Aladdin Gaming, LLC, operates a hotel and casino in Las Vegas. Nevada. On May 30, 2003, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas and two other unions (the unions) began an open campaign to organize Aladdin's housekeeping, food, and beverage departments. On two occasions during this campaign, human resources managers at Aladdin (Tracy Sapiens and Stacey Briand) approached union organizers who were discussing unionization with employees in an employee dining room during a lunch break.. Sapiens and Briand interrupted the organizers while they were obtaining signatures on authorization cards and asked whether the employees were fully informed of the facts before signing. The unions filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming that the manager's actions were illegal surveillance in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB ruled in favor of Aladdin, and the unions appealed.
IN THE LANGUAG E OF THE COURT
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA states that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title The [NLRB has Interpreted Section 8(a)(1) to make observation of urn activity rueful, if the observation goes beyond casual and becomes unduly intrusive. 7he test for determining whether an employer engages in unlawful surveillance or whether it creates the impression of surveillance is an objective one and involves the determination of whether the employer's conduct, under the circumstances, was such as would tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the [National Labor Relations) Act [Emphasis added.) There is no evidence that either Ms. Sapiens or Ms. Briand used threats, force, or promises of benefits that would strip their speech of the protections of Section 8(c). Ms. Sapiens attempted to give the buffet servers additional facts to consider before signing the unworn cards. Ms. Briand told Ms. Felix [an employee) that Ms. Buenos [another employee) should not sign a union card without fully understanding the consequences and provided her opinion that the union may not be able to deliver on Its promises. Ms. Felix voluntarily translated Ms. Briand's comments for Ms. Buenos [a Spanish speaker]. After Ms. Felix explained the translation, Ms. Briand left.
DECISION AND REMEDY The federal appellate court denied the unions' petition for review, concluding that the managers' brief Interruptions of organizing activity did not constitute illegal surveillance.
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? if management employees had interrupted union-organizing activities twenty-five times rather than jilt twice, would the outcome of this case have been different? Why or why not?
THE LEGAL. ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION An admirstrative law judge (AU) originally ruled that the two brief verbal intentions by Sapiens and Briand violated the NLRA Why might the AU have made this ruling?