Our mantra as security providers should be business before pleasure

Sep 07, 2011 Letters

---

 

 

 

DEAR EDITOR,
A  security supervisor visits a contracted site to find the curvaceous  female guard on duty, adorned  by  a flamboyant peacock hair style, while donning a dazzling blue mini fine strap  night dress,  embellished with  feathers at the bottom and a matching  blue thong  and bedroom slippers. His initial reaction was to report to his manager that the female guard on duty has since gone mad.
However, when the manager arrived, he asked his supervisor if he really thought that the guard was indeed mad or she was just enjoying a good life?  Attempts to reason with the guard proved futile as she ascended gracefully and locked the door to the master bedroom behind her. Subsequent attempts to bring to an end the relationship between the guard (in question) and the client was handled poorly by the security company, which resulted in the loss of two high paying contracts.
Guarding against legal problems has become an important feature of everyday life, but more so, in corporate circles and in the provision of medical and security services in particular. In times gone by, life was simple and most conflicts or disagreements were resolved amicably with or without third party intervention, however, those days are now gone forever. Thus, it is now important that employees and management personnel alike, have a working understanding of the legal statutes which governs their respective industries.
The lack of legislation is confusing for security personnel and the public alike. Thus, British academic Mark Button cites evidence that some security personnel (as many as 10 per cent in the United Kingdom) even believe that they possess the same powers as do police officers. Nowhere, do specific ‘policing’  laws directly and consistently focus on the way that private security personnel are empowered to act, or to be given immunity from civil suit or criminal charges.
Moreover, there are few legal decisions and precedents emerging from the courts. Hence, it is often difficult for anyone to find a satisfactory body of law on the subject. The provision of private security services have always presented numerous legal challenges, many of which were often solved within the confines of the company and its clients. Legal conflict is a natural result of our constantly evolving society and an outgrowth of legal-ethical dilemmas which are often a result of development and  innovation.
Today, in the twenty first century, security managers will work a lot closer with lawyers and the law as the complexity of the security industry’s legal affairs increases.
As private security grows and professionalizes, understanding, evaluating, and managing legal affairs is essential, especially in terms of occupational health and safety, sexual harassment, civil liability, and employee law and regulations.
A significant amount of legal problems often arise from a number of human factors such as uncertainty, ignorance, abuse of power, poor training, neglect,  and a failure  by employees to adhere to the policies and procedures of an organization, among others. Given the ‘heteronymous’ nature  of the security  industry( it being made up and significantly influenced by external  factors ) many precedents  which are of import to the security industry, are in fact, borrowed from other industries of relevance.
Thus, the two lucrative contracts alluded to above, could have been retained by the security provider had they gone about the matter with caution and tact. While a company should have enforceable policies to control sexual relations in the work place, or on the worksite, as in the case of contract security guards, it is important that  security providers  understand the context in which sex occurs on the job.
Whatever form it takes , a sexual liaison in the workplace or on the job, has a motive behind it, as individuals bring their emotional needs and quirks to work with them.
The most obvious sex related problem today is harassment, however most commercial entities are equally weary of a sexual relationship which develops between a client and an employee with influence or authority or both ( an influential authoritarian ) here the company’s main concern is not of a legal nature, but to   protect itself  from compromise.
More significantly however, is the company’s desire to restrict its chances for legal exposure to liability which may result from the guard’s protracted absence from his or her posts, or a suit which could result when a relationship between a guard and a client goes bad and the client sues the company for something in retaliation. In order to safe guard itself from liability which may arise in these specific circumstances, a security provider needs to establish clear policies with respect to the (provision by guards) of none security related duties,  which must be clearly specified in their contract to avoid or minimize liability.
Understanding liability:
Liability arises when the courts determine that a security provider had a duty to protect the victim and that the duty was breached. When does a duty exist? This may have a lot to do with the contract terms.
Some contracts are designed to benefit parties other than the two signatories. For example, a company may hire a security provider specifically to protect its employees. This creates a duty on the part of the security provider towards those employees. Other contracts are less clear as to who or what is being protected. When the contract is ambiguous, it provides greater scope for liability.
To return to the case at hand, a security provider is almost powerless where a guard and client choose to freely engage in a relationship that is based upon mutual consent. However, the company could limit its exposure to liability by clearing outlining its position on none security related activities in the contract.
These include any activity which does not fall within the scope of the contract. It should be stated clearly that these activities would constitute a special arrangement between the guard and the client.
Thus, our mantra as protectors would always be ‘business before pleasure’ –but we should be equally capable and prepared to deal with the client whose mantra is ‘my pleasure is my business’.
Clairmont Featherstone

---

---