CASINO PAUMA

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 18, 2016

21-CA-161832 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 18, 2016)

JD–70–16
Pauma Valley, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CASINO PAUMA
and 21-CA-161832
UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION
Jean Libby, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Scott A. Wilson, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
Kristin L. Martin, Esq.,
Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was submitted to
me by virtue of a joint motion and stipulation, pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining unlawfully broad rules in its employee
handbook. Respondent filed an answer denying the essential allegations of the
complaint. The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs in support of their
positions.
Based on the stipulated record, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, which has an office and place of business located on tribal land in
Pauma Valley, California, operates a commercial gaming and entertainment facility,
including a gaming casino and restaurants. Its operations are open to members of the
JD–70–16
2
general public, who constitute the vast majority of its customers, and Respondent
employs primarily individuals who are not Native Americans. During a representative
one-year period, Respondent derived gross revenues, from its business operations, in
excess of $500,000, and purchased and received, at its Pauma Valley facility, goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California. The 5
parties have stipulated that the Board has determined (See Casino Pauma, 363 NLRB
No. 60 (2015), reaffirming an earlier finding in Casino Pauma, 362 NLRB No. 52 (2015))
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. I therefore make a similar finding here.
10
I also find, as the parties have stipulated, that the Charging Party Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
15
A. The Stipulated Facts
Since about Mid-April 2015, Respondent has maintained the following rules in its
employee handbook, a copy of which is attached to the stipulation as Exhibit 4:
20
2.19 Conducting Personal Business, You are expected to use Casino
Pauma’s property only for business purposes. Personal use is generally
prohibited of Casino Pauma’s supplies or equipment, such as telephones, fax
machines, computers or repair equipment and supplies. Generally, any Team
Member found using Casino Pauma equipment or supplies for personal use will 25
be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. As part of
this policy, Team Members are reminded they should only be on Casino Pauma
property when conducting Casino Pauma business. Visitation by friends and
family members should be kept to a minimum. All visitors should use main
entrances to gain visitor passes if necessary. Team members are to conduct 30
only Casino Pauma business while at work. Team members may not conduct
personal business or business for another employer during their scheduled
working hours.
2.22 Solicitation and Distribution, Any and all solicitations or distributions 35
must cease immediately if the intended recipient expresses any discomfort or
unreceptiveness whatsoever.
2.23 Social Media, Casino Pauma recognizes the importance and
prevalence of electronic media in our work and personal lives. To assist in 40
addressing employment related concerns that may arise from use of electronic
media, Casino Pauma sets forth the following Social Media Policy to guide your
actions. Casino Pauma’s Team Members are responsible for the content they
publish on social networking websites, blogs or any other form or user-generated
media. Keep in mind that everything you publish will be online for a long time, 45
perhaps a lifetime! If you publish content to any blog or website and it has to do
JD–70–16
3
with work, use a disclaimer such as: “The postings on this site are my own and
do not represent my employer’s positions, strategies or opinions. If you do
publish content regarding Casino Pauma, always identify yourself – State your
name and (when relevant) your position at Casino Pauma.
5
When discussing Casino Pauma or employment related matters you must write
in the first person (i.e. “I am commenting about”), and make it clear that you are
speaking for yourself and not on behalf of Casino Pauma. Don’t cite or reference
guests, vendors, clients or Team Members without their approval. If you do have
approval, link back to source when possible. Cite references when possible. 10
When posting photos, always obtain approval and never use photos gathered
throughout the course of your career at Casino Pauma. Photos taken or
obtained at Casino Pauma are the sole property of the casino and are not
permitted to be used for personal use. Don’t provide confidential, proprietary
information and/or trade secrets. Failure to safeguard confidential information 15
may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination (emphasis in the
original).
5.2 Conflicts of Interest, number 4, Soliciting Casino Pauma’s Team
Members, suppliers, or guests to purchase goods or services of any kind, or to 20
make contributions to any organizations or in support of any causes, unless the
General Manger has granted written approval in advance.
B. Discussion and Analysis
25
The complaint alleges that several rules set forth above, by their very language,
are broad enough to restrict Section 7 rights of employees. Thus, even though the rules
may not explicitly restrict those rights or may not be unlawfully formulated or applied,
such rules are unlawful as maintained if “employees would reasonably construe the
language to prohibit Section 7 activity.” William Beaumont Hospital, 363 NLRB No. 162 30
(2016), citing Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In giving the
rule in question a reasonable reading, the Board “must refrain from reading particular
phrases in isolation.” Lutheran Heritage, cited above, 343 NLRB at 646, citing Lafayette
Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 827 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But
ambiguities are construed against the promulgator of the rule. Lafayette Park Hotel, 35
cited above, 326 NLRB at 828. See also Cintas Corp. v. NLRB, 482 F.3d 463, 467-470
(D.C. Cir. 2007).
On brief, the General Counsel specifies 4 general categories of violations, some
with subcategories (Br. 5-14): A. Rule 2.19, conducting personal business, is unlawful 40
because it “bans employees from all of Respondent’s property except when conducting
Respondent’s business.” In particular, according to the General Counsel, the rule
unlawfully restricts off-duty employees from engaging in protected activity; and it
prohibits protected activity during nonworking time. B. Rule 2.22, solicitation and
distribution, is unlawful because it prohibits protected solicitation and distribution “if the 45
intended recipient expresses any discomfort or unreceptiveness whatsoever.” C. Rule
2.23, social media, is unlawful because it prohibits employees from (1)“communicating
JD–70–16
4
anything to do with work” on social media without an employer-approved disclaimer;1 (2)
posting social media references to co-workers without their prior approval; and (3)
posting photos “in conjunction with work-related postings” without Respondent’s prior
approval. D. Rule 5.2, conflicts of interest, is unlawful because it requires Respondent’s
advance approval before soliciting co-workers.5
Applying the above principles to the stipulated facts and considering the General
Counsel’s specific allegations set forth above, as well as Respondent’s response, I find
the rules at issue here violate the Act in several respects, as shown below.
10
Rule 2.22 (General Counsel’s B above) requires that all solicitations and
distributions cease “immediately” if the “intended recipient expresses any discomfort or
unreceptiveness whatsoever.” With limited exceptions not applicable here, employees
have the protected right under Section 7 of the Act to solicit and distribute literature to
fellow employees on behalf of unions or other common interests dealing with wages, 15
hours and terms and conditions of employment, so long as the solicitation is during non-
work time and the distribution is not in work areas. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,
324 U.S. 793, 802-805 (1945); and Stoddard Quirk Mfg. Co., 138 NLRB 615, 621
(1962). This includes the right to “engage in persistent union solicitation even when it
annoys or disturbs the employees who are being solicited.” Ryder Truck Rental, 341 20
NLRB 761 (2004), enfd. 401 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2005). Because Rule 2.22 broadly
prohibits protected activity based on the subjective views of recipients, it infringes on
protected rights and could reasonably be read that way by employees. The rule thus
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See 2 Sisters Food Group, 357 NLRB 1816, 1817
(2011); and Teletech Holdings, Inc., 333 NLRB 402, 403 (2001).25
Rule 5.2 (General Counsel’s D above) prohibits employee solicitation “in support
of any causes” unless “the General Manager has granted written approval in advance.”
Here again the language is broad enough to apply to protected solicitation of fellow
employees on behalf of unions or other common interests—clearly Section 7 rights, as 30
shown above. The rule’s explicit pre-condition—obtaining written approval of
management in advance—is an unlawful restriction on those rights. Brunswick Corp.
282 NLRB 794, 795 (1987). Accordingly, this rule also violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. See Teletech Holdings, cited above, 333 NLRB at 403; and Schwan’s Home
Service, 364 NLRB No. 20, slip op. 4 (2016).235
Rule 2.23 (General Counsel’s C above) has a number of different admonitions
with respect to employee use of electronic social media, some of which do not
reasonably affect or restrict Section 7 rights. But some do, particularly references to
communications dealing with “employment related concerns” or “having to do with 40
work.” Thus, the rule requires employees, when referring to “employment related

1 The General Counsel’s quoted reference to “anything to do with work” is not a phrase that appears
in the rule. The rule states that if the employee publishes “content on any blog or website and it has to do
with work” there must be a specified disclaimer.
2 Rule 5.2 is titled “conflicts of interest,” but the General Counsel’s theory of violation addresses only
the requirement that the employer’s approval is required before employee solicitations.
JD–70–16
5
concerns” in their use of social media, to provide a disclaimer, identify themselves and
their job positions, and refrain from mentioning guests, vendors, clients or fellow
employees without their approval. Such admonishments could reasonably be read by
employees to restrict the free exercise of their Section 7 right to comment to fellow
employees and others, including union representatives, about their work-related 5
complaints concerning wages, hours and working conditions. See Schwan’s Home
Service, 364 NLRB No. 20, cited above, at slip op. 3 and fn. 10. As the General
Counsel points out, the disclaimer is employer approved (Br. 11), which, as shown
above in the discussion of the Brunswick case, unlawfully limits protected rights; and the
requirement that fellow employees approve the invocation of protected rights flies in the 10
face of the Board’s ruling in the Ryder Truck case, cited above, that protected activity
cannot be limited simply because other employees are offended. Indeed, the language
of Rule 2.23 is broad enough to restrict email communications between employees,
when both are on non-work time and using their own private computers and email
accounts, and complaining about their working conditions. To the extent that the rule’s 15
admonishments and restrictions infringe on the full and free exercise of Section 7 rights
as described above, they violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In addition, the General Counsel asserts (Br. 13-14) that Rule 2.23 is also
unlawful because it bans posting photos without Respondent’s approval. The General 20
Counsel’s premise is that photos may be part of employee protected activities. Thus,
the General Counsel continues, the total ban on use of photos “gathered throughout the
course of your career at Casino Pauma” and the admonition that “[p]hotos taken or
obtained at Casino Pauma are the sole property of the casino and are not permitted to
be used for personal use” are improper. The General Counsel also asserts that the 25
employer’s prior approval for such photos is an impermissible limitation on Section 7
rights, as discussed above in reference to the Brunswick case. I find merit in the
General Counsel’s position in this respect. Modern technology has made the use of the
photographic ability of the ubiquitous iPhone commonplace in today’s society. One can
easily imagine an employee who observes unsafe conditions in the workplace taking a 30
photo for use by a union, to obtain the support of fellow employees in an effort to
resolve the unsafe working conditions, or even to report them to the appropriate
government agencies. As long as this is done without significant interference with work,
such activity is, and should be, protected. Rule 2.23 improperly limits such activity and
employees would reasonably read the rule that way. As the General Counsel’s brief 35
points out, the Board has found rules restricting the use of video and audio recordings
unlawful because they may be reasonably read to limit protected activity. See Rio All
Suites Hotel & Casino, 362 NLRB No. 190, slip op. 3-5 (2015); and Whole Foods
Market, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 87, slip op. 3-5 (2015). Those cases support a similar
finding here. I therefore find the restrictions against use of photos in Rule 2.23 violative 40
of Section 8(a)(1).3
Rule 2.19, titled “Conducting Personal Business” (General Counsel’s A above) is
poorly written and deals with multiple prohibitions, making it difficult to parse. But the

3 There is no allegation that the ban on use of confidential or proprietary information in Rule 2.23 is
unlawful.
JD–70–16
6
prohibition against conducting “personal business” on company property and “while at
work” can reasonably be read to restrict the communications of employees with each
other about union or other Section 7 protected rights in non-work areas and on non-
work time. See discussion above in reference to the Supreme Court’s Republic Aviation
opinion and the Board’s Stoddard-Quirk ruling. The rule makes it clear that personal 5
business is the opposite of “Casino Pauma business,” thus including communications
about unions or complaints about working conditions in the “personal business”
category. The restriction of protected activity “while at work” is also too broad because
it is not properly restricted to “work time” and thus bans protected activity during
nonwork time, such a time on lunch, breaks and before and after work. See Our Way, 10
Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983). See also 2 Sisters Food Group, cited above, 357 NLRB at
1817.
The language of Rule 2.19 can also reasonably be read to deny off-duty
employees the right to engage in protected activity in non-work areas of Respondent’s 15
property, contrary to the Board’s protection of such right in Tri-County Medical Center,
222 NLRB 1089 (1976). Thus, in this respect, the rule is unlawfully broad. See
Flamingo Hilton, 330 NLRB 287, 289-290 (1999); and Teletech Holdings, cited above,
333 NLRB at 404.
20
At the least, the prohibitions against conducting “personal business” in Rule 2.19
are ambiguous insofar as that term may be read to include discussions about unions
and other concerted activity; the rule thus puts employees at risk if they guess wrongly
about what the Respondent means by “personal business.” See Lily Transportation
Corp., 362 NLRB No. 54, slip op. 1, fn. 3 (2015); and Schwan’s Home Service, cited 25
above, 364 NLRB No. 20, slip op. 3. Accordingly, to the extent that the restrictions in
the rule against conducting “personal business” prevent or limit employees from
engaging in the Section 7 activity mentioned above, the rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
30
In its brief, Respondent raises only one defense to the complaint allegations—
that it had legitimate business interests to justify the rules at issue. But neither the rules
themselves nor anything in the stipulation provides either the necessary specificity or
the basis for such legitimate business interests. Nor does Respondent provide a
sufficient nexus of such business interests to the language of the rules. In any event, 35
the gravamen of the violations is that the rules are too broad and thus infringe on
Section 7 rights in the manner I have explained above.4
Respondent’s brief also submits alternative language for the rules, which it
asserts the General Counsel rejected in settlement discussions. Moreover, Respondent 40
offers additional language for me to consider, presumably as a settlement solution. I
am reluctant to consider these matters because it is not my job to either rewrite rules or
advise an employer how to rewrite rules in a manner that does not violate the Act. But I

4 Contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, its benign intent in formulating the rules provides no defense
if, as the case law makes clear and as I have found here, the language of the rules may reasonably be read
to infringe on Section 7 rights.
JD–70–16
7
am hopeful that my decision provides adequate guidance to aid in an acceptable
resolution of this case in compliance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
5
1. By maintaining rules that (a) require solicitations and distributions to “cease
immediately” if the “intended recipient expresses any discomfort or
unreceptiveness whatsoever;” (b) prohibit solicitations unless management
gives prior approval; (c) require employees who use social media to
communicate “employment related concerns” to provide a disclaimer, identify 10
themselves and their job positions, and refrain from mentioning guests,
vendors, clients or fellow employees without their approval; and (d) prohibit
employees from discussing “personal business” on company property and
“while at work,” Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15
2. The above violations are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
Remedy
20
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices found
above, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Respondent must rescind or revise the
handbook rules that have been found unlawful. It may comply by rescinding the
unlawful language and republishing its employee handbook without it. The Respondent 25
may supply the employees either with handbook inserts stating that the unlawful
language has been rescinded, or with new and lawfully worded language on adhesive
backing that will correct or cover the unlawful language until it republishes the handbook
without the unlawful language. Any copies of the handbook that include the unlawful
language must include the inserts before being distributed to employees. See 30
Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 fn. 8 (2005), enfd. in rel. part 475 F.3d 369 (D.C.
Cir. 2007).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record herein,
I issue the following recommended535
ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from40
(a) Maintaining language in its employee handbook rules that bans employee
solicitations or distributions dealing with union or other protected activity if the

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be waived for all purposes.
JD–70–16
8
intended recipient expresses discomfort or unreceptiveness, or requires
advanced approval from management for such solicitations.
(b) Maintaining language in its employee handbook rules that requires
employees using social media to express “employment concerns” to provide a
disclaimer, identify themselves and their job positions, and refrain from 5
mentioning guests, vendors, clients or fellow employees without their
approval.
(c) Maintaining language in its employee handbook rules that prohibits
employees from conducting “personal business” on company property and
“while at work” insofar as it limits employees from engaging in union and other 10
protected activity on non-work time and limits off-duty employees from
engaging in such activity in non-work areas.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
(a) Rescind the language in its employee handbook rules that prohibits employee
solicitation or distributions dealing with union or other protected activity if the 20
intended recipient expresses discomfort or unreceptiveness or requires
advanced approval from management for such solicitation.
(b) Rescind the language in its employee handbook rules that requires
employees using social media to express “employee concerns” to provide a
disclaimer, identify themselves and their job positions and refrain from 25
mentioning guests, vendors, clients or fellow employees without their
approval.
(c) Rescind the language in its employee handbook rules that prohibits employee
from conducting “personal business” on company property and “while at work”
insofar as it limits employees from engaging in union and other protected 30
activity on non-work time and limits off-duty employees from engaging in such
activities in non-work areas.
(d) Furnish all current employees with inserts for the current employee handbook
rules that advise that the unlawful language in the rules has been rescinded
or provide lawful language for those rules; or publish and distribute to 35
employees a revised handbook that does not contain the unlawful language
or provides the language of lawful policy or rules.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Pauma Valley,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being 40
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,

6 If this order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–70–16
9
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet dite,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 5
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former 10
employees employed by Respondent at any time since October 13, 2015.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
15
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 18, 2016.
20
Robert A. Giannasi
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain language in the employee handbook rules that bans employee
solicitations or distributions dealing with union or other protected activity if the intended
recipient expresses discomfort or unreceptiveness, or requires advanced approval from
management for such solicitations.
WE WILL NOT maintain language in the employee handbook rules that requires
employees using social media to express “employment concerns” to provide a
disclaimer, identify themselves and their job positions, and refrain from mentioning
guests, vendors, clients or fellow employees without their approval.
WE WILL NOT maintain language in the employee handbook rules that prohibits
employees from conducting “personal business” on company property and “while at
work” insofar as it limits employees from engaging in union and other protected activity
on non-work time and limits off-duty employees from engaging in such activity in non-
work areas.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the language in the employee handbook rules that prohibits employee
solicitation or distributions dealing with union or other protected activity if the intended
recipient expresses discomfort or unreceptiveness or requires advanced approval from
management for such solicitation.
WE WILL rescind the language in the employee handbook rules that requires
employees using social media to express “employee concerns” to provide a disclaimer,
identify themselves and their job positions and refrain from mentioning guests, vendors,
clients or fellow employees without their approval.
JD–70–16
WE WILL rescind the language in its employee handbook rules that prohibits employee
from conducting “personal business” on company property and “while at work” insofar
as it limits employees from engaging in union and other protected activity on non-work
time and limits off-duty employees from engaging in such activities in non-work areas.
WE WILL furnish all current employees with inserts for the current employee handbook
rules that advise that the unlawful language in the rules has been rescinded or provide
lawful language for those rules; or publish and distribute to employees a revised
handbook that does not contain the unlawful language or provides the language of
lawful policy or rules.
CASINO PAUMNA
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5449
(213) 894-5200, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-161832 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (213) 894-5184.