Racetrack Foods Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 25, 2008

04-CA-035158 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 25, 2008)

JD–39-08
Bensalem, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
RACETRACK FOOD SERVICES, INC. and
CASINO FOOD SERVICES, INC.,
Single Employer
And Case 4-CA-35158
UNITE HERE, LOCAL 274
Randy M. Girer, Esq.,
Of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
For the General Counsel
Arlus J. Stephens, Esq.,
Of Washington, D.C.
For the Charging Party Union
Henry E. Van Blunk, Esq.,
Of Newtown, Pennsylvania
For the Respondent Employer
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania on March 10, 2008. The original charge was filed by UNITE HERE, LOCAL 274
(herein Union) on February 7, 2007. First, second and third amended charges were filed by the
Union on March 23, April 16 and May 13, 2007, respectively. After an investigation by Region
Four and the issuance of a Memorandum from the Division of Advice on November 26, 2007,
the Union withdrew certain allegations. The Regional Director approved the partial withdrawal
on December 14, 2007. A Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on December 28, 2007
and an amendment to the Complaint issued on January 17, 2008. The Complaint alleges, inter
alia, that Racetrack Food Services, Inc. and Casino Food Services, Inc. (herein RFS,
Racetrack, and CFS, Casino, or Respondents) constitute a single employer. The Complaint
further alleges that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act (herein Act), by failing to respond to the Union’s information requests and by unilaterally
changing terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees. In their Answer,
Respondents denied single employer status and all substantive allegations and raised an
affirmative defense that the Board should not assert jurisdiction under Section 103.3.1
At the hearing, the General Counsel and Respondent entered into a partial settlement of

1 Respondent has withdrawn this defense.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
the issues in this case. The Charging Party objected to this partial settlement. The parties were
given a specified period of time to file briefs in support of their respective positions. After
receiving and considering these briefs, I issued my Order Approving Partial Settlement and
Closing the Record in this case. My reasons for approving the partial settlement are set forth in
the Order and are incorporated herein by reference.
Following approval of the partial settlement, the following Complaint allegations remain
for determination:
1. Whether Respondent Racetrack violated the Act by failing and refusing to
provide the Union the following requested information:
a. A list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of CFS employees.
b. Identity of all managers, supervisors, forepersons or other supervisory persons with
authority to hire, fire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward or discipline employees, or responsibly direct employees, or to adjust their
grievances, or effectively recommend such action, with respect to employees in
racing operations and employees in slot gaming operations, respectively, including
the individuals’ titles and dates of employment.
c. The identity of all individuals actively involved in day-to-day management of racing
operations and slot gaming operations, including their dates of employment and each
of the duties.
2. Whether Respondent Racetrack violated the Act by closing the fifth floor dining
room and bar (Turfside Terrace Restaurant and Bar) on Wednesday and Thursday
nights, without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain over that decision and its
effects.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Respondent, Charging Party and General Counsel, I
make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondents Racetrack Food Services, Inc. and Casino Food Services, Inc.,
corporations, have admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint. They provide food
and beverage services at Philadelphia Park Racetrack in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. They admit
and I find that they are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
Commencing on May 10, 2000, RFS began providing food and beverage concessions at
the Philadelphia Park Racetrack facility. At the same time, RFS entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with the Union for the period May 10, 2000 through November 20, 2003.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
RFS and the Union extended the parties’ contract through June 30, 2006. The contract was
further extended by the parties to August 31, 2006. The Union represents a unit of
Respondent’s employees described as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time bartenders, bus persons, cashier-counterpersons,
cooks, utility persons, dishwashers, waitstaff and commissary helpers, but excluding hostesses,
captains, maitre’d’s, supervisory chefs, supervisory employees, managerial or foreman
employees, security personnel, watchmen, professional employees, office or secretarial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and employees currently represented
by other labor organizations.
Prior to June 2006, RFS operated concession areas open to the public on the first floor,
third floor, fifth floor and an outside bar and patio area at the Philadelphia Racetrack facility.
Additionally, RFS operated out of kitchens on the first and third floors. In 2006, the Pennsylvania
Gaming Board issued a license to Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc., to operate slot
machines at Philadelphia Park. As a result, renovations to the building were made to allow for
the introduction of slot machines. The food and beverage concession for the casino areas was
awarded to Casino Food Services, Inc. Commencing in the summer of 2006, RFS no longer
provided food and beverage concessions on the first and third floors. RFS never bargained with
the Union regarding RFS no longer providing food and beverage concessions on the first and
third floors.
On January 9, 2007, the Union requested that the parties commence bargaining. The
parties agreed to meet on January 30, 2007. On January 17, 2007, the Union sent an
information request regarding both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit information. By letter
dated January 26, 2007, RFS advised it was only authorized to bargain over RFS employees.
On February 7, the Union filed a charge against RFS alleging an unfair labor practice for
failing to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement that would include individuals not
employed by RFS and for failing to provide the requested information.
B. The Relevant Facts Relating to the Issues.
At the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and introduced into evidence
General Counsel’s exhibits 1 through 25. The parties stipulate as follows:
(1) Philadelphia Park Casino and Racetrack (“Philadelphia Park”) is a duly registered fictitious
name used for the operation of a racetrack and casino located at 3001 Street Road in
Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
(a) The racetrack dates back to 1974 (when it was known as Keystone Park).
(b) Greenwood Racing, Inc. (“Greenwood”), through its subsidiaries, is the current owner
and operator of Philadelphia Park.
(c) Since at least the 1980s, Philadelphia Park has provided customers with live
thoroughbred horse race meets and more recently simulcast thoroughbred horse trotter
race meets with wagering, through licensing from the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing
Commission.
(d) The Commission issued a license to Keystone Turf Club, Inc. and a license to Bensalem
Racing Association, Inc. (“Keystone/Bensalem”), both subsidiaries of Greenwood.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
(2) In 2005, Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc. (“GG&E”), a subsidiary of Greenwood
G&E Holding, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Greenwood, obtained a license from the
Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to operate slot machines at Philadelphia Park.
(a) Around mid-December 2006, slot machines became operational at Philadelphia Park.
(b) There are approximately 2,700 slot machines in operation at Philadelphia Park.
(3) The facility at Philadelphia Park currently consists of a racetrack and six-story grandstand
building adjacent to the racetrack.
(a) Prior to June 2006, the six-story building housed food and beverage concessions, pari-
mutuel betting and other services for racetrack patrons.
(b) Prior to June 2006, the food and beverage concession operations at Philadelphia Park
consisted of the following:
i. 1st Floor – bar called the “Finish Line,” dining room; a concession stand selling hot
dogs and burgers; and a second concession stand selling hotdogs and cans of beer
on the weekends.
ii. 3rd Floor – restaurant and bar called the “Sports View Bar & Grill,” and a concession
stand selling hot dogs and burgers.
iii. 5th Floor – bar in the dining room, and dining room food service.
iv. Outside – bar and patio area, called “My Juliette,” located next to the racetrack and
open during the summer
v. Kitchen – Kitchens were located on the 1st and 3rd floors.
(4) In April 2000, Keystone/Bensalem contracted with Racetrack Food Services, Inc. (RFS), a
subsidiary of Greenwood, to provide food and beverage services at Philadelphia Park.
(a) From May 10, 2000 through November 2006, all Philadelphia Park food and beverage
concessions were serviced by RFS.
i. Prior to May 10, 2000 all food and beverage concessions were provided by
companies not affiliated with Greenwood.
(b) As of December 2006, RFS employed about 45-50 employees.
(5) Since May 10, 2000, UNITE HERE Local 274 (Union) represented the RFS employees.
(a) From 1982 to May 10, 2000, the Union represented the employees of Filly Foodservice
Company, Inc. and its predecessor companies (not affiliated with Greenwood), which
provided food and beverage services at Philadelphia Park.
(b) The most recent contract between RFS and the Union was effective from May 10, 2000
to November 20, 2003. (GC Exhibit 3)
(c) RFS and the Union extended this contract to June 30, 2006 through a Memorandum of
Understanding. (GC Exhibit 4)
(d) RFS and the Union further extended the contract to August 31, 2006. (GC
Exhibit 21)
(6) During 2005 and 2006, Philadelphia Park was renovated to allow for the introduction of the
casino and slot machines. The six story grandstand building was restructured, as follows:
i. 1st Floor – Casino operation: the “Poker Bar,” and a concession stand called the
“Grab & Go.”
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
ii. 2nd floor—Business offices.
iii. 3rd Floor – Casino operation: Steak house, buffet, the “Circle Bar,” and a kitchen.
iv. 4th Floor – Kitchen, providing food preparation and storage for Casino operations and
for Racetrack operations. The renovations created separate workstations for Casino
operations and for Racetrack operations. The main storage area, containing
foodstuffs including drygoods and frozen foods, was used for both Casino and
Racetrack operations. Cooking utensils were used commonly by both Casino and
Racetrack operations.
v. 5th Floor – Racetrack operation; Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar (with 400 person
dining room), the Finish Line Bar, one concession stand.
(7) Since December 2006, the casino is open to the public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
(8) There is live horse racing on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays, with occasional
Wednesdays and Fridays.
(a) Starting in June 2006, the 5th floor racetrack Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar was open
to the public Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, and 7 days a week
during the daytime. The Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar opened at 11:00 AM every
day. On Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar closed at around 9:30 or 10:00 PM.
(b) Starting in June 2006, the Finish Line Bar was open to the public 7 days and 7 nights a
week, starting from 11:00 AM and closing at around 11:30 PM or 12:00 AM.
(9) In November 2006, Casino Food Services, Inc. (“CFS”), a subsidiary of Greenwood, was
incorporated.
(a) In November 2006, GG&E entered into an agreement with CFS to provide food and
beverage concessions at the casino at Philadelphia Park.
(b) In November and December 2006, approximately 200 CFS food and beverage
managers and employees were hired, in the following classifications:
i. bartenders, bar backs, bus persons, cocktail servers, cooks, counter persons,
dishwashers, food runners, hosts/hostesses, pantry workers, servers, service bar
workers and commissary employees.
ii. Specifically, CFS hired the following number of employees in each position:
bartender - 28; buffet server - 30; grab n go - 7; cooks - 31; sous-chef - 3; wait staff -
14; Parkettes (cocktail servers) - 43; steward - 11; hostess - 1
(10) RFS is owned by Greenwood.
(a) Its directors are Michael A. Jaffe, Anthony D. Ricci and Matthew W. Hayes.
(b) Its officers are Michael A. Jaffe (President), Anthony D. Ricci (Vice President) and
Matthew W. Hayes (Secretary/Treasurer).
(c) Day to day management of RFS is performed by Michael A. Jaffe, Ken Trout (head
cook), Janet Gannon (guest service manager) and Tom Trenich (supervisor).
(11) CFS is owned by Greenwood. In December 2006 and January 2007:
(a) Its directors were Francis E. Perko, Jr., Francis E. McDonnell and Matthew W. Hayes.
(b) Its officers were Francis E. Perko, Jr. (President), Francis E. McDonnell (Secretary) and
Matthew W. Hayes (Treasurer).
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
(c) Day to day management of CFS was performed by the President and numerous other
managers and supervisors.
(12) In December 2006 and January 2007, the Union was in possession of the following
information in connection with its belief that RFS and CFS constituted a single employer.
RFS does not stipulate to the factual accuracy of all the following information; RFS
stipulates that the Union believed in good faith that the following information was correct
and accurate.
(a) Common ownership: Mr. Watche “Bob” Manoukian is the majority owner of the parent
holding company (Greenwood Racing, Inc.), RFS and CFS.
i. Greenwood is the majority shareholder (100%) of Keystone and Bensalem.
ii. GG&E is owned 100% by Greenwood G&E Holding, which is owned 100% by
Greenwood.
(b) Common management: RFS and CFS have corporate officials and managers in
common with each other and with Greenwood and its subsidiaries.
i. Andrew Green is an employee of Green Racing Management Co. (“Green Racing
Management”), a subsidiary of Greenwood that provides administrative support to
the Greenwood subsidiaries.
A. Andrew Green is identified on the Philadelphia Park website as Senior Vice
President of Administration.
ii. Robert Green is brother to Andrew Green
A. Robert Green is president of Green Racing Management.
B. Robert Green was identified to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board as
“director, chairman and shareholder” of the gaming subsidiary of Philadelphia
Park.
iii. Anthony Ricci is an officer for RFS.
A. Anthony Ricci is Secretary/Treasurer for Green Racing Management.
B. Anthony Ricci is an officer or director for Greenwood, Bensalem and Keystone.
C. Anthony Ricci is identified on the Philadelphia Park website as Chief Financial
Officer.
D. Anthony Ricci was described in May 2006 to the Horse Racing Commission as
“an integral member of the management team since 1993.”
iv. Michael Jaffe is President of RFS.
A. Michael Jaffe is identified on the Philadelphia Park website as Vice President of
Food and Beverage.
v. During October and November 2006, interviews were conducted to hire CFS
employees.
A. The CFS interviews were conducted by Dave Gottlieb (RFS manager at that
time), David Jonas (President and CEO of Greenwood Gaming Services, Inc.,
and CEO of Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., which are both
subsidiaries of Greenwood), Robert Green, Andrew Green and Wendy Hamilton.
vi. During November 2006, Michael Jaffe (RFS president), David Gottlieb (RFS
supervisor), Francis Perko (CFS officer), Ken Trout (RFS head chef), Marc
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Wirzberger (CFS supervisor) and Michael Coughlin (RFS supervisor, who became a
CFS supervisor) supervised both RFS and CFS employees.
vii. In mid-December 2006, on the loading dock, CFS manager (Storeroom supervisor)
Nicole McKeown directed RFS employees to unload from three trucks, goods for
both CFS and RFS.
A. Unloading goods from trucks was considered CFS work.
viii. In late December 2006/ early January 2007, CFS supervisor Michael Coughlin
directed RFS employees to put away stock for both CFS and RFS in 4th floor
storeroom.
A. This was considered CFS work.
(c) Centralized control of labor relations
i. In 2003, Andrew Green represented RFS in negotiations with the Union.
ii. During 2005 and 2006, Andrew Green met with Union Joint Board Manager Lynne
Fox about negotiating a new contract once the casino became operational. Green
told Fox that he would be the negotiator for all labor unions at the Park.
iii. During the early summer of 2006, Andrew Green invited Union bargaining
representative Lynne Fox and Union Business Agent Andre Vigliarolo to visit
Philadelphia Park to meet with the new Vice President of Human Resources. Green
didn’t state her name. When the Union representatives met Green at Philadelphia
Park, he said that the Vice President of Human Relations too busy to meet. Green
told them: “You will be dealing with me anyway for negotiations.”
iv. During summer 2006, Green invited Fox twice to the Philadelphia Park facility to see
the progress of renovations.
v. On June 28, 2006, Andrew Green emailed Lynne Fox with a list of proposed job
categories for the temporary casino facility and suggested starting pay rates. The
emailed list of job classifications for casino employees included bar back, bartender,
bus, cocktail, cooks, counter, dishwasher, food runner, host, pantry, server, service
bar and commissary. (GC Exhibit 5)
vi. During mid- or late November 2006, Union representatives met with Green and
Anthony Ricci at an office located at Philadelphia Park. At no time during the meeting
did Green or Ricci raise an argument that there would be any separation of food and
beverage work at the Park. During the meeting Ricci stated that the company would
agree to include in the established RFS bargaining unit all of the new CFS
classifications except for the kitchen and cocktail servers. The Union did not agree
to this.
vii. About a week later, in a telephone conversation between Fox and Ricci, Ricci offered
to include in the RFS bargaining unit all the CFS classifications, including the kitchen
servers, but not the cocktail servers. Fox refused this offer.
(d) Interrelation of operations
i. From mid-November to mid-December 2006, RFS employees trained employees
who would be working for CFS when the casino opened.
ii. In October and November 2006, RFS employees supplied beverages to the
executives who were interviewing applicants for CFS food and beverage positions.
RFS employees prepared cookies for interviewees and hot meals for interviewers.
The interviews occurred on a floor serviced by RFS employees.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
iii. In late November and early December 2006, RFS head chef Ken Trout told RFS
employees to keep CFS employees busy. RFS employees trained CFS employees in
bar backing. The CFS employees performed RFS work duties for a few days.
iv. From mid-November to mid-December 2006, RFS cooks trained new CFS buffet
cooks in food preparation and in use of kitchen equipment. The CFS cooks began
using kitchen equipment in the 4th floor kitchen to prepare food for the 3rd floor CFS
buffet line.
v. In December 2006, CFS supervisor Mike Coughlin directed RFS employees to put
skids of food deliveries away in the storeroom.
vi. In December 2006 CFS manager Nicole McKeown directed RFS employees to
unload three trucks full of surveillance equipment for the casino.
vii. In early 2007, CFS supervisors came to the 5th floor to inform employees that there
was overflow from the casino buffet on the 3rd floor, and that patrons would be
directed to the racetrack dining room on the 5th floor. Thereafter 25 people came up
to the dining room.
viii. In December 2006 and early 2007, RFS and CFS cooks worked side by side in the
4th floor kitchen, using the same equipment including knifes, ladles, pans and other
kitchen items.
ix. In December 2006 and early 2007, RFS and CFS cooks used the same prep food in
the 4th floor kitchen, including bacon, chopped lettuce, tomatoes and sliced meats.
x. In December 2006 and early 2007, all pans and dishes from the 3rd floor casino
buffet come to the 4th floor to be washed. All pans and other kitchen items were
washed in the 4th floor kitchen, regardless whether they were used by CFS or RFS
cooks.
xi. In December 2006 and early 2007, RFS and CFS cooks assisted each other on their
work lines: for example, helping out when needed by opening/shutting the door to an
oven, carrying heavy items, or removing items from the stove.
xii. From December 2006 to March 2007, CFS and RFS used the same commissary
area to get supplies and food prep materials. Until March no forms were required to
be filled out to request supplies.
xiii. On December 17, 2006 a party was held on the 5th floor (Racetrack) with two CFS
cooks cooking the food and an RFS server and RFS bus person providing food
service to the party.
xiv. In December 2006, CFS cooks began preparing food for the casino buffet using RFS
line equipment such as fryer, charbroiler and steamer.
(13) In February 2007, the Union learned that Michael Jaffe (president of RFS) and David
Jonas conferred with a representative from the Pennsylvania State Department of Health
concerning problems at a bar on the 3rd floor, which is entirely a casino operation.
(a) RFS does not stipulate to the factual accuracy of this information. RFS stipulates that the
Union believed in good faith that this information was correct and accurate.
(14) Subsequent to the filing of the charge in this matter, the following facts relevant to the
Single Employer issue were disclosed by RFS to the Regional Director in connection with
her investigation of this charge, although all this information was not necessarily known to
the Union in December 2006 and January 2007:
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
(a) Common ownership: Mr. Watche “Bob” Manoukian is the majority owner (approximately
91%), through holding companies, of the parent holding company (Greenwood).
i. Greenwood is the majority shareholder (100%) of CFS and RFS.
(b) Common management: RFS and CFS have corporate officials in common with each
other and with Greenwood and its subsidiaries.
i. Anthony Ricci (Vice President of RFS) holds the following positions:
A. Secretary/Treasurer and Director for Greenwood.
B. Treasurer and Director for GG&E.
C. Secretary/Treasurer and Director for Bensalem.
D. Secretary/Treasurer and Director for Keystone.
E. Director for Greenwood G&E Holding, Inc.
F. Secretary/Treasurer and Director for Green Racing.
ii. Matthew Hayes is a director for both RFS and CFS. Hayes holds the following
positions:
A. Secretary/Treasurer for RFS.
B. Treasurer for CFS.
C. Director and Treasurer for Greenwood Gaming Services, Inc., another subsidiary
of Greenwood.
D. Secretary/Treasurer for Keystone.
iii. Robert Green (brother to Andrew Green) holds the following positions:
A. President, Chairman of the Board and Director of Greenwood G&E Holdings, Inc.
B. President and Director of Greenwood Racing.
C. President, Chairman of the Board and Director of GG&E.
D. President and Director of Bensalem.
E. President and Director of Keystone.
(15) The Union was in possession of the following information in December 2006 and January
2007, in connection with its belief that RFS and CFS employees constituted a single
bargaining unit (in addition to the information stated above in paragraph 12, related to
common management, common labor relations and interrelations of operations).
(a) RFS and CFS employees use the same parking lot.
(b) RFS and CFS employees use the same employee entrance to Philadelphia Park.
(c) RFS and CFS employees use the same swipe card locations to clock in.
(d) During this time period, RFS and CFS employees used the same employee cafeteria.
(e) RFS and CFS employees share one loading dock where all supplies arrive.
(f) RFS and CFS employees use the same payroll office on the 2nd floor.
(g) A single payroll company (Green Racing) provides payroll services for multiple
companies at Philadelphia Park, including CFS and RFS.
(h) RFS and CFS employees smoke in the same smoking cafeteria.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(i) RFS and CFS employees in similar classifications wear the same or similar uniforms.
(j) RFS and CFS employees wear uniforms identified as Philadelphia Park.
(k) RFS and CFS employees use the same requisition system for supplies.
(l) RFS and CFS employees share the same locker room on the 2nd floor.
(m)RFS and CFS applicants may apply for jobs on the Philadelphia Park website.
(16) In the charge and amended charges, the Union has alleged, inter alia, that RFS and CFS
were a single employer and that the RFS and CFS employees constituted a single
bargaining unit. (See Charge filed February 7, 2007, First Amended Charge filed March 22,
2007, Second Amended Charge filed April 16, 2007 and Third Amended Charge filed May
14, 2007. [GC Exhibits 1((a)(c)(g) and (e)])
(17) The Single Employer issue was settled pursuant to a unilateral Informal Settlement
Agreement approved by the Administrative Law Judge. (GC Exhibit 20)
(18) The Division of Advice issued a Memorandum dated November 26, 2007 finding that the
CFS employees were not appropriately included in the RFS bargaining unit. This
Memorandum was released to the public. (GC Exhibit 18). On December 14, 2007, the
Union withdrew the allegation. (GC Exhibit 19)
(19) The Union was concerned about the loss of work performed by RFS employees because
once the Casino opened CFS employees began performing food and beverage work on the
first floor that had been historically performed by RFS employees prior to the renovations.
(20) The Union believed that it would represent all food and beverage employees employed at
Philadelphia Park and if not all food and beverage employees, then those employees who
were performing food and beverage work in locations where Union-represented employees
historically performed the work.
(21) On January 9, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Andrew Green. (GC Exhibit 6)
(22) Green responded to Fox by phone verbally and agreed to meet with Fox to negotiate on
January 30, 2007.
(23) On January 17, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Andrew Green. (GC Exhibit 7)
(24) RFS received the January 17, 2007 letter.
(25) On January 17, 2007, Fox sent the attached information request to Andrew Green. (GC
Exhibit 8)
(26) RFS received the January 17, 2007 information request.
(27) On January 26, 2007, RFS president Jaffe sent the attached letter to the Union. (GC
Exhibit 9)
(28) In a meeting on January 30, 2007 with the Union, Jaffe and RFS counsel informed the
Union representatives that the newly hired CFS employees were a separate bargaining unit
and that they did not intend to negotiate regarding those workers. RFS representatives
stated that they would not respond to the Union’s January 17 information request. Union
representative Lynne Fox stated that it would be difficult for the Union to negotiate
intelligently on behalf of RFS workers without the requested information.
(29) On June 7, 2007, Fox sent the attached information request to Andrew Green. (GC
Exhibit 10)
(30) RFS received the June 9, 2007 information request.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
(31) On June 9, 2007, Jaffe sent the attached letter to Fox in response to her June 7, 2007
letter. (GC Exhibit 11)
(32) On June 14, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Jaffe. (GC Exhibit 23)
(33) On June 26, 2007, Jaffe sent the attached letter to Fox. (GC Exhibit 12)
(34) On July 3, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Jaffe. (GC Exhibit 13)
(35) On July 5, 2007, Jaffe sent the attached letter to Fox. (GC Exhibit 14)
(36) On July 10, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Jaffe. (GC Exhibit 15)
(37) On July 12, 2007, Jaffe sent the attached letter to Fox. (GC Exhibit 16)
(38) On July 13, 2007, Fox sent the attached letter to Jaffe. (GC Exhibit 17)
(39) The Union sought the information in its January 17 and June 7, 2007 information requests
in connection with its dispute with RFS concerning, and to pursue its investigation into (a)
whether a single-integrated employer situation existed, (b) whether the RFS and CFS
employees constituted a single unit and (c) whether RFS bargaining unit work was being
performed by CFS employees.
(40) The Union sought the information in its January 17 and June 7, 2007 information requests
in connection with its representational responsibilities to police the contract with RFS and
preserve work for bargaining unit employees.
(a) The Union had concerns about loss of work to the bargaining unit, including:
i. Its good faith belief that CFS employees (cooks) were doing RFS work, in November
and December 2006;
ii. The elimination, starting April 18, 2007, of employee shifts on Wednesday and
Thursday nights in the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar; and
iii. The assignment of food-and-beverage work to CFS employees in the My Juliette
patio area, during the summer 2007, as described below in paragraph 46(a).
(b) The Union did not inform RFS, at the time that it made its January 17 and June 7, 2007
information requests, that the information sought was relevant to its concerns about
policing the Union’s contract with RFS and preservation of work for bargaining unit
employees.
i. The Union did inform RFS of its concerns about loss of bargaining unit work in its
letter dated July 10, 2007. (GC Exhibit 15)
(c) The Union learned on November 26, 2007 that the Division of Advice had determined
that the CFS employees and RFS employees did not constitute a single bargaining unit.
(41) The information request allegation was partially settled pursuant to a unilateral Informal
Settlement Agreement approved by the Administrative Law Judge. (GC Exhibit 20)
(a) In compliance with the Informal Settlement Agreement, on March 9 and 10, 2008, RFS
provided to the Union the documents attached as GC Exhibit 24.
(42) To date, RFS has failed to provide the following information in response to the Union’s
information requests:
(a) As set forth in subparagraph 6(a)(1) of the Complaint specifically a list showing all CFS
food and beverage workers including each employee’s name, address and telephone
number and
(b) As set forth in subparagraphs 6(a)(3) and 6(a)(4) of the Complaint.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
(43) RFS will consent to and will comply in full with any final Order issued directing it to respond
to the Union’s information requests.
(44) RFS will not defend against production of the information requested, if so ordered, on the
ground that it (a) is not a single employer with CFS or (b) is not in possession of the
information.
(45) In June, 2006, RFS employees began working in the 5th floor Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar. However there are no signs directing patrons to the 5th Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar or the Finish Line Bar, resulting in reduced patronage for Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar.
(46) In April 2007, without giving notice to the Union and without giving the Union an opportunity
to bargain, RFS closed the 5th floor (Racetrack) Turfside Restaurant and Bar on
Wednesday and Thursday nights, eliminated employee shifts and reduced hours worked by
RFS employees, because of lack of business on those nights and because of costs,
including labor costs.
(a) As of the summer 2006, in the grandstand building, all racing food and beverage outlets
were located on the 5th floor.
i. RFS employees also traditionally staffed, on Saturdays and Sundays during the
summer months, food and beverage outlets known as My Juliette and the patio area,
located outside by the racetrack.
ii. During the summer 2007, My Juliette and the Patio area were staffed on several
nights by CFS employees. Prior to summer 2007, only RFS employees had staffed
the My Juliette and patio area food and beverage outlets.
(b) The 5th floor restaurant/bar is known as Turfside Terrace.
(c) Another bar on the 5th floor is known as the Finish Line bar.
(d) The sole access to the Turfside Terrace and Finish Line Bar is by elevator, stairway or
escalator. The Philadelphia Park patrons usually use the elevator.
(e) The Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar and the Finish Line Bar were closed for
renovations in 2004.
(f) The Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar and the Finish Line Bar reopened in June 2006.
(g) In December 2006, a sign was posted at the elevators indicating that racing was located
on the 5th floor.
(h) From December 2006 to the present, there were no signs on the casino floors which
informed Philadelphia Park patrons that there were any restaurants or bars on the 5th
(racing) floor.
(47) The hours of the Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar, when it re-opened, were Monday
through Sunday (day time) and Wednesday through Saturday evenings.
(a) From the summer 2006 through April 18, 2007, RFS employees staffed the Turfside
Terrace Restaurant/Bar working the following shifts:
i. Monday through Sunday, 10 AM to 4:30 PM
ii. Wednesday through Saturday: 4:30 PM to close (9 to 10 PM, or earlier if there were
no customers).
(b) The employees per shift were scheduled as follows:
i. All shifts: 1 bartender, 2 cooks, 1 dishwasher
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
ii. Servers:
A. Saturday day: 6
B. Saturday night: 2
C. Sunday: 5
D. Friday night: 2
E. Wednesday and Thursday nights: 1
(c) Scheduling was done on a weekly basis by Kylie Waters, guest services manager, or by
a RFS employee, Janet Gannon.
(d) Weekly schedules were kept by the RFS manager in a book located at guest services on
the 5th floor.
(48) In April 2007, RFS decided to close the Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday
and Thursday nights only.
(a) There was no other change to the operation, décor or menu of the Turfside Terrace
Restaurant at that time.
(b) Michael Jaffe was the individual responsible for this decision.
(49) The Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar was closed, effective April 18, 2007, on Wednesday
and Thursday nights only, because of
(a) declining revenues due to a lack of patronage and
(b) costs of operation including the labor costs associated with employing waitress(es),
bartender(s), cook(s), dishwasher(s) and other employees in the Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
(50) Michael Jaffe informed employees of his decision that the Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar
was being closed on Wednesday and Thursday nights due to lack of work.
(a) At the time that Michael Jaffe informed the employees of his decision to close the
Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights, he also informed
Cynthia Cramer.
i. Cynthia Cramer had been the Union’s shop steward.
ii. Cynthia Cramer has resigned her position as shop steward from the Union in
February 2007.
iii. The shop steward is not authorized by the Union to act as the Union’s agent to
receive notice of unilateral changes.
iv. The contract does not authorize the shop steward to act as the Union’s agent to
receive notice of unilateral changes.
v. RFS did not give advance notice to the shop steward that the Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar was being closed on Wednesday and Thursday nights. Jaffe
informed Cynthia Cramer after the decision had already been made.
(51) All employee shifts on Wednesday and Thursday nights were eliminated, as of April 18,
2007.
(52) All RFS employees, who had previously worked in the 5th floor Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights, were transferred to other shifts.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
(a) At least one employee (Michelle Pollak) lost a shift due to RFS’s decision to close the
Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights. Her shift was
changed from Saturday/Sunday (double shifts) and Wednesday/Thursday nights to the
following: Saturday/Sunday (double shifts), every Tuesday (day shift) and every other
Monday. Her work hours were reduced by one shift, every other week.
(b) Several other employees, including Mark Coughlin, Patricia Cramer and Denise Phillips,
who had worked on Wednesday or Thursday nights, were transferred to other shifts.
(c) Employees who were transferred from Wednesday or Thursday night shifts to other
shifts may have “bumped” employees with lesser seniority from the shifts that they had
been working.
(d) RFS weekly payroll records are attached as an exhibit. (GC Exhibit 22)
(53) The 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar has been closed since around April 18, 2007,
to the present, on Wednesday and Thursday nights only.
(54) RFS did not give notice to the Union at any time regarding:
(a) Its decision to close the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and
Thursday nights;
(b) Its decision to eliminate employee shifts in the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar
on Wednesday and Thursday nights;
(c) The effects on the RFS bargaining unit of the closure of the 5th floor Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar and elimination of employee shifts on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
(55) The Union did not learn of the closing of the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on
Wednesday and Thursday nights until after it had occurred.
(a) The Union learned from employees of the closing of the 5th floor Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
(56) RFS has not bargained with the Union regarding:
(a) Its decision to close the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar on Wednesday and
Thursday nights;
(b) Its decision to eliminate employee shifts in the 5th floor Turfside Terrace Restaurant/Bar
on Wednesday and Thursday nights;
(c) The effects on the RFS bargaining unit of the closure of the 5th floor Turfside Terrace
Restaurant/Bar and elimination of employee shifts on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
(57) RFS has withdrawn its defense to NLRB jurisdiction in the matter under Section 103.3 of
the Act.
The exhibits are by number:
1. The formal papers in this proceeding.
2. A Motion to Amend Complaint.
3. The collective bargaining agreement between RFS and the Union for the period of
May 10, 2000 through November 30, 2003.
4. An extension of the collective bargaining agreement from December 1, 2003 through
June 30, 2006.
5. A letter dated June 28, 2006 listing proposed job categories and proposed pay for
each for what is called the temporary casino facility. This letter or email was sent by
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
Andrew Green to the Union.
6. A letter from the Union to RFS dated January 9, 2007 requesting bargaining.
7. A letter dated January 17, 2007 from the Union to RFS that reads:
“When we get together for negotiations on January 30, 2007, please be prepared to
discuss the gaming operations that are just now commencing. The food and beverage
employees in those operations fall clearly within our existing bargaining unit, or the very least,
constitute an accretion to it. Nevertheless you may not be applying the terms and conditions of
the current collective bargaining agreement to those employees. The information request
accompanying this letter is designed to determined whether the agreement has in fact been
violated with [the] respect to those employees as well as to test the accuracy of what we believe
are their working conditions.
If it turns out that you are not applying the terms and conditions of the agreement to the
food and beverage workers deployed in the gaming operations, then Local 274 will promptly file
a grievance for violation of the agreement. If you admit that the company is not following the
agreement in establishing the terms and conditions of the employment of these workers, then
this letter is itself the Union’s grievance against the Company for these violations.
In any event, at the upcoming negotiations, the Union will want to discuss the employees
being used in food and beverage for the gaming operations. We don’t believe there are any
special circumstances that warrant different treatment of these workers as compared to others
in the unit but we wish to explore that subject to be sure.”
8. A letter dated January 17, 2007 by the Union requesting, inter alia, the information
that is the subject of this hearing.
9. A letter dated January 26, 2007 from RFS to the Union which reads:
“I have been forwarded your correspondence dated January 17, 2007, which I
understand was received on January 23, 2007, regarding negotiations for a successor
Collective Bargaining Agreement between Racetrack Food Services, Inc. and Local 274, UNITE
HERE.
Please be assured that, as President of Racetrack Food Services, Inc., I am prepared to
discuss and negotiate any of the terms and conditions of employment for those employees of
Racetrack Food Services, Inc. who perform work within the jurisdiction of the Union and under
and pursuant to the Concession Agreement between the Employer and the Licensees of the
Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission. However, I do wish to avoid any
misunderstandings about the scope of negotiations.
I am only able to negotiate on behalf of Racetrack Food Services, Inc. I am not able, nor
authorized, to negotiate on behalf of any other company or entity who might conduct operations
in the Philadelphia Park Grandstand building.”
10. A letter dated June 7, 2007 from the Union to RFS that in part reads:
“This will serve as a request for an update on bargaining for the now-expired collective
bargaining agreement.
As you are aware, Region 4 of the National Labor Relations Board is currently
considering whether the Company has violated federal labor law by, inter alia, its refusal to
bargain with the Union over the newly hired food and beverage workers. We maintain that they
are included in the preexisting bargaining unit while the Company has denied this.
Meanwhile, we intend to proceed with the negotiations. Whether or not the employer
agrees about whether the casino workers are in the unit, the union needs and is entitled to know
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
about their terms and conditions of employment, to be able to assess what it may accomplish
for the racetrack workers in the negotiations. Therfore, we again request the following
information concerning the food and beverage and slot attendant workers in the casino side of
the operations: [information request omitted here].
11. A letter from RFS to the Union, which reads:
“I have been forwarded your correspondence dated June 7, 2007, which you sent to Mr.
Andrew Green. As you have been previously advised, Mr. Green does not work for Racetrack
Food Services, Inc., nor is he involved with the negotiations for a new collective bargaining
agreement. Accordingly, all communications regarding a new collective bargaining agreement
for Racetrack Food Services, Inc. should be addressed to my attention.
As I explained in my letter of January 26, 2007 and when we met on January 30, 2007, I
am prepared to discuss and negotiate any of the terms and conditions of employment for those
employees of Racetrack Food Services, Inc. who perform work within the jurisdiction of the
Union and under and pursuant to the Concession Agreement between the Employer and the
Licensees of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission. However, I am not able, nor
authorized, to provide information about any other company or entity who might conduct
operations in the Philadelphia Park Grandstand Building.
Finally, I am somewhat confused by your statement that the Union has been waiting for
the response of Racetrack Food Services, Inc. regarding the Union’s proposals for
subcontracting and successorship. It was the Union who broke off negotiations. I remain willing
to discuss and negotiate any of the terms and conditions of employment for those employees of
Racetrack Food Services, Inc. who perform work within the jurisdiction of the Union and under
and pursuant to the Concession Agreement between the Employer and the Licensees of the
Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission with you and your bargaining committee. Kindly
advise as to your availability.”
12. A letter from RFS to the Union, dated June 26, 2007. To understand this letter, the
reader is referred to Exhibit 23, which is a letter referenced in Exhibit 12. Exhibit 12
reads:
“Thank you for your letter of June 14, 2007, though I am somewhat offended that you
would claim that your dealings had always been with Andy Green. I seem to recall many
instances when you and I met to discuss various issues, including negotiations of a collective
bargaining agreement.
My recollection of the January 30, 2007 meeting is also different from your recollection. I
recall that you announced that since I was unable to negotiate for employees in a separate and
distinct company that you were leaving and advised that it would be in the hands of the
attorneys. We advised several times that we would be more than happy to discuss any issues
that related to employees of Racetrack Food Services that were members of Local 274, but you
had no substantive issues to present. You did have language proposals on subcontracting and
successorship clauses and we did take said proposals without any prompting. However, you
along with the numerous people you brought with you, left the negotiations once you handed out
the proposals and your prepared written statement regarding employees of another employer.
As you are aware, I am only able to negotiate on behalf of Racetrack Food Services, Inc.
I am not able to negotiate on behalf of any other company or entity who might conduct
operations in the Philadelphia Park Grandstand Building. Further, since I do not work for Casino
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
Food Services I do not have any information regarding the terms and conditions of employment
for those employees who work for a separate and distinct legal entity.”
13. A letter from the Union to RFS dated July 3, 2007, which reads:
“Please accept this letter in response to yours of June 26. You continue on behalf of
Philadelphia Park to spin the historical facts for the Company’s benefit in the National Labor
Relations Board proceedings. The fact is that we negotiated collective bargaining agreements
with Andy Green as the management principal. That you are ‘offended’ to be reminded of the
truth is ridiculous.
In that regard, please provide us with the titles of all positions Andy Green has held with
‘Racetrack Food Services, Inc.’ and documentation in support.
We appreciate your acknowledgement of Philadelphia Park’s failure to respond to the
Union’s bargaining requests on subcontracting and successorship. You admit that the Company
took those proposals back from negotiations and has never responded to either.
The Company’s excuses for failing to provide the requested information are without merit
and unacceptable. If it is a simply a matter of you lacking internal authority to provide the
information, then the Company should get someone else to provide it. Historically that was Andy
Green. Playing games with corporate identity, as the Company is trying to do here, is no way to
conduct good-faith collective bargaining.
That said, we are available to meet for bargaining on July 23. Unless I hear from you, we
will assume that we will meet at 11:00 a.m. Please let us know the location.”
14. A letter from RFS to the Union dated July 5, 2007, which reads:
I see no point in continuing in this unproductive letter writing regarding other entities and
employees that operate at the Philadelphia Park Grandstand Building. Suffice it to say that I
disagree with your position and that this will be ultimately resolved by the legal process that you
initiated with the NLRB.
Racetrack Food Services, Inc. has not responded to your request on subcontracting and
successorship as the Union broke off negotiations. When you left the bargaining table you
advised that there was no point in discussing the issues in the contract until after the unfair labor
practice you were going to file was resolved. I am more than willing to consider these proposals
in connection with a replacement collective bargaining agreement for those employees who
work for Racetrack Food Services, Inc. and represented by Local 274, however it is not possible
to consider these two items in a vacuum. Once I have all the proposed items from the Union I
will be in a better position to respond.
Mr. Van Blunk and I look forward to meeting with you on July 23, 2007 to negotiate any
of the terms and conditions of employment for those employees of Racetrack Food Services,
Inc. who perform work within the jurisdiction of the Union and under and pursuant to the
Concession Agreement between the Employer and Licensees of the Pennsylvania State Horse
Racing Commission. Please meet with me in the waiting area on the fourth floor of the
grandstand building.”
15. A letter from the Union to RFS dated July 10, 2007 and which reads:
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
“This letter shall serve as a reply to yours of July 5. Your letter does not answer our
information request. First, we have requested information about terms and conditions for the
other food and beverage workers employed at Philadelphia Park, whom you refer to as ‘casino
side’. We are entitled to all the information we have requested because, among other reasons:
1) it is a single employer operation; 2) the same corporate entities own, operate and fund both
‘sides’ and thus their ability to pay is most certainly at issue, and 3) management is having
‘casino side” workers do the work traditionally done by the so-called ‘racetrack side.’
The most recent information request, which you have also failed to answer, asked for the
titles of all positions Andy Green has held with ‘Racetrack Food Services, Inc.’ and
documentation in support. If the answer is ‘none’, please just say so.
We would like responses to these information requests before the 23rd.
Your recollection of the last bargaining session is incorrect. At no time did the Union
declare negotiations to be over. Therefore we reject the Company’s excuse for failing to
respond to the Union’s proposals on subcontracting and successorship. We note that the
Company’s failure to respond, to either proposal, continues to date.
Your new excuse for the Company’s continued failure to respond. – i.e., that you are
waiting for the Union to give the Company a proposal on every conceivable issue that may
come up, before the Company will respond to any of them – is unlawful.”
16. A letter from RFS to the Union and dated July 12, 2007 and which reads:
“As I stated in my letter of July 5, 2007, I am not going to continue trading letters
regarding issues currently being reviewed by the NLRB. Further, I do not intend to debate
whose recollection of the January 30, 2007 meeting is correct as, in my estimation, it will not
further the process.
I disagree that our position on not wanting to negotiate only two (2) issues at a time is
unlawful. As previously stated, we are willing to consider these issues or any issues regarding
the terms and conditions of employment for those employees of Racetrack Food Services, Inc.
who perform work within the jurisdiction of the Union and under and pursuant to the Concession
Agreement between the Employer and Licensees of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing
Commission. However, it is not fair to ask the Employer to address the issues piecemeal. I am
not asking you to come up with a proposal for every conceivable issue, just the items you want
to address in the replacement collective bargaining agreement. Obviously, if an unforeseen
issue arises during the course of negotiations we will deal with it.
In light of the foregoing kindly advise if you still wish to meet on July 23, 2007.”
17. A letter from the Union to RFS dated July 13, 2007, and which reads:
“In direct response to your question: ‘yes’ we do still want to meet on July 23, 2007.
However, I question Philly Park’s good faith motive in meeting on the 23rd, as you still refuse to
directly answer the questions I have posed to you on numerous occasions. Specifically:
Will you answer our information requests?
Will you provide this information prior to our meeting on July 23rd?
These are not difficult questions and yet you continue to refuse to answer. I will once
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
again ask for your direct and unambiguous response and you can save the choreographed
editorial comments that quite obviously have been written for you.
As to your comments on piecemeal bargaining, we will see what transpires at the
negotiations. The bottom line is that you have still not responded to our proposals and it
certainly appears that you do not intend to.”
18. An advice memorandum from the Board’s Division of Advice dated November 26,
2007, which in its conclusionary portion states:
“The Region submitted this 8(a)(5) case for advice on whether a single employer of a
group of food and beverage employees lawfully refused to bargain with the Union over a new,
larger group of employees performing similar work at the same site because the new group was
neither a lawful accretion to nor an expansion of the existing bargaining unit.
We agree with the Region that (1) the new, larger group is not an accretion to the
existing unit because the two groups experience no employee interchange, have separate day-
to-day supervision, and the Board will not accrete a larger group of employees into a smaller
unit; (2) the new group is also not a mere expansion of the existing unit, notwithstanding their
similar skills and duties, because the two groups lack a sufficient community of interest given
the absence of employee interchange and common day-to-day supervision; (3) there is
insufficient evidence that the single employer in fact agreed to bargain with the Union in an
overall unit of both groups of employees; and (4) the parties’ existing bargaining agreement
does not apply to the new group of employees.”
19. A letter from the Region to RFS stating that the Region had approved the Union’s
withdrawal of that portion of the charge that it filed in this case alleging a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) because of RFS’s refusal to bargain with the Union
concerning the casino food and beverage employees employed at Philadelphia Park,
and by unilaterally closing the first floor pizza concession stand, removing work
duties assigned to bar back employees, and transferring employee Faith Garcia.
20. The partial settlement approved by me in an earlier order. The settlement is dated
March 10, 2008 and provides for the supplying of certain information to the Union,
specifically that information referenced at subparagraphs 6(a)(1), 6(a)(2), 6(b) and
6(c) of the Complaint. The partial settlement agreement contains the caveat that RFS
and CFS does not admit that the two entities are a single employer and reserves the
right to deny Single Employer status in any future proceeding.
21. A memorandum of understanding between the Union and RFS extending the
expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement from July 1, 2006 and August
31, 2006.
22. A listing of RFS employees’ hours by week for specified weeks.
23. A letter dated June 14, 2007 from the Union to RFS, which reads:
“Please accept this letter in response to yours of June 9. As you know, my
dealings have always been with Andy Green. I understand that Philadelphia Park is trying to set
up a divide between the so-called ‘racetrack side’ and the so-called ‘casino side,” but we know
Mr. Green and Mr. Ricci have bargained this agreement in the past. Nonetheless, if the
Company is requesting I direct my correspondence to you, I will comply.
` Your letter acknowledges that the Company has not answered the Union’s
bargaining proposals on subcontracting and successorship, which I left with you and your
attorney when we met on January 30, 2007. You may recall that your attorney didn’t even want
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
to look at the proposals, and only took them after my insistence. We would like to receive the
Company’s answers on these proposals as soon as practicable.
Regardless of whether the so-called ‘casino side’ workers are in or out of the
Union’s bargaining unit, the Company has an obligation to provide information about them
because they are so comparable to the so-called ‘racetrack side’ workers and work side by side
with them in the same workplace. The Company has this information, can collect it, and
therefore has an obligation to provide it to us. Accordingly, we ask again that you provide the
requested information.”
24. A complete compilation of the information supplied by RFS and CFS to the Union
pursuant to the partial settlement agreement.
25. This is a stipulation of facts which when taken with the Exhibits discussed above
constitute all of the facts in this record. The Stipulation is as follows:2
C. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Did Racetrack violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to provide the Union with
information that it requested on January 17, 2007, including names, addresses and phone
numbers of Casino employees, and names titles, dates of employment, and duties of Casino
supervisors, managers and company representatives?
An Employer has a duty to furnish to a union, on request, information that is relevant and
necessary to perform its role as exclusive bargaining representative of unit employees. Detroit
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 NLRB 432,
435-36 (1967). Such information may be needed for bargaining, for administering and policing a
contract, for communicating with unit employees or for preserving unit work, among other
reasons. H&R Industrial Services, Inc., 351 NLRB No. 81 (2007).
The relevance of the information request is evaluated by a liberal, discovery-type
standard. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437. Information that is potentially relevant
and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its duties as bargaining representative must be
provided. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1104-1105 (1991). The requested
information need not be dispositive of the issue for which it is sought, but need only have some
bearing on it. Id. at 1105. An employer must furnish information of even probable or potential
relevance to the union’s duties. Conrock Co., 263 NLRB 1293, 1294 (1982). The employer’s
obligation extends to information involving labor-management relations during the term of an
existing contract and in preparation for negotiations for a future contract. Southern California
Gas. Co., 346 NLRB 449, 452 (2006). The employer’s obligation also extends to information
that would allow the union to decide whether to process a grievance. NLRB v. Acme Industrial,
385 U.S. at 436; Bickerstaff Clay Products, 266 NLRB 983, 985 (1983). The union is not
required to establish in advance exactly how the information sought would be helpful in pursuing
the grievance. Blue Diamond Co., 295 NLRB 1007, (1989). In determining whether information
relating to a grievance is relevant, the Board does not pass on the merits of the union’s claim
that the employer has breached the contract. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 352 NLRB No.
15, slip op. at 8 (2008); Certco Distribution Centers, 346 NLRB 1214 (2006).

2 GC Ex. 26 is a copy of the stipulation electronically recorded on a compact disk.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
Information pertaining to bargaining unit employees is presumptively relevant and
necessary and must be provided. Sheraton Hartford Hotel, 289 NLRB 463 (1988). Where the
requested information involves matters outside the bargaining unit, the union has the burden of
establishing its relevance and need. Tri-State Generation, 332 NLRB 910 (2000). In keeping
with the liberal standard of relevance, this burden is not a heavy one and only requires the union
to demonstrate more than a mere suspicion of the matter for which the information is sought.
Sheraton Hartford Hotel, supra, at 463-464. When there has been a showing of relevance, the
Board has consistently found a duty to provide information such as competitor data, labor costs,
production costs, restructuring studies, income statements, and wage rates for non-unit
employees. The Earthgrains Co., 349 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 6 (2007).
Where information concerns a purported single-employer relationship between the
Respondent and a nominally separate employer, the Union bears the burden of establishing the
relevance of the requested information. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., supra, at 8 (employer
ordered to provide, inter alia, names and addresses of non-unit employees and names of
managers and supervisors for non-unit employees where union had good faith belief that single
employer relationship existed). The Board need only decide whether the information has some
bearing on these issues, or would be of use to the union. Id.
The union must have a reasonable objective basis for believing that an alter ego or
single employer relationship exists. Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994).
The union need not inform the employer of the factual basis for its requests, but need only
indicate the reason for its request. H&R Industrial Services, Inc., supra (alter ego relationship
claimed); Corson & Gruman Co., 278 NLRB 329, 334 (1986) (single employer or alter ego
relationship claimed). However, when the circumstances surrounding the request are
reasonably calculated to put the employer on notice of a relevant purpose, which the union has
not specifically spelled out, the employer is obligated to divulge the requested information. Clear
Channel Outdoor, Inc., 347 NLRB 524 (2006).
A union has satisfied its burden when it demonstrates that it had, at the relevant time, a
reasonable belief supported by objective evidence, for requesting the information. Cannelton
industries, 339 NLRB 996, 997 (2003); National Broadcasting Co., Inc., supra. A union may rely
on hearsay or other type of evidence which may not be reliable or accurate to demonstrate that
its belief of single employer or alter ego status is reasonable. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.,
supra; Dodger Theatricals Holdings, Inc., 347 NLRB 953 (2008).
To demonstrate the relevance of the information request, the General Counsel must
show either (1) that the union demonstrated relevance of the non-unit information or (2) that the
relevance of the information should have been apparent to the Respondent under the
circumstances. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB No. 88, slip op. at 3 (2007). The burden then shifts
to the respondent to establish that the information is not relevant, does not exist, or for some
other valid and acceptable reason need not be furnished. Harmon Auto Glass, 353 NLRB No.
24, slip op. at 2 (2008).
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
Based on the Union’s direct representations to Racetrack management, the relevance of
the non-unit information was clearly communicated.3 The Union stated three reasons why it
sought the information: (1) to investigate the possible filing of a grievance; (2) to prepare for
negotiations for the Racetrack bargaining unit; and (3) to police the contract, as Racetrack and
Casino employees were performing comparable work and the Union had concerns that Casino
employees were performing or encroaching on work traditionally done by Racetrack employees.
The Union’s January 17, 2007 request for bargaining stated the Union’s good faith belief
that the Casino employees fell within the Racetrack bargaining unit, or constituted an accretion
to that unit. Based on this belief, the Union requested information, stating that the information
was necessary to determine whether the contract had been violated. The Union indicated its
intent to file a grievance if it determined that the contract had been violated with respect to the
Casino employees.4 The Union’s February 7 charge and June 7 information request reiterated
its claim that Racetrack and Casino employees constituted a single unit.5
The Union amended the charge on March 22 to allege that Racetrack and Casino were
a single employer. This claim was implicit in the Union’s initial request. Certainly, based on
Andrew Green’s June 28, 2006 email (GC ex. 5), the Union had reason to believe, when it

3 In Disneyland Park, supra, at 3, the Board found no violation where an employer refused to
provide information about subcontractors. The union failed to establish the relevance of the
information request. The information’s relevance was not apparent from surrounding
circumstances such that the employer should have been aware of the union’s concerns, and it
was not shown that the union had a reasonable belief supported by objective evidence that the
information sought was relevant. The Board stated that a union must do more than cite
contractual provision to show relevance. It must set forth at least some facts to support its claim
(although it need not prove breach of contract to acquire information). Here the union stated its
reasons why it sought the information. Further, Racetrack was well aware of the Union’s
concerns, from the outset, that Racetrack and Casino employees were performing the same
food and beverage duties, under similar circumstances and in the same locations (such as the
fourth floor kitchen). Moreover, the parties have stipulated to the Union’s good faith belief that
Casino and Racetrack employees formed a single unit.
4 Although the contract had expired on August 31, 2006, it was certainly possible that, had
the Union filed a grievance, Racetrack might have agreed to resolve the Union’s claims through
the grievance procedure.
5 This is not a case where information was requested solely to support an unfair labor
practice charge. Because the Board’s procedures do not include pretrial discovery, the Board
has found refusals to furnish information lawful where information requests relate to pending
charges. Saginaw Control & Engineering, Inc., 339 NLRB 541, 543-44 (2003)(no violation where
union was merely seeking to support ULP charge). If the request’s timing and the information’s
relationship to the charges show that the union sought information in order to bolster its
charges, the Board will not find a refusal to provide the information unlawful. Ralphs Grocery
Co., 352 NLRB No. 18, slip op. at 7 (2008); Stephan Co., 352 NLRB No. 14, slip op. at 1, fn. 2
(2008). Here, from the outset, the Union requested information about non-unit employees based
on its belief that Casino employees fell within the bargaining unit, and its concern that Racetrack
and Casino, as a single employer, were not applying the contract to Casino employees. Initially,
the Union anticipated filing a grievance. The Union filed a charge only after Jaffe stated on
January 30 that he would not provide information about Casino employees. The evidence does
not establish that the Union sought information merely to support a charge. The fact that the
Union was mistaken in its belief, in January 2007, that Racetrack and Casino employees formed
a single unit does not relieve Racetrack of its duty to provide information.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
requested bargaining and information, that it would be negotiating with Racetrack concerning
Casino food and beverage workers.
Racetrack was aware of the facts underlying the Union’s claim that it and Casino were a
single employer. Certainly Racetrack was aware that Casino employees were performing food
and beverage work similar to that of bargaining unit employees, under similar working
conditions, which was the basis for the Union’s claim that Racetrack and Casino employees
constituted a single unit, employed by a single entity. Racetrack’s principals were also aware of
the multiple corporate links between Racetrack and Casino in common ownership and
management. Moreover, based on Andrew Greene’s June 25 email, the Union had, at that time,
an objective basis to believe that Racetrack would be negotiating with the Union concerning the
newly hired Casino food and beverage workers. Even if the Union did not formally advise
Racetrack of its single employer claim until the charge was amended, the circumstances were
reasonably calculated to put Racetrack on notice of the relevance of the Union’s information
request.
As stipulated, the Union sought information in connection with its dispute with Racetrack
concerning, and to pursue its investigation into (a) whether a single employer situation existed,
(b) whether Racetrack and Casino employees constituted a single unit and (c) whether
bargaining unit work was being performed by Casino employees. As stipulated, the Union
sought the information in connection with its representational responsibilities to police the
contract with Racetrack and preserve bargaining unit work. The Union also had concerns about
loss of unit work, including (a) its good faith belief that Casino cooks had been doing Racetrack
work in November and December 2006; (b) the elimination on April 18, 2007 of employee shifts
on Wednesday and Thursday nights in the Turfside Terrace; and (c) the assignment of food and
beverage work to Casino employees in the My Juliette patio area during the summer of 2007.
The Union had a reasonable, objective good faith basis for its beliefs. As stipulated, the Union
had in is possession, when it made the January 17 information request, information supporting
its claims that Racetrack and Casino employees constituted a single bargaining unit and that
Racetrack and Casino were a single employer. The Union could reasonably rely on the
information in its possession, even if it were hearsay and possibly unreliable and incorrect.
National Broadcasting Co., Inc., supra, slip op. at 9; Dodger Theatricals, 347 NLRB 953 (2006).
As the Union had a reasonable objective basis for its beliefs, it was entitled to the
information requested. In Mohenis Services, Inc., 308 NLRB 326, 328-29 (1992), the Board
found that the union had a reasonable basis for believing that two entities were a single
employer and that two groups of employees constituted a single appropriate unit. Even where
the Union’s accretion claim ultimately failed, the information requested (including names and
addresses of non-unit employees) was relevant to that claim. When the union made its request,
the information was relevant to an ongoing dispute between the employer and the union, and
accordingly, the union was entitled to receive it. See also National Broadcasting Co., Inc, supra;
and G.E. Maier Co., 349 NLRB No. 98 (2007). I find the information request in the instant case
to be relevant to (a) investigate whether Casino and Racetrack employees were part of a single
unit, in anticipation of filing a grievance; (b) investigate whether Casino and Racetrack were a
single employer; (c) investigate information related to negotiations for the Racetrack unit: and
(d) investigate the possible loss of unit work to Racetrack employees, as part of the Union’s duty
to police the contract. Pursuant to this finding, the Respondent has a legal obligation to supply
the information requested. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., supra; NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.,
385 U.S. 432, 435 (1967); Public Service Co. of Colorado, 301 NLRB 238, 246 (1991); Certco
Distribution Centers, 346 NLRB No. 102 (2006, slip op. at 2: Comar, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 33
(2007); Frito-Lay, 333 NLRB 1296 (2001); NLRB v. Rockwell Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953, 957
(6th Cir. 1969); United Graphics, 281 NLRB 463 (1986); Blue Diamond Co., 295 NLRB 1007
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
(1989); Duquesne Light Co., 306 NLRB 1042, 1044 (1992); Trim Corporation of America, 349
NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 6 (2007).
The Union’s claim that Casino employees constituted an accretion to or an expansion of
the Racetrack bargaining unit was ultimately rejected by the General Counsel’s Division of
Advice. However, when the Union made its request for information, it had a good faith belief that
there was a single unit of employees. It information request was relevant to that belief and to the
possible filing of a grievance claiming potential contract violations. Even if the Union was
mistaken in its claims, the information should have been provided, as the Union established the
relevance of its request. Otay River Constructors, 351 NLRB No. 69 (2007); Certco Distribution
Centers, supra. Racetrack has not shown that it cannot provide the information requested and
based on the proven close relationship of Casino and Racetrack, I will recommend that it be
ordered to provide it.
2. Did Racetrack violate the Act by closing the fifth floor dining room and bar on
Wednesday and Thursday nights, without providing notice to the Union or an opportunity to
bargain over the decision or its effects on the bargaining unit?
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when it makes a material and substantial
change in wages, hours, or any other term of employment that is a mandatory subject of
bargaining, at a time when employees are represented by a union. Fresno Bee, 339 NLRB 1214
(2003); NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962).
Respondent effectively eliminated two evening shifts at its fifth floor dining room, by
shutting down the restaurant and bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights, assigning employees
to different shifts and reducing hours for at least one employee. Racetrack’s unilateral change
affected the entire bargaining unit of employees who were or might have been scheduled to
work those nights. It actions affected, at a minimum, five employees in a unit of about 45-50
employees; the bartender, cooks, dishwasher and servers who had been scheduled to work on
Wednesday and Thursday nights. One employee lost a shift every other week. Additional
employees may have lost hours because of the unilateral change. Employees may have lost
income from tips because of the change in schedule and elimination of shifts. The changes,
affecting at least 10% of the bargaining unit, were substantial and material. Blue Circle Cement,
319 NLRB 954 (1995); Professional Eye Care, 289 NLRB 738, 754 (1988).
By eliminating two shifts, the Respondent has not made a basic change in the nature and
scope of its food service operation that excuses the bargaining duty. In Dubuque Packing Co.,
303 NLRB 386 (1991), the Board put forth a two-part test to determine whether a decision to
relocate bargaining unit work is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Initially, General Counsel
must show that the decision did not constitute a basic change in the nature of the operation. The
employer may rebut to show, inter alia, that labor costs (direct and/or indirect) were not a factor,
or if they were a factor, the union could not have offered concessions which could have
changed the employer’s decision. Even where there is no obligation to bargain over the
decision, there remains the duty to bargain over it effects. Such bargaining must occur before
the decision is implemented. Good Samaritan Hospital, 335 NLRB 901,902 (2001); Kiro, Inc.,
317 NLRB 1325, 1327 (1995); John R. Crowley & Bros., 297 NLRB 770 (1990). In the instant
case, I find that there was an obligation to bargain over the decision as it was a mandatory
subject of bargaining. There was no change to the nature of the operation. The restaurant
continues to operate exactly as it always has since it was opened, albeit with a reduced
schedule.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
Racetrack admitted that labor costs were a factor in its decision. The Board has stated
that when labor costs underlie a decision to change terms and conditions of employment, the
decision is particularly amenable to bargaining. Comar, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 33 (2007); Holly
Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 278 (1993). The Union might have offered concessions or other
options to prevent the closure of the restaurant on two nights, for example, reduced or alternate
staffing arrangements. Geiger Ready-Mix Co., 315 NLRB 1021, 1024 (1994)(“Employer must
offer something more than a self-serving assertion that there was nothing the bargaining agent .
. . could do to change its mind.”); San Luis Trucking, Inc., 352 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 20-21
(2008)(:[T]he Respondents’ bald assertion that bargaining would not have changed their
decision is insufficient to establish that their decision to subcontract . . . was not a mandatory
subject of bargaining.”)
However, as noted above, even if Racetrack were not obligated to bargain over its
decision, it is still obligated to bargain over the effects of that decision. Holly Farms Corp.,
supra. (Decision to integrate divisions involved change in scope and direction of business;
bargaining not required because decision did not involve labor costs; however employer was
obligated to bargain about effects.) Racetrack would be obligated to bargain over the effects
even if the decision itself were not a mandatory subject of bargaining. First National
Maintenance, 452 U.S. 666, 677 fn. 15 (1981). (Decision to close part of business was not a
mandatory subject of bargaining, but employer was under a duty to bargain about the results or
effects of decision.)
The extent of effects bargaining will vary depending on circumstances. In Litton
Business Systems, 286 NLRB 817, 819-20 (1987), the employer was not obligated to bargain
about an economically motivated decision to change its printing processes, but was obligated to
explore alternatives to layoff, including retraining, transferring employees, etc., to reduce the
scope of the layoffs. In First National Maintenance, supra, the employer’s termination of a
contract with a customer resulted in the elimination of jobs, and thus the only meaningful effect
to bargain was severance pay. In Holmes & Narver, 309 NLRB 146, 147 (1992), the Board
found that the union could potentially offer many alternatives to downsizing, including wage
reduction, modified work rules, nonpaid vacations, work reassignments, etc.
Even if Racetrack is only obligated to bargain over the effects of its decision, it is
required to provide advance or “pre-implementation notice.” Willamette Tug & Barge, 300 NLRB
282, 282-283 (1990). Racetrack gave no notice to the Union of its decision at any time.
Racetrack’s reliance on the management rights clause, Article 10 of the expired contract, is
unavailing. No contract was in effect when Racetrack implemented these changes. Unlike other
terms in a contract, the effect of a management rights clause and any purported waiver of a
union’s right to bargain in such a clause do not survive expiration of the contract, absent
evidence of the parties intentions to the contrary. The Bohemian Club, 351 NLRB No. 59, slip
op. at 3 (2007); Long Island Head Start, 345 NLRB 973 (2005). There is no evidence that the
parties intended Article 10 to continue in effect after the contract expired. Any purported waiver
expired with the contract. The clause cannot authorize the post-expiration changes at issue
here.
A union is not required to request bargaining when a change in employees’ terms and
conditions of employment is present as a fait accompli, or where it would be futile to do so.
Windstream Corporation, 352 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 8(2008). “A union does not waive its right
to bargain over unilateral changes by failing to engage in the futile act of trying to turn back the
clock and bargain over an action the employer has already taken.” The Bohemian Club, supra,
slip op. at 3. Racetrack never notified the Union about the closure of the restaurant. The Union
learned about Racetrack’s actions from the unit employees. A request to bargain after the
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
change had already been announced and implemented would have been futile. Accordingly, the
Union did not waive its rights herein by failing to request bargaining.
The announcement of the decision to close the restaurant to the shop steward did not
constitute notice to the Union. Patricia Cramer, the former steward, was no longer the shop
Steward when Jaffe announced to the employees his decision to close the restaurant. Even if
she were still serving as steward, the shop steward was not authorized by the Union, or by the
contract, to receive notice from Racetrack regarding changes to terms and conditions of
employment for the bargaining unit. The notice requirement is not satisfied by an announcement
to or discussion with a shop steward or the affected employees. Remgrit Corp., 297 NLRB
803,809 (1990).
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondents Racetrack Food Services, Inc., and Casino Food
Services, Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, UNITE HERE, Local 274, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Racetrack Food Services, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by:
a. Failing and refusing to supply the Union with information
requested by it on January 17, 2007; and
b. Closing the fifth floor dining room and bar on Wednesday and
Thursday nights, without providing notice to the Union and giving
the Union an opportunity to bargain over that decision or its effects
on the bargaining unit.
4. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent should be ordered to provide the Union with the information it requested on
January 17, 2007. It should further be ordered to rescind the unilaterally implemented changes
in terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees put into effect on April 18,
2007, by re-opening the Turfside Terrace Restaurant and Bar on Wednesday and Thursday
evenings, and make any employees adversely affected by the unlawful act whole for any loss of
earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful actions taken against them, as
prescribed in F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). Respondent should further be ordered to,
on request, bargain with the Union concerning the terms and conditions of employment of the
bargaining unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a written
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
agreement.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Racetrack Food Services, Inc., of Bensalem, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with UNITE HERE, Local 274 (the
Union) as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its
employees in the following bargaining unit, by failing and refusing to
provide relevant information requested by the Union:
All full-time and regular part-time bartenders, bus persons, cashier-counterpersons,
cooks, utility persons, dishwashers, waitstaff and commissary helpers, but excluding
hostesses, captains, maitre’d’s, supervisory chefs, supervisory employees, managerial
or foreman employees, security personnel, watchmen, professional employees, office or
secretarial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and employees
currently represented by other labor organizations.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by unilaterally
changing the terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining
unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Provide the Union with the information it requested on January 17,
2007.
(b) Rescind the unilaterally implemented changes in terms and
conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees, which were
put into effect on April 18, 2007, by re-opening the Turfside Terrace
Restaurant and Bar on Wednesday and Thursday evenings.
(c) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the bargaining unit
described above concerning the terms and conditions of
employment of the bargaining unit and, if an understanding is
reached, embody that understanding in a signed agreement.
(d) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD–39-08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
suffered as a result of the unlawful actions taken against them, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time
as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide
at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in
Bensalem, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since January, 2007.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form
provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent
has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2008.
____________________
Wallace H. Nations
Administrative Law Judge

7 If 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
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–39-08
Bensalem, PA
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with UNITE HERE, Local 274 (the Union) as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees in the following bargaining unit,
by failing and refusing to provide relevant information requested by the Union:
All full-time and regular part-time bartenders, bus persons, cashier-counterpersons,
cooks, utility persons, dishwashers, waitstaff and commissary helpers, but excluding
hostesses, captains, maitre’d’s, supervisory chefs, supervisory employees, managerial
or foreman employees, security personnel, watchmen, professional employees, office or
secretarial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and employees
currently represented by other labor organizations.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Union by unilaterally changing the terms
and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it requested on January 17, 2007.
WE WILL rescind the unilateral implemented changes in terms and conditions of employment of
bargaining unit employees, which were put into effect on April 18, 2007, by re-opening the
Turfside Terrace Restaurant and Bar on Wednesday and Thursday evenings.
WE WILL on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the bargaining unit described above concerning the terms
and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit and, if an understanding is reached,
embody that understanding in a signed agreement.
JD–39-08
Bensalem, PA
WE WILL make employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the unlawful actions taken against them.
RACETRACK FOOD SERVICES, INC. and
CASINO FOOD SERVICES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
615 Chestnut Street, One Independence Mall, 7th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-4404
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
215-597-7601.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 215-597-7643.