Station Casinos, Inc. d/b/a Aliante Station, Boulder Station, Palace Station, Red Rock Station, Sant, (2012)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.

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 Casino Hotel, and Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC, d/b/a Green Valley Ranch Resort Spa Casino and Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bartenders Union, Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE, AFL2013CIO. Cases 282013CA2013022918, 282013CA2013023089, 282013CA2013 023224, and 282013CA2013023434

September 28, 2012 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS HAYES, GRIFFIN, AND BLOCK

On September 22, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued the attached decision. The Respondent¹ and the Acting General Counsel filed exceptions, supporting briefs, and answering briefs.

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 judge2019s rulings,² findings,³ and conclusions,

¹ We note that in another case involving the same parties (Cases 282013 CA2013023436 and 282013CA2013062437), which issued on June 27, 2012, the Acting General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party filed a joint motion requesting that the names of Respondents Station Casinos, Inc. and Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc. be changed to reflect that these two Respondents were dissolved and their assets transferred to third-party purchasers in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. That motion was granted on September 24, 2012. Accordingly, we have also implemented those changes here.

² We note that the Acting General Counsel has only excepted to the dismissal of six allegations. The Respondent argues that the judge erred in allowing the Acting General Counsel to amend the complaint to allege additional statements of futility at Sunset Station. The Respondent2019s argument is moot because the judge dismissed the additional futility allegations, and there are no exceptions to those dismissals.3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge2019s credibility findings. The Board2019s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge2019s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-

except as modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.⁴

The Respondent operates 18 casino resorts (or Stations) in Las Vegas, Nevada. On February 18, 2010,⁵ the Charging Party Union kicked off its 201cNow or Never201d campaign to organize the employees at the Respondent2019s Stations. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the Respondent committed myriad violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act at 10 of its Stations during this organizational campaign. Although the judge dismissed a number of allegations, he found 82 separate violations. Except as discussed below, we affirm the judge2019s findings for the reasons he stated.⁶

1. Sound Bytes and Sound Byte Alerts

On February 19, employees started wearing Union buttons to work and speaking to coworkers about the Union. That same day, or soon after, the Respondent started to read 201cSound Bytes201d at its meetings with employees.

Sound Bytes were written statements prepared by Human Resources Director Valerie Murzl and the Respondent2019s counsel. Each Sound Byte generally followed the same formula: a statement of certain facts, arguments, and 201chyperbole201d (as characterized by the judge) supporting the Respondent2019s position against unionization, and assertions that the Union was not being honest. Five of the 13 examples in the record concluded with the statement 201cDon2019t sign a card with this corrupt union!!!201d or 201cIf asked to sign a union card, just say no!!!!!!201d The Sound Bytes were distributed to assistant managers, managers, directors, and supervisors at each Station, who were responsible for communicating the Sound Bytes2019 messages to the employees, and often read them to employees at preshift meetings.

201cSound Byte Alerts201d were shorter versions of Sound Bytes and consisted generally of one-sentence antiunion or pro-Station Casino statements followed by the exhortation 201cDon2019t sign a union card!201d They were distributed to managers and posted in designated areas at two of the Respondent2019s Stations: Fiesta Henderson Casino Hotel

ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard 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.

⁴ We will modify the judge2019s recommended Order to conform to the violations found. We will also substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.

⁵ All dates are in 2010, unless otherwise stated.

⁶ As reflected in our Amended Conclusions of Law, where we affirm the judge2019s conclusion that the Respondent has committed a particular unfair labor practice, we find it unnecessary to pass on whether the Respondent committed identical or similar violations at other Stations in those instances where such findings would be cumulative and would not materially affect the remedy.

358 NLRB No. 153

2

and Fiesta Rancho Casino Hotel. They were also printed in Fiesta Rancho2019s Que Pasa newsletters, which were distributed regularly to employees. A couple of the Que Pasa newsletters contained only the statement 201cDon2019t sign a union card.201d

The Acting General Counsel argued that the Respondent2019s printed and oral communications, including both the Sound Bytes and Sound Byte Alerts, threatened employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by telling them not to sign union membership cards. For the reasons stated by the judge, we adopt his finding that the Sound Bytes were lawful antiunion propaganda under Section 8(c) of the Act. We find merit, however, in the Acting General Counsel2019s exception contending that the judge failed to address the more abbreviated Sound Byte Alerts. Unlike the Sound Bytes, the Sound Byte Alerts were devoid of any context (i.e., facts, the Respondent2019s views, or arguments) and were directly disseminated to employees via physical posting and in widely distributed newsletters. Without any context, the Sound Byte Alerts would reasonably be viewed by employees as direct admonitions not to sign union cards or engage in union activity. See Thunderbird Motel, Inc., 180 NLRB 656, 660 (1970) (adopting judge2019s finding that supervisor2019s statement to employee not to sign any union cards was unlawful); see also Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 883 (1994) (employer2019s statement to employee not to get involved with the union was unlawful). Accordingly, we find that the Respondent2019s Sound Byte Alerts threatened employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1).⁷

2. Work rules

We adopt the judge2019s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by orally promulgating an overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in union activities in the parking garage at Santa Fe Station. We find it unnecessary to pass on whether that conduct also violated Section 8(a)(3). In addition, we do not rely on New York New York Hotel & Casino, 356 NLRB No. 119 (2011), enfd. 676 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cited by the judge, which dealt with off-duty employees of the employer2019s contractor and not, as in this case, off-duty employees of the Respondent.

We adopt the judge2019s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by directing Red Rock Station employees not to wear union buttons and by maintaining and enforcing an overly-broad confidentiality rule in its

⁷ We therefore find no need to pass on whether Fiesta Rancho Station Supervisor Monte Durbin threatened employees not to sign a union card. Member Hayes, on the other hand, would affirm the judge2019s finding that Durbin threatened employees in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1), and he would not pass on whether the Sound Byte Alerts were unlawful.

counseling forms. We also adopt the judge2019s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by prohibiting Palace Station employees from discussing issues of common concern at preshift meetings, by prohibiting Sunset Station employee Jose Omar Mendoza from speaking up at a preshift meeting, and by disciplining him for disregarding the restriction.⁸

3. Surveillance

We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when Fiesta Henderson Station Supervisor Rusty Hicks followed Ann Galo on February 25 during her shift and prohibited her from speaking to coworkers after she started wearing a Union button. By this conduct the Respondent clearly engaged in unlawful surveillance. We find it unnecessary, however, to pass on the judge2019s finding that such conduct also created an unlawful impression of surveillance.⁹

4. Coercive interrogations and other unlawful statements

   As previously stated, we have affirmed the judge2019s findings that the Respondent2019s officials committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) in questions and statements to employees.¹⁰ In adopting the judge2019s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when

   ⁸ Member Hayes agrees with the judge that the Respondent did not effectively...