Tropicana Resort & Casino

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 573 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

TROPICANA RESORT & CASINO 573
Hotel Ramada of Nevada d/b/a Tropicana Resort &
Casino and International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 501, AFL–CIO. Cases 28–CA–
16241–2
June 30, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge filed on January 24, 2000, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on February 24, 2000, alleging that
the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s
request to bargain following the Union’s certification in
Case 28–RC–5818. (Official notice is taken of the “re-
cord” in the representation proceeding as defined in the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The
Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and deny-
ing in part the allegations in the complaint.
On May 24, 2000, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On May 25, 2000, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bar-
gain, but attacks the validity of the certification on the
ground that the Union waived its right to represent the
employees in the bargaining unit.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing 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.1 See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2

1 In its answer, the Respondent denies the appropriateness of the
bargaining unit. However, as the Respondent concedes in its response,
the Respondent stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit in the rep-
resentation case. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent’s denial
raises no material issue of fact warranting a hearing. General Fabrica-
tions Corp., 330 NLRB 410 fn. 2 (1999).
2 In its answer and response, the Respondent argues that the General
Counsel’s motion should be denied in light of the suit it filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No. CV–
S–99–1650–JBR (RLH)), alleging that the Union breached its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Respondent by seeking to represent
the unit employees. It is well settled, however, that “the pendency of
collateral litigation does not suspend a respondent’s duty to bargain
under Section 8(a)(5).” Maywood Do-Nut Co., 256 NLRB 507, 508
(1981). Accordingly, we find no merit in the Respondent’s contention.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Hotel Ramada of Nevada d/b/a
Tropicana Resort & Casino, is a corporation engaged in
the hotel and gaming industry at its facility in Las Vegas,
Nevada. During the 12-month period ending January 24,
2000, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, purchased and received at its Las
Vegas facility products, goods, and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State
of Nevada. During the 12-month period ending January
24, 2000, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess
of $500,000. We find that the Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held January 6, 2000, the Union
was certified on January 18, 2000, as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All slot mechanics employed in the slot repair depart-
ment at the Employer’s [the Respondent’s] facility lo-
cated at 3801 Las Vegas Boulevard South in Las Ve-
gas, Nevada; excluding all guards, secretaries and all
other employees and supervisors as defined by the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since January 25, 2000, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain and since January 25, 2000, the
Respondent has refused. We find that this refusal consti-
tutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after January 25, 2000, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an

331 NLRB No. 75
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 574
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co.,
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Hotel Ramada of Nevada d/b/a Tropicana
Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 501, AFL–CIO as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit.
(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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate unit on terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement:

All slot mechanics employed in the slot repair depart-
ment at the Employer’s [the Respondent’s] facility lo-
cated at 3801 Las Vegas Boulevard South in Las Ve-
gas, Nevada; excluding all guards, secretaries and all
other employees and supervisors as defined by the Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28

3 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.”
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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since January 25, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501, AFL–CIO as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:

All slot mechanics employed in the slot repair depart-
ment at our facility located at 3801 Las Vegas Boule-
vard South in Las Vegas, Nevada; excluding all guards,
secretaries and all other employees and supervisors as
defined by the Act.

HOTEL RAMADA OF NEVADA D/B/A
TROPICANA HOTEL & CASINO