Mirage Casino-Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 2002

338 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL 529
MGM Mirage d/b/a The Mirage Casino-Hotel and
Southern California-Nevada Regional Council
of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL–CIO, CLC. Case 28–RC–5871
November 20, 2002
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
On January 4, 2001, the Regional Director for Region
28 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a Deci-
sion and Order in this proceeding. The Regional Direc-
tor found that the petitioned-for combined unit of carpen-
ters and upholsterers and the alternative separate units of
carpenters and upholsterers were inappropriate for
bargaining. The Regional Director concluded that the
two groups (1) did not constitute functionally distinct
groups with common interests separate and apart from
the Employer’s other engineering employees and (2) did
not represent a traditional craft unit entitled to separate
representation. The Regional Director further concluded
that the smallest appropriate unit containing the peti-
tioned-for employees was the 210 employee engineering
department. Because the Petitioner did not wish to rep-
resent the employees in an overall engineering depart-
ment unit, the Regional Director dismissed the petition.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the Petitioner filed a timely request for review contend-
ing that the petitioned-for carpenters and upholsterers
were craft employees and that the Regional Director
erred in not allowing their separate representation as a
traditional craft unit. The Employer filed an opposition
to the Petitioner’s request for review. On February 7,
2001, the Board granted the Petitioner’s request for re-
view.
Having carefully considered the entire record, we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the petitioned-for
combined unit of carpenters and upholsterers is an ap-
propriate unit for bargaining.
I. FACTS
The Employer, a division of MGM-Mirage, Inc., oper-
ates the Mirage Hotel and Casino located on the “strip”
in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Employer’s sister facilities
located on the Las Vegas strip include Treasure Island
Casino-Hotel, Bellagio, MGM-Grand, New York-New
York, and Golden Nugget. In addition to these hotels,
the Employer’s parent company operates three properties
in Primm, Nevada, and the Golden-Nugget-Laughlin,
located in Laughlin, Nevada. The Employer maintains a
work force of approximately 6200 employees, of whom
approximately 210 work in the engineering department.
The engineering department is broken into 16 “crews,”
including a carpentry crew and an upholstery crew.1 Of
these 210 engineering employees, 18 are carpenters and 5
are upholsterers.
The Employer’s engineering department operates 24
hours a day, 7 days a week over three shifts—day shift (7
a.m. to 3 p.m.), swing shift (3 to 11 p.m.), and night shift
(11 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Except for a single carpenter regu-
larly scheduled to work the night shift, all of the carpen-
ters and upholsterers work the day shift. Likewise, all
laborers work the day shift, with the exception of one
laborer assigned to the night shift. All painters work the
day shift, except one assigned to the swing shift and two
assigned to the night shift. The mechanical crew, which
is the largest crew, is scheduled on all three shifts with
84 mechanics on the day shift, 19 mechanics on the
swing shift, and 19 mechanics on the night shift.
With the exception of the laborers, each crew has its
own shop containing necessary tools, equipment, and
lockers. The majority of these shops, including the car-
pentry shop, are located along a single hallway on the
first floor of the Employer’s facility. In addition to these
main shops, some of the crews, including the carpentry
crew, have a small satellite office in the hotel’s room
tower. The carpenters’ tower shop is used by the “tower
carpenter” assigned to routine maintenance work in the
hotel’s guest rooms. The tower carpenter reports to the
main shop in the morning to receive any work orders
from the crew leader and is then reachable via a two-way
radio throughout the day when needed.2
A. Carpenters’ and Upholsterers’ Duties
Carpenters at the Mirage engage in a wide variety of
traditional carpentry work. The carpenters make and
repair furniture used in the hotel, including conference
tables, desks, wall cabinets, armoires, television cabinets,
and chairs. This work may include repair work on ex-
pensive, one-of-a-kind furniture requiring the carpenter
to make molds, pour castings, do lathe and spindle work,
and replicate carvings. The carpenters also work on
countertops and repair and hang guest room doors. Ad-
ditionally, they frame walls, conduct demolition work in

1 The other crews are: tram, fabrication, mechanical or engineering,
electrical, casino, hotel, pools/plumbing, kitchen, garden, special ser-
vices, paint, locksmith, and senior watch.
2 In addition to the tower carpenter, the carpentry shop has three
other radios—one assigned to the carpentry crew leader, one to the
foreman, and one to another carpenter working out of the main carpen-
try shop. Unlike the carpenters, the engineering crew all carry radios
and receive many of their assignments over the radio directly from
dispatch.
338 NLRB No. 64
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 530
conjunction with room remodeling operations, and hang
and repair drywall.
Aside from the carpenters’ specialty hand tools, which
the carpenters must provide themselves, the Employer
supplies the carpenters with all necessary tools. Located
in the carpentry shop is a host of traditional carpentry
tools, including joiners, industrial shapers, band saws,
lathes, chop saws, compound miter saws, skill saws,
routers, nailers, glue guns, drills, edge banding machines,
carving tools, and planers. The carpentry shop also con-
tains raw materials such as hard woods, exotic woods,
formica, laminates, plastics, plexiglas, corian, sign mate-
rials, plywoods, and particle boards.
Generally, the Employer assigns work in the engineer-
ing department along craft or crew lines. Accordingly,
carpenters are called on to perform carpentry-related
work; plumbers, plumbing-related work; etc. However,
there have been situations in which carpenters have per-
formed noncarpentry work incidental to their normal
duties. Carpenter Dave Cuddie testified that he has in-
stalled sinks in counters on which he was working, but
noted that the plumbers would actually connect the sinks
to the pipes. Carpenter Ed Fieger stated that he has
“pulled” sinks on five or six occasions while working on
counters and has pushed aside conduit while working on
walls. Carpenters are also responsible for cutting and
installing the glass for wooden picture frames they make
and repair throughout the facility. Additionally, carpen-
ters perform demolition work and one carpenter testified
that he has “ripped out” bathrooms.3 Finally, aside from
these specific instances, Night Shift Supervisor An-
tonello Leone testified that he has occasionally witnessed
carpenters doing noncarpentry work, but could give no
specifics as to who was doing what type of work.
Likewise, there have been instances where non-
carpenters have performed low skilled carpentry work
when necessary. For instance, the Employer’s fabrica-
tion crew builds wooden platforms and barricades and
repairs wooden gates, fences, and doors in connection
with the Employer’s wildlife exhibit. Also, the casino
crew routinely performs low-level carpentry work,
mostly involving repairs during the night shift.4

3 There is some dispute regarding whether this demolition work is
carpentry work or traditional laborer work. The Petitioner’s business
agent testified that carpenters generally do demolition work where that
work has larger, structural implications for the building. The record is
unclear as to which category this demolition work occupies.
4 These include repairs to wooden corners, hinges, pictures, mirrors,
access panels (hinge and locking mechanism), door sweeps, draw slides
on cash drawers, and minor repairs to tables and chairs. In addition to
this work, Night-Shift Supervisor Antonello Leone testified that when
he was a casino engineer, he once repaired a 6-inch hole in a wall,
which required him to install two metal studs and cut and install a new
Upholsterers at the Mirage principally reupholster fur-
niture. They also hang draperies in meeting rooms. In
addition, they change layouts on gaming tables and re-
pair awnings.
B. Supervision
The engineering department has three levels of super-
vision. It is headed by the director of engineering, Wil-
liam Ham. Director Ham is the ultimate decisionmaker
regarding employee hiring, firing, counseling, and disci-
pline, and is responsible for the general oversight of the
entire department.
Reporting to the director are four assistant chief engi-
neers, each responsible for different sections of the engi-
neering department.5 These groupings of the various
shops under the assistant chiefs are not functionally
based.6 The assistant chiefs supervise the crew leaders
below them. They also approve all overtime and leave
requests, recommend employee discipline to Director
Ham, sit in on employee interviews, and aid in develop-
ing hiring recommendations for Director Ham.
Finally, under the assistant chiefs are various crew
leaders responsible for each of the crews. There are
separate crew leaders for each of the 16 or so crews mak-
ing up the engineering department, including the carpen-
try and upholstery crews. At the hearing, the parties
stipulated that these crew leaders are statutory supervi-
sors because they have the authority to use independent
discretion in directing and supervising the work of the
employees under them. However, the crew leaders do
not have the authority to hire, fire, discipline, set wages,
or grant overtime.7 The crew leaders distribute work
requests, monitor work reports, do quality control, tour
areas, maintain work stations, order parts, and interact
with administrative staff. There was testimony that the
crew leaders are responsible for drafting and delivering
employee evaluations, although these evaluations have
not been conducted for years.

piece of drywall. He also testified that on one occasion a casino engi-
neer sanded a corian countertop to remove graffiti. He further testified
that 35 percent of the work of a casino engineer and of a night-shift
supervisor would be classified as carpentry work and that he routinely
uses tools in the carpentry shop during the night shift.
5 In addition to the four assistant chief engineers, Director Ham su-
pervises the horticulture director, the project coordinator, the training
manager, and the office coordinator.
6 For example, carpentry is grouped with the tram, fabrication, me-
chanical, and electrical crews; and upholstery is grouped with the ca-
sino, hotel, pools and plumbing, and laborer crews.
7 The crew leaders do, however, decide who gets overtime hours
once the overtime expenditure is approved. Additionally, they inter-
view new hires and, together with the assistant chief, make a recom-
mendation to Director Ham whether the person should be hired or not.
Director Ham, in turn, reinterviews the candidate and makes the final
hiring decision.
MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL 531
Apart from the general supervisory structure, all em-
ployees working the night shift are under common su-
pervision. The night crew generally consists of one car-
penter, two painters, two plumbers, and one engineer, all
under the supervision of the night-shift supervisor.
C. Wages, Benefits, and Other Terms and
Conditions of Employment
All engineering department employees are subject to
the same terms and conditions of employment. They are
all subject to the same employment policies contained in
the common employee handbook. They are all eligible
to participate in the same pension, health, and welfare
benefit plans, as are all the Employer’s employees. All
engineering employees have common holidays and are
entitled to the same vacation benefits.8 All engineering
employees are also subject to a 90-day probationary pe-
riod, work a standard 40-hour week, and punch in and
out on the same three timeclocks.9 All Mirage employ-
ees take their breaks in a common area called the “strip
joint.” Additionally, the majority of the shops, including
the carpentry and upholstery shops, are located along the
same hallway on the facility’s main level. Finally, all
engineering department employees share a common
safety officer.
While all engineering employees are required to wear
a uniform, their uniforms are different colors. The paint-
ers wear white uniforms, the carpenters wear light brown
uniforms, and the rest of the engineering department em-
ployees wear blue uniforms.10 Additionally, the various
crews earn different wages. For instance, carpenters earn
$22.53 an hour; engineers earn $23.08 an hour; laborers
earn $12.88 an hour; painters earn $21.85 an hour; pool
employees earn $11.05 an hour; and sign employees earn
$14.01 an hour.
D. Training
The Employer does not run an apprentice program for
either its carpenters or its upholsterers.11 However, the
Employer operates “junior” programs for other crews,
which essentially are apprenticeship programs. Making

8 At some point in the past, the carpenters were only eligible for 1
week of vacation while the rest of the department was eligible for 2.
After the Mirage was purchased by MGM, this distinction between
carpenters and the other engineers ended and all engineering depart-
ment employees currently receive identical vacation benefits.
9 These timeclocks are monitored by the various crew leaders on a
rotating basis.
10 The carpenters’ uniform was altered at the carpenters’ request.
Assistant Chief Jimmy Canaris testified that the carpenters complained
that the Employer’s standard blue engineering department uniforms
looked too dirty because of the saw dust. Per their request, their uni-
form color was changed to brown to better hide the dust.
11 The Employer’s “junior carpenter” program, essentially an ap-
prenticeship program, ended sometime in 1992.
up for the lack of a formal training program, the Em-
ployer seeks only experienced employees and generally
requires between 2 to 4 years of relevant experience for
all engineering department employees, including carpen-
ters and upholsterers. The Employer does not provide or
require any ongoing skills training. Finally, aside from
the tram crew, the Employer does not require its engi-
neering department employees to be certified.
The engineering department employees attend between
8 to 10 training sessions a year. These training sessions
cover such topics as OSHA standards, “zero tolerance,”
and customer service. Employees from different shops
attend these sessions together. There is always a mix of
crews in the training classes so as to not remove an entire
department from service for training. In addition, the
engineering department has a common safety committee,
with a representative from each crew.
E. Interchange
The Employer presented documentary evidence detail-
ing instances of transfers between the carpentry crew and
various other crews and departments. During the 7-year
span of the Employer’s evidence,12 14 transfers involving
the carpentry department have taken place.13 Of these
14, all but one was permanent.14
F. Contact with Other Employees
Aside from the examples described above, carpenters
have contact with other employees during working time.
First, the carpenter on the night shift works on a “mixed
crew” with plumbers, painters, and an engineer, all under
the common supervision of the night-shift supervisor.
These employees work together to renovate public rest-
rooms and other common areas, and to respond to needed
repairs throughout the night. This shift is scheduled
regularly Monday through Friday. Second, the Employer
regularly schedules other mixed crews throughout the
year to perform renovation work in the hotel tower.
These crews operate for “much of the year.” Third, wit-
12 The Employer stated that this list represents only a portion of the
transfers involving the carpentry shop. The Employer does not main-
tain a searchable computer system to track transfers. Instead, the re-
cords were produced by a manual search of some portion of the Em-
ployer’s personnel files and in the time that the documents were re-
quested “it would have been impossible to go through them all.” How-
ever, there is no indication what percentage of the files were actually
searched.
13 These instances of interchange included a bar porter, a pool spe-
cialist, a temporary engineer, and a security department employee
transferring to the carpentry crew and carpenters transferring to engi-
neering crew positions, a crew leader position, and a project foreman
position.
14 Cecil Hardin transferred from the carpentry crew in January 1997
to join the engineering crew, only to return to the carpentry crew in
April 1997.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 532
nesses for the Petitioner testified that noncarpenters often
enter the carpentry shop to either obtain scrap wood or to
use some of the tools in the carpentry shop.15
G. History of Bargaining
There is no bargaining history at the Employer’s site;
and no other union is seeking to represent the petitioned-
for employees in a larger unit. Helen Kramer, the Em-
ployer’s vice president for human resources, testified
regarding the union representation in the Mirage’s local
sister properties. Three of the Employer’s related proper-
ties have unionized engineering departments; two, MGM
Grand and New York, New York, have wall-to-wall units
represented by the Operating Engineers, while one, the
Golden Nugget, has a separate unit of carpenters repre-
sented by the Petitioner.
William Harris, the Petitioner’s business representa-
tive, testified regarding contracts that the Petitioner has
with other local casino-hotels. The Petitioner represents
various carpenter-related units at 22 hotels in the Las
Vegas area.16 Of those 22, 10 are carpenter/upholsterer
units, 8 are carpenter only units,17 3 are carpen-
ter/upholsterer/locksmith units,18 and 1 is a carpen-
ter/locksmith unit. According to Harris, none of these
units was recognized pursuant to a Board certification.
Rather, they were all voluntarily recognized.
II. ANALYSIS
The Board has long held that a “craft unit” consists of
a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeymen
craftsmen who, together with helpers or apprentices, are
primarily engaged in the performance of tasks which are
not performed by other employees and which require the
use of substantial craft skills and specialized tools and
equipment. Burns & Roe Services Corp., 313 NLRB
1307, 1308 (1994). In determining whether a petitioned-
for craft unit is appropriate the Board examines (1)
whether the employees take part in a formal training or
apprenticeship program; (2) whether the work is func-
tionally integrated with the work of the excluded em-
ployees; (3) whether the duties of the petitioned-for em-
ployees overlap with the duties of the excluded employ-

15 There is some dispute over whether these visits are done with the
Employer’s permission. However, no one disputes that they do, in fact,
occur.
16 The hotels represented by the Petitioner are Mandalay Bay, Luxor,
Excaliber, Tropicana, Paris, Bally’s, Caesar’s, Flamingo, Harrah’s,
New Frontier, Desert Inn, Stardust, Riviera, Sahara, Las Vegas Hilton,
Union Plaza, Golden Nugget, Four Queens, Fitzgerald’s, El Cortez,
Showboat, and Circus Circus.
17 In any hotel where the Petitioner does not represent upholsterers it
is either because the hotel does not have an upholstery shop or has a
shop but does not have any employees assigned to work in it.
18 One of these three, the Desert Inn, is in the process of closing and
there is currently only one carpenter remaining on site.
ees; (4) whether the employer assigns work according to
need rather than on craft or jurisdictional lines; (5) and
whether the petitioned-for employees share common
interests with other employees. Id. However, in non-
construction industry cases, the Board has not limited its
inquiry solely to these factors. Instead, the Board will
“determine the appropriateness of the craft unit sought in
light of all factors present in the case.” See E. I. du Pont
& Co., 162 NLRB 413, 417 (1966).
This analysis comports with the Board’s longstanding
policy of applying a traditional community-of-interest
test to determine the appropriateness of units in the hotel
industry. See 77 Operating Co., 160 NLRB 927 (1966),
enfd. 387 F.2d 646 (4th Cir. 1967); Westin Hotel, 277
NLRB 1506 (1986); Omni International Hotel, 283
NLRB 475 (1987); RB Associates, Inc., 324 NLRB 874,
877 (1997). Accordingly, in addition to the craft unit
factors listed above, the Board will also inquire into (1)
differences in the type of work and skills of the employ-
ees, (2) functional integration of operations, (3) bargain-
ing history, (4) differences in wages and employment
benefits, (5) extent of interchange and contact between
the petitioned-for employees and the excluded employ-
ees, and (6) extent of common management and supervi-
sion. See Skyline Distributing, 319 NLRB 270, 277
(1995).
Applying these factors here, we find that the carpenters
sought by the Petitioner possess and exercise the skills of
craft carpenters and enjoy a separate community of inter-
est from the other engineering employees. Additionally,
consistent with the area practice, we find that the uphol-
sterers are properly included in the unit. Contrary to our
dissenting colleague, we are not convinced that either the
integrated nature of the Employer’s operation or the in-
stances of unskilled carpentry work being performed by
noncarpenters negate the craft status of the carpenters so
as to require that they be included in a larger engineering
department unit.
First, we find, and our dissenting colleague does not
disagree, that the petitioned-for employees are skilled
journeymen craftsmen. The Employer requires carpen-
ters to have at least 2 to 5 years of carpentry experience
before being hired. An official of the Employer testified
that this experience requirement was equivalent to jour-
neymen status. Moreover, the carpenters are paid at a
skilled labor level and substantially more than unskilled
employees such as sign makers ($14.10), laborers
($12.85), and pool specialists ($11.05).19 These pay
rates, along with the experience requirement, strongly
19 Carpenters earn $22.53, well within the range earned by other
skilled members of the Employer’s engineering department.
MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL 533
support our finding that the Employer seeks and hires
carpenters with journeymen carpentry skills. Moreover,
the absence of a formal apprenticeship program does not
negate this finding where the carpenters are hired with
significant experience. See Wal-Mart Stores, 328 NLRB
904, 907 (1999) (“That the Employer does not have a
meatcutter apprenticeship program or other formal train-
ing in meatcutting is of little relevance here, as the meat-
cutters had prior experience when hired.”); Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., 170 NLRB 46 (1968) (finding craft status in
absence of formal training program where electricians
were hired with 3 to 4 years of experience).
Further, the employees on the carpentry crew have
craft identity. The Employer assigns all work requiring
more than the most basic of skills along craft lines. Vir-
tually all of the carpentry work at the Mirage is per-
formed by the carpentry crew. While there are some
examples of noncarpenters performing carpentry-like
work, these are limited to low-skilled work, such as
tightening screws on a chair or fixing a drawer slide.
Additionally, where the carpenters perform work that is
not traditional carpentry work, it is closely related to
their carpentry work. Thus, while the carpenters may
occasionally pull a sink or move conduit in connection
with carpentry repairs, they do not perform work totally
unrelated to carpentry work such as pool cleaning or
electrical work.
The Employer’s carpenters and upholsterers are on
separate crews with their own supervisors. Each crew is
supervised by a crew leader who assigns work, monitors
work reports, ensures quality control, assigns approved
overtime shifts, recommends discipline and hiring and
performs various administrative tasks with respect to
their crews. While the Employer and our dissenting col-
league argue that the carpenters and upholsterers are not
separately supervised, the Employer stipulated that the
crew leaders are statutory supervisors. Based on both
this stipulation and the crew leaders’ duties, we find that
the carpenters and upholsterers are separately supervised.
See Super K Mart Center, 323 NLRB 582 (1997), enfd.
174 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1999).20
The carpenters are also highly skilled and they perform
nearly all of the Employer’s high-skilled carpentry work.
While other employees such as the casino engineers may

20 Our dissenting colleague also notes that 1 of the 17 carpenters is
commonly supervised by the night-shift supervisor. We do not view
that fact as significant, involving only 1 of the 17 carpenters. Clearly,
nearly all of the carpenters are under the direct supervision of the crew
leader. In any event, that the night carpenter may be under common
supervision with other employees is but one factor to be considered,
and it is outweighed here by all other relevant factors. Cf. Ore-Ida
Foods, 313 NLRB 1016, 1019 fn. 3 (1994), enfd. 66 F.3d 328 (7th Cir.
1995).
perform low-skilled repair work, whenever that repair
work is beyond the simple tightening of a screw, it is
saved for the carpenters to repair during the day shift.
That there is some overlap in lesser-skilled duties does
not destroy the appropriateness of a separate carpenters
unit. See Schaus Roofing & Mechanical Contractors,
Inc., 323 NLRB 781 (1997) (“Though some employees
performed unskilled work in other trades, the overlap-
ping of duties in the lesser-skilled aspects of a trade does
not preclude a craft unit.”); Burns & Roe Services Corp.,
supra at 1307 (“Thus, despite some overlap of job func-
tions, it appears that the majority of the nonelectrical
employees do not have the expertise to perform the more
complicated electrical work, and do not on a regular or
routine basis perform work comparable to that performed
by the electrical employees.”); E. I. du Pont & Co., supra
at 413 (finding appropriate a craft unit of electricians
despite some overlap of functions requiring lesser exper-
tise). Even when the Employer assembles mixed crews
on the night shift or during the year to refurbish its hotel
rooms, each member of the crew performs only the work
associated with their traditional craft—carpentry, plumb-
ing, painting, etc. Burns & Roe Services Corp., supra at
1308 (“On occasion, when a particular job requires a mix
of skills, the Employer may assemble a team of employ-
ees; however, even in those situations, electricians prin-
cipally work on the electrical systems while nonelectrical
employees work on the mechanical systems.”).
The carpenters’ skill is also reflected in the machinery
they employ in their workshop. The Employer provides
nearly every piece of carpentry equipment imaginable.
While other employees may occasionally enter the car-
pentry shop to pick up scrap wood or other simple tools,
there is no evidence that employees other than the car-
penters use the skilled machinery located in the shop.
Their skill is also reflected in the fact that their wages are
near the top of the Employer’s engineering department
pay scale. The carpenters earn nearly $10 an hour more
than their unskilled coworkers on the laborer, sign
maker, and pool specialist crews.
The differences in skills are also seen in the limited na-
ture of the interchange between the crews. With the pos-
sible exception of one individual, the record is devoid of
evidence of temporary interchange between the carpentry
crew and the rest of the department. Between 1992 and
1999 there were only 13 instances of permanent transfers
involving the carpentry crew. Moreover, there were no
transfers, temporary or permanent, during the 17 months
preceding the hearing. Evidence of 14 transfers over a
10-year span is insignificant. See Hilton Hotel Corp.,
287 NLRB 359, 360 (1987). These are simply not “the
type of periodic temporary transfers or lateral, two-way
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 534
transfers between departments that may suggest blurred
departmental lines and a truly fluid work force with
roughly comparable skills.” Id. And, while the Em-
ployer argues that this evidence represents only a portion
of the transfers involving the carpentry crew, it provides
no evidence as to what percentage of the actual transfer
rate this evidence represents. Moreover, the Board has
historically accorded permanent transfers less weight
than temporary interchange in assessing the community
of interest shared by two groups of employees. Ore-Ida
Foods, Inc., supra at 1021 fn. 4.
Various other facts set the carpenters apart from the
other employees in the engineering department. The
carpenters wear a distinct brown uniform while other
employees wear either blue or white. This distinct uni-
form was provided at the request of the carpenters, who
indicated to the Employer that their work environment
necessitated a uniform change. Moreover, the method by
which carpenters receive their assignments is different
from that of most other members of the engineering de-
partment. Engineering crew members, who make up
nearly half of the engineering department, all carry two-
way radios and receive the vast majority of their assign-
ments directly from dispatch over the radio. However,
only one carpenter beside the crew leader and tower car-
penter carries a radio, and the carpenters receive their
assignments almost exclusively from their crew leader on
written work orders. Additionally, unlike the engineer-
ing crew, which works all three shifts in significant num-
bers, all of the carpenters, with the exception of the lone
night carpenter, work exclusively on the day shift. While
the carpenters share terms and conditions of employment
such as vacation, leave, and benefit programs with other
employees, these policies are common to all of the Em-
ployer’s employees, not just those employees in the en-
gineering department.
Finally, contrary to our dissenting colleague’s position,
the area practice here strongly supports a separate car-
penter and upholsterer unit. In the Las Vegas area, the
Petitioner represents carpenters in separate craft units at
22 large hotel-casinos similar to the Mirage.21 In fact,
the Petitioner represents a separate carpenters unit at the
Employer’s sister property, the Golden Nugget. Our
dissenting colleague argues that these 22 hotels cannot
create a compelling area practice because they represent
only a small percentage of the hotels in the Las Vegas
area. However, these 22 properties certainly represent a
substantial percentage of comparable area employers—
that is, large casino-hotels located on the “Las Vegas

21 In these 22 hotels, the carpenters are either in their own unit or
represented in carpenter-upholsterer, carpenter-locksmith, or carpenter-
upholsterer-locksmith units.
Strip.” Furthermore, the record is largely silent regard-
ing area practice at the remaining large casino-hotels and
the Petitioner’s evidence regarding area practice there-
fore stands unchallenged.
Our dissenting colleague accuses us of breaking new
ground and departing from precedent by finding the peti-
tioned-for unit appropriate. He is mistaken. We rely on
longstanding precedent that allows, in certain limited
circumstances, the creation of a craft unit from an overall
maintenance department. See Burns & Roe, 313 NLRB
at 1307; E. I. du Pont & Co., 162 NLRB at 413; Fremont
Hotel, 168 NLRB 115 (1967) (finding petitioned-for unit
of slot machine mechanics an appropriate craft unit).
Given the size of this Employer’s engineering depart-
ment, the journeymen status of the carpenters, the sepa-
rate supervision, the assignment of work along craft
lines, the lack of material overlap and interchange, and
the significant area practice, we find that this case pre-
sents such limited circumstances. We see no reason why
our decision today, limited to these particular facts, will
lead to an explosion of small craft units at this or any
other hotel, as feared by our dissenting colleague.
Accordingly, based on the above, including the ab-
sence of bargaining history on a more comprehensive
basis, the area practice of separate carpenter-upholsterers
units, the separate craft identity, the separate functions,
skills, and supervision, and the absence of significant
overlap in duties or interchange, we find that the peti-
tioned-for unit of carpenters and upholsterers is an ap-
propriate unit for collective bargaining. We therefore
remand this case to the Regional Director for further
processing in accordance with this decision.

MEMBER COWEN, dissenting.
Today my colleagues take the unprecedented step of
lopping off a unit of 23 carpenters and upholsterers from
a hotel engineering department consisting of 210 em-
ployees. In so doing, they take the first step towards
dissecting this engineering department or similar depart-
ments at other hotels into an infinite number of miniature
units. The same logic applied by the majority to justify
its conclusion would also lend support for separate units
of the Employer’s engineers, painters, plumbers, labor-
ers, or any other subdivision of its engineering depart-
ment. Instead of dismembering the Employer’s engi-
neering department, I would adopt the Regional Direc-
tor’s thoughtful decision finding the petitioned-for unit,
and the proposed alternative units, inappropriate for bar-
gaining.1 While I agree with my colleagues’ recita-
1 Under no view of the facts is a separate unit of upholsterers appro-
priate as the record fails to support the conclusion that they constitute a
MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL 535
tion of the facts, I would find that the record strongly
favors an overall engineering department unit, and not a
separate craft unit.
Both the Petitioner and my colleagues fail to cite a
single case in which the Board has found a separate craft
unit of carpenters to constitute an appropriate unit in a
hotel setting. In fact, the only case in which the Board
has found appropriate a separate craft unit as a subdivi-
sion of an overall hotel maintenance department is
plainly distinguishable.
In Fremont Hotel, Inc., 168 NLRB 115 (1967), the
Board found a petitioned-for unit of slot machine me-
chanics appropriate. In finding the unit appropriate, the
Board relied on the fact that (1) the employer ran a four-
year slot mechanic training program; (2) the slot mechan-
ics did not interchange jobs with other employees; (3) the
repair of the slot machines was the sole responsibility of
the slot mechanics; (4) the slot mechanics’ separate su-
pervisors could hire and fire, and were the sole judges of
the slot mechanic raises; (5) the slot mechanics had a
distinct uniform; (6) the slot mechanics were the highest
paid employees in the casino; and (7) the slot mechanics
were the only unrepresented employees in the mainte-
nance department. Based on these facts, the Board con-
cluded that the slot mechanics constituted a separate craft
unit. Unlike in Fremont Hotel, here it is undisputed that
(1) the Employer does not operate a formal or informal
training or apprenticeship program, (2) the carpenters do
in fact interchange jobs with other employees, (3) the
carpenters are not the only employees who perform car-
pentry work, (4) the carpenters are not even the highest
paid employees in the engineering department, much less
the entire hotel, and (5) none of the Employer’s engineer-
ing department employees are organized.
Not only has the Board failed to find other classifica-
tions at hotels to be appropriate craft units, it has in three
subsequent cases distinguished Fremont Hotel and de-
clined to find other units of slot machine mechanics ap-
propriate craft units. See Nevada Club, 178 NLRB 81
(1969); Aladdin Hotel, 179 NLRB 362 (1969); Hotel
Tropicana, 176 NLRB 375 (1969). Accordingly, Fre-
mont Hotel represents a narrow exception where the
Board found a subset of a hotel maintenance department
to constitute an appropriate separate unit. Given the pau-
city of similarities between the present case and Fremont
Hotel, it simply does not apply. And, even using the
craft unit cases involving production facilities relied on
by both the Petitioner and the majority, I would still find,

craft unit of skilled workers. Indeed, the record is virtually devoid of
facts on the upholsterers.
as explained below, that a separate unit of carpenters and
upholsterers is not appropriate.
A. Overlapping Duties
Despite my colleagues’ insistence to the contrary, the
record reflects significant overlap in duties between car-
penters and other excluded employees. First, it is undis-
puted that the Employer’s fabrication crew performs tra-
ditional carpentry work when building wooden plat-
forms, repairing wooden gates, and building wooden
barricades. Second, there is clear testimony that the ca-
sino engineers perform carpentry work when needed.
Night-Shift Supervisor Antonello Leone testified that the
casino engineers routinely make small repairs to doors,
chairs, and furniture. They also repair the drawer slides
on gaming table cash drawers when needed, including
drilling new holes for the slide. Leone also testified that
he has both performed and observed other engineers per-
form carpentry work, including fixing drawers, repairing
stall and entry doors, tables, and chairs. Leone also testi-
fied that he once witnessed casino engineers sanding a
countertop and that he repaired a large hole in drywall,
requiring the installation of new metal studs. This work
generally occurred either at night when the on-duty car-
penter was busy or not at work that night or during the
weekend when no carpenter was scheduled.
My colleagues argue that such isolated instances of
other employees performing lower-skilled duties do not
constitute material overlap of duties. In doing so, they
mistakenly rely on the Board’s decisions in Burns & Roe
Services Corp., 313 NLRB 1307 (1994); E. I. du Pont &
Co., 162 NLRB 413 (1966); and Schaus Roofing & Me-
chanical Contractors, Inc., 323 NLRB 781 (1997). In
both Burns & Roe and E. I. du Pont & Co., the Board
relied on the fact that the performance of lower-skilled
work by other employees was infrequent and not routine.
See Burns & Roe, 313 NLRB at 1309 (relying in part on
“the lack of evidence establishing that nonelectrical em-
ployees regularly or routinely perform similar work to
that performed by electrical department employees”); E.
I. du Pont & Co., 162 NLRB at 418 (noting that “al-
though other employee classifications, such as instru-
ment mechanics and oilers, perform some of the less
skilled functions of electricians, they do so infre-
quently”). And, in Schaus Roofing & Mechanical Con-
tractors, Inc., supra at 784, the Board adopted the Re-
gional Director’s finding that a pipe fitter who spent over
a quarter of his time doing sheet metal work (only some
of which was skilled), was appropriately included in a
sheet metal craft unit.
Here, the record is clear that other employees perform
carpentry work on a routine and regular basis. That this
work is not of the highest level is of no moment. Leone
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 536
testified that as a casino engineer he spent approximately
35 percent of his time doing carpentry work. Also, the
fabrication crew performs carpentry work as part of their
duties. Just as important, the record shows that carpen-
ters have performed noncarpentry work at times. The
Petitioner’s own witnesses testified that they at times
either pulled or installed sinks while working on counter-
tops and that they have moved electrical conduit while
working on walls. Finally, the carpenters, as part of their
normal duties, are responsible for cutting glass for pic-
ture frames—work not generally associated with carpen-
try. Thus, it is clear that the carpenters do not solely per-
form carpentry work.
B. Common Supervision
The majority places great emphasis on the fact that the
parties stipulated that the crew leaders are statutory su-
pervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act. My colleagues
elevate form over substance. The stipulation was limited
to the crew leaders’ use of independent discretion in as-
signing work to the carpenters. While this may be suffi-
cient to exclude the crew leaders from the unit under
Section 2(11) of the Act, it is not necessarily enough to
find that the carpenters and upholsterers have a commu-
nity of interest separate and apart from the rest of the
engineering department. That is, the simple fact of dif-
ferent supervision does not mandate excluding separately
supervised employees. See, e.g., Hotel Services Group,
328 NLRB 116, 117 (1999) (separate unit of licensed
massage therapists at hotel resort and spa not appropriate
despite separate supervision “in some respects”).
Here, it is clear that the crew leaders’ primary author-
ity with respect to the daily operation of their depart-
ments is to assign work orders received from others and
to ensure their completion. All other supervisory func-
tions are vested in Director William Ham or the assistant
chiefs. Director Ham testified that he makes all final
decisions with respect to hiring, firing, discipline, and
department policy. Many of these functions are made in
consultation with the assistant chiefs, not the crew lead-
ers. The rest of the daily operational duties are carried
out by the assistant chiefs. The assistant chiefs are re-
sponsible for approving overtime requests, leave re-
quests, vacation requests, and recommending employee
discipline or counseling to Director Ham. The Peti-
tioner’s own witnesses confirmed that they go to the as-
sistant chief to get leave approved. Accordingly, at a
minimum, the true loci of supervisory authority are the
assistant chiefs, who are responsible for the supervision
of many individual crews.2 Common supervision on the

2 Aside from carpentry, Assistant Chief Lyons is responsible for the
tram, fabrication, mechanical, and electrical crews. Assistant Chief
night shift is even clearer where, each night, under the
common direction and supervision of Night-Shift Super-
visor Leone, one carpenter, two engineers, two plumbers,
and a painter work on a preventative maintenance team.
Despite the Petitioner’s argument to the contrary, the
fact that the assistant chiefs and Director Ham have ac-
tual, first line supervisory responsibilities over the car-
penters, upholsterers, and the rest of the engineering de-
partment leads to the conclusion that separate supervi-
sion is not an overriding factor requiring a separate car-
pentry unit.
C. Interchange and Interaction
1. Permanent interchange
Unlike my colleagues, I would find significant evi-
dence of permanent interchange between the carpenters
and other crews. In determining whether a petitioned-for
separate unit is appropriate, the Board examines the level
of interchange—both temporary and permanent—
between the petitioned-for employees and the excluded
employees. See Burns & Roe, 313 NLRB at 1308. The
sample of transfers into and out of the carpentry crew
shows that from 1992 through 1999 six employees have
transferred onto the carpentry crew from other positions,
while eight have moved from the carpentry crew to other
engineering department jobs.3
The Regional Director correctly relied on this evidence
of permanent interchange in finding the petitioned-for
unit inappropriate. With the exception of the 1992 trans-
fer of a laborer to a junior carpenter position, all of the
transfers concerned skilled positions. Moreover, in the 7
years covered by the Employer’s sampling, a total of
fourteen transfers involving the carpentry crew were
made. This amounts to at least two transfers a year on a
crew which currently stands at eighteen employees. Us-
ing the current staffing level, over 10 percent of the car-
pentry crew was affected by permanent interchanges
each year for 7 years.
Given these examples of permanent interchange and
the fact that members of the fabrication crew employ
carpentry skills in building wooden platforms, fences,
barricades, and gates, it is clear that there are non-
carpenters with the skills necessary to perform the duties
of the carpentry crew and carpenters with the skills nec-
essary to perform the duties of other crews. The Board,
in determining the appropriateness of separate craft units,
has examined whether other employees have the same
skills as the employees in the alleged skilled craft unit.

Lello, under whom the upholstery crew falls, is also responsible for the
casino, hotel, pool/plumbing, and laborer crews.
3 These numbers include an employee who temporarily transferred
from the carpentry crew to the engineering crew.
MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL 537
See Burns & Roe, 313 NLRB at 1308. Apart from the
fabrication crew and the casino engineers, there are at
least 10 employees who had the skills used by the car-
penter crew and other crews in the engineering depart-
ment due to internal transfers. That so many employees
other than the petitioned-for carpenters both possess and
use at least some level of carpentry skill does not com-
port with finding the petitioned-for unit appropriate.
2. Interaction with excluded employees
Besides this material interchange, the carpenters have
a high level of interaction and contact with the excluded
employees. Carpenters punch in and out on the same
timeclocks used by the rest of the engineering depart-
ment. The Petitioner’s witnesses testified that non-
carpenters often come into the carpentry shop to get sup-
plies and to use tools. Carpenters also attend approxi-
mately 8 to 10 training sessions a year with other engi-
neering department employees. Moreover, the carpenters
are routinely scheduled with other engineering employ-
ees on mixed crews. This occurs each night during the
week on the regularly scheduled preventative mainte-
nance crew and regularly throughout the year on room
renovation crews.
These facts led to the Regional Director’s conclusion
that the Employer’s engineering department is function-
ally integrated, negating the appropriateness of a separate
craft unit, and I agree with the Regional Director.
D. Bargaining History
Finally, my colleagues place great reliance on what
they consider to be a significant area practice of separate
carpenter/upholsterer representation in the Las Vegas
hotel industry. The record shows that the Petitioner
represents separate carpenter-related units at 22 other Las
Vegas area casino-hotels. Nevertheless, I agree with the
Regional Director that this fact is simply not decisive.
See, e.g., Washington Palm, Inc., 314 NLRB 1122, 1128
(1994) (noting “the Board has held that where other rele-
vant factors predominate, the factor of area practice does
not render an otherwise inappropriate unit, which con-
forms to area practice, an appropriate one”).
First, it is clear from the record that the 22 hotels at
which the Petitioner represents separate carpenter units
does not constitute anywhere near a majority of the ho-
tels in the Las Vegas area. I am simply not prepared to
consider the Petitioner’s success at convincing 22 em-
ployers to voluntarily recognize separate carpenter units
as an overwhelming area practice. Moreover, even if the
22 contracts could establish a pattern for bargaining in
the Las Vegas area, the mere existence of such a pattern,
particularly when created through voluntary recognition,
does not prevent the Board from fulfilling its statutory
duty to determine the appropriateness of the petitioned-
for unit.
Second, the bargaining history at the Employer’s re-
lated facilities is markedly different. Of the Employer’s
sister casino-hotels with unionized engineering depart-
ments, two have wall-to-wall units and only one, the
Golden Nugget, has a separate carpenters unit. Based on
these facts, I would accord the Petitioner’s evidence of
area bargaining practice, little, if any, weight.
In sum, the facts here do not support the unparalleled
departure the majority has taken here. The carpenters are
not separately supervised, do not take part in a formal
apprenticeship program, and are not required to be certi-
fied journeymen. In addition, there is interchange with
other departments at significant levels, overlapping du-
ties with other departments, and common policies, bene-
fits, and break areas. These facts outweigh any others
that tend to support the appropriateness of the petitioned-
for unit. Accordingly, I would affirm the Regional Di-
rector.