Aliante Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino and Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 2016

364 NLRB No. 80 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

364 NLRB No. 80
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.
Aliante Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino and Hotel
and Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas,
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bar-
tenders Union Local 165, affiliated with UNITE
HERE. Case 28–CA–126480
August 23, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
On March 17, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Ken-
neth W. Chu issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent and General Counsel filed separate exceptions, sup-
porting briefs, answering briefs, and reply briefs. The
Charging Party filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief,
and an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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, and conclusions only
to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.1
This case presents two issues related to the discipline
and discharge of employee Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez:
(1) whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by suspending and subsequently discharg-
ing Cruz Sanchez because she was a union officer and
engaged in union activity; and (2) whether the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling Cruz Sanchez not
to discuss her suspension.
Applying Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982),2 the judge found that the Respondent violated

1 We shall amend the judge’s conclusions of law consistent with our
findings herein, and modify the judge’s recommended Order, set forth
in full below, to conform to our findings and the Board’s standard
remedial language, and in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey,
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016). We shall substitute a new notice to
conform to the Order as modified.
The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis
for reversing the findings.
2 In adopting the judge’s finding of a violation under Wright Line,
supra, we rely on Mesker Door, Inc., 357 NLRB 591, 592 fn. 5 (2011),
and not the cases cited by the judge in footnote 13 of his decision.
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily suspending
and discharging Cruz Sanchez. We agree.3
The judge also found that the Respondent did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating a rule
prohibiting employees from discussing their discipline
with other employees.4 Contrary to the judge, we find
that Buffet Manager Bonnie Schaeffer-Rabonza’s state-
ment to Cruz Sanchez to “do me a favor, go home and
don’t tell anybody, because nobody knows anything
about [the suspension],” was unlawful. The statement
impinged upon Cruz Sanchez’ Section 7 right to discuss
discipline with her fellow employees, and the Respond-
ent failed to present any business justification for the
restriction. See Central States Southeast and Southwest
Areas, Health & Welfare and Pension Funds, 362 NLRB
No. 155, slip op. at 2 (2015) (“prohibition of the discus-
sion of discipline reasonably tends to interfere with the
exercise of protected Section 7 rights and is therefore
unlawful unless outweighed by a legitimate and substan-
tial business justification”); Inova Health System, 360
NLRB No. 135, slip op. at 6–7 (2014), enfd. 795 F.3d 68
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that an employer violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act when it directed an employee not
to discuss her suspension with anyone except her hus-
band, and failed to present a business justification).

3 We agree with the judge that several factors, including the timing
of the Respondent’s action, its disparate treatment of Cruz Sanchez, its
failure to fully investigate the alleged misconduct, and its shifting ex-
planations, evince animus. We do not, however, rely on the judge’s
finding that Vice President of Human Resources Rich Danzak’s in-
struction to Director of Security Cara Welk to discard union flyers left
in the employee cafeteria is evidence of animus. Danzak directed that
the fliers be discarded after the Union left the cafeteria in accordance
with the Respondent’s practice of discarding unapproved postings, and
the General Counsel does not contend that this practice was unlawful or
that it was disparately applied to union material.
In finding animus, the judge also relied on Vice President of Hotel
Operations Michelle Garcia’s statement that she is “concerned about
the recent (seemingly) spike in union activity” and that it “bums [her]
out that [some employees] believe that’s a better way”; President and
General Manager Terrance Downey’s response that he was “very con-
cerned [and had] been talking about it [with a colleague]”; and Risk
Manager Heidi Heath’s advice to employees that they could “call the
police and file harassment charges [against unwanted union solicitors
who appear at employees’ homes].” We do not rely on those state-
ments by themselves to establish animus, but consider them as part of
the totality of the circumstances. We note, however, that the General
Counsel has met his burden to establish animus even if those statements
are not considered.
4 In dismissing this allegation, the judge found it “significant that
[Cruz Sanchez] never testified that she thought the suggestion given by
Rabonza was offensive, unreasonable, and coercive or tended to chill
her right to discuss the discipline with others.” We note that the subjec-
tive effect of the statement on Cruz Sanchez is irrelevant, as the Board
applies the objective standard of whether a remark tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employee rights, and does not consider its
actual effect. See Miller Electric Pump & Plumbing, 334 NLRB 824,
824 (2001).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusion of
Law 4.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by prohibiting Cruz Sanchez from discussing with other
employees the discipline issued to her on April 4, 2014.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Aliante Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino
and Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily disciplining or discharging em-
ployees because of their union activities or to discourage
employees from engaging in union or other protected
concerted activities.
(b) Prohibiting employees from discussing with other
employees any discipline issued to them or matters under
investigation absent a substantial and legitimate business
justification for doing so.
(c) 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez full reinstatement to her
former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or any other rights or privileges she previously
enjoyed.
(b) Make Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the unlawful suspension and discharge, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Compensate Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-
sum backpay award, and file with the Regional Director
for Region 28, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar year
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful disci-
pline and discharge on April 4 and 8, 2014, of Maria
Lourdes Cruz Sanchez for the April 3 interaction with
Terrance Downey, and within 3 days thereafter, notify
her in writing that this has been done and that the disci-
pline will not be used against her in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its existing properties in the Nevada area copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. 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
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since April 3, 2014.
(g) 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
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 23, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

5 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.”
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 3
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 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-
fits and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discipline or discharge
you because of your union activities or to discourage you
from engaging in union or other protected concerted ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT discipline or discharge you because of
your activities with or support for Local Joint Executive
Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226
and Bartenders Union Local 165 affiliated with UNITE
HERE, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from discussing with other
employees any discipline issued to you or matters under
investigation absent a substantial and legitimate business
justification for doing so.
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 offer Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to her former position, or if
that position no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights and/or privileges she previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez whole for
any lost earnings and benefits resulting from the unlaw-
ful suspension and discharge, less any net interim earn-
ings, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez for
the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a
lump-sum backpay award, and WE WILL file with the Re-
gional Director for Region 28, within 21 days of the date
the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar year.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful April 4,
2014 suspension and the unlawful April 8, 2014 dis-
charge issued to Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that
this was done and that the discipline and discharge will
not be used against her in any way.
ALIANTE GAMING LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO
AND HOTEL
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-126480 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., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.
Nathan A. Higley, Esq., Elise Oviedo, Esq. (Stephen Wamser,
Esq.), for the General Counsel.
Mark J. Ricciardi, Esq., Anthony B. Golden, Esq. (Fisher &
Phillips, LLP), of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Respondent.
Eric Myers, Esq. (McCracken Stemerman Bowen & Holsberry),
of San Francisco, California, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 14, 15, 16, and Decem-
ber 1, 2, 2014, pursuant to a complaint issued by Region 28 of
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Local Joint
Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local
226 and Bartenders Union Local 165, affiliated with UNITE
HERE filed the charge on April 11, 2014,1 and the General
Counsel issued the complaint on May 30, 2014. The Aliante
Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino and Hotel (Respondent)
timely filed answers denying the material allegations in the
complaint (GC Exh. 1).2
The discriminatee, Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez (Cruz), was
a hostess/cashier at the Respondent’s Aliante Medley Buffet.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent suspended Cruz on

1 All dates are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel exhibits are identified as “GC Exh.” and
Charging Party and Respondent exhibits are identified as “CP Exh.”
and “R. Exh.” The closing briefs for the General Counsel, Charging
Party and Respondent are identified as “GC Br.”, “CP Br.”, and “R.
Br.” The transcript is identified as “Tr.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
April 4 and subsequently discharged her on April 8 because
Cruz formed, joined, and assisted the union and engaged in
concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (Act).3
The General Counsel moved to amend the consolidated
complaint during the hearing on October 3. The motion to
amend was granted (Tr. 6, 7). The amended consolidated com-
plaint alleges that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act when on April 4, a supervisor promulgated and has
since maintained a directive or rule that its employees may not
speak to its other employees about the discipline they receive
(GC Exh. 1N).4
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
The Respondent, a corporation, operates the Aliante casino
and hotel in North Las Vegas, Nevada, where it annually pur-
chased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Nevada. The
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent is engaged in the business of lodging, gam-
ing, dining and entertainment at its facility. The Respondent is
a stand-alone hotel and casino located 12–20 miles north of Las
Vegas. At the time of the complaint, the Respondent has ap-
proximately 800 employees. The Respondent is not associated
with any other gaming or hotel facilities in Las Vegas, but was
previously one of 10 casino and hotel operations, collectively
known as the Station Casinos (Station). The Respondent was
purchased when Station was reorganized in a bankruptcy pro-
ceeding. The Respondent is not affiliated with any of the facili-
ties owned by Station that continue to operate after bankruptcy.
However, Station continued to manage the Respondent’s opera-
tions until November 1, 2012, when the Respondent came un-
der new management. The Respondent hired the majority of
the workforce employed by Station and retained the employee
handbook. The Respondent has hired additional employees and
has updated its handbook since 2012. While the handbook
retained the same seniority, dates of hire, vacation accruals, pay
rates and benefits of employees previously with Station, the

3 The complaint was consolidated with Case 28–CA–131592 on Au-
gust 27, which involved a charge filed by Fernanda Chavez, an individ-
ual employed by the Respondent. During the hearing, I discussed the
possibility of settlement and the parties entered into an agreement on
December 1 with respect to this complaint. The settlement agreement
was entered into the record (Tr. 591).
4 The amendment also included a similar directive issued to Chavez
on June 18, but, the parties did not litigate this issue inasmuch as the
Chavez complaint was settled.
Respondent made revisions in the handbook, including the
develop and implementation of new guest service standards
(see below).
B. The Aliante Management Team
On November 1, 2012, the Respondent assumed total control
of Aliante operations with a new management team. Terrance
“Terry” Downey (Downey) became general manager of
Aliante. He previously served as the general manger in several
Station properties until his retirement in 2009. He served as a
consultant to Aliante from July 2012 until he became the gen-
eral manager in November 2012. Rich Danzak (Danzak) is the
vice president of the human resource department at Aliante. He
was hired as a consultant in June 2012 and became the vice
president on October 1, 2012. Danzak was not previously em-
ployed by Station. Danzak is ultimately responsible for the
discharge of Aliante employees.
Barbara Kelly (Kelly) is the human resource manager and
works under Danzak. Kelly is responsible for labor relations
issues and the discipline of employees. She is involved in mak-
ing the recommendation to terminate an employee after con-
sulting with the relevant department vice president(s) and
Danzak (Tr. 98–100). Heidi Heath (Heath) is the risk manager
and a co-equal to Kelly in labor relations functions. Heath was
hired as a team member relations manager in 2011 and was
recently promoted to her risk manager position. Heath current-
ly holds both positions and handles investigations, employee
concerns, training, and policy implementation. She also han-
dles workers compensation, safety, general liability, and any-
thing related to risk management. Heath has the authority to
recommend discipline and other personnel actions. Heath was
previously employed by Station from 2000 to 2012 as a team
member relations manager (Tr. 288).
Robert Bethune (Bethune) is the vice president for food and
beverage at Aliante. Bonnie Schafer-Rabonza (Rabonza) was
and is the buffet manager at the Aliante Medley Buffet restau-
rant since April 2013. Rabonza is responsible for the daily
buffet operations and works closely with Bethune. Rabonza
has the authority to recommend discipline, including discharge.
Rabonza was previously employed by Station as an assistant
beverage manager and buffet manager from 2009 until April
2012, when she left to work for the Red Rock casino. Rabonza
was hired by Aliante in April 2013 under Aliante’s new own-
ers. Rabonza has two assistant buffet supervisors: Maya Cul-
verson (Culverson) and Raschelle Williams (Williams).
Rabonza testified that Cruz is a hostess and cashier at the buffet
and has known her since February 2011 at the time Aliante was
owned by Station (Tr. 452–454; 490).
C. Aliante’s Disciplinary Policy
The Respondent maintains an employee handbook titled
“Team Member Handbook” that contains personnel and em-
ployee policies (R. Exh. 11 at Tab R-S.2; GC Exh. 37). Danzak
testified that most of the personnel and employee policies were
carried over from the Station handbook. Danzak indicated that
there were some personnel changes, but could not specifically
recall the revisions made by Aliante. Danzak said the effective
date of the Aliante’s handbook was April 1, 2013 (Tr. 744,
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 5
745). The handbook contains the company’s progressive disci-
plinary policy relating to employee unsatisfactory work per-
formance and conduct. The steps range from a simple notation
on an information log of the infraction, verbal counseling, fol-
lowed by a documented coaching, written warning, final writ-
ten warning and separation. The disciplinary procedure also
provides the right of management to forego progressive disci-
pline in certain performance-related conduct, such as
“Insubordination, physical altercations, rude, discourteous, of-
fensive, abusive, threatening, intimidating, unprofessional
conduct or behavior towards a guest, team member or super-
visor.”
Under such circumstances, the employee is given a Suspen-
sion Pending Investigation (SPI) and may be immediately ter-
minated after the investigation (GC Exh. 6).
Danzak testified that there was no “look back period,” mean-
ing that a supervisor could consider all prior discipline when
meting out new discipline, but subsequently testified to a 1-year
look back period (Tr. 745, 747). Heath testified that any policy
changes in the handbook from Station to Aliante were docu-
mented and notice of the changes was provided in writing to the
employees. Heath believes that prior discipline is active for a
1-year look back and not 6 months.5 She indicated that the 6
month look back was the policy at Station. She said the 1-year
change was not placed in writing, but employees were informed
of the 1-year period when they are issued disciplined (Tr. 302–
304).
D. The Aliante’s SOAR Standards
Aliante developed its own unique customer service philoso-
phy called SOAR after taking over management from Station.
SOAR is an acronym that stands for Smile and welcome, Op-
portunity, Anticipate, and Remember. Downey testified that the
Aliante property is more than 20 miles from downtown Las
Vegas and does not get the pedestrian traffic similar to other
casinos on the Strip. Downey said that Aliante must concen-
trate on customer service and amenities to attract guests.
Downey testified that “we kind of make (sic) our stand on the
quality of our product and the quality of our service is better
than our competitors” (Tr. 193, 194). Danzak testified that he
developed the SOAR principles with the training manager.
Danzak insisted that SOAR did not exist under Station, but
admitted that Station had some similar customer service policy
in effect (Tr. 745–747, 777, 779). Danzak said that all employ-
ees have been trained on the SOAR philosophy (Tr. 748).
Under SOAR, there are specific standards for guest interac-
tions for the staff working at the Medley Buffet. It was ex-
pected for the employee working in the buffet cashier position
to know the 10/5 rule, which required the “staff to acknowledge
(smile/make eye contact) guests and fellow team members
within 10 (feet) and initiate a friendly verbal greeting (smile,
eye contact, speak to the guest first) within 5 (feet)” (R. Exh. 2
at Tab R-B.1).

5 Cruz testified that there was a 6 month look back period (Tr. 604).
E. The Union Activity at Aliante
The union has been engaged in organizing employees at the
Station casinos prior to 2010. The organizing campaign at the
various Station facilities has included contentious activities
such as regular pickets, rallies, civil disobedience, and police
arrests and media publicity. The Board has also found multiple
violations of the Act against Station Casino in 2012.6
The union has been organizing Aliante employees since it
was sold to the new owners. The parties agreed that the union’s
organizing activity in Aliante operated by the Respondent was
generally limited. There were no pickets, rallies or other visi-
ble organizing activities at the Aliante property. Some Aliante
employees continued to wear union buttons left over from the
Station union campaign. Downey testified that he was aware of
the union activity at Aliante when he became general manager
because the activity continued from the time Aliante was
owned by Station. Downey said that he was aware of employ-
ees wearing union buttons while working and that union plac-
ards were displayed in the employee cafeteria. Downey denied
that the union activity was a campaign (Tr. 188–190). Downey
described the union activity as “fairly quiet” towards the end of
2013 (Tr. 222, 223).
However, there was an increase in union activity at Aliante
in early 2014. On February 5, the union requested that Aliante
enter into card check and neutrality agreements for employees
to decide on unionization (CP Exhs. 14, 15). A meeting was
held between Danzak and Downey to discuss the card check
request and whether Aliante employees were interested in un-
ionizing (Tr. 814). Other forms of union activity were also
discerned by Aliante management during this time frame. On
February 7, Danzak discussed the union’s handbilling in the
company’s lunchroom. Cara Welk, director of security, report-
ed to Danzak that a handmade table tent was set up in the em-
ployee cafeteria and handbills were being distributed (CP Exh.
3). Danzak instructed her that the handbills should be discard-
ed if found lying around after the union had left the cafeteria.
On February 8, Danzak and Downey also discussed a flyer
distributed by the union regarding health benefits provided to
Aliante employees as compared to the benefits received by
union employees at other casinos. Danzak was concerned that
the flyer was misleading the employees because it had incorrect
information regarding the cost of Aliante’s health plan. Danzak
and Downey met over the contents of this flyer (CP Exhs. 2, 3.
Tr. 234–236).
On or about February 9, there were discussions between
Downey and Danzak regarding Downey’s concerns that some
Aliante employees were visited by union activists at their

6 Station Casinos, LLC, Aliante Gaming, LLC, d/b/a Aliante Station
Casino & Hotel, Boulder Station, Inc., d/b/a Boulder Station Hotel &
Casino, NP Palace, LLC, d/b/a Palace Station Hotel & Casino,
Charleston Station, LLC, d/b/a Red Rock Casino Resort Spa, Santa Fe
Station, Inc., d/b/a Santa Fe Station Hotel & Casino, Sunset Station,
Inc., d/b/a Sunset Station Hotel & Casino, Texas Station, LLC, d/b/a
Texas Station Gambling Hall & Hotel, Lake Mead Station, Inc., d/b/a
Fiesta Henderson Casino Hotel, Fiesta Station, Inc., d/b/a Fiesta Casi-
no Hotel, and Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC, d/b/a Green Valley
Ranch Resort Spa Casino, 358 NLRB No. 153 (2012).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
homes. There was also a follow-up email to Heath and Kelly
regarding the house visits by the union. Downey was “very
concerned” that the union was at employees’ residences (Tr.
188, GC Exh. 14). Heath replied back on February 10 that she
had not heard of such recent house visits but advised employees
to contact the police and press harassment charges as necessary.
Heath denied that she documents union activities at Aliante.
She indicated that Station had an electronic system to document
union activity, but that system is not in place with Aliante.
Heath did admit that employee complaints about union harass-
ment are preserves in the employee’s personnel folder (GC
Exh. 14, 10; Tr. 291–296). Downey admitted there was an
increase in union activity during this time frame (Tr. 190).
The vice-president of hotel operations, Michelle Garcia, de-
scribed the increase in union activity as a “spike” (GC Exh. 14).
Danzak denied there was an increase or spike in union activity,
but did describe it as a “slow roll” (Tr. 757–759).
F. The Discharge of Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez
Cruz was hired as a host/cashier at Aliante property on Oc-
tober 13, 2008 and continued to work after ownership by the
Respondent. Cruz worked at the Aliante Medley Buffet and her
work shift was Tuesday through Saturday from 1:30 to 9 p.m.
Medley Buffet is open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and serves over
1500 guests on a daily basis. As a cashier, Cruz would greet
the guests; assign tables to the guests; acknowledge any com-
plimentary vouchers; verify casino membership status; accom-
modate any special needs required of the customer; and handle
monetary transactions behind the cashier counter. Cruz would
also serve one day per week as the host and would escort guests
to their tables. Cruz was supervised by Rabonza, Maya (Cul-
verson) and Raschelle (Williams). Cruz worked as a host cash-
ier until she was discharged on April 8. Since June 15, Cruz
has been employed as an external union organizer with the
Culinary Union Local 226 (Tr. 600, 601).
Cruz has been disciplined on three occasions since the time
the Respondent took complete operations of Aliante in Novem-
ber 2012.7 On May 2, 2013, Cruz received a performance doc-
ument by Rabonza for being disrespectful to a buffet guest.
The discipline was a documented coaching to remind Cruz to
perform as required under the SOAR standards. Cruz replied
that the guest complained to her about the price of the buffet.
Cruz informed the customer that she only works at the buffet
and has no control over the prices. Cruz believed that the com-
plaint was lodged because the customer did not like the re-
sponse given by her (Tr. 604, 605; GC Exh. 25).
According to Rabonza, the coaching document was justified
because it was sufficient that the customer perceived that Cruz
was rude even if the employee was not (Tr. 685, 686). Heath
testified that Cruz came to see her in May 2013 regarding the
customer complaint and after receiving her verbal coaching.
According to Heath, they discussed ways to change the guest
perception that Cruz was unsmiling, not speaking and was un-
friendly (Tr. 300, 301).

7 Cruz’ prior discipline was allowed into the record as background
information and to show the progressive nature of the Respondent’s
discipline policy.
1. The Discipline of Cruz for the April 1 Incident
On April 3, Cruz received her second discipline. Cruz re-
ceived a written warning on April 3 because she allegedly ques-
tioned a buffet customer about her disability on April 1. At the
entrance to the Medley Buffet, there are two lines that custom-
ers queue for seating. Facing the entrance to the restaurant
from the casino floor, the VIP line is closest to the cashier
counter. The VIP line is for customers with high-roller mem-
bership cards and people with disabilities. The host cashiers
are trained not to inquire about the non-observable disabilities
but to let those customers through the VIP line.
Culverson was working the buffet area on April 1 when an-
other employee informed her about a customer complaint re-
garding Cruz. In an email dated April 7, supervisor Culverson
informed Heath, Rabonza and Williams that she gave verbal
corrective counseling to Cruz on April1 because Cruz was
questioning the buffet customer about her disability. According
to Culverson, Cruz admitted to asking the customer about her
disability. Culverson stated to Cruz that the customer filed a
complaint and that it was the casino policy not to question the
membership status or disability of a customer waiting on the
VIP line (GC Exhs. 22 at 8).8 The time and attendance card for
Cruz confirmed a verbal counseling given by Culverson on
April 1(GC Exh. 32; Tr. 465).
According to Heath, employees are not to question custom-
ers if they do not have proper credentials to be on the VIP line
or if the customer is disabled. Heath testified there is no policy
to turn customers away from the VIP line (Tr. 308, 309). The
performance document stated that on April 1, Cruz had ques-
tioned a customer about her disability which was rude and dis-
courteous to the customer. In addition to the verbal counseling,
supervisor Williams issued Cruz a written warning on April 3
towards the end of Cruz’ work shift (GC Exh. 23).
Cruz said she was well aware of the company policy not to
inquire about the disability of a customer waiting on the VIP
line. She denies asking the customer about her disability. Cruz
did not sign the copy of the performance document but instead
kept her copy and informed Williams that she wanted to speak
to Rabonza the following day (April 4) before signing the doc-
ument. Cruz met with Rabonza on April 4, but lamented that
she was not given the opportunity to explain what happened.
Instead, Rabonza told Cruz that she was suspended and was
sent home. Cruz did not go home, but went to see Heath.
Heath confirmed that Cruz was suspended. Cruz said that
Rabonza never gave her a reason for the suspension. Heath
replied that she could not divulge the reason at this time but
told Cruz to return to her office on April 7 (Tr. 610–614).
2. The Interaction Between Cruz and Terrance Downey
Cruz has been a union member since 2006 and served as a
committee leader while employed at Aliante. As a committee
leader, Cruz would attend meetings, discussed employment
issues, union rallies and marches with coworkers. Cruz would
also discuss union leaflets and fliers with coworkers (Tr. 599-
601; see fliers at C Exhs. 2 at 3 and 6 at 2). Cruz’ support for

8 There was a subsequent email from Culverson to Heath on May 6
that further elaborated the April 1 incident (GC Exh. 35).
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 7
the union is known by the union button she wears on a daily
basis while on the job. The union button is 1 ¾-inch diameter
and horizontally divided exactly in half by a line with the top
portion in bright white and the bottom half in bold red. The
white portion of the button states: Culinary/Bartenders Local
226/165 in capital letters and in the red portion: Committee
Leader, also in bold capital letters (C Exhs. 7 and 11).
On April 3, Cruz was working at the Medley Buffet cashier
counter at the non-VIP line. Cruz testified that her uniform
consists of black slacks and a black vest over a dark green
blouse. Cruz wears the union button on the right side and the
Aliante name tag on the left side of her black vest at chest level.
The name tag and union button are at the same level and neither
one is obstructed by other garments. Cruz is relatively short
(under 5 feet 5 inches), but testified that her name tag and union
button is readily visible when she is working behind the cashier
counter (Tr. 639–643). According to Cruz, at approximately 2
p.m., she observed a gentleman with a party of five people
coming from the casino area to the counter. Cruz testified that
she was not looking down when the party arrived but greeted
the man with “Hi, how are you?” Cruz maintained that the man
was sharply focused on her union button. Cruz said that the
man did not return the greeting but proceeded to drop a com-
plimentary voucher on the counter in front of her. Consistent
with company policy, Cruz asked the man for his ID. The man
retrieved his driver’s license from his wallet and it is alleged
that the man turned to the group of people9 and remarked “She
wants to see my ID.” Everyone had a good laugh. Cruz said
that she compared the ID with the name and signature on the
voucher (GC Exh. 17). Cruz testified that the name on the
voucher did not match the ID and informed the man, “Sir, your
name doesn’t match with the comp” (Tr. 617, 618). The man
allegedly informed Cruz that he was the person that had author-
ized the voucher and his name and signature was on the bottom
of the voucher. Realizing this, Cruz returned the ID, and said
“Thank you, sir.” At this point, another buffet employee ap-
proached the counter and recognized the man as Terrance
Downey, said “hello” to him and escorted the party to a buffet
table. Downey did not join the party, but left the buffet area.
Cruz maintains that she did not recognize Downey’s name and
signature on the voucher and did not know who he was until
informed by the other employee (Tr. 619).
In contrast, Downey testified that he arrived at the buffet
counter between 2–2:30 p.m. with a party of five people.
Downey testified that Cruz was busy looking down at the coun-
ter when he approached her and she never looked up to greet
him. Downey testified that Cruz did not look at him and did
not smile (Tr. 260). Downey testified that he did not know
Cruz (Tr. 258), but remembered that Cruz was wearing a union
button. Downey did not recall what was on the button and did
not remember reading Cruz’ name tag (Tr. 211, 260, 284).
Downey testified that he remembered seeing the union button
when he placed the voucher down on the counter (Tr. 258). At
this point, Cruz asked Downey for his ID. Downey retrieved
his driver’s license and while doing so, he made humorous

9 Cruz believed that the group was approximately 12 feet from the
counter.
comment that Cruz was asking for his ID. Downey said that
the group was approximately 20 feet from the counter.
Downey agrees that by asking for his ID, Cruz was consistent
with proper company policy. However, he maintains that Cruz
mistakenly believe that he was the guest on the voucher when
she told him that his ID did not match the guest name on the
voucher. (Tr. 214, 260–262).
Downey said he had to correct Cruz by pointing to his name
and signature at the bottom of the voucher. Downey believed
that Cruz should have paid more attention to the guest name on
the voucher and to his printed name and signature on the bot-
tom of the voucher. Downey maintains that Cruz never looked
up during this entire transaction even when she asked him for
ID until another employee approached the counter, recognized
Downey, greeted him and escorted the party to the table (Tr.
263, 264).
Downey testified that he did not stay with the party but
walked towards his office, approximately 5 minutes away from
the buffet area. He or his secretary called Bethune, the vice-
president of food and beverage. Downey said that Bethune
came to see him within 5 minutes (Tr. 205–208). Downey said
they began discussing the incident at the Buffet by saying that
he “. . . just had a very bad experience with the cashier at the
Medley Buffet.” Downey said that he did not know the name
of the cashier but believed that Rabonza would know who was
stationed at the buffet counter at that time (Tr. 209, 210, 267).
Downey testified that Rabonza walked by within a “few
minutes” of his conversation with Bethune. Downey did not
recall exactly what he said to Bethune, but recalled that Bethu-
ne shook his head and said “. . . that’s not the kind of service
we’re trying to provide” (Tr. 266, 267). Downey described the
cashier to Rabonza as a “shorter Hispanic lady.” Downey de-
nied that Rabonza identified the cashier as Cruz at that time.
Downey said that Bethune and Rabonza then left the office and
assumed that they were going to investigate what had happened
(Tr. 266–268).
Directly over the cashier counter at the Medley Buffet are
cameras used as surveillance and there is a record of any occur-
rences. The cameras are mainly focused on the cashier transac-
tions to guard against theft and other inappropriate activities.
Downey testified that he went to the surveillance room with
Lou Dorn, the general counsel of Aliante at that time, shortly
after Bethune and Rabonza left his office. Downey said that
the camera was directly overhead the cashier and he viewed the
top of Cruz’ head on the video tape. The video tape has no
audio. Downey testified that the video only showed his arms
and hands and not his face. He also did not know who the
cashier was in the video. Downey asserted that the cashier was
identified to him as Cruz only after her discharge (Tr. 268,
268).10
Rabonza testified that she received a call from Bethune be-
tween 3–4 p.m. on April 3 (Tr. 469, 510). Rabonza said that

10 The video tape of the buffet incident was subpoenaed but Downey
testified that the events recorded on the video are routinely written over
after 7 days. Downey admitted that the video could have been saved if
requested. He is not aware if any supervisors had requested to security
office to save the video tape (Tr. 270–272).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Bethune asked her to go with him to review the surveillance
video regarding an incident with Downey at the Medley Buffet
because Downey did not know who the cashier was. In con-
trast to Downey’s recollection, Rabonza testified that she never
went to Downey’s office; never spoke to Downey about the
incident; and never participated in the Downey/Bethune meet-
ing (511–512).
Rabonza said that she went to the surveillance room with Be-
thune. She insisted that she spoke to no one in management
except Bethune. Rabonza said that she viewed the video tape
from a camera directly overhead the cashier area and observed
Cruz looking down just prior to Downey walking into the cam-
era view. Rabonza said that the camera view was at a wide
angle even though it was above Cruz’ head and she was able to
view Downey walking towards the counter. Rabonza said she
recognized him because she saw her face as he entered the
camera angle from the top of the screen. Rabonza maintained
that she also saw the group of people with Downey. Rabonza
said that Cruz was working on a cross-word puzzle at the coun-
ter and moved towards the cash register when Downey ap-
peared. Rabonza also recalled Cruz looking at Downey’s ID,
but insisted that Cruz never looked up during the entire interac-
tion (Tr. 512–530).
Rabonza said that her role in viewing the video was to identi-
fy who was the cashier at the buffet interacting with Downey
(Tr. 532). Rabonza said that she reached no conclusions as to
whether Cruz had violated any SOAR principles. According to
Rabonza, it was Bethune who related to her the following
He just said your hostess cashier failed, all the SOAR things,
she didn’t smile, she didn’t this, she didn’t that. I didn’t see
her not smiling.11
Rabonza said that she discussed with Bethune on the way out
of the surveillance room, that Cruz violated the 10/5 rule for
not looking up and greeting Downey as he approached within
10 feet and not speaking to him within 5 feet of where Cruz
was standing. She said they went to see Danzak and informed
him as to their observations on the video tape. Rabonza said
she could not recall telling Danzak anything except identifying
the cashier as Cruz. Rabonza then went home and spoke to no
one else after meeting with Danzak (Tr. 535–541).
Rabonza testified that she was deciding on the type of disci-
pline to Cruz for the incident on April 1 regarding the disabled
guest. Rabonza said that she emailed Heath on April 3 at ap-
proximately 3 p.m. for information on Cruz’ discipline in May
2013 (GC Exh. 31). Rabonza said that at this point in time, she
was not yet aware of the Downey incident when she decided to
issue Cruz a written warning for the April 1 incident (Tr. 467-
470; 490).
Danzak testified that Rabonza and Bethune came to see him
around 3 p.m. after reviewing the video tape. Danzak said that
Rabonza identified Cruz as the cashier in the video and Bethu-
ne described how Cruz violated the SOAR principles. Danzak
said he never viewed the video, but did review Cruz’ personnel
folder on the computer. Danzak said he assigned Heath to con-
duct an investigation over the incident (Tr. 760–762).

11 Tr. 531.
3. The Discipline of Cruz for the April 3 Incident
Heath testified that she conducted the investigation while
Cruz was on suspension. Heath said that it was late in the af-
ternoon on April 3 that Rabonza and Bethune caught her as she
was leaving for a meeting. According to Heath, Rabonza and
Bethune had not yet reviewed the video but had identified to
Heath that the cashier was Cruz. Heath replied that she was on
her way to a meeting and depending on what the video shows;
it could be a final warning or a suspension. Heath said that she
had not viewed the video at this point in time (Tr. 310, 311).
On April 4, Heath discussed with Danzak regarding the April 3
incident and it was decided that Cruz would be suspended
pending an investigation. This information was related to
Rabonza before meeting with Cruz (Tr. 312).
On April 4, Rabonza met with Cruz at the beginning of her
shift at 1:30 p.m. As noted above, Cruz wanted to speak to
Rabonza regarding the incident on April 1 with the disabled
guest before she acknowledged the written warning on her per-
formance document (GC Exh. 23). Cruz said that she went to
see Rabonza at the beginning of her work shift at 1:30 p.m.
Cruz waited a few minutes and went in to Rabonza’s office.
Rabonza was sitting by her computer and Williams was also
present. Rabonza was aware of Cruz’ written warning that
Cruz received from Williams. She turned to Cruz and stated
that “You’re (Cruz) in trouble” and “you are being suspended.”
Cruz was given a performance documentation dated April 412
with a checked-off box: Suspension Pending Investigation
(SPI). The document was signed by Williams and Rabonza
(GC Exh. 24).
According to Cruz, upon leaving the meeting, Rabonza al-
legedly said to Cruz, “do me a favor, go home and don’t tell
anybody, because nobody knows anything about it” (Tr. 614).
Cruz testified that since Rabonza refused to tell her the reason
for the suspension, she went to see Heath. Cruz said that Heath
could not discuss the reason for her suspension, but told Cruz to
return on April 7 at 1:30 p.m. (Tr. 615, 616). In contrast,
Rabonza denied making the statement that Cruz could not
speak to anyone regarding her discipline. Rabonza testified
that she informed Cruz that management would not discuss her
discipline at that time (Tr. 690, 691).
During the investigation, Heath collected statements from
Culverson and Rabonza regarding the Downey/Cruz interaction
(GC Exh. 22). Heath reviewed Cruz’ May 2013 incident re-
garding a guest complaint over the pricing of the buffet; the
written warning received by Cruz for the April 1 incident re-
garding the disabled guest; and Cruz’ failure to follow the
SOAR standards with Downey on April 3 as the three reasons
for discharging Cruz. Based upon this review and her discus-
sions with Danzak, Kelly, Rabonza, and Bethune, it was decid-
ed on April 8 to discharge Cruz (Tr. 312–315).
Cruz returned to meet with Heath on April 7. This was con-
sidered a due process meeting and only attended by Cruz and
Heath. During the meeting, Heath took some notes (GC Exh.
19) as to Cruz’ position over the April 1 and 3 incidents
She feels that she followed SOAR Above the Rest behaviors

12 Williams mistakenly dated her signature as April 14, 2014.
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 9
—has been working hard since the discussion we had in May
about the guest complaint. She has been trained to make sure
both the ID’s and comp slip names match.
—the names (first) were different.
—didn’t recognize the GM as an employee because he didn’t
have a name tag on.
—was embarrassed when he joked with the other guests in the
party about not knowing him and needing his ID
—realized he worked here when Emily came over.
She smiled and greeted him, is sure she looked up and did
what she was supposed to do. Written Warning-
She denies questioning the guest who complained about her
disability.
—she knows it is illegal to ask about disabilities.
—when the woman presented her player’s card, she told
her next time she needed to pay in the regular line – not the
VIP and handicapped
line.
—she told her because that is what they have always done.
Declined writing a statement.
Heath testified that Cruz accepted the fact that her guest ser-
vice could be better and that Cruz was willing to take owner-
ship of her discipline (Tr. 450). On April 8, Cruz received a
phone call from Rabonza and was instructed to return to the HR
office the following day. Cruz was discharged on April 8 for
“rude, discourteous behavior towards a guest” (GC Exh. 26).
On April 9, Cruz arrived at the HR office at 9 a.m. and received
a copy of her discharge notice from Rabonza and she then
completed her paperwork for the discharge (Tr. 624, 625; GC
Exh. 27).
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
a. Credibility
The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a
review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due
regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witness-
es, and the teachings of NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S.
404, 408 (1962). A credibility determination may rely on a
variety of factors, including the context of the witness’ testimo-
ny, the witness’ demeanor, and the weight of the respective
evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities,
and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as
a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305
(2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001). Credibil-
ity findings need not be all-or-nothing propositions—indeed,
nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than
to believe some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi
Sushi, above.
b. Application of the Wright Line Standard
Section 8(3) of the Act prohibits employer interference, re-
straint, or coercion of employees for their exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Those rights include “the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities of the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion.
The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Cruz in retaliation for
her union activity. An employer violates Section 8(a)(3) by
disciplining employees for antiunion motives. Equitable Re-
sources, 307 NLRB 730, 731 (1992). The Respondent asserts
that Cruz was discharged for repeatedly failing to follow the
SOAR standards and was progressively disciplined.
Analysis of Cruz’ discharge is governed by the burden-
shifting framework set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Man-
agement Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983); also, Nationsway
Transport Services, 327 NLRB 1033, 1034 (1999). Under
Wright Line, the General Counsel must prove that an employ-
ee's union or other protected activity was a motivating factor in
the employer's action against the employee. The elements re-
quired to support such a showing are union or protected con-
certed activity, employer knowledge of that activity, and union
animus on the part of the employer. Hawaiian Dredging Con-
struction Co., Inc., 362 NLRB No. 10 (2015).13
If the General Counsel carries that initial burden, the burden
then shifts to the employer to prove, as an affirmative defense,
that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of
the protected activity. See Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB
278, 280 fn. 12 (1996); Farmer Bros., Co., 303 NLRB 638, 649
(1991). To meet this burden “an employer cannot simply pre-
sent a legitimate reason for its action but must persuade by a
preponderance of the evidence that the same action would have
taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.”
Roure Bertrand Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984); Durham
School Services, L.P., 360 NLRB No. 85 (April 25, 2014). If,
however, the evidence establishes that the reasons given for the
respondent's action are pretextual, the respondent fails by defi-
nition to show that it would have taken the same action for
those reasons, and its Wright Line defense necessarily fails. See
Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003), citing
Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981).
Under Wright Line, I find that the General Counsel has es-
tablished the initial burden to show that protected conduct was
a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. The elements
commonly required to support a finding of unlawful motivation
are union activity, the employer’s knowledge of that activity,
and evidence of animus. Knowledge of an employee’s union
activities may be proven through direct or circumstantial evi-
dence, including “the employer's demonstrated knowledge of
general union activity, the employer's demonstrated union ani-
mus, the timing of the discharge in relation to the employee's

13 In Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co., Inc., the Board did not
specifically discuss a fourth element of nexus under the Wright Line
analysis as was applied in Tracker Marine, LLC, 337 NLRB 644
(2002). See, CP Br. at 22. In decisions subsequent to Tracker, the
Board has stated that, “Board cases typically do not include [the fourth
element] [nexus] as an independent element.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
352 NLRB 815 fn. 5 (2008) (citing Gelita USA, Inc., 352 NLRB 406,
407 fn. 2 (2008)); SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 352 NLRB 268, 269
(2008); also see Praxair Distribution, Inc., 357 NLRB 1084 fn. 2
(2011).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
protected activities, and the pretextual reasons for the discharge
asserted by the employer.” Kajima Engineering & Construction
Inc., 331 NLRB 1604 (2000).
The first two elements are not disputed. There was increase
union activity in February known to the managers and supervi-
sors at Aliante. Downey testified that he was aware of union
activity before and after February. Downey did not believe the
union activity was at the level of an organizing campaign, but
he nevertheless knew about the handbills, placards, button
wearing, and flyers in the employee cafeteria. Other manage-
ment officials, such as Heath, Welk and Kelly were also aware
of the flyers in the cafeteria and raised concerns over visits by
union activists at employees’ residences. Garcia described the
union activity as a “spike” in February. Heath agreed that there
was an “upsurge” of union activity in February (Tr. 379).
Danzak was also aware of union activity at Aliante. Although
Danzak denied that there was an increase, he described the
activity as a “slow roll.” At the same time, the chief executive
officer and a board member of Aliante became aware of union
activity when they were sent letters by the union requesting
check cards and neutrality agreements. Downey and Danzak
were also aware and expressed concerns over the letters. Lou
Dorn, the general counsel for Aliante at the time, described the
union’s letter for check card and neutrality agreements as a
“very unusual letter” (CP Exh. 2; Tr. 236). Danzak met with
Dorn and Downey over the contents of the letter.
I also find that management was aware of Cruz’ union activi-
ties. Cruz was the union committee leader and often met with
employees at the cafeteria to discuss labor and management
issues. Cruz credibly testified that she wears her union button
on a daily basis at work. Her union button states in bold letters
her title of committee leader. Rabonza and Downey testified
that they were aware of employees wearing union buttons while
at work. Downey saw Cruz’ union button on April 3 during
their buffet interaction, but denied reading the button. I do not
credit Downey’s testimony on this point that he saw the union
button but did not read the contents of the button. It would be
difficult for me to accept how he would know it was a union
button without reading the words on the button.
Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to wear
and display union insignia while at work. Republic Aviation
Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801–803 (1945). In particular,
“the right of employees to wear union insignia at work has long
been recognized as a reasonable and legitimate form of union
activity, and the respondent's curtailment of that right is clearly
violative of the Act.” Republic Aviation Corp., above, 802 at fn.
7. Aside from the fact that Cruz was a committee leader and
had engaged in Section 7 activities, Cruz was also engaged in
the protected activity of wearing her union button when ap-
proached by Downey.
The General Counsel has also met the third and final element
of its initial burden by showing that the Respondent harbored
animosity towards the union and Cruz. The third element, ani-
mus, was readily established when the Respondent swiftly re-
acted to the heightened union activity in February and sum-
marily discharged Cruz in an effort to forestall any union foot-
hold on the Aliante property.
Discriminatory motive may be established through state-
ments of animus directed to the employee or about the employ-
ee’s protected activities. Austal USA, LLC, 356 NLRB 363,
363 (2010). Downey was opposed to the union representing
Aliante employees. Downey specifically did not like the spike
in union activity (Tr. 224). Garcia also believed there was a
spike in union activity in February and wrote on the manage-
ment electronic bulletin board that “I’m concerned about the
recent (seemingly) spike in union activity…it bums me out.”
Downey replied, “I agree. I am very concerned” (GC Exh. 14).
Heath also was upset over the visits of union members at em-
ployees’ residences. Heath suggested that the employees call
the police and file criminal charges if they felt harassed.
Danzak directed the director of security to discard any union
flyers or handbills in the employee cafeteria. Danzak and
Downey were also upset over the union flyer regarding the
health benefits cost incurred by Aliante employees as compared
to employees in union casinos. Both were concerned and met
over the union’s request for card check and neutrality agree-
ments.
I also find that Downey harbored animosity towards Cruz.
Downey knew that Cruz was a union committee leader because
he saw her title on the union button. However, Downey denied
knowing Cruz, never saw Cruz’ name tag and never identified
her to Bethune.14 I find that Downey was not credible on this
point. Cruz’ name tag was located at the same height and level
as her union button. Downey was directly across the counter
standing in front of Cruz. I do not credit Downey’s testimony
that he never noticed Cruz’ name tag. Heath’s statement of
May 12 affirmatively had Downey identifying Cruz before the
video was reviewed by him. Heath stated that Bethune had
received a call from Downey to “. . . inform him of the poor
service her (sic) had received from Maria (Cruz) while escort-
ing a group of Guests to the Buffet. Terry informed Robert
(Bethune) that when he got to the cashier, Maria . . . ” (GC Exh.
21). Further, Rabonza’s statement of May 9 also affirmed that
Downey and Bethune knew the cashier was Cruz before the
video was viewed (GC Exh. 34). Rabonza stated
On Thursday April 3, 2014, I received a call from Robert Be-
thune, VP of F&B at approximately 3pm. He had received a
complaint over poor guest service by one of the Host-
ess/Cashiers, Lulu. We went to the surveillance room to look
at the video coverage. I reviewed video of the Guest interac-
tion that took place at the cashier stand. As I watched the
tape, it was definitely Lourdes (Lulu) Cruz.15
As such, I can only conclude that Downey knew the cashier
was Cruz because he viewed the union button and the name tag

14 In contrast, I credit Cruz’ testimony that she did not know and did
not recognize Downey as being the general manager of Aliante. Cruz
unequivocally denied knowing Downey (Tr. 620–622). I have no plau-
sible reason to question the sincerity of her testimony. No evidence has
been proffered that Cruz harbored animosity against Downey and
would have purposely treated him in a discourteous manner. Through-
out my observations of Cruz as a witness, I find her soft spoken with
her demeanor as being quiet and demurred.
15 From this statement, it is clear that Rabonza’s role was not to iden-
tify the cashier in the video but rather, to confirm that the cashier was
in fact Cruz.
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 11
on Cruz at the buffet counter and was informed by Bethune of
the cashier’s identity before the video was viewed by Rabonza.
Rabonza also testified that in viewing the video, the camera
angle was directly focused on the top of Cruz’ head. Rabonza
admitted that even if Cruz was smiling, the camera would not
show that. Rabonza testified that it appeared that Cruz was not
smiling, but then she indicated “…maybe she had a smile on
her face” (Tr. 534). Also, it is reasonable to assume that Cruz
had to look up to see if a guest was coming to the cashier coun-
ter (Tr. 529–531), which would be consistent with the SOAR
principles. Rabonza stated that Cruz did look up; or “appeared
to look up” towards the end of the voucher transaction (GC
Exh. 22 at 2, 34). Rabonza stated she could not verify it was
discourteous conduct (Tr. 535).
The inconsistent statements to the occurrence on April 3 are
substantial. Downey testified that from the camera view direct-
ly above Cruz’ head, the video only showed his arms and
hands. Rabonza testified that her view of the video showed
Downey and his group approaching Cruz. Rabonza testified
that the guests were close enough to Downey to be observed in
the video. Downey testified that his guests were a good 20 feet
away. Rabonza said that the video showed Cruz was not smil-
ing nor looking up, but she then stated that perhaps Cruz was
smiling. Downey said that Cruz never smiled and never looked
up. Rabonza testified that Cruz appeared to have looked up and
she could not affirmatively state that Cruz did not smile. The
inconsistency of statements as to what exactly occurred on
April 3 between Downey and Cruz could have been resolved by
preserving the video tape of the interaction, but no management
official thought best to save the video. In my opinion, the
failure of the Respondent to preserve the video tape of the April
3 event is a factor to consider in establishing discriminatory
motivation against Cruz. Based upon the inconsistent state-
ments by management officials, it is a reasonable inference to
conclude that the tape was not preserved because it would have
shown to be consistent with Cruz’ testimony.
The timing of the discipline is also extremely suspect and more
so when viewed against the backdrop of the Respondent’s efforts
to stave off the union organizing efforts. Upon seeing the union
button worn by Cruz in the afternoon of April 3, the Respondent
swiftly suspended her the following day. Additionally, various
high-ranking Aliante officials, including Downey, Danzak, Kelly,
Bethune, and Heath, involved themselves in disciplining a low-
wage cashier. Although denied in testimony by Danzak that
Downey’s position played no factor in Cruz’ discharge (Tr. 772), I
find that Cruz was clearly made an example because she allegedly
offended the general manager of Aliante. Cruz’ discharge for
offending Downey is viewed in contrast to Cruz receiving only a
verbal counseling for also offending a customer on April 1. Cruz
was subsequently issued a written warning for the April 1 incident
only after Rabonza discovered that Downey was involved in the
April 3 incident. Indeed, Heath testified that she was considering
either a written warning or suspension for Cruz when informed by
Rabonza and Bethune about the April 3 incident (but before she
knew the guest involved was Downey). LB&B Associates, Inc.,
346 NLRB 1025, 1026 (2005) (the employer’s adverse action
against the employee immediately followed the employer’s
knowledge of that employee’s protected activity supports an infer-
ence of animus); see also, Traction Wholesale Center Co. v.
NLRB, 216 F.3d 92, 99 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Bethlehem Temple
Learning Center, 330 NLRB 1177, 1178 (2000); State Plaza
Hotel, 347 NLRB 755, 755–756 (2006); Toll Mfg. Co., 341
NLRB 832, 833 (2004).
I also find that the Respondent’s failure to follow its own
disciplinary policy and disparate treatment of Cruz demon-
strates animus. Aliante’s disciplinary procedure provides for
the right of management to forego progressive discipline in
certain performance-related conduct, such as “insubordination,
physical altercations, rude, discourteous, offensive, abusive,
threatening, intimidating, unprofessional conduct or behavior
towards a guest, team member or supervisor.” Heath testified
that Cruz was discharged for being discourteous on 3 separate
occasions. Cruz’ first offense occurred in May 2013. Rabonza
maintains that there were numerous other incidents between
May 2013 and April 2014 regarding Cruz’ discourteous behav-
ior towards customers. Rabonza testified that Cruz “did not get
along with a lot of the team member” (Tr. 491). However,
Rabonza could not credibly state the number of complaints and
no one in management documented such complaints against
Cruz (Tr. 728). The record reflects merely 4 occasions that
criticized Cruz’ conduct with customers and other employees
that were reflected in the employee log but not reduced to per-
formance documents (GC Exh. 32B, 33B). Heath testified that
Cruz did not receive a performance evaluation during the May
2013-April 2014 time frame (Tr. 302). Interesting, Rabonza
inconsistently testified that Cruz’ job performance had consist-
ently improved, including for this same time period (Tr. 707).
According to the Respondent’s discipline policy, Cruz could
have been immediately discharged following her discourteous
conduct in May 2013, but Cruz was given only a verbal warn-
ing. The next infraction occurred on April 2014, almost a full
year subsequent to the first incident.16 On April 1, Cruz was
allegedly discourteous to a disabled guest. While the circum-
stances surrounding the April 1 incident were not relevant to
this proceeding, the manner in which Cruz was treated becomes
amply clear. Consistent with the May 2013 incident, Cruz was
issued a verbal warning by Culverson for discourteous conduct
towards a customer. Culverson, as Cruz’ supervisor, deter-
mined the verbal counseling as sufficient for the infraction.
The discipline of Cruz with a verbal counseling for the April 1
infraction should have ended the matter. However, her disci-
pline was changed by Rabonza to a written warning upon learn-
ing of Cruz’ interaction with Downey on April 3. It is my rea-
sonable belief that the change to a written warning was done in

16 There was contradictory testimony as to how far back discipline
would be considered in issuing new discipline. Cruz believed that it
was for only 6 months, consistent with the Station handbook policy.
Heath testified that prior discipline would be considered up to 1-year.
Danzak indicated that prior discipline can always be considered but
subsequently stated that the look-back was for 1-year (Tr. 745, 747).
Heath testified that revisions to the Aliante handbook taken from the
Station handbook (such as time and attendance) would be noticed and
provided in writing to the employees (Tr. 304). The change from a 6
month “look-back” to a 1-year “look back” was never reduced to writ-
ing and provided to the Aliante employees. As such, I credit Cruz’
testimony that the look-back period is for 6 months rather than 1-year.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
order to booster the suspension pending investigation and Cruz’
eventual discharge.
Turning to the third and final discipline for the incident on
April 3, the record is replete with statements from managers to
justify their action to discharge Cruz. Numerous statements
were made by Rabonza, Culverson and Heath that were
changed and revised during and after the disciplinary investiga-
tion. Heath testified that the changes were merely language
revisions (Tr. 323–325), but a close review of the statements
show a deliberate effort to shore up the justification for dis-
charging Cruz. Rabonza went through four iterations of her
actions taken on April 3. From April 10 through May 9,
Rabonza’s statement changed from a simple paragraph to a
more comprehensive narrative of the April 3 event17 (GC Exh.
22; 34). Similarly, Heath requested that Culverson rewrite her
statement at least twice because Heath was not satisfied with
Culverson’s narrative18 (GC Exh. 22). The rewriting of the
statements was not an effort to revise mere language as testified
by Heath. In actuality, the statements serve to show that the
same responsible officials were motivated to ensure and to
justify the discharge of Cruz.
I find that discriminatory motive attributed to the Respond-
ent was shown by the totality of the evidence that the employ-
er’s asserted reason for the employee’s discipline was pretextu-
al, such as disparate treatment of the employee, shifting expla-
nations provided for the adverse action, failure to investigate
whether the employee engaged in the alleged misconduct, or
providing a nondiscriminatory explanation that defies logic or
is clearly baseless. Lucky Cab Co., 360 NLRB No. 43 (2014);
ManorCare Health Services-Easton, 356 NLRB 202, 204
(2010); Greco & Haines, Inc., 306 NLRB 634, 634 (1992);
Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1088 fn.12, citing Shattuck Denn
Mining Co. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Cin-
cinnati Truck Center, 315 NLRB 554, 556–557 (1994), enfd.
sub nom. NLRB v. Transmart, Inc., 117 F.3d 1421 (6th Cir.
1997)).
Considered together, the foregoing circumstances strongly
support an inference of unlawful motive. See, e.g., Wright
Line, above at 1090–1091, 1097; and Carolina Steel Corp., 296
NLRB 1279, 1283–1284 (1989). Also, see Healthcare Em-
ployees Local 399 v. NLRB, 463 F.3d 909, 919 (9th Cir. 2006)
(“circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish antiunion
motive.”); and Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929,
935–939 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“most evidence of motive is circum-
stantial”).

17 A significant aspect of Rabonza’s statement was the incorrect date
of when the interaction between Cruz and Downey occurred. It was not
until her May 9 statement, that Rabonza correctly stated that the inci-
dent occurred on April 3 (and not April 4).
18 For example, Heath instructed Culverson to state “you stopped her
(Cruz) after getting the main part of the story instead of stating that
Culverson “interrupted” Cruz from explaining her side of the story on
the April 1 incident. This is more than merely language change on the
part of Heath and Culverson. It is my belief that it boosters the percep-
tion that management was tolerant with Cruz to allow her the oppor-
tunity to explain instead of being impatient and interrupting her side of
the story.
c. The Respondent failed to meet its Rebuttal Burden
The burden now shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it
would have taken the same action even in the absence of the
employee’s union activity. Wright Line, above at 1089; ADB
Utility Contractors, 353 NLRB 166 (2008). Given the strong
evidence of discriminatory motive, the Respondent’s rebuttal is
substantial. Bally’s Park Place, above; Corliss Resources, Inc.,
362 NLRB No. 21, JD slip op. at 14 (2015).
I find that the Respondent has not met its rebuttal burden of
demonstrating that it would have discharged the alleged dis-
criminatee even in the absence of her protected union activities.
The Respondent argues that the SOAR principles were violated
by Cruz when she failed to greet Downey within 10 feet and
did not smile when he was within 5 feet of Cruz. As explained
above, it is not clear whether Cruz had violated the SOAR prin-
ciples. Cruz testified that she looked up, greeted Downey (and
his guests) and said words to the effect, “Hello, how are you?”
Rabonza testified that she could not discern whether or not
Cruz was smiling. Rabonza stated that perhaps Cruz was smil-
ing. Rabonza also admitted that it appeared that Cruz looked
up when approached by Downey.
The Respondent further argues that the progressive discipline
procedures were followed and would have taken the same ac-
tion regardless of Cruz’ union activities. Upon examination of
the full record, I am also not persuaded that the Respondent so
strictly adheres to the progressive discipline procedure to justi-
fy the discharge of Cruz. I find that Cruz was treated harsher
than other employees and the same discipline would not have
occurred absent her union activity. First, as noted above, the
progressive discipline policy was not followed by the Respond-
ent. I find it suspicious that the April 1discourteous infraction
was elevated from verbal counseling to a written warning. No
plausible explanation was provided for the change. Second,
under the Respondent’s progressive discipline policy, Cruz
should have either received a final warning or suspension. It is
noteworthy that Heath testified that she was contemplating
either a final written warning or suspension when informed of
the April 3 incident with Cruz but before realizing that Downey
was the offended guest. Third, Respondent was not necessarily
required to discharge an employee found to be discourteous to a
guest or another employee. This was made clear when Cruz
was not discharged for the May 2013 or April 1 incidents. The
Respondent discharged Cruz only after Downey was subjected
to Cruz’ alleged discourtesy.
Moreover, the evidence of record shows that other employ-
ees were more leniently treated under similar circumstances.
The Respondent did not terminate other employees who had
similar or more severe incidents relating to guest service. For
example, Chavona Bass, a host/cashier at the buffet insisted
that a guest needed his pin number to get a buffet discount tick-
et and was told to go to customer service after the guest had
waited on the buffet line for 20 minutes. Bass was documented
with a written warning for making an offensive gesture by
throwing her hands in the air and stating “there is nothing I can
do with it.” Bass was not discharge for her discourteous behav-
ior towards a guest (GC Exh. 36C). Another example showed
employee Jose Tirado working as a cook at the buffet, failed to
comply with a guest request for an egg omelet and in a loud
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 13
voice rudely stated “I’m not going to do it because I’m busy.”
Tirado was disciplined with a written warning and was not
discharged (GC Exh. 36D). Some employees were disciplined
with final warnings for yelling at employees and for other vio-
lations in lieu of termination (GC Exhs. 36K, 36L, and 36N).
Cruz never received a final warning before her discharge. The
record also shows that some employees were terminated only
after receiving a final warning. For example, Jeffrey Alexander
was not discharged until after receiving three final written
warnings (GC Exh. 36H). An employer’s failure to follow its
own practice of progressive discipline demonstrates animus.
Santa Fe Tortilla Co., 360 NLRB No. 130 at slip op. 3 (2014)
(citing 2 Sisters Food Group, Inc., 357 NLRB 1816 (2011)).
In sum, the record indicates that the Respondent makes dis-
ciplinary and discharge decisions on a highly subjective basis
and inconsistent with its own progressive discipline policy.
The Respondent failed to satisfy its burden that it would have
discharged the employee even absent her union activities. De-
sert Toyota, 346 NLRB 118, 119 (2005).
d. The General Counsel failed to establish a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The complaint states that during the April 4 meeting between
Cruz and Rabonza, it is alleged that Rabonza told Cruz “do me
a favor, go home and don’t tell anybody, because nobody
knows anything about it” after Cruz was informed of her sus-
pension. The counsel for the General Counsel alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating a
rule that employee cannot discuss their discipline, citing Cae-
sar’s Palace, 336 NLRB 271 (2001).19 See, GC Br. at 22.
I find that the Respondent did not violation Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. The record shows, and I find, that Cruz was never
instructed or given a directive not to discuss her discipline.
Cruz testified that Rabonza told her “do me a favor…” In my
opinion, an employee would reasonably believe this to be a
suggestion by a supervisor and not a directive. In addition, the
statement by Rabonza did not specify a consequence if Cruz
decided to discuss her discipline with others. The General
Counsel concedes this point.
I do not find that the statement made by Rabonza would chill
Cruz’ Section 7 rights to discuss her discipline or reasonably
construed by an employee to be coercive. I find it significant
that Cruz never testified that she thought the suggestion given
by Rabonza was offensive, unreasonable, and coercive or tend-
ed to chill her right to discuss the discipline with others (Tr.
614). Further, as pointed out by the Respondent’s closing brief,
the suggestion from Rabonza to Cruz to “do me a favor…” is
not a promulgation of a rule. The suggestion only applied to
Cruz and no other employees (R. Br. at 33, citing St. Mary’s
Hospital of Blue Springs, 346 NLRB 776, 777 (2006). There is
no evidence that at any time before or after the suggestion ei-
ther Cruz or any other employee has been prohibited from en-

19 The situation here is clearly distinguishable from Caesar’s Palace,
above. In Caesar’s, the employees were given strict instructions not to
discuss ongoing investigations on employee misconduct with the threat
of discipline, including termination. Here, Cruz was never given in-
structions not to discuss her discipline nor was there a threat of disci-
pline of any kind.
gaging in permissible union activity.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent did not violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating a rule prohibiting em-
ployees from discussing their discipline with other employees.
This allegation in the complaint is dismissed in it’s entirely.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, the Respondent, Aliante Gaming,
LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino and Hotel, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas,
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bartenders union Lo-
cal 165 Affiliated with UNITE HERE, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act on
April 4, 2014, by discriminatorily issuing a suspension to Maria
Lourdes Cruz Sanchez and subsequently discriminatorily dis-
charge Cruz on April 8 because she was a union officer and
engaged in union activity.
4. The Respondent did not otherwise violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act promulgating a prohibitive rule.
5. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent having
discriminatorily issued a suspension and termination to Cruz,
must make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful actions
against her. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as pre-
scribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB 6 (2010).
In accordance with the decision in Don Chavas, LLC, d/b/a
Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014), my recom-
mended order requires Respondent to compensate Cruz for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award and to file a report with the Social Security
Administration allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar quarter(s) for Cruz.
My recommended order requires the Respondent to expunge
from its files any and all references to the unlawful discipline of
the aforementioned employee and to notify her in writing that
this has been done and that the unlawful discharge will not be
used against her in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended20

20 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
ORDER
The Respondent, Aliante Gaming, LLC d/b/a Aliante Casino
and Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily disciplining employees because of their
union activities or to discourage employees from engaging in
union or other protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Maria Lourdes Cruz Sanchez whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful
suspension and discharge, as set forth in the remedy section of
this decision.
(b) Compensate Cruz for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report
with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay
award to the appropriate calendar quarter(s).
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful discipline of
Cruz relating to the April 3 interaction with Terrance Downey,
and within 3 days thereafter notify her in writing that this has
been done and that the discipline will not be used against her in
any way.
(d) Immediately offer Cruz full reinstatement to her former
position or if that position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights and/or privileges she previously enjoyed.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay.
Absent exceptions as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its ex-
isting properties in Nevada area copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”21 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-

21 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.”
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the 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 customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since April 3, 2014.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 17, 2015
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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefits
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discipline you because of your
union activities or to discourage you from engaging in union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discipline you because of your activities with
or support for Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culi-
nary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local
165 affiliated with UNITE HERE.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove any
reference to the unlawful April 4, 2014 suspension and the
unlawful April 8, 2014 discharge issued to Maria Lourdes Cruz
Sanchez and we will notify Cruz within 3 days thereafter that
this was done and that the discipline will not be used against
her in any way.
WE WILL offer Cruz immediate and full reinstatement to her
former position, or if that position no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority
or any other rights and/or privileges she previously enjoyed.
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL 15
WE WILL make Cruz whole for any lost earnings and benefits
resulting from the unlawful suspension and discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Cruz for the adverse tax consequences,
if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a re-
port with the Social Security Administration allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar quarter(s).
ALIANTE GAMING, LLC D/B/A ALIANTE CASINO AND HOTEL
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-126480 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the deci-
sion from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by
calling (202) 273-1940.