Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Breaking News
Nov. 05, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Judge rules M Resort must reinstate two fired security guards

By ARNOLD M. KNIGHTLY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

The M Resort in Henderson must reinstate two fired security workers and pay them wages going back to December, a federal administrative law judge ruled. The termination of four other security guards during the same period, however, did not violate the National Labor Relations Act, the judge said.

The two workers, Bruce Allen and Dean Skibickyj, were terminated Dec. 13 by the resort for “improper job conduct.” The resort fired Allen and Skibickyj for discussing a confidential investigation and unnecessarily causing a disruption in the workforce.

Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Corrections officer dies in collision on U.S. 95
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • Man sentenced to 15 years for federal tax crimes
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Fontainebleau Las Vegas has new bidder
  • Las Vegas man denied pardon in killing of abusive father
  • Three suspects in murder of police officer appear in court
  • Visitors authority urges officials to call off mock nuclear blast
  • Woman found dead in burning home




    • The other four guards were terminated for looking at confidential employee files that were found in an employee break room by other guards.

    Lana Park, an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board in San Francisco, found the resort violated the two employee’s rights because Allen and Skibickyj were “engaged in concerted protected activities” and had not engaged in conduct that deserved termination.

    “Dean and I are extremely happy because they really tried to throw us under the bus at the trial and the judge saw right through it,” Allen said.

    M Resort attorney Mark Ricciardi said resort officials are still reviewing Park’s ruling and have not decided if the resort will appeal.

    All the guards that were terminated had complained to management about working conditions at the resort, including lack of shelter during the shift, and management’s failure to provide needed equipment such as jacks and flashlights.

    Allen and Skibickyj were “in the forefront” of the complaints by taking grievances directly to management, Park said in her decision.

    Allen had “made clear his support for potential discrimination litigation against” the resort by another terminated worker.

    The incidents happened while M Resort, which opened March 1, was under construction. In Tuesday’s ruling, Park said M Resort must also stop threatening employees with discharge for engaging in union activities and refrain from interrogating employees about their activities and those of their co-workers.

    Ricciardi said 16 of the 18 charges of illegal threats or interrogations made in the National Labor Relations Board complaint were dismissed by the judge.

    The parties in the case have until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling.

    Contact reporter Arnold M. Knightly at aknightly@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 17 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Gil wrote on November 12, 2009 07:15 PM: I love how Annoyed so beautifully admitted that he would violate both Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as well as Section 8(a)(3). I'm sure he'd love to pay the backpay and wages associated with such a penalty.


    Security OFFICER wrote on November 12, 2009 05:45 PM: I wonder why people even want a union where they work. Maybe it's because of someone like ANNOYED that really has a power struggle going on. ANNOYED because he really needs to let the scum people know he is the (BOSS). Thanks BOSS we know you're here..


    frank wrote on November 09, 2009 03:58 PM: union jobs in this state are the only secure ones, i like to get a comment on a possible security positions going union, it will not be perfect ,but with thestate at will harrassing rules who has a choice,people stick together at work,good day


    Lawman wrote on November 06, 2009 03:33 AM: I just enjoy reading the posts from ignorant people like annoyed and jeezlouise. Your ignorant of the labor laws of this state, and as for "at will" it's a philosophy not a law. You can't violate someones rights in the workplace.If more people took a stand like these guys, we would all be better off in the work place.Everyone is accountable for their actions even big time casino owners and their management.Don't listen to the haters.


    vegas al wrote on November 05, 2009 10:39 PM: Rio , take two. obviously nothings changed.


    Annoyed wrote on November 05, 2009 08:39 PM: It seems that Lana Park needs to be disbarred, since she does not know the laws of this state.

    The law is that Nevada is an AT WILL state. Meaning, these security guards could have been terminated for even farting in the same room as one of their superiors.

    They also have the right to refuse a union being formed in their place of business. They're certainly lucky that I'm not the one running the place, because I'd be terminating anyone and everyone who attempted to form a union. People should be thankful to even HAVE a job these days.


    jeezlouise wrote on November 05, 2009 08:24 PM: Doesnt a private company have the right to hire and terminate whoever they want? Unless the worker is gay or pregnant-that is. How is it that these 2 men are entitled to something because M wasnt happy with them? Arent people supposed to be grateful to have a job or quit and go elsewhere? So is it a union or isnt it?


    Lou wrote on November 05, 2009 07:36 PM: It was the head of employee relations who left the file out and open, but ofcourse management tried putting on the security officers who found it.


    BO wrote on November 05, 2009 06:24 PM: The only employee that should have been terminated is the one responsible for leaving confidential files in a public area such as an employee break room.


    clark county fire department would just hide these two until they maxed out retirement wrote on November 05, 2009 06:12 PM:
    felony
    dui or what ever
    who cares
    everyone gets a free ride.


    Read All Comments