MGM Grand-Reno, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 1980

249 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

MGM GRAND-RENO, INC. 9hl
MGM Grand-Reno, Inc. and Operating Engineers,
Stationary Local 39, International Union of Op-
erating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Cases 32-CA-
1336 and 32-RC-450
May 30, 1980
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
On January 24, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) 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, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.
1. The Administrative Law Judge found that an
invalid no-solicitation rule 3 was inoperative and
had been superseded by the current no-solicitation
rule4 as stated in Respondent's revised general
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibilihty findings made by the
Administrative Laws Judge It is the Board's established politc) not ,
overrule an administrative law judge, resolulions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the reles.alt vidence :on-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Productr,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Re-
spondent violated Sec 8(aXI) and (3) of the Act by failing to promote
Csonka to grade I of the October 2 revised age structure along with 23
of 36 "maintenance engineers," we note that 5 of the 23 earned less than
Csonka but thereafter earned more In finding discrimination as to
Csonka we do not rely upon Respondent's failure to explain the sudden
increased value of the services of said five employees
Member Jenkins would not find a violation of Sec 81a)l 1) of the Act it
Williams' comment to Magrini that he might negotiate more faxorably
for himself than through the Union.
" The first rule which appeared in the employees' handbook states as
fillows:
Solicitation by anyone for funds, membership in organizatiols or
clubs, or distribution of any literature for any purpose, is strictly for-
bidden on company property The circulalion of petition of an' kind
is similarly forbidden This includes employees and noellrriploees
The current rule as distributed on May b. 1978, reads as follow,
Circulation of petitions of any kind during uworking time tor sollca-
tion of employees for any purpose other than the United Way during
working time is not permitted Distribution of written materials
during working time or in working areas is not permitted
The current rule. by itself, was not alleged as being utilawful Chairmanl
Fanning and Member Jenkins do not rely on the Aditinistratie Law.
Judge's statement that the current rule as law fiul See their d-scenling
opinion in Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749, 753 (1974)
In the absence of exceptions thereto, Member Truesdale adopts the
Administrative L.aw Judge's finding that Responderni's May 6 rule. iI
itself, was lawful.
249 NLRB No. 153
rules. He found that there was no evidence present-
ed to show that employees were confused or re-
stricted in the organizational activity on behalf of
the Union although the invalid rule continued to be
distributed to employees as part of Respondent's
"Employee Handbook" for about 3 months after
the current rule and been promulgated.
We find merit in the General Counsel's conten-
tion that the simultaneous maintenance of both
rules created an ambiguous situation so that an em-
ployee could not clearly know which rule was in
effect. When the current rule was distributed to
employees, Respondent did nothing to lead em-
ployees to believe tht the prior rule had been re-
voked, except to state in a covering memorandum
that the revised general rules were being distribut-
ed "so that there is no misunderstanding." But Re-
spondent's continued distribution of the prior inval-
id rule for some 3 months after this could only
serve to create misunderstanding and confusion in
the minds of employees. As the simultaneous distri-
bution of both rules continued for about 1 month
after the inception of the Union's organizational
campaign, it occurred during the critical period
when employees would be particularly concerned
about their rights regarding solicitation and distri-
bution of literature.
Notwithstanding the fact that there was no evi-
dence presented at the hearing to show that em-
ployees were confused about the rules, the mainte-
nance of both rules created an ambiguity. The rules
could be read together to give the impression that
all solicitation and distribution was prohibited at all
times on company property. We therefore con-
clude that they were overly broad and unlaful. We
reach this conclusion regardless of whether the
rules had been enforced. 5 Accordingly, we con-
clude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act and interfered with the election.
2. We agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion that Rodney Whaley was not
discharged because of his union or protected con-
certed activity. In reaching this conclusion we note
that Whaley, on Saturday, October 14, 1979, 4 days
before his discharge, stated in a work order that
certain vent work had been replaced or completed,
when in reality it had not. Although Whaley
claimed that by mistake he completed some work
in an area adjacent to the one to which he was as-
signed, he failed to communicate this fact to his su-
pervisor, Kelly. Furthermore, after he submitted
the work order he left his work area and could not
be located by Kelly. On that same day, Kelly pre-
' Ihe (reat .4ttlni c & Pacific I,, ' p. l i, r . 162 NI R I 1182.
1184 (1967)1 See also .\autiuronl 1-1 cl r , (Co! )i , ic, xll, , f(iru 11i lul,
C'orunpny, 188 NLRB 4 51 ('Il71
MGM GRAND-RENO, N. O I
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pared a written warning addressed to Whaley. This
was not on Respondent's standard working form,
and Kelly added a postscript to the warning in
which he sated that: "It is my opinion that Rod
Whaley will not work out here at M.G.M. He has
a poor attitude towards work." Kelly considered
this statement a recommendation that Whaley be
terminated. The warning was forwarded to the ad-
ministrative director of engineering, Herbrechts-
meier, who was off work until October 16. Kelly
was off until October 17. Therefore, the first avail-
able date on which Herbrechtsmeier and Kelly
could have spoken about Whaley's conduct was
October 17. Thus Whaley was discharged on Octo-
ber 18 (the day on which he engaged in solicitation
for the Union) for an incident which occurred on
October 14. There is no evidence that anyone re-
sponsible for Whaley's discharge knew that he en-
gaged in union solicitation on the morning of Octo-
ber 18, prior to his discharge, and Respondent's
various memorandums concerning the solicitation
do not establish whether the solicitation occurred
before or after the discharge. 6 In these circum-
stances, we conclude that the discharge of Whaley
was not motivated by any unlawful considerations
and we shall dismiss the allegation of the complaint
alleging that his discharge was discriminatory.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
We hereby amplify Conclusion of Law 3 to read
as follows:
"3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act by coercively interrogating employees,
threatening discharge and loss of benefits and privi-
leges, suggesting that employees negotiate without
the intervention of the Union, granting wage in-
creases and an accompanying classification system
to induce employees to refrain from supporting the
Union, prohibiting employees from walking togeth-
er to worksites on company premises, and main-
taining conflicting rules against solicitation for pur-
poses including membership in organizations which
can be read to prohibit all solicitation and distribu-
tion at all times on company property."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
MGM Grand-Reno, Inc., Reno, Nevada, its offi-
s In adopting the finding of the Administrative Law Judge with regard
to Whaley, we find it unnecessary to rely oin the conclusion that Whaley
at his discharge interview would have mentioned his solicitation that
morning of laundry room employees if, in fact, he had been so engaged.
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(c):
"(c) Suggesting that employees negotiate without
intervention of the Union, and prohibiting employ-
ees from walking together to worksites on compa-
ny premises."
2. Insert the following as new paragraph l(f) and
reletter the subsequent paragraph accordingly:
"(f) Maintaining conflicting rules against solicita-
tion for purposes including membership in organi-
zations which can be read to prohibit all solicita-
tion and distribution at all times on company prop-
erty."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted in Case 32-RC-450 on October 6, 1978, be,
and it hereby is, set aside, and the case is remanded
to the Regional Director for Region 32 for the pur-
pose of conducting a second election at such time
as he deems appropriate.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present their evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To act together for collective bargaining
or mutual aid or protection
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you
concerning your activities on behalf of Operat-
ing Engineers, Stationary Local 39, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you or
threaten to deny you benefits or privileges, or
prohibit you from walking together while
going to and from job assignments or else-
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC.
where in order to discourage your union activ-
ity.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or a
classification system in order to cause you to
vote against or refrain from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT suggest that you negotiate
with the Company without the intervention of
a union.
WE WILL NOT maintain conflicting rules
against solicitation for purposes including
membership in organizations which can be
read to prohibit all solicitation and distribution
at all times on company property.
WE WILL NOT fail to grant wage increases
and promotions to employees in reprisal for
their union activity, and WE WILL promote
employee Andrew Csonka to the classification
of group I maintenance engineer, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, with
interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge:
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter
was held before me in Reno, Nevada, on July 17-20 and
24-25, 1979. The charge in Case 32-CA-1336 was filed
on October 30, 1978, by Operating Engineers Stationary
Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union). On January 31,
1979, the Regional Director for Region 32 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board)
issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging viola-
tion by MGM Grand-Reno, Inc. (herein called Respond-
ent) of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). The
aforementioned complaint was amended on June 29,
1979. Respondent's answers to the complaint and amend-
ment to complaint, duly filed, deny the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to a representation petition in Case 32-RC-
450, filed on August 18, 1978, and a Stipulation for Certi-
fication Upon Consent Election thereafter executed by
the parties, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
October 6, 1978, in the following unit:
All maintenance department employees, including
maintenance persons, laborers, painters, carpenters,
upholsterers, locksmiths, and draftsmen; excluding
all other employees, including truckdrivers, ware-
house clerks, work order clerks, life safety system
clerks, office clerical employees, guards and super-
visors (including shift supervisors) as defined in the
Act.
The official tally of ballots served on the parties shows
that, of approximately 49 eligible voters, 22 cast ballots
for and 27 cast ballots against the Union. There were no
challenged ballots. Timely objections to the election
were filed by the Union.
Thereafter, on January 31, 1979, the Regional Director
for Region 32 issued a report on objections, order con-
solidating cases, and notice of hearing wherein it was de-
termined that various election objections were the same
as certain matters alleged to be violations of the Act in
Case 32-CA-1336, and the cases were consolidated for
the purposes of hearing, ruling and decision by an admin-
istrative law judge.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be
heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the
hearing briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and counsel for Respondent.
Upon the entire record and based upon my observa-
tion of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs sub-
mitted, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing
by virture of the laws of the State of Nevada, and is a
subsidiary of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, with a home office located in Culver City,
California. Respondent is engaged in the business of op-
erating a hotel and casino in Reno, Nevada. In the
course and conduct of its business operations, Respond-
ent annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000,
and annually purchases and receives goods or services
valued in excess of 50,000 which originate outside the
State of Nevada. It is admitted, and I find, that Respond-
ent is now, and has been at all times material herein, and
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Itn. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issues raised by the pleadings are wheth-
er Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
granting a wage increase, changing working conditions,
and by various instances of interrogation, promises, and
threats; whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act by discharging employee Rodney Whaley and
by failing to properly reclassify employee Andrew
903
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Csonka; and whether certain election objections should
be sustained and a new election directed.
B. The Facts
1. Interrogation, threats, promises of benefit
The unit herein consists of about 49 maintenance de-
partment employees, approximately 36 of whom are clas-
sified as maintenance engineers or, in the terminology of
the unit description, "maintenance persons." During its
preelection campaign Respondent held numerous meet-
ings with groups of unit employees, none of which meet-
ings are alleged herein to have involved statements or
conduct violative of the Act. However, it is alleged that
during the period following the filing of the petition on
April 18, 1978, various supervisors or managers engaged
in certain conduct in contravention of the Act, as set
forth below.
Andrew Csonka, a maintenance engineer, testified that,
on or about September 10,1 Shift Supervisor Walter Wil-
liams approached Csonka and mentioned that the Union
had been discussed at a meeting with the other engineers
that morning. Williams stated that he believed anyone
who wanted a union at that time was simple-minded be-
cause of the wage war that was going on in the Reno
area. He said, according to Csonka, that "if a Union
came in, that we would be standing out in the cold be-
cause we would probably have to go out on strike, and
that MGM would have to hire all new employees." On
cross-examination Csonka testified that essentially what
Williams said was that the employees may have to go
out on strike to get what they want in negotiations, and
could be replaced during the strike. However, on redi-
rect examination, Csonka reiterated his original testimo-
ny.
During the same conversation Csonka mentioned to
Williams that he thought he might be interested in going
to school and playing ball. Williams replied that in cer-
tain situations Respondent "catered" to people who were
going to school, but that if the Union came in there
would be no chance of that happening. Csonka under-
stood Williams to mean that Respondent, in the absence
of a union, might possibly accommodate him by insuring
that his work schedule did not conflict with school.
On September 19, Engineer Manager James Souder
told Csonka that members of the Union's Las Vegas
local had stated that a union at this time in the Reno area
was a foolish idea because of a wage war. Souder also
made reference to a strong union member he knew who
was very much like Csonka, using the term "hot head"
to describe him, and told Csonka that even this particu-
lar individual believed that a union at the MGM-Grand
in Reno was a foolish idea at the time.
Several days later Csonka had another conversation
with Williams, who mentioned that he had been "jumped
on" by Helmet Herbrechtsmeier, administrative director
of engineering, for permitting Csonka and another em-
ployee, Koepnick, to walk through the halls together on
the way to their jobs. Williams warned Csonka that Her-
' All dates or time periods hereinafter are within 1978, unless other-
wise indicated.
brechtsmeier did not like the men walking together. Wil-
liams added that the engineers should not be seen walk-
ing together while going to or from a job or to or from
lunch, or standing in the hallways. He said the men
should avoid contact even if they have been assigned a
job requiring them to work together, and had to take dif-
ferent routes to get to the job.
James Corbett, a maintenance engineer, testified that,
during the latter part of August, Williams asked him,
"Well, Jim, what do you think of the Union?" Corbett
replied that he did not know, and had not spent much
time looking into it. Williams stated, "You know, if the
Union comes in here, you guys are going to probably
have to take an examination to check your qualifications
. . .that's going to bring down a lot of changes, and a
lot of people are going to be going out the door." Cor-
bett replied that he was a qualified refrigeration and air-
conditioning man, and was not worried.
About a week later Corbett and several other employ-
ees had just finished eating lunch when Williams called
Corbett aside, telling the other employees to wait out-
side. Williams told Corbett to sit down, and asked
whether employee Charlie Green, a known union adher-
ent, had been talking to him about the Union. Corbett
said no. Williams then asked if anyone had been talking
to him about the Union. Again Corbett answered no.
Williams wanted to know if Corbett had thought about
the Union, and asked if Corbett had attended any union
meetings. Corbett replied that he had not attended any
meetings, but that he intended to check it out. Williams
replied, "You kind of owe it to yourself to go down and
check it out."
During approximately the same period of time Wil-
liams asked Corbett and another engineer, who were
walking together to get to their respective jobs, "What
are you guys doing together?" Corbett replied they were
going to their jobs. Williams said, "Well, I'm giving you
fair warning. You guys aren't supposed to be caught to-
gether. Two guys together, that's no good." Corbett re-
peated that they were just walking to their jobs and Wil-
liams replied, "Well, I'll give you fair warning. If Helmet
[Herbrechtsmeier] catches you, you're going to hear
about it."
Paul Magrini, a maintenance mechanic, testified that
prior to the election Williams invited him into the cab of
a pickup truck for a private conversation. In the truck,
Williams asked whether Magrini was going to vote for
the Union or against the Union. Magrini said he did not
know, and had not made up his mind. Williams suggest-
ed that perhaps Magrini could negotiate better for him-
self rather than through a union. Again Magrini said he
had not made up his mind yet. Williams also said that the
employees should give the MGM-Grand a year or so to
try and straighten out the place.
About a month before the election there was a meet-
ing of all day-shift personnel. Accordingly to Magrini,
Williams instructed the employees that upon the comple-
tion of their jobs they should return to the engineering
department, obtain another work order, and proceed
alone to the next assignment. Further, Williams advised
the employees not to loiter or talk to each other between
jobs.
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC. 965
Rodney Whaley, a maintenance engineer, was hired on
August 28. During his employment interview, according
to Whaley, Williams inquired whether Whaley knew that
there was a union trying to organize the maintenance
employees, and solicited his views about unionism.
Whaley indicated that he was opposed to unions.
Several weeks later, Whaley, who had been working
for another employer in the evenings, intentionally mis-
represented to Herbrechtsmeier that he wanted to con-
tinue his education by taking night classes, and therefore
wanted to remain working the day shift. 2 Herbrechts-
meier asked the nature of the classes, and Whaley fabri-
cated a response. Herbrechtsmeier told him that he could
advance "quite far" within the organization, and asked
his views on the Union. Whaley said he did not want a
union.
About a week later Shift Supervisor Ralph Kelly en-
gaged Whaley and another employee in a conversation.
Kelly asked how things were coming along, and if they
had any questions or problems. He handed Whaley sev-
eral pieces of antiunion literature, and asked Whaley
what he thought about the Union. Whaley testified that
on this occasion he responded that he was in favor of
group action.
About 10 days before the election, during the course
of discussing work-related matters, Williams said to
Whaley, "This is strictly off the record, but I want to
ask you how you are going to vote when the election
comes." Whaley said he did not want the Union because
it would work to his disadvantage as he had abilities
beyond the average engineer, and a union would inter-
fere with his promotional potential.
Employee Thomas Hansen testified that prior to the
election Williams asked him what he thought about the
Union. Hansen answered that he liked unions because
they helped the men. Williams replied that Hansen was
crazy.
Although both Kelly and Williams were shift supervi-
sors, Williams was considered to be senior to Kelly in
the management hierarchy. Williams admitted that, pur-
suant to instructions from Respondent's employment
manager, he distributed campaign literature to various
unit employees, and visited with certain employees on an
individual basis in order to present Respondent's point of
view. During these conversations Williams assessed the
employees' feelings regarding the Union, and reported
the results of this evaluation to the employment manager.
Kelly readily acknowledged that he was instructed to
contact eight or nine employees in order to apprise them
of the merits of Respondent's benefits compared with
those the Union had to offer, and was further directed to
evaluate each employee's probable union adherence or
lack thereof and report his conclusions to the employ-
ment manager. Kelly, however, denies asking Whaley or
any of the employees to disclose their preference. Simi-
larly, Williams and Herbrechtsmeier denied that they in-
terrogated Whaley or any other employee regarding the
Union.
Williams acknowledged that he instructed the engi-
neers to refrain from walking together, testifying that:
2 Apparently Whale believed he was going to he transferred to a dif-
ferent shift
A. This came about because Mr. Herbrechtsmeier
had a favorite habit of roaming around, and when
he seen two engineers walking down a hallway to-
gether, he always wanted to know why, and basi-
cally I got tired of answering him, so I just told the
guys to split up. It gave the appearance that they
could be dogging it.
Q. And what instructions did you give them?
A. I just said, you know, don't jungle up together
and walk the hallways together. If you're going for
a coffee or come back from coffee, one go this way,
a couple go another way; spread out, split up.
Q. Now, had you observed the maintenance de-
partment employees do that before you gave them
the instruction?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you conclude from observing them?
A. You could conclude many things, or several
things, I should say.
Q. What?
A. You could conclude that they were either
very friendly or that they were goofing off, espe-
cially if you found them in an area that they had no
business being in anyway.
Q. And did you, on occasion, find them goofing
off or in an area where they shouldn't be in groups?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that what motivated your instructions
to them?
A. Yes.
Herbrechtsmeier testified that he did not issue instruc-
tions that maintenance employees should not walk to-
gether, nor is that the current policy. Rather, Her-
brechtsmeier testified that he instructed his supervisors to
prohibit two men walking together or working on the
same job assignment under circumstances which do not
warrant joint effort. Thus, Herbrechtsmeier wanted to
preclude featherbedding situations such as, for example,
when "one engineer carries a toilet plunger to unplug the
drain and the other engineer sits on the bench and
watches."
2. The wage increase
The MGM-Grand opened in May 1978. Barrie Brunet,
president and chief executive officer of Respondent, testi-
fied that the opening of other hotels and hotel-casinos in
the Reno area about the same time resulted in extreme
competition for qualified employees. During this initial
period of its operations Respondent experienced heavy
employee turnover, and there were organizational efforts
by various unions in the area. In about July, Brunet di-
rected Personnel Director Bob Ostrovsky to begin a
wage survey comparing Respondent's wages with those
of other Reno hotels and hotel-casinos, and with the
wages paid at Respondent's sister hotel-casino in Las
Vegas. Moreover, according to Brunet, each department
head was consulted with respect to problems in recruit-
ing or retaining qualified employees and the input of
each department head was solicited in this regard.
As a result of the wage surveys and after consultation
with the department heads, Brunet determined, shortly
MGM GRAND-RENO, I C
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before October 2, that wage increases and a new wage
progression system, based on seniority rather than the
then current merit system, should be put into effect. 3
The increase was announced on October 2. Not all em-
ployees or job classifications received increases. Thus,
according to Brunet, some classifications were already
receiving wage rates in excess of 95 percent of Las
Vegas rates; some hourly rates were misleading as wages
of certain classification of employees were supplemented
by substantial gratuities; and some Las Vegas rates were
simply considered to be "out-of-line" with Reno wages.
The documentary record evidence reflects that, of the
approximately 3,558 employees then working for Re-
spondent immediately prior to October 2, about 1,519
employees were earning the same or more than 95 per-
cent of the Las Vegas rate in similar classifications, and
about 2,042 employees were earning less than the 95 per-
cent Las Vegas parity. Of these 2,042 employees about
1,000 received wage increases, including the 36 mainte-
nance engineers and several other employees in the unit
involved herein. Thus, over 1,000 employees who were
earning less than the 95 percent of the comparable wage
paid by the MGM-Grand in Las Vegas received no
wage increase.
On October 2, Brunet distributed the following memo
to all department heads:
SUBJECT: WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
Since we have just completed our first summer of
operations, we felt it was appropriate to review our
wage and benefit program in the light of the success
of the summer's operations.
As a result of this review, we are making sub-
stantial pay adjustments for employees in many de-
partments of the hotel. In some areas we deter-
mined that present pay levels were adequate and in
those areas no adjustment is being made at this time.
However, you can be sure that all areas of the
hotel's operations were reviewed and that the pay
and benefit programs for all employees are con-
stantly being reviewed to insure that the MGM
Grand-Reno is the best possible place to work.
The wage increases for maintenance employees were
announced on Monday, October 2, at which time Her-
brechtsmeier read a statement from Brunet to the assem-
bled unit employees, as follows:
STATEMENT TO MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT
I am pleased to report to you that the Mainte-
nance Department is one of the areas in which
wage increses were found to be justified, so all of
you will be receiving an adjustment in the rate
range for your classification as of Monday of this
week. Basically, what we have done in the Mainte-
3 It had been decided to use the wages paid by the MGM-Grand in
Las Vegas as a guide, and to pay Respondent's employees in selected
classifications 95 percent or the comparable Las Vegas wages.
nance Department is to establish the following clas-
sification: 4
These new rates are substantially higher than our
previous rates and are higher than the rates paid
anywhere in Reno. We believe that they will help
us to attract and retain the highest quality employ-
ees. 5
Some of you may be wondering whether this in-
crease is related to the NLRB election we have
scheduled on Friday. The answer is "No." This in-
crease has no relationship to the election. It is based
on a Hotel-wide review of pay levels and is only a
small part of an increase which affects a major
number of the Hotel's employees. We are making
the pay increases because we think it is the right
thing to do, regardless of how you vote in the elec-
tion on Friday.
The Union may attack the increase as unlawful
or try to claim credit for it but the fact is that we
would have given the increase now regardless of
whether or not the Union had filed a petition for an
election. We considered delaying the increase for a
week in order to avoid a charge that we were im-
properly trying to influence the election, but we re-
jected that because it wouldn't be fair to the Hotel's
other employees. We also considered going ahead
with the increase for all employees except those in
the Maintenance Department but we decided
against that because it wouldn't be fair to you.
We know we are taking a risk in making the in-
creases now and that the Union may attack the
Hotel, but we are not going to penalize you or
anyone else who works for the Hotel just because a
union is trying to get in here. We are committed to
making this Hotel the best possible place to work
and are not going to let unions interfere with our
reaching this goal.
Thereafter, prior to the election which was scheduled
for that Friday, October 6, each unit employee was told
what his grade and new rate of pay would be." Initially,
all maintenance engineers were hired within the range of
S42-S66 per 8-hour shift. During the period of the afore-
mentioned wage survey, their median wage was $54 per
shift. Respondent, in its attempt to grant the employees
95 percent parity with its Las Vegas counterpart, deter-
mined that maintenance engineers should be separated
into groups 1 and 2, and that the wage scale for mainten-
ace engineers 2 should start at $50 per shift and would
4 At this point Herbrechtsmeier apparently explained the new wage
rate ranges within grades I and 2, but did not advise each employee of
his new rate of pay or the grade in which he was to be placed.
' During the course of the preelection campaign Respondent distribut-
ed a leaflet showing wage and benefit comparisons with four other em-
ployers represented by the Union in the Reno area. The leaflet showed
that "maintenance persons" working for Respondent could then poten-
tially earn as much as 66 per shift, whereas the next top rate paid for
"maintenance engineers" by another employer named in the leaflet was
S59.20 per shift
^ However, it appears that Csonka was not so advised until shortly
after the election.
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC. 967
be raised to $64 per shift after I year. Similarly, those
maintenance engineers in group I would thereafter be
hired at a rate of $64 per shift, and after I year's employ-
ment would receive $76 per shift. Of the 36 maintenance
engineers 23 were classified as group I maintenance engi-
neers, and received wage increases of varying amounts.
7
Herbrechtsmeier, who was instrumental in hiring main-
tenance personnel, testified that he did initially have dif-
ficulty in finding qualified maintenance engineers due to
their unavailability, particularly as the Reno area was
thriving and enjoyed an unemployment rate of only 2
percent during the summer of 1978, and further because
Respondent was unable to attract qualified employees
from outside the area due to prohibitive housing costs.
Moreover, Herbrechtsmeier had difficulty in retaining
employees once they were hired, testifying that the turn-
over problem was "bad" at the beginning, because "most
of the engineers left on their own request, either went
home to their home state or home town, or were looking
for higher paying jobs."
Herbrechtsmeier did not testify that he was consulted
by any person involved in taking the wage survey, or by
any officer of Respondent during the wage survey
period, or that his input was requested regarding wage
increases, or a classification system for maintenance de-
partment personnel. Nor did Herbrechtsmeier testify that
the hiring and retaining of qualified maintenance engi-
neers continued to be a source of difficulty at the time it
was contemplated that the maintenance engineers should
receive an increase. In fact, none of Respondent's wit-
nesses were able to state with any particularity just when
such a determination to grant the increase to the mainte-
nance engineers and other unit employees was made.
Herbrechtsmeier did testify, however, that at the time
the maintenance department classifications and wage in-
creases were announced, he was having difficulty re-
cruiting painters, who are included in the unit. As a
result of the increase, painters were granted the same
wage and progression system as group I maintenance en-
gineers.
Souder, who is immediately subordinate to Her-
brechtsmeier in the maintenance department hierarchy,
testified that initially Respondent had difficulty in paying
engineering employees a sufficient wage to entice them
away from other employers in the area. He further ex-
plained that experienced maintenance engineers were
simply unavailable, and that, primarily because of prohib-
itive housing costs, Respondent was unable to attract em-
ployees from outside the Reno area. Souder indicated,
however, that the problem was not acute, as, "We fig-
ured it was going to take a while to staff the hotel and
we were really not in too much of a hurry because a lot
of it [the machinery and equipment] was still under war-
ranty." Moreover, Souder testified that, although Re-
spondent continued having difficulty in attracting quali-
7 The pay of one maintenance engineer was immediately raised $10 per
shift, or in excess of $200 per month: the pay of three other engineers
was raised 9 per shift; and the pay of two other maintenance engineers
was raised $8 per shift Other group I engineers who were earning less
than $64 per shift also received wage increases The remaining 13 em-
ployees, some of whom also received wage increases, were classified as
group 2 maintenance engineers
fled maintenance engineers after the hotel opened, once
the employees were hired Respondent did not have trou-
ble retaining them, and there were only "a few who
packed up and left."8
Respondent introduced an exhibit showing that, as of
November 30, the maintenance department had an active
work force of 90 employees, and that, during the 7-
month period from May to November 30, 44 employees
had quit or been terminated for various reasons.
3. Coffeebreaks; the pool table
The maintenance engineers initially took their coffee-
breaks in the employees' cafeteria. This practice was
changed in mid-August and, after the change, coffee-
breaks were taken in the shop area of the engineering de-
partment, which was not centrally located as was the
employees' cafeteria. It is clear from a composite of the
testimony of various employees that coffeebreaks are not
infrequently extended beyond the 10 or 15 minutes allot-
ed. As a result of this change of location, the employees
were susceptible to closer observation by supervisors
who maintained offices in the engineering department,
and the employees apparently were therefore more cir-
cumspect in discussing the Union while taking their
breaks in the engineering department.
According to Kelly, the location for coffeebreaks was
changed because the employees were spending 20-30
minutes in the cafeteria, and they were less likely to
abuse the 10-minute time limitation when they were "sit-
ting out there like a sore thumb in the shop area." Wil-
liams and Herbrechtsmeier testified similarly. One em-
ployee testified that Souder, apparently speaking about
the abuse of coffeebreaks and the change of location,
told the employees that they were going to have to start
acting like engineers. There is no evidence that any of
Respondent's supervisors or managers attempted to
eavesdrop on employees' conversations in the shop area.
About the time the coffeebreak location was changed,
a pool table was placed in the locker room utilized by
the maintenance engineers. This particular pool table had
previously been near the carpenters' shop, and had
served as a catchall for work-related carpentry material.
The employees were not able to shed light on the myste-
rious appearance of this pool table in the locker room,
and each of Respondent's supervisors or managers spe-
cifically disclaimed any involvement whatsoever in the
relocation of the pool table. As the employees utilized
the locker room only before and after their work shift, it
appears that the recreational use of the pool table was
limited to such occasions, and the record indicates that it
was used only sparingly, if at all. The pool table was
sold and moved out of the locker room several months
prior to the hearing.
4. The classification of Andrew Csonka
Andrew Csonka was interviewed and hired by Her-
brechtsmeier and Souder, and began working for Re-
a The parties stipulated that, prior Io October 2, eight maintenance en-
gineers had quit and about four had been discharged
9 Only a portion (of the maintenance department employees was includ-
ed in the unit
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent on June 13, as a welder-engineer at the rate of
$52 per 8-hour shift. At this time the wage range for
maintenance engineers was $42-$66. Csonka's shift super-
visors were Walter Williams and Ralph Kelly. The
equipment for the weld shop had been ordered previous-
ly, and Csonka's initial job was to assemble the equip-
ment and set up the weld shop. Thereafter he performed
"maintenance type welding" and "fabrication" in the
weld shop, which work occupied about 90-95 percent of
his time. He had no regular assistant in the weld shop,
and received no specific instructions from any supervi-
sors regarding his welding functions. There were no
other employees performing welding work at that time,
except perhaps on a sporadic basis.
Csonka and Charles Green were initially instrumental
in organizing on behalf of the Union, and Respondent's
managers and supervisors admit that they were aware
that Csonka was a vocal and active union adherent.
Csonka was then living with Green and another employ-
ee, Charles Hansen.
Csonka's 90-day probationary period was up in mid-
September, at which time he was evaluated by Williams
who recommended Csonka for permanent employment.
The written "Probationary Performance Evaluation"
prepared by Williams reflects that, according to Wil-
liams, Csonka's attendance, punctuality, job knowledge,
and job performance were "good," but that his attitude
was "fair." In the explanatory comments, Williams ex-
plained, "This individual at times expressed negative atti-
tude as to salary." At this time Csonka's salary was ap-
parently raised from $52 to $58 per shift.
According to the testimony of employee Hansen,
Souder and Williams met with Hansen the day prior to
the election, and Souder advised him that he was being
placed in the group 2 classification. Souder spontaneous-
ly added that this decision was not because Hansen lived
with Csonka and Green, but because Hansen did not
know the building well enough.
The new classification system and wage ranges dis-
cussed above were announced on October 2, but Csonka
was not advised of his particular classification or wage
rate under the new system until several days after the
October 6 election, during which he acted as observer
for the Union.'° When Csonka was told by Herbrechts-
meier, Souder, and Williams that he had been classified
as a group 2 engineer, Csonka expressed his disagree-
ment and asked for an explanation. Souder said, "Well,
you have to know all different aspects of the engineering
field. You have to be able to handle carpenter work or
upholstery work or paint or be a plumber. Whatever we
call you for, you have to be able to handle it." Souder
also said that Csonka should be able to perform work re-
quired in the boilerroom. Csonka replied that none of the
engineers then in Respondent's employ were capable of
performing such a wide variety of work, and Souder re-
plied, "I wouldn't say that." Csonka was told that in
"' Csonka testriied that immediately after the election he expressed to
Souder and Herbrechtsmeier that he hoped there were no hard feelings
regarding his activity on behalf of the Union. Souder replied that, if
Csonka had not stood up for what he believed. Souder would have
thought less of him.
order to broaden his experience he could be assigned a
variety of jobs throughout the hotel.
Thereafter Csonka had conversations about the matter
with various supervisors including Williams, Kelly.
and Bill Ferris. On each occasion Williams gave Csonka
a similar explanation; namely, his lack of experience in
various phases of the work. However, Kelly admitted
that he told Csonka during these conversations that he
believed Csonka should have been classified as a group 1
engineer, and may have used even stonger language to
express his feeling that Respondent's inferior classifica-
tion of Csonka was unwarranted.
In about mid-April 1979, Supervisor Ferris told
Csonka that he was working on moving Csonka up to a
number 1 engineer classification but was having some
problems. Ferris stated that there was an opening on the
swing shift and that if Csonka accepted this position he
would be able to learn different aspects of the work and
would move up rapidly. Csonka agreed. Thereafter
Csonka worked on the swing shift and performed no
welding on a regular basis.
Csonka received his yearly evaluation on or about
June 13, 1979. At this time he was summoned to Her-
brechtsmeier's office and, in the presence of Souder and
Herbrechtsmeier, was asked whether he thought he was
ready to be classified as a group I engineer. Csonka re-
plied affirmatively, and Herbrechtsmeier asked Csonka to
elaborate. Csonka explained that he had been training in
other areas of the work, mainly refrigeration, and that he
had learned quite a bit about these other areas since he
had been transferred to the swing shift, adding that he
understood that such a broad range of work was being
required of him. Csonka also stated that he believed his
attitude had changed since he was no longer being super-
vised by Williams. 2 Herbrechtsmeier acknowledged
Csonka's improvement'" and stated that when the appro-
priate papers came through he would sign them. Csonka
apparently believed that he was to be upgraded to a
group I engineer. However, shortly thereafter Csonka
received a wage increase from $58 per shift to $64 per
shift, which latter amount is both the top wage for a
group 2 engineer and the starting wage for a group I en-
gineer. To date Csonka has never been told that he has
been upgraded to a group I engineer, and Respondent
has not represented either to Csonka, or on the record
during the instant proceeding, that Csonka's classification
has been changed.
Engineering Manager Souder testified that everyone
was initially classified as a "maintenance person," and
that even though each individual may have a "high
spot," Souder and Herbrechtsmeier advised prospective
employees, including Csonka, that Respondent may call
upon them to perform other work, such as cleaning out
sewers or helping an electrician. When the new classifi-
cation system was established, each employee's immedi-
ate supervisor, along with Souder and Herbrechtsmeier,
discussed the employee's performance and capabilities in
1 l Willidais left Resplr det's erilploy uii I)ecenmher 29
i: Csoinka testified ihat he had had cry little respect for Williamns,
who left Responldenlts mplo i Decenmber 1978
':' Ihe Junel I. 197)79, cvallua lll fiirm states that Csonka'Ls attitude had
im prow ed
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC. 969
order to determine the appropriate classification for the
employee. As a result of this discussion, according to
Souder, Csonka was classified as a group 2 engineer
largely because of Williams' recommendation, which was
given considerable weight due to the fact that Williams
had worked closely with Csonka. During the aforemen-
tioned discussion among the supervisors, it was brought
out that Williams had not yet assigned Csonka jobs out-
side the welding shop, and therefore Csonka lacked ex-
perience in other phases of the work throughout the
hotel. At this point Souder testified that he told Williams
that "I wanted to see him [Csonka] . . . pulled off the
welding and get out through the hotel and get some
more experience." ' Souder, nevertheless, agreed with
Williams' classification of Csonka "because of his [Cson-
ka's] age and his experience and I thought that it
wouldn't be too long that he would go up into a Grade I
any way." Although Souder acknowledged that he was
well aware of Csonka's support for the Union, he testi-
fied that this was not a consideration in Respondent's in-
ferior classification of Csonka.
As discussed above, 23 of the 36 maintenance engi-
neers in Respondent's employ were classified as group I
engineers and received wage increases. Of the approxi-
mately 22 maintenance engineers on the day shift, 13
were classified as group I engineers, and the remainder,
including Csonka, were classified as group 2 engineers.
According to the testimony of Souder, the employees
who were placed in grade 2 performed a variety of mis-
cellaneous jobs such as making room calls to fix shower
doors or toilet seats, repairing toilets, performing minor
electrical work, attending to stuck elevators, and replac-
ing malfunctioning TV sets. Souder readily admitted that
these individuals were placed in the inferior classification
because they were not as skilled or proficient in a partic-
ular type of work compared to the employees classified
as grade I maintenance engineers. One individual who
was classified within group I was engaged in repairing
or replacing broken marble or tile, or performing other
"patch work." Moreover, painters were classified within
group I because, according to Souder and Herbrechts-
meier, Respondent was experiencing difficulty in recruit-
ing painters.
Employee Brian Hale, who was classified as a group 2
engineer, worked with Csonka about 2 days a week from
the time the hotel opened, and was taught to weld by
Csonka. When Csonka was moved to the swing shift in
April 1979, Hale assumed Csonka's position as welder
and thereafter worked in the weld shop during the entire
shift. Shortly thereafter, Hale advised his supervisor, Bill
Ferris, that he could not handle the job himself, and
since that time Hale has had a full-time helper who as-
sists him, obtains necessary material, and cleans up. At a
later date Hale was also assigned to perform general
maintenance work on vehicles, but he apparently per-
forms such work only on a limited basis. Hale was pro-
moted to grade I on or about July 23, 1979.15
14 Souder testified that he could not conceive of a situation in which
an employee performing only welding work would he classified as a
group I engineer.
's The record evidence regarding Hale's promotion to group I is
highly abbreviated and unclear While Souder infers that Hale's promo-
5. The no-solicitation rules
The hotel distributed to all newly hired employees its
"Employee's Handbook" together with a separate docu-
ment entitled "General Rules." The handbook contained
a section entitled "No-Solicitation Policy" as follows:
Solicitation by anyone for funds, membership in
organizations or clubs, or distribution of any litera-
ture for any purpose, is strictly forbidden on com-
pany property. The circulation of petitions of any
kind is similarly forbidden. This includes employees
and nonemployees.
Similarly, the general rules which were distributed to
all employees contained the following language: "Circu-
lation of Petitions: Circulation of petitions of any kind or
solicitation of employees for any purpose other than
United Way is not permitted."
The aforementioned handbook was revised shortly
after the hotel opened, but because of the difficulty in-
volved in the printing of a revised handbook, copies of
the original handbook continued to be distributed until
the first part of August. The revised current handbook,
first distributed in early November 1978, contains the fol-
lowing no-solicitation policy:
Solicitation by anyone for funds, membership in
organizations or clubs, or distribution of any litera-
ture for any purpose is strictly forbidden during
working time. The circulation of petitions of any
kind is similarly forbidden during working time.
Respondent also revised its General Rules and, on
May 6, the revised General Rules were distributed to all
employees then currently employed. These rules were
also distributed to all employees hired thereafter. The
rule entitled "Circulation of Petitions" is as follows:
Circulation of petitions of any kind during work-
ing time or solicitation of employees for any pur-
pose other than the United Way during working
time is not permitted. Distribution of written mate-
rials during working time or in working areas is not
permitted.
6. The discharge of Whaley
Rod Whaley was hired on August 28, as a mainte-
nance person, and was discharged prior to the expiration
of his probationary period. Shortly before his discharge
he accidently electrocuted himself as a result of careless-
ness, and was given a stringent warning by Herbrechts-
meier. On Saturday, October 14, Whaley received a
verbal warning from Supervisor Ralph Kelly,' 6 which
was thereafter reduced to writing the same day, for false-
tion coincided with his added responsibility of being an auto mechanic
for Respondent, Hale's testimony suggests that he performs routine main-
tenance such as oil changes and general inspection, and minor repair of
vehicles, and that such work is only incidental to his primary job of
welding, which occupies the great majority of his time
i6 During the course of this reprimand Whaley exhibited his hostility
to.ard Kelly, and thereafter sought to obtain the signatures of other em-
ployees to support his belief that Kelly's treatment of him was unjustified
MOM GRAND-RENO. I C
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ly signing off a job order as completed,'7 and for being
out of the area in which he was supposed to be perform-
ing such work. Kelly stated as a postscript to the written
warning that "It is my opinion that Rod Whaley will not
work out here at M.G.M. He has a poor attitude towards
work."
Both Souder and Herbrechtsmeier took their days off
on Saturday and Sunday, October 14 and 15, and Kelly
took his days off on Sunday and Monday, October 15
and 16. According to Kelly, the matter was discussed in
detail with Herbrechtsmeier on Tuesday, October 17.
However, Kelly testified that it was not until the next
day, Wednesday, October 18, that he learned Whaley
was to be discharged forthwith.
Herbrechtsmeier's testimony is different. Thus, Her-
brechtsmeier testified that he did not speak with Kelly
about the matter until the morning of Wednesday, Octo-
ber 18, at which time he advised Kelly that, in agree-
ment with Kelly's recommendation, Whaley would be
discharged immediately. Whaley was discharged by Her-
brechtsmeier about 10 a.m. that morning.
There is agreement that Whaley solicited employees in
the laundry department on October 18, the date he was
discharged. In fact, Randall Williams, Respondent's em-
ployment manager, wrote the following memo on the
subject:
Subject: Potential Union Problems in the Laundry
Department
An employee from the Maintenance Department
by the name of Rod Whaley was in the Laundry
today, sometime this morning, soliciting employees
of the Laundry to sign union cards and get a union
going within the Laundry Department. He was of-
fering employees $11.00 per person to sign a card
and subsequently vote the union in. He also told
them that he knows for a fact he could guarantee
them 100% that if they got the union in here that
the union could get them a minimum $4.25 per
hour. Apparently, they are getting $4.00 per hour
currently. He talked to several employees. As soon
as it was detected, the Laundry Department man-
agement, Ted Holmes and Kurt Baker, immediately
reported the situation and the guy was subsequently
terminated for illegal solicitation. This soliciting was
being performed on company work area on work
time both by laundry workers and by Rod Whaley.
Williams testified that the foregoing memo was dictat-
ed after he had spoken to security personnel who ad-
vised him that Whaley had been terminated, and that he
thereby believed, but was not specifically told, that
Whaley had been terminated for violating the no-solicita-
tion rule.
However, the "Security Incident" report prepared by
a security officer shows that Whaley was removed from
the premises for illegal soliciting subsequent to his dis-
charge. Thus, the report states, inter alia, as follows:
"? The record clearly shows that such conduct is considered to be a
serious breach of Respondent's work rules.
Whaley was terminated this morning. Later, he was
in the Laundry trying to solicit employees to join
the union. This P.M. he was in Camperland trying
the same. Yesterday, Whaley, while being paid by
MGM and on duty, was trying to solicit in the em-
ployees cafeteria. [Emphasis supplied.]
Whaley testified, in a highly abbreviated manner, that
he had solicited for a union in the laundry department
during the early morning of October 18, prior to his dis-
charge. Yet, he testified that, when discharged shortly
after the aforementioned solicitation purportedly oc-
curred, he accused Respondent of discharging him not
for union solicitation in the laundry department which he
claims occurred that morning, but rather for his activity
in soliciting signatures on a petition which he had pre-
pared and circulated on or about November 15, follow-
ing the confrontation with Kelly regarding the work as-
signment reprimand. This petition, signed by three engi-
neering employees in addition to Whaley, states that
Whaley was unjustifiably reprimanded by Kelly, and is
unrelated to any purported union solicitation in the laun-
dry room. The evidence shows that, prior to effecting
Whaley's discharge, Respondent's supervisors were un-
aware of such a petition.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Interrogation and threats
Csonka's testimony regarding the statement made by
Williams on September 10, to the effect that Respondent
would hire all new employees in the event of a strike,
was equivocal and inconsistent. Thus, at one point,
Csonla agreed that Williams stated the employees could
be replaced during a strike, which statement comports
with an employer's lawful rights under the Act. There-
fore, I find that the record evidence is insufficient to sup-
port the finding of a violation in this respect. However, I
credit the remainder of Csonka's testimony and find that,
during a portion of the same conversation, Williams
strongly indicated that the employees, and Csonka in
particular, should not expect Respondent to continue its
practice of accommodating employees who also wanted
to attend school, in the event the Union was voted in.
Such a statement suggests reprisals in the form of a
denial of existing benefits in response to the employees'
decision to select a union, and as such is violative of the
Act.
I credit the testimony of employee Corbett and find
that in the latter part of August Williams asked him what
he thought of the Union, and further indicated that the
advent of the Union would result in the discharge of em-
ployees who could not meet certain qualifications. I also
find that a week or so later, as Corbett credibly testified,
Williams inquired whether Green or anyone else had
talked to Corbett about the Union. Such instances of in-
terrogation and threats of the possibility of discharge as a
result of unionization are violative of the Act. I so find.
O & H Rest., Inc., 232 NLRB 1082 (1977), Franklin Prop-
erty Company, Inc., d/b/a The Hilton Inn, 232 NLRB 873
(1977); Mehan Truck Sales, Inc., 201 NLRB 780, 783-784
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC 9)71
(1973), Civic Center Sports, Inc., 206 NLRB 428, 430
(1973).
Similarly, Williams' interrogation of employee Magrini
during which Magrini, whom I credit, was directly asked
how he was going to vote, and Williams' subsequent sug-
gestion that Magrini could perhaps more favorably nego-
tiate on his own behalf, constitute an additional instance
of unlawful interrogation, and an instance of unlawful in-
ducement to discourage union activity. See Raleys Inc.,
236 NLRB 971 (1978); Quintree Distributors, Inc., 198
NLRB 390, 395 (1972).
Also, in crediting Hansen, I find that Williams unlaw-
fully interrogated him regarding his feelings toward the
Union.
I do not credit Williams' categorical denials of the
aforementioned conversations. Williams admittedly was
attempting to ascertain the voting intentions of employ-
ees pursuant to instructions from higher management.
Unlike Kelly, who apparently was more circumspect in
this regard, Williams inquired directly about such mat-
ters, as the testimony of the aforementioned employees,
who appeared credible and who had no apparent reason
to fabricate such testimony, amply demonstrates. Fur-
ther, Williams exhibited his personal antipathy toward
the Union during the course of his testimony, and I find
that, whether or not directed by Respondent, Williams
unlawfully sought to discourage employees from select-
ing the Union by making the statements attributed to
him.
The remaining conversations wherein Respondent is
alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in-
volve employee Rodney Whaley. Whaley related con-
versations with Kelly, Williams, and Herbrechtsmeier
which, if Whaley's account is credited, would constitute
additional instances of interrogation in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act. Whaley did not favorably impress
me as a witness, and I hereinafter discredit his testimony
involving the circumstances surrounding his subsequent
discharge, discussed below. The various instances of al-
leged unlawful interrogation to which Whaley testified
were denied by the three supervisors involved and,
under the circumstances, I shall dismiss these allegations
of the complaint. Moreover, the finding of additional in-
stances of interrogation would be cumulative and would
not alter the remedy herein. 8
2. The unlawful wage increase
The applicable Board law governing an employer's
granting of a wage increase during a union campaign is
succinctly summarized in Newport Division of Wintex
Knitting Mills Inc., 216 NLRB 1058 (1975), wherein the
Board states:
It is well established that the announcement of a
wage increase during the pendency of a representa-
tion petition for the purpose of stifling an organiza-
tional campaign constitutes unlawful interference
and coercion. Thus, the Surpreme Court has stated
"that the conferral of employee benefits while a
representation election is pending, the purpose of in-
'i C. Markus Hardware, Inc.. 243 NL.RB No 158, fn 1 (1979).
ducing employees to vote against the union," inter-
feres with the employees' protected right to orga-
nize.
An employer's legal duty in deciding whether to
grant benefits while a representation petition is
pending is to determine that question precisely as if
a union were not in the picture. An employer's
granting a wage increase during a union campaign
"raises a strong presumption" of illegality. In the
absence of evidence demonstrating that the timing
of the announcement of changes in benefits was
governed by factors other than the pendency of the
election, the Board will regard interference with
employee freedom of choice as the motivating
factor. The burden of establishing a justifiable
motive remains with the Employer.
The facts regarding the announcement and conferral
of a substantial wage increase to unit employees several
days prior to the election are not in dispute. Respondent
emphasizes that these wage increases amounted to only
an insignificant percentage, both numerically and mone-
tarily, of the total number of wage increases granted si-
multaneously therewith to various classifications of em-
ployees throughout Respondent's facility. However, for
the various reasons enunciated by Brunet in his testimo-
ny, discussed above, an even larger percentage of Re-
spondent's employees received no increase whatsoever.
Respondent's contention that the wage increase for
unit employees was necessitated by economic factor, in-
cluding low unemployment in the area and areawide
wage competition from other hotels or casinos, is not
sufficiently substantiated by the record evidence. Thus,
while both Herbrechtsmeier and Souder emphasized the
difficulty in initially recruiting certain unit employees,
their testimony, particularly that of Souder, indicates that
at the time of the wage increase Respondent did employ
a satisfactory and stable work crew, the great majority
of whom were skilled enough to be classified as group I
engineers.
Also of significance is the dearth of record evidence to
substantiate Brunet's testimony to the effect that each de-
partment head was contacted and was invited to provide
input regarding the efficacy and necessity of a wage in-
crease, and the amount thereof, for employees within his
particular department. Despite this testimony by Brunet,
neither Herbrechtsmeier nor Souder testified to any such
consultation and, as the General Counsel abundantly
demonstrates, Respondent has failed to adduce any evi-
dence, either testimonial or documentary, which would
pinpoint the time when a wage increase for unit employ-
ees was first discussed. Indeed, it would appear that a
matter of such importance, resulting in the expenditure
of nearly $300,000, projected annually, for a relatively
small number of employees, would have engendered pro-
longed discussion. Yet the record is devoid of any such
specific evidence concernng either the decision to grant
the wage increase, or to place into effect the novel clas-
sification system. I conclude that Respondent's failure to
trace the course of the wage increase and the wage clas-
sification systems for maintenance engineers, with par-
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ticularity, raises the presumption that such evidence
would not be favorable to Respondent.
Of further substantial significance is Respondent's
wage survey which was distributed to maintenance engi-
neers in order to persuade them that their preincrease
wages were well above those paid by other area employ-
ers under contract with the Union. Thus, the survey
shows that Respondent's engineers could recieve up to
$66 per shift, or $6.80 per shift more than was being paid
by the next highest employer in the area, and that Re-
spondent's overtime and leave of absence benefits
equaled or exceeded those of the other employers sur-
veyed. Such data disseminated to the unit employees,
which emphasizes that Respondent's wage range exceed-
ed that of other area employer for comparable work,
suggests the obvious conclusion that Respondent be-
lieved it was highly competitive in attracting and retain-
ing qualified employees.
As mentioned previously, Brunet elaborated upon his
reasons for failing to grant wage increases to over two-
thirds of the total complement of Respondent's employ-
ees. One of the stated reasons for denying such increases
was that, in effect, the wages then being paid to those
employees by Respondent were competitive, and to raise
them to 95 percent of Las Vegas wages was unnecessary.
Respondent, having the burden to substantiate the need
for a wage increase, has not sufficiently established why
such a rationale would not also have applied to the main-
tenance engineers, particularly in view of the aforemen-
tioned wage survey. 9
In summary, I conclude that the evidence propounded
by Respondent in support of the legality of the wage in-
crease fails to provide a sufficient explanation for the
various substantial matters, discussed above, which cast
considerable doubt upon Respondent's true motive for
effectuating the increase. I therefore further conclude
that Respondent has failed to overcome the "strong pre-
sumption of illegality," 20 attendant to a wage increase
during the pendency of a representation petition, and I
find the wage increase to have been unlawfully motivat-
ed in an effort to influence the outcome of the election,
as alleged, in contravention of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
3. The discriminatory classification of Csonka
As a result of the October 2 changes in wage struc-
ture, 23 of the 36 maintenance engineers were placed in
group I and received raises of varying amounts accord-
ing to their seniority. Of the 23 aforementioned employ-
ees 5 were earning $2 to $3 per shift less than Csonka,
and were raised to $64 per shift, or $6 per shift more
than Csonka, with entitlement to substantial automatic
wage increases thereafter, while Csonka was placed in
the inferior classification and remained at his then cur-
rent rate of pay with the possibility of only a single in-
crease to the top of his classification scale. Respondent
has offered no explanation for this seemingly disparate
treatment. Particularly, Respondent did not attempt to
explain why the value of the labor of employees who
19 Respondent proffered tno evidence to show that the survey was sub-
sequently determined to be inaccurate.
20 Newport Division of Wintrex Knitting Mills. supru
were earning less than Csonka suddenly surpassed the
value of Csonka's labor to Respondent.
The record shows that Csonka was hired because of
his welding experience and ability. While he may have
been told, upon being hired, that on occasion he might
be called upon to perform work other than welding, the
record is clear and I find that he was hired as a welder
and was not directly advised, nor was it even implied,
that his progress with Respondent was dependent upon
acquiring other skills. Csonka worked exclusively as a
welder from the date he was hired when he commenced
to set up Respondent's welding shop, and the amount of
welding work he performed thereafter was sufficient to
occupy all of his time to the exclusion of any other main-
tenance work. The other employees who were placed in
grade 2, according to the testimony of Souder, per-
formed a variety of miscellaneous jobs such as making
room calls to fix shower doors or toilet seats, and, unlike
Csonka, had no expertise in a particular segment of the
work. It is reasonable to presume that the importance
which Respondent attached to the welding job was com-
mensurate with the pay Csonka received. Thus, Csonka
was hired at $52 per shift, and following his 3-month
probationary period was increased to $58 per shift, such
an amount being within the upper range of the wages
paid to maintenance employees.
There is no dispute that Csonka was a skilled welder,
that his work performance was considered to be highly
satisfactory, and that he was capable of performing
whatever welding work was required of him. Essentially,
Respondent maintains that the nature of the welding
work at Respondent's facility primarily involves the
repair of items such as serving carts and other kitchen
implements, and that the skills required to perform such
work, which skills were also possessed by several other
employees, did not warrant Csonka's promotion to a
grade 1 classification. Thus, Respondent does not appear
to minimize Csonka's welding ability, but rather main-
tains that such welding skills which Csonka possesses
exceed the expertise which the work customarily re-
quires. 21
The thrust of Respondent's argument appears to be
that the services which were required of Csonka simply
were not as valuable to Respondent as the services of
employees with electrical, refrigeration, plumbing, paint-
ing, and tile repairing expertise. Rather, Respondent
maintains that Csonka's value as a welder is equivalent to
that of unskilled employees who perform a variety of rel-
atively simple tasks, and that the services of a welder,
given the type of welding work customarily performed
at Respondent's facility, are monetarily commensurate
with the services of employees who replace toilet seats
or fix shower doors.
In addition to the wage being paid Conska which was
higher than the wages of several employees who, unlike
Csonka, were promoted to the group I classification, the
value of Csonka's work to Respondent is further exhibit-
ed by the fact that Brian Hale, after having been trained
by Csonka and working with him 2 days per week for
21 However. Respondent does not deny that sometimes Csonka has
been called upon to perform welding work which is of a more sophisti-
cated and difficult nature.
MGM GRAND-RENO. INC.
some 9 months, was unable to perform the job when he
succeeded to Csonka's position in April 1979. Upon ad-
vising Respondent of this, Hale was furnished with a
full-time assistant. Thus, it is clear that two full-time em-
ployees were needed to perform the work which Csonka
had previously performed with only part-time assistance.
The added expense to Respondent is obvious. 22 More-
over, it is clear that, when necessary, Csonka could be
called upon to perform more sophisticated welding
which Hale was incapable of performing.
Finally, Souder's testimony does not withstand scruti-
ny. Thus, Souder testified that on or about October 2,
when the status of Csonka was being discussed by the
three supervisors, Souder instructed Supervisor Williams
to remove Csonka from the welding shop and assign him
work throughout the facility in order to enable Csonka
to acquire a breadth of experience which would qualify
him as a group I engineer. Moreover, Souder went on to
testify to his belief that within a short time Csonka
would be so qualified.
No reason or explanation was given for Williams' fail-
ure to carry out this direct instruction. Thus, despite
Souder's order, Williams' inaction virtually insured that
Csonka would be indefinitely relegated to the status of a
group 2 engineer. Moreover, the record is clear that
Csonka had repeated discussions about the matter with
Williams and other supervisors, 23 yet Williams contin-
ued to disobey Souder, and simply reiterated that Csonka
was lacking in the experience which would enable him
to become a group I engineer. It appears that not until
some 7 months later was Csonka first assigned such other
work, and even after performing it satisfactorily Csonka
has not yet been promoted, despite Souder's testimony
that he believed in early October that such a promotion
would be forthcoming within a short time. Nor has Re-
spondent offered an explanation to show why Souder's
expectations have not been realized. As a result of the
foregoing, I do not credit Souder's testimony in this re-
spect.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the reasons
advanced by Respondent for its failure to promote
Csonka are not supported by the record. Moreover, cer-
tain testimony proffered by Respondent lacks credibility
in material respects, and the record contains no justifica-
tion for Respondent's inordinate delay in affording
Csonka the opportunity to perform other than welding
work in order to qualify him as a grade I engineer, in
accordance with Souder's aforementioned order to Wil-
liams.
The record abundantly demonstrates that Csonka was
the Union's leading proponent, and Respondent readily
admits its knowledge of Csonka's union activity. That
22 As nrited preliously. hether Hale was placed in the group I clasl-
ficalion as a result of the welding work. or a a result of a combinalin or
the welding and mechanical work. is unclear from the record, and I make
no finding in this regard
2a It is significant that Supersisor Kelly expressed hi, belief to Csonka
in no uncertain term, that ConLkia had heen unfairl denied Ihe desered
promotiol It is also significant tha, a.lccording to the rtdited testimony
of emplosee Htansen, Souder ad, i,ed tlallnsen tha the ials beinlg denied
promotion hut thai it as not ecause of the fact he liied s ith Cslnka
Souder did rnot deny or evenl attemlpt to explain wh hlie mlade this latle-
metll o allnsen
Respondent vigorously opposed the Union and wsaged a
vigorous campaign replete with numerous group meet-
ings and the distribution of written propaganda is also
evidenced by the record. Further, the extent of Respond-
ent's opposition to the Union is shown by the very con-
siderable sums of money which were expended by Re-
spondent in granting the wage increase which, I have
found, was unlawfully motivated. Moreover, Respondent
has otherwise violated the Act as found above.
The treatment of Csonka, first by failing to promote
him, then by advising him that he would not be eligible
for a promotion until he became more ersatile, while at
the same time precluding this eventuality by continuing
to assign him only welding work, invites the conclusion
that Respondent was desirous of causing Csonka to quit
his employment, and/or of making Csonka an example of
what may befall employees who actively support the
Union. I conclude that the record evidence supports the
complaint allegation that Csonka was denied a promotion
as a result of his union activity, and that by such dispa-
rate and deleterious treatment Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. See Grant's Home Irnivhi,tlg.
Inc., 218 NLRB 757 (1975), enfd. 528 F.2d 926 (5th Cir
1976).
4. Coffeebreaks, the pool table
The evidence shows that maintenance engineers had
abused the coffeebreak privilege by not infrequently ex-
tending the period beyond the alloted breaktime. Admit-
tedly, Respondent's motivation for changing the location
of coffeebreaks from the employees' cafeteria to the
maintenance department was specifically designed to
permit Respondent's supervisors to maintain closer obser-
vation of the employees, as the employees' cafeteria was
not customarily frequented by any maintenance depart-
ment supervisors. While the General Counsel argues that
the change of locations was designed to cause unit em-
ployees to curtail their discussions of and activity on
behalf of the Union, the record indicates that such dis-
cussions continued, albeit perhaps in a more circumspect
manner, and that management made no particular effort
to eavesdrop on such discussions.
Given the business justification consistently expressed
by Respondent both at the hearing herein and at the time
the change of location was instituted, and the relatively
brief time Respondent's facility had been in operation, it
appears that Respondent was diligent in correcting what
it regarded as an unacceptable practice by the mainte-
nance engineers, and there is insufficient record evidence
to show that Respondent's motives were for purposes
proscribed by the Act. Therefore, I find General Coun-
sel's position to be unsubstantiated, and I shall dismiss
this portion of the complaint.
Likewise. I am unable to conclude, as urged b the
General Counsel, that the appearance of the pool table in
the maintenance engineers' locker room was designed to
influence votes. Respondent presented specific arid un-
contradicted testimony from responsible supervisors and
managers who stated that they were unable to account
for the pool table being placed in the locker room. It
does not necessarily follow, as the General Counsel con-
tends, that only Respondent could have instituted the
t73
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change. Indeed, the pool table was initially in close prox-
imity to the locker room, and was not indispensable as a
catchall for miscellaneous materials, and it is certainly
not improbable that the pool table could have been relo-
cated by the employees without management's permis-
sion. Moreover, it appears that the pool table was used
infrequently, and apparently not at all during working
hours. Under the circumstances, even if the pool table
had been placed in the locker room by Respondent for
the employees' recreation, it is doubtful whether the em-
ployees would have reasonably considered this conduct
to amount to a conferral of a benefit designed to influ-
ence their selection of a collective-bargaining representa-
tive. I shall therefore also dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
5. The walking together rule
Unlike the relocation of coffeebreaks, the rule an-
nounced to all maintenance engineers prohibiting them
from walking together, even to and from the same job,
appears to have no reasonable business justification. To
require employees to split up and take difference routes
to the same job, or to remain physically distant from
each other even if they happen to be heading in the same
direction, appears to be no more than a conspicuous at-
tempt to limit their communication. During the course of
an organizational campaign and prior to an impending
union election, such an uncommon rule must be regarded
with suspicion.
The suggested rationale for the rule, enunciated by
Williams and Herbrechtsmeier, is not convincing, and
indeed the testimony of the two individuals is inconsist-
ent, particularly as Herbrechtsmeier stated that he was
only concerned with prohibiting two employees from
performing a job which could be readily handled by
only one employee. The policy announced by Williams
to the employees far exceeded the concerns of Her-
brechtsmeier, and I find, in agreement with the General
Counsel, that the rule prohibiting employees from walk-
ing together was designed to limit the employees' discus-
sion of the Union. I therefore find that, by such conduct,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. See As-
trosystems, Inc., 203 NLRB 49 (1973) (discriminatorily re-
stricting employees' movements in the plant).
6. The no-solicitation rules
The General Counsel does not contend that Respond-
ent's current no-solicitation rule is unlawful, but argues
that at times material herein the Respondent promulgated
inconsistent rules, one of which unlawfully limited solici-
tation. The record shows that on May 6, prior to the
union activity involved herein, the lawful current rule
was distributed to each employee as part of Respondent's
revised general rules, and was accompanied by memo-
randum from Respondent's personnel director expressing
the intent that the revised rules would allay any misun-
derstanding created by the prior rules. However, for
about 3 months thereafter, new hires continued to re-
ceive the outdated employees' handbook, then undergo-
ing revision, which contained an overly broad no-solici-
tation rule. Distribution of this handbook was discontin-
ued approximately a month after the inception of the
Union's organizational campaign.
There is no evidence that the employees were con-
fused by the inconsistent rules during the course of the
campaign, or that their activity on behalf of the Union
was in any manner hampered or restricted as a result of
the rule contained in the handbook. Rather, as the Gen-
eral Counsel sought to present no evidence in this
regard, it must be presumed that the employees, manage-
ment, and the Union alike understood that the invalid
rule contained in the handbook was inoperative and had
been superseded by the current no-solicitation rule em-
bodied in the revised general rules, which was promul-
gated well in advance of the union campaign. I shall
therefore dismiss this allegation of the complaint. See
Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated), 156 NLRB 1353; De-
troit Plastic Molding Co., 209 NLRB 763 (1974).
7. The discharge of Whaley
I credit the testimony of Randall Williams, Respond-
ent's employment manager, and find that, at the time he
wrote the October 18 memo regarding Whaley's union
solicitation, he had no firsthand knowledge of the reason
for Whaley's termination. As noted above, Whaley did
not impress me as a reliable witness and his highly abbre-
viated testimony that he solicited employees in the laun-
dry room prior to his discharge is unconvincing. Indeed,
upon being discharged, Whaley seized upon another
matter which occurred several days earlier, rather than
the laundry room solicitation, as being the reason for his
discharge. Had Whaley been soliciting in the laundry
room immediately prior to his discharge on October 18,
it is quite apparent that he would have emphazised this
fact during the discharge interview. I therefore find that
Whaley, a probationary employee, was not discharged
for any unlawful reason, but rather was discharged for
cause, as contended by Repondent. I shall therefore dis-
miss this allegation of the complaint.2 4
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
by coercively interrogating employees, threatening them
with discharge and with loss of benefits and privileges,
suggesting that they negotiate without the intervention
of the Union, and by granting wage increases and an ac-
companying classification system to induce employees to
refrain from supporting the Union, and by prohibiting
employees from walking together.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by unlawfully denying a promotion and wage in-
crease to employee Andrew Csonka as a result of his ac-
tivity on behalf of the Union.
5. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in other unfair labor practices as alleged.
24 While the testimony of Kelly and tierbrechtsmeier is not entirely
consistent, nevertheless such inconsistency is not of such a critical nature,
under the circumstances herein. to warrant a different result
MGM GRAND-RENO, INC. 975
6. Certain unfair labor practices and concurrent meri-
torious election objections, found herein, are sufficient to
warrant the finding that Respondent has interfered with
the free choice of employees in the election, and it is rec-
ommended that the election be set aside and a second
election directed.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be required to
cease and desist therefrom and from any like or related
conduct, and to post an appropriate notice attached
hereto as "Appendix."
Moreover, it is recommended that Respondent make
whole employee Andrew Csonka for any loss of pay as a
result of the discrimination against him, and promote him
retroactively, with all attendant privileges and benefits,
to the classification of a group I maintenance engineer.
Said backpay is to be computed in the manner prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See,
generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
It is further recommended that the representation pro-
ceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 32 for the conducting of a second election.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 2 5
The Respondent, MGM Grand-Reno, Inc., Reno,
Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees with regard
to their union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or loss of
privileges or benefits as a result of their union activity.
2. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
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.
(c) Suggesting that employees negotiate without the
intervention of the Union, and prohibit employees from
walking together.
(d) Granting wage increases and a classification system
for the purpose of inducing employees to refrain from
supporting the Union.2 6
(e) Unlawfully denying wage increases or promotions
to a higher classification to employees in reprisal for
their union activity.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole and promote employee Andrew
Csonka in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Reno, Nevada, facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to maintenance
engineers or other unit employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
herein found, and that the election held on October 6,
1978, in Case 32-RC-450 be set aside and a new election
conducted.
26 However, nothing in this Decision shall be construed as requiring
Respondent to rescind or modify the wage increases, wage progression
system. or classification system instituted on or about October 2. 1978
27 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 P'ursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
MOM GRAND-RENO, INC. 5