of his work,
that he was an inept person to fill the job which he had
been performing.
Negron further claimed that "on occasions I noticed that he
seemed drowsy and he would jump up startled when some-
one spoke to him ... "; that he made "a lot of mistakes";
that he was out sick frequently; and that he was "a dope
addict . . . going through a rehabilitation stage under a
methadone program.... " Negron claimed that on one
occasion a guard mistakenly had been assigned to three
stations and, further, excessive paychecks had been issued
10 Diaz Franquiz stated " I am actually , after almost two years
on methadone . , going to finish in three weeks both the physical and
therapeutical treatment "
11 It was stipulated by counsel that Respondent'sjob application did not
ask the applicant whether he "was under narcotics " Moreover, Diaz Fran-
quiz had informed the doctors treating him of the nature of his work "as soon
as [he] started working for" Respondent Diaz Franquiz was never required
to carry a weapon for Respondent And, as stated, his job principally in-
volved office duties.
i2 President Gordian, Accountant Rivera and other admitted supervisors
and/or agents of Respondent (see supra, In 3) were not called as witnesses
by Respondent
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to guards . Negron stated : "These mistakes came up often
.... " Negron testified that he replaced Diaz Franquiz
with Lt . Beltran . 13 Negron made no attempt to deny the
various acts and statements summarized above pertaining
to the Union which were attributed to Negron and others
by Diaz Franquiz.
Lt. Jesus Beltran Artache testified that he has been em-
ployed by Respondent for 3 years . Beltran asserted that his
"position" with Respondent "is the same that Mr. Diaz
Franquiz had previously ." Beltran claimed that he prepares
work assignments ; is in charge of the office after Negron
leaves ; and gives orders to the supervisors . 14 Beltran stated
that he was first assigned this position when Diaz Franquiz
left the Employer . Beltran acknowledged that prior to tak-
ing over Diaz Franquiz' job in the office he was a lieutenant
in the field.
On rebuttal , Diaz Franquiz explained that he had never
been told by Negron that he was "in charge of the office
while" Negron was out and that Negron had never "delegat-
ed authority" to him . Further , Diaz Franquiz explained that
occasionally he would become drowsy at work as a result
of working until 1 a .m. Friday morning and returning 7 a.m.
that same day to work a full shift . Diaz Franquiz explained
that the alleged mistakes in scheduling guards were in fact
caused by Negron while Claudio was out sick . Diaz Fran-
quiz denied being absent or late excessively or unreason-
ably.
Relying upon demeanor , I credit the testimony of Diaz
Franquiz summarized above . As stated , the testimony of
Diaz Franquiz pertaining to management 's coercive state-
ments and conduct was undenied by Director Negron. And,
Company President Gordian , Accountant Rivera, and Sgt.
Juan B. Rodriguez-admitted supervisors and/or agents
within the meaning of the Act-were not called by Respon-
dent to testify . "The failure under the circumstances to call
as witnesses" those supervisors against whom testimony had
been given "is itself persuasive that their testimony .. .
would have been unfavorable to [the Company]...... Cf.
Interstate Circuit v . United States, 306 U.S. 208 , 225-226
(1939). And see , N.L.R.B. v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing
Company, 130 F.2d 765, 768 (C.A. 1, 1942). Further, the
testimony of Diaz Franquiz-both with respect to
management 's alleged coercive statements and conduct and
the nature of Diaz Franquiz' employment-appeared rea-
sonable and did not seem fabricated or contrived . In addi-
tion , management's coercive conduct and statements to
Diaz Franquiz were consistent with its related coercive con-
duct directed to employees Quinones , Diaz , Otero , Falcon,
Bordewyk , and Rosario , as recited below.
In sum , on this record , I find and conclude that President
Gordian coercively interrogated Diaz Franquiz about the
Union during March . I find and conclude that Company
Director Negron , in the presence of President Gordian and
Accountant Rivera , coercively interrogated Diaz Franquiz
13 Negron also testified that Diaz Franquiz was assigned guard duty on
only one occasion to a post requiring a "very young man" not wearing a
guard's uniform
14 on cross-examination , Beltran was asked how he determines "to send
a guard from one post to another" and he answered , "When the Captain
[Negron ) gives me the order "
about his suspected involvement in the union campaign;
threatened the employee with discharge if he was involved
in the Union's effort; went to the employee's home in an
attempt to get proof of his participation in the Union's
campaign ; and thereafter again threatened the employee
that management would continue its investigation and Diaz
Franquiz would be fired for his suspected union activities.
I find and conclude that the foregoing interrogations and
threats tend to interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights
and therefore violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Further I find and conclude that Diaz Franquiz was sum-
marily discharged because Respondent, as found above,
strongly suspected that Diaz Franquiz was engaging in
union activities . As Diaz Franquiz credibly testified, Direc-
tor Negron apprised Diaz Franquiz that management sus-
pected that he "was the one handing out the [union] cards";
that management "would continue investigating"; and that
Diaz Franquiz would be discharged for engaging in such
activities. Under these circumstances, I find and conclude
the Respondent's sudden discharge of the employee during
the campaign without telling the employee the reason for his
firing was because of the employee's suspected union in-
volvement. Further, the failure of Respondent' s asserted
reasons for the employee's discharge to "stand up under
scrutiny . . . strengthen the inference" that the real reason
for the discharge was the employee's suspected union activi-
ties . Cf. N.L.R.B. v.Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc.,127F.2d 438,
440 (C.A. 1, 1942); N. L. R. B. v. Bird Machine Company, 161
F.2d 589, 592 (C.A. 1, 1947). Thus, Negron generally
claimed that Diaz Franquiz made mistakes at work. Howev-
er, Diaz Franquiz credibly denied Negron's uncorroborated
attempt to blame the employee for cited mistakes in assign-
ment or scheduling. Likewise, Negron claimed that the Diaz
Franquiz was "inept," was out sick, was drowsy, and was
jumpy. However, Diaz Franquiz credibly denied these un-
supported assertions and explained that he may have been
drowsy as a result of his night shift hours. Diaz Franquiz in
fact was given a raise before his discharge and told by
management that he was being considered for a better posi-
tion. Finally, although Respondent assertedly discharged
the employee because he was an addict, the credible evi-
dence of record shows, and I find and conclude that, Diaz
Franquiz during his entire employment was under a state-
supervised methadone program; that this treatment never
interfered with the employee's performance of his job; and
that management first became aware of and asserted this as
a reason for discharge when it was investigating the
employee's suspected union activities in an attempt to find
a reason to get rid of him. In sum, I find and conclude that
Respondent's asserted reasons for discharging Diaz Fran-
quiz were pretextual and that the real reason was his sus-
pected union activities."
Respondent also argues that Diaz Franquiz was a part of
supervision or management. However, I find and conclude,
as Diaz Franquiz credibly testified," that he was not in
15 1 note that "it is well settled that the mere existence of a ground for
discharge is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge if such a ground
was a pretext and not the moving cause ." N L R B. v. Yale Manufacturing
Company, 356 F 2d 69, 74 (C A I, 1966)
16 Insofar as the testimony of Diaz Franquiz summarized herein conflicts
with the testimony of Negron and Beltran , I credit the former . Relying upon
NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC. 11
charge of the office when Negron or other members of
management were away from the office ; that he did not
assign guards or change their assignments ; that , during the
absence of upper management, Supervisors Lt. Beltran and
Sgt. Rodriquez were in charge; that Diaz Franquiz was not
Claudio's replacement in the office ; that Diaz Franquiz' job
in the office by-and-large involved answering the telephone
and relaying messages to supervisors present or in the field;
and that Diaz Franquiz earned the weekly wages of a guard.
On the record before me, I do not find that Diaz Franquiz
exercised any of the indicia of supervisory authority within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or was otherwise a
managerial employee.
C. The Discharge of Edgardo Quinones
Edgardo Quinones testified that he was employed by Re-
spondent as a guard about March 6 and that he was dis-
charged on May 30. 17 Quinones testified that on May 22, he
and coworker Angel L. Falcon spoke with Union President
Sierra about the Union and that he signed a union card on
that day.
Quinones recalled that the last day he worked for Re-
spondent was on Sunday , May 28 . He explained that com-
mencing Saturday May 27, he worked three continuous
8-hour shifts . 18 Upon completing work on Saturday, May
27, Respondent 's Sgt . M. Rodriquez offered Quinones a ride
home in Rodriquez ' car. Another guard , Avelino, was also
given a ride in the car . As the three were driving along,
according to Quinones, employee Avelino started "talk[ing]
about signing the Union card ." Quinones joined in the con-
versation . Quinones explained : "Since he [Avelino ] said that
he was going to signs a card , I [Quinones] told him I had
signed a card ." This statement was made in the presence of
Sgt. M . Rodgiquez.
Quinones was off work on Monday, May 29. He was
scheduled to work on Tuesday, May 30. However, about
noon that day Respondent's Sgt . Juan B. Rodriquez went to
Quinones ' home and there instructed the employee "to hand
over [his] uniform ." Quinones refused . The two then went
to Respondent 's office . At the office , as Quinones testified,
the employee asked Accountant Rivera "why [he] had been
suspended ." Rivera "told [Quinones ] that [he] was involved
with the Union." Quinones also asked Company President
Gordian , "why had [he] been suspended ." Gordian "only
told [the employee ] to hand in [his] uniform." Gordian gave
no reason for the firing and, as Quinones testified, he had
never been warned of any contemplated disciplinary action.
Director Negron testified that the last day Quinones
demeanor , I find that Diaz Franquiz' testimony was reasonable and did not
appear contrived . On the other hand , I find and conclude that Negron in his
testimony was attempting to justify his coercive and discriminatory treatment
of Diaz and the other workers . I do not regard Negron 's testimony or
Beltran 's testimony as trustworthy
17 Quinones testified that he initially had been referred to Respondent by
the Department of Labor as part of the "Job 70" training program . Quinones
explained that he "went [to Respondent ] to look for a job and ... was told
[by the Department of Labor representative ] that [Respondent] had jobs as
guards." Quinones signed a written agreement with Respondent providing,
inter aha, for a 3-month probationary period of employment.
18 Quinones worked the three shifts because his relief did not report for
work as scheduled.
worked was May 28,19 and that by this date Quinones had
not yet finished his 90-day probationary period of employ-
ment . According to Negron, "around May 26 I gave orders
that this employee be told to finish his working week and
that he should return to us his equipment because I under-
stood that his way of working was not up to par.... 1120
Negron acknowledged that Quinones worked three straight
8-hour shifts shortly before his termination because Qui-
nones' relief never reported for duty. Negron testified that
on May 29 "one of the supervisors went and notified [Qui-
nones] . . . to turn in his equipment."
I credit the testimony of Quinones summarized above.
Respondent, in its answer to the complaint, admits that
Sgts. Maximino and Juan Rodriquez are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act and Rivera is an agent within the
meaning of the Act. Nevertheless, Sgts. M. and J. Rodriquez
and Accountant Rivera were not called by Respondent to
testify with respect to the above incident. Further, relying
upon demeanor, I credit Quinones. I find that his testimony
appeared reasonable and trustworthy. I find and conclude
that shortly after working three straight shifts for Respon-
dent, the employee was summarily discharged without
warning because the employee had stated in the presence of
Sgt. M. Rodriquez that he had signed a union card. Qui-
nones credibly testified that Rivera told Quinones that he
had been, suspended because of the Union and that Presi-
dent Gordian would not even give the employee a reason for
his suspension. I do not credit Negron's unsupported asser-
tion that Quinones was an unsatisfactory worker still on
probation. I find and conclude that these general, belated
assertions are pretextual reasons for discharging the em-
ployee. I find and conclude that the real reason why Re-
spondent summarily discharged the employee was his
known involvement in Union activities.
D. The Discharges of Angel L. Diaz, Angel L. Otero,
Angel L. Falcon, and Wouter Bordwyk
Angel L. Diaz testified that he started working for Re-
spondent as a guard in September 1970 and that he was
discharged on June 9 , 1972. Diaz testified that co -worker
Otero solicited his signature on a union card during early
May; that he , Diaz , visited Union President Sierra's office
during May to discuss the benefits of unionization ; and that
he subsequently urged his fellow employees to join the
Union .21 Diaz related that he , Otero , and Sierra repeatedly
visited the various duty posts of Respondent's guards "to
get the guards to unionize." During these visits, according
to Diaz, "Otero would give out the [union] cards to be
signed while I [Diaz] urged the guards to sign the cards."
19 Respondent's payroll for the period ending June 4 shows that Quinones
worked up to May 28. The payroll is blank for the employee after that date.
20 Negron asserted that he had received complaints about Quinones' work.
On cross-examination , Negron related that Quinones was absent from his
post on April 2 and 7 Another complaint which Negron assertedly had
received was that Quinones "did not appear to be a dynamic person or to
have initiative to be a guard "
2i Diaz explained ". I started to urge my fellow employees so that they
would also Join the union I did that out on the street when I ran across
some fellow employee occasionally "
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Diaz testified that his co-workers designated Otero and him-
self as union delegates.22
Diaz testified that on the morning of June 9, he went to
Respondent's office to get paid; that he observed Falcon,
Otero, and Bordewyk "distributing [union] cards and
flyers" to the employees on the sidewalk in front of the
Respondent's office; and that he "joined them in that activi-
ty." Diaz distributed union leaflets in front of Respondent's
office and urged "the guards to sign the cards and join the
Union.... " Diaz testified that President Gordian, Direc-
tor Negron, Accountant Rivera, and a secretary came out
of the building and passed by Diaz, Falcon, Otero, and
Bordewyk while they were engaged in distributing union
literature and soliciting guards to join the Union. 3 Diaz
noted that "they looked at me and at all my fellow workers
11
Diaz further testified that later that same day, he, Otero,
Falcon, and Bordewyk went into Respondent's office to get
paid. Diaz recalled that President Gordian walked over to
the pay line, said something to Accountant Rivera, "and
pointing to us [Diaz, Falcon, Otero, and Bordewyk]," said:
"One, two, three, four, fired." Diaz then asked Gordian:
"Why are you firing us?" Gordian, according to Diaz, re-
plied: "Ask the union or the employment bureau." Gordian
also instructed the four employees "that we should turn in
our uniforms as soon as possible."24 Diaz was not told the
reason why he was fired.
Wouter Bordewyk testified that he started working for
Respondent as a guard about January 17 and that he was
discharged on June 9 .25 Bordewyk testified that he signed a
union membership card on May 6; that previously coworker
Angel L. Falcon gave Bordewyk a blank union card at
work; and that during the first week of June coworkers
Otero and Diaz visited Bordewyk at the university to discuss
the Union with him.
On June 9-according to Bordewyk-employees Falcon,
Otero, Diaz, and Bordewyk "were giving out cards of the
Union and looseleafs, and we were speaking to the guards
who came to get paid, about the benefits of the Union." This
occurred in front of Respondent's office. Bordewyk recalled
that while he and his coworkers were engaged in the above
activities, Negron, Gordian, Rivera, and Lt. Beltran walked
by and "they looked at us." Bordewyk testified that thereaf-
ter, when the four employees (Bordewyk, Falcon, Diaz, and
Otero) went into the office to get paid, Gordian said, point-
22 Dial name had been inadvertently omitted from the Union 's June I
letter to Respondent naming the Union 's delegates. As a result, Diaz caused
the Union to send a second letter to the Employer naming him as a delegate
on June 7 I find that the June 7 letter to Respondent was received by
Res3pondent on June 9
2 Diaz explained that Gordian "stayed upstairs and came down later"
shortly after Negron , Rivera, and the secretary.
24 Diaz testified that during this conversation he told Gordian " that this
abuse was going to end."
25 Bordewyk testified that he was a student at the university which was
serviced by Respondent 's guards; he applied for and received work as a
guard at the university weekdays on the 3 to I I p.m. shift , which schedule
enabled him to continue his studies, and this "special arrangement" was
made by Gordian on January 17 when he was hired . Bordewyk explained.
"I worked weekdays and Thursdays from 3 p in. to I I p.m.; on Saturdays
and Sundays I worked 7 a in. until 3 p in , that was the basic arrange-
ment " Bordewyk also signed a written agreement with Respondent during
January which provides, inter a/a, for a 3-month probationary period of
employment.
ing at the four employees, "One, two, three, four, out, fired."
Bordewyk recalled that co-worker Diaz asked Gordian
"why he was fired," and Gordian replied: " ... he [Gordi-
an] did not have to give us any explanations, that he would
give them to the union or a representative of the Depart-
ment of Labor." Bordewyk also testified that coworker Ote-
ro said to Gordian that "that was not the way to do these
things...... Bordewyk was given no reason for his dis-
charge. Further, Bordewyk testified that he had received no
advance warning from management.26
Angel L. Otero testified that he started work for Respon-
dent as a guard about February 13 and that he was dis-
charged on June 9 .11 Otero testified that he signed a union
card on March 15; that he took the card to the Union's
office and, later, discussed the Union with President Sierra;
and that he distributed union cards and leaflets among his
coworkers. Otero recalled that at a meeting on May 15, he
and Angel L. Diaz were elected as union representatives,
and that Respondent was notified of this by letter.
Otero testified that on June 9 he distributed union cards
and handbills in front of Respondent's office. Otero testi-
fied that while he and his three coworkers were distributing
cards and leaflets in front of the office, Negron, Gordian,
Rivera, and a secretary "came by" during the day and "they
looked at us very seriously, up and down." Thereafter, Ote-
ro and his three coworkers went into the office to get paid.
According to Otero, Gordian pointed to Otero and his three
co-workers and said: "One, two, three, four, fired." Otero
testified that he asked Gordian "for an explanation to the
Union and the Department of Labor." Otero had never
been warned or given any reason for his discharge.
Angel L. Falcon did not testify because he was hospital-
ized during the hearings.
As stated, the only two witnesses who testified for Re-
spondent were Negron and Beltran. Negron testified that
President Gordian could not have said "one, two, three,
four, fired" to the above employees because, Negron
claimed:
I am the only one authorized to discharge employ-
ees ... , there is an. agreement between Mr. Gordian
and myself that I am in charge of all the administration
... I make the decision.
In sum , Negron claimed that President Gordian had "dele-
gated" the authority to terminate to Negron. However, Neg-
ron acknowledged that President Gordian "is in charge of
supervising [Negron's] work, naturally.... "
As for employee Angel L. Diaz, Director Negron testified
that this employee had wounded his right hand by the acci-
dental discharge of an air gun at a post where the employee
was not authorized to have a weapon. Negron recalled that
Diaz told Negron about the accident and "wanted to fill out
the forms for the State Insurance Fund for [an] accident
while on the job.... " Negron assertedly told the employ-
ee that he did not "understand that to be a workmen's
26 Bordewyk testified that later that same day he asked Lt Beltran "why
he was fired" and Beltran said "that he [Beltran] really didn't know... .
Beltran did tell Bordewyk that "they were watching [Bordewyk] because of
the Union activities of Angel Luis Falcon."
27 Otero testified that he initially had been referred to Respondent by the
Department of Labor as part of the "Job 70 " training program. Otero at all
times material understood that he was "a permanent employee " of Respon-
dent
NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC.
accident for the simple reason that [Negron] had not author-
ized him to have any type of weapon at that post......
According to Negron, Diaz insisted that he had a right to
file under the fund and, consequently, Negron "ordered the
secretary to fill out the forms but to make the observation
that [Negron] wanted an investigation of the accident to be
made to determine if the accident was or was not a
workmen's accident.... " Further, according to Negron,
"around May 13, the State Insurance Fund released [Diaz]
with a right to treatment.... " Negron testified that Diaz
was assigned a post upon his release but, assertedly, "that
post did not please him and he later or again reported on
sick leave and up to the present time he has not been back
to the Company." 28 Negron claimed that thereafter Diaz
"worked one or two days and he never returned-he report-
ed sick." Negron acknowledged that although the State in-
surance fund did not regard the accident as compensable,
the State fund nevertheless treated Diaz as a result of the
wound. Negron claimed that he has never discharged this
employee; "I have never discharged him and I am the only
one authorized to do it."29
As for employee Wouter Bordewyk, Director Negron
claimed that Bordewyk last worked "around June 6 more or
less."30 Negron claimed that Bordewyk "was rot discharged
by him [Negron] and [Negron is] the only one authorized to
do that.... " Negron claimed that he does "not know the
reasons" why Bordewyk "did not continue working for the
Company."
As for employee Angel L. Otero, Negron testified that the
last day Otero worked was May 29 31 Negron claimed that
he does "not know" "why Mr. Otero did not continue work-
ing for the Company." Negron asserted that Otero was not
discharged. Negron further claimed that Otero was under
the "Job 70 training program" and was not regarded "as a
permanent employee of the Company." 32
Further, Negron testified that on June 9 he never left his
office to go to lunch; Gordian did leave the office to go to
the laundry; and Gordian and Julio Rivera did not leave the
office together for lunch. Negron claimed that when they
leave the office, "we are almost never together because Gor-
dian is almost never at our office and I am on a diet and
I almost never have lunch."33
I credit the testimony of Diaz, Bordewyk, and Otero as
stated above. Their testimony is mutually corroborative, is
28 Negron explained that Diaz ' accident occurred on April 24, 1972; and
it was reported to Negron on May 2, 1972. Diaz was not released from
treatment by the fund until June 29.
29 The Company's payroll for week ending June 4 shows that Diaz' last day
of work was June 4 . Respondent did not produce later payroll records going
beyond this date.
The payroll for the week ending June 18 shows that Bordewyk worked
June 5 and 6.
31 Respondent 's payroll for the week ending June 4 shows that the last day
worked by Otero was May 29; the rest of the period for the employee is blank
32 Negron claimed that Otero has not finished that program and had to be
dropped.
3 On cross-examination , Negron acknowledged that Gordian was at the
office on June 9 ; he personally saw Otero, Angel L. Diaz, Falcon, and
Bordewyk on June 9 in the office; he considered Diaz an employee while
under treatment with the State fund ; and the State fund did not release Diaz
from treatment until June 29
Negron also acknowledged and I find and conclude that the Company
hired all "Job 70" trainees with the expectation of keeping them as perma-
nent employees.
13
further corroborated by the testimony of Sierra, and is sub-
stantiated in part of Negron. Insofar as the testimony of
Diaz, Bordewyk, and Otero conflicts with the testimony of
Negron, relying upon demeanor, I find that the testimony
of the employees is more reasonable and trustworthy. And,
as stated supra, representatives of management were not
called as witnesses to explain the statements and conduct
attributed to them by the above witnesses. Under the cir-
cumstances, I find and conclude that on June 9 Gordian
summarily discharged Diaz, Bordewyk, Otero, and Falcon
because of their known union activities. I do not credit
Negron's assertions that only he (and not President Gordi-
an) could or would fire the employees; employee Diaz was
not discharged but instead quit;34 employee Bordewyk vol-
untarily quit; employee Otero voluntarily quit;35 and em-
ployee Falcon voluntarily quit. I find and conclude that
Negron's assertions as summarized above are unsupported
attempts to justify the discharges of employees because of
their protected activities.
E. The Discharge of Pedro Rosario Moldonado
Pedro Rosario Moldonado testified that he started work-
ing for Respondent as a guard in October 1971 and that he
was discharged on June 16, 1972.
Rosario testified that on June 16 he was working the 2 to
10 p.m. shift post at the department of public works; about
3:30 p.m. that day Respondent's Lt. Beltran and Celestino
Martinez 36 visited him; and Martinez said to Rosario in the
presence of Beltran: "Sign this card for me because this is
the union that you need."37 According to Rosario, Beltran
said: "sign it because that is the union we want here." Ro-
sario told Martinez that he would not sign the card. Marti-
nez and Beltran walked away. Subsequently, according to
Rosario, Accountant Rivera showed up at the post. Rivera
also had a package of cards for the rival union. Rivera told
Rosario "to sign one of those cards"; "sign that card."
Rosario refused and Rivera "insisted": "You have to sign
it.... " Rosario testified: "When he [Rivera] insisted so
much I took the card and I tore it up and threw it to the
ground." Then, Rivera told Rosario "to go away . . . he did
not want me there.... " Lt. Beltran similarly told Rosar-
io: "We do not want you there either, leave." Another guard
was summoned to Rosario's post. Rosario testified that he
left his post at 3:30 p.m. that day "when [he] was fired."
Rosario testified that he subsequently went to the office
to hand in his uniforms. Lt. Beltran was there and told
Rosario "to wait. . . . " Negron at first "told [Rosario] not
to hand in his uniforms until Friday, that he [Negron] was
going to give [Rosario] another shift.... " Either on that
day or shortly thereafter, Rosario was told that Respondent
34 In its posthearing brief , Respondent argues that Diaz "voluntarily did
not continue working or reporting to the employer." Respondent acknowl-
edged in its brief that.
Although the employer had a good cause to discharge [Diaz] for using
a weapon in his post (misconduct), such action was not taken... .
35I reject Negron 's unsupported assertions that Bordewyk was not "a
regular employee", and that Otero did not comply with the requirements of
thedob 70 program and that he too was not a "a regular employee."
3 Martinez was in charge of the rival union which had intervened in the
pending representation case, as discussed supra
3' Martinez had a "a package of cards" for the rival union.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"had a shift in Catano" from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. However,
Rosario explained to management that there was a bus
strike and he "could not get there."38 Since Rosario had no
car and there was a bus strike, he could not accept the
Catano post.
Director Negron testified that employee Rosario "was
always on" the 2 to 10 p.m. shift at the post for the public
works department and that the last day the employee
worked was June 16. Negron testified:
I had observed from an examination of the record that
[a number of guards] only worked on one shift while
the others had to sacrifice themselves and work on all
the shifts and I indicated to [Lt.] Beltran that system
had to be changed and that we had to put everybody
to work on rotating shifts, except those guards who by
the nature of their posts or because the customer asked
for it, had to be left on the same shift in which they
were.
Negron assertedly made this determination "during the
week en ling June 16." Negron testified that he discovered
that Rosario "had always been working only one shift."
Negron claimed that about June 19 Rosario brought his
equipment to the office to return it unless he could keep his
same job; that Negron refused to let the employee keep the
same job; and that Rosario said: "I am sorry but I am going
to resign and forget it, this is the end right here, it will not
go any further."3
I credit the testimony of Rosario stated above. Rivera did
not testify. Lt. Beltran did not deny the statements attribut-
ed to him by Rosario. Relying upon demeanor, I find that
Rosario's testimony summarized above is accurate, reliable,
and trustworthy. I find and conclude that he was discharged
by Respondent on June 16 because he would not sign a
union card for a rival labor organization as directed by
management . Respondent's later offer to Rosario to work
a post 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. in Catano during a bus strike 40 was
an attempt to justify or conceal Respondent's discriminato-
ry treatment of this employee.
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes, bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, National Detective Bureau, Inc., and Na-
tional Private Detective Bureau , Inc., constitute a single
employer for purposes of this proceeding and said employer
38 During Rosano's employment from October 1971 to June 1972, he
worked the 2 to 10 p in. shift at the department of public works with few
exceptions.
39 Respondent 's payroll records show that the last day Rosario worked was
June 16.
40 Rosario credibly testified that he had no way to get there
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct described in Section II,
above, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent discriminated against the following em-
ployees on the dates indicated, in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act:
(1) Rafael Diaz Franquiz-May 29, 1972
(2) Edgardo Quinones-May 30, 1972
(3) Angel L. Diaz-June 9, 1972
(4) Angel L. Otero-June 9, 1972
(5) Angel L. Falcon-June 9, 1972
(6) Wouter Bordewyk-June 9, 1972
(7) Pedro Rosario Maldonado-June 16, 1972
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. And, as the unfair labor
practices committed by the Respondent are of a character
striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1), terminated the seven employees named
above on the dates indicated. It will therefore be recom-
mended that Respondent offer to these individuals immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any
loss of earnings suffered by reason of their unlawful termi-
nation, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that
which they normally would have earned from the date of
their discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement , less net earnings during such period, with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner es-
tablished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. Backpay shall carry interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716. Further, it will be recommended that
Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary and useful to determine the amount
of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the
terms of these recommendations.
NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 41
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
Respondent National Detective Bureau, Inc., and National
Private Detective Bureau, Inc., their officers, agents, succes-
sors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and the union activities of their coemploy-
ees.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other repri-
sals if they join or remain members of Union Fraternal De
Guardias De Seguridad De Puerto Rico, or any other labor
organization.
(c) Discouraging membership in Union Fraternal De
Guardias De Seguridad De Puerto Rico or in any other
labor organization, by discharging employees because of
their union or concerted activities, or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees listed below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for their loss of earnings in the man-
ner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(1) Rafael Diaz Franquiz
(2) Edgardo Quinones
(3) Angel L. Diaz
(4) Angel L. Otero
(5) Angel L. Falcon
(6) Wouter Bordewyk
(7) Pedro Rosario Maldonado
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in the
section of this decision entitled, "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its offices and facilities in San Juan, Puerto
Rico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix," in
English and in Spanish.42 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall after
being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, and be main-
tained for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
41 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 , recommendations , 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
42 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 "
15
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, 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
After a full trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, National Detective Bureau, Inc. and
National Private Detective Bureau, Inc., violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this
notice. We therefore notify you that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees con-
cerning their union activities and the union activities of
their coemployees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other reprisals if they join or remain members of Union
Fraternal De Guardias De Segundad De Puerto Rico
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Union Fra-
ternal De Guardias De Seguridad De Puerto Rico, or
in any other labor organization, by discharging em-
ployees because of their union or concerted activities,
or in any other manner discriminate against them in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer the employees listed below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges and make them whole for their loss of
earnings , as provided in the Board's Decision and Or-
der:
(1) Rafael Diaz Franquiz
(2) Edgardo Quinones
(3) Angel L. Diaz
(4) Angel L. Otero
(5) Angel L. Falcon
(6) Wouter Bordewyk
(7) Pedro Rosario Maldonado
NATIONAL DETECTIVE BUREAU,
INC., AND NATIONAL PRIVATE
DETECTIVE BUREAU, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
anyone . this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days ed to the Board 's Office, Pan Am Building, Seventh Floor,
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , P. O. Box U U, 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey,
Puerto Rico 00919, Telephone 106-622-2424.