Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

July 13, 2004

MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR



On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

Before: Edwards, Sentelle and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sentelle, Circuit Judge

Argued December 5, 2003

Majestic Star Casino, LLC ("Majestic" and "the company") petitions this Court for review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" and "Board") in an unfair labor practice proceeding. Majestic contests the Board's underlying certification of the union, arguing both that the Board erred in ruling on its election objections, and further that the company was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing on some of those objections. For the reasons more fully set forth below, we deny the petition and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement.

I. Background

Majestic operates a casino in Gary, Indiana. In April 2002, United Steelworkers of America ("Steelworkers" and "union") sought certification from the Board as the collectivebargaining representative for the company's slot-machine technicians.

On May 21, three days before the election, the union distributed a flier to the company's bargaining unit employees. The flier was styled a "Steelworkers Guarantee." The flier stated, in part:

We Guarantee the following to the Bargaining Unit Employees of: MAJESTIC STAR CASINO (SLOT TECHNICIANS)

ù The opportunity for you to elect your own negotiating committee....

ù [T]hat [any approved contract will be one that] YOU and your CO-WORKERS negotiated and have VOTED by a MAJORITY to ACCEP....T

ù That YOU have the right to ELECT your union representative from your immediate house, who WILL REPRESENT YOU before management....

On May 24 -- pursuant to a stipulated election agreement --the Board conducted a secret-ballot election. Thirteen employees voted for representation and eight voted against. On May 31, the company filed four objections to the election conduct.

Majestic alleged that the election should be set aside because the union, it claimed, misrepresented material facts, impermissibly promised waiver of union initiation fees, improperly offered to waive or defer union dues payments, and improperly influenced the outcome of the election.

The NLRB Regional Director ("RD") issued an eighteenpage report on the company's objections, recommending that the Board overrule all four. Majestic filed exceptions with the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.