Hacienda Hotel & Casino

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jul 26, 2016

28-CA-013274 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

NOT TO BE INCLUDED MHMc
IN BOUND VOLUMES Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HACIENDA HOTEL, INC.
GAMING CORP. d/b/a
HACIENDA RESORT HOTEL
AND CASINO
and
SAHARA NEVADA CORP. d/b/a
SAHARA HOTEL AND CASINO
and Cases 28-CA-013274 and
28-CA-013275
LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD
OF LAS VEGAS, CULINARY WORKERS
UNION LOCAL 226, and BARTENDERS
UNION LOCAL 165
ORDER DENYING MOTION1
The Charging Party’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and
Order reported at 363 NLRB No. 7 (2015) is denied. The Charging Party has not
identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting
reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.2

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to a three-member panel.
2 In determining an appropriate remedy for the conduct found unlawful by the
court, the Board exercised its broad authority under Sec. 10(c) of the Act to tailor the
remedy to fit the circumstances of the case. See 363 NLRB No. 7, slip op. at 2.
Exercising this authority, the Board determined that dues reimbursement was not
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act given the unusual circumstances of this
case. See id. It is irrelevant that the Board, in fashioning this remedy, may have relied
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 26, 2016.
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
Lauren McFerran, Member
Member Hirozawa, concurring.
While I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in the underlying decision
regarding the appropriate remedy for the reasons set forth in my partial dissent, I agree
that the Charging Party has not established “extraordinary circumstances” warranting
reconsideration under the Board’s rules.
________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member

on factors relevant to whether to apply a new rule retroactively. See id. at 3 fn. 26. In
addition, we disagree with the Charging Party’s contention that the Board’s Order is
meaningless and moot. Assuming, as the Charging Party asserts, the Respondents
have ceased operations, the Board’s Order accounts for such a situation and requires
the Respondents to mail a copy of the notice to all affected employees. See id. at 4.
The Board has long viewed a notice mailing as an appropriate remedy because the
mailing adequately informs employees of their rights under the Act and the violations
that have occurred. See, e.g., Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144, 144 (1996); see
also Parkview Hospital, Inc., 343 NLRB 76, 76 fn. 3 (2004).