INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO 501 AFL CIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 501, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent,
NP Sunset LLC, dba Sunset Station Hotel Casino, Intervenor. NP Sunset LLC, dba Sunset Station Hotel Casino, Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent,
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFL-CIO, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. NP Sunset LLC, dba Sunset Station Hotel Casino, Respondent, International Union of Operating Engineer Local 501, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.

No. 19-70092, No. 19-70244, No. 19-70279

Decided: February 07, 2020

Before: SILER,* CLIFTON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

David A. Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Petitioner (Case no. 19-70092) Heather Stacy Beard, Esquire, Attorney, Usha Dheenan, David Habenstreit, NLRB - National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent Harriet Lipkin, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, DC, Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, for Intervenor Harriet Lipkin, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, DC, Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, for Petitioner (Case no. 19-70244) David A. Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Intervenor Heather Stacy Beard, Esquire, Attorney, Usha Dheenan, David Habenstreit, NLRB - National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Petitioner (Case no. 19-70279) Harriet Lipkin, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, DC, Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, Esquire, Attorney, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, for Respondent

MEMORANDUM **

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501, AFL- CIO (“Union”) and NP Sunset LLC, DBA Sunset Station Hotel Casino (“Sunset”) each petition for review of a January 7, 2019 Order by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”). The Board has also filed a cross-application to enforce this Order against Sunset. We deny both petitions for review and grant the Board’s cross-application to enforce its Order.

As we have concluded in a case argued together with this one, the Board did not err in determining that the casino slot technicians are not “guards” under 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(3). Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs Local 501 v. NLRB, No. 18-71124, 949 F.3d 477, 2020 WL 596004 (9th Cir. ––––, 2020).

In addition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant the Union’s request for enhanced remedies. See United Steel Workers of Am. AFL-CIO-CLC v. NLRB, 482 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2007). The Board also did not err in failing to provide an explanation for its decision to issue standard remedies. See id. at 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he Board’s decision to order an unextraordinary remedy does not merit an extraordinary explanation.”).

Petitions for Review DENIED; Cross-Application to Enforce GRANTED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law