Flamingo Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 25, 2012

28-CA-069588 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 25, 2012)

JD(SF)-31-12
Las Vegas, Nevada
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC
and Cases 28-CA-069588
28-CA-073617
INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY,
POLICE AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS
OF AMERICA (SPFPA)
Larry A. Smith, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for
the General Counsel.
Scott A. Brooks, Esq., Detroit, MI, for
the Charging Party.
John D. McLachlan, Esq., San Francisco, CA,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
GREGORY Z. MEYERSON, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to notice, I heard
this case in Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 13-16, 2012. This case was tried following the
issuance of an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing (the
complaint) by the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board) on February 24, 2012. The complaint was based on a number of unfair labor practice
charges, as captioned above, filed by International Union, Security, Police and Fire
Professionals of America (SPFPA) (the Union or the Charging Party).1 It alleges that Flamingo
Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC (the Respondent, the Employer, or the Flamingo) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely
answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.2
Counsel for the General Counsel, counsel for the Charging Party, and counsel for the
Respondent appeared at the hearing, and I provided them with the full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue and file
briefs. Based on the record, my consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General

1 G.C. Ex. 1(a) through 1(v), the “Formal Papers,” establish the filing and service of the
enumerated charges as alleged in the complaint.
2 All pleadings reflect the complaint and answer as those documents were finally amended
at the hearing. (See G.C. Ex. 1(q))
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Counsel and counsel for the Respondent,3 and my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses,4 I now make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that at all times material herein, the
Respondent has been a limited liability company, with an office and place of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada (the Respondent’s facility), where it has been engaged in operating a hotel and
casino providing food, lodging and gaming. Further, I find that during the 12-month period
ending November 23, 2011, the Respondent, in conducting it business operations as just
described, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000; and during the same period of time,
also purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points located outside the State of Nevada.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent is now, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. Labor Organization
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that at all times material herein, the
Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background Facts
The Respondent is one of five properties forming a “pod” of properties under Caesars
Entertainment, Inc., which is the parent entity. The properties in the pod are: the Flamingo,5
Harrah’s, Imperial Palace, O’Sheas, and Bill’s Gamblin Hall and Saloon. These five properties
are collectively referred to by Ceasars Entertainment in its business as “HIFOB.” HIFOB is an
acronym consisting of the first letter of each of the five properties in the pod. Although there is
significant interaction among some of the properties, especially the Flamingo, O’Sheas, and
Bill’s, the Respondent consists solely of the Flamingo, which is the only legal entity charged in
this proceeding. The HIFOB senior chain of command consists, in relevant part, of president
and general manager Rick Mazer, assistant general manager Paul Baker, and various vice
presidents for several departments. Eric Golebiewski is the security director for HIFOB.

3 Counsel for the Charging Party did not file an independent brief, but, rather, incorporated
and adopted counsel for the General Counsel’s brief.
4 The credibility resolutions made in this decision are based on a review of the testimonial
record and exhibits, with consideration given for reasonable probability and the demeanor of the
witnesses. See NLRB v. Walton Manufacturing Company, 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). Where
witnesses have testified in contradiction to the findings herein, I have discredited their
testimony, as either being in conflict with credited documentary or testimonial evidence, or
because it was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
5 The Margaritaville Casino is physically located within the Flamingo, and does not
constitute a separate entity.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
The HIFOB security operation is extensive. Under Golebiweski’s direction is the
investigations manager, Jack Burgess, three investigators and seven security shift managers.
Four of the seven security shift managers are assigned to the Flamingo, and include Charles
Willis, Cedric Johnson, Keith Berberich, and John Schultz. There are11 security shift
supervisors for the 5 HIFOB properties under the security shift managers, the following six of
whom are assigned to the Flamingo: Curtis Walker, Janice Miller, Russ Roake, Kevin Quaglio,
Thomas Health, and Zina Miner. Further, there are a number of field training officers (FTO
Golds), who are security officers in training for supervisor positions, employed at the Flamingo,
including Dan Hayes and Larry Myatt.6
The Respondent’s operations require security officers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
There are approximately 300 security officers employed among the 5 HIFOB properties. As set
forth in the Caesars Entertainment job description for security officer, their “main function is to
provide a friendly and safe environment for [hotel/casino] guests and team members while
protecting company assets.” (G.C. Ex. 4.) The security officers may rotate through various
properties as part of their shifts. Approximately 120 of those security officers rotate through the
Flamingo, O'Sheas and Bill’s as part of a posted schedule limited to those 3 properties.
Between 50 and 70 of those security officers are assigned to the Flamingo.
The security officers perform various tasks and interact with a variety of people. In the
course of their job duties, while they patrol their assigned “posts,” the security offices perform
two types of “sweeps.” As needed, they perform sweeps of “undesirables,” such as homeless
persons, prostitutes, pimps, thugs, drug dealers, etc. These security sweeps are often
conducted by several security officers acting collectively, and are intended to remove these
undesirables from the facility. Security officers also perform “total service” sweeps. This is the
process by which they meet and greet customers and perform certain steps that involve
engaging the customers in conversations so as to make them feel comfortable and welcome at
the facility. While it is not totally clear, the record indicates that during a security guard’s shift,
he or she is expected to engage at least 6 customers in this interaction. Shift supervisors will
periodically observe security officers engaged in total service sweeps and grade the officers on
their contact with the guests. This grading process is called the “spotlight.”
Security officers attend pre-shift meetings held at the beginning of every shift. It is at
these meetings that the officers receive information from various supervisors, including
procedures, policies, fliers, alerts, and anything that they need to know in order to properly
perform their shifts. The pre-shift meetings generally last between 15 to 30 minutes, although
occasionally much longer.
Francis Bizzarro is a security officer employed by the Respondent since August of 2010.
Prior to being hired, Bizzarro and his wife had a friendly relationship with the Respondent’s
assistant general manager Paul Baker and his wife. In fact, Baker recommended Bizzarro for
the security officer position, and one would logically assume that he was instrumental in helping
Bizzarro secure employment. It is clear from the testimony of numerous witnesses that Bizzarro
was the security officer most active in trying to organize the Respondent’s facility on behalf of
the Union. He originally contacted the Union seeking representation and was the person who
distributed union authorization cards to those security officers expressing an interest. At the
time of the hearing, Bizzarro was still employed as a security officer by the Respondent.

6 The parties have agreed that Paul Baker, Eric Golebiewski, Charles Willis, Cedric
Johnson, Keith Berberich, Kevin Quaglio, and Larry Myatt are all supervisors and agents as
defined by the Act.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
The following chronology of events has been stipulated to by the parties (Jt. Ex. 1.) and
is not in dispute: On November 4, 2011, the Union filed a representation petition in case 28-RC-
068280; on November 17, 2011, the Union filed a petition in case 28-RC-069125; on
November 23, 2011, the Union filed a petition in case 28-RC-069491, but prior to doing so it
withdrew the two earlier petitions; on November 30 and December 1, 2011, a hearing was
conducted at the offices of the Board in Las Vegas, Nevada, in case 28-RC-069491; on
December 20, 2011, the Regional Director for Region 28 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in case 28-RC-069491;7 subsequently, an election was scheduled for January 19,
2012; however, on January 17, 2012, the Regional Director issued an Order Postponing
Election Indefinitely pending the investigation and disposition of an unfair labor practice charge
filed by the Union against the Respondent; and finally, on January 26, 2012, the Regional
Director issued a Corrected Order Postponing Election Indefinitely pending the investigation and
disposition of the unfair labor practice charge in case 28-CA-069588 filed by the Union against
the Respondent.
B. The Dispute
It is the position of the General Counsel that the Respondent engaged in a campaign
designed to thwart its employees’ protected concerted activity and subsequently their union
activity. The Respondent’s alleged unlawful conduct included: threatening employees,
promulgating and enforcing overly broad and discriminatory work rules, creating the impression
of surveillance of employees’ union and protected concerted activities, interrogating employees
about their union sympathies, soliciting employee complaints and grievances, promising
increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment, supervising its
employees more closely, and discriminatorily restricting access to its bulletin boards. Such
conduct is alleged in the complaint to have constituted an unlawful attempt by the Respondent
to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Further, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent specifically targeted Francis
Bizzarro for harassment because he was the employee most active in engaging other
employees in protected concerted activity, and who was the primary organizer and principal
union supporter among the security officers. The complaint alleges that all such conduct
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Counsel for the Respondent contends that none of its actions were in violation of the
law. Rather, it is the position of the Respondent that its employees were free to engage in an
open campaign in support of the Union, and did, in fact, communicate openly with each other by
means of the Employer’s email system and through the posting of union notices and fliers on a
bulletin board at the Flamingo.

7 The undersigned hereby takes administrative notice of the following documents filed in
connection with case 28-RC-069491: the Decision and Direction of Election (C.P. Ex. 1.); the
Board’s Order denying the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision
and Direction of Election (C.P. Ex. 2); and the Employer’s Request for Review (C.P. Ex. 3.).
While the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election is not controlling regarding
those issues before the undersigned, it constitutes some evidence on said issues, and may be
relied on by the undersigned to the extent noted.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Regarding Francis Bizzarro, counsel argues that Bizzarro made no effort to hide or
disguise his role as the principal union organizer. Moreover, it is the Respondent’s position that
Bizzarro was simply a disgruntled, insubordinate employee whose incredible testimony was an
attempt to support meritless unfair labor practice charges filed in an effort to block the holding of
a representation election, which the Union feared that it would lose. According to counsel, no
reprisals were taken against Bizzarro, other union supporters, or any other employees because
of their union or protected concerted activities. Finally, counsel argues that any oral statements
or written material about the Union emanating from the Respondent or its managers and
supervisors was the lawful expression of opinion, as permitted under Section 8(c) of the Act.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The Protected Concerted Activity
The Respondent stresses to all its employees the importance of customer service.
Without doubt, the casino and hotel industry in Las Vegas is very competitive. To that end,
HIFOB regularly takes customer surveys to determine how well its properties are meeting the
needs of its customers, and how satisfied those customers are with the services that they
receive. As a result of those surveys, HIFOB determined that its “scores” were unacceptably
low. Therefore, from late August through September 2, 2011,8 a number of mandatory
meetings for supervisors and managers were conducted at all HIFOB properties to address
those low scores.
During the hearing a number of supervisors testified about these meetings, and no
evidence was offered to rebut their testimony. Therefore, it is undisputed that at those meetings
the presenters again stressed to managers and supervisors the critical importance of customer
service and the need to immediately begin to raise the low scores the HIFOB properties had
been receiving. Apparently in an effort to emphasize the importance of this mission, the phrase
“believe or leave” was introduced. It is also undisputed that this phrase was intended to be
used by managers and supervisors to motivate employees at all the HIFOB properties and in all
departments within those properties. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the phrase
was intended only for the Flamingo or, even more restrictive, just for the Respondent’s security
department.
Much testimony was taken during the hearing regarding the meaning of the phrase
“believe or leave” as explained to the security officers by their supervisors. Attendees at the
supervisors’ meetings had been told to return to their respective HIFOB properties and
departments and to instruct their employees on what had been stressed to them regarding
customer service, apparently including the “believe or leave” phrase. In early September,
including specifically on September 3, there were pre-shift meetings held with the Respondent’s
security officers where these matters were discussed.
1. The Pre-Shift Meeting of September 3, 2011
In complaint paragraphs 5(a), (b), and (c) the General Counsel alleges that on
September 3, certain conduct of the Respondent’s supervisors violated the Act. It was at the
time of the pre-shift briefing on that date that the assembled security officers were first told
about the Respondent’s new “believe or leave” phrase. Contrary to the arguments of counsel
for the General Counsel, I do not view this statement as a threat to terminate employees who

8 All dates are in 2011 unless otherwise indicated.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
engaged in protected concerted activity, but, rather, simply as part of a management philosophy
intended to motivate the security officers to improve their customer service scores. Such a
philosophy is clearly legitimate, and the phrase was intended to be utilized throughout the
HIFOB properties and certainly not limited to the Flamingo’s security officers.
According to the testimony of Francis Bizzarro, during this pre-shift meeting certain of
the security officers raised a number of issues that they had previously been discussing only
among themselves. Bizzarro mentioned that in earlier conversations between the security
officers that they had discussed complaints that they had about the “shortening of breaks, and
the memorization of [spotlight] cards,” and about the use of the full names of security officers on
their name tags. The “spotlight” was the procedure that supervisors used to rate security
officers on their interaction with guests. The officers were expected to follow a kind of script or
outline in these interactions. The name tag issue involved the officers not wanting to have their
full last names displayed on the tag so as to prevent “undesirables” from being able to trace
them to their homes.
While Bizzarro testified that these were the same issues raised by the security officers at
the September 3 briefing, he is very vague and unclear regarding who actually raised these
issues. He mentioned a number of other officers who were with him at this briefing, including
Eric Cregeen, Brian Meadows, and Tomas Williquer, but is rather unfocused when asked to
relate specifically which officers complained about these matters during the meeting. Further,
the other officers do not seem any more focused regarding this meeting than Bizzarro, and none
of them seems able to take ownership of the alleged remarks.
Bizzarro testified that during the meeting supervisor Quaglio told the security officers that
if they were not happy with the total service sweeps, that they could take their resumes and go
apply to work at the Wynn Casino. Quaglio alleged advised them that as there existed a 14%
unemployment rate in the Las Vegas area that there were plenty of unemployed people waiting
to get security officer jobs, and if they did not like what management was doing that they could
look for a job elsewhere. Quaglio denies making such threatening statements.
After listening to Bizzarro testify regarding the September 3 pre-shift meeting, I had the
strong impression that he was doing his utmost to tie the “believe or leave” statement to the
complaints allegedly made by security officers during the meeting. However, I do not believe
such a connection has been made. Bizzarro is an intelligent witness, and he clearly understood
that employees are engaged in protected conduct when they complain to their supervisors
about wages, hours or working conditions. However, even assuming such complaints were
made by the security officers during the meeting, and even further giving Bizzarro the benefit of
the doubt and concluding that Quaglio made the statement that if employees were unhappy they
could seek work elsewhere, I do not believe such comments by Quaglio were related to
employee complaints. Rather, I believe that those comments were directly related to the
“believe or leave” phrase and the HIFOB-wide campaign to improve customer service scores.
Certainly the big news at the pre-shift meeting was the “believe or leave” phrase and the
campaign to improve the customer service scores, which program the supervisors had brought
back with them from the recent HIFOB-wide supervisors’ meetings. That was likely the matter
discussed most at the pre-shift meeting. It is certainly conceivable that Quaglio in emphasizing
this new program informed the security officers that any employee who could not get behind the
program to improve customer service scores, and who in effect could not “believe” in the
program, should “leave” the Respondent’s employment. I see nothing improper about telling
employees that they are expected to implement the Respondent’s new policy and program or to
seek work elsewhere. I do not believe that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the record
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
evidence, that any threats were made to employees regarding their complaints about working
conditions, assuming that such complaints were even made at this meeting.
I conclude that any suggestion by Quaglio that employees seek work elsewhere was not
made in connection with those employees’ protected concerted activity, and that it would not
have been reasonable for employees to have assumed so. Accordingly, any such statement
would not constitute a violation of the Act. Therefore, I shall recommend to the Board that
complaint paragraph 5(a) be dismissed.
In any event, it seems that Bizzarro was unhappy with the tone of the pre-shift meeting.
He testified that near the end of the meeting he “mentioned to security assistant manager (FTO
Gold) Larry Myatt, that Kevin Quaglio’s comments were threatening and harassing toward the
officers.”9 He contends that Myatt then ordered him out of the briefing room and into the
manager’s office. Allegedly, Myatt said that Bizzarro needed to stop talking as he was “inciting
the men.” At that point, according to Bizzarro, Myatt, Bizzarro, and supervisor Cedric Johnson
went into the manager’s office. Once in the office, Myatt allegedly repeated that Bizzarro’s
comments were “inciting the men,” and that he “needed to stop making those comments or
there would be consequences.” Myatt allegedly went on to deny that Quaglio’s remarks had
been threatening or harassing, and that Bizzarro “should keep [his] mouth shut.” According to
Bizzarro, he responded by simply asking if he could return to work, which he was permitted to
do. Bizzarro testified that during this exchange in the manager’s office, Cedric Johnson had
remained silent. Further, Bizzarro contends that he filed a complaint with the human resources
department regarding this incident, but is uncertain as to what happened to it. When he
subsequently inquired about the status of his complaint, he was told by human resources
personnel that it had “been taken care of.”
During his testimony, Myatt totally denied that he had spoken to Bizzarro in the
manager’s office at any time around September 3, and further denied that he had made any
threatening statements to Bizzarro regarding Bizzarro’s concerted conduct. He did recall a
different meeting with Bizzarro in the “coffee room” in late October or early November about
Bizzarro allegedly interrupting pre-shift meetings with indignant remarks about the way Myatt
was doing his job. Myatt allegedly explained to Bizzarro that such comments should be made to
Myatt in private and not in front of the other officers. Cedric Johnson testified that while he
could not recall the specific date of the meeting that he attended with Bizzarro and Myatt, he
denied that during that meeting Myatt had used the word “incite.” He remembered that Myatt
had brought Bizzarro into the manager’s office to talk about “disrupting the briefing.” According
to Johnson, Myatt told Bizzarro that, “if he has a problem with something he needs to pull
[Myatt] aside and not disrupt the briefing making snide remarks or comments during---while
[Myatt’s] trying to give out information.” Allegedly, Bizzarro agreed that in the future he would
do so.
Preliminarily, I would note that I found Bizzarro to have a tendency to exaggerate and
embellish his testimony, and to over emphasize certain events so as to place himself and his
actions in the best possible light. Further, it is clear to me that he has much of his personal self
worth invested in trying to obtain a successful outcome of this case. That having been said, I do
not believe that he totally fabricated events and statements, and I conclude that, generally, there
was an element of truth in much of his testimony. With that in mind, I believe that at the
September 3 pre-shift meeting that he did say that Quaglio’s comments were threatening and

9 During the hearing, the parties stipulated that Larry Myatt, whose correct job title is Field
Training Officer Gold (FTO Gold), is a supervisor as defined in the Act.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
harassing toward the officers, which elicited a response from Myatt that Bizzarro should be quiet
as he was “inciting” the other officers, or words to that effect. Further, I believe that Myatt also
told Bizzarro that if he did not stop making such comments, there would be “consequences.” It
is not clear to me whether Myatt’s statements were made in the pre-shift briefing room or
immediately thereafter in the manager’s office, or perhaps in part in both places. In any event, I
am convinced that the words were spoken by Myatt.
I do not credit Myatt’s denials, which seemed to me half hearted and made with little
conviction. His attempt to move the incident to another time and event did not seem reasonable
or credible. While Johnson’s version of the incident was a little more believable than Myatt’s
version, it still lacked the sort of detail that Bizzarro supplied. As I have noted above, I find
nothing improper about the Respondent’s use of the phrase “believe or leave,” or the way in
which it was presented to the security officers. Never-the-less, Bizzarro reacted to it as if a
threat had been made, and expressed his concerns out loud. Those expressed concerns
resulted in Myatt actually making a threat. Having heard Bizzarro testify, I believe that his
version of the event had the ring of authenticity about it and is credible.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection….” Employees are engaged in protected
concerted activities when they act in concert with other employees to improve their working
conditions. Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 (1987); NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co.,
370 U.S. 9, 14 (1962). An employer may not retaliate against an employee for exercising the
right to engage in protected concerted activity. Triangle Electric Co., 335 NLRB 1037, 1038
(2001); Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 479 (1984). An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act when it discharges an employee, or takes some other adverse employment action
against him, for engaging in protected concerted activity. Rinke Pontiac Co., 216 NLRB 239,
241, 242 (1975). Further, the Board has found that an employer violates the Act when threats
of an “unspecified reprisal” are made because employees engage in union activity. Certainly,
by analogy, the same would apply to protected concerted activity. Cf. Atlas Logistics Group
Retail Services (Phoenix), 357 NLRB No. 37, slip op. at 1, fn. 2 (Aug. 5, 2011); St. Margaret
Mercy Healthcare Centers, 350 NLRB 203, 205 (2007).
The Board, with court approval, has construed the term “concerted activities” to include
“those circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or induce or to prepare for
group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly group complaints to the attention of
management.” Meyers Industries, Inc., 281 NLRB 882 (1986), affirmed 835 F. 2d 1481 (D.C.
Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988); See also NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.,
465 U.S. 822, 831 (1984) (affirming the Board’s power to protect certain individual activities and
citing as an example “the lone employee” who “intends to induce group activity”).
Based on the above, I conclude that on about September 3, 2011, Bizzarro was
engaged in protected concerted activity when he challenged the statements that Quaglio had
made regarding the “believe or leave” policy by saying that such statements were threatening
and harassing to the security officers. It is immaterial whether the statements made by Quaglio
were in fact threatening or harassing. It is sufficient simply that Bizzarro said so. Certainly this
expressed concern related directly to the conditions under which Bizzarro and his fellow security
officers worked. Therefore, I also conclude that Myatt’s related comments to Bizzarro that he
was “inciting” the other security officers and that he should keep his “mouth shut,” or there
would be “consequences,” or words to that effect, constituted a threat of an unspecified reprisal
because Bizzarro had engaged in protected concerted activity.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Accordingly, I find that these comments made by Myatt to Bizzarro constituted an
unlawful threat of an unspecified reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
paragraph 5(b) of the complaint.
It is alleged in complaint paragraph 5(c) that by making the statements to Bizzarro on
September 3 attributed to Myatt, that the Respondent had promulgated and enforced an overly-
broad and discriminatory work rule prohibiting its employees from engaging in concerted
activities. I agree. As noted above, I have concluded that Myatt told Bizzarro he was “inciting”
the other security officers and that he should keep his “mouth shut,” or there would be
“consequences,” or words to that effect.
In determining whether the existence of specific work rules violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, the Board has held that, “the appropriate inquiry is whether the rules would reasonably tend
to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB
824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Further, where the rules are likely to have
a chilling effect on Section 7 rights, “the Board may conclude that their maintenance is an unfair
labor practice, even absent evidence of enforcement.” Id. See also, Blue Cross-Blue Shield of
Alabama, 225 NLRB 1217, 1220 (1976).
The Board has further refined the above standard in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia,
343 NLRB 646, 646 (2004), by creating a two-step inquiry for determining whether the
maintenance of a rule violates the Act. First, if the rule expressly restricts Section 7 activity, it is
clearly unlawful. If the rule does not, it will none-the-less violate the Act upon a showing that:
“(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the
rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict
the exercise of Section 7 rights. Id., at 647; See Northwestern Land Services, Ltd., 352 NLRB
744 (2009) (applying the Board’s standard in Lutheran Heritage Village, supra at 647).
Myatt’s statement to Bizzarro was an explicit restriction of the Section 7 right to engage
in concerted activity. Under the Act, Bizzarro was fully at liberty to complain to his fellow officers
and to management regarding the Respondent’s “believe or leave” policy. The Respondent has
attempted to restrict that right through Myatt’s disparaging statement that Bizzarro was “inciting”
the other security officers, and through Myatt’s admonition and threat that Bizzarro should keep
his “mouth shut,” or there would be “consequences.” Such conduct by the Respondent would
reasonably chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Regardless of whether
there was any further attempt to enforce the rule, a violation had occurred. Clearly, the rule was
promulgated in response to Bizzarro’s concerted activity in criticizing the “believe or leave”
policy, and was intended through the threat of an unspecified reprisal to put a stop to such
protected activity. It is an obvious violation of the Act. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, supra.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged
in complaint paragraph 5(c).
2. Quaglio’s Alleged Surveillance of September 4, 2011
The General Counsel contends in complaint paragraph 5(d) that the Respondent,
through supervisor Kevin Quaglio, continued its campaign of harassing Bizzarro by engaging in
surveillance of him in an effort to discover the specifics of his concerted activity with other
security officers. According to the testimony of Bizzarro, on September 4, the day following the
Respondent’s announcement of its “believe or leave” campaign, he noticed Quaglio following
him around the casino floor for approximately an hour while Bizzarro was performing his shift
duties. Bizzarro testified that it was unusual for Quaglio to be that close to a security officer on
the large casino floor, unless Quaglio was performing a “spotlight check” of that officer, which
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
was not happening. It was Bizzarro’s contention that the supervisors normally spend most of
their time in the security office, rather than on the casino floor.
Quaglio denied that he was specifically following Bizzarro on the date in question, or that
he ever surveilled or watched Bizzarro any differently than he did other security officers.
Further, Quaglio testified that his supervisory position requires him to spend the majority of his
work day on the casino floor and not in his office. He estimated that he spends about 60% of
his work day on the casino floor and the remaining 40% in his office doing paperwork.
According to Quaglio, while on the casino floor he walks around ensuring that everything is in
order, and will normally observe the security officers in the performance of their jobs. This
testimony was largely supported by other witnesses.
Security supervisor Charles Willis testified that in the course of his work day, he spends
approximately 70% of his time on the casino floor. Further, security officer Ty Evans testified on
cross-examination that it is not unusual for him to see security supervisors on the casino floor,
walking around, perhaps watching him, or perhaps watching other officers. In my view, this is
simply logical. For the security officers and their supervisors, the “action” is on the casino floor.
This is the place where the officers need to devote their attention, to prevent problems with
“undesirables” from developing, and to quickly ameliorate any such situations that do develop.
Supervisors are needed on the casino floor for the same reason, as well as to observe their
subordinate employees to ensure that they are doing their jobs properly. The security
supervisors, including security director Golebiewski, testified about attending to issues and
problems that developed on the casino floor.
I credit the witnesses who testified that it is common for security supervisors to be
present on the casino floor. I believe that Bizzarro has exaggerated and embellished the
alleged incident with supervisor Quaglio, where he allegedly followed Bizzarro for approximately
one hour on the casino floor, assuming it happened at all. Quaglio denied any attempt to
engage in surveillance of Bizzarro on the casino floor on September 4, or any other date. I
accept that denial. The evidence to the contrary is limited to Bizzarro’s testimony, which when
combined with his claim that supervisors are seldom on the casino floor, is simply unrealistic. At
this early stage in Bizzarro’s protected conduct, prior to his involvement with the Union, I do not
believe there is credible evidence that his conduct had become of particular interest to the
Respondent. Bizzarro has a habit of magnifying his importance to the Respondent, which I do
not believe was always the case, especially at this early stage in the saga.
The evidence offered by counsel for the General Counsel is insufficient to meet the
General Counsel’s burden of proof to establish that Quaglio engaged in unlawful surveillance of
Bizzarro on the casino floor on about September 4. Accordingly, I hereby recommend to the
Board that complaint paragraph 5(d) be dismissed.
B. The Union Activity
Bizzarro testified that because of the various employment related complaints that certain
security officers expressed following the announcement of the Respondent’s “believe or leave”
policy, he took it upon himself to contact various labor unions to determine whether one might
be interested in representing the Respondent’s security officers. He eventually decided on
representation by the Union (SPFPA). Bizzarro obtained union authorization cards and began
approaching officers in late-September with information, fliers, and union authorization cards.
He testified that he ultimately passed out over 100 authorization cards to security officers
working at the Flamingo, O’Sheas, and Bill’s.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
The parties disagree as to the extent of openness with which Bizzarro initially conducted
his union activity. The General Counsel and the Union contend that although Bizzarro openly
shared his support for the Union with fellow security officers, he was initially not open to
management about his union support. To the contrary, the Respondent contends that from the
beginning of the process, Bizzarro was open about his union involvement and that as early as
October 7, the Respondent learned that he was distributing union authorization cards.
I found Bizzarro’s testimony regarding his method of handing out authorization cards
rather confusing, inconsistent, and somewhat difficult to believe. According to his testimony, he
did not pass out authorization cards in the presence of management. When he would approach
a security officer, he typically would not give him or her an authorization card, but, rather, a
business card. He testified that he had recently become a licensed real estate agent and had
business cards printed. Apparently, he would talk to an officer about the process of union
representation, give the officer union literature, and if the officer expressed interest in the union,
Bizzarro would tell the officer to call him on the telephone number printed on his business card.
If subsequently called, he would make arrangements to get an authorization card to the officer.
However, later in his testimony it seemed as if he was acknowledging that at times he would
pass out authorization cards while at the Respondent’s facility. Bizzarro did testify that he would
pass out his business cards to supervisors, but would not engage them in conversations about
the Union. He did not wear a union button or clothing identifying him as organizing on behalf of
the Union, and the Union never provided the Respondent with a letter announcing the names of
its organizers.
Security director Eric Golebiewski testified that he first learned that there was a union
organizing campaign going on at the facility on October 7. Supervisor Quaglio testified that
security officer James Diserio brought him an authorization card in early October and informed
him that Bizzarro “was really pushing this Union thing, and here are the cards that are being
given out to all of the officers.” As noted, the Respondent’s position is that Bizzarro was very
open with his union activity. In any event, it is undisputed that by no later than October 7 the
Respondent was aware that Bizzarro had been distributing union authorization cards, and the
Respondent had actually been given one of the cards by a security officer. There is no dispute
that Bizzarro was the primary union organizer at the facility. He testified that during the time
that the organizing campaign was being conducted, he posted approximately ten union fliers on
a bulletin board located in the Flamingo’s security briefing room.
1. The Pre-Shift Briefing of October 14, 2011
Prior to the start of a security shift, there is customarily a meeting held by management
with the security officers who are about to begin their shift. Such pre-shift briefings are usually
about 15-30 minutes in length, although they may occasionally be longer. During such
meetings, the security supervisors inform the officers about any issues or problems that it is
anticipated they will encounter on the shift and any new policies about which they should be
made aware. As the security director, Eric Golebiewski sometimes attends these briefings and
may even participate in addressing the assembled officers, but typically such meetings are
conducted by less senior supervisors. Often the supervisor conducting the meeting will ask the
assembled officers whether they have any questions to ask, or problems, or issues that they
wish to discuss. Short discussions may then ensue, ending with the officers being released to
begin their shift.
According to the testimony of security supervisor Keith Berberich, a number of security
officers had approached Berberich and complained to him that Golebiewski was too
authoritative with them, and also complained to him about the service sweeps and spotlight
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
procedure that the officers were required to perform. Berberich mentioned these complaints to
Golebiewski and suggested to him that he meet with the officers. Golebiewski testified that he
agreed to do so in an effort to determine why the officers felt that he “did not care about them.”
Thereafter, he attended the 9:00 p.m. pre-shift briefing on October 14.
Preliminarily, I will note that I do not credit Golebiewski’s stated reason for holding this
meeting. It is clear to me, based on the timing of the meeting, which occurred as the union
organizing campaign was gaining momentum, that the real purpose for the meeting was so that
Golebiewski could address that campaign. The length of the meeting and the topics discussed
further establish that the union campaign was the true motivation for Golebiewski’s presence.
The meeting lasted for four hours, which was highly unusual, and it resulted in a
significantly diminished security presence on the casino floor, even delaying the start of the
1:00 a.m. shift, as those security officers were delayed in entering the briefing room. When he
first entered the briefing room, Golebiewski asked the security supervisors to leave the room.
He testified that he started the meeting by telling the officers that he had heard they were
“upset” with him, that they felt he “did not care” about them, and he was there to talk about that.
The principal witnesses who testified about this October 14 pre-shift meeting were
Bizzarro and Golebiewski. Their respective versions differed considerably. According to
Bizzarro, Golebiewski removed a pro-union flier from the bulletin board and went point by point
through the flier trying to disprove the statements made in favor of the Union. He then asked if
any of the security officers wanted to comment about the Union and when he got no response,
he pointed to Bizzarro and asked if Bizzarro had any complaints and why Bizzarro would want a
union. Bizzarro responded that management had been treating the security officers poorly, with
no respect, and was not listening to the officers. According to Bizzarro, other officers then
began to speak up, raising complaints about shortened breaks and spotlight checks.
Bizzarro testified that Golebiewski’s response to the complaints being raised by the
security officers was to indicate that management had been responsive to officers’ complaints.
Allegedly Golebiewski mentioned that he knew there had been a problem with security
supervisor Rick Casali, who he had removed and sent to Harrah’s for retraining, to be replaced
by supervisor Charles Willis, who he said “the officers would really like.” Golebiewski went on to
mention the ways in which he had helped officer Brian Meadows with an absenteeism problem,
helped officer Thomas Willequer with a customer complaint, and helped officer Steve Fox with
an attendance issue. According to Bizzarro, Golebiewski further commented that if there had
been a union contract in effect at the Flamingo, that he would have been forced to strictly
adhere to the contract, with no flexibility, and, so, would not have had the “leeway” to help
Meadows, Willequer, or Fox with their respective problems.
As noted, Golebiewski’s version of this meeting differs significantly from that of Bizzarro.
Although it seems to me that the differences are not so much as to specifically what was said,
but, rather, what was emphasized. Golebiewski testified that he began the meeting by saying
that it was informal and everybody was “free to talk” about the issues that they had with him. He
claims that Bizzarro immediately spoke up and said, “You don’t care about us.” Golebiewski
denied that was so, and he proceeded to give examples of how he had helped Bizzarro. He
mentioned an incident on the casino floor when a prostitute had spit into Bizzarro’s face, and a
further issue where Bizzarro had refused to wear a name badge containing his full last name.
Golebiewski explained that Bizzarro was concerned that with an officer’s full name exposed on
the name badge, an “undesirable,” such as a prostitute, would potentially be able to trace an
officer back to his or her home. Golebiewski informed the officers that after he learned of this
concern, he had changed the nametag policy and was no longer requiring an officer’s entire last
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
name be listed on the tag. According to Golebiewski, Bizzarro mentioned other problems that
he had been having with management, with Golebiewski responding in each case.
Golebiewski testified specifically that he did not ask employees about their views of the
Union, nor did he ask them about their attitudes towards the Union. He denied that he did or
said anything that could suggest to employees that their union activities were under observation.
Further, he denied that he had indicated that the rules would be more strictly enforced if the
facility were organized.
Security officer Thomas Willequer attended the October 14 meeting, and he testified
there were between eight and ten officers present. He supported Bizzarro’s testimony that
Golebiewski began the meeting by asking the assembled officers collectively why they wanted
to join the Union. According to Willequer, Golebiewski then asked each officer the same
question individually, which resulted in only a few officers responding. Willequer claims that
Golebiewski stated that if the Union were to successfully organize the facility, there would be
“no way that he could guarantee that we would be able to keep our jobs.”
Officer Brian Meadows was at the meeting and testified that Golebiewski started it off by
going around the room “to see where we all stood as far as the Union and our concerns…at the
Flamingo and our concerns with our employment….” Golebiewski wanted the individual officers
to “share” their feelings with the collective group. According to Meadows, Golebiewski took
credit for saving the jobs of several officers and said that if the Union were present in the
Flamingo, he would not have been able to do so. Golebiewski also took the opportunity to
announce that supervisor Ricky Casali was going to be transferred and replaced by Charles
Willis. Meadows testified that there had been many officer complaints about Casali and some of
those were discussed at the meeting. He cannot recall whether Golebiewski gave a specific
reason for Casali’s transfer, just that it was going to occur.
The pre-shift meeting on October 14 was four hours long, many matters were discussed,
and, unfortunately, the witnesses each recall matters somewhat differently. However, some
aspects of the meeting were uniformly apparent from the testimony of the witnesses.
It is alleged in paragraph 5(e)(1) of the complaint that Golebiewski created an
impression among the security officers at the meeting that their union activities were under
surveillance by the Respondent. I do not believe that this is accurate. It should have been clear
to all the security officers by the October 14 meeting that management was already aware of the
union organizational campaign. As of October 7 management had a union authorization card,
given to it by a security officer, and had almost immediately posted it on a bulletin board with a
responsive notice cautioning employees regarding the consequences of signing such a card. It
is clear to me, and I assume it was to the gathered security officers, that Golebiewski was
present at the October 14 meeting to further respond to the union campaign. However,
Golebiewski said nothing that would lead the officers to conclude that the Respondent was
spying on them or watching them in an attempt to determine what union activity, if any, in which
they were engaged. It should have been obvious to the security officers that what knowledge
the Respondent had of the union campaign as of October 14 was the result of the rather
transparent efforts of Bizzarro to solicit authorization cards.
Accordingly, I conclude that counsel for the General Counsel has offered insufficient
evidence that as of the pre-shift briefing on October 14 that Golebiewski created an impression
among its employees that their union activities were under surveillance by the Respondent.
Therefore, I shall recommend to the Board that complaint paragraph 5(e)(1) be dismissed.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Paragraph 5(e)(2) of the complaint alleges that at the meeting on October 14,
Golebiewski interrogated the employees about their union membership, activities, and,
sympathies. I agree. Based on the statements that Golebiewski made as he began the
meeting, it should have been obvious that he was present to respond to the union campaign. I
credit the testimony of Bizzarro, Willequer, and Meadows that Golebiewski no sooner requested
that the supervisors leave the room then he asked the security officers both collectively and
individually why they wanted the Union. He was responding to the union flier that he had just
removed from the bulletin board and to the organizing campaign, which the officers and their
supervisors knew was occurring.
Golebiewski’s denial that he asked the officers about their union views or sympathies is
simply not credible. Further, I do not credit a self serving email message purporting to
summarize the meeting of October 14, which Golebiewski prepared the following day and sent
to his superior. (G.C. Ex. 9.) He attempts to minimize his references to the union or his
concerns about the organizing campaign, and, rather, tries to establish that his principal concern
was what complaints the officers had with him personally. Frankly, this defies credulity. The
October 14 meeting was not just another pre-shift briefing, far from it. After entering the room,
Golebiewski took the highly unusual step of asking the line supervisors to leave the room. He
then “held court” for four hours, apparently being willing to sacrifice having an appropriate level
of security on the casino floor. I seriously doubt that Golebiewski would have been willing to do
so simply so that he could find out what complaints the officers had with him personally. Rather,
I believe that he would have gone to such extremes only in an effort to confront the union
campaign, which was at the time gathering momentum.
In determining whether a supervisor’s questions to an employee about his union
activities were coercive under the Act, the Board looks to the “totality of the circumstances.”
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), aff’d. sub nom. HERE Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935 (2000), the Board listed
a number of factors considered in determining whether alleged interrogations under Rossmore
House were coercive. These are referred to as “Bourne factors,” so named because they were
first set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964). These factors include the
background of the parties’ relationship, the nature of the information sought, the identity of the
questioner, the place and method of interrogation, and the truthfulness of the reply.
In the matter at hand, the questioner was Eric Golebiewski, the Respondent’s security
director and its highest ranking security supervisor. He asked the group of security officers how
they felt about the Union, or words to that effect. He initially asked them collectively, but then
when he got few responses, he repeated his inquiry directly asking for individual responses.
Undoubtedly the officers were concerned about giving truthful, candid responses, as many of
them remained silent. From his comments regarding the Union, the officers understood where
Golebiewski stood on the issue. Naturally, some of the officers would be concerned about
upsetting him with a pro-union response. Such questions from Golebiewski would reasonably
tend to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Under such circumstances, I conclude that by Golebiewski’s statements at the pre-
hearing briefing on October 14, 2011, the Respondent has unlawfully interrogated its employees
regarding their union membership, activities, and sympathies. Therefore, it has violated section
8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(2).
Other aspects of Golebiewski’s conduct during the meeting of October 14 are also
alleged to be unlawful, as the General Counsel contends in complaint paragraph 5(e)(3) that he
unlawfully solicited employees’ complaints and grievances, and promised them increased
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment to dissuade those employees from
supporting the Union. While his precise words are somewhat unclear, it is obvious from the
substance and context of the conversation that during the meeting Golebiewski discussed with
the assembled security officers concerns that they had with the Respondent’s management.
The Board has long held that soliciting employee complaints and grievances during a
union organizing campaign contains therein an implied promise to remedy such complaints.
See, e.g., Associated Mills, Inc., 190 NLRB 113 (1971); Swift Produce, Inc., 203 NLRB 360
(1973). Further, the fact that an employer’s representative does not make a commitment to
specifically take corrective action does not diminish the anticipation of a remedy for employee
complaints. Maple Grove Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 775 (2000), citing Capitol EMI Music,
311 NLRB 997 (1993).
In order for the solicitation of grievances to be unlawful, it is not necessary for a union to
have filed a representational petition, but merely for there to be a union organizing campaign in
progress. See, e.g., Curwood Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1147-1148 (2003) enfd. in pertinent part
397 F.3d 548, 553-554 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that a pre-petition announcement and promise to
improve pension benefits violated the Act where the employer was reacting to knowledge of
union activity among its employees). In the matter at hand, as of the meeting of October 14, the
Respondent was aware that the Union was attempting to organize the security officers. As I
have already concluded above, Golebiewski’s reason for conducting this four hour meeting was
to address the security officers’ interest in union representation.
It is important to note that the meeting of October 14 was not the typical 15 minute pre-
shift briefing where a line supervisor would alert the officers as to any developments on the
casino floor, and new policies and procedures, and would routinely close the meeting by asking
whether the officers had any issues or complaints that they wanted to raise. The meeting in
question was very unusual, both as to its length, and because it was conducted by the security
director himself. Whether Golebiewski began the meeting by asking what problems the officers
had with him, or, as others have testified, by asking why the officers wanted a union, the
meeting evolved into a session where complaints were raised, many by Bizzarro, with
Golebiewski responding by indicating what he had done to benefit the officers. Among other
matters, Golebiewski discussed having saved the jobs of officers Meadows, Willequer, and Fox,
which he indicated would not have been possible had the Union organized the facility. Officers
complained about numerous other matters including, shortened breaks, spotlight checks, full
names on name tags, and their difficulties with supervisor Rick Casali.
I am in agreement with counsel for the General Counsel that during the October 14
meeting, in the course of giving an anti-union speech, which included the unlawful interrogation
of employees regarding their union sympathies, Golebiewski also unlawfully solicited employee
complaints and grievances. Through those solicitations, Golebiewski was implicitly promising
the officers increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment for the
purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union. Accordingly, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(3).
Further, in my view, Golebiewski’s statement to the officers that supervisor Casali, with
whom they had difficulties and had raised numerous complaint, was being transferred to a
different facility, and was to be replaced by supervisor Charles Willis, was an unlawful promise
of improved terms and conditions of employment in order to dissuade them from supporting the
Union, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(4). Golebiewski’s conduct constituted a
transparent promise of benefit, as he went so far as to tell the assembled officers that they
would “really like” Willis.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
I reject the Respondent’s defense that the decision to transfer Casali had been made
some time before the October 14 meeting, and was taken as a routine transfer to another
HIFOP property where Casali could receive cross-training. Even assuming such to be true, the
real issue is what the security officers were told and when they were so told. I have credited the
officers who testified that they first heard on October 14 that Casali was to be transferred when
Golebiewski mentioned it in response to complaints raised about Casali, and while he told them
that their new supervisor was to be Willis, somebody that they would “really like.” It was
certainly reasonable for the officers to conclude that Casali was being replaced as a benefit to
them in order to dissuade them from supporting the Union. Such conduct constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(4).10
Before leaving the matter of the October 14 meeting, it is necessary to address the claim
in complaint paragraph 5(e)(5), which alleges that Golebiewski threatened the employees with
more strictly-enforced work rules and job loss if they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative. As noted above, I found that at the pre-shift meeting Golebiewski
mentioned how he had allegedly saved the jobs of officers Meadows, Willequer, and Fox by his
considerate treatment of their alleged infractions of the Respondent’s rules and policies.
Further, Golebiewski indicated that if there had been a union contract in effect at the Flamingo
that he would have had to strictly adhere to that contract with no flexibility, and he would not
have had the “leeway” to assist the officers. Obviously, this comment was meant to suggest to
the officers that if the Union were successful in organizing the facility and subsequently signing
a collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent, that work rules would be strictly
enforced under the terms of that contract and employees who ran afoul of the rules could be
terminated. Golebiewski was saying that under such circumstances, he would not have the
liberty to help them. This was certainly a reasonable interpretation for the assembled officers to
reach upon hearing Golebiewski’s comments.
Once again, it should be noted that Golebiewski’s comments at the October 14 pre-shift
briefing were made shortly after the Respondent learned of the union campaign and just as that
campaign was gathering momentum. It seems to me that those comments were clearly
designed to restrain, coerce, and interfere with the security officers’ right to engage in Section 7
activity. Cf. Carter’s Inc., 339 NLRB 1089, at 1089 fn. 2, 1093 (2003); Cf. Mediplex of
Wethersfield, 320 NLRB 510, 518 (1995). Those comments constituted threats to more strictly
enforce work rules and with a corresponding potential of job loss if the security officers selected
the Union as their collective bargaining representative. Accordingly, I find that they constituted
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(5).
2. The “Bizarre” Flier
In an effort to counter pro-union fliers, the Respondent produced a series of anti-union
fliers, which were posted on the Respondent’s bulletin boards and distributed directly to security

10 It should be noted that I do not find, as also alleged in complaint paragraph 5(e)(4), that
on October 14, Golebiewski informed the officers that they would no longer be required to
perform service sweeps. The record evidence is to the contrary, as employees continued to be
required to perform service sweeps after October 14. Service sweeps are interactions between
security officers and customers, which are critically important to the Respondent in its efforts to
improve its customer service scores. The only change in the Respondent’s past practice
occurred after the October 14 meeting, and was limited to the officers no longer having to call in
to dispatch and report their service sweeps.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
officers. One of those fliers was distributed to officers at a pre-shift meeting held several days
after the four hour meeting, which means that the flier would have been distributed on
approximately October 16, 2011. The General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraph 5(f)(1)
that by that printed communication the Respondent created the impression among its
employees that their union activities were under surveillance. I agree.
As I have already concluded, while Francis Bizzarro was the primary union organizer
and distributor of authorization cards, such was an “open secret.” Bizzarro did not distribute
authorization cards in the presence of supervisors. However, his method of distributing cards,
as discussed in detail earlier in this decision, was such that it quickly became well known among
both employees and management that he was doing so. The Respondent’s supervisory
witnesses acknowledge knowing as much by no later than October 7, when informed by a
security officer.
The anti-union flier distributed on about October 16 was remarkable for only one reason.
In the middle of this flier, which portrays the Union in a negative way, in the middle of a
sentence, the word “BIZARRE” appears in capital letters, where the other words in the sentence
are in normal lower case. (G.C. Ex. 6.) The word certainly stands out from the rest of the
sentence, which in whole reads as follows: “We realize it’s a pretty BIZARRE situation, but it
looks like a small group is trying to convince all of you that you need to sign up (without asking
questions) for a union that has absolutely no track record for achieving ‘better’ or ‘more’ for its
dues-paying members.” When asked why this one word in the sentence appeared in capital
letters, the Respondent’s security director, Eric Golebiewski, indicated that he did not know, as
he did not prepare the flier and was not sure who did. Counsel for the Respondent states in his
post-hearing brief that the use of the word BIZARRE in capital letters was appropriate in its
context, was not intended to draw attention to Francis Bizzarro, and was nothing more than an
innocent coincidence. This contention I find preposterous.
It defies logic to believe that this “play on words” was simply a coincidence. Rather, it
seems very obvious that the writer of the flier intended for the readers to understand the
connection that was being made between the word “BIZARRE” in capital letters and the primary
union organizer, Francis Bizzarro. It is highly doubtful that any security officer who read the flier
would not have known that the reference was to Francis Bizzarro. However, the legal question
raised by the complaint is whether identifying Bizzarro in this way created an impression among
the Respondent’s employees that their union activities were under surveillance. I believe that it
did.
While it may have been generally known by the security officers that Bizzarro was the
primary union organizer, seeing his name used and convoluted in this way would have served to
alert those employees that the Respondent was aware of Bizzarro’s union activities and was
targeting him and publicly ridiculing him for those activities. It would serve as a warning that
having the ability to engage in surveillance of Bizzarro’s union activity, the Respondent was
certainly capable of doing the same to other union supporters.
The test for whether an employer creates an unlawful impression of surveillance is
whether, under the circumstances, an employee could reasonably conclude that his union
activities are being monitored. Mountain Steel Inc., 326 NLRB 787 (1998), enfd. 8 Fed. Appx.
180 (4th Cir. 2001). It seems to me that in the case at hand, that was the logical, and certainly
reasonable, conclusion that security officers would reach upon seeing the play on words using
Bizzarro’s name in the flier. The Board has held that under the Act “[e]mployees should not
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
have to fear that ‘members of management are peering over their shoulders, taking note of who
is involved in union activities, and in what particular ways.’” Conley Trucking, 349 NLRB 308
(2007), quoting Fred’k Wallace & Sons, Inc., 331 NLRB 914 (2000).
I conclude that the play on words using Bizzarro’s name in the flier created an
impression among the security officers that their union activities might be under surveillance by
the Respondent. This certainly had the potential to interfere with their exercise of Section 7
rights. Therefore, I conclude that by this conduct the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, as alleged in paragraph 5(f)(1) of the complaint.
The General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraph 5(f)(2) that the Respondent
concomitantly threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals for engaging in union activity
when it distributed the flier containing the play on words using Bizzarro’s name. Certainly,
holding an employee up to ridicule, as was done to Bizzarro by the reference to his name in the
flier, was a personally demeaning action taken by the Respondent against a union supporter
because of his union activities. While perhaps this did not constitute a typical threat, it would
certainly have the ability to interfere with, coerce or restrain employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. An employee would reasonably think twice before engaging in union activity
when the result might be having the Respondent single out and hold that employee up to public
ridicule. Thus, such an action by an employer does for all practical purposes result in an
infringement of employee rights under the Act. Accordingly, I conclude that counsel for the
General Counsel has met his burden and established a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as
alleged in complaint paragraph 5(f)(2).
3. Conversation between Golebiewski and Rudy
It is alleged in complaint paragraph 5(g)(1) that about December 2, 2011, Golebiewski
threatened an employee with discipline if the security officers selected the Union as their
collective bargaining representative. The employee referenced is security officer Christopher
Rudy, and while both Rudy and Golebiewski recalled the conversation, their versions of the
incident are somewhat different. This conversation occurred either on the casino floor or in the
lobby of the hotel, but the precise location is not significant.
According to Rudy, in late November, he was in the hotel lobby talking to guests and “a
cigarette girl.” Golebiewski came up to him, put his hand on Rudy’s shoulder and said, “If this
was a union area, I would have to write you up.” Rudy responded, “I’m glad I’m not getting
written up.” Rudy testified that there is no rule against talking with other employees, only that
the security officers are not to “pool together.”
Golebiewski placed the incident in December. He testified that while walking through the
lobby of the hotel, he observed Rudy “talking to his girlfriend, the cigarette girl.” According to
Golebiewski, he knew that she was Rudy’s girlfriend as he had previously observed them
kissing and embracing. As he approached Rudy, Golebiewski noticed him talking with the
cigarette girl and “touching her hair.” He also noticed “a particular pair of customers that were
standing, waiting for [Rudy] to get done with his conversation with the cigarette girl.” As Rudy
had not seen him approach, Golebiewski tapped him on the shoulder and said very quietly, “If
there was a union contract it would have language in it about guest service.” According to
Golebiewski, he then “nudged” his eyes towards the customers, which was when Rudy first
noticed customers waiting for him. Rudy is said to have responded, “Good thing there’s no
contract.”
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
The two versions of the conversation are substantively rather similar. Rudy was on his
security officer rounds, but was talking with the cigarette girl. Golebiewski observed this and
was concerned that Rudy was distracted from doing his job because Rudy was talking with the
cigarette girl, and/or because he was not servicing customers waiting to talk with him.
Golebiewski then referenced the union contract and the language it would contain covering such
a situation.
If Golebiewski had merely told Rudy to get back to work, or words to that effect, there
would be no issue here. However, instead he referred to a potential union contract and what
impact contractual language would have on such a situation. Whether Rudy’s version is more
accurate and Golebiewski mentioned having to “write him up” in such a situation, or whether
Golebiewski said something more generic, such as mentioning “guest services language,” there
was the implicit notice that under a union contract Golebiewski would have been required to
take some disciplinary action against Rudy. In fact, that was precisely the way Rudy
understood the comment, as he responded that he was glad that was not going to happen, or
words to that effect. Rudy’s response was certainly reasonable under the circumstances.
There is no mystery here. What Golebiewski was saying to Rudy was that he would no
longer be able to be lenient with him regarding discipline if the Union were successful in
organizing the facility and getting a contract. This was a threat of a changed condition of
employment in which past leniency would be eliminated by the existence of a union contract,
with Golebiewski making no reference to changes based on the collective bargaining process.11
Such a statement by Golebiewski had the effect of interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Cf. Carter’s Inc., supra; Cf. Mediplex of
Wethersfield, supra. It constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
complaint paragraph 5(g)(1).
Concomitantly, the General Counsel alleged in complaint paragraph 5(g)(2) that the
statements Golebiewski made to Rudy also constituted the promulgation and enforcement of an
overly-broad and discriminatory work rule prohibiting the Respondent’s employees from talking
to co-workers because of their union activities. However, I do not reach such a conclusion.
The most that can be said about Golebiewski trying to limit the conservation that Rudy
was having with the cigarette girl was that while on duty Rudy should not be conversing with co-
workers, be that person a girlfriend or not, while customers were waiting to speak with him.
There was absolutely no evidence that this was an attempt to promulgate a rule of any kind,
and, even more to the point, no evidence that by his statements Golebiewski was trying to limit
the union or protected concerted activity of the Respondent’s employees. Further, it would have
been unreasonable for either Rudy or the cigarette girl to have reached such a conclusion.
The Respondent had the right to expect that while on his work shift Rudy would be
performing the security duties of walking his rounds and interacting with customers. He was not
told that he could not talk with the cigarette girl, but merely reminded that he was not performing
his duties while standing in the facility talking as customers were waiting to be serviced. No rule
was promulgated or enforced and no restrictions were being placed on union or protected
concerted activity. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Board dismiss complaint paragraph
5(g)(2).

11 Golebiewski testified about a conversation that he had with Rudy some two weeks earlier
where they had discussed the collective bargaining process. However, I see no connection
between these two conversations that were so far apart.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
4. Confrontation between Bizzarro and Baker
As I mentioned earlier in this decision, Francis Bizzarro and Paul Baker, the HIFOB and
Respondent’s vice-president of operations and assistant general manager, had been friends
before Bizzarro came to work for the Respondent. Baker had in fact given Bizzarro a reference
for the security officer position, and it is highly likely that a reference from such a high ranking
official of the Respondent would have been very helpful to Bizzarro is securing a position as a
security officer. The men’s wives had been friends and Yoga devotees before the husbands
became friendly. While the degree of friendship between Bizzarro and Baker is somewhat
unclear, there is no doubt that they were socially acquainted, the two couples having spent time
together before Bizzarro’s employment.
On a day in mid-January of 2012, Bizzarro and Baker had a series of interactions, more
accurately described as confrontations, at the Respondent’s facility. Not surprisingly, the two
men differ as to precisely what was said during these incidents. Baker testified that while
leaving work on that day, he had occasion to see Bizzarro arriving at work. According to
Bizzarro, Baker was waiting for him as Bizzarro passed through an underground hallway from
the parking garage on his way to work.
The men exchanged greetings, and Bizzarro claims that in response to the question as
to how he was doing, Baker responded, “not so well.” Bizzarro testified that Baker told him that
he was upset and felt “betrayed” as Bizzarro had tried to bring the Union into the facility.
According to Bizzarro, Baker was screaming at him, and so he walked away and went to the
time clock to clock in. Baker followed him to the time clock and continued to yell at Bizzarro,
again saying that Bizzarro had “betrayed” him, and asked why Bizzarro had failed to follow the
“chain of command.” Baker is alleged to have said that his job had been “placed in jeopardy” by
what Bizzarro had done. Further, according to Bizzarro, Baker stated that all Bizzarro’s issues
had been taken care of by management, questioned why Bizzarro had not gone to human
resources with his complaints, and asked how Bizzarro could get the Union involved with the
security officers.
Bizzarro testified that he told Baker that it wasn’t anything personal against him, just that
the security officers wanted representation. He asked why Baker was so upset with him, as this
was just what the security officers wanted. Further, he told Baker that the security officers had
enough of management’s treatment, and that they had been treated poorly and with no respect.
According to Bizzarro, Baker seemed very frustrated, was red in the face, very angry, and
continued to yell at him, and was in fact screaming. Bizzarro contends that again he tried to
walk away from Baker, saying that he had to get his uniform and go to work. Bizzarro described
the incident as “quite the scene.”
However, Baker described the incident somewhat differently. According to Baker, he
encountered Bizzarro at about 9:00 p.m. as Baker was leaving work for the day. The two men
exchanged hellos, after which Baker said, “I just want to tell you that, you know, I’m just very
disappointed that all this has occurred and you just didn’t come to me if there was a problem,
you know, in the organization.” Baker claims that Bizzarro then simply walked away. However,
after a short while Baker proceeded on this way towards the parking garage, at which point,
near the time clock, he again encountered Bizzarro.
Baker testified that he asked Bizzarro why he had walked away while they were having a
conversation. Baker then said, “I just want to reiterate that I feel personally pretty-just upset and
disappointed that you didn’t come to me. You know, we have a relationship, you know. I
helped facilitate you getting a job with a referral, especially when you were having the troubling
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
time that you were having, basically an emotional breakdown.” Bizzarro responded by denying
that he was having an emotional breakdown, to which Baker said that Bizzarro’s wife had given
that information to Baker’s wife.
According to Baker, he then said, “You know Francis, I just feel like there’s better Unions
out there if you look at the research.” Bizzarro responded by saying that Baker did not know
anything, as he just sits up in his office all day. Baker replied, “I’m out on the floor more than
you know, more than you are.” According to Baker, Bizzarro then said, “This customer service
stuff is going to get people fired.” Baker testified that he then responded as follows: “This
customer service stuff hasn’t gotten anybody fired. In fact, none of this, even this union activity,
nobody will get fired for wanting to be involved in the organization effort here. In fact, there will
be no retaliation associated with any union organization or activity here.” The conversation
ended when Baker repeated that he “felt really disappointed” that Bizzarro had not “come to
[him] first.”
I did not find Baker to be a credible witness. When testifying he seemed rather nervous,
more so than would be expected for a person with his lofty position with the Respondent.
Although he testified that considering their past friendship, he was disappointed that Bizzarro
had not gone to him first with his complaints, I got the distinct impression that he was trying not
to show the depth of his emotional feelings. He appeared to have his emotions just barely
controlled, and I believe that he really felt deeply betrayed by Bizzarro’s union activity. Further, I
found much of his testimony self serving and unrealistic, especially his contention that he
specifically told Bizzarro that “nobody will get fired for wanting to be involved in the organization
effort here.”
As I noted earlier in this decision, while I found Bizzarro generally credible, he did have a
tendency to exaggerate and embellish so as to put himself in the best possible light. In any
event, in comparing the two versions of the conversation in question, I believe that Bizzarro’s
version was inherently more credible than that told by Baker. Bizzarro’s story had the ring of
authenticity to it, while Baker’s story did not. Accordingly, I will credit the version of the
conversation told by Bizzarro, including his claim that Baker was red in the face, screaming at
him, and said that Bizzarro’s actions had placed his [Baker’s] job “in jeopardy,” and that Bizzarro
had “betrayed” him.
Complaint paragraph 5(h)(1) alleges that the Respondent, by Paul Baker, threatened its
employees by informing them that they were disloyal because employees supported the Union
and engaged in union activities. Having found Bizzarro’s version of the conversation credible, I
conclude that during that conversation Baker said that Bizzarro had “betrayed” him and placed
Baker’s job “in jeopardy” by his union activities. It was certainly reasonable for Bizzarro to
conclude that in Baker’s eyes he was a disloyal employee for having engaged in union activities.
Further, an employee would reasonably assume that disloyal employees get fired. As the Board
has long held, “The test of whether a statement is unlawful is whether the words could
reasonably be construed as coercive, whether or not that is the only reasonable construction.”
Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 303-304 (2003).
An employer has been found to violate the Act with comments about “loyalty.” E.L.C.
Electric, Inc., 344 NLRB 1200, 1200 fn.3 (2005) (affirming the administrative law judge’s finding
of a violation for telling an employee it would try to keep its “loyal employees”); Hialeah Hospital,
343 NLRB 391 (2004) (finding the employer’s representative violated the Act “by telling the
employees that he felt ‘betrayed’ and ‘stabbed in the back’ because they had contacted the
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
Union. Those statements conveyed to the employees the message that engaging in union
activity, a protected statutory right, was tantamount to employee disloyalty, and implicitly
threatened them with unspecified reprisals.”)
Accordingly, I conclude that by his statements to Bizzarro in mid-January of 2012, Baker
had threatened him with termination because of his union sympathies and activities. By such
conduct, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint
paragraph 5(h)(1).
It is further alleged in complaint paragraph 5(h)(2) that during that same conversation,
Baker threatened Bizzarro with loss of benefits as the Respondent would no longer resolve
employee complaints because the employees had supported the Union and engaged in union
activities. However, even after crediting Bizzarro’s version of the conversation with Baker, I do
not believe that it would have been reasonable for Bizzarro to have reached such a conclusion.
I conclude that Baker told Bizzarro that all his problems had been taken care of through
management, and, so, he should have followed the “chain of command,” rather than having
gone to the Union. Still, counsel for the General Counsel’s contention that Bizzarro would have
reasonably understood this to mean that because the employees had sought representation
from the Union that the Respondent would no longer resolve their complaints is a leap of logic
too great to reasonably make. I do not believe that Bizzarro or other security officers would
have reasonably reached such a conclusion. Therefore, I shall recommend to the Board that
complaint paragraph 5(h)(2) be dismissed.
The General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraph 5(h)(3) that during the
conversation between Baker and Bizzarro, Baker promulgated and enforced an overly-broad
and discriminatory rule that the security officers had to follow the chain of command to resolve
their complaints. As noted, I have concluded that Baker criticized Bizzarro for failing to follow
the chain of command and take his complaints to the human resource department, but instead
to have sought union representation. I believe that for all practical purposes Baker was
promulgating a rule requiring employees to bring complaints through the human resource
department and through the chain of command. Further, he was implicitly threatening Bizzarro
with disciplinary action for failing to do so, but instead for having contacted the Union.
The promulgation of such a rule would reasonably be construed by employees as
prohibiting Section 7 activity. It would, therefore, chill those employees’ right to organize on
behalf of the Union, go to the Union with their complaints, or engage in other protected
concerted activity. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646-647 (2004); See
Northeastern Land Services, Ltd., 352 NLRB 744 (2009) (applying the Board’s standard in
Lutheran Heritage Village, supra at 647); Lafayette Park Hotel, supra. Accordingly, I conclude
that the statement attributed to Baker constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as
alleged in complaint paragraph 5(h)(3).
The General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraph 5(h)(4) that during the
conversation in mid-January, Baker threatened employees with discharge because they
supported the Union and engaged in union activities. In his post-hearing brief, counsel for the
General Counsel does not distinguish this allegation from that contained in complaint paragraph
5(h)(1), which mentions Baker threatening employees with discipline by informing them that they
were disloyal because they supported the Union and engaged in union activity. In examining
the statements made by Baker in his conversation with Bizzarro, I am not aware of any
language threatening Bizzarro beyond that language that I have already considered and found
unlawful. According, I believe that this allegation is simply a repetition of that allegation earlier
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
considered. Therefore, I shall recommend to the Board that complaint paragraph 5(h)(4) be
dismissed.
5. Willis Creates the Impression of Surveillance
Complaint paragraph 5(i) alleges that on January 15, 2012, the Respondent through
supervisor Charles Willis, by describing employees who supported the Union and engaged in
union activities, created an impression among its employees that their union activities were
under surveillance. In his post-hearing brief, counsel for the General Counsel sets forth a
number of incidents that he contends establish that the actions of various supervisors, including
Willis, were intended to leave the security officers with the impression that the Respondent was
aware of Bizzarro’s union activity.
Former security officer Brian Meadows testified that in mid-December of 2011, at a pre-
shift briefing an officer asked supervisor Keith Berberich a question, which he answered by
saying, “I don’t know the answer to that question, you’ll have to ask Francis that question.”
According to Meadows, Bizzarro got very offended and asked Berberich, “Why are you pointing
at me?” Allegedly, Berberich turned bright red, put his hands up and said, “Well, I thought you
were the mister know it all guy about the Union.”
Security officer Ty Evans testified that in mid-January of 2012, he was with supervisor
Charles Willis outside the briefing room when Willis began to talk about the matters that he was
going to discuss once the briefing started. According to Evans, Willis said that he was “tired of
being told what he could and couldn’t say about the union issue.” Allegedly, Willis went on to
say that “the instigator of the union situation had been given a favor and given the job that he
had and, as a result of family issues, he was having problems at home and he was given a favor
with his job.” It is counsel for the General Counsel’s contention that this was a reference to
Bizzarro by Willis, who knew from Barker that Barker had given Bizzarro a job referral because
the men were friends and because Bizzarro had been having problems at home.
Willis testified and while I found his testimony very confusing and difficult to follow, he
seemed to deny that he had told Evans or any security officer that Bizzarro had gotten his job
through his friendship with Baker. Willis apparently only found out that Bizzarro and Baker had
been friends when several days earlier he had overheard part of the conversation between
Bizzarro and Baker on January 13. While Wills seems to recall a conversation with Evans prior
to a briefing, he recalls the Union coming up in the conversation only in regards to the contract
that the Union had to represent security guards at the Aquarius Casino and Hotel in Laughlin,
Nevada. I did not believe Willis’ denial, and I found his testimony concerning this incident very
disjointed, self serving, and implausible. On the other hand, I found Evans’ testimony coherent,
plausible, and, overall, credible.
Further, security officer Christopher Rudy testified that in late January, 2012, at a pre-
shift briefing, Willis asked, “Do you really want a guy who was juiced in12 by upper management
to represent you in this cause,” referring to Bizzarro and the Union. As noted, Willis denied ever
making such a statement, but, for the reasons given, I do not accept his denial, and, rather,
credit Rudy.

12 I will take administrative notice that the term “juiced” is a colloquial expression meaning
having or using influence to get some benefit.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
Based on the credible testimony of Evans and Rudy, I am of the view that in January of
2012, Willis made several comments to security officers regarding an unnamed officer that Willis
described as the “instigator of the union situation” who was given his job as a “favor” because
he had family problems, and also as somebody trying to represent the employees who got his
job because he was “juiced in.” It would have been obvious to the security officers who heard
the remarks that Willis was referencing Bizzarro.13 While I have found that it was at least an
“open secret” that Bizzarro was the chief union organizer, Bizzarro had not directly represented
himself to management as such. Willis’ remarks were designed to single Bizzarro out as the
union organizer and to disparage him. This conduct would likely leave the security officers with
the impression that Bizzarro’s union activities were under surveillance by management.
As was mentioned earlier, the test for whether an employer creates an unlawful
impression of surveillance is whether, under the circumstances, an employee could reasonably
conclude that his union activities are being monitored. Mountaineer Steel Inc., supra. By his
comments, Willis was letting the security officers know that management was aware of
Bizzarro’s union activities, and by those derogatory references, Willis was also telling the
officers that management was none too happy with Bizzarro’s activities. The security officers
should not have to fear that “members of management are peering over their shoulders, taking
note of who is involved in union activities and in what particular ways.” Conley Trucking, supra,
quoting Fred’k Wallace & Son, Inc., supra.
Willis’ comments would reasonably chill the Section 7 activities of the security officers by
causing them to be apprehensive that if they engaged in union activities the Respondent would
be monitoring such activities as it appeared it had been doing with Bizzarro’s activities.
Accordingly, I conclude that Willis’ comments constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(i).
6. Request That Security Officers Take Voluntary Time Off
The General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraph 5(j) that about January 19, 2012,
the Respondent, by Keith Berberich, threatened its employees with layoffs because they
engaged in union activities. It is undisputed that the Respondent had a past practice of
requiring security officers who desired to take time off from work to make such a request of
management two weeks in advance. A number of security officers testified that in December of
2011 or January of 2012, they were told by supervisors, including Berberich and Willis, that the
Respondent was trying to cut costs, and it would be appreciated if officers who wanted to take
unpaid time off from work would do so, and that in that event they could take the time off without
having to give two weeks advance notice. The officers were further told that such voluntary time
off could avert possible layoffs, and that officers who requested time off would be considered
“team players.” While the Respondent does not deny that its supervisors encouraged the
security officers to take voluntary time off, it argues that this was something that was being
encouraged throughout the Respondent’s various departments and was totally unrelated to the
organizing campaign in the security department.
The available evidence strongly suggests that an effort to get employees to take
voluntary time off was instituted company-wide and was not restricted to just the Respondent’s
security department. Further, there is no credible, probative evidence to establish that the effort

13 It appears that Keith Berberich’s remark in December of 2011 also referenced Bizzarro.
However, this incident is not alleged in the complaint to constitute an unlawful impression of
surveillance. Therefore, I will not deal with it further.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
was in any way related to the attempt to organize the security officers. Security officer Willequer
testified that in the December/January time frame, Berberich asked at a pre-shift briefing
whether anybody wanted to take time off without pay. Berberich indicated that “Caesar’s
Entertainment had overspent their profit margin and was trying to make some of that up by
asking the officers to take time off without pay.” According to Willequer, Berberich added that
“the rest of the departments would be asking their people in about two or three months later on
down the road to do that.” Willequer clearly testified that Berberich indicated the
encouragement to take time off was related to “budgetary matters” at Caesar’s Entertainment,
and that no connection was made to the union organizational campaign.
Berberich’s unrebutted testimony was that in the 19 years that he had worked in the
Flamingo there had been slow periods when officers had been asked if they would like to take
extra time off, but that they were not forced to do so. During such slow seasons, all
departments are impacted, with Berberich mentioning the food and beverage and housekeeping
departments. When specifically asked during direct examination by counsel for the Respondent
whether the solicitation to the security officers of unpaid leave was in any way connected to their
union activities, Berberich credibly testified, “It happens every year, no connection sir.”
There is simply no credible evidence connecting a request that security officers consider
taking unpaid leave with their union activities. No individual security officers were singled out
and none were required to take leave. It appears that the request under review was company-
wide and not limited to the Respondent’s security department. As counsel for the General
Counsel has failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish a violation of the Act, I shall
recommend to the Board that complaint paragraph 5(j) be dismissed.
7. Close Supervision of Bizzarro
Complaint paragraph 5(k) alleges that on about January 21, 2012, the Respondent,
through Paul Baker, more closely supervised Bizzarro because of his support for the Union.
According to the testimony of Francis Bizzarro, on January 21, 2012, which was approximately
a week after the confrontation with Paul Baker near the time clock, he was working in the
Margaritaville Casino when Baker approached him and asked if he was “on post.” Bizzarro
responded that he was in the Margaritaville Casino, which was his post, so “yes,” he was on
post. He then observed Baker making a phone call. Apparently at about that same time,
Bizzarro needed to waive supervisor Willis over for help with an “undesirable.” After the
undesirable was removed from the property, Bizzarro asked Willis why he had been in the area.
Willis allegedly said that he was in the area because he had received a phone call from Baker
and knew that the two men had just had a conversation. Bizzarro testified that he explained his
recent conversation with Baker to Willis, who then responded that Bizzarro “shouldn’t piss off
the vice president of operations.” Willis then left the area.
In his post-hearing brief, counsel for the General Counsel contends that Baker’s
questioning of Bizzarro as to whether he was on his post and the follow up presence of Willis in
the area establishes that management was more closely supervising Bizzarro because of his
union activities. However, Baker and Willis tell a somewhat different story than Bizzarro.
Baker credibly testified that he spends a significant amount of time daily doing a
“walkabout” around the properties that he supervises. During such a walk around in January
2012 in the Margaritaville Casino, he observed Bizzarro and another security officer standing
together. He asked both officers whether this was their post. They answered in the affirmative,
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
to which Baker responded, “Make sure you walk around and interact with guests out here on the
floor.” Baker then walked away. He testified that he did not call Willis during this walk around,
and he was not intoxicated.
Willis also contradicts Bizzarro, testifying that he was making his rounds through the
Margaritaville Casino when Bizzarro waived him over. According to Willis, Bizzarro told him that
Baker had recently approached him and that Baker was “intoxicated and belligerent” and had
told him that he shouldn’t be standing around, but needed to be patrolling his area. Willis
denied telling Bizzarro that he had recently spoken with Baker and denied that he told Bizzarro
that he should not “piss off” Baker. Willis testified that Bizzarro’s complaints about Baker were
“above my pay grade,” and so he immediately passed the information on to security director
Golebiewski. By his pay grade remark, Willis was obviously saying that a complaint that Baker,
HIFOB and the Respondent’s vice-president of operations and assistant general manager, was
intoxicated was potentially such a sensitive matter that it needed to go up the chain of command
to those in the organization who had more authority than he had.
I believe this is one of those instances where Bizzarro has exaggerated and embellished
his testimony. Obviously, there was some conversation between Bizzarro and Baker, and
subsequently between Bizzarro and Willis. I believe that Willis’ testimony is more inherently
plausible, and, therefore, I credit specifically his denial that he had a phone conversation with
Baker that precipitated his appearance in the Margaritaville Casino. Further, both Baker and
Willis credibly testified that they spend considerable time making rounds through the properties
that they supervise. That is only logical. Therefore, regardless of the words spoken between
Bizzarro and Baker and then between Bizzarro and Willis, there is insufficient evidence that
either Baker or Willis were specifically observing Bizzarro, or that they were more closely
supervising him because of his union or other protected conduct.
Bizzarro is highly suspicious of the Respondent’s actions towards him. From the
findings that I have made, it appears that there is some good reason for him to be so,
specifically regarding his union and protected concerted activities. However, I do not believe
this is one of those instances. Accordingly, I shall recommend to the Board that complaint
paragraph 5(k) be dismissed.
8. The Respondent’s Bulletin Boards
It is alleged in complaint paragraph 5(l) that since October 2011, the Respondent has
discriminatorily restricted security officer employees’ access to the Respondent’s bulletin boards
in the pre-shift briefing room because they were engaged in union and other protected
concerted activities.14 However, I found the evidence offered by the General Counsel’s
witnesses to be very confusing regarding the number of bulletin boards, the location of those
bulletin boards, and the general availability of those bulletin boards.

14 At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend
the complaint by filing a Notice of Intent to Amend Consolidated Complaint. That motion sought
to add paragraphs 5(l), (m), and (n) to the complaint. (G.C. Ex. 1(q)) I permitted the proposed
amendment over counsel for the Respondent’s objection because the allegations in the
proposed amendment were closely related by substance and time to the other allegations in the
complaint, and because I determined that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the
Respondent in the presentation of its case.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
All witnesses seem to agree that there are three bulletin boards in the immediate vicinity
of the pre-shift briefing room used by the security officers. It appears that one bulletin board is
within the room, a second just outside the room near the time clock, and a third some small
distance away. According to the testimony of security officer Rudy, the board in the briefing
room is on the “back wall,” the second board is outside the room “to your right,” and the third is
outside the room, “to your left.” He testified that a locked “glass case” was placed around the
second board in December of 2011, “just before New Year’s.” Rudy claims that since that time
he has seen anti-union fliers posted on the locked bulletin board, but no pro-union fliers. The
third bulletin board, which is also outside the room remains unlocked and contains no postings
regarding the Union, in favor of or against. Only work related matters are posted on this board.
It appears from counsel for the General Counsel’s post-hearing brief that the General
Counsel is complaining that while the board in the briefing room remained available for the
posting of pro-union materials, such materials were frequently subject to being summarily
removed and/or defaced. Further, he complains that the second board, which was placed under
a locked glass case, is no longer available for the posting of pro-union materials.
It is undisputed that non-work related information has traditionally been posted on the
bulletin board inside the briefing room, including fantasy football, birthday fliers, and personal
items for sale. A number of security officers, including Bizzarro, testified that pro-union fliers
were placed on this board. However, they complain that in short order the fliers were either
removed or altered with negative writings. It is important to note that neither Bizzarro nor any
other witness was able to testify as to who was tampering with the pro-union fliers, and no
evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent was behind such tampering. Bizzarro
testified that over the course of time, he posted about ten union fliers on this board. Although
he did not specifically say so, the implication was that all were tampered with at some time after
posting. Bizzarro does acknowledge that in one instance where a flier was removed, he went to
a security supervisor, Janice Miller, and asked for permission to make a copy, presumably on
the Respondent’s equipment, and to repost the flier. He was given that permission.
In my view, counsel for the General Counsel has failed to establish that the Respondent
was somehow responsible for tampering with the pro-union fliers posted on the bulletin board in
the briefing room. There is no evidence that management removed union materials or
authorized their removal. Holly Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 274 (1993) (“There is no evidence
that the Respondents knew about the union notices, removed them, or authorized their removal.
Under the circumstances, we reverse the judge and find that the Respondents did not unlawfully
remove union literature from the bulletin boards.”)
It is unclear to me whether the bulletin board outside the briefing room was available for
the posting of union materials prior to the time that the glass cover was placed over it. After that
time, it was apparently not available for the posting of union materials, as it was locked and the
security officers did not have a key. Bizzarro testified that after the cover went on, postings on
that board were limited to business matters and to anti-union materials. Further, he testified that
after the glass cover was placed on the board, he requested permission several times from
supervisor Cedric Johnson to post pro-union materials on this board. However, he never
received permission.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that: because the Union’s materials were
tampered with when posted on the bulletin board in the briefing room; and because the Union’s
materials could not be posted on the board with the locked glass case; and because the
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
Respondent was able to post anti-union materials, which were not tampered with, on both the
bulletin board in the briefing room and the one under glass, that this constitutes an unlawful
discriminatory restriction based on union activity. I disagree.
The bulletin board in the briefing room, where the security guards regularly congregated,
was available for the posting of pro-union materials. Such materials were in fact frequently
posted there. As I have already concluded, there is no evidence that the Respondent was
responsible for the tampering with such materials. There is also no evidence that Bizzarro or
other officers were in any way limited in the number of materials that they could post on this
board, and they were able to replace materials that were either removed or defaced. By making
this board available for the posting of pro-union materials, the Respondent was satisfying its
obligation under the act not to discriminate on the basis of union activity. See Central Vermont
Hospital, 288 NLRB 514 fn. 2 (1988).
In my view, the Respondent was not obligated to make a second bulletin board, which
was under a locked glass case, also available for the posting of union materials. The evidence
does not establish that this board was used for the posting of pro-union materials even prior to
the placement on the board of that locked case.15 Therefore, counsel the General Counsel has
failed to offer sufficient evidence that the Respondent’s actions discriminatorily restricted
security officer access to posting information on its bulletin boards because those officers were
engaged in union and other concerted activity. Accordingly, I shall recommend to the Board
that complaint paragraph 5(l) be dismissed.
9. Creating the Impression of Surveillance on October 7, 2011
Complaint paragraph 5(m) alleges that on about October 7, 2011, the Respondent, by its
agents, in its pre-shift briefing room, created an impression among its employees that their
union and concerted activities were under surveillance by the Respondent. The facts
surrounding this allegation are not in dispute. Within the first week that Bizzarro was distributing
union authorization cards, a security officer gave management a blank card and identified
Bizzarro as the chief union organizer. Immediately thereafter, the Respondent prepared an anti-
union flier containing a copy of the union authorization card, with a circle drawn around the
place for an employee to sign, and an admonition regarding signing. This anti-union flier was
distributed at the pre-shift briefing on October 7. Various security officers testified that the flier
was unaccompanied by any explanation from management as to how the card was obtained.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues in his post-hearing brief that as the
organizational campaign was in its infancy, where it was most vulnerable to threats and the
impression of surveillance, the distribution of copies of blank authorization cards, without
explanation of how they were obtained by management, would reasonably give employees the
impression that the Respondent was watching their union activity. Cf. Camaco Lorain Mfg.
Plant, 356 NLRB No. 143 (2011) at slip op. 2-3. I agree.
As I have said a number of times, Bizzarro’s involvement in the campaign became an
“open secret.” Still, there is nothing in the record evidence to suggest that individual
authorization card signers did so openly, or that they wanted the Respondent to be aware of

15 It should be noted that while the complaint allegation in paragraph 5(l) states that the
unfair labor practice has been occurring since about October 2011, the locked case was not
placed on the bulletin board outside the briefing room until late December of 2011.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
29
their involvement in the campaign. As management gave no explanation as how it came to
possess a blank union card, security officers might reasonably have feared that the Respondent
was spying on their union activity. Mountaineer Steel Inc., supra. Employees have the right to
be free of the concern that management is peering over their shoulders to watch their protected
activity. Conley Trucking, supra, quoting Fred’k Wallace & Son, Inc., supra. Such conduct by
the Respondent could certainly chill the willingness of employees to engage in Section 7
activity.
Based on the above, I conclude that the Respondent’s conduct in distributing fliers
containing a copy of a blank union authorization card constituted the unlawful impression of
surveillance as it interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their
union activity. Accordingly, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged
in complaint paragraph 5(m).
10. The Beer Pong Incident
It is alleged in complaint paragraph 5(n) that about mid-November 2011, the
Respondent, by Eric Golebiewski, in the O’Sheas Casino, near the beer pong area, interrogated
its employee about the employee’s union sympathies. This allegation involves a brief
conversation between Eric Golebiewski and security officer Ty Evans. Not especially surprising,
the two men disagree over what was said.
According to Evans, in mid-November he was on duty at the O’Sheas Casino near the
beer bong area when Golebiewski approached him and asked what his “opinion was about the
Union, of the union issue.” According to Evans, he replied that, “I haven’t made up my mind.”
He testified that at that time he had not decided whether he supported the Union or not. Upon
hearing Evan’s response, Golebiewski simply walked away, and that ended the conversation.
Golebiewski testified that in mid-November he ran into Evans in O’Sheas near the beer
bong area. As was his practice when walking through the casinos, Golebiewski asked some
routine questions such as, “How are you doing?” and “How is the “beer pong going?” He denies
that they had any conversation about the Union. Counsel for the Respondent argues in his
post-hearing brief that Evans’ testimony is not credible, and that he is simply embellishing the
conversation that the two men had.
Earlier in this decision I explained at length why I found Golebiewski’s testimony
incredible. This is another such instance. When I consider the record as a whole, it is clear to
me that Golebiewski took very personally the security officer’s campaign to organize on behalf
of the Union. He apparently felt that their action was a reflection upon him as the security
director. His statements and conduct at the highly unusual four hour pre-shift meeting on
October 14, 2011, show the depth of his feelings regarding the union campaign. In his own
mind, as reflected by this testimony, he turned the employees’ desire for union representation
into a campaign they were waging against him, asking them what problems they had with him.
Under such circumstances, I find it very plausible that Golebiewski took the opportunity
in the beer pong area of O’Sheas to ask Evans what his opinion was of the Union. In his own
mind, Golebiewski needed to know who was with him and who against. I have no reason to
discredit Evans. To the contrary, as a current employee of the Flamingo who testified against
the interest of his employer, there is every reason to assume that he was being truthful. The
Board has frequently held that an employee who testifies against the interest of his current
employer does so at his peril, and so may be entitled to the benefit of the doubt concerning the
credibility of such testimony. See Gold Standard Enterprises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978);
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30
Federal Stainless Sink Div. of Unarco, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972); Flexsteel Industries, Inc.,
316 NLRB 745 (1995), enfd. 83 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1996).
Having concluded that Golebiewski asked Evans his opinion of the Union, I must
determine whether such a question constituted unlawful interrogation. In determining whether a
supervisor’s questions to an employee about his union activities or sympathies were coercive
under the Act, the Board looks to the “totality of the circumstances.” Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), aff’d. sub nom. HERE Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In
Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935 (2000), the Board listed a number of factors
considered in determining whether alleged interrogations under Rossmore House were
coercive. These are referred to as “Bourne factors,” so named because they were first set forth
in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964). These factors include the background of
the parties’ relationship, the nature of the information sought, the identity of the questioner, the
place and method of interrogation, and the truthfulness of the reply.
In the matter at hand, Evans was merely a rank and file security officer, while
Golebiewski was the Respondent’s security director, and Evan’s ultimate supervisor. Therefore,
he likely would have been intimidated by a question from Golebiewski on his opinion of the
Union, which question seemed to come “out of the blue.” Evans was working at the time,
making his rounds, which was not the type of environment where he would normally expect to
have to field such a question. Further, Evans’ answer to the question was ambivalent, not
surprising considering the discomfort that Evans must have felt in this one on one exchange
with his boss.
Based on the “totality of the circumstances,” I am of the view that Golebiewski’s question
to Evans regarding his opinion of the Union constituted unlawful interrogation. It would tend to
reasonably interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. Accordingly, I conclude that by its actions through Golebiewski, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraph 5(n).
11. Summary of Findings
As is set forth above in this decision, I have found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in complaint paragraphs: 5(b), (c), (e) (2), (3), (4), (5), (f) (1), (2),
(g) (1), (h) (1), (3), (i), (m), and (n). Further, I have recommended that the Board dismiss
complaint paragraphs: 5(a), (d), (e) (1), (g) (2), (h) (2), (4), (j), (k), and (l).
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, Flamingo Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America
(SPFPA), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the following acts and conduct the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act:
(a) Threatening its employees with unspecified reprisals because the employees
engaged in concerted activities;
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31
(b) Threatening its employees with more strictly-enforced work rules and job loss if they
selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative;
(c)Threatening its employees with unspecified reprisals because the employees
engaged in union activities;
(d) Threatening its employees with discipline or discharge if they selected the Union as
their collective bargaining representative;
(e) Threatening its employees by informing them that they were disloyal because they
supported the Union and engaged in union activities;
(f) Promulgating and enforcing an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule prohibiting
its employees from engaging in concerted activities;
(g) Promulgating and enforcing an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule that its
employees had to follow the chain of command to resolve the employees’ complaints;
(h) Interrogating its employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies;
(i) Soliciting its employees’ complaints and grievances, and promising them improved
terms and conditions of employment to dissuade them from supporting the Union;
(j) Promising its employees improved terms and conditions of employment by informing
them that an objectionable supervisor had been transferred from its facility to dissuade them
from supporting the Union;
(k) Creating an impression among its employees by printed communication that their
union activities were under surveillance;
(l) Creating an impression among its employees that their union activities were under
surveillance by describing employees who supported the Union; and
(m) Creating an impression among its employees that their union activities were under
surveillance by displaying a blank union authorization card.
(4) The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
(5) The Respondent has not violated the Act except as set forth above.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designated to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it will
respect their rights under the Act. In addition to physically posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 8 (Oct. 22, 2010).
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
32
In his post-hearing brief, counsel for the General Counsel requests that appropriate
notices be posted not only at the Flamingo property, but at all five HIFOB properties, including
Harrah’s, Imperial Palace, Flamingo, O’Sheas, and Bills. As was mentioned earlier in this
decision, approximately 120 security officers regularly rotate through three of those properties,
Flamingo, Bill’s and O’Sheas, pursuant to a written posted schedule. While 50 to 70 of those
officers are assigned to the Flamingo, they are part of the overall rotation through the three
properties. Further, although it is not controlling, in the Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director for Region 28 in Case 28-RC-069491 (C.P. 1.), the Regional
Director found there to be a significant community of interest between the security officers
working at the Flamingo, O’Sheas and Bill’s properties, and directed an election among the
officers working at those three properties.
It is clear to me from the record evidence that the security officers exposed to the
Respondent’s numerous unfair labor practices were the security officers working at the
Flamingo, O’Sheas, and Bill’s properties, but not the officers working at Harrah’s or the Imperial
Palace. Despite the fact that all five properties are considered one “pod” under Caesars
Entertainment and are referred to collectively as HIFOB, there is apparently no regular transfer
or interchange of security officers working at Harrah’s and the Imperial Palace, with the officers
working at the other three properties. As only the security officers working at the Flamingo,
O’Sheas and Bill’s were exposed to the Respondent’s unfair labor practices, I will direct that
notices be posted only at those three properties. Posting at those three properties will
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended16
ORDER
The Respondent, Flamingo Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with unspecified reprisals because the employees
engaged in concerted activities;
(b) Threatening its employees with more strictly-enforced work rules and job loss if they
selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative;
(c) Threatening its employees with unspecified reprisals because the employees
engaged in union activities;
(d) Threatening its employees with discipline, including discharge, if they selected the
Union as their collective bargaining representative;

16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33
(e) Threatening its employees by informing them that they were disloyal because they
supported the Union and engaged in union activities;
(f) Promulgating and enforcing an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule prohibiting
its employees from engaging in concerted activities;
(g) Promulgating and enforcing an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule that its
employees had to follow the chain of command to resolve the employees’ complaints;
(h) Interrogating its employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies;
(i) Soliciting its employees’ complaints and grievances, and promising them improved
terms and conditions of employment to dissuade them from supporting the Union;
(j) Promising its employees improved terms and conditions of employment by informing
them that an objectionable supervisor had been transferred from its facility to dissuade them
from supporting the Union;
(k) Creating an impression among its employees by printed communication that their
union activities were under surveillance;
(l) Creating an impression among its employees that their union activities were under
surveillance by describing employees who supported the Union;
(m) Creating an impression among its employees that their union activities were under
surveillance by displaying a blank union authorization card; and
(n) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the Flamingo, O’Sheas, and Bill’s,
all located in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted at all three properties mentioned
above and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 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 any of the
three properties involved in these proceedings have closed, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former security officers
employed by the Respondent at any time since September 3, 2011; and

17 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(SF)-31-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
34
(b) 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 that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated at Washington, D.C. June 25, 2012
____________________
Gregory Z. Meyerson
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
You have the right to join with your fellow employees in protected concerted activities.
These activities include discussing working conditions among yourselves, forming a
union, and making common complaints about your wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and WE WILL NOT try and stop you from engaging in these
activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. Specifically:
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals because you engaged in concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with more strictly-enforced work rules and job loss if you select
International Union, Security Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) (the Union), as
your collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals because you engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discipline, including discharge, if you select the Union as your
collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you by informing you that you are disloyal because you support the
Union and engage in union activity.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule prohibiting
you from engaging in concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce an overly-broad and discriminatory work rule that you
have to follow the chain of command to resolve your complaints.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union membership, activities, and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT solicit your complaints and grievances, and promise you improved terms and
conditions of employment in order to dissuade you from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise you improved terms and conditions of employment by informing you
that an objectionable supervisor has been transferred from the property to dissuade you from
supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT create an impression among you through our printed fliers that we are watching
your union activity.
WE WILL NOT create an impression among you by describing employees who support the
Union that we are watching your union activity.
WE WILL NOT create an impression among you by displaying a blank union authorization card
that we are watching your union activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by the National Labor Relations Act.
FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC
(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.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
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, 602-640-2146.
JD(SF)-31-12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC
and Cases 28-CA-069588
28-CA-073617
INTERNATIONAL UNION, SECURITY,
POLICE AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS
OF AMERICA (SPFPA)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Decision……………………………………………………………………………. 1
Statement of the Case……………………………………………………………… 1
Findings of Fact……………………………………………………………………. 2
I. Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………….…… 2
II. Labor Organization………….………………………………………………... 2
III. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices……………………………………………….. 2
A. Background Facts……………………………………………………………… 2
B. The Dispute…………………………………………………………………….. 4
IV. Analysis and Conclusions……………………………………………………... 5
A. The Protected Concerted Activity……………………………………………... 5
1. The Pre-Shift Meeting of September 3, 2011…………………………………. 5
2. Quaglio’s Alleged Surveillance of September 4, 2011……………………….. 9
B. The Union Activity……………………………………………………….…… 10
1. The Pre-Shift Briefing of October 14, 2011…………………………………… 11
2. The “Bizarre” Flier…………………………………………………………..… 16
3. Conversation between Golebiewski and Rudy………………………………… 18
4. Confrontation between Bizzarro and Baker…………………………………… 20
5. Willis Creates the Impression of Surveillance…………………………………. 23
6. Request That Security Officers Take Voluntary Time Off……………………. 24
7. Close Supervision of Bizzarro………………………………………………… 25
8. The Respondent’s Bulletin Boards……………………………………………. 26
9. Creating the Impression of Surveillance on October 7, 2011………………….. 28
10. The Beer Pong Incident………………………………………………………... 29
11. Summary of Findings………………………………………………………….. 30
Conclusions of Law………………………………………………………………... 30
Remedy…………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Order……………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Appendix