Extract
Station Casinos, (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, Inc., Aliante Gaming, LLC, Boulder Station, Inc., d/b/a Boulder Station Hotel & Casino, Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc., d/b/a Palace Station Hotel & Casino and Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and Bartenders Union, Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE, AFL2013 CIO. Cases 282013CA2013023436 and 282013CA2013062437June 27, 2012DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HAYES AND BLOCKOn February 2, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Acting General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The Acting General Counsel also filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, the Respondent filed an answering brief, and the Acting General Counsel filed a reply brief.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions1 and briefs2 and has decided to affirm the judge2019s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4 1 No exceptions were filed to the judge2019s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by interrogating and threatening employees at its Boulder Station Hotel & Casino facility, or to the judge2019s finding that Relief Supervisor Martin Rubio was not an agent of the Respondent.2 The Acting General Counsel asks that we strike a portion of the Respondent2019s brief in support of exceptions, asserting that it improperly includes facts not in the record. We have disregarded the assertedly offending passage and therefore find it unnecessary to formally strike it. See, e.g., D. L. Baker, Inc., 351 NLRB 515, 515 fn. 2 (2007).The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.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 preponderance 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.For the reasons stated by the judge and those that follow, we affirm the judge2019s finding that Rubio was not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. The judge found that Rubio assigned employees ...See the full content of this document
