Extract
Nevada Lodge, 368 (1976)
Nevada Lodge- and Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Employees & Bartenders - Union, Local 86, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-t IO. Cases 2O-CA=9648' and 20CA-9847
December 16, 1976 DECISION AND ORDERployer unit survives Respondent's timely withdrawal from that unit and carves over to the newly created single-employer unit.Respondent has excepted to the Board's-asserting jurisdiction in this proceeding. It argues that the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over, the gaming industry is arbitrary and capricious when compared to the Board's refusal to assert jurisdiction over the horseracing and dogracing industries The Board has in previous cases considered and rejected arguments identical to those now raised by Respondent El Dorado Inc. d/b/a El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579 (1965); The Anthony Company d/b/a El Dorado Club, 220NLRB 886 (1975). We adhere to our approach in those cases and accordingly affirm the Administrative Law Judge's decision asserting jurisdiction over Respondent.BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND WALTHEROn March 8, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Richard ` D. Taplitz issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Decision.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Nevada Lodge,Crystal Bay, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting:For the reasons enunciated by me in my dissenting opinion in Tahoe Nugget, Inc., 225 NLRB No. 112, I dissent from my colleague's conclusion that the presumption of majority , status flowing from the contract in the multiemployer unit survives Respondent's timely withdrawal from that unit and carries over to the newly created . single-employer unit.Accordingly, in the absence of proof of majority standing, I would-dismiss the complaint.Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.Respondent has moved to strike the Charging Party's brief on the ground that the brief makes certain assertions which are misleading and unfounded in fact. We consider Respondent's motion to be without merit and hereby deny it ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.3 For the reasons enunciated in our decision in Tahoe Nugget, Inc, 227NLRB 357 (1 976), we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the presumption of majority status flowing from the contract in the multiem227 NLRB No. 73 . DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASERICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in South Lake Tahoe, California, on October 21 and 22, 1975. The charge, and the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amended charges in Case 20-CA9648 were filed on October 16, November 13 and 18, and December 26, 1974, and February 27 and June 2',' 1975, respectively, by...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
