Sahara Tahoe Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 812 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

812 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sahara Tahoe Corporation d/b/a Sahara Tahoe
Hotel and Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union , Local 86 , Hotel Employ
ees and Restaurant Employees International
Union , AFL-CIO Cases 32-CA-4155 and 32-
CA-4308
January 31, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS
On November 30, 1982, Administrative Law
Judge David G Heilbrun issued the attached deci-
sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting beef, and the General Counsel resubmitted
the brief previously submitted to the judge
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings, 2
and conclusions as modified and to adopt the rec
ommended Order as modified
The Respondent operates a hotel and casino in
Nevada situated on about 20 acres of property and
employing 1900 employees The Respondent's
building complex faces a highway and is surround-
ed on the sides and back by paved parking areas
There are four vehicle entrances or exits from the
front of the Respondent's facility to the highway,
and there are two additional entrances from an
access road in the back Other similar hotels are lo-
cated next to and across from the Respondent's
property
The Union represents two units of the Respond
ent's employees-service employees and bar and
culinary employees The service employees unit,
involved in this case, consists of about 290 employ-
ees The Respondent unlawfully withdrew recogni-
tion from the Union as the representative of the
service employees unit in December 1976 This led
to litigation culminating in the court of appeals en-
forcing, on November 28, 1980, a Board Order re-
i The Respondent has excepted to the judge s refection of R Exh 5 a
copy of the collective bargaining agreement covering the bar and cult
nary employee unit We agree with the Respondent that this agreement is
relevant to this case and we reverse the judge and admit R Exh 5 into
evidence
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find
rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
quiring the Respondent to bargain with the
Union 3
Following the court's decision, the Union deter-
mined that because of the hiatus occasioned by the
litigation it was necessary to make fresh contact
with unit employees A list of employees' names
and addresses was obtained from the Respondent
around July 1981 and used to publicize a prenego-
tiation meeting of unit employees The Union at
tributed the poor turnout at that meeting to the al-
leged inaccuracy of the address list and the lack of
residential mail delivery in the Lake Tahoe vicmi
ty
Because the Union felt that its mailing had not
been received by many of the service employees, it
decided that it was necessary to distribute its litera-
ture to these employees in person Thus, on No-
vember 15, 1981, Union International Trustee Con-
treras and Business Agent Taylor began distribut-
ing union literature in the Respondent's parking lot
at the employee entrance at a rear corner of the
building complex This literature consisted of the
Union's wage proposal and supporting rationale
written in English and Spanish According to Con-
treras' testimony, it was the practice of Contreras
and other union business representatives to have
conversations with the people to whom they were
distributing literature Two off duty bar and culi
nary employees, Guthrie and Pearson, also took
part in the distribution of literature After about 20
minutes of this distribution the Respondent's securi
ty supervisor, Zajic, told the distributors they
would have to leave the Respondent's property or
face arrest Contreras argued briefly and then con
ceded Zajic made no distinction between employ
ee and nonemployee distributors
Contreras and Taylor attended a contract bar
gaining session the following day at which their
ejection from the Respondent's parking lot was dis
cussed The Respondent's representatives apolo-
gized for the incident and told Contreras and
Taylor that it had been a mistake and that they had
a right to be there The Respondent's personnel di
rector added that, if security guards tried to eject
them in the future, they were to tell the guards to
contact the personnel director
Taylor subsequently carried out similar distribu-
tions at the same employee entrance twice in De-
cember 1981 and once in January 1982, including
one distribution on December 8 or 9 in which em-
ployee Stanley took part Although there was a se-
curity camera mounted on the wall outside the em
ployee entrance that might have enabled the Re-
a See Sahara Tahoe Corp v NLRB 648 F 2d 553 (9th Cir 1980) cent
denied 451 U S 984 ( 1981) enfg 241 NLRB 106 (1979)
292 NLRB No 86
SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL 813
spondent to observe activity there, the Respondent
did not interfere with the distribution of union lit
erature on these occasions
On February 17, 1982, Business Agent Taylor
and bar and culinary employee Hewitt again began
to distribute literature to employees arriving at the
employee entrance After about 20 minutes, how-
ever, the Respondent's security manager, Nagel,
told Taylor he would have to stop distributing lit-
erature Nagel confiscated the literature that
Taylor tried to hand over to Hewitt Nagel then
made a citizen's arrest of Taylor for trespassing,
after which Taylor was removed by a deputy slier
iff, who booked him at the local jail Hewitt, the
employee, was permitted to continue distributing
what literature she had
As set forth in the judge's decision, during the
period at issue , the Respondent had rules that pro
hibited solicitation for any purpose during working
time and prohibited distribution or posting of litera
ture for any purpose in any working area The
rules further provided that employees violating
them would be subject to discipline, including ter
mination, and nonemployees violating them would
be subject to arrest
In his decision, the judge analyzed the scope of
the right to engage in union activities on an em
ployer's property The judge rejected the Respond-
ent's assertion that the Union had alternative means
of communicating with the unit employees He fur-
ther found insufficient evidence that the distribu-
tion caused a littering problem, that employee dis-
cipline was affected by it, or that the distribution
posed a security problem Accordingly, the judge
concluded that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by preventing employees and
nonemployees from distributing union literature, by
arresting the business agent in front of the employ-
ee distributor, thereby chilling the latter's exercise
of her Section 7 rights, and by confiscating the
business agent s literature as he was handing it to
the employee distributor We agree with the
judge's conclusions, but we find that the Respond
ent's interference with the distribution of union lit-
erature violated Section 8(a)(1) for the following
reasons
We address first the Respondent's order halting
the distribution of union literature by off-duty em-
ployees Guthrie and Pearson on November 15 The
Respondent does not contend that its rules on so
licitation and distribution, or any of its established
rules, barred the activity in which Guthrie and
Pearson were engaged Indeed, the Respondent's
position is that off duty employees may distribute
literature in the Respondent's parking lot, and Se-
curity Manager Nagel testified that distribution of
literature by off duty employees in the parking lot
was, in fact, permitted Moreover, the Respondent
has no rule or policy barring off-duty employees
from its property and makes no contention that
Guthrie and Pearson were not off duty or not
rightfully on its property 4
The law governing distribution of union litera
ture by employees already rightfully on the em-
ployer's property was articulated by the Supreme
Court in Republic Aviation Corp v NLRB, 324 U S
793 (1945) See Eastex Inc v NLRB, 437 U S 556,
570-572 (1978), Hudgens v NLRB, 424 US 507,
521 fn 10 (1976) Republic Aviation held that an
employer may not prohibit such employees from
distributing union literature in nonwork areas
during nonwork time without a showing that a ban
is necessary to maintain plant discipline or produc
tion See also Stoddard-Quirk Mfg Co, 138 NLRB
615 (1962) The Respondent does not attempt to
justify its order halting the two employees' distri-
bution of union literature on the basis that it was
necessary to maintain discipline, production, or
cleanliness It contends only that its action is ex
cused by its good-faith but mistaken belief that
Guthrie and Pearson were not employees
This contention is without merit The existence
of a violation like the one alleged here does not
turn on an employer's motive but rather on wheth-
er the employer has engaged in conduct that rea
sonably tends to interfere with the free exercise of
employee rights under the Act Quality Aluminum
Products, 278 NLRB 338 (1986), Hanes Hosiery, 219
NLRB 338 (1975) Accordingly, as the Respond-
ent's action violated the two employees' right
under Republic Aviation to distribute union litera-
ture on nonwork time in nonwork areas , we agree
with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by prohibiting
the two off-duty employees from distributing union
literature in the Respondent 's parking lot by the
employee entrance on November 15, 1981
Regarding the Respondent' s exclusion of nonem-
ployee union agents Contreras and Taylor on No-
vember 15, 1981, and Taylor on February 17, 1982,
we look to the Board's recent decision in Jean
Country, 291 NLRB 11 ( 1988) In Jean Country, the
Board addressed the question of how to accommo-
date the exercise of rights guaranteed under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act with a property owner's right to
protect his property against intrusions by those
whom he has not invited to enter In light of the
4 Because the Respondent concedes that employees Guthrie and Pear
son were rightfully on its property and because the Respondent has no
rule or policy barring off-duty employees from its property Tn County
Medical Center 222 NLRB 1089 (1976) which sets out criteria concern
mg the lawfulness of such a rule or policy is not directly applicable here
814 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board's decision in Fairmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139
(1986), and subsequent cases, the Board reevaluated
the relevance of means of exercising Section 7
rights other than by intrusion on private property
and concluded that the availability of reasonable al
ternative means is a factor that must be considered
in every access case In reaching this conclusion
the Board emphasized that, under the Supreme
Court's decisions in NLRB v Babcock & Wilcox
Co, 351 US 105 (1956), and Hudgens v NLRB,
424 U S 507 (1976), the Board is "charged with
seeking to avoid the 'destruction' of [Sec 7 and
property] rights, if at all possible, and with permit-
ting infringements on one right only to the extent
necessary to maintain the other " Jean Country,
supra at 12-13 After reviewing Babcock and Hud-
gens, the Board in Jean Country further concluded
[I]n all access cases our essential concern will
be the degree of impairment of the Section 7
right if access should be denied, as it balances
against the degree of impairment of the private
property right if access should be granted We
view the consideration of the availability of
reasonably effective alternative means as espe-
cially significant in this balancing process
Jean Country, supra at 14 The Board also set forth
factors that may be relevant to assessing the prop
erty right, the Section 7 right, and alternative
means in each case The Board additionally noted
that there is an initial burden on the party claiming
the property right to show that it has an interest in
the property and what its interest in the property
is
Applying the Jean Country analysis to the facts
of this case, we examine first whether it has been
shown that the Respondent has an interest in the
property at issue As noted above, the Respondent
operates a hotel and casino, consisting of a building
complex and surrounding parking lot on three
sides, located on a 20 acre tract of land The
record does not establish whether the Respondent's
interest in the property is a fee simple or a lease
hold The record, however, does include an aerial
photograph of the Respondent's premises with the
boundaries of the Respondent's property drawn on
it by the Respondent's chief engineer Moreover, it
is clear from the record that the Respondent exerts
control over the entire premises, and the Respond-
ent's representatives, the Union's representatives,
and the employees considered the Respondent's
building complex and surrounding parking lot to be
the Respondent's property Indeed, there is no con-
tention to the contrary Accordingly, we conclude
that the Respondent possessed a property interest
in its building complex and surrounding parking
lot
Considering the factors relevant to assessing the
weight of the Respondent's property right, we con
clude that the Respondent's property interest in the
parking lot area outside the Respondent's employee
entrance is relatively modest The employee en
trance is situated at a rear corner of the complex
some distance from the customer entrances and the
parking areas normally used by customers This en-
trance is used principally by employees and is adja-
cent to the employee parking area The sign above
the entrance says "Personnel Office" as well as
"Employees Entrance," however, so it is apparent
that members of the public applying for jobs may
also use this entrance Additionally, the perimeter
of the Respondent's premises is not fenced Some
employees who commute by bus proceed from the
bus stop to the Respondent's employee entrance by
cutting across the parking lot of the adjacent
casino, into the Respondent's parking lot, and
across it to the employee entrance Individuals,
whether employees, customers, or strangers, may
walk or drive into the parking lot and walk up to
the employee entrance The parking lot area out
side the Respondent's employee entrance is not
particularly private or exclusive Although it is not
an area where customers would be expected to
park, there is nothing preventing them from doing
so, and it is apparent that individuals who have no
prior relationship with the Respondent park in or
walk through this area of the Respondent's parking
lot when applying for jobs at the Respondent's per-
sonnel office
The Respondent's property interest in this park-
ing lot area is even weaker regarding the nonem-
ployee union agents who represented its employees
than it is regarding the public in general On the
day after the November 15 incident, in which Con
treras and Taylor had been ejected while handbill-
ing at the employee entrance, the Respondent's
representatives apologized and told them that they
had a right to do what they had been doing, their
ejection had been a mistake, and if security agents
tried to eject them again, they should tell the
agents to call the Respondent's personnel director
Taylor subsequently engaged in handbilling at this
entrance on three additional occasions without in-
terference prior to the February 17 incident Ac-
cordingly, the Respondent, through its words and
actions, essentially acknowledges that it had little,
if any, property interest at least regarding the pres-
SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL 815
ence of the nonemployee union agents at that loca-
tion 5
Applying the factors set forth in Jean Country
relevant to consideration of a Section 7 rights, we
conclude that the Section 7 right at issue here is
best described as a representational right The
Union was attempting to reestablish contact with
the Respondent's service employees, inform them
of the collective-bargaining proposal that the
Union was making on their behalf, and solicit em-
ployee input and questions concerning the propos-
al The right of employees under Section 7 of the
Act to "bargain collectively through represents
tives of their own choosing" is one of the essential
rights protected by the Act Inherent in this right is
the right of employees and their representatives to
communicate with each other concerning subjects
of bargaining, as this communication is essential to
effectuate the right of employees to bargain
through their representatives Accordingly, the
right of a union to establish communications with
the employees it represents and inform them about
proposed contract terms that would cover those
employees and seek employee input and questions
regarding the contract negotiations is a fundamen-
tal Section 7 right
With respect to other factors set forth in Jean
Country as relevant to assessing the relative weight
of the Union's protected conduct, we note that the
employer to which this Section 7 right was directly
related was the Respondent, as it was the Respond-
ent with which the Union was bargaining, and it
was the Respondent's employees on whose behalf
the Union was bargaining Also, the audience to
which the Union's communications were directed
was the Respondent's service employees, and, as
the judge found, the manner in which the Union's
distribution of literature was carried out on the Re-
spondent's property was nondisruptive In sum,
5 We find no merit in the Respondents argument that it had a strong
property interest in excluding Contreras and Taylor to maintain security
As representatives of the bar and culinary unit employees Contreras and
Taylor had a right under that unit s collective bargaining agreement to be
present in the Respondent s facility for grievance related activities and
Contreras testified that he made about three visits there a week Thus
Contreras at least was not a stranger to the Respondent and he and
Taylor had a contractual right to enter the Respondents premises for
certain purposes (although not for the purpose of passing out handbills)
Additionally the Respondent employed about 1900 employees and was
patronized by at least 2000 customers per day Although it is apparent
that as a casino operator the Respondent had security concerns it neces
sanly was prepared to deal with a large number of customers and other
strangers along with the employees on its premises each day In this
regard it is unlikely that the Respondent s security personnel were able
to recognize all 1900 employees Indeed the Respondent contends that
on November 15 it mistook the employee distributors for nonemployees
In sum we are not persuaded that the presence of two nonemployee
union agents handbilling in the parking lot outside the employee entrance
significantly affected the Respondent s security concerns Moreover we
agree with the judge that there is insufficient evidence of problems with
employee discipline or littering
these factors, including the situs and manner of the
Union's handbilling, do not diminish the strength of
the Section 7 right in these circumstances
We turn then to the question of the Union's al-
ternative means of communicating with its intended
audience The Union handbillers' intended audience
clearly was the Respondent's service employees
The General Counsel argues that the Union did not
have available to it the "usual methods of impart-
ing information" to these employees, quoting Bab-
cock & Wilcox, supra, 351 U S at 113 The Re-
spondent argues that numerous methods of commu-
nicating with the service unit employees were
available to the Union and that the General Coun-
sel failed to meet the burden of proving their lack
of availability These asserted methods include
mailing literature to employees, distributing litera
ture to employees from public areas near the hotel
and at a bus stop used by employees, visiting the
homes of employees, telephoning employees, plac-
ing advertisements with radio stations, newspapers,
and magazines, and advertising on cab backs, bill-
boards, posters, and bumper stickers
We find that none of the means of communica-
tion asserted by the Respondent would have pro-
vided the Union with a reasonable, effective means
to communicate its message to its intended audi
ence As a general matter, we note that the Union's
need to reestablish means of communication with
the employees it represented was directly related to
the Respondent's unlawful withdrawal of recogni-
tion and subsequent refusal to recognize the Union
as the representative of the Respondent's service
employees for a 4-year period Thus, for this entire
period the Union was deprived of the status of an
incumbent union and the normal channels of com-
munication with the unit members that an incum-
bent union ordinarily might be expected to have
After recognition of the Union finally was rees-
tablished, the Respondent provided a mailing list of
the unit employees, but the list turned out to be of
little help to the Union in renewing contact with
the employees The Union demonstrated that com-
munication with the employees by mail was inef-
fective due to the lack of home mail delivery in the
Lake Tahoe area and the apparent inaccuracy of
the employee address list In addition, the Union
had found that telephoning employees was ineffec-
tive because employees often did not answer, they
were at work, or they worked at night and took
their telephone off the hook during the day when
they were trying to sleep Moreover, the Union did
not know the telephone numbers of the employees
here, and the address lists that the Respondent sup-
plied did not include telephone numbers The Re-
spondent showed that attempting to gather these
816 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
numbers from the telephone directory, as the Re-
spondent had five of its clerical employees do, was
a laborious and time-consuming task that yielded
telephone numbers for only about one-sixth of the
employees-' Additionally, because most of the em-
ployees' addresses were post office boxes or gener-
al delivery and did not give street addresses, the
Union could not attempt to contact the employees
in person at their homes.
Regarding advertising in newspapers, magazines,
and on radio, Jean Country indicated that generally
we will not find such means of communication to
provide feasible alternatives to direct contact.7 We
do not find this case to be the exceptional one
where such use of mass media is a feasible alterna-
tive, especially because the intended audience of
the Union's communication was a discrete group of
290 employees of the Respondent. By the same
token, the Respondent's suggestion that advertising
on cab backs, billboards, posters, and bumper stick-
ers could serve as a reasonably effective alternative
means for the Union to communicate with these
290 employees is plainly without merit.
The suggestion that the nonemployee union
agents could have conducted their handbilling from
public property adjacent to the entrances to the
Respondent's parking lot and at the public bus stop
used by about 30 percent of the Respondent's em-
ployees cannot be so easily dismissed. There were
six entrances and exits to the Respondent's parking
lot, however, and a large volume of customers and
nonunit employees entered through them.8 Thus, it
6 To show that obtaining employees ' telephone numbers from the local
telephone directory would provide a feasible alternative means for the
Union to communicate with the Respondent's service employees, the Re-
spondent had five of its clerical employees attempt to locate in the tele-
phone directory the telephone numbers of employees whose names ap-
peared on lists of the Respondent 's bar and culinary unit employees and
service unit employees that had been provided to the Union . The Re-
spondent introduced an exhibit listing the employees whose names had
been located in the telephone directory by this method . The number of
bar and culinary employees whose telephone numbers were located is, of
course, irrelevant , because it is communication with the service employ-
ees only that is at issue . Comparison of the list of employees whose
names were located in the telephone directory with the list of employees
in the service employees unit alone shows that the names of only about
16.5 percent of the service unit employees (48 out of 290) could be found
in the directory . Additionally , even when a name in the telephone direc-
tory matches the name of a unit employee , it is not certain that the indi-
vidual listed in the directory actually is the employee , rather than some-
one else with the same name . This problem is exacerbated by the fact
that employees are listed on the Respondent 's personnel lists by initials
and last name only. Thus, it is not clear whether, for example , the D. G.
Garcia who is employed by the Respondent is the same person as the D.
Garcia who is listed in the telephone directory. Accordingly, we con-
clude that not only is it time-consuming and cumbersome to attempt to
obtain the employees ' telephone numbers from the telephone directory,
but also that only a small fraction of the employees ' telephone numbers
can be obtained this way and it is uncertain that all the listings found are
really those of the employees.
7 Jean Country, above at 13.
a The record shows that exits from the parking lot commonly were
used as entrances.
appears that the vast majority of vehicles entering
into or exiting from the Respondent's parking lot
were occupied by persons other than members of
the service employees' unit, and attempting to dis-
tribute handbills to the occupants of entering or ex-
iting vehicles would have been a cumbersome and
largely ineffective way for the Union to communi-
cate with the Respondent's service employees.
Similarly, the bus stop in question was used by the
public at large, including employees of other hotels
and casinos in the area, so it appears that only a
small portion of the individuals who could be con-
tacted at that bus stop would be employees of the
Respondent. Thus, distributing leaflets at the bus
stop also would be a cumbersome and ineffective
way of reaching even that small percentage of the
Respondent's service employees who used that bus
stop.
Although not asserted by the Respondent, it is
also apparent that another potential alternative
means for the Union to convey its message was the
use of off-duty employees to perform the distribu-
tion of handbills at the Respondent's employee en-
trance, because off-duty employees did, in fact,
engage in this activity with the nonemployee union
agents. As discussed above, the Respondent's stated
policy was to allow off-duty employees to distrib-
ute literature in nonwork areas. Thus, it would
seem that distribution by off-duty employees might
serve as a reasonable, effective alternative means to
distribution by nonemployee union agents. We
need not decide in this case, however, under what
circumstances such an alternative would be reason-
able because when the Respondent excluded non-
employee union agents Contreras and Taylor on
November 15, it also halted the handbilling activity
of the two off-duty employees, and when it ex-
cluded Taylor on February 17, it prevented him
from turning over his remaining handbills to the
off-duty employee who was distributing handbills
with him. Thus, as the Respondent interfered with
distribution by off-duty employees on both these
occasions, distribution by off-duty employees was
not an available alternative at the time of the al-
leged violations, even though, prospectively, under
the Respondent's stated policies, the Respondent
may permit similar employee distribution of litera-
ture in the future.
In any event, we are not examining these assert-
ed alternative means of communication in a
vacuum. Rather, in determining whether various
proffered alternative means are reasonable, we
must take into account the Section 7 right and the
property right at issue.9 In this case, the Union was
9 As we stated in Jean Country, above at 13.
SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL
engaged in fundamental representational activity
protected by Section 7-communicating with the
employees it represented for the purposes of in-
forming them about contract negotiations and rees-
tablishing contact after a 4-year hiatus On the
other hand, the Respondent's property interest in
excluding the nonemployee union agents from the
parking lot area by the employee entrance was, as
found above, relatively insubstantial However we
might evaluate the alternatives in other cases,
under the particular circumstances here, where the
Union's Section 7 right is particularly compelling
and the Respondent's property interest is of a lesser
weight, we find that these asserted alternatives do
not provide reasonable, effective alternative means
of communicating the Union's message to its in
tended audience Thus, given the importance of the
Union's Section 7 activity, these various asserted
alternative means for the Union to convey its mes-
sage to the employees it represents cannot be
deemed adequate As stated in Jean Country, above
at 13
Because the Supreme Court in Hudgens indi-
cated that there is a "spectrum" of Section 7
rights and private property rights and that the
place of a particular right in that spectrum
might affect the outcome of a case, we are not
free to assume that every Section 7 right is of
equal weight when intrusions on private prop-
erty are concerned Thus, in cases when a
property owner has especially compelling rea-
sons for barring access and when the Section 7
right is less central than, for example, the right
of employees to organize or to protest unfair
labor practices, we may more readily find that
means of communication other than those en-
tailing entry onto the property in question
constitute a reasonable alternative
Finally, in accommodating the competing rights,
we note that the Board's ultimate concern, as ar
ticulated in Jean Country, is the extent of impair-
ment of the Section 7 right if access is denied, bal
anced against the extent of impairment of the pri
vate property right if access is granted In view of
our analysis above, it is clear that if the nonem-
ployee union agents were denied access to the Re-
spondent's parking lot area by the employee en
trance for the purpose of distributing handbills to
the Respondent's service employees, the Union's
Section 7 representational right at issue would
suffer a not insubstantial degree of impairment The
Union, the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Respondent's service employees, would be re-
quired to rely on vastly inferior means by which to
attempt to communicate with those employees con-
817
cerning contract proposals and to reestablish con-
tact with the employees after a 4-year hiatus
On the other hand, if the nonemployee union
agents were granted access to the Respondent's
parking lot to distribute handbills by the employee
entrance, the Respondent's private property rights
would not suffer any noticeable degree of impair-
ment The employee entrance to the Respondent's
building complex is a rear entrance away from the
areas frequented by customers, and the parking lot
area there is open and generally unrestricted
Moreover, by its apology to the nonemployee
union agents after their first ejection from that
area, its statement to them that they had a right to
be there, and its subsequent toleration of handbill-
ing by Taylor three times at that location, the Re-
spondent acknowledged, in effect, that it was little
burdened by the presence of the two union agents
outside the employee entrance Thus, we find that
the degree of impairment of the Union's Section 7
right if the nonemployee union agents were denied
access to the Respondent's parking lot to distribute
literature by the employee entrance outweighs the
degree of impairment of the Respondent's property
right if access were granted Accordingly, and in
light of all the foregoing, we conclude that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ex-
cluding Contreras and Taylor from its parking lot
on November 15 and Taylor on February 17 We,
therefore, shall adopt the judge's recommended
Order as modified to conform with our analysis
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re
spondent Sahara Tahoe Corporation d/b/a Sahara
Tahoe Hotel, Stateline, Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a)
"(a) Preventing or attempting to prevent off-duty
employees from distributing union literature in the
parking lot outside the employee entrance to the
Respondent's facility or at any other nonwork lo-
cation or interfering with this distribution "
2 Insert the following as paragraph 1(d) and re
letter the subsequent paragraph accordingly
"(d) Preventing nonemployee agents of Hotel,
Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
Union, Local 86, Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, from
distributing union literature to employees in the
Respondent's parking lot close to the employee en-
trance to the Respondent's facility, unless the
Union has available to it a reasonable, effective al-
818 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ternative means of communicating with the service
employees in the bargaining unit it represents."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT prevent or attempt to prevent off-
duty employees from distributing union literature
in the parking lot outside the employee entrance to
our facility or at any other nonwork location or
interfering with this distribution.
WE WILL NOT confiscate: literature of Hotel,
Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
Union, Local 86, Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, that has been or is being
distributed to employees in nonwork areas on non-
work time.
WE WILL NOT cause the arrest of a nonemployee
representative of this Union in the presence of any
employee because, and while in the process of, the
representative's solicitation of our employees and
distribution of leaflets to such employees at the em-
ployee entrance to this facility, notwithstanding
that it is located on company property.
WE WILL NOT prevent nonemployee agents of
this Union from distributing union literature to em-
ployees in our parking lot close to the employee
entrance to this facility, unless the Union has avail-
able to it a reasonable, effective alternative means
of communicating with our service employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
Tahoe Hotel (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interfering with the solicitation of its employees
and distribution of leaflets by Hotel , Motel , Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Union , Local 86, Hotel Em-
ployees and Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO (the Union) to such employees as attemptedly
carried out by both employee and nonemployee agents
of the Union at the employee entrance to the facility,
and later interfering with the solicitation of its employees
and the distribution of union leaflets by the same persons
and in the same manner while contemporaneously caus-
ing the arrest of a union agent in the presence of an em-
ployee because of this agent 's solicitation of employees
and distribution of union leaflets to such employees at
the employee entrance.
On the entire record , my observation of witnesses, and
consideration of posthearing briefs , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESULTANT CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
This case arises at a major resort facility located on
approximately 20 acres abreast heavily traveled U.S.
Highway 50. Employee Relations Counselor Dick Love
estimated there to be 1900 employees overall, with 700
occupied in food and beverage functions and another 290
providing hotel services. There are four labor organiza-
tions representing various units of employees, these being
Teamsters, Operating Engineers, Musicians, and what is
popularly termed "Culinary Union" (the Charging
Party).' The physical spread includes a casino, show-
room, hotel towers, parking structure, and ground level
paved parking that covers about two-thirds of the total
area. The premises are so configured that four vehicular
entryways are on the highway side, and two additional
accesses may be turned into from a rear Loop Road at
which point motorists so arriving would be at the far
back end of the parking area.2 The Union represents two
distinct bargaining units, one the bar and culinary work-
ers and the other that of hotel service employees. The
second of those described units was the subject of litiga-
tion in which, on November 28, 1980, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals enforced a Board Order requiring Re-
spondent to resume bargaining with the Union for such
employees.
International trustee Miguel Contreras testified that the
culinary unit remains routinely under contract, while
such lengthy litigation over the hotel service unit had ne-
cessitated fresh contact with employees.3 To this end he
SAHARA TAHOE CORPORATION
D/B/A SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL
Charles A. Askin, for the General Counsel.
Gary W. Reid, of Phoenix, Arizona, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard on September 16, 1982, at South Lake
Tahoe, California, based on a consolidated complaint al-
leging that Sahara Tahoe Corporation d/b/a Sahara
' Respondent is a Nevada corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in Stateline , Nevada, where it is engaged in the operation of a hotel,
gambling casino , and related facilities , annually deriving gross revenues
in excess of $500,000 while purchasing and receiving goods or services
valued in excess of $5000, which originated outside Nevada . On these ad-
mitted facts I find Respondent to be an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and otherwise
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5).
2 The spatial and physical relational characteristics of the facility are
well depicted in a group of photographs received into evidence as exhib-
its of Respondent.
' The underlying Board case, Sham-Tahoe Hotel, 241 NLRB 106
(1979), set forth unit inclusions such as "housekeeping personnel ; parking
lot attendants; front desk employees ; timekeepers ; casino porters; and
bellmen," with expectable exclusions.
SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL
pressed Respondent for a list of employees and their ad
dresses A working list was finally obtained around July
1981 and a prenegotiation membership meeting was pub
licized Turnout was poor and Contreras blamed this on
the obsolete or inaccurate listing of addresses coupled
with the fact that in the South Lake vicinity there is no
residential mail delivery
On November 15, 1981, Contreras appeared at the
well marked employee entrance at a rear corner of the
complex, accompanied by Business Agent Donald Taylor
plus two off duty employees The object of this group
was to initiate or improve communication with hotel
maids, and they started to carry this out by distribution
of the Union's nine page wage proposal and accompany
ing rationale punted in either English or Spanish After
about 20 minutes of this Security Supervisor Allen Zajic
appeared with two uniformed guards, and advised that
the distribution taking place was illegal, constituted tres
pass, and must cease or the individuals involved would
face arrest Contreras argued that it was his right to be
there, while Zajic adhered to his ultimatum intimating
that it had come from Respondents executive offices
Soon Contreras conceded in the situation, influenced as
he was by the fact that the next day a bargaining meet
ing was scheduled between the parties and he anticipated
dealing with the interference in that forum Contreras ex
pressly testified that Zajic s edict ran against the activity
of distributing at this entrance point , and made no dis
tinction about whether those accompanying union repre
sentatives were employees of Respondent
At the next day s bargaining session the Union was
represented by Vincent Sirabella its chief negotiator at
the time with Contreras and others also present on his
side Respondents chief spokesman then was Las Vegas
based Robert Kaufman, and among other employer offs
cials were Personnel Director Kathy Collup, plus Attor
nev Gary Reid who was new to the negotiations Con
treras recalled that in the course of this meeting Re
spondent s representatives extended an apology for the
previous day s incident and retracted any contention that
activity that had occurred would be again challenged
As further recalled by Contreras this ameliorating em
ployer position was enlarged on by Collup, who told the
union representatives that should any repetition occur
the security personnel should be advised to contact her
Following this Contreras became headquartered at
Reno Nevada in carrying out his trusteeship duties and
Taylor succeeded to the role of chief revitalizer for the
hotel service unit Taylor recalled making similar formal
distributions at this employee entrance on three further
occasions without interference However, another con
frontation occurred on February 17 1982, and it consti
tutes the second of two incidents that allegations of this
case address On this occasion Taylor was present with
employee Audrey Hewitt, a restaurant food server of 12
years service with Respondent, to distribute literature
among arriving employees at their same customary point
of entering the building After 20 minutes had passed Re
spondent s security manager, Clarence (Homer) Nagel,
appeared along with Zajic Nagel requested that Taylor
cease his activity, and following a brief argument of the
point Taylor handed undistributed literature to Hewitt
819
preparatory to departure Nagel intercepted the material,
stating it was needed for evidence, and carried out a cite
zen s arrest of Taylor for trespassing on private property
contrary to applicable Nevada law Taylor was there
upon removed in the presence of Hewitt by a deputy
sheriff and booked at the local jail No interference was
attempted regarding Hewitt, who remained free at all
times to continue her phase of the distributional activity
The rules at issue , as respectively in written effect
during November 1981 and February 1982, read as fol
lows
NO SOLICITATION AND DISTRIBUTION
POLICY
It is the policy of Del Webb Hotels, Inc to
strictly prohibit solicitation for any purpose during
working time in any area of its hotels and Casinos
and distribution or posting of any literature for any
purpose in any working area of its hotels and Casi
nos This policy does not apply to breakperiods
mealtimes or other non work periods
Employees violating the above policies will be
subject to discipline up to and including termina
tion
Non employees violating the above policies may
be subject to arrest for unauthorized trespass
The following No Solicitation' rule applies to
all employees and visitors, while on our premises
It is the policy of Del Webb Hotels, Inc to
strictly prohibit solicitation for any purpose
during working time in any area of its hotels and
casinos and distribution or posting of any litera
ture for any purpose in any working area of its
hotels and casinos
Employees violating the above policies will be
subject to discipline up to and including termina
tion
Non employees violating the above policies
may be subject to arrest for unauthorized tres
pass
Any exceptions to the above rules are as pro
vided in the applicable Collective Bargaining
Agreements
Nagel testified that the earlier rule had traditionally been
enforced against nonemployee distributors of literature in
cases when their activity occurred on the premises
where trespass could be claimed Associated with this is
the testimony of Zajic that the confrontation of Novem
ber 15, 1981, gives Respondent s agents no basis to know
or reasonably believe that persons accompanying Con
treras were in fact employees of Respondent Attorney
Reid testified in further reference to this point, recalling
that on November 16, 1981 (where he was present after
having joined Respondent s legal staff only about 2
weeks earlier) the apology to the Union was voiced in
particular terms of a mistake" having been made about
whether a bargaining unit employee had been present the
day before with Contreras
820 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel contends that Respondent has
acted unlawfully by enforcing otherwise valid no-distri-
bution rules against nonemployee agents of a labor orga-
nization attempting dissemination of informational litera-
ture in a nonwork area. Respondent's defense is largely
that alternate means of communication to employees
were reasonably present, and in this regard it adduced
evidence that television and radio advertising, roadside
billboards, taxicab backboards, vehicle bumper stickers,
and community newspaper notices all represented appro-
priate, feasible alternatives to coming on private property
for purposes supportive of continuing self-organization
by employees. Further, Respondent submitted a locality
telephone directory into evidence showing that several
hundred employee names (or identification by spouse's
name) were listed and could thus be called directly con-
cerning objectives of the Union.4
Long-established doctrine in this subject area of the
law involving determination of whether Section 7 activi-
ty may be exercised on private property, requires a bal-
ancing of the legitimate interests of employees to exer-
cise protected rights with the legitimate managerial and
property interests of the employer. Republic Aviation
Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945); NLRB v. Babcock &
Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1950); Central Hardware Co. v.
NLRB, 407 U.S. 539 (1972). As written in Hudgens v.
NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), quoting Babcock & Wilcox,
supra at 112, the basic objective of the Act is the accom-
modation of Section 7 rights and private property rights
"with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the
maintenance of the other." The U.S. Supreme Court has
stressed that the Board is to avoid "mechanical answers"
in seeking a "solution of this non-mechanical, complex
problem in labor-management relations," 5 and from this
the Board has recognized that "the formulation of gener-
alized rules in this area must be undertaken with caution
because . . . differing fact situations call for different ac-
commodations."6 In accommodating the relevant inter-
ests in each factual setting the Board has given varying
weight to factors including the relationship of the indi-
vidual engaging in protected acivity with the owner of
the property,' the nature of the employer's operations,8
the nature or type of protected activity involved," the
location on the property of the exercise of the activity, t 0
4 Taylor had testified that even with an updated employee list of July
1982, the Union's blanket mailings resulted in many returned items (75
out of 300 by mid -September 1982, with approximately a half dozen more
accumulating each week on the average).
5 NLRB v. Steelworkers (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U.S. 357 (1958).
9 Stoddard-Quirk Mfg. Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962).
' Republic Aviation, supra (employees); Tri-County Medical Center, 222
NLRB 1089 ( 1976) (off-duty employees); Babcock & Wilcox, supra (non-
employees).
8 Famous-Barr Co., 59 NLRB 976 (1944), enfd. as modified 154 F.2d
533 (8th Cir. 1946), cert. denied 329 U.S. 725 (1946) (retail stores); Beth
Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 438 (1978) (hospitals).
9 Stoddard -Quirk, supra (comparing oral solicitation and literature dis-
tribution during union organizing campaign); Seattle-First Natioinal Bank
v. NLRB, 651 F . 2d 1272 (9th Cir . 1980) (picketing in support of econom-
ic strike). See also Giant Food Markets v. NLRB, 633 F.2d 18 (6th Cir.
1980) (area standards picketing).
'' Stoddard-Quirk, supra (working areas versus nonworking areas);
Marshall Field & Co., 98 NLRB 88 (1951 ), enfd . in part and modified in
part, 200 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1952) (public selling areas distinguished from
public nonselling areas).
the right of the individual to be on the employer's prop-
erty exclusive of rights under the Act,"' and the impact
of the protected activity on production, discipline, and
plant cleanliness.' 2
The balancing test was first formulated respecting the
right of employees to engage in union solicitation on
their employer's premises . Peyton Packing Co., 49 NLRB
828 (1943), enfd. 142 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1944), cert.
denied 323 U.S. 730 (1944). Because employees are "al-
ready rightfully on the employer's property" pursuant to
their work relationship, the employer's interest in con-
trolling access to its property was not involved. Hudgens,
supra at 521 fn. 10. However, the Board's consideration
of rights of nonemployees who seek to engage in pro-
tected activity on private property similarly reflects bal-
ancing a variety of factors. While Hudgens teaches that
the activity of employees rightfully on their employer's
property does not affect property rights, access by non-
employees to private property generally requires accom-
modation of Section 7 rights with the employer's proper-
ty interests as well as any lesser impact on its managerial
concerns. That accommodation involves an assessment of
the "nature and strength" of such property interests and
the Section 7 rights. Hudgens, supra at 522.
The strength of an employer's property interest varies
depending on its intended use. In the context of an indus-
trial plant, access by nonemployees would significantly
burden a property right, and the accommodation of em-
ployee and employer interests involves consideration of
the availability of means of effectuating the Section 7
right other than by nonemployee access to such proper-
ty. Babcock & Wilcox, supra at 112. The accommodation
is different when the nonemployees seek to approach or
enter property that is generally open to the public. The
fact that property is open to the public is a relevant con-
sideration in determining the strength of the property in-
terest, and the Board reasonably views an invitation to
the general public as a factor that diminishes the burden
on the employer's property interests imposed by the ex-
ercise of protected activity. Cf. Seattle First National
Bank, supra at 1275. However, when the exercise of the
protected conduct is not consistent with the general pub-
lic's normal use of the property, the Board recognizes
that the activity imposes some burden on the employer's
property rights. Accordingly, when the nonemployee use
of the property is substantially different from that of the
public, the Board also considers the availability of effec-
tive means of implementing the Section 7 rights. Scott
Hudgens, 230 NLRB 414 (1977). Under ordinary circum-
stances an employer may prohibit nonemployee distribu-
tion of union literature if reasonable efforts through
other available channels of communication will enable
the labor organization to reach employees. Stoddard-
Quirk, supra at 620, 622. Argument may also key to the
principle that "relative strengths of the conflicting inter-
ests" necessitates subordinating Respondent's property
11 Marshall Field, supra; Seattle First National Bank, supra; Hudgens,
supra.
12 Stoddard-Quirk, supra. See S & H Grossinger's, Inc., 156 NLRB 223
(1965), enfd. 372 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1967).
SAHARA TAHOE HOTEL
rights in these circumstances Beth Israel Hospital, supra
at 494-495
As a case largely free of factual issues, the focus may
immediately be directed to applicable doctrine 13 Re
spondent has here developed a record on the multitudi
nous steps the Union might have taken in maintaining of
fective communication with its hotel service unit mem
bers Taken individually or collectively the concrete ap
plication of such steps is shown to be uncertain, labon
ous, and in some instances inappropriate It is convinc
ingly established that home mail delivery in the vicinity
is of dubious effectiveness, and with the exception of
radio advertising, other media carried a cost factor that
the Union not have to bear Respondent has cited Roch
ester General Hospital, 234 NLRB 253 (1979) on this
point, yet even here the opinion lumped radio, televi
sion or newspaper advertising placards, bumper
stickers or displays or [street] signs" as undertakings not
tried by that labor organization and followed this with
comment about not signifying what a union must do I
believe the correct approach is not to reason from what
theoretical entitlement the Union had in this situation
but whether the two actual episodes represented in
stances in which union representatives were engaging in
permissible conduct 14
In summary there is no property interest that remotely
justified the interferences made Alluding to the key
notion of whether cleanliness, [or] discipline would be
compromised, I find no room for legitimate employer
concern about either of these It is undisputed that a
trash receptacle was spotted at the employees entrance
to which this litigation pertains,15 and Hewitt testified
uncontradictedly that Respondent periodically placed no
tices, newsletters, and messages to employees on a shelf
immediately inside this same employees' entrance There
is neither the claim of a littering problem being present
nor any indication from the evidence that rudimentary
neatness was disturbed by the Union's actions Further,
there is no showing that employee discipline was, or
could even reasonably have been, affected by placing the
described literature in their hands It suffices to point out
that the tranquil appearance by union representatives to
distribute meaningful written information to these bar
gaining unit members did not arguably encroach in any
significant way on the employers property rights
In briefing this case Respondent alluded to security
problems at the hotel and suggested that another possi
bility for the Union would have been to handbill at
driveways There was no support advanced for the prop
13 On demeanor grounds I credit both Contreras and Taylor in finding
that when the parties met in their negotiating session of November 16
1981 there was no reference to the employers retraction as applying
only with respect to nonemployees By this credibility resolution I also
find that the employer s misunderstanding was articulated by officials
other than Attorney Reid On a separate point I credit Contreras and
Taylor with respect to there only being employees of Respondent with a
group making distribution on November 15 1981 and Zajtc s differing
testimony is rejected as erroneous
14 Rochester General Hospital involved a fact situation in which repre
sentatives of the labor organization there involved had penetrated to this
hospitals lobby and into its cafeteria a far cry from modest plans to
handbill at a back employee only entrance which was itself camera mon
itored by the employer
15 See Jt Exh I for pictorial features of this area
821
osition that security at the facility was in any way im
paired by distribution as was made at a building entrance
for employees, and the near constant bustle of activity
and vehicular movement at the several motor or pedes
trian entrances to the facility defeats this suggestion as a
viable alternative 16
The General Counsels second objective with this liti
gation is to remedy the arrest of Taylor, asserting that
this is an additional 8(a)(1) violation I agree that Re
spondent has compounded its unlawful interference with
the Union s orderly, permissible attempt to communicate
in writing with its members by appearing where they
normally funnel through when arriving for or leaving
work The stagy action of Nagel in rendering an actual
arrest of Taylor on February 17 1982 had a forseeably
inhibiting, coercive effect on Hewitt and for this reason
constituted the unfair labor practice alleged See Harvey s
Resort Hotel, 236 NLRB 1670 (1978) Cf Chrysler Corp,
232 NLRB 466 (1977)
In addition to the times that intervened between the
two operative episodes of this case, Taylor has made dis
tribution without further interference on approximately
10 more occasions over the spring and summer months
of 1982 Notwithstanding his success in doing so I be
lieve that a full appropriate remedy should obtain be
cause the capricious nature of interference shown here
affects fundamental Section 7 rights The remark of
Collup on November 16 1981, is indicative of this char
acterization, for it is hardly the duty of a representative
for the Union to prevail on security guards to make tele
phone contact with her in resolving any dispute about
distribution of rights rather it is Respondents obligation
to assure that its rules relating to such activity be lawful
ly applied Similarly the reckoning that was visited on
Taylor on February 17, 1982, while on many later loca
tions of similar import being tolerated can only be
viewed as a rather conscious form of harassment against
the Union This conduct is intertwined with alleged in
terference about employee distribution within the mean
ing of paragraph 6(b) of the complaint (as amended) and
I thus further find that Hewitt was also the subject of
unfair labor practice conduct on February 17 1982 even
though he was not forced away from the premises as
was Taylor However, for remedy purposes this viola
tion merges into that committed a few months earlier
On this basis I specifically hold that the main incidents of
the case are not isolated or inconsequential in nature, but
instead are meritoriously appropriate for remedial action
Accordingly I render conclusions of law that Re
spondent by interfering with the solicitation of employ
ees and with the distribution of leaflets to such employ
ees by both employee and nonemployee agents of the
Union at an employee entrance of the facility and by
causing the arrest of a nonemployee representative of the
11 Respondent also developed the notion that the area telephone direc
tory should have been scoured in an effort to make necessary contact
with employees This technique is one fraught with delay uncertainty
and frustration as shown from testimony of Respondent s own witness in
consequence of which Respondent s reconstruction of how a majority of
the hotel service unit s employees were identifiable in this manner is una
vailing to it as a defense
822 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union in the presence of an employee because, and while
in the process, of his solicitation of Respondents em
ployees and distribution of leaflets to such employees at
the employee entrance of the facility, has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend
ed17
ORDER
The Respondent Sahara Tahoe Corporation d/b/a
Sahara Tahoe Hotel, Stateline, Nevada, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with the solicitatioin of employees and
the distribution of leaflets to such employees by both em
ployee and nonemployee agents of the Union at an em
ployee entrance of the facility
(b) Confiscating literature of the Union, or any other
labor organization, that has been or is being distributed
to employees in nonwork areas and on nonwork time
(c) Causing the arrest of a nonemployee representative
of the Union in the presence of an employee because,
17 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 pur
poses
and while in the process, of this representatives solicita
tion of Respondents employees and distribution of leaf
lets to such employees at the employee entrance of the
facility located on company property
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its facility in Stateline, Nevada, copies of
the attached notice marked Appendix 18 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32, after being signed by the Respondents au
thorized representative shall be posted by the Respond
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered defaced, or covered by
any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
18 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 Nation
al 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