Mgm Grand Hotel

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)