El Dorado Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 579 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 579
El Dorado Inc., d/b/a El Dorado Club; New Pioneer , Inc., d/b/a
New Pioneer Club; Exber , Inc., d/b/a El Cortez Hotel; Joe
Kelly, J. C. Shugart and Judd Parker , a partnership, d/b/a
Showboat Ventures ; Frontier Properties , Inc., d/b/a New
Frontier Hotel ; Phil Long's California Club Corporation, d/b/a
California Club; Fortune Operating Company, Inc., d/b/a Car-
,ousel ; Casino Operations, Inc.; 105 Casino Operations, d/b/a
Diamond Jim's Nevada Club and American Federation of
Casino and Gaming Employees (Ind.), Petitioner. Cases Nos.
dO-RC-6018, fO-RC-6020, 20-RC-6021, 2O-RC-6022, 20-RC-6023,
20-RC-6035, 20-RC-6036, 20-RC-5951, and 90-RC-5953.
March 11, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officers Walter L. Kintz and John H. Arbuckle.' The Hearing
Officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed .2
Upon the entire record in this case,3 the National Labor Relations
Board finds:
1. The Employers involved herein operate gambling casinos in
and near Las Vegas, Nevada. Petitioner seeks a separate certifica-
tion as bargaining representative for all gambling casino employees
of each Employer, excluding employees covered by existing col-
lective-bargaining agreements, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. Intervenor Culinary Workers
Union appears solely to assert its contractual interest in the change
girls at the casinos and makes no claim to represent any other em-
ployees at issue. Employers and the State of Nevada, the latter
through the Nevada Gaming Commission, contend that gambling in
Nevada has little impact on interstate commerce and that, for policy
reasons, the Board should not assert jurisdiction herein.
Certain of the Employers and the Intervenor State of Nevada filed motions to con-
solidate the above-entitled cases Petitioner appears to oppose such motions. Since the
underlying jurisdictional issue is common to all proceedings and similar questions of
law and fact otherwise exist, we find that consolidating these cases for decision herein
will effectuate the purposes of the Act. Employers' and Intervenor's request for oral argu-
ment before the Board is hereby denied as the record and the briefs adequately present
the issues and position of the parties.
2 Employer Frontier Properties, Inc.'s motion to strike Petitioner's brief as untimely
filed is denied. All Employers and Intervenor State were afforded and availed them-
selves of the opportunity to respond to Petitioner's brief. Accordingly, no possibility
of prejudice could exist, nor does this Employer make such a claim.
3 The Regional Director approved the withdrawal of the petition with respect to
Hotel Tropicana, Case No 20-RC-5936. The Union has also requested withdrawal
of its petition in Case No. 20-RC-6031, relating to Castaways Hotel. We shall permit
the withdrawals and hereby sever said cases from this proceeding.
151 NLRB No. 82.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Each of the four clubs-The New Pioneer, Carousel, California
Club, and El Dorado Club-operates a bar, restaurant, and casino,
and each has gross annual revenue from gambling activities in excess
of $500,000. The El Cortez and New Frontier Hotels operate gam-
ing casinos, and each derives more than $500,000 annually from its
gaming operation. Casino Operations operates the casino in the
Hacienda Hotel, grossing annually in excess of $500,000 from this
gambling operation. Showboat Hotel has a casino which is leased
to a partnership known as Showboat Ventures, which operates the
casino and enjoys income in excess of $500,000 annually .4 Diamond
Jim's Nevada Club operates a bar, restaurant, and slot machines.
Its gross annual revenue for 1963 was about $5 million, of which
$2.5 million came from the machines and $2 million from games.
This Employer recently had added more slot machines and no longer
operates any games. All Employers, except Diamond Jim's and
Casino Operations, made annual purchases in excess of $50,000 from
enterprises in Nevada which, in turn, directly purchased such goods
from outside the State. Employers Diamond Jim's and Casino
Operations made indirect out-of-State purchases valued at more
than $20,000.
The nature of legalized gambling in Nevada has resulted in ex-
tensive State regulation of its operations. This, in turn, has created
a climate in which the gambling industry has grown to vast economic
proportions. The State's principal means for controlling the in-
dustry is through the Nevada Gaming Commission and the State
gaming control board, both created by the Nevada Gaming Control
Act.5 The commission issues licenses, collects taxes and fees, and
hears license revocation proceedings, while the control board is the
investigatory and enforcement agency in the industry. Control
board activities include investigating prospective licensees, enforc-
ing gambling regulations, auditing casino books, and bringing
4 Showboat Hotel moves to dismiss the petition as to it because , it contends, it is
not the employer of the casino employees The record reveals that the casino is operated
by a partnership known as Showboat Ventures. It appears that several of the partners,
including the casino manager, are among the nine owners of Showboat Hotel. The
casino is located in a building owned by the hotel, about 40 feet from it And one of
the four entrances to the casino leads directly from the hotel . The signs in front of
each are "Showboat Casino" and "Showboat Hotel," respectively.
No bars or restaurants are located in the hotel; all are situated in the casino build-
ing. The bar and restaurant employees therein, however, are employed by the hotel.
The casino buys food and drinks for its customers from the hotel, and makes room
accommodations for them there . The hotel registration desk is located in the casino
building. Based upon all the foregoing, including the significant degree of common
ownership of both enterprises and the functional and physical integration of the hotel
and casino, we find both to be a single employer for purposes of the Act. See Travelers
Hotel, Inc. and Harold L. Fromkin, 129 NLRB 1133. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss
Is denied
5 Nevada Revised Statutes , Ch. 463. An additional State arm is the gaming policy
board, comprised of the Governor and the members of the control board and commission
EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 581
charges of violations before the Commission.6 County and municipal
governments require employees of gambling casinos and related en-
terprises to obtain work permits from the police before they are
hired. However, these permits not only are required of casino em-
ployees, but also must be obtained by taxi drivers, bartenders, bus-
boys, bar managers, waiters, and waitresses, "and any other persons
who serve alcoholic beverages to patrons for consumption on the
premises."
Nevada's concern with preventing criminal infiltration is based on
the fact that gambling combined with tourism is the State's primary
industry, and as such supplied $13.7 million, or 28 percent, of the
tax revenues paid into the State's "general fund" in fiscal 1964.7 The
chairman of the control board testified that gambling provides the
economic impetus for the tourist industry, and in its overall impact
is responsible for 60 percent of the State's economy. The effect of
the gambling industry on employment in Nevada is revealed by
officially projected figures for 1965:8 Of 155,000 persons engaged
in nonagricultural employment, 116,000, or 75 percent, are employed-
39,000 directly so-by the gambling industry. Moreover, over
20 million tourists are attracted annually to Nevada, in large part,
at least, because of the gambling industry. Thus, the pervasive
economic effect of the industry is apparent.
Section 14(c) (1) of the Act permits the Board to decline to assert
jurisdiction over labor disputes involving any "category of employ-
ers, where, in the opinion of the Board, the effect of such labor dis-
pute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the
exercise of its jurisdiction. . . ." 9 The Employers and Nevada urge
that the Board, pursuant to Section 14(c), refuse to assert jurisdic-
8 The policy underlying the extensive regulation of the licensee is the asserted need to
prevent the gambling industry from being affected by so-called "undesirable elements."
The chairman of the control board noted that this is most efficiently done by keeping the
statute aimed toward employer regulation because it is felt that pressure properly
exerted at this level will best effectuate the above -mentioned policy.
7 "Legalized Gambling in Nevada ," revised edition , State of Nevada publication, 1963,
pp. 19 and 52.
8 Ibid
8 More fully, Section 14 ( c) declares that:
(1) The Board , in its discretion , may, by rule of decision or by published rules
adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, decline to assert jurisdiction
over any labor dispute involving any class or category of employees , where, in the
opinion of the Board , the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufficiently
substantial to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction : Provided, That the Board
shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute over which it would
assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon August 1, 1959.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent or bar any agency or the
courts of any State or Territory . . . from assuming and asserting jurisdiction
over labor disputes over which the Board declines, pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection , to assert jurisdiction.
See also Maw Hirsch, et al. v. Frank W. McCulloch, 303 F. 2d 208 (C.A.D.C ).
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion in the gaming industry. However, we cannot accept this posi-
tion, and have concluded that it will best effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
Succinctly stated, the objection by the Employers and the State
to the assertion of jurisdiction is based mainly on two grounds. Thus,
it is asserted that the gambling industry is "essentially local in
character" as to make unwarranted the Board's exercise of jurisdic-
tion. However, we do not find this argument convincing. A labor
dispute in an industry which directly employs 39,000 persons, and
supplies income indirectly to an additional 77,000, is instrumental
in attracting over 20 million tourists to the State by a variety of
interstate carriers,10 and generally supports 60 percent of the State's
economy, transcends merely local importance, and, it must be plain,
could and does substantially affect commerce.
The other principal contention which the Employers and State
rely upon more heavily is that the unique nature of the gambling
industry, with its difficult problems of enforcing regulations aimed
at preventing organized crime from infiltrating the industry and
detecting any possibility of cheating which may occur at the casinos,
demands that the operations of the existing State agencies remain
free from any interference created by the application of the Act to
the industry. In short, the Employers and the State fear that the
assertion or jurisdiction by the Board may "paralyze the enforcement
arm charged with administration of the Nevada Gaming Control
Act" because the Act purportedly could assure "contractual tenure"
to employees and thereby prevent their dismissal for cheating or
similar activities. The short answer to this contention is that the
Employers and the State misconceive the purposes of the Act and the
Board's function in administering its provisions. The Act reflects
the national labor policy of encouraging collective bargaining by
"protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own
choosing." 11 Indeed, the State itself fully supports the principle of
15The court noted in Marshall v. Sawyer, 301 F. 2d 639 , 649, footnote 3 (C.A. 9),
that "The extent of the facilities provided to carry trade to the Nevada gambling is
almost beyond belief. Every day 88 scheduled airplane flights from other States reach
Las Vegas . ( This does not include the chartered and other nonscheduled flights such
as Hacienda's.) Forty-eight daily scheduled plane flights reach Reno . There are as
many scheduled flights from Phoenix to Las Vegas as there are from Phoenix to Los
Angeles. A few of these flights are subsidized by the gambling industry . See Las
Vegas Hacienda, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 9 Cir . ( Jan. 16, 1962 ), 298 F. 2d 430.
Hacienda flights are advertised as including 'free round trip,' 'deluxe rooms,' 'two bottles
of champagne ,' etc., in the yellow pages of the San Francisco telephone book. High
speed highways carry automobile traffic from Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Sacramento , and elsewhere ." Certain employers also have agreements with bus com-
panies which directly concern interstate trips to Las Vegas.
11 Section 1 of the Act
EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 583
collective bargaining for gaming casino employees.12 Thus, the ob-
jection appears to stem from a fear that the Board will "authorize"
contracts insulating an employee from discharge in situations where
the State might deem the employment of the individual "no longer
compatible with the best interests of the people of . . . Nevada."
However, though fully cognizant of the unique problems of enforce-
ment existing in the gambling industry, we are not persuaded that
union representation of the requested employees in the matter of
their terms and conditions of employment would, as Nevada claims,
thwart its efforts in dealing with the "undesirables" whose employ-
ment in the gambling industry would not be in the best interest of
the State. Nevada's own experience with a long history of collective
bargaining in the gambling industry which, in substantial part, con-
cerns employees closely associated with gambling casinos, indicates
that its fears are unwarranted. Thus, the record indicates that, for
at least 15 years, Intervenor Culinary Workers has represented,
inter alia, bartenders, waiters, cocktail waitresses, and more recently,
as noted below, casino change girls. Even the guards who are em-
ployed to police the gambling areas have the benefits of collective
bargaining under the Act. All these employees are subject to the
same "security" checks as the gaming employees. But the record in
no way indicates that their representation under the Act has inter-
fered with the State's imposition and administration of the strict
standards required in the industry.13 It clearly appears that all
parties have accommodated themselves successfully to the pattern of
collective bargaining without any demonstrable adverse effect on
supervision of gambling activities.
The Employers urge that the Board follow its decision in 1-Valter
A. Kelley,14 where, under Section 14(c), we declined to assert juris-
diction over the horse racing industry. However, the Kelley case
does not require us to forsake jurisdiction herein. In Kelley, it was
our conclusion that "The Board's limited resources can be better
devoted to industries and operations where labor disputes are likely
to have a more substantial impact on commerce than disputes in
the racing industry." In the instant matter, as we have already
' Its Attorney General states that the Governor has asserted the policy of Nevada
as encouraging unionization of the gaming employees and, he adds , "With this view,
the Attorney General of the State of Nevada heartily concurs . The right of gaming
employees to bargain collectively in areas affecting salaries , working conditions, in-
surance and hospitalization, retirement and pensions deserves the support and en-
11couragement of all forward-looking governments . . .
Is See also Landrum Mills Hotel Corporation d/b/a Hotel La Concha , 144 NLRB 754,
where the Board rejected the contention that it should not assert jurisdiction because
"the unit, which is covered by the Board certification and the current contract, con-
sists of a gambling operation which is closely regulated by local government."
14 139 NLRB 744.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sought to make clear, a labor dispute in an industry which directly
employs a large number of employees in the dominant industry in
the State and is dependent upon substantial and closely related
interstate activity could disrupt commerce substantially.
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, we conclude that it would
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the
Employers whose gross annual revenue from gambling operations is
in excess of $500,000.15
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employers.16
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks separate units of all gambling casino employees
of each Employer, excluding employees covered by existing col-
lective-bargaining agreements, all noncasino employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. The
record shows a unit confined to gambling casino employees to be
an appropriate one.
The Intervenor alleges that a 1964 contract with each Employer,
except Diamond Jim's Nevada Club,17 operates as a bar to the
inclusion of change girls and change booth cashiers located on the
floor of the casino. The record plainly supports this contention
as to all Employers except Casino Operations, Inc. We shall
therefore exclude the change girls and change booth cashiers from
the respective appropriate units at those Employers' operations.
As for Casino Operations, Inc., we are unable to determine to our
satisfaction from this record whether a contract which admittedly
covers employees of the Hacienda Hotel should also be held to
apply to the change girls at Casino Operations, Inc. In view
thereof, we shall permit the change girls and slot cashiers at that
location to vote subject to challenge in the election conducted among
the employees of Casino Operations, Inc.
15 Cf. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88; Floridan Hotel o f Tampa, Inc.,
124 NLRB 261.
ie New Pioneer Club apparently contends that Petitioner has not presented an adequate
showing of interest as to it and , therefore , that the petition should be dismissed. How-
ever , the sufficiency of a petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter
not subject to litigation . Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that Petitioner's
showing is sufficient. Terminal System, Inc, at al, 127 NLRB 979.
There is plainly no merit to the contention that Petitioner is not qualified to represent
employees . Petitioner is an organization in which employees participate, and exists for
the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages and other conditions of em-
ployment . Accordingly , it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act. Motor Transport Labor Relations , Inc., 139 NLRB 70.
17 Petitioner's unit request excludes change girls at Diamond Jim's, and the Employer
acquiesces in the exclusion . We shall exclude them.
EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 585
We shall proceed now to a discussion of the other unit place-
ment issues :
New Pioneer Club
The parties are in dispute over the placement of pit floormen,
boxmen, shills, slot department managers, floormen, slot department
mechanic, and cage cashiers. The floorman in the pit department
has general charge of all games in the pit. He adjusts disputes
arising between customers and dealers and can assign dealers to
work at various games. He also can effectively recommend their
discharge. We find that the pit floormen are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude them from the unit.
Boxmen are responsible for the particular crap table to which
they are assigned. They direct the dealers at the table, use inde-
pendent judgment in resolving disputes between players and dealers,
and have the power to discharge a dealer. Because of their super-
visory status, we shall also exclude them from the unit. Shills
are employed to gamble at inactive gaming tables for the purpose
of attracting customers to the game. After a sufficient number of
players are participating, the shill moves on to another "slow"
table. Shills are the lowest paid of casino employees. Considerable
turnover exists within this group, but shills are hired on a permanent
basis by the Employer with the expectancy of indefinite and sub-
stantial employment. Although they do not appear to share in
certain of the benefits enjoyed by other casino employees, we find
that they have sufficient interests in common with those employees
to be included in the same unit, and we shall therefore include
them.
The slot department manager and the slot department floormen
have the power effectively to recommend the discharge of the change
girls and security guards, who fill and refill the slot machines, in
that department. Therefore, we shall exclude them from the unit
as supervisors. There is one slot department mechanic employed
by this Employer who, it appears, also functions as a floorman.
In his capacity as slot mechanic, he can hire and discharge slot
mechanic employees. In view thereof, we find that he is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act.
The cage cashiers work in a small office adjacent to the casino
area on the first floor. They process customer credit applications
and determine the amount of credit to be extended by assessing
bank information and other financial data. They also distribute
and cash payroll checks, and report directly to the owner of this
Employer. We find that the cage cashiers engaged in this adminis-
trative and clerical work lack a sufficient community of interests
with the gaming employees to be included in the unit.
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of New Pioneer
Club constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, Keno
writers, runners, and desk men, but excluding boxmen, the shill
boss, floormen in the pit and slot departments, the slot mechanic,
the slot department manager, change girls, slot department cashiers,
cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as
defined in the Act.
California Club
The Employer contends that the boxmen and shill bosses should
be excluded from the unit as supervisors. The boxman is in charge
of a crap game table and is responsible for the money and chips
used in the game. He has the power to discharge dealers, adjust
disputes between dealers and customers, and to effectively recommend
the employment of a dealer. Because of their supervisory status,
boxmen shall be excluded from the unit. Similarly, since the shill
bosses hire and discharge, they also shall be excluded. The Employer
employs 24 shills, several of whom leave each month; many
shills work at least 6 months, and the Employer hires them as
permanent employees. As at the New Pioneer Club, we shall
include the shills in the unit.
The floormen in the slot department can discharge change girls
and change booth cashiers, and, accordingly, shall be excluded from
the unit. Although the cage cashiers cash and exchange jackpot
tickets, it appears that their primary function is credit investigation
and compiling payroll information. They are bonded employees.
Since their function appears to be more closely identified with
office clerical work rather than with conducting games, we shall
exclude them from the unit. For the reasons indicated in the
discussion of the appropriate unit at Employer Showboat set forth
below, we shall include the slot mechanics in the unit.
Accordingly, the appropriate unit at the California Club con-
sists of the following employees :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, Keno
writers and runners, slot mechanics, but excluding boxmen, shill
bosses, floormen in the slot department, change girls and change
booth cashiers, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors, as defined in the Act.
Carousel
In the pit section, only the boxmen and shills are at issue. The
record reveals that boxmen have the power to discharge dealers
EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 587
and can effectively recommend that they be hired. In addition, they
responsibly direct the operation at their respective crap tables.
We shall therefore exclude them from the unit because of their
supervisory status. The shills exercise duties which have been set
forth above. They shall be included in the unit. Since it appears
that the head shills of this Employer exercise no more than routine
direction of other shills, and cannot hire or discharge, we shall
include them in the unit.
In the slot department, a supervisor is also the slot mechanic.
In view of his power to hire and discharge, we shall exclude him
from the unit.
Shift bosses in the Keno department responsibly direct their
shifts, and can hire and discharge employees. They are also ex-
cluded from the unit. The cage cashiers are bonded and devote
themselves essentially to office clerical duties. As at other Em-
ployers, they shall be excluded.
We find that the appropriate unit at Carousel consists of the
following employees :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers in the pit and
card room, shills and shill bosses, Keno writers, and runners, but
excluding boxmen, floormen, shift bosses in the Keno department,
change girls and change booth cashiers, cage cashiers, the slot
mechanic, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as
defined in the Act.
El Dorado Club
This club is located in Henderson, Nevada, about 12 miles from
Las Vegas. The pit department is comprised of shift bosses, dealers,
and shills. We shall exclude the shift bosses as supervisors because
of their power to hire and discharge employees. The shills, as
previously indicated, are to be included. Also, consistent with
our findings at Employer Showboat, we shall include the slot
department mechanic. With respect to the Employer's bingo de-
partment, it appears that two bingo girls exercise the power to
hire and discharge employees and, accordingly, they shall be ex-
cluded from the unit as supervisors. We shall include the remaining
bingo girls, who spend about one-third of their time as shills.
The cage cashiers perform functions similar to their counterparts
at other Employers herein, as set forth above, and, accordingly,
shall be excluded because of their divergent interests. However,
the coin wrappers merely take coins from slot machines and wrap
them in the cashier cage. It appears that they do not engage in
any office clerical functions. We shall include them in the unit.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the El
Dorado Club constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining under the Act :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, bingo
girls, the slot mechanic, and coin wrappers, but excluding change
girls and change booth girls, cage cashiers, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
Showboat
This Employer operates pit game, slot machine, and bingo de-
partments. It appears that boxmen in the pit game department
possess the power to discharge and effectively recommend the hiring
of dealers. Although he shares tips with the dealers, a boxman
is paid $35 per day while a dealer receives $22.50 daily. A boxman
may also order a dealer removed to another shift. Based upon the
foregoing, we find the boxmen to be supervisors and shall exclude
them from the unit. Two employees work both as boxmen and
dealers. Since it appears that, as boxmen, they possess the super-
visory functions of that job for substantial periods of time in the
regular course of their work, we shall exclude them from the unit 18
It appears that the duties of slot mechanics of this Employer,
and of all Employers herein, are to repair and maintain the machines
in proper working condition. This, in some instances, requires tak-
ing the machine to a shop on the premises where the corrections
are made. On other occasions, removal is not necessary and the
work is done on the casino floor. The slot mechanic at some Em-
ployers receives training for the job, but in many instances prior
experience in the field is sufficient qualification for employment.
Slot mechanics receive approximately the same salary as dealers,
work in the gaming casinos or in contiguous areas and, it appears,
have a substantial interest in the working conditions of the casinos.
Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit at this, and at all
other Employers herein, because of their community of interests
with the other gaming employees. Four of the slot department
mechanics at this Employer, however, responsibly direct employees
in that department, and have the power to discharge change girls.
We shall exclude them as supervisors. The shop mechanics, like
slot mechanics, repair and maintain the machines. They are super-
vised by a slot department supervisor. Although they do not work
on the floor, they have a sufficient community of interests with the
slot mechanics to require their unit inclusion at Showboat.
18 United States Gypsum Company, 127 NLRB 134.
EL DORADO CLUB, ETC. 589
Both the manager and assistant manager of the bingo depart-
ment hire and discharge employees, and shall be excluded as super-
visors. The cage cashiers, as at New Pioneer Club, shall be excluded
from the unit as office clerical employees.
We find the following Showboat employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, slot and shop
mechanics, and bingo girls, but excluding boxmen, change girls,
cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
El Cortez Hotel
The Employer's gaming casino includes a pit and a slot depart-
ment. The boxmen in the pit department are claimed by the Em-
ployer to be supervisors. The record indicates that boxmen in the
pit department possess the power to discharge employees and also
effectively to recommend hiring them. Like their counterparts at
the Employers, they are in charge of a gaming table and responsibly
direct its operation. We conclude that they are supervisors, and
shall exclude them from the unit. For the reasons previously stated,
the shills at this Employer shall be included in the unit.
In the slot department, Petitioner disputes the alleged supervisory
status of the assistant supervisors. Although it appears that these
employees also function as slot mechanics, there are substantial
periods of time when they are in sole charge of their slot department
sections. During that time they can effectively fire employees and
responsibly direct and discipline them. Thus, we shall exclude
the assistant supervisors because of their supervisory status. The
shift bosses themselves possess the power to discharge and responsibly
direct the entire shift. They also are excluded. The coin counters
in the department collect coins from the slot machines, count the
money, and then wrap the coins. They keep a record of the amount
of money received by each machine. Since these employees have
minimal, if any, office clerical functions and perform functions
closely related to slot department activities, we shall include them
in the unit. However, the cage cashiers predominantly work at
administrative and clerical duties which compel their exclusion from
the unit as office clerical employees, as already noted.
Accordingly, the appropriate unit for collective bargaining at the
El Cortez Hotel consists of the following employees :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, and coin
counters, but excluding boxmen, slot department shift bosses and
assistant supervisors, change girls, cashiers in the cashier depart-
ment, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined
in the Act.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Frontier Hotel
The Employer disputes the unit inclusion of the boxmen and shills
in its pit section. A boxman exercises independent judgment in
settling disputes at his gaming table, can shift a dealer to different
positions on the table, and can hire and discharge a dealer, although
it appears that a discharge in some instances may be independently
reviewed. We shall exclude the boxmen as supervisors. As at other
Employers, we shall include the shills. Since it is not clear whether
the shill bosses possess supervisory powers, we shall permit them
to vote subject to challenge.19
For the reasons appearing, we shall include the slot mechanic but
exclude the cage employees. Accordingly, the following employees
of the New Frontier Hotel constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, and slot
mechanics but excluding boxmen, change girls, cage employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the
Act.
Casino Operations, Inc.
Floormen in the pit department have overall charge of several
gaming tables and may shift employees from table to table. They
also have the power to discharge employees. The floormen shall be
excluded as supervisors. The shills are included as above. In the
slot department, floormen-slot mechanics fill jackpots and repair
the slot machines. We shall also include them. However, the
slot department manager, in addition to his floorman-slot mechanic
duties, has the power to hire employees and effectively to recommend
their discharge. Because of these supervisory functions, we shall
exclude him.
The cage cashiers process credit applications and extend credit
to customers. They type letters pertaining to credit references and
also operate a teletype machine in this function. They record
and help compile the amount of money taken in daily by the Em-
ployer. We conclude that the cage cashiers are basically office
clericals and they are excluded.
Accordingly, we find the following employees of Casino Opera-
tions, Inc., constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining :
All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, slot depart-
ment floormen, and slot department mechanics, but excluding pit
floormen, boxmen, the slot department manager, cage cashiers,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the
Act.
10 E. Anthony & Sons, Inc., 147 NLRB 204.
FLAMBEAU PLASTICS CORPORATION 591
Diamond Jim's Nevada Club
This Employer engages in the operation of slot machines only,
and has no pit gaming department. At issue are the slot mechanics
and keymen who are engaged in servicing the machines. Petitioner
requests a unit including both categories while the Employer would
exclude keymen. It appears that a keyman corrects jams which
may occur in the machines and also makes minor repairs on them.
The keyman is supervised by the floorman, and confines his work
to the main floor area. Although the slot mechanic may also
occasionally work on the floor, he is primarily engaged in more
difficult repair work in an adjoining repair shop. He is supervised
by the slot machine supervisor. The slot mechanic generally has
the requisite mechanical ability when he is hired, whereas the key-
man recieves on-the-job training in the repair of the machines.
However, when an applicant applies for a keyman position he is
given a test to determine whether he has sufficient mechanical
aptitude for machine work. The training of a keyman is the
responsibility of the slot machine supervisor. Keymen also are
promoted to be slot mechanics. All these factors reveal a sub-
stantial community of interest between keymen and slot mechanics
requiring the inclusion of both positions in the appropriate unit.
Accordingly, we find the following employees of Diamond Jim's
Nevada Club constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining :
All casino employees, including slot mechanics and keymen, but
excluding change girls, cashiers, floormen, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Flambeau Plastics Corporation and Local 380, International
Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
No. 30-CA-27.1 March 12, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that
'Formerly Case No. 18-CA-1737; changed by Order of the Board , dated October 9, 1964.
151 NLRB No. 70.