DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS PROUTY
AND MAYER
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which Blue Tarp re- Development, LLC d/b/a MGM Springfield (the Respond- ent) is contesting the certification of New England Joint Board, UNITE HERE (the Union) as bargaining repre- sentative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on December 9, 2024, amended January 23, 2025, by the Union, the General Counsel is- sued a complaint on March 20, 2025, alleging that the Re- spondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union following the Union's certification in Case 01-RC- 335489. (Official notice is taken of the record in the rep- resentation proceeding as defined in the Board's Rules and Regulations, Sections 102.68 and 102.69(d). Frontier Ho- tel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982)). The Respondent filed an an- swer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses.
1 In its answer, the Respondent denies par. 5(a) of the complaint, which states that the unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act. The Respondent stipulated to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit in the representa- tion proceeding and so does not raise a material issue of fact by this de- nial. See Wismettac Asian Foods, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 62, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2020) (later denial of fact previously stipulated to in representation proceeding did "not raise any litigable issue in [test-of-certification] pro- ceeding"); Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill, Inc., 306 NLRB 732, 732 fn. 1 (1992) (same).
The Respondent also denies par. 5(c) of the complaint, which states that at all times since September 23, 2024, based on Sec. 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. The Respondent admits the allegations that it has refused to bargain with the Union in par. 6 of the complaint, but asserts that it had no duty to bargain with the Union because the certification of representa- tive was improper and that the results of the election must be set aside. The Respondent denies the allegations in pars. 7 and 8 of the complaint, which state that its failure to recognize and bargain with the Union vio- lated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and that its unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act. All representation issues were fully litigated and resolved in the underlying representation proceeding; thus, we conclude that the Respondent's de- nials do not raise any issues warranting a hearing.
The Respondent asserts that unspecified allegations in the complaint are barred by Sec. 10(b) of the Act. However, the Respondent has not On February 18, 2026, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. On February 20, 2026, the
Board issued an Order Transferring the Proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent has not filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits that it has refused to bargain but asserts that it has no duty to bargain and contests the va- lidity of the Union's certification of representative based on its objections to the election in the underlying repre- sentation proceeding.1
All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation pro- ceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a
hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor has it established any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice pro- ceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313
U.S. 146, 162 (1941). Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a Mas- sachusetts limited liability company with an office and presented any factual or legal basis in support of this defense, and its answer admits that the charge was filed on December 9, 2024, and that it has refused to bargain with the Union since October 1, 2024. There- fore, we find that the Respondent's Sec. 10(b) defense is without merit. The Respondent further asserts that the complaint is void because the Board lacked a quorum when the complaint issued. Under the Act, the General Counsel, an independent officer, has authority to issue and pros- ecute unfair labor practice complaints; whether the Board had a valid quorum does not affect the validity of the complaint. See Pallet Cos.,
361 NLRB 339, 339 (2014), enfd. 634 Fed. Appx. 800 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The Respondent further asserts that the Board lacks the authority to impose the remedies sought by the General Counsel, that the allegations in the complaint fail to establish a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and/or Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act, and that it reserves the right to assert additional af- firmative defenses at a later stage. The Respondent has not, however, offered any explanation or evidence to support these bare assertions. Thus, we find that these affirmative defenses are insufficient to warrant denial of the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. See, e.g., Sysco Central California, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 1 fn.
1
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2
place of business in Springfield, Massachusetts, and has been engaged in the business of operating a casino. Annually, in conducting its operations described above, the Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchases and receives at its Springfield, Massachusetts facility goods valued in excess of $5000 di- rectly from points outside the Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following an election conducted by secret ballot on March 8 and 9, 2024, the Regional Director issued a Cer- tification of Representative in Case 01-RC-335489 on September 23, 2024, certifying the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time table games dealer, poker games dealers and poker attendants employed by the Employer at its 1 MGM Way, Springfield, Massa- chusetts facility; but excluding slot attendants, cage workers, security officers, clerical employees, profes- sional employees, managers, and guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act.3
On January 30, 2026, the Board denied the Respond- ent's request for review of the Regional Director's Deci- sion and Certification of Representative. The Union con- tinues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the unit employees under Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On October 1, 2024, the Union, by email, requested that the Respondent bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Since about October 1, 2024, and continuing to date, the Re- spondent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the unit.
We find that the Respondent's conduct constitutes an unlawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
3 The complaint lists "table games dealers" as an included employee classification; however, the certification of representative includes "table games dealer" as the classification.
The certification notes that Dealer Trainees are neither included in nor excluded from the bargaining unit because the parties did not agree on
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since about October 1, 2024, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an un- derstanding is reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi- cation as beginning on the date the Respondent begins to bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
2
BLUE TARP REDEVELOPMENT, LLC D/B/A SPRINGFIELD
3
Massachusetts facility; but excluding slot attendants, cage workers, security officers, clerical employees, pro- fessional employees, managers, and guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Springfield, Massachusetts, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."4Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no- tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em- ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since October 1, 2024.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 1 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 1, 2026
______________________________________
James R. Murphy, Chairman
______________________________________
David M. Prouty, Member
________________________________________
Scott A. Mayer, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4