Station GVR Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Green Valley Ranch Resorts Spa Casino

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2018

366 NLRB No. 175 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 175
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Station GVR Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Green Valley
Ranch Resort Spa Casino and International Un-
ion of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFL–
CIO. Case 28–CA–211043 and 28–CA–216411
August 27, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND KAPLAN
The General Counsel seeks partial summary judgment
in this case on the grounds that there are no genuine is-
sues of material fact as to certain allegations in the com-
plaint, and that the Board should find, as a matter of law,
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to furnish information
necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of
its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of a unit of the Respondent’s employees.1
Pursuant to charges filed by the Union on December 5,
2017, and March 8, 2018, and an amended charge filed
on March 22, 2018, the General Counsel issued a consol-
idated complaint (complaint) on April 27, 2018.2 The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing
and refusing to furnish the Union with requested infor-
mation. The Respondent filed an answer admitting in
part and denying in part the allegations of the complaint.
Thereafter, on April 12, the Board issued a Decision
and Order granting the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment in a related refusal-to-bargain case
in which the Respondent contested the Union’s certifica-
tion in Case 28–RC–203653 as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the employee unit at issue in this proceeding.
Station GVR Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Green Valley Ranch
Resort Spa Casino, 366 NLRB No. 58 (2018).3 In that
case, the Board found that since November 6, 2017, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing
and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
Id., slip op. at 2. On April 13, the Respondent filed a
Petition for Review of the Board’s April 12 Order, which

1 The General Counsel does not seek summary judgment with re-
spect to allegations, in pars. 6(f) through 6(j) of the complaint, that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by changing the
amount of notice given to bargaining unit employees when their work
schedules are changed.
2 All subsequent dates are in 2018, unless otherwise indicated.
3 On May 17, the Board issued an Order denying the Union’s Mo-
tion for Reconsideration of the Board’s April 12 Decision and Order.
Station GVR Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Green Valley Ranch Resort Spa
Casino, 366 NLRB No. 91 (2018).
is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.
On May 8, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Par-
tial Summary Judgment in the current proceeding. On
May 14, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed
a response. The Union filed a Joinder in Motion for
Summary Judgment and Request for Additional Reme-
dies, the Respondent filed an opposition to the Union’s
Motion and request for additional remedies, and the Un-
ion filed a reply.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment
At paragraph 6(a) of the complaint, the General Coun-
sel alleges that about November 6, 2017, the Union re-
quested the following information from the Respondent:
1. A list of current employees including their names,
dates of hire, rates of pay, job classifications, last
known address, phone number, date of completion of
any probationary period, and social security number;
2. Copies of all current job descriptions;
3. Copies of all disciplinary notices, warnings or rec-
ords of disciplinary personnel actions for the last 24
months;
4. A copy of all company fringe benefit plans includ-
ing retirement, sick time, profit sharing, severance,
stock incentive, vacation, health and welfare, appren-
ticeship, training, education, legal services, child care
or any plans which relate to the employees;
5. Copies of any company wage or salary plans;
6. A copy of all current company personnel policies,
practices and procedures;
7. Copies of all contract agreements related with Prop-
erty Management and/or owner(s);
8. Copies of all Covenants, Conditions and Re-
strictions (CCM and/or any additional information re-
lated to said agreements in the above[)]; and
9. Complete Enclosed Employer Contact Information
Request Form (E411).
Complaint paragraph 6(b) alleges that since March 8,
2018, the Union requested the following information
from the Respondent:
1. Please provide your policy and procedures in re-
gards to slot tournaments;
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
2. How often are slot tournaments held at Green Val-
ley Ranch Hotel and Casino;
3. What type of notice is provided for special projects,
like slot tournaments; and
4. What are the safety policies in regards to installs,
conversions and preventative maintenance to slot ma-
chines when tournaments take place.
In addition, the complaint alleges that since November
6, 2017, and March 8, 2018, respectively, the Respond-
ent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the
information described in paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b), and
that by the above conduct, the Respondent has been fail-
ing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
In its answer, the Respondent admits its refusal to fur-
nish the information, but continues to contest the validity
of the certification on the basis of the issues raised and
decided by the Board in the underlying representation
proceeding. In its response to the Notice to Show Cause,
the Respondent further contends that the requested in-
formation is not limited to bargaining unit employees and
there is no showing of the necessity and relevance of the
information as it relates to nonunit employees. With
respect to the unit employees, the Respondent asserts that
the requested social security numbers are not presump-
tively relevant and there has been no showing of the ne-
cessity of such information. In addition, the Respondent
contends that certain requested items, including wage
and salary plans, policies related to the security and in-
tegrity of the Respondent’s gaming machines, infor-
mation about terms negotiated with third party vendors,
and precautions taken to combat illegal gaming and
money laundering, are confidential and require a trier of
fact to balance the Union’s need for the information with
the Respondent’s confidentiality interests.
With respect to the arguments contesting the Union’s
certification, all representation issues raised by the Re-
spondent were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding. The Respondent does not
suggest there is any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
We further find that there are no factual issues war-
ranting a hearing with respect to most of the items in the
Union’s information request.4 Specifically, with the ex-
ceptions of the request for employee social security
numbers,5 contract agreements related with property
management and/or owner(s), and the covenants, condi-
tions and restrictions,6 the type of information requested
by the Union is presumptively relevant for purposes of
collective bargaining and the Respondent has not assert-
ed any basis for rebutting the presumptive relevance.
See, e.g., CVS Albany, LLC d/b/a CVS, 364 NLRB No.
122, slip op. at 1 (2016), enfd. mem. 709 Fed. Appx. 10
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (per curiam), and Metro Health Foun-
dations, Inc., 338 NLRB 802, 803 (2003). With respect
to the Respondent’s claims of confidentiality, “the confi-
dentiality claim must be timely raised . . . and a blanket
claim of confidentiality will not satisfy [its] burden of
proof.” Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788, 791 (2005).
Here, in its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the
Respondent for the first time asserted nothing more than
a blanket claim of confidentiality, without any contention
that it has made any offer to accommodate the Union’s
legitimate interest in relevant information. As such, the
Respondent’s assertion of confidentiality does not excuse
its failure to furnish any of the requested information.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment with the exceptions of the allegations concern-
ing the Union’s request for social security numbers and
its request for the information described in paragraphs
6(a) 7 and 6(a) 8 of the complaint.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following

4 The Respondent’s contention, that the information request is not
specifically limited to bargaining unit employees, does not justify its
blanket refusal to comply with the information request. DIRECTV U.S.
DIRECTV Holdings LLC, 361 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 2 (2014).
However, in accordance with well-established precedent, to the extent
the Union’s information request could be construed covering both unit
and nonunit employees, it shall be construed as pertaining to unit em-
ployees’ terms and conditions of employment. See Id.; Freyco Truck-
ing, Inc., 338 NLRB 774, 775 fn. 1 (2003).
5 The Board has held that employee social security numbers are not
presumptively relevant and that the requesting union must demonstrate
the relevance of such information. Maple View Manor, 320 NLRB
1149, 1151 fn. 2 (1996), enfd. mem. 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per
curiam). Here the Union’s request did not specify why it wanted this
information and the Union has not otherwise demonstrated its rele-
vance. See Pallet Cos., 361 NLRB 339, 340 fn. 4 (2014), enfd.
mem. 634 Fed. Appx. 800 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam). We therefore
deny summary judgment as to this item and remand this issue to the
Region for further appropriate action.
6 The requests for contract agreements and for covenants, conditions
and restrictions appear to seek information about matters outside the
bargaining unit and, as such, are not presumptively relevant. See
KIRO, Inc., 317 NLRB 1325, 1328 (1995) (information with respect to
commercial transactions between the respondent and other company
not presumptively relevant). Therefore, we deny summary judgment
with respect to those items and remand those issues to the Regional
Director for further appropriate action.
STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A GREEN VALLEY RANCH RESORT SPA CASINO 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a lim-
ited liability company with an office and place of busi-
ness in Henderson, Nevada, and has been engaged in
operating a hotel and casino.
In conducting its operations during the 12-month peri-
od ending December 5, 2017, the Respondent purchased
and received at its facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Nevada
and derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. We further find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Sheila Lee and Valerie Mural,
the Respondent’s senior vice president of human re-
sources, have been supervisors of the Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.7
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time, regular part-time, and extra board slot
technicians and utility technicians employed by the
Employer at its Henderson, Nevada facility, excluding
all other employees, office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
At all times since October 16, 2017, the Union has
been certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the above-referenced unit
under Section 9(a) of the Act.
About November 6, 2017, and March 8, 2018, the Un-
ion requested that the Respondent furnish information
described above to the Union, and the Respondent failed
and refused to furnish the requested information. With
the exceptions of social security numbers, contract
agreements, and the covenants, conditions and re-
strictions, the requested information is necessary for and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit,
and the Respondent’s failure to furnish this information
constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively

7 In its answer, the Respondent denies the complaint allegation that
Sheila Lee is its director of human resources, but admits that Lee is a
supervisor and an agent within the meaning of the Act.
with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since about November 6, 2017,
and March 8, 2018, to furnish the Union with requested
information that is necessary for and relevant to the Un-
ion’s performance of its functions as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s
unit employees, the Respondent has been failing and
refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish the Un-
ion with information that is relevant and necessary to the
Union’s performance of its functions as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondents’
unit employees, we shall order the Respondents to fur-
nish the Union with information requested November 6,
2017, and March 8, 2018, to the extent the information
pertains to current or former unit employees, with the
exceptions of employee social security numbers, copies
of all contract agreements related with Property Man-
agement and/or owner(s), and copies of covenants, con-
ditions and restrictions, (CCM and/or any additional in-
formation related to said agreements in the above).8
The Union requests additional enhanced remedies.9
Contrary to the Union’s assertions, there has been no
showing that the Board’s traditional remedies are insuffi-
cient to redress the information request violations com-
mitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, we deny the
Union’s request for additional remedies.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Station GVR Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Green

8 The General Counsel has requested that the initial certification
year be extended to begin on the date that the Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union. Because this same remedy was
requested and grated in our previous decision, it is unnecessary to order
it here again. Station GVR Acquisition, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 58, slip
op. at 2.
9 Because the Union has not shown that the traditional remedies are
inadequate, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent’s motion
to strike.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
Valley Ranch Resort Spa Casino, Henderson, Nevada, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFL–
CIO (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Respondents’ unit
employees.
(b) 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) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on November 6, 2017,
and March 8, 2018, to the extent the information pertains
to current or former unit employees, with the exceptions
of employee social security numbers, copies of all con-
tract agreements related with property management
and/or owner(s), and copies of all covenants, conditions
and restrictions and related information.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Henderson, Nevada, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since November 6, 2017.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 28 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the

10 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Counsel’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied with
respect to the allegation concerning social security num-
bers in paragraph 6(a)(1) of the complaint, and to the
allegations in paragraphs 6(a)7 and 8 of the complaint,
and that these allegations are remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 28 for further appropriate action.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501,
AFL–CIO (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish
it with requested information that is relevant and neces-
sary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the
collective-bargaining representative of our unit employ-
ees.
STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A GREEN VALLEY RANCH RESORT SPA CASINO 5
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on November 6,
2017, and March 8, 2018, to the extent the information
pertains to current or former unit employees, with the
exceptions of employee social security numbers, copies
of all contract agreements related with property man-
agement and/or owner(s), and copies of all covenants,
conditions and restrictions and related information.
STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A
GREEN VALLEY RANCH RESORT SPA
CASINO
The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-211043 or by using
the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy
of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.