UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 12

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 12 HARTMAN AND TYNER, INC. D/B/A MARDI GRAS CASINO AND HOLLYWOOD CONCESSIONS, INC. and UNITE HERE! LOCAL 355, affiliated with UNITE HERE! Cases 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING UNITE HERE! Local 355, affiliated with UNITE HERE!, herein called the Union, has charged in Cases 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , and 12-CA that Hartman and Tyner, Inc. d/b/a Mardi Gras Casino, herein called Respondent Hartman and Tyner, and Hollywood Concessions, Inc., herein called Respondent Hollywood, and herein collectively referred to with Respondent Hartman and Tyner as Respondent, has been engaging in unfair labor practices as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 15 1, et seq., herein called the Act. Based thereon and in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Acting General Counsel, by the undersigned, pursuant to Section of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, ORDERS that these cases are consolidated. These cases having been consolidated, the Acting General Counsel, by the undersigned, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Section of the Board's

2 Rules and Regulations, issues this Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing and alleges as follows: I. (a) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (b) The first amended charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on March 8, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (c) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (d) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (e) The first amended charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on March 8, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (f) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (g) The first amended charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on March 8, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (h) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (i) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. 2

3 The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (k) The first amended charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on March 8, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (1) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. (in) The original charge in Case 12-CA was filed by the Union on January 11, 2012 and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on that same date. 2. (a) At all material times, Respondent Hartman and Tyner, a Michigan corporation, with an office and place of business located in Hallandale Beach, Florida, herein called Respondent's facility, has been engaged in the operation of a casino. (b) During the past 12 months, Respondent Hartman and Tyner, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2(a), derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. (c) During the past 12 months, Respondent Hartman and Tyner, in conducting its business operations described above in paragraph 2(a), purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Florida. (d) At all material times, Respondent Hartman and Tyner has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 2(6), and 2(7) of the Act. 3

4 3. (a) At all material times, Respondent Hollywood, a Florida corporation, with an office and place of business located in Hallandale Beach, Florida, has been engaged in the operation of a casino. (b) At all material times, Respondent Hartman and Tyner and Respondent Hollywood have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have formulated and administered a common labor policy; have shared common premises and facilities; have provided services for and made sales to each other; have interrelated operations, including common insurance, purchasing and sales; and have held themselves out to the public as a single-integrated business enterprise. (c) At all material times, Respondent Hollywood has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 2(6), and 2(7) of the Act. 4. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(l 1) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Daniel K. Adkins Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 4

5 Charles Benitez Slots Department Director Mike DeLuca - Senior Operations Manager Evans Etienne - Casino Supervisor Steven Feinberg - Human Resources Director Bill Fodor - Beverage Manager John Fredette - Casino Shift Manager Tommy Grozier - Facilities Manager Jay Hasan - Assistant Food and Beverage Director Elizabeth Hobart - Players Club Manager Chris Hock - Surveillance Manager Rich Hopke - Security Manager Joe (last name unknown) - Kitchen Supervisor Sallyanne Kelly - Director of Food and Beverage Tammy McArthur - Security Supervisor Jean Michel - Housekeeping Supervisor Michael Paterson - Casino Shift Manager Cathy Reside - Chief Operations Executive MaryAnn Robinson - Chief Financial Officer Michele Torales - Money Room Manager 6. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been agents of Respondent within the meaning 5

6 of Section 2(13) of the Act: Gregory (last name unknown) Cook Patrick (last name unknown) - Security Guard 7. On or about October , Respondent, by Cathy Reside, in a written memo to its employees: (a) Created an impression among its employees that their union activities and protected concerted activities were under surveillance by Respondent. (b) Asked employees to report the union activities and protected concerted activities of other employees to Respondent. 8. On or about a date in October 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned, Respondent, by Daniel K. Adkins, at its facility: (a) Interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies and about the union membership, activities and sympathies of other employees. (b) Asked employees to report the union activities and protected concerted activities of other employees to Respondent. 9. On or about a date in October 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned. Respondent, by Bill Fodor, at its facility: (a) Interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies. 6

7 (b) Asked employees to report the union activities and protected concerted activities of other employees to Respondent. 10. On or about October 29, 2011, Respondent, by Bill Fodor, at its facility, interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies. 11. On or about a date in November 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned, Respondent, by Jay Hasan, at its facility, interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies. 12. On or about a date in November 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned, Respondent, by Sallyanne Kelly, at its facility, interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies and about the union membership, activities and sympathies of other employees. 13. On or about a date in November 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned, Respondent, by Rich Hopke, at its facility, interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies and about the union membership, activities and sympathies of other employees. 14. On or about November 14, 2011, Respondent, by Evans Etienne, at Respondent's facility, threatened employees with unspecified reprisals if they engaged in union activities or protected concerted activities. 7

8 15. On or about November 18, 2011, Respondent, by Rich Hopke, at Respondent's facility, threatened employees with discharge and arrest because they engaged in union activities. 16. On or about December 2, 2011, Respondent, by Daniel K. Adkins, threatened its employees with discharge because they engaged in union activities. 17. (a) On or about December 5, 2011, Respondent, by Sallyanne Kelly and cook Gregory _, at its facility, interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies. (b) On or about December 5, 2011, Respondent, by kitchen supervisor Joe and cook Gregory _, at its facility, threatened employees with unspecified reprisals because of their union membership, activities and sympathies. 18. On or about a date in December 2011, a more precise date being presently unknown to the undersigned, Respondent, by Tommy Grozier, at its facility: (a) Interrogated employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies and about the union membership, activities and sympathies of other employees. (b) Impliedly promised benefits to employees if they refrained from engaging in union activities and protected concerted activities. 8

9 19. On or about a date in December 2011, a more precise date being presently known to the undersigned, Respondent, by Daniel K. Adkins, at Respondent's facility, during a meeting with its employees: (a) Told employees to report the union activities and protected concerted activities of other employees to Respondent. (b) Promised employees a wage increase in order to induce them to abandon their activities on behalf of the Union. (c) Threatened to discharge employees if they engaged in union activities or protected concerted activities. 20. (a) On or about November 18, 2011, Respondent suspended its employees, Theresa Daniels-Muse, Tashana McKenzie, and Amanda Hill. (b) On or about the dates set forth opposite their names, Respondent discharged its employees named below: Sochie Nnaemeka - November 3, 2011 Sabyn Gelin - November 7, 2011 James Walsh - November 8, 2011 Juna Dorlean - November 11, 2011 Dianese Jean - November 18, 2011 Alicia Bradley November 18, 2011 Theresa Daniels-Muse - November 21, 2011 Tashana McKenzie - November 21,

10 Amanda Hill November 21, 2011 Steven Wetstein November 23, 2011 (c) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 20(a) and 20(b) because the named employees of Respondent joined the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. 21. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7(a), 7(b), 8(a), 8(b), 9(a), 9(b), 10 through 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18(a), 18(b), and 19(a) through 19(c), Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 22. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 20(a) through 20(c), Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 23. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above, the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring that Respondent promptly: post the Notice to Employees in English, Spanish and Haitian Creole and have its representative read the Notice to Employees in English, Spanish and Haitian Creole to its employees on work time; allow the Union reasonable access to its bulletin boards and all 10

11 places where notices to employees are customarily posted; and supply the Union, on its request, the names and addresses of its current employees. As part of the monetary remedy for the unfair labor practices described above, the Acting General Counsel seeks an Order requiring reimbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would have been owed had there been no discrimination; and that Respondent be required to submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration so that when backpay is paid, it will be allocated to the appropriate periods. The Acting General Counsel further seeks such other relief as may be appropriate to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged. ANSWER REOUIREMENT Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections and of the Board's Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the consolidated complaint. The answer must be received by this office on or before May 14, 2012, or postmarked on or before May 13, Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office and serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties. An answer may also be filed electronically through the Agency's website. To file electronically, go to click on File Case Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency's website informs users that the Agency's E-filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the I I

12 transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Board's Rules and Regulations require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for represented par-ties or by the party if not represented. See Section If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-Filing rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must be accomplished by means allowed under the Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the consolidated complaint are true. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 25, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at the National Labor Relations Board Hearing Room, 51 SW 1" Avenue, Room 1320, Miami, Florida, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this proceeding has the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this consolidated complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB The procedure 12

13 to request a postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form NLRB DATED at Tampa, Florida, this 3 01h day of April, Attachments Margaret J. U@z, ActinoZegional Ditect r National Labor Relations Board, Region East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida

14 FORM NLRB 4338 (6-90) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NOTICE Cases 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA , 12-CA The issuance of the notice of formal hearing in this case does not mean that the matter cannot be disposed of by agreement of the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney assigned to the case will be pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end. An agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to cancel the hearing. However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at the date, hour, and place indicated. Postponements will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met: (1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed with the Regional Director when appropriate under 29 CFR (a) or with the Division of Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR (b). (2) Grounds must be set forth in detail; (3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given; (4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting party and set forth in the request; and (5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact must be noted on the request. Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing. Dan Adkins, Employer Representative Mike Hill, Organizer Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc.; Hartman UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 And Tyner, Inc.; H&T Gaming Inc.; and 1525 NW 167 th St Hollywood Concessions, Inc., D/B/A Mardi Ste. 450 Gras Casino Miami, FL N. Federal HWY Hallandale Beach, FL Peter L. Sampo, Esq. Allen Norton & Blue 121 Majorca Ave. Ste. 300 Coral Gables, FL