UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 28

STATION CASINOS, INC. d/b/a ALIANTE STATION, BOULDER STATION, PALACE STATION,

RED ROCK STATION, SANTA FE STATION, SUNSET STATION, TEXAS STATION,

FIESTA HENDERSON, FIESTA RANCHO,

AND GREEN VALLEY RANCH

and

Case 28-CA-22918

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF

LAS VEGAS, CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 226 AND BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union, Local

226 and Bartenders Union Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE, AFL-CIO, herein called

the Union, has charged that Station Casinos herein described by its correct name, Station

Casinos, Inc. d/b/a Aliante Station, Boulder Station, Palace Station, Red Rock Station, Santa

Fe Station, Sunset Station, Texas Station, Fiesta Henderson, Fiesta Rancho, and Green Valley

Ranch, herein called the Respondent, has been engaging in unfair labor practices as set forth

in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., herein called the Act. Based

thereon, the General Counsel, by the undersigned, pursuant to Section 102.15 of the Rules and

Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issues this

Complaint and Notice of Hearing and alleges as follows:

1.

(a)

The charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union on

February 24,2010, and a copy was served by regular mail on the Respondent on February 25,2010.

(b) The amended charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union

on May 27, 2010, and a copy was served by regular mail on the Respondent on May 28, 2010.

2.

(a)

At all material times the Respondent, a Nevada corporation with

an office and place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, has operated and managed casinos in the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, Nevada, including Aliante Station, herein called the Aliante facility, Boulder Station, herein called the Boulder facility, Palace Station, herein called the Palace facility, Red Rock Station, herein called the Red Rock facility, Santa Fe Station, herein called the Santa Fe facility, Sunset Station, herein called the Sunset facility, Texas Station, herein called the Texas facility, Fiesta Henderson, herein called the Fiesta Henderson facility, Fiesta Rancho, herein called the Fiesta Rancho facility and Green Valley Ranch, herein called the Green Valley facility, and collectively called the Respondent's facilities.

(b) During the 12-month period ending February 24,2010, the

Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2(a), derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.

(c) During the 12-month period ending February 24,2010, the

Respondent, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2(a) purchased and received at the Respondent's facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Nevada.

2

(d) At all material times the Respondent has been engaged in

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

3. At all material times the Union has been a labor organization within the

meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

4.

(a)

At all material times the following individuals at the Aliante

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Linda Waters Patrice R. Lefever

Melissa (last name unknown) John Bray

Lonnie Haney

Craig Browning

Nicholas Johnson

Brian Rice

Marina Puerto

Elizabeth Barahona

Human Resources Director Human Resources Supervisor Human Resources Representative Food & Beverage Director

Chef

Chef

Assistant Sous Chef Buffet Manager

Housekeeping Assistant Manager Housekeeping Supervisor

(b) At all material times the following individuals at the Boulder

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Mike (last name unknown) Bryan Lindsey

Chris McGonigle

Ariana Hoger-Niemiec

Martin Castro

Keith Justice

Justin Moore

Marieugenia Vazquez Stephanie (last name unknown) Fatima (last name unknown) Mary Jane (last name unknown)

General Manager

Assistant General Manager Food and Beverage Director Beverage Manager Beverage Manager Beverage Manager Beverage Supervisor

Human Resources Representative Human Resources Representative Human Resources Representative Human Resources Representative

3

Chris Dreyer

Guadalupe (last name unknown) Vicky Thomas

Richard Tafuya

Arturo Lopez

Bryan Shangon

Chef Chef

Buffet Manager

Assistant Buffet Manager Internal Maintenance Supervisor Supervisor

(c) At all material times the following individuals at the Palace

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Michael Jerlicki

Vice President/Assistant General Manager

Team Member Relations Manager Chef

Chef

Internal Maintenance Manager Internal Maintenance Supervisor Supervisor

Elena Widlowski

. Raul Castro

Brian (last name unknown) Mike Hickey

Starla Martinez

Maria Parga

(d) At all material times the following individuals at the Palace

facility held the position set forth opposite their names and have been agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2( 13) of the Act.

Albert Greis Name Unknown

Security Guard Security Guard

(e)

At all material times the following individuals at the Red Rock

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Ronan O'Gorman Yolanda Quemada Beatrice Preusch Nicola Nieddu Kendrick Ganaway

Vice President/General Manager Team Member Relations Manager Team Member Relations Manager Chef

Chef

4

Saul Bohorquez Brian Dillon Mario Valencia

Chad (last name unknown) Victor Cardenas

Gilbert Cedillo

Desiree Carrasco

Alyssa Shima

Carmen Ramirez

Dina (last name unknown) Patricia (last name unknown) Mary Miller

Stella (last name unknown) Jean Genero

Butch (last name unknown) Victor Hernandez

Maria Murrillo

Monica Martinez

Raul Cervantes

Eric Ball

Chef Chef Chef Chef Chef

Executive Housekeeper

Assistant Executive Housekeeper Housekeeping Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Internal Maintenance Manager Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Sanitation Manager

Sanitation Supervisor

Sanitation Supervisor

Sanitation Supervisor

Captain

(f) At all material times the following individuals at the Santa Fe

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Robert (last name unknown) Cyndy Rosenberry

Lilia Salazar

Jason Hudson

George Hacket

Judy Nicholas

George Jacques

Luann Gambuto

Michele Cox

Richard Addison

Shameen McClellan

RonA. Lera

Maribel Gonzalez

Gilberto Rodriguez

Christy Famuda

Vice President/General Manager Team Member Relations Manager Team Member Relations Manager Director of Security

Chef

Chef

Chef

Beverage Manager Beverage Manager

Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Sanitation Supervisor

Manager

5

(g) At all material times the following individuals at the Sunset

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents ofthe

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Jennifer Johnson Stephanie Riga Andre Teixeira Ray Velasquez John Beagle lack Hawes Frank Picolo Joyce Faulkner Lynn Dunn

Dawn (last name unknown) . Carmen Waupoose

Dragan Buljugija

Director of Human Resources Human Resources Representative Food & Beverage Director

Cafe Food & Beverage Manager Buffet Manager

Assistant Buffet Manager Assistant Buffet Manager Rewards Center Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor

(h) At all material times the following individuals at the Texas

facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors

of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the

Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

John Bray

Joe Painter Rafael Gonzales Edwin Samayoa Rosa Furtaw

(i)

Food & Beverage Director Internal Maintenance Manager Internal Maintenance Supervisor Internal Maintenance Supervisor Housekeeping Manager

At all material times the following individuals at the Fiesta

Henderson facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been

supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of

the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

6

Rusty Hicks

David (last name unknown) Maria Robles

Connie Bussy

Chef Chef

Assistant Buffet Manager Internal Maintenance Supervisor

G) At all material times the following individuals at the Fiesta

Rancho facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been

supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of

the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Dennis Lemela Rodney Tolzman Monte C. Durbin Marilyn Saden Carlos Cruz Mike Priestly

Production Chef Club Manager

Food & Beverage Manager Garduno's Manager

Chef

Beverage Manager

(k)

At all material times the following individuals at the Green

Valley facility held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been

supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2( 11) of the Act and agents of

the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Don Richardson Kathy Hutchinson

Amarillis (last name unknown) Sheila Lee

J. C. Moyer

Brian Tedeschi

Chris Fearnov

Elizabeth Alvarez

Yamile Metlige

Winston Bauman

Vice President/General Manager Director of Human Resources Human Resources Representative Human Resources Representative Beverage Manager

Assistant Beverage Manager Chef

Housekeeping Supervisor Housekeeping Supervisor Security Supervisor

(l) At all material times Ron (last name unknown) at the Green

Valley facility held the position of Security Guard and has been an agent of the Respondent

within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

7

5. At the Respondent's Aliante facility:

(a) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Craig

Browning, herein called Browning:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies;

(2) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons;

(3) threatened its employees with discipline by ordering

them to a supervisor's office because they were wearing Union buttons.

(b) On or about February 20,2010, the Respondent, by Browning:

(1) created an impression among its employees that the

Respondent had placed their Union activities under surveillance; and

(2) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards.

(c) On or about March 4,2010, the Respondent, by Lonnie Haney,

herein called Haney:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies; and

(2) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative.

(d) On or about March 4, 2010, the Respondent, by Nicholas

Johnson:

8

(1) by soliciting employee complaints and grievances,

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from Union organizational activities;

(2) granted its employees benefits in the form of increased

hours of work to dissuade them from supporting the Union; and

(3) promised its employees increased hours of work to

dissuade them from supporting the Union.

(e) On or about March 18,2010, the Respondent, by Haney:

(1) threatened its employees by telling them not to

sign Union membership cards; and

(2) threatened its employees with unspecified

reprisals if they supported the Union as their bargaining representative.

6. At the Respondent's Boulder facility:

(a) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Arturo

Lopez:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from speaking to Union supporters;

(2) asked employees to ascertain and disclose to the

Respondent the Union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees; and

(3) directed its employees to call the police if its employees

were contacted at home by Union supporters or agents.

(b) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Mike,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge

9

of the Respondent, threatened its employees by telling them not to sign Union membership cards.

(c) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Bryan

Shangon, threatened its employees by telling them not to sign Union membership cards.

(d) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Justin

Moore:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons; and

(2) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards.

(e) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Richard

Tafuya, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(f) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Stephanie

and Fatima, whose last names being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons; and

(2) threatened its employees with discipline by summoning

and meeting with them in the Human Resources Department office because they were wearing Union buttons.

(g) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Stephanie,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge

10

of the Respondent, threatened its employees with discipline and being sent horne from work for wearing Union buttons.

(h) On or about February 20, 2010, the Respondent, by Chris

Dreyer:

(1) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative; and

(2) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies.

7. At the Respondent's Palace facility:

(a) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Elena

Widlowski, herein called Widlowski, and Michael Jerlicki, herein called Jerlicki:

(1) promised its employees increased wages, no more

layoffs, and a guaranteed work week if they rejected the Union as their bargaining representative; and

(2) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if

they supported the Union as their bargaining representative.

(b) On or about February 20, 2010, the Respondent, by Starla

Martinez, herein called Martinez:

(1) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

(2) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if

they supported the Union as their bargaining representative.

( c) On or about February 24, 2010, the Respondent, by Widlowski:

11

(1) solicited its employees to retrieve their Union

membership cards;

(2) offered its employees the assistance of the Human

Resources Department in retrieving their Union membership cards; and

(3) asked employees to ascertain and disclose to the

Respondent the Union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees.

(d) On or about March 1,2010, the Respondent, by a Security

Guard, whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union activities at the Respondent's Palace facility.

(e) On or about March 1, 2010, the Respondent, by Albert Greis,

orally promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union activities on a public sidewalk at the Respondent's Palace facility.

(f) On or about March 9, 2010, the Respondent, by Jerlicki:

(1) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative; and

(2) directed its employees to call the police if its employees

were contacted at home by Union supporters or agents.

(g) On or about March 10,2010, the Respondent, by Widlowski:

(1) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

12

(2) asked employees to ascertain and disclose to the

Respondent the Union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees.

8. At the Respondent's Red Rock facility:

(a) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Maria

Murrillo, threatened its employees with discharge if they engaged in Union activities.

(b) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Saul

Bohorquez and Mario Valencia, herein called Valencia, interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

(c) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Victor

Hernandez, herein called Hernandez, interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

(d) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Valencia,

interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

(e) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Desiree

Carrasco, and Alyssa Shima, interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

(f) On or about February 20,2010, the Respondent, by Jean

Genero, herein called Genero, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(g) On or about February 21, 2010, the Respondent, by Eric Ball,

interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

13

(h) On or about February 21,2010, the Respondent, by Chad,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(1) by soliciting employee complaints and grievances,

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from Union organizational activities; and

(2) granted its employees benefits in the form of a

.certificate and gift card to dissuade them from supporting the Union.

(i) On or about February 21,2010, the Respondent, by Genero,

orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

G) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Butch,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(l) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from soliciting and signing Union membership cards at the Respondent's Red Rock facility; and

(2) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative.

(k) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Raul

Cervantes:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons; and

14

(2) physically assaulted its employees by grabbing their

Union button.

(1) On or about February 22, 2010, the Respondent, by Patricia,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(m) On or about March 11,2010, the Respondent, by Hernandez,

solicited its employees to sign a Union disaffection petition.

(n) On or about March 13,2010, the Respondent, by Victor

Cardenas:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies; and

(2) threatened its employees with loss of benefits because of

their Union support.

9. At the Respondent's Santa Fe facility:

(a) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Judy

Nicholas:

(l) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities and sympathies; and

(2) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

15

(b) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by George

Jacques, herein called Jacques, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(c) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Ron A.

Lera, interrogated its employees about their Union membership, activities, and sympathies.

(d) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Shameen

McClellan, asked employees to ascertain and disclose to the Respondent the Union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees.

(e) On or about February 23,2010, the Respondent, by Gilberto

Rodriguez, threatened its employees with reduced work hours because they engaged in Union activities.

(f) On or about February 24,2010, the Respondent, by Lilia

Salazar, informed its employees that it would be futile for them to support the Union as their bargaining representative.

(g) On or about March 18, 2010, the Respondent, by Jason Hudson,

herein called Hudson, orally promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union activities in the parking garage of the Respondent's Santa Fe facility.

(h) On or about March 25, 2010, the Respondent, by Hudson, orally

promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union activities in the parking garage of the Respondent's Santa Fe facility.

16

(i) On or about March 26, 2010, the Respondent, by Robert, whose

last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(l) denied its employees benefits in the form of open

discussion at pre-shift meetings because they supported the Union; and

(2) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing issues of common concern including, but limited to, the Union organizing campaign, and requiring discussions about the Union be one-on-one with management.

G) On or about March 31, 2010, the Respondent, by Luann

Gambuto:

(1) denied its employees benefits in the form of open

discussion at pre-shift meetings because they supported the Union; and

(2) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing issues of common concern including, but limited to, the Union organizing campaign, and requiring discussions about the Union be one-on-one with management.

10. At the Respondent's Sunset facility:

(a) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Frank

Picolo, threatened its employees with adverse employment action for speaking about the Union in front of customers.

(b) On or about February 23, 2010, the Respondent, by Lynn Dunn,

herein called Dunn:

17

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in Union activities at the Respondent's Sunset facility; and

(2) directed its employees to call the police if its employees

were contacted at home by Union supporters or agents.

(c) On or about February 23,2010, the Respondent, by Dawn,

whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(1) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

(2) directed its employees to call the police if its employees

were contacted at home by Union supporters or agents.

(d) On or about February 25,2010, the Respondent, by Jack

Hawes:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing verbal counselings issued by the Respondent; and

(2) engaged in surveillance of its employees to discover if

they were violating the rule described above at paragraph 1 O( d)(I).

(e) On or about March 3,2010, the Respondent, by Dragan

Buljugija, herein called Buljugija, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(f) On or about March 14,2010, the Respondent, by Buljugija,

18

threatened its employees with further discipline because of their Union support.

(g) On or about April 7, 2010, the Respondent, by Dunn:

(1) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative;

(2) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

(3) denied its employees benefits in the form of open

discussion at pre-shift meetings because they supported the Union; and

(4) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing issues of common concern including, but limited to, the Union organizing campaign.

11. At the Respondent's Texas facility:

(a) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Joe Painter:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing the Union;

(2) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if

they supported the Union as their bargaining representative; and

(3) threatened its employees that the Respondent would

engage in surveillance of their Union activities.

(b) On or about March 1,2010, the Respondent, by Rosa Furtaw,

threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if they supported the Union as their bargaining representative.

19

12. At the Respondent's Fiesta Henderson facility:

(a) On or about February 25,2010, the Respondent, by Rusty

Hicks, herein called Hicks, engaged in surveillance of its employees to discover their Union activities.

(b) On or about February 27, 2010, the Respondent, by Hicks:

(1) engaged in surveillance of its employees to discover

their Union activities;

(2) threatened employees with discharge;

(3) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies;

(4) punished its employees for their Union support by

directing that they work alone; and

(5) threatened employees by inviting them to quit their

employment because of their support for the Union.

(c) On or about February 28,2010, the Respondent, by Hicks,

orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting employees who were Union supporters from assisting each other at work.

(d) On or about March 19,2010, the Respondent, by David, whose

last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced a rule prohibiting

employees from going to the restroom without permission because they had engaged in Union activities; and

20

(2) orally promulgated and enforced a rule prohibiting

employees from seeking assistance from co-workers because they had engaged in Union activities.

(e) On or about March 19,2010, the Respondent, the Respondent,

by Connie Bussy, orally promulgated and enforced a rule prohibiting employees from moving to another station without permission because they had engaged in Union activities.

13. At the Respondent's Fiesta Rancho facility:

(a) Since on or about early March 2010, a more precise date being

unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, the Respondent, by Monte C. Durbin, herein called Durbin, solicited customer complaints against its employees because of the Union activities and support of its employees.

(b) On or about February 27,2010, the Respondent, by Maria

Parga:

(l) orally promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory

rule prohibiting its employees from soliciting for the Union during work hours;

(2) threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if

they engaged in Union activities.

(c) In or about March 2010, a more precise date being unknown to

the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, the Respondent, by Durbin:

(1) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

21

(2) threatened its employees with job loss if they supported

the Union as their bargaining representative.

14. At the Respondent's Green Valley facility:

(a) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Yami1e

Metlige, orally promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(b) On or about February 24,2010, the Respondent, by Elizabeth

Alvarez:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies; and

(2) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative.

(c) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Don

Richardson, herein called Richardson:

(1) promised its employees improved economic conditions

and more customers to dissuade them from supporting the Union; and

(2) by soliciting employee complaints and grievances,

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from union organizational activities.

(d) On or about February 24,2010, the Respondent, by Brian

Tedeschi, herein called Tedeschi:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies;

22

(2) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

to support the Union as their bargaining representative;

(3) by soliciting employee complaints and grievances,

promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from union organizational activities;

(4) threatened its employees with stricter enforcement of

work rules if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative;

(5) threatened its employees that the Respondent would end

the ability of its employees to talk to their supervisors and managers if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative; and

(6) promised its employees increased benefits if they

refrained from Union organizational activities.

(e) On or about February 26,2010, the Respondent, by Tedeschi:

(1) interrogated its employees about their Union

membership, activities, and sympathies;

(2) threatened its employees with closer supervision and

stricter enforcement of work rules if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative; and

(3) promised its employees increased benefits if they

refrained from Union organizational activities.

(f) Onor about March 25, 2010, the Respondent, by Winston

Bauman and Ron, whose last name being unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, orally promulgated an overly-broad and

23

discriminatory rule prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union activities in the employee parking garage of the Respondent's Green Valley facility.

15.

(a)

On or about February 19, 20ID, the Respondent, at its Aliante

facility, made its employee Maria Lourdes Cruz report to her supervisor's office.

(b) On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, at its Boulder

facility, made its employee Maria Olivas report to her supervisor's office.

(c) On or about February 19, 2010, the Respondent, at its Sunset

facility, disciplined its employee Jose Omar Mendoza, herein called Mendoza.

(d) On or about February 25, 2010, the Respondent, at its Sunset

facility, disciplined its employee Mendoza.

( e) Since in or about early March 2010, a more precise date being

unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, the Respondent, at its Fiesta Rancho facility, solicited customer complaints against its employee Lorena Redsendiz De Villa.

(f) In or about early March 2010, a more precise date being

unknown to the General Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the Respondent, the Respondent, at its Fiesta Rancho facility, changed the work schedule of its employee Reynaldo Estrada, thereby affecting his ability to hold another job.

(g) On or about March 9, 2010, the Respondent, at its Aliante

facility, disciplined its employees Maria Corona, Eddie Heath, and Juan Mendoz.

(h) On or about March 14,2010, the Respondent, at its Texas

facility, changed the hours of work of its employee Rosa Herrera, herein called Herrera.

24

(k) On or about March 14, 2010, the Respondent, at its Texas

facility, imposed onerous working conditions on its employee Herrera.

(1) On or about March 14,2010, the Respondent, at its Sunset

facility, disciplined its employee Hilda Griffin ..

(m) On or about March 14,2010, the Respondent, at its Fiesta

Henderson facility, denied work opportunities to its employee Ana Gallo, herein called Gallo.

(n) Since on or about March 19,2010, the Respondent, at its Fiesta

Henderson facility, has imposed more onerous working conditions on its employee Norma Flores.

(0) Since on or about March 19, 2010, the Respondent, at its Fiesta

Henderson facility, has imposed more onerous working conditions on its employee Maria Victoria Camaco.

(P) On or about March 20, 2010, the Respondent, at its Fiesta

Henderson facility, disciplined Gallo.

e q) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in

paragraphs 15(a) through 15(P), because the named employees of the Respondent formed, joined, or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.

16. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 14, the

Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in .violation of Section 8( a)(l) of the Act.

17. By the conduct described in paragraph 15, the Respondent has been

discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms of employment of its employees,

25

thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act.

18. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraph 15, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Respondent pay interest on any back payor other monetary awards on a compounded, quarterly basis, and as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged in paragraphs 5 through 18, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that the Respondent, beyond any standard noticeposting remedy ordered by the administrative law judge, the Board, and any Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing the Board's order, post any notice to employees via its intranet, e-mail, or other electronic posting procedures. The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.

ANSWER REOIDREMENT

The Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to this complaint. The answer must be received by this office on or before June 11, 2010, or postmarked on or before

June 10, 2010. Unless filed electronically in a pdf format, Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office.

An answer may also be filed electronically by using the E-Filing system on the Agency's website. In order to file an answer electronically, access the Agency's website at http://www.n1rb.gov.click on the E-Gov tab, select E-Filing, and then follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively

26

upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency's website informs users that the Agency's E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's website was offline or unavailable for some other reason. The Board's Rules and Regulations require that an answer be signed by counselor non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the document need to be transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E- filing rules require

that such answer containing the required signature be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing.

Service of the answer on each of the other parties must be accomplished in conformance with the requirements of Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no answer is filed or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to Motion for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true.

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 16,2010, at 1 :00 p.m. (local time) at the Hearing Room, National Labor Relations Board, 600 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 400, Las Vegas, Nevada, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be

27

conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the

hearing, Respondent and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and

present testimony regarding the allegations in this complaint. The procedures to be followed

at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a

postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form NLRB-4338.

Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 28th day of May 2010.

/s/ Cornele A. Overstreet

Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director

Attachments

28

Form NLRB-877

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATION CASINOS, INC. dlb/aALIANTE STATION, BOULDER STATION, PALACE STATION,

RED ROCK STATION, SANTA FE STATION, SUNSET STATION, TEXAS STATION,

FIESTA HENDERSON, FIESTA RANCHO,

AND GREEN V ALLEY RANCH

and

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF

LAS VEGAS, CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 226 AND BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE

Case 28-CA-22918

_____________________ -1 DATE OF MAILING: May 28, 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING with form NLRB-4668 attached

I, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the date indicated above I served the above-entitled document(s) by postpaid certified mail upon the following persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:

Station Casinos

1505 South Pavillion Center Drive Las Vegas, NY 89135

7001 0320 0000 2490 2525

Harriet Lipkin, Attorney at Law DLA Piper US LLP

500 Eighth Street NW Washington, DC 20004

Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas 1630 South Commerce Street

Las Vegas, NY 89102

Richard G. McCracken, Attorney at Law Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP

595 Market Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, CA 94105

Reporters: Argie Reporting Service

/s/ Katherine Stanley

DESIGNATED AGENT

lsI Kathleen Smart

NA TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of May 2010.

FORM NLRB-4338 (6-90)

95kdh

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NOTICE

Case: 28-CA-22918

The issuance of the notice offonnaI hearing in this case does not mean that the matter cannot be disposed of by agreement of the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney assigned to the case will be pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end. An agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to cancel the hearing.

However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at the date, hour and place indicated. Postponements will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met:

(1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed the Regional Director when appropriate under 29 CFR 1 02.16(a) or with the Division of Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR 102. I 6(b).

(2) Grounds must be set forth in detail;

(3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given;

(4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting party and set forth in the request; and

(5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact must be noted on the request.

Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing.

Station Casinos

1505 South Pavillion Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135

Harriet Lipkin, Attorney at Law DLA Piper US LLP

500 Eighth Street NW Washington, DC 20004

Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas 1630 South Commerce Street

Las Vegas, NV 89102

Richard G. McCracken, Attorney at Law Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP

595 Market Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, CA 94105

JUN14'lO Pt1 2=19

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 28

STATION CASINOS, INC. d/b/a ALIANTE STATION, BOULDER STATION, PALACE STATION,

RED ROCK STATION, SANTA FE STATION, SUNSET STATION, TEXAS STATION,

FIESTA HENDERSON, FIESTA RANCHO,

AND GREEN VALLEY RANCH

and

Case 28~CA-22918

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF

LAS VEGAS, CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 226 AND BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

A Complaint and Notice of Hearing having issued on May 28, 2010,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Section 102.17 of the Board's Rules.

and Regulations, that the complaint is amended in the following respects:

1. Paragraph 4(b) is amended to change the name "Mike (last name

unknown)" to "Michael Pavicich;" and to change his position from "General Manager" to

"Director of Hotel Operations."

2. Paragraph 4( c) is amended to delete the name "Maria Parga" and to

delete her position as "Supervisor"

3. Paragraph 4(d) is amended to change the name "Name Unknown" to

. "Phil Trares."

4. Paragraph 4(f) is amended to delete the name "George Hacker" and to

delete his position as "Chef,"

5. Paragraph 4{g) is amended to delete the name "Dawn (last name

unknown)" and to delete her position as "Housekeeping Supervisor."

6. Paragraph 4(h) is amended to delete the name "John Bray" and to

delete his position as "Food and Beverage Director."

7. Paragraph 4(j) is amended to in include the name "Maria Parga" and to

include her position as "Supervisor."

.. 8. Remove paragraph 6(b) and replace it with a new paragraph 6(b)

reading:

On or about February 19,2010, the Respondent, by Michael Pavicich, threatened its employees by telling them not to sign Union membership.

9. Remove paragraph 7(d) and replace it with new a paragraph 7(d)

. reading:

On or about March 1, 2010, the Respondent, by Phil Trares, orally

. promulgated and enforced-an overly-broad: and discriminatory rule . prohibiting its off-duty employees from engaging in Union acti vi~ies at the Respondent's Palace facility.

10.

Remove paragraph 10 and replace it with a new paragraph 10 reading:

At the Respondent's Sunset facility:

(a) On or about February 22,2010, the Respondent, by Frank

Picolo, threatened its employees with adverse employment action for speaking about the

Union in front of customers.

(b)r On or about February 23, 2010, the Respondent, by Lynn Dunn,

herein called Dunn:

2

(l) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in Union activities at the

Respondent's Sunset facility; and

(2) directed its employees to call the police If its employees

were contacted at home by Union supporters or agents.

(3) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

(c) On or about February 25,2010, the Respondent, by Jack

Hawes:

(1) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing verbal counselings issued by

the Respondent; and

(2) engaged in surveillance of its employees to discover if

they were violating the rule described above at paragraph 1O( c)(1):

(d). • On or about March 3, 2010, the Respondent, byDragan

Buljugija, herein called Buljugija, orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from wearing Union buttons.

(e) On 'or about March 14, 2010, the Respondent, by Buljugija,

threatened its employees with further discipline because of their Union support.

(f) On or about April 7, 2010, the Respondent, by Dunn:

(1) informed its employees that it would be futile for them

I ! to support the Union as their bargaining representative;

;. J 1.' I

" .

3

(2) threatened its employees by telling them not to sign

Union membership cards; and

(3) denied its employees benefits in the form of open

discussion at pre-shift meetings because they supported the Union; and

(4) orally promulgated and enforced an overly-broad and

discriminatory rule prohibiting its employees from discussing issues of common concern

including, but limited to, the Union organizing campaign.

The Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the

Board's Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to this amendment to complaint. The

answer niust be received by this office on or before June 25, 2010, or postmarked on or

before June 24,2010. The Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer

with this office and serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties. An answer may

also be filed electronically by using the E-Filing system on the Agency's website. In order to

file an answer electronically, access the Agency's website at http://www.nlrb.gov.click on

E-Gov, then click on the E-Filing link on the pull-down menu. Click on the "File

Documents" button under "Regional, Subregional and Resident Offices" and then follow the

"

directions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively

upon the sender. A failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the

transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's website was off-line or

unavailable for some other reason. The Board's Rules and Regulations require that such

answer be signed by counselor non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the

party if not represented. See Section 102.56(a}. If the answer being filed electronically is a

pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer needs to be

4

transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a

complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E~filing rules require

that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted' to the Regional

Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing.

Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means

allowed under the Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile

transmission. If no answer is filed, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default

Judgment, that the allegations in the amendment to complaint are true.

Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 11 th day of June 2010.

Is/Comele A. Overstreet

Comele A. Overstreet, Regional Director

Attachments

5

transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission.. If no answer is filed, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default JUdgment, that the allegations in, the amendment to complaint are true.

Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 11th day of June 2010.

Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director

Attachments

5

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful