Grand Resorts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 19, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 539 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GRAND RESORTS, INC. 539 Grand Resorts, Inc. and Professional , Clerical, Ground Maintenance , Parking Lot Attendants, Car Rental Employees , Warehousemen and Help- ers Local Union 995 , affiliated with the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petition- er. Case 31-RC-3136 November 19, 1975 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed on March 24, 1975, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , a hearing was held on April 30, 1975, before Hearing Officer Julius N. Draznin. Following the hearing, and, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the Regional Director for Region 31 transferred this case to the Board for decision . Thereafter the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record, the Board finds: 1. Grand Resorts , Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., a Nevada corporation which operates the MGM Grand Hotel located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Grand Resorts, Inc., operates a jai alai fronton which is physically connected to the MGM Grand Hotel. During 1974 Grand Resorts , Inc., purchased more than $50 ,000 in goods and services from suppliers located outside of the State of Nevada , and its gross volume of business was in excess of $ 100,000. During 1974 MGM Grand Hotel , Inc., purchased more than $50,000 in goods and services from suppliers located outside the State of Nevada , and its gaming revenues were in excess 1 of $500,000. On the basis of these facts we find the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. However, the Employer contends that although the B,oard's commerce standards have been met, the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's jai alai operation because of its "essentially local" character. The Employer argues that jai alai operations are basically the same as horse and dog racing operations, over which the Board has declined to assert jurisdiction. (See Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 125 NLRB 388 (1959)). The Petitioner contends that the jai alai operation is part of the business of the MGM Grand Hotel and therefore is not "essentially local" in character. Grand Resorts, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., which operates the MGM Grand Hotel. Grand Resorts, Inc., operates a jai alai fronton immediately adjacent to the hotel. Although the fronton is in a separate building, there is no outside-the-hotel entrance and one must enter through the hotel lobby. The hotel and the fronton are operated as'a single enterprise, although the jai alai operation is set up as a separate profit center. Harry Rosen, the manager of the jai alai department, reports directly to the president and vice president of Grand Resorts, Inc., who are also the president and vice president of MGM Grand Hotel. There are advertisements for the fronton through- out the hotel lobby. Tourist brochures which are distributed throughout the United States advertise the jai alai games as one of the activities available to visitors at the hotel. The Employer also advertises and sells "package trips" to the hotel which include admission tickets to the fronton. The jai alai-players, the subjects of this petition, are used by the hotel in radio advertisements for the fronton and the hotel. The average nightly crowd attending jai alai,games is from 1,200 to 1,300 (the seating capacity is 2,100). All persons, including hotel guests, are required to pay an, admission charge of at least $3.30 to enter the fronton. Approximately 60 to 65 percent of the patrons live in the Las Vegas area; the remainder are out-of-state visitors. The average nightly betting volume or handle is $37,600. The type of wagering is pari-mutuel, which is most commonly used at horse and dog racing tracks. Pari-mutuel wagering differs from the type of wagering generally conducted in Las Vegas in that there is a guaranteed return to the betting public. The Employer is required to hold two state gaming licenses, a nonrestricted gaming license for its other gaming operations, and a pari-mutuel license for its jai alai operation. The jai alai operation is governed by two sets of state regulations, the pari-mutuel wagering regulations and the, jai alai regulations. Under the regulations, pari-mutuel gaming must be physically isolated from other forms of gaming. The jai alai regulations also establish strict requirements for the fronton's physical layout, the isolation of the I ' The parties moved by joint motion to amend the commerce stipulation to delete the words "volume of business" and substitute the words "gaming 221 NLRB No. 121 revenues were." That motion is hereby granted. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD jai alai players, and for the players' conduct. Nonconformance, with these regulations subjects the Employer and the players to disciplinary action, fines, and, as concerns the Employer, possible license revocation. Representatives of the Gaming Control Board visit the players' area three or four times each week to insure that the regulations are met. The players' area in the fronton is completely isolated from other areas and the players enter through a separate guarded entrance. These require- ments result from the Gaming Commission require- ments and are intended to protect the integrity of the game. The Gaming Commission also requires that the players live together in the same apartment building close to the fronton, although to some degree this rule has recently been relaxed for players with families. There are 34 jai alai players, none of whom are citizens of the United States; 32 are citizens of Spain and 2 of Mexico. All are here in the United States on H-2 occupational visas which must be renewed each year. The Employer, MGM Grand Hotel, has individual employment contracts with each of the players. Although the Employer contends that the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction over its jai alai operation because of its "essentially local" character, the primary thrust of its argument goes to the fact that the operation is essentially local in character because it offers pari-mutuel 'wagering and is therefore subject to more extensive state regulation than other gambling operations. In Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 125 NLRB 388 (1959), the Board pointed out that its declination of jurisdiction therein was purely discretionary in nature. No significant mention was made of the extent of state regulation. In El Dorado, Inc., 151 NLRB 579 (1965),2 the Board specifically treated the employer's contention that it should decline jurisdiction because the gambling operations therein were extensively regulated by the State . The Board found the employer's and the State's contention without merit and asserted juris- diction. The Board said: However, though fully cognizant of the unique problems of enforcement existing in the gambling industry, we are not persuaded that union representation of the requested employees in the matter of their terms and conditions of employ- ment would, as Nevada claims, thwart its efforts in dealing with the "undesirables" whose employ- ment in the gambling industry would not be in the best interest of the State. Nevada's own experi- 2 A Nevada case in which the State of Nevada urged that the Board dedinejurisdiction. 3 See Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc, 90 NLRB 20 (1950), Hialeah Race ence, with, a long history of collective bargaining in, the gambling industry which, in substantial part, ;concerns employees closely associated with gambling casinos, indicates its fears, are unwar- ranted. Thus [the Intervenor] has represented, inter alia, bartenders, waiters, cocktail waitresses, and more recently, as noted below, casino change girls. Even the guards . . . . All these employees are subject to the same "security" checks as the gaming employees. But the record in no way indicates that their representation under the Act has interfered with the State's imposition and administration of the strict standards required in the industry. [151 NLRB at 583.] In the circumstances of this case we see no reason why the foregoing rationale should not be applied here and therefore reject the contention- that we should decline jurisdiction because of the extensive degree of regulation exercised by the State over the Employer's jai alai operation. With regard to the Employer's contention that its jai alai operation is "essentially local" in character, we -note that the Employer, unlike previous cases where we declined jurisdiction,3 is not solely engaged in the business of conducting pari-mutuel gambling events. It offers as part of its hotel business casino- type gambling, over which we have asserted jurisdic- tion in the past, as well as pari-mutuel gambbing. We would also assert jurisdiction over its regular hotel employees. We see no reason why we should not assert jurisdiction over its jai alai operation. To the Employer's argument that its jai alai operation draws primarily from a local crowd (60 to 65 percent) and its nightly handle or betting volume only averages $37,600, we note that based on a yearly handle of $13,724,000 ($37,600 x 365) its out-of-state or nonlocal business amounts to $4,503,400 without including admission fees. In our opinion this can hardly be considered an insubstantial amount. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we find the Employer is an employer within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties stipulated and we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization as defined in the Act and claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Course, Inc., 125 NLRB 388 (1959); Walter A Kelley, 139 NLRB 744 (1962); Centennial Turf Club, Inc,, 192 NLRB 698 (1971) (Member Fanning dissenting); and Yonkers Raceway, Inc, 196 NLRB 373 (1972). GRAND RESORTS, INC. 4. The following employees of the Employer, as stipulated by the parties, constitute an appropriate unit for, the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All jai alai players, excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 541 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and upon the entire record, we shall direct an election in the unit found appropriate above. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]