Tribuiani's Detective Agency, 1121 (1977)

Docket Number:04-CA-08209

TRIBUIANI'S DETECTIVE AGENCY Tribulani's Detective Agency, Inc. and Local # I,

International Union of Security Officers and Local 5, National Federation of Guards, Party in Interest. Case 4-CA-8209

December 12, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER



On August 30, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Respondent filed an answering brief, and the Party in Interest filed a memorandum.

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.


Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Tribuiani's Detective Agency, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.



PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge: The charge herein was filed on September 10, 1976,' by Local # 1,International Union of Security Officers, herein called Local I, the Union, or the Charging Party. A complaint thereon was issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on November 30, alleging that Tribuiani's Detective Agency, Inc., herein called Respondent or Employer, violated Section 8(aX2 ) and (1) of the Act by the actions of its supervisor, Bernard Patton, in soliciting authorization cards and dues-checkoff authorizations on behalf of Local 5, National Federation of Guards, herein referred to as Local 5, and by granting recognition to and signing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 5 at a time when Local 5 did not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees. An answer thereto was timely filed by Respondent. Pursuant to notice, the hearing was held before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 20, 1977. Briefs have been duly filed by General Counsel, Respondent, Charging Party, and Local 5, which have been duly considered.


  1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in providing security guard and private investigation services, maintaining offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the past year, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to firms engaged in interstate commerce on other than an indirect inflow or outflow basis. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

    1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that the Union and Local 5 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    2. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts 1. Patton's supervisory status The record herein discloses that Patton is employed by Respondent as captain of its force of some 104 security guards. As such, Patton is the highest ranking uniformed employee and the only captain. There are 2 lieutenants and some 14 to 16 sergeants. Patton has more seniority with Respondent than any other uniformed employee.

    Patton normally works 3 or 4 days a week, from 25 to 43 hours per week, primarily in Respondent's office. He works on Monday and Tuesday from 5 to II p.m., and sometimes on Saturday and/or Sunday in the absence of Helen Tribuiani, the general manager and top official of Respondent. While it appears that the weekly schedule of guard assignments is made up by Tribuiani, Patton has the responsibility for obtaining other guards to cover for absenteeism in the scheduled assignments. Patton contacts nonworking guard employees by telephone, utilizing a listing of all guard employees of Respondent. Patton also has the authority to assign overtime to employees when necessary to cover for absenteeism. When the need arises because of absenteeism, Patton has the authority to reassign guards from one location to another.

    As to wages, Patton is paid at the hourly rate of $3 per hour. This is 5 cents more per hour than sergeants and 25 cents more per hour than guards. Lieutenants are salaried at $190 per week.

    'Patrol Supervisors,' that is, lieutenants, captains, inspectors, and investigators, which classifications obviously include Patton, were excluded from the contract unit in I All dates herein refer to 1976 unless otherwise indicated.

    233 NLRB No. 174


    DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the collective-bargaining...

To continue reading