Mgm Grand Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 139 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

MGM GRAND HOTEL
MGM Grand Hotel , Las Vegas and International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local 501, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Case 31-RC-5330
20 February 1985
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 24 June 1982 the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found, inter alia, that employees who operate
and monitor the Employer's J.C.-80 system were
not guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act. Accordingly,
the Regional Director directed an election in the
requested unit of J.C.-80 operators. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision. The Petitioner filed
an opposition to the Employer's request for review.
By telegraphic order dated 27 July 1982, the
Board granted the Employer's request for review.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a supplemental brief
on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case, including the supplemental brief on
review, with respect to the issue under review, and
makes the following findings.
The facts are not in dispute in this case but, in
order to analyze properly the role of the operators
in the Employer's security system, several factors
need to be emphasized.
In November 1980, the Employer had a serious
fire at the facilities involved here. At the time, the
Employer's security department was in charge of
fire alarms. After the fire, the Employer installed
the building with an automation system, the J.C.-
80, which functions as a life-safety fire alarm
system. In addition, the J.C.-80 is used for security
and engineering functions.
The J.C.-80 system i is housed in a separate
room adjacent to the security department offices.
The room containing the system is monitored by
the security department by means of a closed-cir-
cuit television located in the security department
offices. There are nine operators and one safety
system supervisor who work in the J.C.-80 room.2
i The J C -80 system is an extensive one, and includes, inter alia, two
computers, a cathode ray tube (CRT), a keyboard, printers, a graphic dis-
play panel, and numerous other controls and functions
2 The J C -80 department falls under the security division of the Em-
ployer's operations The security department is headed by a chief of secu-
rity who is involved in the hiring, disciplining, discharging, and other
terms and conditions of employment of the J C -80 operators The securi-
ty department also includes 182 uniformed and plainclothes officers and
their supervisors
139
As a rule, there are two operators per shift moni-
toring the J.C.-80 system. Significantly, security of-
ficers substitute for the operators for up to 2 hours
per day as relief during the operators' breaks and
lunch hours.
As noted above, the J.C.-80 is a building automa-
tion system used by this Employer for fire protec-
tion, security functions, and engineering functions.
The operators sit in the J.C.-80 room and monitor
the J.C.-80 system for fire prevention. They also
watch over smoke detectors, chemical fire suppres-
sion systems, and the like. With respect to security,
the operators monitor door exit alarms, stairwell
motion detectors, a watch tour system, and other
systems. The J.C.-80 system also performs func-
tions related to heating, ventilation, and air condi-
tioning, which are the responsibility of the engi-
neering department.
During an average month, approximately 15 fire
alarms are signaled by the J.C.-80 system. Alarm
conditions include smoke, temperature rise, water
flow, and manual pull station situations. In the
event of an alarm, the operator acknowledges that
he is aware of the alarm by pushing a button. He
then notifies security and other appropriate depart-
ments such as engineering or the fire department.
Upon notification, a security guard comes to the
J.C.-80 room and is then in charge of the oper-
ations.3
The operators perform no physical duties in rec-
tifying the alarm or abnormal situations. It is the
primary duty of the security guards to keep the
hotel safe for employees and guests. Thus, it is the
security guards' function to enforce company rules
against other employees. The security guards also
enforce rules against customers, including rules
dealing with cheating, injury, theft, misconduct,
and illness. Almost all security officers carry guns;
the operators do not.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of J.C.-
80 operators excluding guards and supervisors. The
Employer contends that the J.C.-80 operators are
guards within the meaning of the Act. It further
contends that because these employees are guards,
the Petitioner may not be certified as their repre-
sentatives, as the Petitioner admits to membership
individuals who are not employed as guards.4
Initially, the Regional Director found that the
Employer's security officers were guards, based
particularly on the fact that their primary duty is
to keep the hotel safe for employees and guests and
3 If the fire department becomes involved during a fire alarm , it is in
charge of the operations.
4 At the hearing, the Petitioner stipulated that it admits nonguards to
membership
274 NLRB No. 15
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to enforce company rules.5 However, the Regional
Director concluded that the J.C.-80 operators were
not guards. In so doing, he noted that the Board
has refused to classify as guards employees who do
not enforce rules to protect property or the safety
of persons on the employer's premises.6 The Re-
gional Director found that the operators here do
not have this authority and thus are not guards.
Contrary to the Regional Director, the foregoing
facts and the record as a whole show that the J.C.-
80 operators are intimately involved in the security
functions and life-safety procedures at the Employ-
er's establishment. This Employer has installed a
vastly sophisticated life-safety system, encompass-
ing myriad functions. While the system operates
primarily for fire detection, it performs significant
security functions. That the operators spend only a
portion of their time monitoring such functions is
ployer's system are as closely involved in protect-
ing the Employer's property and enforcing security
as are the Employer's plainclothes officers and uni-
formed guards. 1 ° In light of the above we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that these oper-
ators are guards under Section 9(b)(3) of the Act.
We also find that these operators do not share a
community of interest apart from the rest of the se-
curity department. Further, as we have found these
employees to be guards, we also find that the Peti-
tioner is barred from being certified as their repre-
sentative . " Inasmuch as there is nothing in the
Act that warrants the use of Board resources to re-
solve a question concerning representation raised
by a labor organization which cannot be certl-
fied, 12 we will dismiss the instant petition.
ORDER
immaterial in determining their status as guards The petition is dismissed.
under the Act.7 The operators of the J.C.-80
system, which falls within the jurisdiction of the se-
curity department, serve to monitor and report
possible security problems and infractions and pos-
sible life-endangering situations." Employees per-
forming similar functions have been found to be
guards under the Act.9 The operators of the Em-
s Reynolds Metals Co. (Reduction Plant), 198 NLRB 120 (1972)
6 See, e g, American District Telegraph Co, 128 NLRB 345 (1960)
7 See, e g, Reynolds Metals Co, supra at fn 4
e We thus find American District Telegraph Co, supra at fn 5, factually
distinguishable from the instant case The duties of plant employees at
issue in American District Telegraph (ADT), in contrast to those of em-
ployees noted above , involved the installation and maintenance of certain
electronic security devices provided by ADT to its customers for protec-
tion against fire, theft , or equipment failures These ADT employees
were dispatched to the alarm site only when it was already known that
the cause of the alarm was some malfunction and generally in circum-
stances where a customer or a guard was already present at the scene
8 Genesco, Inc, 129 NLRB 1334 (1961) We distinguish Board decisions
holding that employees who monitor alarm systems are not statutory
guards See , e g , Caterpillar Tractor Co, 109 NLRB 871 (1954), Wells
Fargo Alarm Services v. NLRB, 533 F 2d 121 (3d Cir 1979), enfg 218
NLRB 68 (1975) The J C -80 system represents a technological advance
in alarm systems which, in our opinion , was not contemplated by the cir-
cumstances which provided the bases for the holdings in prior Board
cases Further, in contrast to employees who simply monitor alarms and
report the receipt of signals to guards or the police, J C -80 system opera-
tors, in addition to notifying secunty officers , deal directly with employ-
ees in other departments, such as the engineering department, and work
with security officers to determine the cause of the disturbance and to
correct it
1s The fact that the J C -80 operators must notify a security officer
does not detract from their guard status The Board held in A W Schles-
inger Geriatric Center, 267 NLRB 1363, 1364 (1983 ), that it is sufficient
that [the employees in question ] possess and exercise responsibility to ob-
serve and report infractions, as this is an essential step in the procedure
for the enforcement of the [employer's] rules
" Sec 9(b)(3) states
[N]o labor organization shall be certified as the representative of em-
ployees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits to
membership , or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organiza-
tion which admits to membership , employees other than guards
12 Wackenhut Corp, 169 NLRB 398 (1968) See also University of Chi-
cago, 272 NLRB 873 fn 9 (1984)