Witnesses Express Concerns About Labor Union

Push to Combine Security Guards and

Other Employees in Bargaining Units

Employers Warn Workforce Panel of Potential for Serious National Security Consequences

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Witnesses before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations today expressed concerns about an increasing push by organized labor to pressure companies that employ security guards to agree to recognize unions as representatives of their guards’ bargaining units, even if the union also represents non-guard employees.  This issue has been brought into sharper focus of late because many of these efforts have focused on companies providing guard services on federal sites critical to national and homeland security, including Department of Energy and Department of Defense facilities.

“The law has long recognized a simple fact that most of us would agree is common sense: that in a crisis, an employer needs to know that those employees who he or she pays to protect facilities, property, and other employees, have an undivided loyalty to maintaining safety and security,” said Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX).  “And when we are talking about guards who are providing security and protective services for employers and sites that are vital to homeland security, the issue is all the more critical.”

The National Labor Relations Act generally disfavors including employees who provide security services to an employer in a union that includes other, non-guard employees.  As interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board, however, the law does not absolutely prohibit the “mixing” of guards and non-guards in a single union. 

Through a 1947 compromise as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress prohibited the involuntary employer recognition of “mixed units” out of concern for potential divided employee loyalties between the employer and the union.  However, the compromise does allow employers to voluntarily recognize a mixed unit on the theory that an employer is best able to determine whether the “divided loyalty” question presents a genuine issue for them.  Concerns have been raised, however, that organized labor may be increasing pressure on companies to recognize mixed units.

David Hickey, president of the International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America – the world’s largest union devoted to the representation of guards and security employees – explained the necessity of keeping guards and non-guards in separate bargaining units.

“The maintenance of guards in separate bargaining units and unions has avoided conflicts of interest between the enforcement of plant rules and the obligation of union membership,” Hickey explained.  “Equally, conflicts of interest have been avoided in strikes and other labor disputes while preserving the rights of the respective parties.  Since industrial crime and terrorism is on the increase, the continued need for a separate identity of guard employees is even more apparent.”

Brigadier General David W. Foley (Ret.), president of Wackenhut Services, Inc. – a firm that provides security services at many federal facilities – built on Hickey’s comments about the national security implications of combining guard and non-guard units.

“If general employees at a plant or warehouse or some other form of business were to strike and the employees guarding that business were affiliated with the striking employees, thereby supporting their fellow brothers by also striking, the business would be left unprotected,” said Foley.  “This realization is particularly stark when one considers that the very same situation could happen at a nuclear weapons facility, military complex, or other highly strategic asset within the United States. The national security of this country could be jeopardized by something as small as a dispute over fringe benefits.”

William Schurgin, a partner with the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, echoed Foley’s national and homeland security concerns, while underscoring the potential for sabotage – and a guard’s role in protecting against it.

“We must also be mindful, in this post-9/11 world, of the increasing role guards play in many safety-sensitive industries,” noted Schurgin.  “Private guards protect nuclear power plants, chemical factories, and defense contractor operations.  While guards protect these critical facilities from outside threats, unfortunately it is also true that they must protect them from possible sabotage by employees.  With such important security roles resting on the shoulders of guards, we cannot place guards in a situation in which they are forced to choose between supporting a fellow union member and reporting suspicious activity to their employer.”

Noting the possibility of addressing this matter further through either legislation or a closer committee examination, Johnson reiterated the underlying national security ramifications of organized labor’s push to combine guards and non-guards, concluding, “In the post 9/11 world, we cannot risk the potential for a lapse in security that could have dangerous consequences.”