Rights and Obligations - The Reluctant Security Guard

318 Ethical Treatment of Employees

CASES

CAS E 1.

The Reluctant Security Guard

David Tuff, 24, is a security guard who has been working for the past 17
months for the Blue Mountain Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Blue
Mountain manages and operates retail shopping malls in several
midwestern states. The company has a security services division that
trains and supplies mall security guards, including those for the
Village Square Mall where Tuff has been employed.

Minnesota state and local laws require that security officers be
licensed and approved by the county police department. Security officers
are required to obey the police unit's rules. Tuff completed the
required training, passed the security guard compulsory examination, and
was issued a license. Tuff has consistently carried out his guard duties
conscientiously. Previously a four-year military policeman in the U.S.
Marine Corps. his commanding officer had praised both his service and
his integrity.

Part of his job training at Blue Mountain required that Tuff learn the
procedures found in the Security Officer's Manual, which uses military
regulations as a model. Two sections of this manual are worded as
follows:

Section V, subsection D.

Should a serious accident or crime, including all felonies, occur on the
premises of the licensee, it shall be the responsibility of the licensee
to notifY the appropriate police department immediately. Failure to do
so is a violation of the provisions of this manual.

Furthermore, the manual permits the following action if the provisions
are violated:

Section XI-disciplinary and deportment

General

1. The Private Security Coordinator may reprimand a licensee as
hereinafter provided. In cases of suspension or revocation, the licensee
shall immediately surrender his identification card and badge to the
County Police Department ....

Cause for Disciplinary Action

13. Any violation of any regulation or rule found in this manual is
cause for disciplinary action.

The reverse side of a security officer's license bears these statements:


Obey The Rules and Regulations Promulgated By The Superintendent Of
Police. We will obey all lawful orders and rules and regulations
pertaining to security officers promulgated by the superintendent of
police of the country or any officer placed by him over me.

Given this language, Tuff believed that his license could be revoked or
suspended for any failure to report illegal behavior such as drunk
driving and selling narcotics. He had sworn to uphold these regulations
at the end of his training and had later signed a statement
acknowledging that he knew a police officer could ask for his badge if a
conflict should arise.

Fourteen months after Tuff joined the company, Blue Mountain issued new
rules of procedure outlining certain assigned duties of its security
guards. These rules required security officers "to order and escort
intoxicated persons, including persons driving under the influence of
alcohol, off its parking lots and onto the public roads." The rules did
not instruct

From Anna Pinedo and Tom L. Beauchamp, "The Reluctant Security Guard."
Case Studies in Business, Society and Ethics, edited by Tom L.
Beauchamp, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 1998. Reprinted with
permission.



security officers to either arrest the drivers or to contact or alert
the police.

Tuff immediately, and publicly, opposed the company's new policy. Over
the ensuing months, he expressed his dissatisfaction to every company
officer he could locate. He complained to his immediate superiors,
sometimes several times a day, that he was being asked to set a drunk
out on the road who might later kill an innocent person. Tuff described
to these supervisors imagined scenarios in which a drunk clearly
violated the law, and he then asked them what he would be expected to do
in these circumstances under the new rules.

His immediate supervisor, Director of Security Manuel Hernandez, told
him that if any such situation arose he should contact the supervisor in
charge, who would make the decision. Hernandez noted that most drunks do
not weave down the road and hit someone. Tuff was not satisfied and used
abusive language in denouncing the rules. Hernandez became angry and
told Tuff that his complaints irritated his supervisors and that they
could tolerate only so much of his behavior. Hernandez also cautioned
him that he should worry less about his license and more about his
paycheck. Neither man put any complaint in writing. Tuff never received
a written warning or reprimand from any company official. Tuff
maintained that he considered the policy to be illegal, violative of the
rules he had sworn to uphold, and dangerous to the maintenance of his
license. Neither his supervisor nor the company manager agreed with his
interpretation. They encouraged him to continue his job as usual, but
under the new rules.

Tuff then contacted a volunteer organization working to prevent drunk
driving. At first he simply sought the organization's interpretation of
the law, but later, he voiced a specific complaint about the Blue
Mountain policy. His supervisors were approached by some representatives
of the volunteer organization, who expressed strong opposition to Blue
Mountain's policy for security guards and treatment of drunk drivers.

In the following weeks, Tuff discussed the company policy with several
other concerned security guards. He met with security officers Fred
Grant and Robert Ladd at a restaurant after work. They discussed the
company procedure and its conflict with their licensing requirements and
sworn commitments. They considered going to the local newspaper with
their grievances against the company policy.

Tuff then contacted a local television news station and a local
newspaper. He talked to four reporters about several drunk driving
incidents at Blue Mountain parking lots. The reporters pursued Tuff's
complaint by talking to company officials about the policy. The
reporters proved to their editors' satisfaction that Tuff's complaints
to the media were not given in reckless disregard of the truth and were,
in fact, entirely truthful.

Hernandez called Tuff into his office to discuss these disclosures to
the newspaper. Hernandez asked Tuff to sign a document acknowledging
that he had spoken with news reporters concerning Blue Mountain company
policies, but he refused to sign. Hernandez reminded him of a company
policy prohibiting an employee from talking to the media about company
policies. This policy is mentioned on a list of company rules
distributed to all employees that states that violation of the rules
could result in dismissal or in disciplinary procedures. Tuff knew the
company rule but did not consider his revelations a violation, because
he had not spoken with the press on company time.

Hernandez considered Tuff's interpretation of the rule's scope
ridiculous. He consulted with the company's Council of Managers that
afternoon. Every manager agreed that Tuff's interpretation of the rule
showed a blatant disregard for company policy and that Tuff's excuse was
an ad hoc rationalization. They also agreed that Tuff had shown himself
to be a complainer and a man of poor judgment, qualities that rendered
him unsuitable to be a Blue Mountain security guard. The discussion of
this problem at the meeting took little more than five minutes. Council
members instructed Hernandez to give Tuff a few days' leave to reflect
on the situation. Hernandez duly reported this conclusion to Tuff, who
then departed for his home. The number of days of leave he should take
was not specified, but both men agreed in an amicable though tense
setting that they would be in touch.

Three days later an article about the company's policies appeared in the
local newspaper, along with a picture of Tuff in the mall, about to
report for work. This story prompted an editorial that was critical of
the company on a local television station. The story relied entirely on
data provided by Tuff, some of which had been copied from his nightly
shift reports.

The newspaper had also interviewed Sergeant Shriver of the county police
department. He corraborated Tuff's interpretation that any failure by a
security guard to report those driving while intoxicated or those under
the influence of drugs constituted a violation of the security manual
and the specific terms of the officer's license. He also confirmed
Tuff's statement that police officers routinely inspect security
officers' activities and that the police have instructions to look for
failures to comply with license requirements.

After the television editorial, Blue Mountain began to receive phone
calls at a rate of approximately 15 per hour, with over 90 percent of
the callers expressing opposition to the company's policies. Several
callers indicated that they would no longer patronize the malls
mentioned in the newspaper story.

The Council of Managers immediately reconvened to consider this
escalation of the problem. Its members agreed that Tuff had to be fired
for his violation of the company rule against disclosures to the news
media. The managers considered Tuffs revelations an unforgivable act of
disloyalty. They discussed whether the proper and precise reason for
Tuffs dismissal was his disclosure of confidential information or his
approaching the media. Their decision on this point required a
sharpening of a vaguely worded corporate rule; a careful process of
interpretation revealed that approaching the media is grounds for
dismissal even if no disclosure of confidential information is made.

Five working days later, Tuff was called into the company manager's
office and dismissed. The manager informed him that the reason for this
dismissal was his discussions with the press, a violation of company
policy. Tuff then issued a public statement. He explained that his
complaints against Blue Mountain Company's procedures had stemmed from
his concern to protect the public and other security officers. Tuff had
discussed the policy with the company's other security guards, who had
all expressed some degree of concern over the policy because it forced
them to violate their licensing requirements and subjected them to
possible license suspension or revocation. Based on these encounters,
Tuff believed that he was acting on their behalf as well as on his own.

Tuff also disclosed a legal argument he wanted to pursue: He contended
that his admissions to the media and his complaints about company policy
were protected activities. The company interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights, as protected by
the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, by suspending and eventually
dismissing Tuff for his disclosures to the press, which violated company
policy.

Tuff brought his case to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB),
whose members determined that Blue Mountain was within its legal rights
to fire him. The board found that whistle blowers are legally protected
only if they engage in "concerted activity" together with their fellow
workers, Because Tuff had acted alone for the most part, he was not
protected. However, a NLRB spokesperson said the board made no moral
judgment on either the employer's or the employee's conduct. The
parties' moral behavior, he said, was not at stake in the NLRB decision.