Consolidated Casinos Corp.

950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Consolidated Casinos Corp. Sahara Division and American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees Consolidated Casinos Corp. Thunderbird Division and American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees. Case 31- CA-222, 31-CA-225, 31-CA-301, and 31-CA- 287. May 24,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On October 27, 1966, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of that portion of the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification: The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal2 of the complaint insofar as it alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) in that certain supervisors ordered ' We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions are erroneous. It is well settled that the Board will not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility of the witnesses unless a clear preponderance of all the evidence in the record convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry [ball Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). The Trial Examiner's expressed method herein for disposing of credibility issues is based upon his finding that the employees' testimony is consistent with the totality of the evidence in the case showing interference, restraint, and coercion thus derogating from the persuasive nature of the supervisors' denials or explanations. This method of analyzing the testimony of opposing witnesses by being convinced by the connected web or congeries of evidence developed by General Counsel's witnesses has been approved by the Board and courts many times. See Homedale Tractor & Equipment Co., 101 NLRB 167, enfd. 211 F.2d 309 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348 U.S. 833. Accord- ingly, we find no basis for disturbing the Examiner's credibility findings. Further, although we note that the Trial Examiner has not employees to remove union insignia from their uniforms while at work. The insignia in issue consists of an inconspicuous button about the size of a U.S. nickel coin bearing the legend "American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, Chartered in the State of Nevada," and the word "Steward." The Trial Examiner grounded his recommendation upon his finding that Respondent for many years prior to the advent of the Union's organizing effort had a rule in effect forbidding its casino employees from wearing any insignia while on duty other than that prescribed as part of their uniform. We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions concerning this recommendation of the Trial Examiner. The right of employees to wear union insignia at work has long been recognized as a protected concerted activity.; Further, as the Board held in Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc.,4 in the circumstances of that case, "the fact that the employees involved come in contact with hotel customers does not constitute such `special circumstances' as to deprive them of their right, under the Act, to wear union buttons at work." Here, as in Floridan Hotel, there was no strike nor union animosity between groups of employees; the buttons were inconspicuous and the legends on them were in no way provocative; and there was no substantial evidence that they affected Respondent's business or that the prohibition against wearing them was necessary to maintain employee discipline. In addition, the union was involved in seeking to organize employees pursuant to rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,5 and the Respondent committed numerous unfair labor practices in its efforts to thwart such organizational efforts. Consequently, the present circumstances are clearly distinguishable from those considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Harrah's Club. Accordingly, under all the circumstances of the case, we conclude that Respondent's maintenance and enforcement of its rule prohibiting casino employees from wearing the above-described union separately discussed testimony bearing upon all of the allegations of Section 8(a)(1) conduct in the complaint , our complete review of the record discloses that this evidence is primarily cumulative and reinforces the evidence supporting the violations found by the Examiner. 2 Harrah 's Club, 143 NLRB 1356 , enforcement denied 337 F.2d 177 (C.A. 9), cited by the Trial Examiner where the court refused to enforce the Board's Order that Section 8(a)(1) was violated by Respondent's rule prohibiting wearing of union buttons by employees who served customers. The court held the rule and its enforcement to be lawful under the circumstances because the record was devoid of evidence showing that the wearing of insignia was in furtherance of a protected activity under the Act. a Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R. B., 324 U.S. 793. ' 137 NLRB 1484 , 1486, enfd . as modified on other grounds 318 F.2d 545 (C.A. 5). S A representation petition relating to Respondent's Sahara Division was pending in Case 31-RC-130 , and for the Thunderbird Division in Case 31-RC-129. 164 NLRB No. 132 CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. insignia while at work was part of its effort to thwart employee-union organization and constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Consolidated Casinos Corp., its Sahara Division and its Thunderbird Division, Las Vegas, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 1(c) and reletter present paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) as 1(d) and 1(e): "(c) Maintaining or enforcing any rule prohibiting its casino employees from wearing union buttons while at work." 2. Add the following as the seventh indented paragraph of the notice: WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rule prohibiting our casino employees from wearing union buttons while at work. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID F. DOYLE, Trial Examiner : This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by me at Las Vegas, Nevada, on April 12-18, 1966, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of the Respondent. The issues litigated were whether the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct more fully described hereinafter. This proceeding was commenced by the issuance of a consolidated complaint by the Regional Director for Region 31, on January 20, 1966, in Cases 31-CA-222 and 31-CA-225. The first charge filed was in Case 31-CA-222 on November 1, 1965, against Sahara Division of the Respondent. It charged in general terms a violation by the Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On November 4, 1965, the charge in Case 31-CA-225 was filed against the Respondent's Sahara Division. This alleged a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On November 10, 1965, an amended charge was filed in Case 31-CA-225. After the issuance of the consolidated complaint and before Respondent' s answer was filed, the Charging Party filed the charge in Case 31-CA-301 ' In this Decision, the collective entities composing Consolidated Casinos Corp. will be referred to as Consolidated Casinos or the Respondent. The various subdivisions of the Respondent will be referred to as Sahara Division which is the corporate entity operating mainly at the Sahara Hotel which will be referred to as the Sahara Hotel and , in like manner, the Thunderbird Hotel will be referred to by that name and the Thunderbird Division will be used to designate the corporate 951 against the Respondent's Sahara Division alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This charge was filed on January 26, 1966. A second amended charge in Case 31-CA-225 was filed by the Charging Party on February 4, 1966. This alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On February 11, 1966, the Respondent filed its answer to the consolidated complaint. On January 17, 1966, a charge was filed against the Respondent's Thunderbird Division . This alleged a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On March 29, 1966, the Regional Director for Region 31 issued an order consolidating all of the foregoing cases and an amended consolidated complaint based on all the aforementioned charges. Respondent's answer to the amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 31, 1966.1 At the hearing, the parties were represented by the counsel named above who were afforded a full opportunity, to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present oral agruments and briefs. Extensive and well documented briefs have been received from both the General Counsel and the Respondent. These have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF RESPONDENT, ITS SAHARA DIVISION; ITS THUNDERBIRD DIVISION The facts concerning the business operations of the corporate entities forming the Respondent are contained in admitted allegations in the pleadings, stipulations of counsel at the hearing, and certain testimony of Alex J. Shoofey, vice president, secretary-treasurer, and director of Consolidated Casinos Corp. and executive vice president and director of the Sahara-Nevada Corporation. These facts demonstrate that Consolidated Casinos Corp. is now, and at all times material herein has been, a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of conducting gambling operations in casinos located in the State of Nevada through the means of its various divisions. Its Sahara Division operates the casino at the Hotel Sahara in Las Vegas; its Thunderbird Division operates the casino at the Thunderbird Hotel in Las Vegas; its Mint Division operates the casino at the Mint Hotel, Las Vegas; its Lucky Division operates the Lucky Casino, Las Vegas; and the Sahara-Tahoe Division operates the casino at the Sahara-Tahoe Hotel at Lake Tahoe, Nevada. The Sahara Division and Thunderbird Division are the only divisions of the Respondent involved here. The Sahara-Nevada Corporation, herein called Sahara- Nevada, owns and operates the Hotel Sahara, a nonresidential hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, with its bar, restaurant, and show facilities. At the hearing, it was stipulated by counsel for the parties that Consolidated Casinos' gross receipts from its gambling enterprises for the calendar year 1965 exceeded $5 million. It was further entity operating gaming operations in the Thunderbird Hotel. Other hotels and gaming establishments which are referred to in the text will be called by their proper names. American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees will be referred to as the Union; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board; and the General Counsel of the Board and his representative at the hearing as the General Counsel; and the Labor :Management Relations Act, 1947 , as amended , as the Act. 952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stipulated that during the calendar year 1965, Consolidated Casinos purchased gambling supplies, including playing cards, dice, and other gambling paraphernalia valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Nevada. Inasmuch as Consolidated Casinos' direct inflow exceeds $5,000 annually, such inflow is more than de minimis and is sufficient to establish legal jurisdiction.2 The evidence also establishes the fact that at all times material herein, Sahara-Nevada and Consolidated Casinos had common officers and directors. Also, according to the testimony of Shoofey, vice president, secretary-treasurer, and director of Consolidated Casinos, and executive vice president and director of Sahara-Nevada, he personally hears the grievances of employees of both entities, signs their checks, and issues instructions to department heads, supervisors, and employees. He also formulates the labor and employment policy and the wage rates of both entities. In operation, the employees of the Sahara-Nevada must obey casino supervisory personnel in regard to serving casino customers with food and liquor and providing rooms, dinner accommodations, and show reservations. Both corporations have common bookkeeping and clerical facilities, auditors, purchasing agents, switchboards, and parking lots. The employees have the same insurance coverage and are covered under one group rate. Casino employees wear a tie inscribed "Hotel Sahara" and a name tag reading "Hotel Sahara," both of which are furnished by Sahara-Nevada. The existence of two separate employers on the premises where the joint operations of the corporate entities are conducted is not apparent to the public. It is undisputed that Sahara-Nevada has a gross annual income from the operation of the Hotel Sahara in excess of $1 million from hotel room rentals representing occupancies of less than 1 month's duration, and that its annual indirect inflow from outside the State of Nevada exceeds $50,000. Upon the basis of the above facts, I find that Consolidated Casinos Corp. and its Sahara Division and Thunderbird Division constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3 I also find that it is appropriate to assert jurisdiction over the operations of the Respondent on two grounds, (1) the assertion of jurisdiction over the gambling industry,4 and (2) on the basis that the joint operations of the divisions of the Respondent come within the hotel standard as established by the Board in Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint herein, based on the Board's lack of jurisdiction over the Respondent's business. I reserved ruling on the motion. The Respondent's first argument for dismissal is based on the claim that the Respondent's business is intrastate in character and has no substantial effect on commerce. In support of this argument, counsel for the Respondent points out that the Respondent is engaged solely in the operation of gaming casinos and that these casinos are located only in the State of Nevada where gambling is legal and controlled by the State. He argues that there is no trade or commerce in the operation of the gaming industry in Nevada because there are no interstate sales or interstate products. The only transactions conducted by the Respondent are wagers from which it derives a percentage of the profits. Counsel also points out that in one State only, Nevada, is gambling of this type legal, which is some proof of its local or intrastate character. In support of his argument, counsel also points out that the statutes of the State of Nevada specifically provide that the gambling conducted in the State is an entertainment, amusement, or recreational activity. The Respondent cites several pertinent Decisions on this point, including Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. The National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 466, which held that sports activity and entertainment were not interstate in character. Counsel for the Respondent also argues that the Board's nonassertion of jurisdiction in the horseracing industry is controlling in this case. As the basis for his argument on this point, counsel points out that even in certain situations where the employer's operations or activities may come within the definition of interstate commerce and the dollar volume amounts established by the Board are present, the Board may decline to assert jurisdiction as not effectuating the purposes of the Act. Counsel argues that as Congress specifically exempted certain businesses from the operation of the Act, so has the Board during its history excluded from its jurisdiction some business operations because the Board did not see how the purposes of the Act would be effected by the assertion of jurisdiction over that industry. In support of this contention, counsel cites Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., 90 NLRB 220. Counsel urges that the Board not assert jurisdiction over the gaming industry in Nevada inasmuch as the State has already placed the gaming industry under strict State regulation. Counsel asserts that the Board's policy of nonassertion of jurisdiction in the horseracing industry should be controlling upon the facts here presented. Expanding on this argument, counsel contends that State licensing of gambling establishments and the detailed regulation and control of the gambling industry as demonstrated in the record by exhibits of which I have taken judicial notice such as the Nevada statutes render the Board's assertion of jurisdiction unnecessary. Counsel concludes with the argument that the tax revenue and jobs provided by the gambling industry in Nevada is of vast economic importance to the State of Nevada, and that fact should be considered by the Board in its decision on jurisdiction herein. At the hearing, I took judicial notice of the statutes of the State of Nevada in regard to the licensing and regulation of the gaming industry. I also took judicial notice of all proceedings in the prior case of the Board entitled El Dorado, Inc., 151 NLRB 579. Testimony in that case explains the operation of the State's control of gambling. Most of these arguments of the Respondent were proposed and thoroughly discussed in the Board's decision in the El Dorado case, supra. Consistent with the findings heretofore expressed, the motion of Respondent to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds is hereby dismissed. 2 Inglewood Park Cemetery Association, 147 NLRB 803, enfd. a Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 NLRB 1220; Blue 355 F.2d 448 (C.A. 9); Aurora City Lines, Inc., 130 NLRB 1137, Rock Quarry, 116 NLRB 1778; Court Square Press, Inc., 151 enfd. 299 F.2d 229 (C.A. 7); Stollerd/b/a Richland Laundry & Dry NLRB 861. Cleaners, 93 NLRB 680, enfd. 207 F.2d 305 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 4 El Dorado, Inc., d/b/a El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579. 347 U.S.919. CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is conceded and I find that the Union is, and at all times material herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint in substance alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent in October 1965 at both its Sahara and Thunderbird Divisions engaged in a course of conduct which restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint charges 19 incidents of alleged coercion or intimidation. The complaint also alleges that the Respondent granted wage increases to certain employees for the purpose of discouraging their activities on behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and that the Respondent transferred Dunham Turnipseed to a "less desirable" work schedule because of his union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Undisputed Facts; the Background of This Proceeding At the hearing, the testimony of nearly 30 witnesses was heard. Also, numerous exhibits were introduced into evidence by the General Counsel and the Respondent. This lengthy testimony presenting upwards of 20 separate issues of fact renders extensive treatment of each issue impractical. Therefore, I have decided to set forth the testimony of both sides of certain issues to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the Union's conduct, the Respondent's conduct, and the conduct of the individuals on each side of this controversy. This will establish the pattern of events. After that, I shall set forth my findings only as to other issues. The Sahara Hotel, with which Consolidated Casinos has lease arrangements, is operated by Sahara-Nevada which is a subsidiary of the Del E. Webb Corporation, a publicly held corporation. The Thunderbird Hotel is owned and operated by Thunderbird, Inc., which is also a Nevada corporation. The arrangement by which the Respondent operates its gambling business in the two hotels is based on leases of certain areas of the hotel for the purpose of conducting gambling activities. The gambling which is conducted by the Respondent includes roulette, 21, craps, slot machines, keno, and pan. The bars and restaurants and other activities except gambling are conducted by the corporations owning and operating the hotels, but by terms of the lease the employees of the hotel will take orders from supervisors in the casinos for the furnishing of food, drink, hotel rooms, and show reservations to the patrons of the casinos. At each of the hotels, the casino manager is the person in highest authority in charge of the gaming operations. At the Sahara Division, John Hughes is the casino manager and at the Thunderbird Division, Mike Remis is the casino manager. According to the testimony, the casino manager is generally responsible for the employment and wage and personnel policies and practices for the casino employees. Casino employees are usually hired by the casino manager. The gambling operations of the Respondent at the cus- tomer level are conducted by employees who have various titles: "dealer" is the term applied to those employees who deal cards in various types of card games such as 21 and 953 blackjack; "stick men" operate the game of craps; "writers" distribute tickets and collect money in keno, etc. It was these employees commonly referred to by the generic term "dealers" which the Union sought to organize. Above these individuals in the operation of the gambling casinos is a small army of supervisors with such titles as pit boss, assistant pit boss, shift manager, assistant shift manager, floorman, etc. The supervisory force in each casino is nearly numerically equivalent to the number of employees. The Respondent's gambling operations are conducted on a 24-hour basis, so the force of employees and the force of supervisors is approximately three times as numerous as appear on the floor of the casino at any one time. In the course of operations, the dealers usually work approximately 40 minutes in the hour and have a 20-minute break for coffee or cigarettes, etc. At the hearing, counsel stipulated that certain individuals were supervisors employed by the Respondent. Among these were: Harold Kadin, John Hughes, Ronald Herigstad, Tony Delorio, Dick Lenz, Hyman Portnoy, Moe Moss, William Brymer, Maurice E. Fitzgerald, and Pat Hoban. The Union Campaign; Turnipseed and Shoofey It is undisputed that in September and early October 1965, the Union initiated a campaign to enroll the employees of Sahara Casino into membership. On October 13, 1965, Albert M. Dreyer, attorney for the Union, by letter, notified the Sahara Hotel that Dunham A. Turnipseed was a member of its organizing committee and warned the Employer not to interfere or restrain the employee in his lawful attempts at organization. At approximately the same time, a similar letter stated that Jess R. Abbott was also a member of the organizing committee. On October 25, a similar letter notified the Employer that A. E. Hendrix, Walter O. Scheller, and William M. Raynovich were also members of the organizing committee and were shop stewards. On October 26, 1965, the Union filed a petition for representation of all casino employees of Respondent's Sahara Division in Case 31-RC-130. Dunham A. Turnipseed, who is mentioned in the complaint, testified that he was a 21 dealer for Respondent Sahara and that he engaged in union activities soliciting authorization cards and attending union meetings. On October 14, 1965, which is the day after Dreyer's notification letter to the Sahara Hotel, Turnipseed went to Eddie Moss, the shift manager of Respondent Sahara. He found Moss in the crap pit and told Moss that the Union had sent a letter to Respondent Sahara informing it that Turnipseed was a union organizer. Turnipseed told Moss that many casino employees had joined the Union because they were dissatisfied with working conditions since the "corporation" took over and the employees felt Moss and Hughes, the casino manager, could no longer give them job security or protection. Moss asked Turnipseed if he would go with him to Shoofey's office, which Turnipseed agreed to do. When Turnipseed and Moss reached Shoofey's office, Shoofey and Moss conferred for a moment and then Moss asked Turnipseed to tell Shoofey what he had told him. Turnipseed testified that he then told Shoofey that the dealers thought a lot of Hughes and Moss, but "this percentage machine that you got now," the wage-cut agreement which management wanted, and the firing of dealer Pat Redlin, and other changes made by "the 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD corporation" had upset the dealers and that a lot of them had signed up for the Union. Turnipseed said that he had a copy of the dealer's demands with him and that the dealers would like to get together with Shoofey on it . Shoofey told him to state his demands, so Turnipseed said that the employees wanted to go back to their former arrangement by which they worked 40 minutes in each hour and had 20 minutes off for a break . Management had recently changed that . Turnipseed said that the employees would like to have the "old insurance plan" back because the new one didn't give the employees nearly as good coverage . Also, when the employees were losing to customers at play, they did not like to have the supervisors "ride them" all the time to change decks, etc., and every time an employee left his table to be asked how much he had taken in for the house. Turnipseed said that the employees also would like to have a retirement plan and would like a 3-year contract of employment with a rate of pay of $30 per day for the first year, $32.50 per day for the second year, and $35 per day for the third year. Turnipseed also told Shoofey that the employees did not like to be called into the office every time that the percentage of winnings wasn 't high enough on the games they were dealing; that such conduct encouraged an employee to be a cheat to keep his job. Shoofey replied that if management granted those demands, they would just have to lock up the doors because they couldn't stay in business . Shoofey said that the casino was operating at a bad loss , and that while there was always talk of people being fired, he had not been fired nor had anyone else. Shoofey then asked Turnipseed how long he thought the dealers could be "out of work" and Turnipseed replied that the dealers could afford to be out of work about 3 months. Shoofey then said that all he could do in that case would be to recommend to the board of directors to lock the doors of the casino for 4 or 6 months and let the dealers starve to death . Shoofey then said that he had been doing business with unions and usually they did not come with demands , they bargained. Shoofey said the Union's demands were way out of line, so he suggested that Turnipseed go back to the dealers and see if they wouldn 't come up with a more reasonable proposition. Turnipseed asked Shoofey if he would like to make some proposal to the dealers which he could take back to them . Shoofey said that he did not care to make any proposal and he didn't want to recognize anyone, and then he told Turnipseed he wanted to know two things: (1) why had the dealers affiliated with Tom Hanley" ss union instead of the Culinary Workers Union , and (2) if it were possible for the dealers to get together with management and leave the Union out of it . Turnipseed replied that the dealers felt that the Culinary Workers Union was "more or less owned and operated by the hotels" so that the dealers didn't want to join that union . As to leaving the Union out of negotiations , Turnipseed said that he didn't know whether that could be done or not, but as far as he knew, it was possible that the Union could be left out. That ended the conversation. Shortly after the conclusion of this meeting, Moss, a pit boss and supervisor, spoke to Turnipseed . He told Turnipseed to "play it cool for a couple of days, and I will see what I can do about this." However , on October 23, when Turnipseed came to work , he had a second conversation with Moss. In this conversation , Moss asked Turnipseed , "who in the hell do you think you are, starting a union around here ? Somebody should run you out of town . And for the dealers in this hotel, they are treated good, and they sure don't need a union . And who are you to say whether they should hire or fire Pat Redlin?" Moss then said that if Turnipseed knew half as much as Moss did about unions, he would have nothing to do with the Union . Turnipseed replied that a lot of dealers did not share Moss' feelings. After this date, Turnipseed engaged in several conversations with supervisors in the presence of other dealers who were members of the Union. These conversations are covered in the review of the testimony of the other employee witnesses . On November 13, 1965, when Turnipseed reported for work , he was told by Supervisor Harold Kadin that he would be transferred to the 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. shift which would be rotated. Turnipseed worked the shift from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. for 1 week, but he was not rotated, and upon inquiry, he was told by Jim Ungaro , the pit boss and supervisor, to work it for a second week . Turnipseed then complained to Ungaro that he understood there was to be a rotation on that shift, but Ungaro replied that where Turnipseed was concerned, there would be no rotation . Turnipseed testified that the 1 p.m. to 9 p.m . shift was usually worked by "new" employees . Turnipseed said that as a "new" dealer he had been assigned to that shift , but during his service which covered several years, he had risen in seniority to the extent that he had worked the noon to 8 p.m. shift for several years. Supervisor Ungaro testified to the ramifications of scheduling involved in this change, but it remains undisputed that Turnipseed was the only employee on the 1 p .m. to 9 p.m. shift without rotation after November 13, 1965. The General Counsel claims that by this shift in Tunipseed's starting time, he was prevented from meeting with a considerable number of fellow dealers who were coming on and going off shifts at noon and 8 p.m. It seems to be undisputed that among the dealers, the 1 p . m. to 9 p.m. shift is considered the least desirable , and by custom , is assigned to new employees. Alex J. Shoofey, vice president , secretary-treasurer, and director of Consolidated casinos, and executive vice president and director of Sahara-Nevada, also testified in this proceeding, furnishing a different version of the conversation that he had with Turnipseed on October 14. Both Turnipseed and Shoofey were in agreement as to how this conversation came about, and as to much of the conversation , but Shoofey denied that he made any statement to Turnipseed which implied that he would negotiate with the dealers if the Union were left out of it, and he denied that any conversation occurred implying that the Respondent would lock out employees for any reason . Upon a consideration of all the evidence , I credit Turnipseed's testimony in its entirety . Supervisor Moss did not testify, and, as I have indicated previously, I found the testimony of Supervisor Ungaro in explanation of the transfer of Turnipseed to the 1 p.m. to 9 p.m . shift not persuasive in the light of all attendant circumstances. Upon a consideration of the incidents set forth above, and a consideration of the entire evidence, much of which will be set forth later herein, I find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Shoofey's conversation with Turnipseed . I also find that the transfer of Turnipseed to less desirable working hours was a Tom Hanley is a leader in the Union CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. 955 discriminatory reprisal against Turnipseed because of his union activities. Other Interrogation, Restraint, or Coercion As stated previously, the complaint sets forth 19 different allegations of 8(a)(1) violations. I have credited the testimony of the employees in regard to the separate violations because the numerous violations seem to form a pattern of widespread interrogation, restraint, and coercion on the part of the Respondent. The testimony of the supervisors in rebuttal of the employees' testimony took differing tacks; some supervisors, in their testimony, attempted an explanation of their conduct; others denied that the conversations occurred at all. Suffice it to say that the supervisor's explanations of individual events, if they were viewed in isolation, might present questions of credibility, but here, when viewed in their totality, the explanations are not at all persuasive. The testimony of the numerous employees is consistent with the undisputed facts of the case, and in their totality show a pattern of widespread interrogation, interference, coercion, and restraint. Francis, Casino Manager Hughes; Supervisors Lenz, Portnoy, and Hoban; the Antiunion Petition Ronald Francis testified that he is employed by the Respondent at the Sahara Casino as a craps dealer. He had been so employed for approximately 3 years. Francis became active in the Union when the organizational drive was first instituted late in September or early October. Around those dates, he attended union meetings. After one of the meetings , Francis encountered John Hughes, the casino manager, outside the entrance to the casino. Francis told Hughes that he had heard a rumor that he (Francis) would be fired for the next mistake he made because he had joined the Union. He said to Hughes, "Mr. Hughes , I understand I am going to be fired the next mistake I make, because of my union activity ." Hughes said that he had been informed that Francis had been passing out handbills at one of the union meetings, and that Francis was going to the dealer's homes to get them to sign up for the Union . Francis replied that he had not been doing that, and that all he wanted to do was mind his own business and keep his job. Hughes then said to him, "You cannot serve two masters " and the conversation was finished. Francis testified that he and Supervisor Lenz were good friends and that they had a conversation in the parking lot at the casino. In the conversation, Lenz said to Francis that if the Union fell flat on its face there would be quite a turnover at the Sahara. A few weeks after that , on the floor of the casino, Francis had a conversation with Supervisor Portnoy. Francis told Portnoy that he had heard that there was a petition against the Union being passed among the employees . Portnoy then asked Francis if he wanted to sign the petition . Francis said that he didn 't know whether he wanted to sign it or not, but that he would like to see it. Then Portnoy said to him, "You have a nice job and a nice home and two kids, you don 't want to have a guy like Tom Hanley running the show for you." Portnoy then asked Francis if he wanted to "lose all of this?", to which Francis replied in the negative . Portnoy then suggested that Francis sign the petition . Portnoy said that one of the dealers had the petition and it would be around for Francis to sign. Later Francis went to the bar and upon request was shown the petition by employee Rambicure. Francis signed this petiton. This petition which was introduced into evidence by the General Counsel reads as follows: We the undersigned, do not want the American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees or any other union to represent us. We hereby revoke any application for membership we may have signed. Name Name On the original petitons which were on three pages, all headed as above, the words "or any other" have been crossed out in ink. On the petition, there are what purports to be the signatures of approximately 120 dealers. On another occasion, about this time, Francis had a conversation with Supervisor Hoban. On this occasion, Hoban told Francis that he didn't care whether Francis belonged to the Union or not, but he said that somebody was going to get fired over the union business. Hoban said that the management realized that they had made mistakes in the past and they wanted to correct them for the men, and that after the union campaign blew over Casino Manager Hughes was going to have a meeting with all the dealers and air their grievances and try to correct them. Francis replied to this by asking why did it take so long for management to realize that the dealers had grievances. Casino Manager Hughes' testimony in regard to his conversation with Francis was only slightly different. Lenz did not testify in the proceeding. In his testimony, Portnoy said that Francis came to him after he had signed the petition and told Portnoy that he had signed the petition. Then Portnoy said that Francis had a good job and a good family, and he ought to take care of his job. Portnoy denied that he made any threats to Francis. Jess Abbott testified that he is employed as a craps dealer at the Sahara. He joined the Union when it began its organizing campaign in late September or early October 1965. Abbott said that shortly after the Union sent a letter to the Respondent notifying it that he was on the union organizing committee, he had a conversation with Casino Manager Hughes. Abbott said that on this day, Hughes stopped him in the casino and asked him if he wore a union button. Abbott replied that he felt that if he worked without a union button, he would be able to talk to some of the employees about joining the Union. Then Hughes said, "you know, I put you to work here and you did me a dirty trick in joining the Union." Abbott replied that when Hughes came to him with a piece of paper which read "decrease in salary" that action prompted Abbott to join the Union. Abbott also told Hughes that he had been in Las Vegas almost 20 years and that he had received a 10- cent raise for each year, and that now he was making the sum total of $22 a day. Hughes again said that Abbott had done him "a dirty trick" in joining the Union. Abbott then said that Hughes had hired some floormen who were fired at the Thunderbird Casino to which Hughes replied that "the hiring of those men was none of his business." Abbott then replied that the hiring of those men was another reason why he joined the Union, because there was no security in his job. In the course of his testimony, Abbott explained that, prior to his joining the Union, he was paid $22 a day, but that Hughes had come to the dealers stating that he was asking them to take a reduction to $20.50 a day. 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hughes, in his testimony, said that he had a conversation with Abbott about pay, but the conversation occurred when Abbott sought him out to talk to him about that subject . Abbott appeared to be a forthright and candid witness. I credit his entire testimony. Dunham Turnipseed also testified that around the first of November, William Brymer, a craps foreman and supervisor, told Turnipseed and employee Petty that Hughes had told him that he was hurt over the union drive. Brymer said that if the men wanted a union , all they had to do was go to Hughes and tell him , and he would have helped them . Brymer said that Hughes had spoken to management against the use of the computers, and Brymer said that if the men would sign the petition which was being circulated among the dealers , there would be no animosity, and he asked them to give up the Union before it was too late. According to Turnipseed, after this conversation, he sought out Hughes and had a brief discussion with Hughes. In this talk, Hughes said that a union might be necessary at places like the Golden Nugget , but they did not need one at the Sahara. Hughes also said that before the union matter ended , the attorneys for the Sahara would prove that the National Labor Relations Board had no jurisdiction , and that the management would never bargain with the Union. Hughes ended up by asking Turnipseed where he would be in that event. Raynovich and Supervisor Herigstad; the Demotion and Reinstatement of Employees William Raynovich testified that he is the "third" man in the keno department and was one of the union organizers. On October 28, 1965, he was called to the office of Supervisor Herigstad, the keno manager. Herigstad asked Raynovich if he was a member of the Union and a steward. Raynovich replied that he was going to stick with the Union as long as he could. Herigstad said that was a mistake, to which Raynovich said that he had made lots of mistakes in his life. Herigstad then said, "Well, we will cut you back to a writer." (Being a writer is a less paying job than being a third man at keno.) Raynovich replied that it was fine with him, but as long as he was going to be a writer, he would like to have the rest of the day off. Raynovich immediately left the casino and went to the union hall where he discussed the situation with Vivian Brooks, an official of the Union. Brooks telephoned Herigstad and asked him if he made the statements as told to her by Raynovich, and she told Herigstad that, if he had reduced Raynovich to the job of writer because of his union activities, that it was a violation of the Act. Later that night, Herigstad phoned Raynovich and told him it was a misunderstanding , and that he should come back to his regular job as a third man. Herigstad did not explain the nature of the misunderstanding to Raynovich. Robert Bishop, a fourth man on keno , was also called to the office and interrogated by Herigstad and was told that he would have to become a writer again . Later that evening, Herigstad phoned Bishop and told him that there was a misunderstanding, and that he was to return to his old job as fourth man at keno . Herigstad testified as to this incident . He said that he understood that "third" and "fourth" men in keno were supervisors and that he interrogated the men as to their union membership to determine their eligibility to continue as supervisors. After the union representative phoned him, he conferred with Shoofey and learned that the "third" and "fourth" men were employees , so he called each and told each to come back to the job. I do not credit this explanation of Herigstad. I feel sure that, in his talks with the employees, he was not interested in settling the fine point of labor law as to whether the men were employees or supervisors. In my judgment , Herigstad demoted these men in reprisal for their union activity and reversed his decision when Shoofey confirmed, for Herigstad, the union repre- sentative's statement that Herigstad had violated the Act by his interrogation of the employees and their subsequent demotion . Although this did not result in any financial loss because Herigstad corrected the action, it was conduct which was coercive in its nature. McLarney and Supervisor Tony Delorio; the Ban on Union Buttons Edward F. McLarney, a keno writer, testified that around the end of October 1965, Tony Delorio, the keno shift boss , asked him if he had joined the Union . McLarney replied in the affirmative. Then Delorio said that the Union wouldn't get him anywhere and it would only make Tom Hanley rich. Leo Weakland, a keno writer, testified that Supervisor DeIorio also asked him if he had joined the Union, and Weakland replied in the affirmative . Delorio then asked Weakland if the other employees in the keno game had joined the Union , and Weakland replied in the affirmative. Weakland also testified that during the month of November, Supervisor Delorio told him to take off his union button because "they don't want you to wear it here." Weakland immediately took off the button. Dunham Turnipseed, previously referred to, testified that on or about November 1965, he was called in the casino to speak to John Hughes . Hughes pointed at a button that Turnipseed was wearing and asked what it was. When told it was a union stewards' button, Hughes said the Union was not recognized , and no one was allowed to wear anything on his shirt . He told Turnipseed to take off the button , which Turnipseed did. On this point, Alex J. Shoofey, previously referred to, testified that casino employees were required to wear uniforms of a white shirt, a tie, green apron, and name plate. All except the white shirt are supplied by the casino. Shoofey testified that since 1952, the casino has not permitted casino employees to wear any other insignia on their uniforms unless it was sponsored and furnished by the casino. Shoofey said this rule included lodge pins and charitable causes. Shoofey said this rule had not been put into writing, but it was known to the employees, who complied with it through the years . Shoofey said that the only exception to the rule occurred during the Helldorado civic celebration in Las Vegas; then buttons were distributed by management to the employees , and they were worn by the employees on their clothing as publicity for the civic celebration. I credit Shoofey's testimony as to the wearing of insignia of any kind on the uniform. It should be noted that there is no testimony to the contrary on this point. The Thunderbird Incident; Fitzgerald, Hill, and Perkins Early in the Union's organizational campaign on October 23 , 1965, Dreyer, counsel for the Union , notified the Respondent Thunderbird that eight of its employees including Ortho D. Hill and William Perkins were CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. 957 members of the union organizing committee and were shop stewards. It was stipulated that on October 26, 1965, the Union filed a petition for representation of all casino employees working at the Thunderbird. Ortho D. Hill, a 21 dealer at the Thunderbird, testified that about October 26, 1965, he had a conversation with Fitzgerald, assistant manager. In this conversation, Hill attempted to explain to Fitzgerald that the union activity was not aimed at Fitzgerald personally, but at management and working conditions as a whole. Hill told Fitzgerald that he heard Fitzgerald objected to the wearing of the union buttons and he would ask the other employees not to wear their buttons. Hill then undertook to explain his reasons for becoming involved in the Union. Then Fitzgerald said, "perhaps you may have your reasons, but as for that rotten [vile name] standing over there, I can't understand why he has done what he has done, after what Ray and Ted Citoula have done for him." When Fitzgerald called the name as stated above, he was pointing at William Perkins, a union steward, who was in the same room and wearing a union button. Fitzgerald then continued saying that Perkins was a troublemaker and the first chance he had, he was going to "get rid of his ass." In his testimony, Fitzgerald stated that he knew that Perkins was hired by Ted Citoula, shift manager, when no one else would hire him, and Citoula had instructed Whitney, the pit boss, to put him to work. Fitzgerald said that he told Hill that Perkins had caused embarassment to Citoula and Whitney by going with the Union. Obviously, Fitzgerald considered that Perkins had been an ingrate toward Citoula who had hired him. Fitzgerald's conduct in threatening to fire Perkins in the presence of Hill was conduct which constituted interference, restraint, and coercion. The Unilateral Wage Increase It is undisputed that effective January 1, 1966, the Respondent granted wage increases to all the casino employees at the Sahara Division and Thunderbird Division. At that time, representation petitions were pending at both casinos. According to Shoofey, Respondent Sahara has held the gambling concession at the Sahara Hotel since January 1963, at which time the dealers received the following pay scale per day: To start-$22 and after 3 years-$23, 4 years-$24, 5 years-$25, 10 years-$26, 11 years-$27, 12 years-$28, 13 years-$29, and 14 years-$30. Shoofey testified that this pay scale had been in effect for 11 years. In his testimony, Shoofey attempted to explain the granting of this increase without giving any notice to, or bargaining with, the Union. Shoofey said that he attended a meeting of the Resort Hotel Association (the Las Vegas Hotel Association) shortly before Christmas, 1965, and inquired of several owners, including Houssels, president of the Tropicana Hotel, and Binion, owner of the Horseshoe Club, whether they had given wage increases to their dealers. According to Shoofey, Houssels told him that he had raised his dealers $1 per year until they reached $27 maximum per day. Binion told Shoofey he was raising the Horseshoe wages to $25 maximum over a period of 6 months. On the basis of this information, Shoofey recommended a raise in pay to the board of directors at a meeting on January 3, 1966. The rate of pay instituted thereafter was as follows: After 1 year-$22, 2 years-$23, 3 years-$24, 4 years-$25, 5 years-$26, 6 years-$27, 7 years-$28, 8 years-$29, and 9 years-$30. On cross-examination, Shoofey said that he was not aware of any of his dealers desiring to leave the Sahara for places where the pay was higher, and did not know of any loss of employees to either the Horseshoe or the Tropicana. J. K. Houssels, president of the Tropicana Hotel, and Jack Binion, owner of the Horseshoe Club, corroborated Shoofey as to the fact of the Association meeting, to conversation about wages of dealers, and the fact that the Tropicana and Horseshoe had granted an increase in wages to casino employees. However, I am not persuaded that the wage increase was not connected with the Union's organizing campaign at all the casinos and the pending election of the Respondent's casinos. In connection with this pay raise, it should be noted that there was newspaper publicity attendant upon the original demand of the Union as presented by Turnipseed to Shoofey. One of the principal demands was for a revision of the pay rates. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the campaign of the Union was widespread and encompassed all the other larger casinos, which include both the Tropicana and the Horseshoe. Also, it should be noted that Abbott, in his conversation with Hughes, was particularly upset about the low wage scale at the Sahara and a proposed pay cut by management. In the light of all the evidence on this feature of the case, it is clear, and I find, that this unilateral granting of a wage increase to the employees was for the purpose of breaking down their loyalty to the Union and affecting the pending representation election and constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.6 Employee Glen McGrath testified that on one occasion, he was in the casino when he overheard a conversation between Supervisor Portnoy and another dealer whose nickname was "Bounce." According to McGrath, he heard only snatches of this conversation. McGrath seemed uncertain and hazy about much of what he claimed to have overheard. I deem McGrath's testimony as to this incident as unreliable, and have therefore disregarded it. Upon a consideration of the evidence relating to each of the above incidents and further review of the evidence in its totality, I make the following concluding findings: That the Respondent violated the specific sections of the Act by the statements and conduct of certain of its supervisory force as follows: Sahara Division 1. By the transfer of Dunham A. Turnipseed to a less desirable work schedule because he was a leader in the organizing activity on behalf of the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. By the following acts and conduct of its officers, agents, and supervisors, the Sahara Division violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By the conduct of Alex J. Shoofey, an officer of the Respondent, on or about October 14, 1965, in offering to negotiate with an employee in respect to grievances of the dealers as a group, conditioned upon the dealers leaving the Union out of the negotiations. 6 N L R B v Exchange Parts Company , 375 U S 405 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By the conduct of Alex J. Shoofey, an officer of the Respondent, on October 14, 1965, by his threat to an employee to lock out the dealers if they engaged in strike action to support their economic demands. 4. By conduct of Supervisor Kadin on October 30, 1965, in his assistance and encouragement to the circulation among the employees of a petition renouncing their affiliation with the Union, and by stating to employees that the granting of pay raises and improvements in working conditions depended upon the withdrawal of the Union's representation petition which had been filed with the Board. 5. By the conduct of Ronald Herigstad in coercively interrogating employees as to their union membership and affiliations and by the temporary demotion of the employees. 6. By the conduct of Supervisor John Hughes in warning employees of the withdrawal of employee benefits because of their union activities. 7. By the conduct of William Brymer on October 31, 1965, by impliedly warning employees of reprisals by the Respondent in the event unionization of the casino employees was successful, and in offering benefits to the employees conditioned upon their rejection of the Union as their bargaining representative. 8. By the conduct of John Hughes in warning an employee of the withdrawal of employee benefits contingent upon the unionization of the employees and threatening the employee with economic reprisals in the event the Union was successful, and by the threat that the Respondent would never bargain with the Union. 9. By the conduct of Supervisor Tony Delorio in coercively interrogating employees regarding their union membership, sympathies, and activities. 10. By the conduct of John Hughes in coercively interrogating an employee regarding his union membership, sympathies, and activities. 11. By the conduct of Harold Kadin on October 23 in questioning an employee as to his reason for joining the Union. 12. By the conduct of Eddie Moss on October 23, 1965, in making an implied threat to an employee because of his activities in behalf of the Union. 13. By the conduct of Supervisor Dick Lenz on or about October 19, 1965, in which he impliedly warned an employee that there would be a discharge of dealers who had supported the Union after the Union lost or was rejected by the employees. 14. By the conduct of Hyman Portnoy on October 19, 1965, by his threat of reprisal to an employee in the event of the organization of the employees. 15. By the unilateral granting of a wage increase to employees for the purposes of undermining the loyalty of the employees to the Union, and affecting a pending representation election. Consistent with the findings herein expressed, it is found that the General Counsel failed to prove that on the afternoon of November 1, 1965, Hyman Portnoy identified an employee as a union supporter and impliedly threatened that less favorable working conditions would prevail in the event of unionization of the employees. Therefore, paragraph marked 9(p) of the complaint is dismissed. It is also found that the General Counsel failed to prove that Supervisor Pat Hoban made an offer of improved working conditions when the employees of the Respondent rejected the Union as their collective-bargaining agent. The testimony of employee Francis on this point was not at all convincing, and it is doubtful if the conversation in any event constituted a threat or offer of benefit. Therefore, paragraph 9(g) of the complaint is dismissed. Thunderbird Division It is found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act: 1. By the conduct of Supervisor Maurice Fitzgerald in threatening the discharge of an employee because of his activity on behalf of the Union. 2. By the unilateral granting of a wage increase to employees for the purpose of breaking down the loyalty of the employees to the Union. Upon all the evidence in the case relevant to the incident in which Supervisors Delorio and Hughes instructed employees to remove their union buttons from their shirts while at work, it is found that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1). The evidence establishes that the Respondent, for many years prior to the union organizational campaign, had a rule which forbade employees to wear any insignia in the casinos while on duty except those which were a part of their uniform or were furnished to the employees by the management. Under the circumstances, I find that the supervisors' conduct in banning the wearing of union buttons was not a violation of the Act.7 Therefore, paragraphs 9(q) and (r) of the complaint are dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that the Respondent unlawfully transferred Dunham A. Turnipseed to a less desirable shift because of his union activities, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is recommended, that Respondent remedy such unlawful conduct by giving Turnipseed immediate and full reinstatement to his former shift, 12 noon to 8 p.m. without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. Thereafter, Turnipseed may be transferred or changed to other shifts only for nondiscriminatory reasons, and only in accordance with his seniority and the customs of the house among the dealers. Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, which evinces an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease ' N L R B v Harrah 's Club, 337 F 2d 177 (C A. 9) CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. 959 and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Consolidated Casinos Corp. and its divisions named Sahara Division and Thunderbird Division constitute one employer who is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By transferring Dunham A. Turnipseed to a different position because of his activities in the Union and for the purpose of discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees as set forth in the specific findings in the sections of this Decision entitled "Sahara Division" and "Thunderbird Division," Respondent has interfered with the exercise of the employees' rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act, and has therefore engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Consolidated Casinos Corp. its Sahara Division and its Thunderbird Division, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership and activities on behalf of American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, or any other labor organization of its employees, by transferring any employees to less desirable work or shifts, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activity or by threatening employees with economic reprisals if they support the Union or by promising the employees benefits if they renounce the Union. (c) Granting benefits to employees for the purpose of discouraging membership or affiliation in American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Dunham A. Turnipseed immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment on the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. shift, and thereafter transfer him only in accordance with seniority and the customs of the house, as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its places of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted at both the Sahara Division and the Thunderbrid Division. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." 8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, or any other union, by transferring, laying off, or discharging employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliation, desires, or activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisal because they have joined the Union above-named or any other union, nor will we promise our employees economic benefits to induce them to renounce the above-named Union or any other union. WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to our employees without consulting with the Union, named above, for the purpose of breaking down the loyalty of our employees to the Union. 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with Dated By discharge because they have joined the Union , named (Representative) (Title) above, or any other union. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of Dated By SAHARA DIVISION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the labor organization named above or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, or any other labor organization. CONSOLIDATED CASINOS CORP. (Employer) THUNDERBIRD DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 10th Floor, Bartlett Building , 215 West Seventh Street , Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5850.