Burns Security Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 222 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Burns Security Systems, Inc., and International
Guards Union of America , Local 33 (Ind), Petition-
er. Case 10-UC-34
January 29, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING,
BROWN , AND JENKINS
On July 27, 1970, the Regional Director for Region
10 issued a Decision and Order in which he dismissed
the Petitioner's request to include, by way of clarifica-
tion, the classification of Complaints and Survey Ser-
geants in its existing unit of guards employed by the
Employer in its operations at Marshall Space Flights
Center, Huntsville, Alabama. In accordance with Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Peti-
tioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's Decision on the grounds that in refusing to
clarify the guard status of the Complaints and Survey
Sergeants on the basis of the evidence presented at the
hearing, he departed from Board precedent. The
Board, by telegraphic order, dated August 31, 1970,
granted review.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
The Regional Director found that although the job
classification in issue existed for approximately 3
years prior to the execution of the current collective-
bargaining agreement, the contract made no mention
of it, and that it was not until almost a year after the
contract was executed that the Petitioner raised the
issue as to guard status in the course of a contract
grievance proceeding. In view of these findings, he
concluded that the status of the Complaints and Sur-
vey Sergeants may not be resolved in a unit clarifica-
tion proceeding, and accordingly dismissed the
petition.
The Petitioner, in its request for review, contends
that the Complaints and Survey Sergeants were in-
deed included in the unit as described in the contract,
and that there would be no purpose in filing a unit
clarification petition but for the Employer's decision,
during a grievance proceeding, to assert that these
sergeants are not part of the unit.
The current contract, executed August 19, 1969,
describes the unit as follows:
All guards, Cpls, and Sgts. (except Badge Sgt.)
employed by Bums Security Systems, Inc. at the
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala-
bama, and excluding all other employees such as
clerical, professional, and supervisory.
In view of the absence of a specific exclusion of Com-
plaints and Survey Sergeants from the unit descrip-
tion and the lack of any evidence to establish that the
Petitioner had acquiesced in their exclusion , we con-
clude, contrary to the Regional Director, that unit
clarification is the proper method to resolve the guard
status of the classification in dispute.
Section 9(b) of the Act states "That the Board shall
not ... decide that any unit is appropriate ... if it
includes, together with other employees, any individ-
ual employed as a guard to enforce against employees
and other persons rules to protect property of the
employer or to protect the safety of persons on the
employer's premises ... "
The record indicates that the Complaints and Sur-
vey Department was created in 1961, and until 1966
it was manned only by a lieutenant. Thereafter, two
sergeants were added. The department presently con-
sists of a supervisor, Lieutenant H. P. Kramer, and
two sergeants, who work together as a team . Lieuten-
ant Kramer reports to the chief of guards at the instal-
lation.
The job description of Complaints and Survey Ser-
geants states that
The Sergeant Complaints and Surveys, under the
directions of the Complaints and Survey Special-
ist Supervisor, conducts investigation and sur-
veys of incidents, complaints, accidents,
including vehicle accidents. Prepares and sub-
mits reports both special and periodic. Performs
related work as requested. The Sergeant, Com-
plaints, and Survey, will not perform any work
that is assigned or routinely performed by guards
if incidents are noted that require action, notify
the guards supervisor." [sic]
The testimony reveals that these sergeants, together
with Lieutenant Kramer, have been involved in the
analysis and investigation of such incidents as a rash
of breaking into locked metal desks, theft of women's
purses, and break-in thefts of vending machines. In
dealing with these incidents, the Complaints and Sur-
vey Sergeants engage in "stakeouts," that is, they will
be hidden in order to perform their function properly.
In addition, these sergeants will use electronic devices
to detect when a theft or break-in is being perpetu-
ated. As part of their investigations of incidents, they
will also check for fingerprints.
Lt. Kramer testified that following an investigation
concerning the prevention of thefts, he writes a report
which goes to the chief of guards, which is then placed
in an envelope marked "confidential" and taken to an
official of the client at the Center.
The Complaints and Survey Sergeants are dressed
in civilian clothing and ride in unmarked vehicles.
Guards in the bargaining unit are attired in guard
uniforms, and they patrol in a vehicle clearly marked
with a security emblem.
188 NLRB No. 25
BURNS SECURITY SYSTEMS
The Complaints and Survey Sergeants investigate
all motor vehicle accidents within the limits of Mar-
shall Space Flight Center, as well as any accident in
the city of Huntsville that involves a NASA vehicle.
On such occasions, they will care for the injured, set
up traffic control if necessary, fill out forms, make
diagrams, and see that photographs of the accident
scene are taken. Although unit guards investigated
accidents prior to 1966, it appears that since that time,
only the Complaints and Survey Sergeants have per-
formed that function.
It appears from the foregoing, and we find, in
agreement with the Petitioner, that the duties of the
Complaints and Survey Sergeants are part and parcel
of the statutorily described function of enforcement
of rules to protect property and safety of persons.
223
Furthermore, the basic policy reasons for requiring
guards to be represented in separate units and by
separate unions are directly applicable to employees
who perform duties of the nature here involved. The
potential conflict of interest between these employees
and the employees whose illegal activities they are
attempting to ferret out is plainly present, and in just
as significant degree as in the case of guards who are
empowered to physically restrain other employees
who engage in or are attempting to engage in such
illegal activities.
Accordin*ly, the unit is hereby clarified to include
the Complaints and Survey Sergeants.'
1 To the extent inconsistent herewith, the decision in Pinkerton 's National
Detective Agency, Inc, 124 NLRB 1076, is hereby overruled.