UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`DIVISION OF JUDGES
`SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`and
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`FP HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a
`PALMS CASINO RESORT AND PALMS PLACE, and
`FIESTA PARENTCO, L.L.C., General Partner;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP BOULDER LLC d/b/a
`BOULDER STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP FIESTA LLC d/b/a
`FIESTA RANCHO HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP LAKE MEAD LLC d/b/a
`FIESTA HENDERSON CASINO HOTEL;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP PALACE LLC d/b/a
`PALACE STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP RED ROCK LLC d/b/a
`RED ROCK CASINO, RESORT & SPA;
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`and
`
`
`NP SANTA FE LLC d/b/a
`SANTA FE STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP SUNSET LLC d/b/a
`SUNSET STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP TEXAS LLC d/b/a
`TEXAS STATION GAMBLING HALL AND HOTEL;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION GVR ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a
`GREEN VALLEY RANCH RESORT SPA CASINO;
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`
`and
`
`LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS a/w
`UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION
`
`and
`
`THOMAS STALLINGS, an Individual
`Party in Interest
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cases 28-CA-228052
`28-CA-228944
`28-CA-247602
`28-CA-248464
`28-CA-249203
`28-CA-249576
`28-CA-251083
`28-CA-251254
`28-CA-251803
`28-CA-252404
`28-CA-252964
`28-CA-256630
`28-CA-257778
`28-CA-260167
`28-CA-260169
`28-CA-260187
`28-CA-260199
`28-CA-260207
`28-CA-260209
`28-CA-260216
`28-CA-261666
`28-CA-262465
`28-CA-262973
`28-CA-262977
`
`

`

`28-CA-262980
`28-CA-262982
`28-CA-262987
`28-CA-263582
`28-CA-264135
`28-CA-264297
`28-CA-264465
`28-CA-264469
`28-CA-264476
`28-CA-264612
`28-CA-264619
`28-CA-264626
`28-CA-264631
`28-CA-264638
`28-CA-266556
`28-CA-266987
`28-CA-267067
`28-CA-268930
`28-CA-268957
`28-CA-268958
`28-CA-268960
`28-CA-269516
`28-CA-269517
`28-CA-269519
`28-CA-269520
`28-CA-269959
`28-CA-269962
`28-CA-269965
`28-CA-271251
`28-CA-271608
`28-CA-273812
`28-CA-273936
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP SUNSET LLC d/b/a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`SUNSET STATION HOTEL & CASINO;
`
`and
`
`
`FP HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a
`PALMS CASINO RESORT AND PALMS PLACE, and
`FIESTA PARENTCO, L.L.C., General Partner;
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`
`and
`
`INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
`LOCAL 501, AFL-CIO
`
`and
`
`THOMAS STALLINGS, an Individual
`Party in Interest
`
`
`
`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`
`and
`
`
`NP TEXAS STATION LLC d/b/a TEXAS STATION
`GAMBLING HALL AND HOTEL;
`collectively, a Single Employer and Single Integrated
`Enterprise
`
`
`and
`
`
`MARIA SANJUANA ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 28-CA-239331
`28-CA-247230
`28-CA-260724
`
`
`
`Case 28-CA-245467
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`RED ROCK RESORTS, INC.;
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION HOLDCO LLC
`
`
`and
`
`
`STATION CASINOS LLC;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 28-CA-239376
`
`and
`
`
`NP PALACE LLC d/b/a PALACE STATION HOTEL &
`CASINO
`collectively, a Single Employer and
`Single Integrated Enterprise
`
`
`and
`
`BLAKE SAARI, AN INDIVIDUAL
`
`
`ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTIONS FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, OR
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS NOT PLED WITH
`SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY TO PROVIDE RESPONDENTS WITH ADEQUATE
`NOTICE
`
`
`
`On July 15, 2021, Respondents, in response to General Counsel’s April 12, 2021,
`Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars or, In the
`Alternative, to Strike Allegations Not Pled with Sufficient Particularity to Provide Respondent’s
`with Adequate Notice. Respondent argues generally that the complaint is “incomplete, vague,
`conclusory and disjointed.” Specifically, Respondent argues that the complaint names alleged
`supervisors or agents of Respondent without identifying what “all material times” means for
`each allegation as well as identifying specific bases for the legal conclusion that the named
`individuals are supervisors or agents under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
`Respondent also argues that the complaint should specify why the individuals named may have
`acted as agents. Overall, Respondent seeks more detailed information for virtually all
`paragraphs of the complaint including specific details of what concerted activities occurred, what
`reprisals are alleged, what statements were made, and the names of potential witnesses.
`Respondent also seeks more information as to the General Counsel’s legal conclusions and
`theory of the case.
`
`On July 27, 2021, Counsel for the General Counsel filed an opposition to Respondent’s
`motion. On that same date, Counsel for Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas joined
`Counsel for the General Counsel’s opposition.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Section 102.15 of the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board) Rules and Regulations
`requires that a complaint contain only “(a) a clear and concise statement of the facts upon which
`assertion of jurisdiction by the Board is predicated, and (b) a clear and concise description of the
`acts which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, including, where known, the
`approximate dates and places of such acts and the names of respondent’s agents or other
`representatives by whom committed.”
`
`The rule does not require a complaint to describe exactly what an employer’s supervisor
`or agent allegedly said to the employees or exactly where the supervisor or agent was and what
`he/she was doing at the time. See, e.g., Dal-Tex Optical Co., 130 NLRB 1313 n. 1 (1961)
`(denying the respondent’s motion for a bill of particulars where the complaint alleged that the
`named employer agents “threatened employees with loss of employment because of union
`activity,” “threatened employees that union membership would result in automatic termination of
`their jobs,” and “promised employees they would receive economic benefits if they would not
`vote for the Union.”). Nor does the rule require the complaint to identify the employees to whom
`the alleged statement was made or who heard the statement or exactly where the employees were
`and what they were doing at the time. Walsh-Lumpkin Wholesale Drug Co., 129 NLRB 294, 295
`(1960); and Storkline Corp., 141 NLRB 899, 902–903 (1963), enfd. in part 330 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.
`1964). Indeed, the Board’s policy is to protect the identity of potential employee witnesses prior
`to trial. See Pacific 9 Transportation, Inc., 21–CA–116403, unpub. Board order issued June 11,
`2015 (2015 WL 3643583), and cases cited there.
`
`It is also well-settled that a complaint under the Board’s standards need not have the
`particularity of an indictment or pleading filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “All
`that is required of a valid complaint before the Board is a plain statement of the facts claimed to
`constitute an unfair labor practice.” North American Rockwell Corp. v. NLRB, 389 F.2d 866,
`871 (10th Cir. 1968); see also Artesia Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 (2003).
`Furthermore, a bill of particulars is justified “only when the complaint is so vague that the party
`charged is unable to meet the General Counsel’s case.” North American Rockwell Corp., 389
`F.2d at 871.
`
`
`Here, the complaint is not “so vague” that Respondent cannot meet the General Counsel’s
`case. Significantly, on May 10, 2021, Respondent filed its answer with its affirmative defenses,
`even after receiving an extension of time from the Regional Director of Region 28 to file its
`answer. The complaint need only disclose the nature of the unfair labor practices, the dates and
`locations of those practices, and the names of the agents through whom the respondent(s)
`committed the unfair labor practices. Local 608, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 304 NLRB
`660, 662 (1991). The General Counsel is not obliged to “plead its evidence” in a complaint.
`North American Rockwell Corporation v. NLRB, 389 F.2d 866, 871 (10th Cir 1968).
`Respondent’s bill of particulars mirrors a request for pre-trial discovery which, as acknowledged
`by Respondent, does not occur in NLRB proceedings. Moreover, ferreting out the prosecution’s
`legal theories is not an appropriate use of a bill of particulars. Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v.
`NLRB, 2 F.3d 1162, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1993); North American Rockwell Corp. v. NLRB, 389 F.2d
`866, 871 (10th Cir. 1968); McDonald’s USA, LLC, 362 NLRB 1347 (2015); Artesia Ready Mix
`Concrete, Inc., 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 n.3 (2003); Boilermakers Local 363 (Fluor Corp.), 123
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`NLRB 1877, 1913 (1959). See also United States v. Fruehauf, 196 F. Supp. 198 (1961) (“[t]he
`purpose of a bill of particulars is to secure facts, and not legal theories”).
`
`In sum, the complaint identifies the specific acts engaged in by Respondent that underlie
`the allegations and the dates on which such acts are alleged to have occurred; thus, it provides a
`clear and concise description of the particular acts which form the basis of the complaint. As
`such, I find that the complaint as drafted complies with the dictates of Section 102.15 of the
`Board’s Rules and is sufficiently precise to allow Respondent to investigate and prepare for trial.
`
`Finally, Respondent requests several paragraphs of the complaint be stricken due to
`references to complaint 28-CA-244484, et al. (paragraphs 5(ee), (ff), (gg), (hh), (qq), (rr)).
`Certainly, allegations raised in complaint 28-CA-244484 will not be relitigated in this hearing;
`those allegations are properly before Administrative Law Judge Wedekind who will issue his
`decision in due time. However, simply raising the prior allegations and litigation in continued
`support of the remedy the General Counsel seeks is not unlawful, and shall not be stricken from
`the complaint.
`
`SO ORDERED
`
`
`
`Dated at San Francisco, California, this 29th day of July 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amita B. Tracy
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that I have this 29th day of July 2021, caused copies of the foregoing
`document entitled, ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ Motion for a Bill of Particulars or, In
`the Alternative, to Strike Allegations Not Pled with Sufficient Particularity to Provide
`Respondent’s with Adequate Notice to be delivered by electronic mail upon the following:
`
`For the NLRB Region 28,
`Sara Demirok, Field Attorney.,
` Email sara.demirok@nlrb.gov
`Nathan A. Higley, Field Attorney,
` Email: nathan.higley@nlrb.gov
`Kyler A. Scheid, Field Attorney
` Email: kyler.scheid@nlrb.gov
`
`For the Respondents (Station Casinos):
`Douglas R. Sullenberger, Attorney at Law
`Joshua H. Viau, Attorney at Law
`Email: dsullenberger@fisherphillips.com
`
` jviau@fisherphillips.com
`Timothy H. Scott, Esq.
` Email: tscott@fisherphillips.com
`(Fisher & Phillips, LLP)
`
`For Charging Party Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas
`a/w UNITE HERE International Union
`Eric B. Myers, Esq.,
` Email: ebm@msh.law
`Richard Treadwell, Esq.
` Email: Email: rtreadwell@msh.law
`(McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry LLP)
`
`Charging Party IUOE, Local 5
`David A. Rosenfeld, Attorney at Law
`Email: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
`(Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vanise J. Lee
`Designated NLRB Agent
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`