Riverside HotelDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 8, 1967163 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 1967) Copy Citation 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reno 's Riverside Hotel , Inc. d/b/a Riverside Hotel and American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees . Case 20-CA-4197. March 8,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA Upon a charge filed by American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 20, issued a complaint dated October 3, 1966, against Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hotel, herein called Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served on the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about June 23, 1966, the Union was duly certified by the Board' as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board and that, since on or about July 13 and August 3, 1966, and thereafter, Respondent has refused and is refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union as such exclusive bargaining representative, although the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On October 12, 1966, the Respondent filed its answer, denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. On November 4, 1966, the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion for summary judgment, asserting, in view of admissions by the Respondent contained in its answer, Respondent's failure to deny or explain certain other allegations of the complaint, and written admissions annexed as appendexes to the moving papers, that there are no issues of fact or law requiring a hearing, and praying the issuance of a decision and order finding the violations as alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, on November 8, 1966, the Board issued an order transferring proceeding to the Board, and, on the same date, a notice to show cause on or before November 28, 1966, why the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment should not be granted. On November 25, 1966, the Respondent filed an opposition to General Counsel's motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Regional Director on behalf of the Board Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three - member panel. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board makes the following: RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In its opposition to the motion, Respondent contends, among other things, that it is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to insure full litigation of the facts. This contention is without merit. The truth of the allegations of the complaint has either been admitted by the Respondent in its answer or stands admitted by virtue of the uncontroverted factual averments in the General Counsel's motion. The record before us established that on October 15, 1965, the Union filed a petition in Case 20-RC-6642 seeking to represent all casino employees at the Employer's place of business at Reno, Nevada. After a hearing, the Regional Director for Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of Election on December 13, 1965, in which he found appropriate for bargaining the following unit of employees: All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, keno writers and runners, change girls, change booth cashiers, and keymen employed by the Employer at its Reno, Nevada, location, but excluding all other employees, the general manager, the casino manager, keno shift managers or No. 1 men, the keno ticket auditor, the slot machine department manager, pit bosses, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Respondent's request for review of the said Decision, which raised questions of jurisdiction, status of the Petitioner as a labor organization, and unit placement, was denied by the Board on January 14, 1966, except to the extent of permitting the cage cashiers to vote subject to challenge. On January 18, 1966, a secret ballot election was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 20 in the said appropriate unit. In the election 35 votes were cast for the Petitioner, none for the Intervenor,2 19 against union representation, and 16 were challenged, these being sufficient in number to affect the results. Thereafter, the Respondent timely filed objections to the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election. After an administrative investigation, the Regional Director, on February 17, 1966, issued his Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election, sustaining the objection having to do with substantial wage misrepresentations by the petitioning Union on the eve of the election and directing that the election held on January 18, 1966, be set aside and a new election held among ' Certification of Representative in Case 20-RC-6642, by the ' Reno Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders and Hotel, Motel Service Workers was permitted to intervene at the hearing on a showing of interest 163 NLRB No. 37 RIVERSIDE HOTEL 281 employees in the said unit. On March 7, 1966, the Petitioner filed with the Board a request for review of this action by the Regional Director, which the Board rejected as untimely. On March 31, 1966, a rerun election by secret ballot was conducted, in which 33 votes were cast for the Petitioner, none for the Intervenor, 14 against union representation, and 20 were challenged, these being sufficient in number to affect the election results. After investigation of the challenged ballots, the Regional Director on May 2, 1966, issued his Second Supplemental Decision and Order, overruling the challenges to 15 of the 20 challenged ballots, ordering that they be opened and counted, and concluding that the remaining 5 ballots cast by the cage cashiers needed no ruling. The Respondent thereupon requested review as to 2 of the 15 challenges overruled. On May 27, 1966, 13 of the 15 ballots as to which challenges had been overruled were opened and counted and a revised tally of ballots showed that a majority of the employees had selected the Petitioner as their bargaining representative by a vote of 35 for the Petitioner, I for Intervenor, 24 against union representation, with 7 challenges still undetermined. As it was thus unnecessary to rule upon the Respondent's request for review concerning two of the undetermined challenges, the Board directed the Regional Director to issue the appropriate certification, which he did on June 23, 1966, certifying the Petitioner as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. On July 2, July 13, August 2, August 16, and September 22 the certified Union requeste I that the Respondent bargain collectively with it. The last two requests have gone unanswered by the Respondent; on July 13 it stated that it wished to communicate with its attorney, and on August 3 it failed to agree to meet after saying that "the basic issue of jurisdiction of the Board is still undecided ... the matter is in all likelihood going to be presented to the United States Supreme Court. In view of this, we wonder if you would not agree with us that it would be desirable to pend your request for negotiations...." The Union's response to this was its August 16 renewed request for bargaining, in which it stated: "We do not feel that further delays in this matter will best serve the interests of the Riverside Hotel employees involved, nor have we ever so felt." In the interim it filed the charge on August 12 upon which this proceeding is based. The Union's September 22 letter again requested bargaining and threatened economic action. In its opposition to the motion, the Respondent contends, in substance, that: (1) the Board is without jurisdiction to hear and determine motions for summary judgment; (2) a hearing in a unfair labor practice proceeding is a matter of right and therefore must be held; and (3) the failure to hold a hearing precludes Respondent from offering "additional evidence" and denies to it the due process of law. For the reasons fully set forth in E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1380, we find these contentions lacking in merit. As all material issues have been previously decided by the Board, are admitted by Respondent's answer to the complaint, or stand admitted by the failure of Respondent to controvert the averments of the General Counsel's motion, there are no matters requiring a hearing before a Trial Examiner. Accordingly, the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment is granted. On the basis of the record before it, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Nevada, engaged in the operation of the Riverside Hotel and a gaming casino, restaurant, and bars located within the hotel at Reno, Nevada. During the past year, which period is representative of all material times herein, in the course and conduct of its business operations Respondent received gross revenue in excess of $500,000. During the same period in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent purchased and received goods and supplies valued in- excess of $50,000 from other enterprises located within the State of Nevada, which enterprises received said goods and supplies directly from outside the State of Nevada. The Respondent denies that it is engaged in commerce, although it stipulated to the above facts in the hearing in the representation proceeding. Based on these facts the Regional Director asserted jurisdiction, citing El Dorado, Inc., 151 NLRB 579. We denied review of that decision. Accordingly, we find that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees at the Respondent's Reno, Nevada, place of business constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the -meaning of the Act: All gaming casino employees, including dealers, 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shills, keno writers and runners, change girls, change booth cashiers, and keymen employed by the Employer at its Reno, Nevada, location, but excluding all other employees, the general manager, the casino manager, keno shift managers or No. 1 men, the keno ticket auditor, the slot machine department manager, pit bosses, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. `-e certification On or about March 31, 1966, a majority of the employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 20, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent, and on June 23, 1966, at the direction of the Board, the Regional Director certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit, and the Union continues to be such representative. B. The Request to Bargain and the Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about July 2, 1966, and continuing to date, and more particularly on July 13, August 2, August 16, and September 22, 1966, the Union has requested and is requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Since July 13, and continuing to date, and more particularly on August 3, 1966, and thereafter, by failing to respond to the Union's August 16 and September 22 requests, Respondent did refuse, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of all employees in said unit. in the appropriate unit described above, and that the Union at all times since June 23, 1966, has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find that Respondent has, since on or about July 13, 1966, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of the Respondent set forth in section I-I, above, occurring in connection with its operations as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hotel, is an Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, keno writers and runners, change girls, change booth cashiers, and keymen employed by the Employer at its Reno, Nevada, location, but excluding all other employees, the general manager, the casino manager, keno shift managers or No. 1 men, the keno ticket auditor, the slot machine department manager, pit bosses, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since June 23, 1966, the above-named labor organization has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about July 13, 1966, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RIVERSIDE HOTEL ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hotel, Reno, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, with American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, keno writers and runners, change girls, change booth cashiers, and keymen employed by the Employer at its Reno, Nevada, location, but excluding all other employees, the general manager, the casino manager, keno shift managers or No. 1 men, the keno ticket auditor, the slot machine department manager, pit bosses, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Reno, Nevada, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order," the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " 283 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All gaming casino employees, including dealers, shills, keno writers and runners, change girls, change booth cashiers, and keymen employed by the Employer at its Reno, Nevada, location, but excluding all other employees, the general manager, the casino manager, keno shift managers or No. 1 men, the keno ticket auditor, the slot machine department manager , pit bosses, cage cashiers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. RENO 'S RIVERSIDE HOTEL, INC., D/B/A RIVERSIDE HOTEL (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation