Electro-Protective Corp. of Georgia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

ELECTRO-PROTECTIVE CORPORATION OF GEORGIA 1141
Electro-Protective Corporation of Georgia and Com-
munication Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 3204, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-12040
August 27, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On April 15, 1980, the Regional Director for
Region 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of
all production and maintenance employees includ-
ing employees classified as installers, signal takers,
and service employees, employed at the Employ-
er's Atlanta, Georgia, facility. Thereafter in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion, on the ground that, inter alia, in finding that
the service employees are not guards within the
meaning of the Act, he departed from well-estab-
lished precedent. The Petitioner filed a statement in
opposition to the request for review.
By telegraphic order dated May 9, 1980, the Em-
ployer's request for review was granted. Thereafter
the parties filed briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case including the briefs and makes the follow-
ing findings:
The Employer is engaged in the selling, install-
ing, servicing, and monitoring of local fire and bur-
glar alarm systems which either activate a bell or
siren at a customer's location or activate a signal at
the Employer's central station, within its Atlanta,
Georgia, facility. The Employer also operates simi-
lar facilities within the States of Maryland, New
Jersey, and Florida.
The Employer's service employees are responsi-
ble for responding to the signals received from the
Employer's customers who have "guard response"
(or "key account") service. This type of service re-
quires that the service employee have keys to the
customer's premises, go to the location within a
specified period of time, and await the arrival of
either the customer or the police who have been
notified by the central station. While the service
employee is waiting, he is required to patrol the
outside of the customer's premises, making a visual
251 NLRB No. 154
check for signs of breaking and protecting the
premises from unauthorized persons entering. The
service employee is also required, upon arrival of
the police, to unlock the premises and accompany
the police inside. Then he is required to accompa-
ny the police in a complete search of the building,
after which he will ascertain the reason why the
alarm was set off and then repair or reset the alarm
and secure the premises. If the customer arrives,
the service employee is required to check out the
customer for password identification. If the identifi-
cation is not valid, the service employee will not
let the individual enter the facility and will either
detain the person or turn him away. If the identifi-
cation is valid, the service employee is required to
open the premises, accompany the customer in
searching the building, ascertain the reason for the
alarm activation, and repair or reset the alarm and
secure the premises.
With the "No Key" account service, the custom-
er is notified and the service employee is dis-
patched to the premises. The service employee is
required to make a complete exterior search of the
building and to wait up to I hour for the arrival of
the customer in order to gain entry into the build-
ing. The service employee is required to obtain sat-
isfactory identification of the customer and the cus-
tomer's signature, and accompany the customer
into the building while both inspect the premises.
Upon completion of both classes of service de-
scribed above, the service employee is required to
file a report with the Employer.
The Employer's service employees drive radio-
equipped vans in responding to calls received from
the central station. Service employees are required
to wear a uniform and badge and to carry a flash-
light and nightstick.' The Employer does not issue
firearms but does allow the service employees to
carry their own personal handguns while on duty.
The Employer estimated that over 75 percent of
the service employees at the Atlanta facility carry
handguns.
The Regional Director found that the primary
duties of the service men consist of going to the
premises and restoring or resetting alarms to work-
ing order during the night or nonbusiness hours.
He concluded that although there was some risk
involved in making these calls, the service employ-
ees did not take any action or assume any role
which altered the fundamental nature of their
work. The Regional Director found it significant
I The Employer is certified according to Underwriters Laboratories
Standards (UL 611) Central-Station Burglar Alarm Units and Systems.
Among other things, ULS requires the Employer to be inspected twice
yearly and requires that service employees carry firearms or nightsticks.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the service person was dispatched after the
police were notified and concluded that the service
men were not guards within the meaning of the
Act. We disagree.
It is clear from the record that the Employer
provides its customers with protective services
which go beyond the mere installation and servic-
ing of alarm systems. The service employees per-
form an integral role in the overall protection of-
fered-not one limited to their ability to deactivate
or reset the alarm. Part of the protection the cus-
tomer pays for is the response by the service em-
ployee in the van and the resulting presence of that
individual, in uniform, at the customer's premises
while the alarm is sounding, and his protection of
the premises until the police or the customer ar-
rives. The service employee plays a further protec-
tive role in requiring identification by the customer
and prohibiting the entry of any unauthorized per-
sons. Once the premises are entered, either with
the customer or the police, the service employee
joins in an inspection to determine the cause of the
alarm's activation. The alarm is then corrected and
the service employee later files a report as to the
incident.
Contrary to the Regional Director, our analysis
of the duties of the service employees reveals that
they play a significant protective role in the serv-
ices offered to the customer. Their presence at the
premises of the customer, their protection of these
premises until the police or customer arrive, and
their authority to deny entrance to persons lacking
proper identification are important parts of that
function. In carrying out the aforementioned duties
as well as entering the premises after responding to
an alarm, they face the possibility of personal con-
frontation with intruders. 2 The Board has long
held, with court approval, that Section 9(b)(3) of
the Act which defines a "guard" applies equally to
persons engaged in protecting the property of an
employer's customers. 3 In our view, the service
employees here perform such a function.
Under the circumstances we find that the service
employees are guards within the meaning of the
Act 4 and they are therefore excluded from the
unit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that challenges to the ballots
of the service employees be sustained and that the
Regional Director open and count the remaining
ballots and take further appropriate action.
2 Brink'\. Incorporuated 226 NLRB 1182 (1976), and cases cited herein
:' Amnrican District Telegraph Compuny of the Clvloand Company, 160
NLRUH 1130 (1966): AIDS Courier Service. 1nc.. 248 NI.RB 1320 (1980).
' We do no[t rely Io Wicli Fargo larm .Srvircs., A4 Divlsi)n oj Baker
Industries, Inc. 218 NILRB 68 I1975), ed. 553 F2d 121 (1976), as con-
trolling this case Although the facts i the instant case are in some ways
similar, i Well IIurgo, upra, it was determined that the primary function
of the servicemen was to repair and sersice alarm systems They were
not required to search for intruders or restrain persons from entering, in-
asmuch as this was found to be the responsibilit o the police. There-
fore, the element of potential personal confrontation saas not present in
their duties There are other significant factors which distinguish the in-
stant case from WIlls Faurg: (1) the police are only called by the Emplo-
er fr the customers with the "ke" accounts, which is approximately 50
percenlt of the Eniployer's business, (2) the record suppiorts the finding
that in the majority of responses, service employees arrive at the custom-
er's premises before the police and atch the premises, and (3) the ele-
ment of potential fr personal cotnfronltation is present as discussed above
West Virginia Pulp and Pper (mnpanly (llinde & Dauch Division. Detrmoit
Plant),. 141 NLR4H 116) (1963)