This decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 21 addresses a petition filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 542 for a unit of "All Full Time and Part Time, Protection Agents/Engineer Escorts, assigned as escort drivers to ‘NDA’ client." The Employer, Universal Protection Service, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, contended that these employees are statutory guards under Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and therefore cannot be represented by the Petitioner, a union that admits non-guard employees to membership.

The Regional Director found that the Escort Protection Agents are indeed guards within the meaning of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act. This determination hinges on the Agents' duties, which involve safeguarding sensitive client property and engineers during field testing operations. The agents' responsibilities include monitoring their surroundings, proactively identifying and communicating security concerns, securing equipment, preventing unauthorized individuals from accessing vehicles, and handling interactions with the public and government officials. They are instructed to avoid dangerous situations, report incidents to their supervisors, and follow management's directives regarding security threats. Although they do not wear uniforms or carry weapons, the Regional Director concluded that these factors do not preclude them from being considered guards. The decision emphasizes that the agents' primary function is not merely transportation but the protection of the client's property and the confidentiality of its operations, which requires vigilance, situational awareness, and the enforcement of security protocols against other persons. The Regional Director contrasted the agents' duties with those of couriers in prior NLRB decisions like Pony Express Courier and Purolator Courier Corp. (Purolator II), highlighting that the agents are actively involved in protecting highly valued and confidential property, rather than simply delivering items of lesser intrinsic value.

Because the Petitioner admits non-guard employees to membership, and the Act prohibits the certification of a labor organization that admits non-guards to represent a unit of guards, the Regional Director dismissed the petition. This dismissal is based on the principle that guards must be represented by a union that exclusively represents guards to avoid potential conflicts of loyalty.

Significant Cases Cited

• Int’l Union of Op. Eng’r, Local 501 v. NLRB, 949 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2020): This case underscores the congressional intent to separate guards from other employees to prevent divided loyalties when a guard might be required to enforce employer rules against fellow union members.
• Wells Fargo Alarm Servs. v. NLRB, 533 F.2d 121 (3d Cir. 1976): This decision highlights that the Board's inquiry into guard status must focus on whether the potential conflict in loyalties, which concerned Congress, is present.
• The Boeing Company, 328 NLRB 128 (1999): This case established that guard responsibilities include traditional police and plant security functions such as rule enforcement against other employees, possession of authority to compel compliance, security training, monitoring access, and displaying indicia of guard status.
• Reynolds Metal Co., 198 NLRB 120 (1972): This decision established that to be a guard, an individual must enforce rules to protect property or keep people safe.
• Brink’s Inc., 226 NLRB 1182 (1976): This case confirmed that the statutory guard definition applies to individuals engaged in protecting the property of an employer's customers.

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.