- 73 -
including the employees covered by the Teamsters' agreement,
leaves the Properties during breaks.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, we have
found as a fact that there are adequate eating facilities around
the Properties, and that these facilities are of varied types.
The aggregate seating capacity of these facilities is far greater
than the seating capacity of each Cafeteria. Although
petitioners ask the Court to find as a fact that their employees
cannot eat in the restaurants of other casinos because those
restaurants are limited to "guests", we refuse to do so. We are
unpersuaded that petitioners' employees cannot eat in those
restaurants if they choose to.
We also are not persuaded that most of petitioners'
employees can never leave the Property during their shifts,
except in case of dire emergency. In addition to the fact that
no employee was disciplined for leaving the premises during the
subject years, and that the Teamsters' agreement provides
expressly that the covered employees may leave the premises
during meal periods, we are mindful of the testimony of Ms.
Burns. In response to a question asked by petitioners' counsel
as to Ms. Burns' knowledge on the distance from Stardust to the
Fashion Show Mall, Ms. Burns testified: "Yes, I've had to run
from the Stardust to the Fashion Show Mall on errands before, and
to be honest with you, I've had a difficult time getting back in
an hour." Ms. Burns also testified that she did not recall any
Stardust employee ever leaving the premises during their breaks,
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011