Frontier Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 1264 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Summa Corporation d/b/a Frontier Hotel and Gener-
al Sales Drivers, Delivery Drivers and Helpers Lo-
cal Union #14, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-3680
August 25, 1978
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered an objection to an
election held on January 21, 1977,' and a Hearing
Officer's report recommending disposition of same.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and bciefs, and hereby adopts the Hearing
Officer's findings and recommendations.2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for General Sales Drivers, De-
livery Drivers and Helpers Local Union #14, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the said labor organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the following appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wag-
es, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment:
All gaming casino dealers, shills, keno writers
and keno runners employed by the Employer at
its facility located at 3120 Las Vegas Boulevard
South: excluding all other employees including
casino shift managers, assistant shift managers,
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 120 for and 94 against the Petitioner:
there was I challenged ballot. an insufficient number to affect the results.
On August 30, 1977, the Board issued a Decision and Order Directing Hear-
ing wherein it adopted the Regional Director's Report recommending that
all employer objections except Objection II be overruled and that Objection
II be set for hearing. (Member Murphy indicated that she would have addi-
tionally ordered a hearing on Objections II[ through VI.) A hearing on
Obiection 11 was held on November 29 and 30. 1977.
pit bosses, pit floormen, boxmen, slot shift su-
pervisors, floormen, slot mechanics, booth cash-
iers, change girls, casino cage cashiers, slot cage
cashiers, coin counters and wrappers, pit clerks,
credit clerks, office clerical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues' adoption of the Hear-
ing Officer's recommendation that Objection II be
overruled. However, I adhere to my position, stated
in the earlier Decision and Order Directing Hearing
in this proceeding,3 that other allegations of objec-
tionable conduct by the Union, as contained in the
Employer's Objections III through VI, also raise ma-
terial and substantial issues of fact and law which
can only be resolved by a hearing.
Although the Hearing Officer discussed certain of
the additional allegations in the above objections, he
did so "only in the context of Objection II." Thus, he
refused to admit evidence on the Employer's allega-
tions that during the election the Union's observers
kept a count of voters and he failed to discuss some
of the allegations concerning the conduct of hotel
guests, voters, and Petitioner's observers. Conse-
quently, the majority's decision refusing to afford the
Employer the opportunity to adduce further evi-
dence on the other objections referred to above,
which if sustained could require a different result
than the one reached in the prior decision in this
case, has denied the Employer its fundamental right
to the due process of the law.
Accordingly, the majority's determination that the
Union did not engage in objectionable conduct
which interfered with the election herein is based on
an incomplete record. It is, therefore, without war-
rant. In these circumstances it is improper to certify
the Union until such time as all relevant matters in
the objections in question have been aired and liti-
gated at a hearing.
I dissent from my colleagues' final disposition of
this case until the Employer has had an opportunity
to present its case fully. Due process demands this be
done.
TThe Employer has excepted to certain credibility resolutions of the
Hearing Officer, It is the established policy of the Board not to overrule a
Hearing Officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. The
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481 (1961): Streich-
Ter Co.. 118 NLRB 1359 (1957). We find insufficient basis for disturbing
the credibility resolutions in this case
I Issued August 30. 1977, not reported in printed volumes of NLRB deci-
sions
237 NLRB No. 199
1264