THE MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL d/b/a THE MIRAGE

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Nov 18, 2015

28-RC-154083 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE MIRAGE CASINO-HOTEL d/b/a THE
MIRAGE
Employer
and Case 28-RC-154083
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 501, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 18, 2015.

1 In denying review, we reject the Employer’s contention that the petition must be dismissed due to the
Petitioner’s failure to fill out section 7 of the petition form. See Aria, 363 NLRB No. 24 (2015).
For the reasons stated by the Regional Director, we agree that the petitioned-for employees are not guards
within the meaning of Sec. 9(b)(3). In addition, we note that the Board and the courts have long rejected the notion
that individuals should be deemed guards because their installation or maintenance of equipment is an integral part
of a larger security system that other individuals actually operate. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Alarm Services v. NLRB,
533 F.2d 121, 124 (3d Cir. 1976); American District Telegraph Co., 160 NLRB 1130, 1138 (1966). Further, the
additional strike duties the Employer contemplates for the petitioned-for employees do not render them guards,
because these additional duties do not involve guard functions. See Boeing Co., 328 NLRB 128, 130 (1999).