Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-18-72121/USCOURTS-ca9-18-72121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner
Station GVR Acquisition, LLC
Respondent

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

OPERATING ENGINEER LOCAL 501,

AFL-CIO,

Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

Respondent,

STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC,

d/b/a Green Valley Ranch Resort

Spa Casino,

Respondent-Intervenor.

No. 18-71124

NLRB No.

28-CA-214925

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 1 of 14
2 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC,

DBA Green Valley Ranch Resort

Spa Casino,

Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

Respondent.

No. 18-72079

NLRB No.

28-CA-214925

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

Petitioner,

v.

STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC,

DBA Green Valley Ranch Resort

Spa Casino,

Respondent.

No. 18-72121

NLRB No.

28-CA-214925

OPINION

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Argued and Submitted December 3, 2019

San Francisco, California

Filed February 7, 2020

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 2 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 3

Before: Eugene E. Siler,* Richard R. Clifton,

and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Clifton

SUMMARY**

Labor Law

The panel denied Station GVR Acquisition, LLC, and

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFLCIO’s petitions for review, and granted the National Labor

Relations Board’s cross-application for enforcement of the

Board’s order holding that slot technicians were not “guards”

under section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the

“Act”).

Station GVR owned and operated a hotel and casino in

Henderson, Nevada, and it employed slot technicians whose

primary responsibilities included installing, repairing, and

maintaining gaming machines. The Union filed a petition

with the Board to represent GVR’s slot technicians. The

Board certified Local 501 as the slot technicians’ bargaining

representative, concluding that the slot technicians were not

guards. When GVR refused to recognize and bargain with

the Union, the Board found that GVR engaged in unfair labor

* The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 3 of 14
4 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

practices within the meaning of the Act and ordered various

remedies.

The Act prohibits a union from representing a guard unit

if it also represents non-guard employees. Because it was

undisputed that the Union represented non-guard employees

at the casino, the panel’s inquiry focused on whether a slot

technician was employed as a guard. 

The panel agreed with the Board’s determination that the

casino’s slot technicians were not guards under the statute. 

The panel held that the slot technicians’ duties differed in

fundamental respects from those of the surveillance

technicians in Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB, 863 F.3d 839 (D.C.

Cir. 2017). The panel rejected GVR’s argument that the slot

technicians were guards because they enforced GVR’s rules

and policies against GVR’s guests and other employees.

The Union sought review of the Board’s decision not to

impose an affirmative remedy ordering GVR to provide

certain information that it had previously requested. The

panel held that the Union did not have standing to bring this

petition because the Board granted it all of the relief that it

had specifically sought in the charge and complaint, and

therefore, the Union was not a “person aggrieved” within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 160(f).

COUNSEL

David A. Rosenfeld (argued) and Thomas I.M. Gottheil,

Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, California, for

Petitioner International Union of Operating Engineer Local

501, AFL-CIO.

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 4 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 5

Stanley J. Panikowski (argued), San Diego, California, for

Respondent-Intervenor, Petitioner, and Respondent Station

GVR Acquisition, LLC.

Heather S. Beard (argued),Washington, D.C., for Respondent

and Petitioner National Labor Relations Board.

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Station GVR Acquisition, LLC (“GVR”) owns and

operates a hotel and casino in Henderson, Nevada, known as

Green Valley Ranch Resort. The casino has approximately

2300 gaming machines, including video slot machines, video

reel machines, machines that use a combination of both reel

and video components, and strictly reel machines. Many of

these machines rely on modern electronics and computerbased technology. The casino employs thirteen slot

technicians whose primary responsibilities include installing,

repairing, and maintaining the gaming machines.

This case raises the question of whether the slot

technicians are “guards” under section 9(b)(3) of the National

Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3). 

Under the Act, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”

or the “Board”) cannot certify a union to represent “guards,”

as that term is used in the statute, if that union also represents

non-guard employees.1

1

 Section 9(b)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3), states that:

[T]he Board shall not . . . (3) decide that any unit is

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 5 of 14
6 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

There are three separate petitions before us. First, GVR

petitions for review of the NLRB’s decision certifying the

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFLCIO (“Local 501” or the “Union”) as the slot technicians’

bargaining representative, based on the NLRB’s

determination that the slot technicians are not guards. 

Second, the NLRB seeks enforcement of its order requiring

GVR to bargain with the Union. Third, the Union petitions

for review of the NLRB’s decision not to order an affirmative

remedy requiring GVR to provide the Union with certain

information that it had requested in a letter to the company. 

We agree with the NLRB that the slot technicians are not

guards under the statute. We therefore deny GVR’s petition

and grant the cross-application of the NLRB to enforce its

order. We also deny the Union’s petition.

I. Background

In August 2017, the Union filed a petition with the Board

to represent GVR’s slot technicians. The slot technicians

thereafter voted unanimously in favor of Local 501 serving as

their bargaining representative. GVR filed objections to the

representation. It argued that the slot technicians were

appropriate for [collective bargaining] if it includes,

together with other employees, any individual

employed as a guard to enforce against employees and

other persons rules to protect property of the employer

or to protect the safety of persons on the employer’s

premises; but no labor organization shall be certified as

the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of

guardsifsuch organization admits to membership, or is

affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization

which admits to membership, employees other than

guards. 

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 6 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 7

guards, and that because Local 501 represented other nonguard employees at the casino, it could not serve as the

bargaining representative of the slot technicians. The NLRB

Regional Director overruled GVR’s objections and certified

Local 501 as the slot technicians’ bargaining representative,

concluding that the slot technicians were not guards. The

NLRB later denied GVR’s request for review of that

determination.

Shortly after the Union was certified, it sent a letter to

GVR including a demand for bargaining and a request to be

provided with certain categories of information. GVR

responded that it would not commence collective bargaining

or produce information, and has since refused to recognize

and bargain with the Union. The NLRB thereafter found that

GVR engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of

the Act and ordered various remedies. 

II. Discussion

“This court upholds decisions of the NLRB‘if its findings

of fact are supported by substantial evidence and if the Board

correctly applied the law,’ and defers to any ‘reasonably

defensible’ interpretation of [the Act].” Retlaw Broad. Co. v.

NLRB, 53 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting NLRB v.

Gen. Truck Drivers, Local No. 315, 20 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994)).

A. Guards Under the Statute

The Act’s prohibition on a union representing a guard unit

if it also represents non-guard employees is intended “to

minimize the danger of divided loyalty that arises when a

guard is called upon to enforce the rules of his employer

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 7 of 14
8 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

against a fellow union member.” Drivers, Chauffeurs,

Warehousemen &Helpers, Local 71 v. NLRB, 553 F.2d 1368,

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1977); see also Wells Fargo Alarm Servs. v.

NLRB, 533 F.2d 121, 125 (3d Cir. 1976) (“[T]he Board’s

inquiry must focus on whether the potential conflict in

loyalties which concerned Congress is present.”).

In enacting this section of the Act, Congress

sought to prevent the conflict of interests that

might arise among an employer’s guard

employees when, during a strike by a unit of

nonguard employees represented by the same

union that represents the employer’s guards,

the guards are called upon to enforce the

employer’s securityrules against their striking

colleagues.

Boeing Co., 328 N.L.R.B. 128, 130 (1999).

Because it is undisputed that the Union represents nonguard employees at the casino, our inquiry focuses on

whether a slot technician is an “individual employed as a

guard to enforce against employees and other persons rules to

protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of

persons on the employer’s premises.” 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3);

see Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB, 863 F.3d 839, 847–48 (D.C. Cir.

2017).

B. Slot Technicians

In defending its conclusion that the slot technicians are

not guards, the Board points to its decision in Boeing Co.,

where it described the customary responsibilities of guards:

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 8 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 9

Guard responsibilities include those typically

associated with traditional police and plant

security functions, such as the enforcement of

rules directed at other employees; the

possession of authority to compel compliance

with those rules; training in security

procedures; weapons training and possession;

participation in security rounds or patrols; the

monitor and control of access to the

employer’s premises; and wearing guard-type

uniforms or displaying other indicia of guard

status.

328 N.L.R.B. at 130. Recognizing that employees might

have different responsibilities, some related to security and

some not, the Board concluded that employees are guards

under the Act “if they are charged with guard responsibilities

that are not a minor or incidental part of their overall

responsibilities.” Id.

In the context of this case, the Board argues that the

casino’s slot technicians do not perform any of the traditional

guard responsibilities identified in Boeing. On the contrary,

it characterizes the slot technicians, as their title implies, as

technicians who install, maintain, and repair the slot

machines, and contend that these duties differ fundamentally

from those of guards.

GVR argues that the Board takes too narrow a view of

what constitutes a guard. It asserts that Boeing’s holding that

onlypersons who performtraditional police-like functions are

guards is “flawed” and inconsistent with the plain language

of the statute, as well as other Board and appellate-court

precedent. GVR further contends that “a core function of the

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 9 of 14
10 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

slot technician’s duties is to enforce rules against casino

guests and other employees to protect GVR’s property and

assets,” including by “verifying jackpots against fraudulent

payouts.” It alleges that the slot technicians are trained and

instructed to combat the true dangers facing casinos “in the

modern context,” including “unscrupulous individuals who

try to take advantage of all aspects of the employer’s slot

machine operation, ranging from the initial bill validation, to

fraudulent payouts and tampering, to claims of lost credits, to

fraudulent ‘EZ-Pay’ tickets.”

GVR relies principally on the decision of the D.C. Circuit

in Bellagio, where the court held that the Board improperly

determined that a casino’s surveillance technicians were not

guards. 863 F.3d at 852. The Bellagio court described

several aspects of those employees’ responsibilities, including

that they: (1) design, install, and maintain the surveillance

department’s gaming-floor camera system; (2) “oversee the

server room and are solely responsible for the elaborate

computer system that manages basically every aspect of []

digital surveillance, including not only the surveillance

department’s cameras but the security department’s as well”;

(3) “train the operators and officers on how to use the

computers, change camera views and archive video files”;

and (4) “maintain each casino’s electronic access system.” 

Id. at 842–43 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). The court noted also that, “perhaps most

importantly for our purpose, techs often participate in

targeted investigations of fellow employees suspected of

wrongdoing.” Id. at 844.

Bellagio concluded that the casino surveillance

technicians were guards under the statute because the

evidence “[t]aken as a whole . . . demonstrates that the techs

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 10 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 11

perform an essential step in the [] enforcement of rules to

protect the casinos’ property and patrons, including

enforcement against their fellow employees.” Id. at 849

(internal quotation marks omitted). It noted that the Board’s

contrary determination overlooked, among other things:

(1) “that the surveillance operators and security officers in the

monitor rooms cannot properly do their jobs without the

techs”; (2) the context of “ultramodern luxury casinos” with

sophisticated networks “protect[ing] high-end jewelry,

priceless art, stockpiles of cash and the personal safety of

revelrous guests who are not always vigilant regarding their

own wellbeing”; (3) that “techs can control what surveillance

operators and security officers see in the monitor rooms”; and

(4) the “crucial fact that the techs help enforce rules against

their coworkers, most obviously during special operations.” 

Id. at 850–52 (emphasis in original).

We agree with the Board’s determination that the casino’s

slot technicians are not guards under the statute. Their duties

differ in fundamental respects from those of the surveillance

technicians in Bellagio. There, the surveillance technicians

were responsible for the system that managed “basically

every aspect of [] digital surveillance,” including the cameras

used by both the security and surveillance departments. Id.

at 843. Moreover, the surveillance technicians “control[led]

access to all sensitive areas of each casino and ha[d] access

to all areas themselves; . . . maintain[ed] alarm systems for

the most valuable property in each casino; and . . . help[ed]

spy on fellow employees suspected of misconduct.” Id.

at 849. Indeed, with respect to helping enforce rules against

coworkers, the court found that “[t]he tech’s duties in a

special operation squarely implicate section 9(b)(3)’s aim of

minimizing the danger of divided loyalty that arises when a

guard is called upon to enforce the rules of his employer

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 11 of 14
12 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

against a fellow union member.” Id. at 852 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

By contrast, the slot technicians are not responsible for

any systems relied upon by the surveillance and security

departments to carry out their core functions. Slot

technicians’ interactions with those departments are limited

to verifying that machines are operating properly and helping

to determine the validity of potentially fraudulent claims of

faulty payouts on gaming machines. Unlike the surveillance

technicians who controlled the access—and themselves had

access—to all sensitive areas of the casino, slot technicians

are not permitted to enter the surveillance room without

permission and do not control access to sensitive spaces in the

casino. Rather, the slot technicians spend 90% of their time

on the gaming floor, primarily installing, maintaining, and

repairing the machines.

Most importantly, while the surveillance technicians in

Bellagio helped “spy on fellow employees suspected of

misconduct,” id. at 849, and engaged in special operations

against other employees, which the court found “squarely

implicat[ed]” section 9(b)(3)’s aim of minimizing the danger

of divided loyalty, id. at 852, slot technicians do not engage

in sting operations to detect malfeasance against employees

or customers. Indeed, they have no involvement in the

investigation of other employees except to the extent that an

inspection of a gaming machine might be required. They

likewise have no obligation to report employee misconduct

beyond that of other employees. The animating purpose of

minimizing divided loyalty between guards and non-guard

employees is not implicated by this representation.

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 12 of 14
IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB 13

GVR argues that the slot technicians are guards because

they “enforce GVR’s rules and policies against GVR’s guests

and other employees in order to protect GVR’s property and

assets.” This distended interpretation of guard status would

swallow the definition outright. For example, GVR contends

that the slot technicians “[e]nforce GVR’s rules and policies

against underage gaming and underage drinking, which

protects GVR against both legal liability and the potential

loss of its gaming license,” and also enforce “GVR’s antimoney laundering rules.” But the Board found that all of the

employees who work on the gaming floor, including slot

technicians, are required to be on the lookout for malfeasance

such as underage drinking and gambling and money

laundering. These employees report any prohibited activity

to security personnel. Critically, the duties of the slot

technicians to detect and report malfeasance at the casino

extends no further than other employees who work on the

gaming floor.

Under GVR’s proffered interpretation of guard status, we

struggle to think of any casino employee who would not fit

the bill. Bartenders surely enforce GVR’s rules against

underage drinking when they check a patron’s ID before

serving alcohol. Likewise, table dealers enforce rules to

protect the property of the casino when they exchange chips

only for the amount of cash received from a prospective

player and look to see that players are not pocketing extra

chips. Just as the slot technicians’ duties include reporting

prohibited activity to security, the bartenders and dealers are

to do the same if they detect a patron presenting fake

identification or stealing chips. We decline to adopt an

interpretation of the Act that would characterize virtually all

employees working on the casino floor as guards.

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 13 of 14
14 IUOE LOCAL 501 V. NLRB

C. The Union’s Petition

Finally, the Union seeks review of the Board’s decision

not to impose an affirmative remedy ordering GVR to

provide certain information that it had previously requested

in a letter to the company. The Union does not deny that the

Board granted it all of the relief that it had specifically sought

in the charge form and complaint. It therefore does not have

standing to bring this petition, as it is not a “person

aggrieved” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 160(f).2

III. Conclusion

The Board reasonablydetermined that the slot technicians

are not guards under section 9(b)(3) of the Act. The Board

likewise did not err in failing to provide the Union with an

affirmative remedy that it had not sought. The petition for

review filed by GVR is DENIED, the petition for review

filed by the Union is also DENIED and the Board’s crossapplication for enforcement of its order against GVR is

GRANTED.

2

 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) provides, in relevant part:

Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board

granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought

may obtain a review of such order in any United States

court of appeals in the circuit wherein the unfair labor

practice in question was alleged to have been engaged

. . . (emphasis added).

Case: 18-72121, 02/07/2020, ID: 11588845, DktEntry: 72-1, Page 14 of 14