Complaint Review: Northeast Protective Services

I find it amazing that Alan Burton from Northeast Protective Services is now willing to respond in a public forum since he has been hiding and avoiding me for such a long time. Maybe the civil judge and the labor commissioner would have liked to hear his excuses but he failed to appear in court on both cases (Both judgments against him and his company). But I understand. Most people with his defense would not have shown up in court either. Alan Burton was ashamed and embarrassed. I guess he showed the same disrespect to the judges and courts as he did for his employees.

Mr. Alan Burton, you talk about ethics in your rebuttal. Was it ethical to fail to appear in court after you received your subpoenas? I find that incredible especially for someone who was involved in law enforcement and the security field. What kind of example are you setting for your employees? Was it ethical to not pay an employee for hours worked? Even by your own admissions you failed to pay me for time worked. I really wish you would have shown up in court. The judge and the labor commissioner had many questions that they wanted to discuss with you.

Your rebuttal is a bunch of lies. The client simply realized how unprofessional Northeast Protective Services was and decided to keep me instead of having one of your security agent replace me (after knowing I was going to resign from your company for the reason I told them).

You are in violation of the Labor Code 201 and 202 http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FinalPay.pdf

I am glad there are web sites like this one so the public will know how you operate and how you run your business.

This employee was hired by Northeast Protective Services specifically to provide on-site office security services for a film industry advertising agency. After just 8 weeks on the job, he worked to secretly negotiate a third-party change to another security company while still in our employ. We believe his actions violated the ethics of the security profession. 

During an evening work shift, Mr. Lucifora notified us by email that he was resigning effective immediately. The next morning, the ad agency client contact emailed us that they would no longer be using our services and that they would continue to work with Mr. Lucifora through another security vendor.

We then confirmed with the ad agency that a series of interviews had been conducted with multiple security companies prior to the announced resignation. This means that the resignation was part of a much larger plan to replace us with a third party while Mr. Lucifora was still in our employ.

To secure this contract, we had:

- conducted a security assessment of the premises, property handling procedures, personnel entry/exit tracking for after-hours.

- established a customized security protocol for the company to protect personnel and intellectual properties.

- provided the ad agency with a selection of security personnel we had qualified for their selection

- allowed the agency to make the selection of candidate, Mr. Lucifora.

- conducted a formal nationwide background check on Mr. Lucifora which we shared with the agency as part of their vetting process.

-  established formal security protocols to monitor personnel entry/exit from their offices.

- provided procedures to track intellectual properties.

- established a radio communications link between the front desk and security personnel.

- created an email notification system.

We believe the actions of said employee, ad agency client and cooperating security company violated standard security industry ethical practices. We are therefore in no rush to compensate an individual that would engage in such activities.