Horseshoe Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1703 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

HORSESHOE HOTEL 1703
Horseshoe Club Operating Co. d/b /a Horseshoe
Hotel and Fremont Hotel , Inc. d /b/a Fremont
Hotel and Golden Bear , Inc. d /b/a California Club
and Exber , Inc. d /b/a El Cortez Hotel and Ghelfi,
et al., d /b/a Golden Gate and Club Bingo, Inc.
d/b/a Club Bingo and E. G. H., Inc., d/b/a Las
Vegas Club and Vegas Vic, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer
Club and El Dorado , Inc. d /b/a El Dorado Club,
Employer-Petitioners and American Federation of
Casino and Gaming Employees ' and Local Joint
Executive Board of Las Vegas, Nevada, represent-
ing Culinary Workers Union Local 226, and Bar-
tenders Union Local 165 , and International Union
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders,
International Union , AFL-CIO.2 Cases
31-RM-1 11, 31-RM-1 12, 31-RM-1 13,
31-RM-1 14, 31-RM-1 15, 31-RM-1 16,
31-RM-1 17, 31-RM-120, and 31-RM-121
August 23, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing was held in this consolidated
proceeding before Norman L. McCracken, a Hear-
ing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board.'
On April 16, 1968, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 3 1 issued an order transferring the proceeding
to the Board. The Joint Board filed a brief; the Em-
ployer-Petitioners, herein referred to as the Em-
ployers, filed a brief and a supplemental brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with these cases to a three-member panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board
finds.
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployers within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employers herein, who are doing business as
hotels, restaurants, and gaming casinos within the
State of Nevada, have filed separate petitions alleg-
ing that the Joint Board and the American Federa-
tion have presented claims to be recognized as the
exclusive bargaining representative of their change
girls and booth cashiers, and the Employers seek
elections in separate units of all change girls and
booth cashiers of each Employer, excluding
dealers, shills, keno writers and runners, employees
covered by collective-bargaining agreements,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The
Joint Board and the American Federation contend
that the units are inappropriate, and the Joint
Board contends that no union seeks to represent
these employees on the basis of the units petitioned
for.
Change girls and booth cashiers are stationed on
the casino floor and make change for patrons play-
ing the slot machines. Booth cashiers occupy
booths and make coin change for dollar bills or
larger denominations of currency. Both change girls
and booth cashiers are in the slot department, and
their immediate supervisor is the shift manager.
The shift manager has authority to hire and fire and
direct their activities on the casino floor. Other em-
ployees in the slot department are slot floormen,
tower girls, and slot mechanics. There is no in-
terchange between change girls and booth cashiers,
or between them and other classifications.
In El Dorado Inc., dlbla El Dorado Club, 151
NLRB 579, a case which involved certain of these
Employers,-' among others, the Joint Board con-
tended that change girls and booth cashiers were
covered by its 1964 collective-bargaining agree-
ments for kitchen, restaurant, and bar employees,
and that its agreements were therefore a bar to the
inclusion of such employees in the casino employee
units petitioned for, and the Board found merit in
that contention.' Thereafter, the Joint Board
requested all the Employers herein, except Golden
Herein referred to as American Federation
Herein referred to as Joint Board
Alter the hearing in this proceeding, the Employer-Petitioners in Hor-
seshoe Club Operating Co d/b/a Horseshoe Hotel, Case i I l l .1 I, Fre-
mont Hotel, Inc d/h/a Fremont Hotel, Case 31-RM-I 12, Ghelli, ct al ,
d/h/a Golden Gate, Case 3I-RM-1 IS, and Vegas Vic, Inc d/h/a Pioneer
Club, Case 31-RM-120 requested that the Board grant then[ permission to
withdraw their petitions As none of the other parties herein opposes these
requests, although served with notice thereof, we shall grant the requests
' Joint Board tiled a motion to correct the transcript in which it
requested that the transcript he corrected in 12 numbered respects In the
absence of opposition, the motion is granted as to corrections numbered 2
through 11, the motion is denied as to numbers I and 12, to which the Em-
ployers objected
In view of our decision herein, Joint Board's motion to reopen the hear-
ing is denied
' El Dorado, Inc d/h/a El Dorado Club, and Esher, Inc d/h/a El Cortez
Hotel, were part es to that proceeding Phil Long's California Club Cor-
poration, d/h/a California Club, was also a party, however, the record
herein does not reveal the relationship, if any, between it and the similarly
named Employer herein
" No bargaining resulted from the elections directed in that proceeding
172 NLRB No. 198
1704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bear, Inc. d/b/a California Club,' whose 1964 col-
lective-bargaining agreements were similar to those
involved in the El Dorado case, to bargain regarding
units which included change girls and booth
cashiers. The Employers refused, and, as the result
of a petition to compel arbitration filed by the Joint
Board, were ordered on January 28, 1968, by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
cuit to arbitrate the dispute .' Meanwhile , during the
negotiations for its current agreements covering the
culinary employees of these Employers, in April
1967, the Joint Board again requested that change
girls and booth cashiers be included, but the Em-
ployers again refused. In this proceeding, the Joint
Board contends that change girls and booth
cashiers are appropriately a part of the culinary em-
ployee unit or units which it represents.
No evidence was presented that the American
Federation currently represents any of the em-
ployees of these Employers. During April 1967, the
American Federation made claims to represent
units of change girls and booth cashiers employed
by all these Employers, except Golden Bear, Inc.
d/b/a California Club, which claims the Employers
refused to recognize . In the present proceeding, the
American Federation, however, withdrew these
claims, and contends that the only appropriate units
are units of all casino employees including change
girls and booth cashiers of each of the Employers.
The Employers contend that the separate change
girl and booth cashier units requested are ap-
propriate, that both the Joint Board and the Amer-
ican Federation claim to represent them , and that
elections should be directed in order to permit such
employees to designate which , if either, of these
Unions they wish to represent them . It is clear,
however , that neither of these Unions claims to
represent change girls and booth cashiers in the
units requested . Thus, the Joint Board has never
claimed to represent them separately, but has for
many years claimed , as it does now, that they are
included in the unit or units of culinary employees
of which it is the contract representative.
Moreover, although the American Federation
presented a claim at one time, more than a year
ago, to represent these employees separately, it has
consistently maintained throughout this entire
proceeding that change girls and booth cashiers
should be included in units of all casino employees.
In these circumstances, we find that no question of
representation exists in the units which the Em-
ployers allege to be appropriate.'
In addition, the facts reveal that the requested
units would in no event be appropriate. Thus, the
change girls and booth cashiers perform unskilled
duties requiring little or no training and they work
in the casino along with, and are in the same de-
partment as, other excluded employees with some
of whom they share the same supervision. They
therefore comprise neither a separate homogeneous
group of employees with special skills, nor a func-
tionally distinct department. Moreover, as the
requested units do not include all the un-
represented employees of these Employers, they do
not comprise an approrpiate residual unit."'
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Golden
Bear , Inc. d/b/a California Club, Case 31-RM-1 13;
Exber, Inc. d/b/a El Cortez Hotel, Case
31-RM-114; Club Bingo, Inc. d/b/a Club Bingo,
Case 31-RM-116; E. G. H., Inc., d/b/a Las Vegas
Club, Case 31-RM-117; and El Dorado, Inc. d/b/a
El Dorado Club, Case 31-RM-121 be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests to
withdraw petitions filed in Horseshoe Club Operat-
ing Co. d/b/a Horseshoe Hotel, Case 31-RM-111;
Fremont Hotel , Inc. d/b/a Fremont Hotel, Case
31-RM-112, Ghelfi, et al., d/b/a Golden Gate,
Case 31-RM-115; and Vegas Vic, Inc. d/b/a
Pioneer Club, Case 31-RM-120 be, and they
hereby are, granted.
7 The Joint Board also requested Phil Long's California Club Corpora-
tion, d/h/a California Club, to bargain regarding change girls and booth
cashiers But see fn 5, supia
" Clanebac h, inc , et al v Las Vegas Local Joint Eseuun a Boat (I of Culi-
nai \ 1Vot! et i card Bat tende, i, etc et al , 388 F 2d 766
Mac lobe Lumber Cotnpan v of Glen Coi e, et a! , 120 NLRB 320
See North Anterua Aviation, Inc , 131 NLRB 399, cf Penn salt Chenu-
c aA C'oi p oration , 119 NLRB 128, 129 We find it unnecessary to rule on the
additional reasons advanced by the Joint Board for dismissing the petitions,
or, alternatively , deferring a decision herein