Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 12, 2019

28-CA-155984 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 12, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC
and Cases: 28–CA–155984
28–CA–157203
KELI P. MAY, an individual
and
KANIE KASTROLL, an individual
ORDER REMANDING1
On November 6, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board issued
a Notice to Show Cause why this case should not be remanded for further consideration
under The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). The General Counsel filed a
response to the Notice to Show Cause, in which he supported severing the allegations
that certain work rules maintained by the Respondent were unlawful under Boeing and
that the Respondent disciplined an employee, Keli P. May, for acting in violation of one
of those rules; remanding those allegations to the judge; and retention by the Board of
the remaining allegations.2
Having duly considered the matter, IT IS ORDERED that the allegations that the
work rules at issue have been unlawfully maintained and that the Respondent
disciplined May for acting in violation of one of those rules are severed and remanded to
Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham for the purpose of reopening the
record, if necessary, and preparing a supplemental decision addressing those
allegations, setting forth credibility resolutions (if necessary), findings of fact,

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to a three-member panel.
2 The Respondent did not respond to the Notice to Show Cause.
conclusions of law, and a recommended Order.3 Copies of the supplemental decision
shall be served on all parties, after which the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations shall be applicable.4
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 12, 2019.
John F. Ring, Chairman
Lauren McFerran, Member
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 The General Counsel, in his response, suggested that the only allegation of
discipline requiring review in the light of Boeing is that the “second written warning”
issued to May was unlawful. However, the discipline for May’s purported misconduct
included not only the warning but also her suspension. The allegation that the
suspension was also unlawful is therefore also remanded for review under this Order, to
the extent that the judge found the suspension unlawful as based on an unlawful work
rule. This is not to suggest any conclusion by the Board on the merits of either
allegation.
4 We shall retain for future consideration the allegations that the Respondent
unlawfully disciplined employee Kanie Kastroll and committed additional misconduct in
connection with that discipline.