Las Vegas Sun NewsSuit against Wynn tip-sharing policy dismissed
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleMonday
1 August 2011
4:45 p.m.
Casino executive Steve Wynn has won another victory in his effort to maintain a controversial company policy of sharing workers’ tips with management.
A federal judge last month dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of nightclub workers protesting the policy. Wynn’s attorneys argued that disputes over tips should be settled in an arbitration procedure as required by the workers’ labor contract.
The ruling, which came to light today, follows a determination by Nevada’s labor commissioner last year that a similar casino policy requiring dealers to share tips with supervisors is legal.
Judge Kent Dawson dismissed the suit based on a move by the Bartenders Union Local 165 representing some of the nightclub workers to resolve the dispute through arbitration rather than the court system.
The union and casino management are expected to meet with an independent arbitrator in the coming weeks in an attempt to settle the dispute.
The judge also dismissed charges against nightclub operator Cy Waits, who was running the clubs for Wynn at the time of the lawsuit.
After the judge’s order dismissing the suit, attorneys for nightclub workers filed a motion stating that several issues remain unresolved — including the problem of workers who are not represented by the union that requested arbitration.
Workers who sued say the labor contract doesn’t allow for management to keep tips that belong to them. The grievance procedure in the labor contract is ambiguous and at worst, has little validity according to what management has told employees objecting to the tip policy, they say.
“On numerous occasions, authorized representatives of Wynn indicated to plaintiff (Kevin) Carter that managers will always receive gratuities, the grievance procedures are meaningless, they will never change the system and Wynn has a policy of not taking grievances to arbitration,” according to a July 18 filing in opposition to Wynn’s motion to dismiss the case.
There’s another wrinkle for workers named in the lawsuit. Many are no longer working at Wynn Las Vegas, which means they aren’t subject to the arbitration procedure. Also, the arbitration would only address supposed damages to workers from the time they filed a grievance with the union last year.
Workers sued in part to seek the return of money that has been given to nightclub management since the opening of Wynn Las Vegas in 2005.
Representatives for Wynn Las Vegas and nightclub workers could not immediately be reached for comment.
Share
Join the Discussion:
Previous Discussion:
Discussion 1 comments
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Most Popular
- Boy, 15, run over by SUV and killed during theft of iPad
- After $7M renovation, Terrible’s casino now the Silver Sevens
- Former lawyer says O.J. Simpson knew about guns
- A month after wife’s death, Nellis technical sergeant confesses, police say
- Board tells Las Vegas table game maker: Stay out of California
Rules are rules and the workers need to abide by them. This is not New York City where the judges do not like arbitration. Arbitration has long been used in disputes like this and it takes away a huge burden from the federal courts.
The problem of dealer compensation was an issue for Resort's International before we opened in 1978. I was the Resort's point person with the Legislature and Attorney General's office, in assisting with the drafting of the Casino Control Act. I had recommended to Resort's President that we ban tipping in the casino, because dealers would earn more than casino supervisors and possibly even pit bosses. I was suggesting we pay a suitable wage rate, and the much higher casino payroll would be partially offset by the money customers may leave at the table that would otherwise have ended up in the tip pool. Also the State win taxes would have been higher. I was concerned, and eventually proved correct, that a wage spiral did hit the industry. Of course this was bound to happen anyhow, as new Atlantic City casinos had to steal our dealers and floor men to staff their casino management positions. Resorts management didn't agree with my proposal, so I kept my suggestions to myself when helping with the eventual Legislation. The Wynn solution makes a lot of sense, so that dealers aren't out earning their bosses, and consequently unlikely to accept promotions to higher level positions.
These are just a group of disgruntle employees, who spend more effort in suing Wynn instead of working on the problem internally. Everyone should know the work policy of its employer, and if you don't like it, you don't take the job, and if your already employed you work on it internally or at the next contract negotiation. Its easy to say one thing once you have resigned or have been terminated about your employer, but to file a law suit on a policy that has been in existence, is just a disgruntle employee that was probably disruptive to the total work force.
It is great to see Wynn fight for his salary employees. The casino I worked for in Vegas for over 20 years treats it's salary employees like dirt. If it was not for the priority of keeping out the unions, they would also treat their hourly employees like dirt. Fortunately for the hourly employees the managers always have their arms around them to keep them happy and content because if they are not happy the mangers go, no questions asked / guilty until proven Innocent. The top management spins this culture off as an ability to interact directly with the hourly employees without third party representation. I call it crap because their goal is only to keep payroll expense down because if the union were to come in, managers would not be doing multiple jobs along side the hourly employees who also have multiple job descriptions.
Once a thief, always a thief.
If I was them, I'd quit. Let him find new employees.