Hoffman Security

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1991

302 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

922
302 NLRB No. 141
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoffman Security, Ltd. and District 1199C, Na-
tional Union of Hospital and Health Care Em-
ployees, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case
4–RC–17374
May 14, 1991
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND RAUDABAUGH
On July 6, 1990, the Regional Director for Region
4 issued a Decision and Order finding that the recep-
tionists in the petitioned-for unit are guards within the
meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. Inasmuch as the
Petitioner admits nonguards to membership, the Re-
gional Director dismissed the petition. The Petitioner
filed a timely request for review of the Regional Direc-
tor’s decision, contending that the receptionists are not
statutory guards. The Employer filed a brief in opposi-
tion. On November 20, 1990, the Board granted the
Petitioner’s request for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the brief on review, and has decided to
reverse the Regional Director’s conclusion and to find
that the receptionists are not guards within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.
The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged
in the business of providing security services to var-
ious customers. The Employer employs security offi-
cers and receptionists at Graduate Hospital in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania. The record shows that the recep-
tionists assigned to information desks at five locations
greet visitors, provide information and directions, and
observe and report irregularities. At most locations,
these receptionists monitor access to the patient and
medical service floors by distributing visitor passes
and/or asking visitors to sign in. At two locations, the
Pepper Pavilion Connector and the Diagnostic Services
Building where guards are also present, the reception-
ists monitor a closed circuit TV. There are no sign-in
logs or visitor passes at the Pepper Pavilion location.
At the Diagnostic Services Building, the receptionist
does maintain a sign-in log, and a building security
alarm system that terminates at the receptionist’s desk
is partially installed. When finished, it will provide re-
ception personnel with knowledge of activity in the
fire towers and other doors leading out of the building
both up on the roof and out into the street level. Re-
ceptionists are instructed not to leave their desks, and
visitors frequently proceed directly to the elevators,
sometimes unobserved, without first stopping at the re-
ception desk. The receptionists often work at different
locations during their workweek, and it is not unusual
for them to cover for a receptionist during lunch at an-
other location on the same shift. Visitors are not re-
quired to sign out when they leave and the reception-
ists do not make daily reports. The receptionists do not
inspect items carried by people entering or exiting the
building and have not been instructed to take any ac-
tion when they see items carried out of the building.
There is a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week guard service, and
the receptionists are supervised separately from these
security officers. The receptionists do not cover for se-
curity officers during their absence or otherwise per-
form their functions. Although the security officers do
not fill in for receptionists while they are on break, at
some locations, security officers staff the receptionist’s
desk where they perform the same functions as recep-
tionists. It is mainly the security officers, not the re-
ceptionists, who access the elevator key for emergency
personnel during fire drills and alarms. The reception-
ists, unlike the security officers, do not make rounds
or use walkie-talkies.
The receptionists work from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. or
from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m., while, as noted, the security of-
ficers work three shifts, 24 hours per day. The recep-
tionists start at a wage rate of $5.50 per hour, while
security officers start at $6 per hour. The receptionists
and the security officers wear the same uniforms,
punch the same timeclock, and receive the same bene-
fits. Neither the receptionists nor the security officers
carry weapons. The receptionists wear identification
badges that read ‘‘Receptionist’’ and the security offi-
cers wear identification badges that read ‘‘Security.’’
The receptionists do not receive any training with the
security officers, except for one seminar on public re-
lations given to all employees at the hospital.
Based on the record as a whole, we find the recep-
tionists not to be guards, as the facts do not show that
they perform guard duties at any of the five locations.
The record shows that the receptionists’ primary func-
tions are merely to greet visitors, provide information
and directions, and observe and report irregularities.
Visitors often pass the receptionist’s desk unobserved,
and there is 24-hour guard service present. Thus, it ap-
pears that any guard-like duties that the receptionists
perform are incidental to their basic receptionist func-
tions. While it is true that monitoring a closed circuit
television may in some circumstances be indicative of
guard status, here the receptionists appear to use it as
an additional way of viewing who enters the premises,
particularly with respect to the Pepper Pavilion Con-
nector where there are no sign-in logs or visitor passes
and visitors enter and exit freely. Similarly, at the Di-
agnostic Service Building, visitors at times go directly
to the elevator without stopping at the desk to sign the
log. With respect to the security alarm system, it is
923HOFFMAN SECURITY
only partially installed, and there is 24-hour guard cov-
erage of the premises.
The cases cited by the Regional Director in support
of his finding that the hospital receptionists are guards
are distinguishable. In A. W. Schlesinger Geriatric
Center, 267 NLRB 1363 (1983), the two maintenance
employees found to be guards were responsible for
locking and unlocking doors and gates, standing by the
doors to observe the shift change, monitoring pack-
ages, assuring the safety of employees, making hourly
rounds, and checking lights in the parking lots and
other areas. The maintenance employees had the au-
thority to proceed on their own to ask that a disturb-
ance cease or that an unauthorized person leave, al-
though the maintenance employees were instructed to
contact a supervisor or law enforcement authorities
first. Here, by contrast, there are other security forces
on the premises. The receptionists do not monitor
packages, assure the safety of individuals, make
rounds, or check lights in parking lots or other areas.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the receptionists
have the authority to take independent action in the
event of a disturbance; instead, they contact the secu-
rity forces on the premises.
Walterboro Mfg. Corp., 106 NLRB 1383 (1953); Su-
preme Sugar Co., 258 NLRB 243 (1981); and Louis
Dreyfus Canada Ltd., 268 NLRB 1254 (1984), also
cited by the Regional Director, are cases in which
plant watchmen were found to be guards because they
made rounds, generally during nonoperating hours, to
prevent unauthorized entry and vandalism and to report
infractions of company rules. Here, receptionists work
during operating hours, do not make rounds, and do
not necessarily prevent unauthorized persons from en-
tering the premises. Indeed, they are instructed not to
leave their desks, and visitors often go directly to the
elevators, sometimes unobserved, without stopping at
the receptionists’ desks.
We find this case to be similar to Ford Motor Co.,
116 NLRB 1995 (1956). There, the Board found a re-
ceptionist not to be a guard even though she did not
permit unauthorized employees to pass through the
lobby, immediately reported to her supervisor any vio-
lation of company security rules and regulations,
checked in and issued passes to all vendors and visi-
tors, and required clearance passes for all incoming
and outgoing packages, and even though a plant guard
performed the same duties on shifts when the recep-
tionists were not present. Here, the receptionists do not
control admission, do not inspect packages or other
items carried in or out of the building, and have not
been instructed to take any action when they see items
carried out of the building. See Guards Union Local
79 (ICI Americas), 297 NLRB 1021 (1990), in which
the receptionist/switchboard operator was found not to
be a guard.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the recep-
tionists are not guards within Section 9(b)(3). Accord-
ingly, we reverse the Regional Director’s decision, re-
instate the petition, and remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for further appropriate action.
ORDER
It is ordered that the Regional Director’s dismissal
of the representation petition is reversed, the petition
is reinstated, and the proceeding is remanded to the
Regional Director for further appropriate action.