The dealers say this is wrong; the tips are theirs and Nevada has a law — NRS 608 — that proves their point. The law, in part, states “It is unlawful for any person to take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.” Less than two weeks after Wynn instituted his new tip policy, Tanchek received more than 100 “general public” complaints, which led to an investigation and finding that there was “insufficient probable cause” of a violation of state law to bring action against Wynn and his resort. As stated in a National Labor Relations Board transcript, Wynn claimed he was having difficulty finding and hiring floor men and floor supervisors because they made only $60,000 a year compared to dealers earning $100,000 or more in wages and tips, and that it made sense to share the tips so the redistribution could bring the floor positions up to a more attractive salary of around $95,000 a year.

One of the dealer’s biggest backers is Al Maurice, himself a dealer for 38 years, who’s president of the International Union of Gaming Employees, which is more of an association of and for dealers than a true labor union in the traditional sense. “What Steve Wynn is doing is violating NRS 608.160,” said Maurice, a dealer at the Mirage for the past 20 years and who worked at Wynn’s Golden Nugget in downtown Las Vegas before that. “A week before the policy went into effect there were meetings with the dealers where Wynn said what he was going to do. Some of the dealers filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and the board said that Steve Wynn was found in the wrong.” The ruling against Wynn came in a Dec. 31, 2007 decision from Administrative Law Judge Burton Litvack who had heard testimony July 30 to Aug. 3, 2007 from officials of Wynn Las Vegas and the TWU as well as two dealers, Cynthia Fields and Tynisia Boone, who each had sought $300,000 in damages from Wynn and his resort for “Wynn’s ‘extreme and outrageous’ statements and conduct” during an October 30, 2006 meeting.

That meeting was but one of several meetings he had with dealers where Wynn discussed tip policy and “the threat” of unionization. At the time of the October 30 meeting, Wynn Las Vegas employed 588 dealers. Before the NLRB decision, Maurice and others worked to get a bill passed at the 2007 session of the state Legislature that was meant to help clarify portions of the law. It made it through the Assembly, but it was killed in a senate committee. Looking to bypass the Nevada legislative process that is partially, but significantly, driven by casino interests, Maurice and other longtime IUGE figures formed PEST, a committee to Prevent Employers from Seizing Tips, which filed a ballot initiative with the Secretary of State’s office on Jan. 16, 2008.

The petition, among other things, sought to make it illegal to distribute tips to others who didn’t receive them unless some form of tip distribution policy is spelled out in a collective bargaining agreement. Three weeks later, Wynn Las Vegas resort teamed up with the Nevada Restaurant Association, the Retail Association of Nevada, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, the Nevada Manufacturers Association and the Nevada Tavern Owner’s Association to file a lawsuit opposing the initiative.

PEST withdrew the petition in September 2008, but followed it with a second initiative – the initiative is still alive today — that contained more specific language that was meant to be palatable to all unions, the Culinary Union included. What was interesting about the first petition is the Nevada Resort Association refused to get involved or take sides with the Wynn faction. “The most important point of this lawsuit is the fact that the Resort Association, who is a significant force in representing the casino industry, or any other casino, did not take a stand or join the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, they remained neutral,” Maurice said.
 

this day. “(The Culinary) should be supporting us and not fighting us all the way,” Maurice said. “The big question we have is why are they fighting us.

There’s no reason not to support us. Quite frankly, when they joined on with Wynn that just blew us away.” Unlike other casinos up and down the Las Vegas Strip, Wynn Las Vegas has a special 10-year contract with the Culinary Union that for unexplained reasons is different than the others and makes Maurice wonder.
“What’s very important is that under the original law, 608, the Culinary Union in the end got what it wants and that’s what makes (their opposition) so crazy,” he said. “If the labor commissioner decides in favor of the dealers, it will verify what we’ve said under the existing law. So why not participate in helping the people who are losing their money to management? Not wanting to (strengthen) the law
(as stated in the initiative) makes it all the more crazy. It’s absurd, it really is.

The Culinary is in bed with Steve Wynn. He’s trying to do the same thing with the cocktail waitresses and the cabana boys, so where’s the Culinary? They’ve got to be in bed with Wynn. What else can it be?” Culinary Union Local 226, along with its companion Bartenders Union Local 165 and UniteHere Local 54, have said they want no part of the July 6 and 7 dealer’s protest rally. The Culinary Union, in explaining its opposition to the IUGE’s efforts to help dealers keep their tips through the first PEST initiative, said on their Web site, “...you’d think that the IUGE would have talked to us before launching this. You’d think wrong,” and “There is no exemption for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements” and “The IUGE didn’t understand what they were doing when they wrote the initiative, so it is so badly written that it won’t work even for them.

It will upset everyone else’s tip arrangements and make for years of litigation over tips.” But Maurice says those statements “simply are not true.” “We had no reason to contact the Culinary Union because we did not suspect that a union representing tip-earners would make an alliance with Steve Wynn, who is confiscating his own worker’s tips,” Maurice wrote in response to the Culinary Union’s charges. “In the (statute) and in our initiative, it specifically states that collective bargaining agreements will supersede the statute in deciding the disposition of tips... For the Culinary Union to say our initiative provides that ‘only the employer may divide up tips’ is a lie.

Most of the points raised are lies and distortions and subterfuge used to confuse the membership and demean the IUGE. What they are really doing is trying to cover up the fact that they allied themselves with Steve Wynn against our petition
effort.” Maurice said if Tanchek rules against the dealer’s complaint, it would be “catastrophic” for the more than 100,000 tip earners in Nevada. “Anywhere where tips are given can be affected by his ruling,” he said. “And that’s a bad situation for the state.”                                                                                                      [up]