Crystal Bay Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 15, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 838 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Washoe Investment Co., Inc., d/b/a Crystal Bay Club within its structure, each of which should comprise and United Trades Council of AFL-CIO Af- a separate unit: (1) casino employees; (2) culinary filiated Unions , Petitioner. Case 20-RC-7680 and bar employees; (3) office employees; and (4) February 15,1968 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Patricia J. Kenny. Subsequent to the hearing, all parties filed briefs with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. t 2. The Employer and Intervenor2 contend that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The record shows that Petitioner is a recently formed associa- tion of some 14 local labor organizations which, through the Petitioner, seeks to represent em- ployees in hotels, motels, and gaming establish- ments in northern Nevada. Individual employee members of the locals are not admitted to member- ship in the Petitioner, but each local is entitled to a delegate. According to its constitution and bylaws, the purpose of the Petitioner is to advance the wel- fare of employees of any hotel, motel, or gaming establishment by bargaining with employers con- cerning wages, hours, or conditions of employment. In view of the foregoing, we find that Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.3 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks an overall unit of the Employer's employees. The Employer contends there are four separate and distinct departments I El Dorado , Inc., dl b f a El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579. 2 The American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, Non- Affiliated, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a showing of interest in the appropriate unit. The parties stipulated that the Intervenor was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The maintenance employees. The Intervenor claims that a unit combining casino employees with other employees would be an inappropriate unit.4 The Employer is engaged in the operation of a casino, bar, restaurant, and approximately nine hotel rooms, all known as the Crystal Bay Club. It is owned by two stockholders who, along with the vice president of the corporation, actively manage the club. Each department in the club is separately managed, with each manager being responsible to the two coowners. All operations, except the office, are run on a 24-hour basis with three 8-hour shifts. Shifts in each department start at different times, but there are fill-in shifts to carry over the opera- tions. There is no interchange of employees, but trans- fers are permitted if employees are qualified and oc- casionally there has been a permanent transfer of qualified employees from one department to another. Wage rates differ by department, and within each department, with casino employees generally the highest paid. The only fringe benefit presently in existence is vacation pay and all em- ployees receive a vacation check if they have been with the Employer long enough. The Board is faced here with determining whether the interests of casino employees are so different from the Employer's other employees as to require their exclusion from an overall unit where there has been no stipulation to exclude them. In Holiday Hotel, 134 NLRB 113, we found that the gambling casino employees had interests suffi- ciently different from those of other hotel em- ployees to justify honoring the parties' stipulation to exclude them from the unit. But there is no sug- gestion there that, absent such a stipulation, gam- bling casino employees could not be included in a bargaining unit with other hotel employees. El Dorado Club, supra, is of little precedent as the petitioner in that case sought only the gambling casino employees. Here it appears that the primary function of the Employer is to attract customers to its gaming casino and that the other functions are for the con- venience of these customers. Illustrative of this is the fact that there is no partition between the casino and dining facilities. Although we do not subscribe to the Petitioner's argument that one part of the establishment could not operate without the others, we do find that the operations are closely in- tegrated. Thus, as pointed out, casino customers can use the facilities of the two service bars and one Intervenor expressed its desire to be on any ballot which would include the casino employees. 3 Halliburton Company, 142 NLRB 644, 645. " The Intervenor does not presently seek a separate election among the casino employees and its showing of interest is in any event insufficient for that purpose. 169 NLRBNo. 120 CRYSTAL BAY CLUB regular bar without leaving the casino area, and the casino area is visible from the dining room. The two coowners are actively engaged in managing all de- partments and are available at all times. Also, the Employer apparently pays all its employees on a shift or daily basis, and all employees, except the of- fice personnel, work shift work. Because of the fact that the same union seeks to represent all the employees, the lack of any sub- stantial bargaining history, the same ultimate super- vision, and particularly the closeness of all the de- partments which function for the most part to sup- port the casino operations, we believe that a unit consisting of all the Employer's employees5 is ap- propriate here. The parties are in disagreement as to the unit placement of certain employees. First, contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner would exclude as su- pervisors the slot mechanics. There are 362 slot machines which are used 24 hours a day. There is at least one slot machine mechanic on duty each shift. The primary duty of the slot mechanic is to keep the machines operating properly and remedy minor mechanical problems right on the floor. While on the floor, a mechanic may authorize pay- ment of a jackpot along with a change girl, but two change girls can also sign for a jackpot. A mechanic can tell a change girl to cover a particular section of the slots, but the change girls are assigned to certain areas by the slot machine manager. The mechanics do not hire or fire or recommend hiring or firing. Although the slot mechanics may tell a change girl to service a particular area, they do not effectively direct the activities of the change girls in any way. Accordingly, we find they are not supervisors and 5 Although the office employees are physically separated from the casino area and are not engaged in shift work, we find they are properly within the overall unit , the parties did not stipulate to exclude them. Their rate of pay compares with the bar employees, and as part of their duties, they check the coowners' accounting of the casino banks. 6 El Dorado Club, supra, p 588 7 The parses stipulated that the following persons should be excluded pit bosses or shift foremen , maintenance supervisor , and two maitre d's. As the record shows that those persons, along with the casino manager, slot machine manager, keno manager, chef, and bar manager , have the 839 shall include them in the unit.6 Secondly, the Em- ployer would include and the Petitioner would ex- clude, as supervisors, keno shift foremen. The keno is managed by Mike Trainer, who covers all three shifts. On each shift is a foreman, who does not have authority to hire or fire. The keno manager grants time off but, in his absence, a shift foreman could grant time off in an emergency. It is the responsibility of the shift foremen to watch the keno game during the time they are on duty to see that keno writers and runners "perform their duties prop- erly." A shift boss can take a writer or runner off the games temporarily, until the problem is resolved by the keno manager. The Employer contends that any direction of the game by the checker or shift foreman, whose duties are similar to boxmen, is purely mechanical in order to keep the game operat- ing smoothly. As we are unable to determine from this record whether the shift foremen possess and exercise supervisory functions, we shall allow them to vote subject to challenge.7 In view of the foregoing, we shall direct an elec- tion in the following unit of employees which we find appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act: All regular casino employees, including slot machine mechanics, change boys and girls, keno writers and runners, boxmen, dealers, cashiers, and shills, office employees, maintenance employees, and culinary employees, including bartenders, but excluding all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act._ [Direction of Election 8 omitted from publica- tion.] authority to hire and fire, we will honor the stipulation and exclude the above classifications from the unit we find appropriate. 8 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.