Madison Square Garden

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 971 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

971
325 NLRB No. 180
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
1 The sole issue presented for review is whether the Regional Di-
rector erred in finding that the petitioned-for event staff employees
are not guards within the meaning of Sec. 9(b)(3) of the Act.
3 The record indicates that the facility workers set up and break
down the events and perform light maintenance work.
4 The record also indicates that the Petitioner represents the con-
cession workers employed at the Civic Center by another entity.
5 As noted infra, the parties have stipulated to the supervisory sta-
tus of seven individuals.
6 During the winter, event staff employees are required to wear
identification tags, black pants, black sneakers or shoes, white shirts,
red ties, and red sweaters. During the summer, they substitute shirts
labeled ‘‘event staff’’ on the back, for the white shirts, ties, and
sweaters.
7 The record reveals that the stagehands are represented in a sepa-
rate unit by another labor organization.
8 The parties have stipulated that the following seven individuals
are statutory supervisors: Donna Konvent, Dianne Dowdell, Juan
Ortiz, Ron Brown, Skip Ward, Juliet Little, and Robin Tofil.
Madison Square Garden and Local 1716, Council 4,
AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 34–RC–
1565
June 30, 1998
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel, which has considered the Employer’s request for
review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direc-
tion of Election (pertinent portions of which are at-
tached as Appendix). The request for review is denied
as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
I would grant review. I believe that a substantial
question has been raised with respect to whether event
staff employees are statutory guards. In this regard, I
note that, on a periodic basis, these employees function
as ‘‘guards’’ who restrict public and employee access
to certain areas. On these days, this function is the en-
tirety of what they do. In these circumstances, I be-
lieve that a sufficient question has been raised as to
justify the Board’s review of the matter.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
. . . .
5. The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
entertainment business. Solely involved in this proceeding
are the Employer’s operations at the Hartford Civic Center
which it manages and where it presents exhibitions, concerts,
and sporting events. The Petitioner, which currently represent
the Employer’s facility workers3 at the Civic Center, seeks
to represent herein a unit composed of approximately 100
event staff employees. The Employer has filed a Motion to
Dismiss the petition claiming that the unit sought is com-
posed of guards within the meaning of the Act and that the
Petitioner is prohibited by the Act from representing them
because it also represents and admits to membership ‘‘non-
guards.’’ The Petitioner does not dispute the fact that it rep-
resents and admits non-guards as members.4 Rather, it con-
tends that none of the petitioned-for employees are guards
within the meaning of the Act.
The record indicates that the Employer’s event staff em-
ployees are assigned interchangeably to duties as ticket tak-
ers, ushers, inspectors, and ‘‘guards.’’ As ticket takers they
are stationed at the main entrance to the Civic Center where
they ensure that patrons’ present tickets for the appropriate
event, date, and time. As inspectors they are also stationed
at the main entrance where they ‘‘pat down’’ or use an elec-
tric wand to check patrons for ‘‘contraband’’ (i.e. bottles and
cans). As ushers they are stationed at the top and bottom of
the Civic Center’s aisles where they ensure that patrons with
tickets are in the proper locations. As ‘‘guards’’ they are sta-
tioned at various locations throughout the Civic Center where
access is prohibited (e.g. the ‘‘catwalk’’ overlooking the
arena and exits leading to the street) or limited to specific
individuals (e.g. members of the press, athletes, entertainers,
exhibitors, vendors, handicapped patrons, ‘‘skybox’’ patrons,
and private club members).
Although the event staff consists of approximately 100
employees the record reveals that only 16 to 20 employees
are assigned as ‘‘guards’’ to an event, and that they are ac-
companied by 16 to 20 police officers and an undisclosed
number of supervisors.5 Although event staff employees are
authorized to deny entrance and/or access to other individ-
uals and employees, there is no evidence that they can other-
wise detain anyone. To the contrary, the record clearly re-
veals that any problems encountered by event staff employ-
ees are to be referred to the supervisors or the police. In this
regard, the evidence indicates that event staff employees are
not armed, do not wear badges or traditional guard uni-
forms,6 do not provide crowd control, and cannot arrest indi-
viduals or eject them from the facility.
Based upon the above and the record as a whole I find
that none of the event staff employees are guards within the
meaning of the Act. Wolverine Dispatch, Inc., 321 NLRB
796 (1996), and cases cited therein. Therefore, the Employ-
er’s Motion to Dismiss the petition is hereby denied.
Accordingly, I find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All event staff employees employed by the Employer
at the Hartford Civic Center excluding facility staff,
stagehands,7 office clerical employees, and professional
employees, supervisors,8 and guards as defined in the
Act.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00971 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.142 APPS10 PsN: APPS10