Casino Worker Challenges Order Installing Unwanted Union via ‘Card Check’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Ninth circuit panel signals willingness to end precedent allowing for imposition of union
NLRB officials stacked the deck against rank-and-file Red Rock Casino employees by imposing an unpopular union on them despite worker objections.
LAS VEGAS, NV – A large majority of the workers at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada voted “no” to unionization, but a federal district court judge ordered their employer to bargain with union officials anyway. Casino officials appealed, and Red Rock employee Raynell Teske supported their efforts to overturn the judge’s coercive order that overrides the choice workers made at the ballot box.
With free Foundation legal aid, Teske filed a brief arguing that the district judge had no reason to impose a union onto workers who had already soundly voted to reject it. A Ninth Circuit panel denied the initial appeal, but issued an unusual concurring opinion in which all three judges said they disagreed with that outcome, but were bound by Ninth Circuit precedent to uphold the district judge’s order.
Binding precedent can only be overturned through an en banc hearing before a larger Ninth Circuit panel. Red Rock lawyers filed for an en banc rehearing of their appeal. The court then ordered National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) lawyers defending the order to respond, another signal the judges may be willing to overturn this ridiculous precedent and rule in the workers’ favor. Teske filed a second amicus brief, urging the court to hear the case en banc.
Judge Overrides Workers’ Vote Against Union ‘Representation’
The situation at Red Rock began in December 2019, when the NLRB held a secret-ballot election on whether to unionize the Casino’s workers. Employees rejected union officials’ effort to become their monopoly bargaining “representatives” in an NLRB-supervised vote by a nearly 100-vote margin. Despite that outcome, NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet sought a federal court injunction imposing the union over the workers’ objections.
On July 20, 2021, District Judge Gloria Navarro agreed with the NLRB Director’s request, and ordered Red Rock to bargain with union officials despite the employees’ vote against unionization. The judge said the order was justified because union officials claimed that, before the vote, a majority of workers had signed union authorization cards.
Teske’s amicus briefs argue those “Card Check” signatures don’t prove that union officials ever had majority support. She contends the level of union support was tested fairly by the secret-ballot election, in which workers voted 627-534 against unionization.
Her briefs point out that the NLRB and federal courts have long recognized that secret ballots are a more reliable way of gauging worker support for a union, because workers are often pressured, harassed, or misled by union organizers into signing cards.
Union officials know that Card Check signatures do not indicate solid worker support. The AFL-CIO admitted in its internal organizing handbook that it needed at least 75% Card Check support before having even a 50-50 chance of winning a secret-ballot election. Union bosses prefer Card Check unionization because they can more easily take control of workplaces where they lack popular support, and partisan NLRB appointees now are working to grant their wish.
Partisan NLRB Pushes Unreliable ‘Card Check’
Past legislative attempts to enact Card Check unionization, including the so-called “PRO Act,” pending in the U.S. Senate right now, faced bipartisan opposition. However, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former high-ranking union lawyer, believes she can implement Card Check without congressional approval. Abruzzo has expressed interest in resurrecting a decades-old NLRB doctrine that allows unions to sue employers to try to force them to automatically bargain whenever the union possesses a pile of untested union cards.
“There is no reason why district court judges or NLRB bureaucrats should be able to override workers’ choice at the ballot box,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “A favorable ruling for Raynell Teske and her colleagues could provide legal ammunition for future workers if the NLRB tries to force them to accept union officials for whom they never even had a chance to vote.”
Red Rock Casino Slot Technicians Blast Regional Labor Board Ruling Trapping Them Under Unpopular Union, Appeal Decision
Employee vote to decertify union blocked based on allegations that have nothing to do with slot techs’ bargaining unit
Las Vegas, NV (May 9, 2022) – Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to reverse an NLRB Region’s decision which blocks his and his coworkers’ right to vote out a union that a majority of them have already expressed interest in removing. Barrios is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Barrios submitted a petition to the NLRB Region 28 in March asking the agency to conduct a union “decertification vote” amongst his fellow slot technicians whether to kick out International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials. The petition contained signatures of a large majority of his colleagues.
However, the Region did not schedule the vote as Barrios and his coworkers had asked. NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet instead ruled in April that largely unverified and unrelated allegations (also called “blocking charges”) union officials had made against management of Station Casinos, Red Rock’s parent company, blocked the technicians from exercising their right to vote whether to remove the union.
Barrios’ Request for Review argues that the Region’s decision is unfounded, and requests that the NLRB in Washington, DC, reverse it and allow them to have an immediate decertification vote.
Slot Tech’s Request for Review Criticizes Regional Labor Board Decision as “a Scattershot Mess”
Barrios’ Request for Review begins by explaining that, even if any of the union’s “blocking charges” have merit, the NLRB Regional Director was not adhering to Foundation-backed reforms in the rules regarding “blocking charges” that the NLRB formally adopted in 2020. Under the reforms, “blocking charges” generally do not stop employees from exercising their right to vote in a decertification election. Instead, the NLRB takes up any “blocking charges” surrounding an election after a vote tally has been released.
“The Regional Director ignored the current Election Rules and even refused to cite them,” Barrios’ Request for Review says.
Moreover, Barrios’ Foundation attorneys go even deeper and demonstrate that, even under the old election rules which would have allowed “blocking charges” to stall a decertification election, the union’s allegations against the employer are completely insufficient to block an employee vote.
Barrios’ attorneys show that the majority of the union’s accusations describe alleged employer malfeasance concerning bargaining units other than Barrios’. The Request for Review points out that, by the Region’s logic, “any employer’s unfair labor practice could block any decertification in any of its other units, no matter how remote.”
The remaining “blocking charges,” including an allegation that Red Rock management did not bargain with the union over COVID-19 protections, Barrios’ Request for Review explains, either do not reveal actual violations of federal labor law by Red Rock management or have no causal connection to Barrios and his colleagues’ desire to remove the union. Barrios’ brief notes that Red Rock officials already complied with a consent order regarding the dispute over COVID-19 protections and “likely remedied any violation that could conceivably block an election.”
Foundation Attorneys Aid Other Station Casinos Employees
The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by Foundation-backed employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. The order was issued despite the fact that a majority of the hospitality and foodservice employees voted in a secret ballot election to reject union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.
Foundation attorneys also represent Palms Casino engineering worker Thomas Stallings and his coworkers in their decertification effort against IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials. As in Barrios’ case, Stallings’ attorneys argue that regional NLRB officials have left Stallings and his coworkers trapped under the monopoly control of an unpopular union despite the current NLRB rules regarding “blocking charges,” and despite the fact the accusations by union officials against their employer have little if anything to do with Stallings’ work unit.
“Las Vegas is now home to at least three instances where regional NLRB officials have reflexively indulged union boss requests to remain in power at workplaces where a clear majority of workers want the union gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Las Vegas is indeed ‘Sin City,’ if the sin is disrespecting workers’ fundamental right to choose freely whether or not union bosses should speak for them.”
“Foundation attorneys are proud to stand by these courageous workers, who are fighting not only union coercion but an NLRB Regional Director seemingly determined to undermine the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation,” Mix added.
Workers Who Voted Against Union Oppose Order Forcing Union on Them
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Biden NLRB seeks to overturn vote of Red Rock Casino workers against Unite Here
Red Rock Casino employees bearing the messages “We Despise Union Lies” and “Respect Their Votes” protested outside Culinary Union headquarters in Las Vegas after union bosses tried to block Red Rock Casino workers’ emphatic vote to remove the union.
LAS VEGAS, NV – A large majority of the workers at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, voted “no” to unionization, but a federal district court judge later issued an order forcing their employer to bargain with union officials anyway.
The Casino appealed the judge’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys assisted Red Rock food service employee Raynell Teske for free in filing her legal brief at the Ninth Circuit, arguing the judge was wrong to impose a union monopoly on the workers after the union had already lost an election.
Judge Overrides Workers’ Election Choice
In December 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administered a secret-ballot election on whether to unionize Red Rock. A majority of those voting rejected union officials’ effort to become their monopoly bargaining “representatives.”
Nevertheless, NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet sought a federal court injunction demanding the union be imposed over the workers’ objections. On July 20, 2021, notoriously partisan Judge Gloria Navarro, appointed by Barack Obama, granted the NLRB Director’s request. She fired off a rare “Gissel” order forcing Red Rock to bargain with union officials despite the employees’ vote against unionization. The judge based her order on union officials’ claim that a majority of workers had signed union authorization cards before the vote. Teske’s legal brief argues that those “card check” signatures are unreliable, and not reason enough to conclude the union ever had majority support. After all, the level of union support was tested by the secret-ballot election and the results were clear: union officials received only 40% support from the eligible employees’ votes. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, secret ballots are a far more reliable way of gauging worker support for a union, because workers are often pressured, harassed, or misled by union organizers into signing cards.
Union Handbook Admits: ‘Card Check’ Is Unreliable
Unions themselves know that “card check” signatures do not reliably indicate worker support. The AFL-CIO admitted in its 1989 organizing handbook that it needed at least 75% card check support before having even a 50-50 chance of winning a secret-ballot election. An earlier guidebook acknowledged that some workers sign cards just to “get the union off my back.” Teske’s brief argues the union’s possession of so-called “cards” does not give union officials permission to take over, especially after they lost a secret-ballot election.
Brief: A Judge’s Order Shouldn’t Overturn Workers’ Clear Choice
The Foundation-aided brief urges that the “Gissel” order be overturned and says that imposing the union’s monopoly power despite the workers’ vote against it treats workers “like children” who did not understand what they were doing when they voted against union affiliation.
“Ms. Teske and her coworkers chose to reject unionization at the ballot box, but Judge Navarro decided to use her power to overturn the election,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Time and time again, we see workers pressured, misled and even bribed to sign union cards, which is why ‘Card Check’ is widely accepted as unreliable, especially compared to an NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election.”
“The Court of Appeals should promptly overturn Judge Navarro’s coercive order, and restore the actual choice workers made at the ballot box. Federal judges and NLRB bureaucrats cannot be allowed to override workers’ choices,” added LaJeunesse.








