rmation (2012), “Kinder Morgan monitors and inspects its pipeline system 24-hours a day from its state-of-the-art System Control Center” (Kinder Morgan: Pipeline, 2012, p. 3). Likewise, the organization enjoined the public to assist in ensuring safety and security of the noted assets through reliance on “neighbors, contractors and government and safety officials to help local field personnel protect the pipeline and identify possible damage or suspicious activity” (Kinder Morgan: Request, 2012, par. 1).
It is therefore justifiable that more than one security guard per shift, particularly two security guards per shift, would man identified organization’s physical assets and perimeter due to the following reasons: (1) assets and resources to be guarded are highly volalite and flammable; very costly and any disruption due to theft, pilferage or damage would be detrimental to the organization and to the community it serves; (2) security personnel should be strategically located in diverse sites to ensure that critical risk areas are covered at all times; (3) as noted in the company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, specifically under the provision of Protection of Assets, it was noted that “company property or equipment may not be removed from the premises without advance authorization from the employees supervisor. Personal use of Company tools or equipment is prohibited except in case of prior supervisory approval” (Kinder Morgan: Code, 2012, p. 17); therefore checking and verifying approval protocols necessitate the assistance of an additional security personnel, if and when, immediately required; (4) if one guard needs to be excused at one point in time due to any valid reason (for personal hygiene or to eat, drink or take a quick and much needed snack), there is another one who could fully assume the position which was temporarily left.
An organization such as KM, which reportedly discloses that safety, environmental protection, and the