Monday, March 1, 1999 | 12:12 p.m.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Owners of the former Sands hotel-casino in Las Vegas violated federal labor laws by breaking negotiators' promises to sign contracts with three unions shortly before the hotel was torn down, says a federal appeals court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld findings by the National Labor Relations Board that the Sands committed unfair labor practices against unions representing painters, carpenters and electrical workers.
The three unions represented about 20 workers at the hotel, said Hope Singer, lawyer for the Painters and Carpenters unions.
The ruling, issued Wednesday, also affirmed NLRB orders requiring the owners to honor their negotiators' pledge to sign contracts with the three unions and pay retroactive wage increases.
However, Robert P. Spretnak, lawyer for Las Vegas Sands Inc., owner of the Sands, said he wasn't sure what effect the ruling would have "since the employer is no longer in business."
The Venetian hotel is scheduled to open in April on the site of the Sands, which was demolished in June 1996. The old and new hotels have separate corporate owners, but the leader of both corporations is Sheldon Adelson.
Spretnak also said the new hotel was under no obligation to continue the Sands' union contracts or hire any unionized staff unless unions won the right to represent the workers.
However, the NLRB ruling indicated that the owner's duties would be defined by the contracts, which allowed the unions to represent employees in any facility that was an extension or continuation of the former hotel. That language may require further NLRB interpretation.
The ruling involved negotiations that started in 1995, as the Sands' contracts with all three unions were expiring. Union representatives said management negotiators agreed that fall on new multiyear contracts that were ratified by union members.
The company, which refused to sign the contracts, said its negotiators made it clear that their authority was limited and that final approval of each agreement was up to Adelson, who held a controlling interest in the parent company.
But after testimony from the negotiators, an NLRB administrative law judge concluded the union representatives were telling the truth. He said the company violated the law by refusing to sign the contracts, and by refusing to give the unions information about its plans to demolish the Sands.
The ruling was endorsed by the labor board and the appeals court.
The court, in a 3-0 ruling, said there was substantial evidence that company negotiators never told any union representative they lacked authority to reach a binding agreement. The court also said the company was required to turn over information about its plans for closure so that the unions could negotiate over protections for workers.
The panel consisted of Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Thomas Nelson of the 9th Circuit and Phyllis Kravitch, a visiting judge from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Spretnak, the company's lawyer, said he disagreed with the ruling, especially on the issue of turning over information to the unions.
archive
