Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Casino must show surveillance video to union to process grievance, (May 8, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The casino failed to make a specific showing of confidentiality regarding the video, instead repeatedly refusing the union’s request to review the incident based on relevancy.

A three-member panel of the NLRB affirmed an administrative law judge’s findings that a casino violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by failing and refusing to furnish a union with the opportunity to review requested relevant surveillance video footage of an incident during a housekeeping department meeting that led to the discipline of two unit employees and a resulting grievance. The Board found it unnecessary to consider the judge’s interpretation of the Florida Administrative Code, which the employer cited for the first time at the hearing as the basis for its confidentiality request. The Board also rejected the employer’s argument that the union’s request was null and void, noting that this argument related only to the remedy, not the finding of a violation (Gretna Racing, LLC, dba Magic City Casino, 374 N.L.R.B. No. 106 (May 7, 2026)).

The employer operates a parimutuel casino in Miami. At the time of the hearing, the employer and union had a current collective bargaining agreement covering a wide range of employees, including housekeeping staff.

Verbal coaching. On September 29, 2023, a housekeeping manager verbally coached two housekeeping employees for their conduct during a departmental meeting. The two allegedly aggressively handled a laundry cart and threw items to portray how another housekeeping employee had purportedly acted. One of the disciplined employees no longer works for the employer. According to the housekeeping manager, his discipline was based on his observation of what happened during the meeting, and he never watched any video footage of the meeting.

Video viewing. After learning of the meeting when one of the housekeepers complained to the general manager, the HR director, another HR manager, and the GM viewed surveillance video of the meeting in order to investigate the housekeeper’s complaint. The GM testified that, although the discipline was issued before he had seen the video, he had watched it as part of his investigation into the grievance and acknowledged that it was necessary for him to watch the video and know what it showed so that he could properly respond.

Verbal, written requests. During a step 2 grievance meeting, the HR manager was asked how he knew the housekeepers had made threatening statements or engaged in aggressive behavior. He explained that he had watched the video, which prompted the union to ask why it had not received the video along with other information it had requested. The union then made a verbal request to view the video. The employer responded that the union would have to sign a confidentiality agreement, and the union representative asked to have the agreement sent to her and that she was still requesting the video.

Upon the employer’s denial of the grievances, the grievances were moved to Step 3. The union asked when the video would be available for viewing, “as requested previously.” This request was denied because the video “was not used by the company in the decision for the discipline.”

An email was then sent to the GM asking him to respond to the union’s request to view the video, noting that the grievants confirmed that the HR managers discussed what they saw in the video as a factor in the decision to discipline them. This request was also denied, with the reason being “the discipline to the employees was solely based on what was said and not what was done. Also, we stated that the video has no sound so it is irrelevant to the process.”

Confidentiality agreement. Subsequently, the union filed a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge related to the employer’s refusal to provide the video. The employer stated it would provide the video if the union would sign a confidentiality agreement and withdraw its unfair labor practice charge. After reviewing the terms of the confidentiality agreement, the union declined to agree with its provisions.

Grievance status. At the time of this hearing, the discipline issued to the employees was null and void pursuant to the terms of the CBA, which states that discipline will be removed from an employee’s file after nine months. The union had dropped its grievance for the housekeeper who was no longer in the company’s employ but was still pursuing a grievance for the remaining housekeeper.

Relevant information. First, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the union had made several requests, both verbally and in writing, to view the surveillance video, providing the employer with clear notice that it was asking to watch the video even if it was not used as a basis for discipline. Because a union is presumptively entitled to information pertaining to unit employees, including information that may assist the union in processing grievances, the union was entitled to access the same information viewed by the employer to help determine what happened at the meeting.

According to the employer, the video was not relevant because it lacked audio and only showed the actions of the housekeepers, not the motivation behind their actions. However, the ALJ determined that the union was entitled to the video even if it was not dispositive of the central issue raised by the grievance, as it could assist the union in defending the housekeepers or determining whether it wants to continue the grievances.

“The Union does not have to accept Respondent’s word for what is on the video or what is in dispute in the grievance,” said the ALJ.

Confidential? Turning to the employer’s claim that the video was confidential, the ALJ noted that it had not refused to provide the information on confidentiality grounds, instead basing its repeated refusals on relevancy. Although it had previously mentioned a confidentiality agreement and later sent the union a confidentiality agreement, it never provided an explanation about why it believed the video was confidential. “Simply providing a confidentiality agreement is not an assertion of confidentiality,” explained the ALJ.

In addition, the employer did not assert its confidentiality claim in a timely manner, only raising the issue after this complaint was filed. Nor did the employer establish that the parties had agreed to treat all video as confidential. Accordingly, the ALJ determined the employer must allow the union to view the video without demanding a confidentiality agreement.

Further, the ALJ found, and the Board agreed, that the employer’s failure and refusal to provide the union an opportunity to watch the video after it had requested the information constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA.

The slip opinion is 374 NLRB No. 106.

Attorneys: Jeremy C. Branning (Clark Partington) for Gretna Racing, LLC dba Magic City Casino. Kathleen Phillips (Phillips, Richard, & Rind) for UNITE HERE Local 355, AFL—CIO.

Companies: Gretna Racing, LLC; Magic City Casino; UNITE HERE Local 355, AFL—CIO

MainStory: TopStory Labor UnfairLaborPractices UnionsMembers AgencyNews GCNNews