Hacienda Hotel & Casino

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jun 3, 2020

28-CA-013274 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 3, 2020)

Not Included in
Bound Volumes
RKE
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HACIENDA HOTEL, INC.
GAMING CORP. d/b/a
HACIENDA RESORT HOTEL
AND CASINO
and Cases 28-CA-013274 and
28-CA-013275
SAHARA NEVADA CORP. d/b/a
SAHARA HOTEL AND CASINO
and
LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD
OF LAS VEGAS, CULINARY WORKERS
UNION LOCAL 226, and BARTENDERS
UNION LOCAL 165
ORDER DENYING MOTION
The Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Fourth Supplemental
Decision and Order, reported at 367 NLRB No. 101 (2019), is denied both as untimely
and on the merits. It is untimely because Section 102.48(c)(2) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations requires the filing of motions for reconsideration within 28 days after service
of the Board’s decision, and the motion here was filed more than 1 year after service of
the challenged decision. On the merits, the Respondent has not identified any material
error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration under
Section 102.48(c)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. In this regard, we reject the
Respondent’s argument that the Board’s recent decision in Valley Hospital Medical
Center, 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019), warrants reconsideration of the underlying decision
here, which was issued as a matter of law of the case pursuant to the court’s orders in
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 883 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2018), and
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 657 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2011). Any
request for relief from the Board’s order must therefore be directed to the Ninth Circuit.1
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 3, 2020.
____________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 On May 14, 2020, Intervenor Archon Corporation filed a Motion to Stay the compliance
proceedings in this case pending the disposition of the present motion for
reconsideration. Having denied the latter motion, we deny the Motion to Stay as moot.