Trump Marina Associates, LLC d/b/a Trump Marina Casino

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 1277 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

TRUMP MARINA HOTEL CASINO
355 NLRB No. 208
1277
Trump Marina Associates LLC d/b/a Trump Marina
Hotel Casino and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, AFL–CIO. Cases 4–
CA–35334, 4–CA–35395, and 4–RC–21278
September 30, 2010
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
On February 17, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second
Election in this proceeding, which is reported at 353
NLRB 921.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition
for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, and the General Counsel
filed a cross-application for enforcement. On June 17,
2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its deci-
sion in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635,
holding that under Section 3(b) of the Act, in order to
exercise the delegated authority of the Board, a delegee
group of at least three members must be maintained.
Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded this case for
further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s
decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
2 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the remaining member who participated in the origi-
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 353
NLRB 921 (2009), which is incorporated by reference.3
In incorporating the prior decision, we find no need to
pass on “all of the other alleged 8(a)(1) violations” which
were dismissed by the judge (above at 922). As a result,
we amend the prior decision by eliminating the second
paragraph of fn. 2 (above at 921), eliminating fn. 6
(above at 921), eliminating the first paragraph of fn. 8
(above at 922), and by revising the final paragraph of the
decision (id., second paragraph) to read as follows:
“Finally, because further findings that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) would not materi-
ally change the remedy in this case and are not nec-
essary to our conclusion that a second election is
necessary, we decline to pass on the remaining ex-
ceptions filed by the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party.8 Based on the violations and objection-
able conduct that we have found, we agree with the
judge’s recommendation to set aside the election re-
sults for the reasons he stated.”

nal decision. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures
applicable to all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not
assigned to the panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudica-
tion of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision.
3 We find it unnecessary to rely on Desert Springs Hospital Center,
352 NLRB 112 (2008), as cited at 921 fn. 7 of the decision. Member
Hayes finds no need to pass on the issue raised by the Respondent’s
exceptions to the finding of an unlawful interrogation by Supervisor
Steven Salvey.