Circus

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Circo Resorts, Inc. d/b/a Circus Circus and Interna-
tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Lo-
cal 363. Case 32 CA 1069
September 5. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNIN(; ANI) MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PNE.I.O
On June 18, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Stan-
ley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order,2 as modified herein.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
11950)., enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d C'ir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Additionally, we note and hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's
inadvertent reference to "Smith" instead of "South" in that portion of the
Decision entitled "Allegations of Unlawful Conduct Subsequent to July 9."
Finally, in the absence of exceptions, we adopt, proforma, the Administra-
tive Law Judge's finding that Respondent did not create the impression of
surveillance when Supervisor Davis indicated to employee Pniak Respon-
dent's impressions regarding the antiunion sympathies of certain of Pniak's
fellow employees and Respondent's hope that Pniak would vote against the
Union.
2 Respondent contention in its post-hearing brief, that the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order should be modified with respect to Tom
Sorce since. Respondent claims, pursuant to the United States District
Court's outstanding 10j) injunction Respondent has offered Sorce reinstate-
ment, is without merit inasmuch as post-hearing matters of this nature are
appropriately raised in compliance proceedings.
Further, we find no merit in Respondent's exception to the Administrative
Law Judge's recommendation that the Board's Order require Respondent to
cease and desist from "in any other manner interfering with. restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act." In our view, Respondent's unlawful conduct--which included nu-
merous and repeated acts of coercive interrogation, an unlawful wage in-
crease, threats, and two discriminatory discharges, all accomplished within a
relatively short period of time following the advent of union activities is
sufficiently aggravated and widespread to warrant a broad order under the
rationale of the Board's recent Decision in Hickmort Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB
1357 (1979).
Finally, with respect to the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
remedial bargaining order, we note that, in accordance with our Decision in
Beasley Energy, Inc., d/b/a Peaker Run Coal Company, Ohio Division # 1.
228 NLRB 93 (1977). Respondent's obligation to bargain with the Union
dates from July 4, 1978, the date Respondent embarked upon its course of
unlawful conduct, and the date the Union achieved a card majority. For the
reasons stated in his separate opinion in Beasley Energy, Inc., supra. Chair-
man Fanning would date the bargaining order prespectively.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Circo
Resorts. Inc., d/b/a Circus Circus, Reno, Nevada, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order. as so
modified:
Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and reletter
the subsequent paragraph accordingly:
"(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order."
DECISION
SIAFFEEFNI OF Iln1 CASL
StANI FY GII.BERI, Administrative Law Judge: Based
upon a charge filed on July 12. 1978, as amended on July
19, August 3, and August 17, 1978. by International Alli-
ance of Theatrical Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators Local 363,1 hereinafter referred to as the Union.
the complaint herein was issued on August 23. 1978. There-
after. it was amended on October 5, 1978, as well as during
the course of the hearing. The complaint, as amended, al-
leges that Circo Resorts. Inc., d/b/a Circus Circus, herein-
after referred to as Respondent or Company, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( I) of the Act on a number of occasions and
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by discharging
employees Tom Sorce and Alan Bledsoe. Further, the com-
plaint asserts that a bargaining order is warranted with re-
spect to a described unit of Respondent's employees to rem-
edy said violations of the Act. By its answer, as amended
during the course of the hearing, Respondent, in essence.
denies that it violated the Act as alleged and that a bargain-
ing order is warranted.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Reno, Nevada,
on October 26 and 27 and November 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16,
1978, before me, duly designated as Administrative Law
Judge. Appearances were entered on behalf of all the par-
ties and briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent.
Based upon the entire record in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified. I make the
following:
The name of the Charging Party as it appears in the caption, the charge.
and amendments thereto is incomplete and was corrected during the course
of the hearing.
244 NLRB No. 142
880
CIRCUS CIRCUS
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENI
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
operating a hotel and gambling casino in Reno. Nevada.
Although it also operates a hotel and gambling casino in
Las Vegas, Nevada, the Las Vegas operation is not involved
in this proceeding.
As is admitted by Respondent, during the 12 months
prior to the issuance of the complaint, it, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods or
services valued in excess of $5,000 which originated outside
the State of Nevada.
As is also admitted by Respondent, it is now, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondent, the Union is now, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Description of the Reno Facility
The Reno facility was built during late 1977 and early
1978 and opened at 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 1978. It is 5-story
building. The first or main floor contains the casino. The
second floor or mezzanine contains one bar and three res-
taurants. The third, fourth, and fifth floors contain the 104
guest rooms. In between the first and second floors is an
area designated as the "midway" which is an arena or hip-
podrome area. Around its perimeter are carnival type
booths with electronic or mechanical games or with mer-
chandise for sale such as photographs and T-shirts.
There is an entrance to the midway by a ramp from the
mezzanine or second floor. Also, the mezzanine looks out
onto the midway. There is a customer path or walkway
around the circumference of the midway.
In the center of the midway is a stage.on and above
which various circus type acts are performed throughout
the day beginning at 11 a.m. and concluding at approxi-
mately midnight with approximately a I-hour break be-
tween 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. This stage area contains an over-
head monorail used by some of the acts as well as rigging
for trapeze equipment and a net for the trapeze acts. There
is also a telescope type platform which descends from and
rises to the ceiling and is used in some acts to raise the
performer.
Above and in front of the stage area is a room designated
as the light and sound booth. This room is accessible from
the midway through a door, up a steel stairway, and down
a catwalk. Contained in this room are light and sound
equipment with controls for the light and sound utilized in
the stage area. This area is also used to store balloons and
compressed air equipment to blow up the balloons khich
are used in one of the acts and also to store supplies for the
photo booth.
As is true of many other casinos in the gaming industr,
in Nevada, Respondent utilizes live entertainment as a
means of attracting the public to its premises. Howe er. the
entertainment offered by Respondent in both its Las Vegas
and Reno facilities is unique in that it consists of said circus
acts.' The circus performers are not employees of Respon-
dent, hut are independent contractors who negotiate 26t-
week agreements with Respondent.
B. The Bargaining ,Unit Inolvhed
Respondent denies paragraph VI of the complaint which
reads as follows:
The following described employees of Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act: All stage hand. lighting and sound employees
employed by Respondent at its facility at 500 N. Sierra
Street. Reno. Nevada; excluding all other employees.
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
In effect, Respondent contends that it would be inappropri-
ate "to carve out" a unit of stagehands "from all other
operating personnel and all other manual personnel of the
hotel." In support of this contention Respondent cites cases
involving conventional hotels' which, in my opinion. are
inapplicable to the issue in this proceeding. The stagehands
employed by Respondent are not involved in an) was with
the operation of the conventional hotel aspects of Respon-
dent's facility.
Respondent's "entertainment department" employs
stagehands at its respective facilities. The principle job du-
ties of these employees at the Reno facility are to set and
strike the props for each of the circus performances and to
operate the lighting and sound facilities prior to. during.
and subsequent to each of the acts during the course of a
shift. The record reflects that the stagehand emplosees per-
form these duties in one or both to two locations. around
the stage area or in the light and sound booth upstairs.
With the exception of the performers. no other persons
work in these locations. The stagehands are supervised on a
day-to-day basis by the stage manager, Al Davis. an admit-
ted supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Prior to and at the time the Reno facility opened fior
business on July 1., 1978, Respondent employed five stage-
2 Other casinos utilize conventional forms of entertainment ranging from
single performers, such as singers or comedians. to large stage productions.
West, Inc. db/a Holids Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781 (1t73); 1otlif
Equities d/b/a The Regency Hoa House, 171 NLRB 1347 (1968): and 1 i
ward-Ho Hotel Company, 437 F.2d I 110 (9th Cir. 1971).
' 1 ruled that I would receive no evidence as to the operations of the .as
Vegas facility based on the opinion that it would inappropnatel extend the
litigation by requiring a comparison of the two facilities. Furthermore, it
appears that there is a collective-bargaining agreement covering the stage-
hands at the Law Vegas facilities. I deemed it would only cause confusion to
attempt to determine not only whether the physical layout of the to aclii-
ties were sufficiently similar to draw meaningful inferences. but also whether
the operations of the stagehands in Las Vegas were predicated on necessits
or on the provisions of the union contract.
ssi
DI)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hand employees: Eric Powers. John South. Thomas Sorce,
Dan Pniak. and Ross Hartzell. A sixth. Alan Bledsoe, was
hired on July 3 and commenced working on July 4.
'The record reflects that the nature of' the work calls for
specific skills and experience and that the aforementioned
employees were hired because of said skills and experience.
For example, both Sorce and Bledsoe. in addition to their
experience in the entertainment industry as stagehand em-
ployees, had training and college degrees in the theatre in-
dustry. Powers, South, and Hartzell had extensive back-
grounds specifically in the circus industry: Powers had been
a director in the circus industry; South had been employed
in the circus industry for more than 25 years; and Hartzell
had been involved in the circus industry for a considerable
portion of his life. The sixth employee, Pniak, did not have
specific circus or theatre experience, but he did have exten-
sive experience and training in electronics, a skill related to
the lighting and sound functions performed at the facility.
Unlike the other employees at the casino, the stagehand
employees fill out timesheets and are not required to punch
a timeclock at the facility. The record is devoid of any evi-
dence that the stagehand or lighting and sound work was
performed by employees other than the employees desig-
nated above;' nor is there any significant evidence that the
stagehand employees performed work other than duties re-
lating to the stage area or the light and sound booth., More-
over, there is no evidence of interchange of employees or
job responsibilities as between the stagehand employees
and any other employees working at the facility.
Because of the completely unique combination of a hotel,
gambling casino, and entertainment by circus acts, there
does not appear to be any precedent governing the issue of
the appropriateness of the above-described bargaining unit.
Based on facts set forth above, it appears that the stage-
hands had little or no community of interest with any other
class or classes employees at Respondent's Reno facility. In
the circumstances, it is my judgment that the above allega-
tion as to the stagehands being an appropriate bargaining
unit has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
There is no dispute that on July 4 all six stagehands
signed authorization cards for the Union. There is evidence
that a seventh employee, Pierre Villenave, did part-time
stagehand work mainly in connection with two of the circus
acts by which he was also employed. It appears that he had
no particular schedule, was not required to sign in and out
(as were the other stagehands), was paid $150 per week (less
than the other six), and had little community of interest
with the other stagehands who worked either on the day
shift or evening shift. I do not pass on whether he should or
should not be considered a member of the bargaining unit
since, in either event, it is clear that the Union represented
a majority of the members of the above-described bargain-
ing unit commencing on July 4.
With the exceptions noted below of work performed by Pierre Villenave.
Davis, and assistance by the performers themselves. Said exceptions are
deemed to be of no significance in resolving the issue of the appropriateness
of the described bargaining unit.
' Except for a minimal amount of work, such as changing light bulbs In
the area and carrying photo supplies to the photo booth
Also. the question was raised as to whether Sorce was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act (which Respon-
dent contended). He was originally working at $3.75 per
hour prior to the opening of the facility. the lowest amount
then being paid to the stagehands. After the opening (on
July 3) he and the other stagehands were changed to a
weekly salary for a 48-hour week. He received $260 per
week (from $3.75 per hour). Powers (from $3.75 per hour).
and Hartzell (from $4 per hour) $240, Bledsoe started at
$225, and South (from $5 per hour) and Pniak (from $4 per
hour) $200. It appears from the record that Score was the
best qualified in the sound and light functions and appar-
ently that was the reason for his receiving the highest sal-
ary.' There is no showing that he had any authority exer-
cised by a supervisor or was told by management that he
had such authority. He was scheduled to work the light and
sound booth on his shift and there is no showing that he
directed the other two men on his shift. While it is true he
recommended Bledsoe as a relief man and Bledsoe was
hired, this one incident is far from sufficient to establish
that he was supervisor or was considered to be one by the
other stagehands.' Thus, there is no merit in Respondent's
contention that the authorization cards were tainted be-
cause Sorce was active in interesting the stagehands to seek
representation by the Union.
C. Incidents From Julv 4 Through Juv 8
Based on credited testimony it is found that on July 4.
the date Bledsoe first reported to work, Sorce gave him
union authorization cards and asked him to obtain signed
cards from the other four stagehands which Bledsoe accom-
plished almost immediately. As noted above, Bledsoe and
Sorce also signed authorization cards on the evening of July
4. Thereafter, the Union filed a petition for an election with
the Board on July 6. but there is nothing in the record
which would sustain a finding that Respondent had notice
thereof prior to July 12. the date it appears Respondent
received notice thereof from the Board.
Bledsoe and Powers testified that on the night of July 49
they had a conversation in the light booth about Bledsoe's
background and his union adherence and that during their
conversation Powers noticed that Davis was also in the
booth on the other side of the sound racks and informed
Bledsoe of that fact. While Powers had no recollection of
what occurred. thereafter, Bledsoe testified that shortly
thereafter he approached Davis on the other side of the
sound racks and, when he did. Davis asked him. "Are you
in the Union?" to which he replied, "Yes, I am." Bledsoe
further testified that Davis remarked that it was premature
to have a union and that "they were afraid of what was
happening over at MGM."T Davis virtually corroborated
Sorce's testimony is credited that he was told by tlulsey and Davis that
he was the highest paid stagehand because he was the best qualified and to
keep the information confidential.
' As indicated below, he was not regarded as a supervisor by management.
9 It is noted that. while at first Powers testified that t was on the night the
cards were signed, he later testified he could not recall the date or whether it
was on the night the cards were signed.
10 It appears that at the time there was a campaign being aged bhy the
Union at MGM. a hotel and gambling casino in Reno.
882
CIRCLIS CIRCUS
Bledsoe's lestimony as to the substance of their conversa-
tion, including his interrogation of Bledsoe. but placed it at
a different location (near the bandstand) and date. At first
Davis testified that it was on July 6. but when confronted
with documentary evidence that Bledsoe did not work on
July 6. Dais admitted it could not have been on July 6, but
was positive it was not on July 4. Since there is no signif-
icance with respect to whether the conversation took place
on July 4 or several days later, and Bledsoe was a convinc-
ing witness. I credit his testimony. Based on said credited
testimony. I find that Respondent unlawfully interrogated
Bledsoe on July 4 in violation of Section 8(a)(l ) of the Act
as alleged.
Sorce testified that he had a conversation with Davis on
July 8 in the light booth. According to Sorce they began
with a discussion of stage work in general, then talked
about their respective work experiences and finally turned
to the subject of unions. Sorce also testified that at that
point Davis asked him "if I was in the Union" and that he
replied, "Yes. I am." Sorce further testified that in reaction
to his affirmative answer Davis "looked a little bit dejected"
and said something to the effect that he had told manage-
ment "there were no union members here" and added. "We
don't want the Union in here. The Union may come in here
in a year or so, but we don't want it in now." Score further
testified that he suggested that it might be a good idea for
him (Davis) to get a union card too, but Davis said. "it
would not be right for him to he a union member."
Davis testified that he could not recall the exact date of
the conversation, that it took place "sometime between July
5 and July 8."" Davis' testimony does not materially vary
from that of Score with regard to the content of their con-
versation except that he testified that Score did not state
that he was a member of the Union. When questioned,
however, if he had asked Sorce whether he was a union
member, he testified. "I don't believe I did," but on further
questioning he admitted he "could have asked him" and
that he came away from the conversation "thinking . . .
'Well, I have got a guy that is in the Union.' "
Sorce was the more convincing witness as to the above-
described conversation, and his testimony is credited. Based
on said credited testimony, it is found that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act by Davis' unlawful interro-
gation of Sorce on July 8 as alleged.
Pniak, who was still employed by Respondent at the time
of the hearing, was called as a witness by the General
Counsel. He testified that he had a conversation with Davis
on July 8. His testimony is as follows:
I had just finished an act upstairs in the lighting
booth. and I was on my way down. He had met me
coming up.
He asked me if anyone has mentioned the Union or
anything to do with the Union to me, and I said yes.
H Although it is noted that Sorce did not sign the sign-in sheet on July 8.
the exact date does not appear to be significant In any event., inasmuch as
Sorce was posiive the conversation took place n July 8, as scheduled to
work that day, and credibly explained he must have Iorgotten to sign the
sheet. Dasis could not remember whether or not Srce sorked on July X8,
and South testified that Sorce worked on that day I find that the conversa-
tion took plate on July 8
He asked me who, and I said, Mr. Bledsoe.
He proceeded to say that he did not think he did
not want the Union in Circus Circus. the reason being
that they would have to let some people go, anti the!
would have to put a cut in our pay.
The conversation ended, and I walked awa.
Q. You did not respond to that statement?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. I)o ou remember if' the words used were, "put
in a cut in pay." or reference to a cut in wa;ges'
A. I think it was more a cut in wages.
Davis. when questioned about Pniak's testimony. stated
that he could not recall asking the question allribuled to
him. He admitted that he "could have" but "I just didn't
recall it." On the other hand. when questioned about the
statement attributed to him with respect to letting people go
and cutting wages if the Union came in. he responded "I
never made that statement to anyone. including Mr.
Pniak."
Pniak was a convincing witne.;s with respect to the ques-
tion hb Davis and his response thereto. In \iew thereof and
Davis' admission that he could have asked the question.
that portion of Pniak's testimony is credited. On the other
hand. Davis' firm denial as to the statement attributed to
him was convincing as contrasted to his failure to firml]s
deny other testimony with regard to his conduct unfasor-
able to Respondent. Consequently I credit his denial of
that portion of Pniak's testimony.
Based on the credited testimony, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by unlawfully interrogat-
ing Pniak on July 8 and that the General Coursel has failed
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the allegation
in the compliant relating to that portion of Pniak's testi-
mony which is not credited.
Powers testified that on July 8 he had a conversation with
Davis in which Davis offered him $20 for assisting him with
a car and that Mrs. Davis was present. Powers' testimony
as to the conversation continues as follows:
Then I started to walk out. He stopped me, and he
said that he wanted an honest answer from me. He
said, had I been confronted by anybody from the
Union, and I didn't say anything.
Then he said, "There is probably going to be a union
election coming up." and he said, "we would like to
keep the Union out for awhile." He said. "We need
four votes to keep it out."
He said, if the Union was to come in, they would
probably reduce the crew. He said, "We are all sup-
posed to be getting pay raises, but not yet." lie said.
"In the long run you would probably be better off
without the Union; you will be making more mones
without the Union than with it."
Then he just said, "Well. I hope you lean our way,"
and that was the end of the conversation. He didn't saN
anything more, and I walked out.
While at first Davis testified that he did not remember
having a conversation with Powers "prior to June 9. regard-
ing the Linion," when questioned about the details of Pow-
ers' testimony, he corroborated that portion with respect to
883
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the offer of $20, but categorically denied the balance of
Powers' testimony (above quoted). Davis' wife corrobo-
rated his (Davis') testimony.
While I do not find Powers was an unconvincing witness,
neither was Davis of his wife. Since I have no basis for
discrediting the testimony of the latter two, I find that the
General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence the allegations in the complaint relating to
Powers' above-quoted testimony.
South testified to a conversation he had on July 8 with
Davis. His testimony is as fbllows:
A. Davis came down to the staging area and invited
me up for a cup of coffee, and I went with him because
it was between my acts, I went with Mr. Davis to the
buffet room. We sat down and his wife and I were
having a little small talk, and Mr. Davis asked me, or
told me, that Tom Sorce and Alan Bledsoe were union
agitators, to organize Circus Circus, and they didn't
want the Union in there, and that if the Union did
come in they would cut the crew back to two men, and
he had a stack of applications so deep from MGM
Grand of men that would like to have the jobs at Cir-
cus Circus.
* *
Q. To the best of your knowledge, do you recall
anything else being said in the conversation?
A. No, I do not, because at that time another act
started and I had to get up and excuse myself to get
back to the staging area.
When questioned as to whether he had any conversation
about the Union with South prior to July 9, he replied that
he "might have" had a conversation or conversations about
unions with South, "because Johnny at one time was con-
nected with the Union." However, when questioned about
the specific statements attributed to him in the above-
quoted testimony, he categorically denied making them.
Mrs. Davis testified that she was present on the occasion to
which South testified and that it was just "general social
conversation." When questioned about the specific state-
ments South attributed to her husband she categorically
denied that they were made.
While South was a convincing witness, Davis and his
wife were no less so. Since I find no basis for discrediting
the denials of South's testimony I am led to find that the
General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence the allegations in the complaint relating to
South's above-quoted testimony. Furthermore, it is noted at
this point that on one occasion (the interrogation of Bled-
soe) he admitted engaging in the conduct attributed to him.
and on other occasions, noted hereinabove and hereinbe-
low, he could not bring himself to categorically deny the
conduct attributed to him, which tends to lend weight to his
categorical denials.
D. The Discharges on July 9 and Evidence Relating
Thereto
Sorce and Bledsoe were terminated at the end of their
shift (day shift) on July 9. Their testimony as to the events
with regard to their termination is substantially the same
and may be summarized as follows: Davis came to the
stage area and asked Sorce to summon Bledsoe, who was in
another part of the area; Sorce signalled Bledsoe to join
them and, when he did, Davis then informed them that they
were being terminated; when asked why, Davis explained
that it was a reduction in force: Sorce became extremely
angry and with the use of some "profanity" stated that
management was being stupid and its action would wind up
in court: Sorce then asked for their paychecks and Davis
led them to the administrative offices to see about his re-
quest; on the way Bledsoe calmed Sorce down and he
(Sorce) apologized to Davis for "blowing up" at him; Davis
indicated that he hated to terminate them and stated to
them, "You were just too obvious about your union activi-
ties": when he said that, Sorce told Bledsoe to remember
what Davis said: it was determined that they could not get
their checks until the next day; and Davis then again stated
he was sorry to have to take the action he did but that it
was "out of his hands" and that "it came down from
above."
Davis' version of the event did not vary substantially
from the above summary of elements of the testimony of
Sorce and Bledsoe with the following exceptions: Davis tes-
tified that Sorce accused him of terminating him because of
his union activity which he denied and told Sorce that it
was a "straight reduction in staff that I was ordered to
make." I do not credit this testimony in view of my finding
hereinbelow with respect to the statement attributed to him
that the two were too obvious about their union activity.
When he was asked by Respondent's counsel whether he
made the remark that they were too obvious about their
union activity he did not categorically deny doing so but,
instead, repeated that he did not remember saying it. Fi-
nally, when I questioned him as to whether he remembered
not saying it or could not remember whether or not he did,
he stated, "I can't remember whether or not I said it at this
point."
The crucial credibility issue with respect to the testimony
concerning the event of the terminations is whether or not
Davis did make the statement that Sorce and Bledsoe were
too obvious about their union activities. In view of the
equivocal testimony of Davis on this point. as contrasted
with the firm testimony of Sorce and Bledsoe, I find them to
be more convincing witnesses than Davis with regard to the
statement attributed to him and credit their testimony.
Since said statement clearly implied that they were being
discharged because of their union activity it is found that
said statement was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Joe Hulsey, Respondent's entertainment director, testi-
fied that he worked "out of Las Vegas and Reno," and that
he hired Davis as stage manager for Reno. It appears from
the record that he was Davis' immediate supervisor, Hulsey
testified that it was solely his decision to lay off Sorce and
Bledsoe and that he notified Davis of his decision by tele-
phone "about" July 5 or 6.12 He further testified that Davis
asked him if he wanted it done immediately or at the end of
the workweek and that he told Davis he could wait until the
12 Davis eslified he received the call from Hulsey on Jul) 7 or 8.
884
CIRCUS CIRCUS
end of the workweek (pay period) which was July' 9. It
appears from Hulsey's testimony that he was in Reno from
June 17 through July 3 and that Bledsoe was hired on July
3. According to Hulsey's testimony he did not approve the
hiring of Bledsoe and would not have hired him because he
anticipated reducing the stagehand crew. Davis testified
that he did not consult Hulsey about hiring Bledsoe. It ap-
pears from the record that all the other hirings by Davis
were made with the approval of Hulsey, and that Davis
made no changes in the wages of the stagehands without
the approval of Hulsey. It is noted that the "new hire slip"
for Bledsoe contains Hulsey's signature. Respondent of-
fered no explanation of why his signature appeared on
Bledsoe's new hire slip, if he had neither been consulted
about his being hired nor had approved it. The above re-
cited facts about the hiring of Bledsoe are pertinent to the
reasons advanced by Respondent that the terminations of
Sorce and Bledsoe were nondiscriminatory.
Respondent contends that the terminations were for eco-
nomic reasons and that Bledsoe was selected for termina-
tion because he was the last stagehand hired. As noted
above, he was hired on July 3 and started work on July 4.
According to Hulsey's testimony, by July 5 or 6 (even
though he was not in Reno to observe the operations) he
determined that Bledsoe and one other stagehand were not
needed. Hulsey testified that he selected Sorce as the other
stagehand to be terminated for three reasons: (I) he was
overqualified for the job of stagehand; (2) he was being
paid more money than the rest of the stagehands which
Hulsey "anticipated" as being a problem ($260 per week.
$20 per week more than the next two highest paid stage-
hands);'3 and (3) Hulsey "viewed" Sorce "as one of the last
men hired." As to the first two reasons, it is noted that it
was just a few days before Hulsey testified he arrived at
these reasons for selecting Sorce for termination, that he
approved Sorce being paid $260 per week because he was
so well qualified. While Hulsey might have believed that
Sorce was one of the last men hired, it appears from Pniak's
credited testimony that he was notified he was hired by
Hulsey on June 23, a date when Sorce was already working
for Respondent." Furthermore, it is noted that Sorce
started working for Respondent prior to Pniak and Hart-
zell, as well as Bledsoe.
It is also noted that during the first week of operations a
schedule was distributed to the stagehands which called for
six stagehands and Davis to work: with two men (Sorce and
Powers) handling light and sound (one on day shift and the
other at night), with Davis filling in on days when required
because of days off, and with four men (Hartzell. Pniak.
South and Bledsoe) handling and stage work, two on days
and two on nights with Bledsoe and Davis filling in on days
13 These two reasons strongly support my above conclusion that Sorce was
not a supervisor, as contended by Respondent. In addition, it is noted, as to
the reason of anticipation of a problem. there remained a greater disparity in
the wages of the remaining stagehands after Sorce's termination (two re-
ceived $240 per week and the other two $200 per week) than the disparity
between $260 and $240.
' Hulsey testified that he notified Pniak through his (Pniak's) father in
mid-April that he was hired, but it is noted that Pniak, contrary to his own
interest, (with regard to seniority) testified that he never received such infor-
mation from his father.
off. Hulsey offered no explanation as to why he decided (on
July 5 or 6. at about the time the schedule was distributed
or a day or two later) that the operations could be handled
by a four-man crew instead of six.5 True. he had an oppor-
tunity to observe the operations for the first 3 days and was
familiar with acts which had been performed in Reno. but
Respondent objected to any testimony being introduced
(which objection was sustained) as to how man)' stagehands
were employed in the Las Vegas facility. Furthermore.
since it is inferred that he approved the hiring of Bledsoe by
his signature on Bledsoe's new hire slip, it does not appear
credible that a day or two after Bledsoe started working he
concluded as he testified, that only a four-man crew was all
that was needed.
In support of Respondent's contention that the termina-
tions of Sorce and Bledsoe were based solely on economic
reasons, considerable testimony was introduced with re-
spect to the operations after the terminations, ostensibly to
demonstrate that only for men were needed. This testimony
was not wholly convincing. The record discloses. based on
credited testimony, that immediately after the terminations
South worked 20 days without a day off: that a performer.
Johnny Romano, worked as a stagehand on the second and
third night shifts after the terminations (which arrange-
ment. it is noted, was discontinued the day after Respon-
dent received notice of the petition for an election): and.
that Davis apparently considerably increased the amount ot
time he devoted to stagehand work. In addition. the per-
formers were required to assist the stagehands in some of
the acts which they had not done prior to the terminations.
Furthermore, there is the credited testimony of South with
regard to a telephone conversation he had with Hulse on
July' 17. It appears South was dissatisfied with the wage
reduction he received (from $5.00 per hour to $200 per
week) and complained to Davis about it. In addition. it
appears that he also complained to Davis about the stage-
hands being overworked. According to South's testimony.
Davis called him to the light booth to talk to Hulse bh
telephone, and in his conversation with Hulsey he com-
plained that "we were understaffed." He further testified
that Hulsey said that "he knew it." that the performers
were supposed to be assisting in handling the props. and
that "after this Union thing was over" he would "hire two
people." Neither Davis nor Hulsey was questioned about
South's above testimony and so it stands uncontradicted. In
view of the fact that his testimony is uncontradicted, that
South was a convincing witness, and that there is no basis
for finding it incredible, his testimony is credited.
True, the record discloses and the General Counsel con-
cedes that sometime during the operations the stagehands
became sufficiently versed in handling the lighting. sound.
and stage work that a crew of five stagehands would have
been adequate. Had Sorce and Bledsoe not been terminated
and Respondent continued to operate with three men on
each shift, it is speculative whether. and, if so. when Re-
It appears from credited testimony that in a consultation between the
stagehands and Davis it was decided that a sixth man as needed as a relief
man which was why Bledsoe was hired on July 3 and started to work on Jul'
4. It also appears that, before he left Reno. Hulsey approved a schedule with
three men to each shift.
885
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent would have made a determination to reduce the
stagehand crew to five. Also, assuming it eventually
reached that determination, it is speculative as to which of
the six men in the crew Respondent would have selected for
layoff, since I am not satisfied that the record establishes
that Respondent followed the practice of relying on senior-
ity (either by length of service or by hiring date) in making
a reduction in force.
Based on all the circumstances, particularly the timing of
the discharges (the day after, through its unlawful interro-
gation, Respondent discovered that Sorce was actively ex-
pressing union representation and Bledsoe had been solicit-
ing on behalf of the Union, only 9 days into the operation
and only 4 or 5 days after it established a schedule of three
men to a shift): on the credited testimony that at the time of
the termination Davis told Sorce and Bledsoe that they had
been too obvious in their union activity: and on the lack of
evidence as to how and why after only 5 or 6 days into the
operation Itulsey arrived, as he testified, at a determination
that two stagehands should be laid off; on the unpersuasive
nature of the testimony that a four-men crew was adequate
(since it required enlisting the assistance of performers an
increased workload on Davis who was already putting in
long hours, South's working 20 days without a day off' the
use of Romano for 2 days, starting I day after the termina-
tion); and on South's above-credited testimony that Hulsey
informed him that he (Hulsey) knew the crew was under-
staffed and would hire two men after the "Union thing"
was over, I find that the terminations of Sorce and Bledsoe
were discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act.
E. Allegations of Unlawfiul Conduct Subsequent to Jul 9
It is alleged in paragraphs IX(j), (k), and (1) that twice on
or about July 13 and once on or about July 14 Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling several em-
ployees that "Respondent knew how other employees were
going to vote and instructed the employees to vote against
the Union."
Three employees testified to conversations they had with
Davis on or about the above times alleged, Smith, Pniak.
and Powers.
Smith credibly testified without contradiction that on
July II or 12 he had a conversation with Davis in which
Davis asked him "If, when the vote came down, would I
vote for the house or fbr the Union," to which he replied
that he would vote. He also testified that Davis said he
should be grateful that Hulsey gave him his job. This testi-
mony might well be considered to be unlawful interroga-
tion. There is, however, no allegation in the complaint relat-
ing to unlawful interrogation on or about the dates to which
Smith testified. Since that is so, and the incident was not
litigated, it appears inappropriate to make a finding with
regard thereto. Since it does not support the allegation that
he was "instructed" to vote against the Union, there is no
basis for finding that said allegation was proved.
Pniak credibly testified without contradiction that on
July 14 Davis told him that Hulsey had'informed him that
he was sure he had Powers', Smith's, and Hartzell's vote.
but was not sure about his (Pniak's) vote and asked Davis
about Pniak's vote. Pniak further testified that Davis said
he assured Hulsey of "Danny's (Pniak's) vote" and then
said "Please don't make a liar out of me." This statement to
Pniak by Davis cannot be construed as an instruction but
is, at most, an appeal protected under Section 8(c) of the
Act. Airporter In Hotel, 215 NLRB 824, 826 (1974). It was
unaccompanied by any threat or promise of benefit.
Powers credibly testified without contradiction that on or
about July 15 he had a conversation with Davis. His cred-
ited testimony as to the contents of the conversation is as
follows:
He said he had been in a meeting, and he said that
the people in the meeting were worried about the way
I would vote, because Al Davis had hired me. He said
the)' were not worried about the three other employees,
Ross Hartzell. John South, and Dan Pniak. because
Joe Hulsey had hired them, and then he reassured
them by telling them that we were friends and they had
nothing to worry about.
That was the end of the conversation.
Powers further testified that Davis said nothing about what
he should do. This testimony fails to disclose any instruc-
tion by Davis as to how Powers should vote. Therefore, it
will not support the above-mentioned allegation which ap-
parently is predicated on this testimony.
In the course of the hearing the General Counsel con-
tended that the references by Respondent as to how the
employees would vote constituted surveillance or implied it
had engaged in surveillance. There is no merit to this con-
tention since it is obvious that management made it clear
that its anticipation of how the employees would vote was
predicated on factors totolly unrelated to surveillance of
employees' protected activity.
It is alleged that Hulsey's statement on July 17 to South.
fbund hereinabove. that he knew that the crew was under-
staffed and would hire two people "after this Union thing
was over" constituted a violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the
Act. Said statement clearly indicated that Respondent
would maintain an insufficient crew because of the organi-
zational efforts on behalf of the Union, thereby increasing
the workload of the depleted existing crew. and, conse-
quently, violation Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
F. Other Allegations of Unlawful Conduct
On October 5 the General Counsel issued an amendment
to paragraph IX of the complaint by adding subparagraph
(n) alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I1) of the
Act by increasing the wages of certain of the stagehands in
order to discourage union adherence. On August 24 two
stagehands were raised from $200 a week to $240 a week
effective as of August 19. The record discloses that the two
who were being paid the lesser amount discovered the dis-
parity in the wages and one of them made a strong com-
plaint about it. It is noted that this was done while the
petition for an election was still pending. In the circum-
stances it is presumed that the above-described adjustment
of the grievance about their pay was intended, at least in
part, to discourage adherence to the Union and, therefore.
was violative of Section 8(a)(1 ) of the Act. The Respondent
886
('IRCUtS ('IR(CUS
had been aware of the disparity in the wages. but did noth-
ing to correct it until it was discovered b the employees
approximately 6 week after the petition tor an election had
been filed. In view of the timing I am of the opinion that
Respondent could not have been solel5 concerned with cor-
recting the inequity in the wages but must reasonably have
also been concerned with its effect on the employees' deci-
sion for union representation. Honolulu Sporting Goodt Co..
I.td, etc., 239 NIlRB 1277. 1283 (1978).'*
During the hearing the General C(ounsel amended the
complaint by adding subparagraph IX(o) alleging unlawful
interrogation in early June of an applicant for employment.
IDuring the course of cross-examining Powers about a con-
versation he had with Bledsoe. he was asked whether he
had told him (Bledsoe) that Davis knew he (Powers) was a
union member before he was hired because there was infor-
mation to that effect in his application form." Powers. in a
nonresponsive answer, testified that he was not an "actual
member." that he had to pay dues, but "was not considered
a member" of the Union in Los Angeles. Powers then con-
tinued his nonresponsive answer as follows: "But. Mr. Da-
vis had asked me if I was with the Union. and I said no.
because I don't have a card and am not a member of the
Union right now." This is the testimony upon which said
allegation was predicated. When questioned about said tes-
timony and the reference in the resume in his application to
Stagehands Local 33. Davis testified. "1I read it. which
stated he was in Stagehands Local 33 in Hollywood. Cali-
fornia. but I didn't question him about it at all."
In its brief. Respondent correctly points out that there
was no reference in Power's pretrial affidavit to his being
interrogated about union membership when applying for
the job. or in his earlier testimony on cross-examination
when questioned about the above-described information in
his resume. I am not persuaded, however, that these facts
constitute a sufficient basis for discrediting Powers. On the
other hand. Davis was a convincing witness in denying that
he questioned Powers. and I find no basis for discrediting
his said denial. Therefore. I find that the General Counsel
has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the
aforesaid allegation of unlawful interrogation in early June
(subparagraph IX(o) of the complaint.)
G. Respondent's Contention That Sorce and Bledsoe Were
Not "Bona Fide" Employee.s
In its brief Respondent argues: "A person planted by a
union in a company for the primary purpose of organizing
the employees of that company is not bona fide employees
[sic] under Section 2(3) of the Act and is not entitled to the
protection under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
' The cases cited by Respondent in support of its posiion that the in-
creases were not violative of the Act, are not persuasive. The facts in Paoli
Chair Company, Inc.. 213 NLRB 909 (1974) (a temporary wage incentive
increase in an emergency situation) and in Hvdraulic Accessories Cofmpanr.
165 NLRB 864. 870 (1967) (a wage increase during a lull in an organization-
al campaign) distinguish said cited cases from the instant case.
" In his application form dated June 12 there was an ambiguous reference
to his working in the Los Angeles area and to Stagehands Local 33. The
reference reads as follows: "1978. '77. Stagehands Local 33. working for
different TV corporations."
V . R. B. v. lias Brothers Rig B,, Inc., 327 :.2d 421 (6th
Cir. 1964). Even it it were to be assumed that I am bound
bh the Elias case (See Oak A.pparel. Inc.. 218 N RB 701.
707 (1975).). it appears to me that Respondent's statement
of the holding therein is not , holl accurate. It is noted
that in said case the court apparently relied upon the inler-
ence it drew that the emploee involved therein was also in
thl employ of the union. There is no basis ftr finding in the
instant case that either Sorce or Bledsoe was in the emplo'
of the Union during the time material herein or received
any money from it. The most favorable inference (for Re-
spondent) that the record could possibl3 permit is that
Score and Bledsoe intended to organize the employees after
they were hired and were encouraged to do so by union
representatives. I find no basis for concluding that either
Sorce or Bledsoe was not an emploee within the meaning
of Section 2(3) of the Act or was not entitled to the protec-
tion provided employees under Section 8 of the Act. Oat
Aplparel, Inc.. supra.
I'. tIlF FFIE( Ir )1 lite t I AIR t.ABOR PRA( Ir( IS t P¢)N
( ()MMR(
The unfair labor practices of Respondent set lbrth in sec-
tion III. above. occurring in connection with its operations
set forth in section I1 above. have a close, intimate. andi
substantial relation to trade. traffic. and commerce amon
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free fi),o thereof.
v. IHE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found herein and take certain affirmative action, as pro-
vided in the recommended Order below, designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Thomas Sorce was unlawfully
discharged on July 9. 1978. it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full re-
instatement to his former job or. if his job no longer exists.
to a substantially equivalent position. without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further
recommended that Respondent be ordered to reimburse
him for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
its unlawful action against him together with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W
Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289 (1950). and Florida
Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977)."
It having been found that Alan Bledsoe was also unlaw-
fully discharged on July 9. 1978, but subsequent to the
hearing. according to a representation in the General Coun-
sel's brief, was offered and declined reinstatement, it will be
recommended that he be made whole for any, loss of pay he
may have suffered for the period between his said discharge
and the offer of reinstatement together with interest thereon
to be computed as prescribed hereinabove.
'' Which I do not beiheve I am.
"See, generally. Isis Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
88XX7
I)E( ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is alleged in the complaint that "the unfair labor prac-
tices" of Respondent "are so serious and substantial in
character and effect as to warrant the entry of a remedial
order requiring Respondent to recognize and to meet and
bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of all employees" in the
above-described bargaining unit "concerning rates of pay,
wages. hours of employment and other terms and condi-
tions of employment of said employees." Respondent con-
tends that such a remedy is unwarranted. Although not all
of the unfair practices alleged have been found, neverthe-
less, I am of the opinion that those that have been found,
particularly the discriminatory discharge of two of the six
members of the bargaining unit, do warrant such a remedy
under the guidelines set forth in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co.. Inc. 395 U.S. 575 (1969). The Union's majority status
in the said bargaining unit was clearly demonstrated by
signed authorization cards, and the nature and extensive-
ness of the unfair labor practices which were found here-
inabove to have been committed by Respondent make a
subsequent free choice by the employees problematical.
since it is deemed that the coercive effects of the unfair
labor practices cannot be eliminated by application of tra-
ditional remedies. 20
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the fol-
lowing:
CON(CLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act and has been at all times
material herein.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act and has been at all times material
herein.
3. The following described employees of Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All stage hand, lighting and sound employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility at 500 N. Sierra
Street, Reno, Nevada: excluding all other employees.
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Commencing on or about July 4 1978. a majority of
the members of the above-described bargaining unit desig-
nated the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act by the
following conduct:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating Bledsoe on July 4. 1978.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating Sorce and Pniak on July 8.
1978.
(c) Stating to Sorce and Bledsoe, when they were being
terminated on July 9. 1978, that they were too obvious
about their union activities.
(d) Indicating that it would maintain an inadequate staff
of stagehands because of the organizational activities on
behalf of the Union.
l United Electric Company, 194 NLRB 665 (1971).
(e) Granting wage increases on August 24 to two of the
stagehands which, it is inferred. were intended, at least in
part, to discourage adherence to the Union.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1 ) of the Act
on July 9. 1978. by discharging Thomas Sorce and Alan
Bledsoe because of their activities on behalf of the Union.
7. The General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon-
derance of the evidence the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint other than those found hereinabove to have
been sustained.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and upon the entire record. and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2n
The Respondent. Circo Resorts, Inc. d/b/a Circus 'ir-
cus. Reno, Nevada. its officers, agents. successors, and as-
signs. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
their union activities or the activities of their fellow employ-
ees upon behalf of International Alliance of Theatrical Em-
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators Local 363
or any other labor organization.
(b) Indicating that employees are being discriminated
against because of their activities on behalf of said Union or
any other labor organization.
(c) Indicating that it would maintain an inadequate staff
of employees because of activities on behalf of said Union.
or any other labor organization.
(d) Granting wage increases to employees to discourage
adherence to said Union or any other labor organization.
(e) Discouraging membership in said Union, or in any
other labor organization, by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Thomas Sorce immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if his position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of
his unlawful discharge (on July 9, 1978) in the manner set
forth in the section hereinabove titled "The Remedy."
(b) Make Alan Bledsoe whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered between the day he was unlawfully dis-
charged (July' 9. 1978) and the day he was offered reinstate-
ment (which he declined) in the manner set forth in the
section hereinabove titled "The Remedy."
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. in findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
888
CIRCUS CIRCUS
(c) Upon request, recognize and bargain with the Union
named above as the exclusive representative of the emplos-
ees in the appropriate unit described hereinbelow with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment. and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an agree-
ment is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
instrument; said bargaining unit is as follows:
All stagehand, lighting and sound employees employed
at its Reno. Nevada facility; excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) Place at its place of business in Reno, Nevada. copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix.'" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 32, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced. or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director For Region 32. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the
complaint which have not been found to have been proved
are hereby dismissed.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant I, a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board,"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI()YEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with
respect to their activities or the activities of their fellow
employees upon behalf of International Alliance of
Theatrical Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators Local 363 or any other labor organization.
WE WLt.l. N indicate that any employee is being
discriminated against because of his activities on be-
half of said nion or any other labor organizations.
WE wvIItl NoT indicate that we will maintain an in-
adequate staff of employees because of activities on
behalf of said Union or any other labor organization.
W'V s:lIl.I NOI grant any wage increases to discour-
age adherence to said Union or any other labor organi-
zation.
Wt. w\t.. N(ot discourage membership in said Union.
or in any other organization, by discharging or in an\
other manner discriminating against an employee in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or an) term or
condition of employment.
WE \W1il NOI in any other manner interfere ith.
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
Wi will offer to Thomas Sorce immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or. if his position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position.
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by him by reason of' his unlawful discharge.
with interest.
WE wtn L. make Alan Bledsoe w hole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered between the day he was un-
lawfully discharged and the day he was offered rein-
statement (which he declined).
WE wtt.t., upon request. recognize and bargain with
the Union named above as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
described hereinbelow with respect to rates of pa.
wages. hours of employment. and other terms and con-
ditions of employ ment, and, if an agreement is
reached. embody such understanding in a signed in-
strument: said bargaining unit is as follows:
All stagehand, lighting and sound employees at our
Reno. Nevada. facility, excluding all other emplo\-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
CIR('O RESORTS. IN(. D/B/A CIRCUS CIRCUS
889