Caesar's Palace

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1972

194 N.L.R.B. 818 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Desert Palace , Inc., d/b/a Caesar's Palace and Local
711 Union of Gaming & Affiliated Casino Employ-
ees of America, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-1707
January 3, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Ronald T. Smith.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements
of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional
Director for Region 31 transferred this case to the
Board for decision. The Petitioner and the Employer
filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case,' including the
briefs, the National Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer's annual gross revenues exceed $500,000
and purchases of products which originate outside the
State of Nevada exceed $50,000 annually. We find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
1 During the course of the hearing, the parties agreed to' incorporate by
reference evidence of testimony given in Consolidated Casinos Corporation,
Sahara Division, Case 31-RC-1676
2 El Dorado Inc., d/b/a El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579.
3 194 NLRB No. 139
4 During the course of the hearing , the Employer made a motion to
dismiss the petition on the basis that the Petitioner is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act The Employer made a second
motion for dismissal or suspension of action on the petition after the close
of the hearing until the Nevada Gaming Commission completed its
investigation and determined when the Employer would be able to deal
with the Petitioner if certified These motions were reserved for ruling by
the Regional Director Based on our decision with respect to Petitioner's
status as a labor organization, the motions are hereby denied
5 The Employer also contends that Petitioner is not a labor organization
because certain provisions of its constitution, pertaining to members'
eligibility for union office, conflict with the requirements of the Landrum-
Griffin Act We do not agree with this contention The NLRB is not
entrusted with the administration of the Landrum-Griffin Act. An
organization's possible failure to comply with that statute should be
litigated in the appropriate forum under that act , and not by the indirect
and potentially duplicative means of our consideration in the course of
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2
2. For the reasons delineated by us in the
Landmark Hotel case,3 we find here, as we did there,
that the Petitioner is a labor organization 4 within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.5
The parties stipulated, and we find, that' the
Intervenor6 is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. It was stipulated, and we find, that the following
is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining:
All gaming casino dealers, shills, keno writers,
keno runners, pit clerks, chip runners, coin
wrapper, slot floormen and slot mechanics em-
ployed by the Employer at Caesar's Palace, Las
Vegas, Nevada, but excluding casino shift manag-
ers, assistant casino shift managers , pit bosses, pit
floormen, boxmen, keno shift managers, assistant
keno shift managers, booth cashiers, change girls,
casino cage cashiers, credit clerks, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act'and all other employees.
[Direction of Election? omitted from publication.]
determining the Union 's status under Sec. 2 (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
6 During the course of the hearing , the International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 501 , AFL-CIO (hereinafter Intervenor), moved
to intervene and the motion was granted based on the showing of interest
Gaming and Office Employees Union attempted to intervene and
participated in the hearing but did not have a showing of interest prior to
the closing of the hearing and its motion to intervene was denied.
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N. LR B. v. Wyman -Gordon Co , 394 U.S.
759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 31 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed
194 NLRB No. 140