Michael Stapleton Associates, LTD, d/b/a MSA Security, (2021)

• Date: 23 April 2021

JD–18–21

Memphis, TN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

MICHAEL STAPLETON ASSOCIATES

d/b/a MSA SECURITY

and Case 15-CA-232136

RICHARD DeLEON

An Individual

Bryan Dooley, Esq., for the General Counsel.

David I. Weissman and Brittany L. Stepp, Esqs. (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and White Plains, New York) for the Respondent.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried via Zoom video

technology on March 16 and 17, 2021. Richard DeLeon filed the initial charge giving rise to this

case on December 3, 2018 alleging that Respondent discriminated against him by suspending

him in order to discourage union activities or membership. This charge was served on

Respondent on December 6, 2018. DeLeon filed an amended charge on December 13, 2018

alleging among other things that Respondent violated the Act by discharging him on about

December 7. DeLeon filed a second amended charge on March 28, 2019 and a third on May 7,

2019. The General Counsel issued aconsolidated complaint on October 22, 2019 regarding this

case and cases 15-CA-232787 (Brandon Hawkins, Charging Party) and 15-CA-243480 (Gerald

Coleman, Charging Party).

The hearing, initially scheduled for February 10, 2020 was postponed indefinitely on

December 20, 2019. 15-CA-243480 (Gerald Coleman, Charging Party) settled in April 2020.

The trial was rescheduled for May 4, 2020 and then postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

JD–18–21

2

15-CA-232787 (Brandon Hawkins, Charging Party) settled in July 2020. In January

2021, the hearing via Zoom was set for the instant case.

On the entire record,1including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and 5

after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION10

Respondent, Michael Stapleton Associates (MSA) a corporation, has offices and operates

in New York and Memphis, Tennessee as well as in other locations. It annually performs

services valued in excess of $50,000 outside of the State of New York. Respondent admits, and

I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and 15

(7) of the Act and that the United Federation of K9 Handlers (the Union) which represented

Richard DeLeon at the time of his discharge, is a labor organization within the meaning of

Section 2(5) of the Act.

The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated the Act with regard to Richard 20

DeLeon in the following manner:

Issuing DeLeon a write-up on November 23, 2018 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the

Act.

25

Suspending DeLeon on November 29, 2018 in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the

Act.

Discharging DeLeon on December 4, 2018 in violation of Sections 8(a)(4), (3) and (1) of

the Act.30

For the reasons stated herein I find that Respondent violated the Act in suspending and

discharging DeLeon, but not in writing him up.

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES35

Richard DeLeon’s employment with MSA

Respondent hired Richard DeLeon as an Explosive Detection Canine Handler (EDCH) in

April 2018. Beginning in mid-2018, the canine handlers at Memphis were represented by the 40

United Federation of K9 Handlers.

1While I have considered witness demeanor, I have not relied upon it in making any credibility

determinations. Instead, I have credited conflicting testimony based upon the weight of the evidence,

established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences drawn from the record as a

whole. PanelramaCenters, 296 NLRB 711, fn. 1 (1989).

Tr. 54, line 18 should read November, not December.