300 Exhibit Services & Events, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 27, 2009

28-CA-022347 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 27, 2009)

JD(SF)–43–09
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
300 EXHIBIT SERVICES & EVENTS, INC.
and Case 28-CA-22347
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 631 affiliated with
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
and
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
And its LOCAL 1780
Intervenor
Mara-Louise Anzalone, Esquire,
of Phoenix, Arizona, for the General Counsel.
John M. Masters, Esquire,
of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Charging Party.
Gregory E. Smith, Esquire and
Mohamed A. Iqbal Jr., Esquire (Lionel, Sawyer & Collins)
of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Respondent.
Kathleen M. Jorgenson, Esquire (DeCarlo Connor Shanley)
of Los Angeles, California, for the Intervenor.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in Las Vegas,
Nevada on August 4 and 5, 2009, upon the complaint, as amended1, issued on May 27, 2009,
by the Regional Director for Region 28.

1 At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to amend the
complaint by adding language alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(d) of the Act. The
parties also stipulated that complaint subparagraph 5(a), as amended, was an appropriate unit.
In addition Counsel for the General Counsel filed a “Notice of Intent to Amend Complaint” at the
hearing adding subparagraphs 5(g), (h) and (i) (GC Exh. 2). The amendments were granted.
Respondent denied the allegations of the complaint, as amended. In addition Respondent
added a further affirmative defense to the complaint that the alleged collective bargaining
agreement was an agreement encompassed by Section 8(e) of the Act.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
The complaint alleges that 300 Exhibit Services & Events, Inc. (Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and 8(d) of the Act by withdrawing recognition of and repudiating its
collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 631 (Union). Respondent filed a timely
Answer to the complaint stating it had committed no wrongdoing and specifically that it did not
enter into a valid collective bargaining agreement with the Union.
Findings of Fact2
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from the General Counsel, Charging
Party and Respondent3, I make the following findings of fact.
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent admitted it is an Illinois corporation with an office and place of business
located in Las Vegas, Nevada, where it is engaged in providing trade show installation and
dismantling services. Annually, Respondent in the course of its business operations performed
services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Nevada.
Based upon the above, Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts4
Respondent was established on about May 5, 2008 for the purpose of setting up and
removing exhibitor’s booths at trade shows throughout the United States. The initial equal
shareholders of Respondent were: Michael Cunningham, President, Kurt Walisiak, Secretary
Treasurer, William Muhich and Joseph Holgado, Vice President for Sales. In May 2008,
Edward Rodriguez was Respondent’s Las Vegas City Manager5. In September 2008,

2 In its brief, Respondent moves that its rejected exhibits 6, 7, 11-13 and 17-19 as well as
testimony of its witnesses that was stricken be entered into the record. Respondent sets forth
no reasons for why I should reverse my rulings, nor does Respondent specify what witness or
what testimony it seeks to have entered. The Motion is denied.
3 On September 24, 2009 Respondent filed a Motion to Accept and Consider Late File Post-
Trial Brief. Good cause having been shown for the late filing and there being no objection filed,
I grant Respondent’s Motion.
4 On September 23, 2009, counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Correct the
Record. Good cause having been shown and no objection having been filed, the Motion is
granted.
5 As City Manager, Rodriguez had the authority to settle employee grievances and
effectively recommended the hiring and firing of employees. I find that Rodriguez, in his
capacity as City Manager, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Rodriguez became a 15% owner of Respondent’s stock and was made a Vice President.
Cunningham and Rodriguez left another exhibit installation company named “Willwork”
when Respondent was formed. In 2006 Cunningham had helped negotiate an agreement6 that
allowed 21 of Willwork’s employees to become Union journeymen without completing the
Union’s apprenticeship program. The Willwork agreement reflected that the 21 Willwork
employees voted to have the Union as their collective bargaining agent. The agreement further
states that until Willwork’s employees obtain journeyman status through the apprenticeship
program, they are limited to dispatch to Willwork if they join the Union or pay the applicable
hiring hall fee. About 10 to 11 of Willwork’s former employees joined Respondent when it was
established.
At the time Respondent was created, Cunningham was told by Union Business Agent,
Laura Sims, that Respondent needed to obtain payroll and benefits bonds in order to utilize
Union labor.
Respondent utilized the services of Employco, a payroll services company for the
payment of its employees’ wages and benefits as well as mandatory deductions. There is no
dispute that Employco had no authority to direct the day-to-day operations of Respondent or its
employees. While Respondent contends that it utilized an Employco collective bargaining
agreement with the Union to secure Union labor in Las Vegas, no evidence of such an
agreement was produced nor did an Employco witness testify that such an agreement exists.
On about May 19, 2008, Respondent secured its first contract from Ozram - the Ozram
booth at a Light trade show in Las Vegas. Cunningham notified Rodriguez he would be the
leadman on the Ozram job at the Light show the same day he secured the Ozram agreement.
On May 24, 2008, Holgado faxed a letter to the Union notifying them that Rodriguez was
Respondent’s Las Vegas City Manager in charge of coordinating payroll for Respondent.7 The
installation work was to commence on May 25, 2008. On May 21, 2008, Rodriguez made a
request through the Union’s hiring hall for eight men Cunningham said he wanted to install and
remove Ozram’s exhibit booth at the Light show. Presumably these were the employees who
left Willwork to join Respondent. On May 22, 2008, at the Union hall, Rodriguez was told by a
Union agent that he was not a journeyman member of the Union and thus was not entitled to be
dispatched until all journeymen on the hiring hall list had been exhausted. When Rodriguez
explained that he was a journeyman Union member, the Union agent said that Rodriguez was
part of the Willwork group and confiscated Rodriguez journeyman’s card. Rodriguez explained
what had happened to Respondent’s President Cunningham. On May 23, 2008, Cunningham
told Rodriguez to pick up some documents from Union agent Tim Koviak (Koviak). Cunningham
explained he would fly to Las Vegas the following day to look at the documents. When
Rodriguez met Koviak on May 23, 2008, Koviak gave him an envelope containing three
documents, a Short Form Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Union, a Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund Certificate and a Trust Acceptance and Control
Data form.8 Koviak said he needed to have the documents returned to his house the following
day. Cunningham did not arrive in Las Vegas the following day so Rodriguez met Koviak on
May 24 at the Mirage Hotel. When Rodriguez gave the documents to Koviak, Koviak said the
contracts were not signed. Rodriguez explained that Cunningham did not make it to Las Vegas.
Koviak said that Cunningham needed to sign the contracts or Respondent was not working

6 Resp. Exh. 14.
7 GC Exh. 5.
8 GC Exhs. 13, 14 and 15.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
tomorrow at the Light show. Rodriguez briefly looked at the documents and signed
Cunningham’s name to each of them and returned the contracts to Koviak. The Short Form
Agreement binds the signatory employer to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between GES
Exposition Services, Inc and the Union9 (GES Agreement). The GES Agreement contains a
hiring hall provision10 that specifies that journeymen must be referred before extra board
workers. Journeymen are defined as individuals qualified as journeymen under a prior
collective bargaining agreement or individuals certified as journeymen by the Apprenticeship
Training Program.11 According to Respondent’s witnesses, Respondent did not become aware
that Rodriguez had signed the three documents until February 2009. However, Rodriguez
admitted that after May 20, 2008 he signed Cunningham’s signature on a bond agreement12 the
Union required on behalf of Respondent. Cunningham identified the bond form and admitted he
did not sign it.
On June 9, 2008, Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust sent Cunningham a
letter enclosing reporting forms in accordance with their collective bargaining agreement. The
certified receipt was signed by Cunningham.13 On June 10, 2008, the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust sent Cunningham written Notification of Labor Agreement
Acceptance14 to the same address as the June 9, 2008 letter advising that Respondent’s
collective bargaining agreement had been accepted. In addition Walisiak received a copy of
the August 20, 2008 letter15 from the Western conference of Teamsters Pension fund
demanding remittance of pension contributions required by Respondent’s labor agreement.
Pursuant to the provisions of the GES Agreement, the Union refused to refer
Respondent’s employees, who had previously worked for Willwork,16 until the journeymen
referral list had been exhausted.
On June 19, 2008, Cunningham met with Union representatives Tim Koviak, Terry
Shartung and Laura Sims to discuss the journeyman status of Respondent’s employees. The
Union agents told Cunningham that Respondent’s employees, the former employees of
Willwork, were not valid journeymen since the Willwork addendum was invalid. The Union, in
the addendum to its Short Form Collective Bargaining Agreement with Willwork, agreed to
dispatch to Willwork 20 of its employees named in the addendum notwithstanding the provisions
of the hiring procedures set forth in the GES Exposition Services Labor Agreement17.
Cunningham tried to get the Union to agree to the same addendum for Respondent that it had
given to Willwork. However, the Union refused, taking the position that such an agreement was
illegal.
On July 16, 2008, Tina Chen of Employco sent Cunningham an email requesting a copy
of Respondent’s contract with the Union. Cunningham responded he would get a copy from

9 GC Exh. 16.
10 Id. at pages 5-8, Article 4, Section 1E.
11 Id. at page 6, Article 4, Section 1A.
12 GC Exh. 12.
13 GC Exh. 9.
14 GC Exh. 8.
15 GC Exh. 11.
16 The terms of the agreement between the Union and Willwork specifically limited the
Willwork employees to be treated as journeymen only for hiring hall requests made by Willwork.
17 GC Exh. 16.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Rodriguez.18 That same day Chen requested a copy of Respondent’s collective bargaining
agreement from Respondent’s secretary in Las Vegas who replied that there was a copy in
Chicago.19 On July 18, 2008, Chen emailed Walsiak that the Teamsters Southwest
Administrators had mailed a copy of Respondent’s contract with the Union to Walsiak and
Walsiak replied, “No problem.”20 On August 4, 2008, Walsiak replied to Chen’s email saying
that he had not received the contract from the Teamsters.
On about July 28, 2008, Cunningham, Muhich and Walisiak met with Union
representatives Koviak, Don McNab and Sheridan at the Union hall. Cunningham again
attempted to have his employees grandfathered into the Union as journeymen. The Union
again refused to allow Respondent’s employees to become journeymen. However,
Cunningham stated that he continued to abide by the collective bargaining agreement paying
wages, benefits and using the Union hiring hall for referrals.
On January 30, 2009 Cunningham met with Union Business Agent Steve LoPresti
(LoPresti) and once again tried to have Respondent’s employees grandfathered as Union
journeymen. LoPresti said it could not be done.
On February 5, 2009, Cunningham and Danny Gai, Respondent’s New Orleans,
Louisiana City Manager, met with LoPresti and Union Secretary-Treasurer John Phillipenas.
Cunningham said that he wanted to have his employees made Union journeymen and work out
a contract like Willwork did. The Willwork addendum was displayed and Phillipenas said, “Are
you talking about this document?” When Cunningham said it was, Phillipenas said the
addendum was illegal and that the Union could not discuss this anymore as to the 21 former
Willwork employees. After further heated discussion Phillipenas left. LoPresti told Cunningham
he wanted to discuss a grievance but Cunningham said he was there only to negotiate a
contract and get his employees back in the Union. LoPresti continued to press the grievance
and Cunningham said he would pay the grievance if LoPresti could show him a copy of
Respondent’s contract with the Union. LoPresti was unable to find the contract. Initially when
called by General Counsel Cunningham testified that LoPresti said “Well, if you don’t have
contract with us you can just go down the street and sign with the Carpenters.” Later when
called by Respondent Cunningham testified that LoPresti said, “go to the Carpenters” but
admitted he could not recall if LoPresti had prefaced his statement with if you don’t have a
contract with us. According to Gai’s testimony on cross examination LoPresti said, “You know
what? I can’t help you. Since you don’t have a contract with us, go to the Carpenters? Maybe
they can help you.” Gai was absolutely sure that LoPresti said this. Gai’s affidavit dated
May 14, 2009 states, “If the employer didn’t have a contract to go see the Carpenters.” 21 At
that point the meeting ended.
On February 6, 2009, Respondent signed a collective bargaining agreement22 with the
Carpenters Union which grandfathered Respondent’s employees as journeymen.
According to Cunningham, he did not learn that Rodriguez had signed Cunningham’s

18 GC Exh. 4, page 1.
19 Id at page 2.
20 Id at page 6.
21 I credit Cunningham’s version of the statement when initially called as a witness by
General Counsel. It is consistent with Gai’s affidavit.
22 Resp. Exh. 8.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
name to the short form contract until February 25, 2009.
At all jobs Respondent performed in Las Vegas it paid wages and benefits pursuant to the
Union’s collective bargaining agreement. Respondent also processed and settled grievances
raised by the Union. All labor for jobs Respondent performed in Las Vegas was secured
through the Union hiring hall.
B. The Analysis
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) and Section 8(d) of the Act when it repudiated its collective bargaining agreement with the
Union. General Counsel’s theory of the case asserts that Rodriguez was clothed with apparent
or ratified authority to sign the May 24, 2008 short form agreement with the Union and that
moreover Respondent adopted the short form agreement by its conduct. Counsel for the
General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 8(d) of
the Act when it repudiated its collective bargaining agreement with the Union. General
Counsel’s theory of the case asserts that either Rodriguez was clothed with apparent or ratified
authority to sign the May 24, 2008 short form agreement with the Union or in the alternative
Respondent adopted the short form agreement by its conduct. Respondent counters that
Rodriguez had no authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the Union, that
no contract may be formed by an employer’s conduct where it has not been established that the
Union enjoys majority support in the bargaining unit, that the Respondent’s conduct was
insufficient to show it had adopted the contract by its conduct and that the Union repudiated the
collective bargaining agreement.
1. The Apparent authority of Rodriguez
In SSC Corp., 317 NLRB 542, 546 (1995), the Board restated the standard for
determining apparent authority it had applied in Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924, 925 (1989),
quoting from Service Employees Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance), 291 NLRB 82 (1988):
Apparent authority is created through a manifestation by the principal to a third
party that supplies a reasonable basis for the latter to believe that the principal
has authorized the alleged agent to do the acts in question. NLRB v. Donkin’s
Inn, 532 F.2d 138, 141 (9th Cir. 1976); Alliance Rubber Co., 286 NLRB 645, 646
fn. 4 (1987). Thus, either the principal must intend to cause the third person to
believe that the agent is authorized to act for him, or the principal should realize
that this conduct is likely to create such a belief. Restatement 2d, Agency
Section 27 (1958), Comment.
Two conditions must be present satisfied in order to establish apparent authority, a
manifestation by the principal to a third party and a reasonable basis for the third party to
believe that the authority granted to the agent encompasses the contemplated activity. See
also Cora Realty Co., LLC, 340 NLRB 366 (2003).
On about May 19, 2008, Cunningham notified Rodriguez he would be the leadman on
the Ozram job at the Light show. Sometime after May 20, 2008, Rodriguez also signed
Cunningham’s signature on a bond agreement the Union required of Respondent. On
May 21, 2008, Rodriguez made a request through the Union’s hiring hall for eight men
Cunningham said he wanted to install and remove Ozram’s exhibit booth at the Light show. On
May 24, 2008, Holgado faxed a letter to the Union notifying them that Rodriguez was
Respondent’s Las Vegas City Manager in charge of coordinating payroll. On May 24, 2008,
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
when Rodriguez signed Cunningham’s name to the short form Union contract, Cunningham had
made no representations to the Union concerning Rodriguez’ authority to sign a collective
bargaining agreement.
Based upon the above, it does not appear that Respondent manifest to the Union any
facts that would lead to a reasonable belief that Rodriguez had authority to sign Cunningham’s
name to a collective bargaining agreement nor to believe that Rodriguez himself had authority to
negotiate and sign a collective bargaining agreement for Respondent. From about
May 19, 2008 until September 2008, Rodriguez held the position of Respondent’s Las Vegas
City Manager, a lower level supervisory position. His duties were limited to requesting
employees from the Union’s hiring hall, directing employees, handling grievances and
recommending the hiring and firing of employees. Nothing in these duties coupled with the
absence of any representations by Respondent to the Union regarding Rodriguez’ further
authority, created a reasonable basis for the Union to conclude that Rodriguez had apparent
authority to sign the short form agreement. Local Union No. 483, 242 NLRB 573, 575 (1980).
2. Did Respondent Adopt the Union Short Form Agreement Through its Conduct?
In DST Insulation, Inc., 351 NLRB 19 (2007) the Board held that a binding agreement
may be formed even when the parties have not reduced to writing their intent to be bound citing
Haberman Construction Co., 236 NLRB 79, 85–86 (1978), enfd. 641 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1981).
The Board said it considers whether the party at issue has engaged in a course of conduct that
reflects its intent to follow the terms of the agreement. The adoption by conduct rule applies to
both 9(a) and 8(f) contracts. ESP Concrete Plumbing Company, 327 NLRB 711, 713 (1999). In
ESP the Respondent applied the collective-bargaining agreement to its work, acquiesced in a
judgment against it for unpaid contributions to the Bricklayers’ Pension Fund and held itself out
as a union contractor. Under these circumstances the Board said, “it makes little difference
whether that conduct be appraised as expressing the intent of the parties to an ambiguous
contract or as the creation of an estoppel against repudiation.” Arco Electric Co. v. NLRB, supra,
618 F.2d at 699. The Board noted, as the Supreme Court observed in McNeff, “Having had the
music, [the Respondent] must pay the piper.” McNeff, supra, 461 U.S. at 271. The Board went
on that in the language of Deklewa, the Respondent “voluntarily recognize[d] the union,
enter[ed] into a collective-bargaining agreement, and then set about enjoying the benefits and
assuming the obligations of the agreement.” 282 NLRB at 1387. See also CAB Associates, 340
NLRB 1391, 1401-1402 (2003).
Initially Respondent contends that it was not even aware that Rodriguez had signed the
short form agreement with the Union until Rodriguez’s admission in February 2009. I find this
contention incredible.
Commencing in early June 2008 the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust
sent Respondent a series of three letters advising that it had a collective bargaining agreement
with the Union. In July 2008, Respondent’s own payroll service sent a series of emails
requesting a copy of Respondent’s collective bargaining agreement with the Union. Both
Cunningham and Respondent’s Las Vegas administrative aide replied they would get the payroll
service a copy. When the payroll service advised Walsiak that a copy of Respondent’s contract
with the Union was being sent to him, he said there was “no problem.”
Further, Respondent acted as if it had a collective bargaining agreement with the Union
in that it applied all the terms of the GES Agreement to the jobs performed in Las Vegas by
paying wages and benefits pursuant to the Union’s collective bargaining agreement, processing
and settling grievances raised by the Union and securing all labor through the hiring hall.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Respondent’s contention that its conduct over an eight month time period is insufficient to
establish a contract through adoption. I disagree. Nothing in the Board’s cases cited by
Respondent suggests there is a minimum time period for evaluating if a party has adopted a
contract through course of conduct. Rather the Board looks at the party’s conduct to determine
if it shows that the party has adopted the contract. Here everything Respondent did from the
time Rodriguez signed the short form agreement until Respondent repudiated its agreement
with the Union by signing a collective bargaining agreement with the Carpenters reflected that it
applied the terms and conditions of the Union’s contract to its jobs in Las Vegas.
Respondent’s contention that its actions manifest an intent that it was bargaining for an
initial contract is not supported by the evidence. It is clear that what Respondent sought from
the Union was not bargaining for an initial labor agreement, but rather a side agreement like
Willwork’s that merely grandfathered Respondent’s employees as journeymen so that they
could be referred from the hiring hall. At no time did Respondent submit any bargaining
proposals for any terms of a collective bargaining agreement as would be expected from an
employer seeking an initial collective bargaining agreement. Rather Respondent acted as if it
were already bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement as noted above.
Respondent’s contention that there can be no contract created by its actions since it has
not been established that the Union enjoyed majority support is not supported by the law.
In Alpha Associates, 344 NLRB 782 (2005), the Board held that Section 10(b) of the Act
precludes an employer from defending against a refusal-to-bargain allegation on the basis that
its initial recognition of the union was invalid or unlawful. See Route 22 Honda, 337 NLRB 84,
85 (2001); Morse Shoe, 227 NLRB 391, 394 (1976), supplemented by 231 NLRB 13 (1977),
enfd. 591 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1979); North Bros. Ford, 220 NLRB 1021, 1021 (1975). The Board
has further held whether or not the recognized union had proffered evidence demonstrating its
majority status at the time of recognition is irrelevant. The Board in Oklahoma Installation Co.,
325 NLRB 741, 742 (1998), stated that the rule concerning non-construction industries is plain:
If an employer voluntarily recognizes a union based solely on that union’s
assertion of majority status, without verification, an employer is not free to
repudiate the contractual relationship that it has with the union outside the 10(b)
period, i.e., beyond the 6 months after initial recognition, on the ground the union
did not represent a majority when the employer recognized the union. enf. denied
on other grounds 219 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2000). see Moisi & Son Trucking, 197
NLRB 198 (1972).
Accordingly, as the Respondent’s voluntary recognition of the Union in this case on
May 24, 2008, when Respondent became signatory to the short form agreement binding them
to the recognition clause of the GES Agreement,23 more than six months prior to the Union’s
filing of the first unfair labor practice charge alleging the Respondent’s refusal to bargain,
Section 10(b) bars the Respondent’s challenge to its earlier recognition of the Union based on
the absence of proof of the Union’s majority status.
I find that by its actions Respondent has adopted the May 24, 2008 agreement signed by
Rodriguez.

23 GC Exh. 16, at page 4.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
3. Did the Union Repudiate its Agreement with Respondent?
Finally, Respondent asserts that the Union repudiated its collective bargaining
agreement with Respondent. The evidence does not support this contention. At the
February 5, 2009, meeting between Cunningham and Danny Gai, Respondent’s New Orleans,
Louisiana City Manager and Union Business Lo Presti and Union Secretary-Treasurer John
Phillipenas, I have previously found that LoPresti’s comment that Respondent could sign with
the Carpenters was conditional, predicated by the assumption that Respondent did not have a
contract with the Union. Such a conditional disclaimer is not effective to repudiate interest in the
bargaining unit or the contract with Respondent. Longshoremen Local 1294 ILA (Cibro
Petroleum Products), 257 NLRB 403, 406 (1981).
When Respondent signed the collective bargaining agreement with the Carpenters on
February 6, 2009, it repudiated its agreement with the Union and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) and 8(d) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and 8(d) of
the Act by failing and refusing to recognize the Union and by unilaterally refusing to honor the
terms of the collective-bargaining agreement Respondent entered into with the Union. The
above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6), (7)
and (8) of the Act.
REMEDY
In determining make whole relief herein, Counsel for the General Counsel urges that the
current practice of awarding only simple interest on backpay and other monetary awards be
replaced with the practice of compounding interest. Counsel for the General Counsel requests
that I recommend that the Board adopt a policy that requires interest to be compounded on a
quarterly basis. Under its current policy, the Board calculates interest on monetary remedies
using the short-term Federal rate plus three percent. See New Horizons for the Retarded, Inc.,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
In that it is the Board’s policy at this time to award simple interest on backpay and other
monetary awards, I have no authority to rule on General Counsel’s request for an award of
compound interest and defer this issue to the Board.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.24

24 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
ORDER
The Respondent, San Miguel Hospital Corp. d/b/a Alta Vista Regional Hospital, its
officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 631, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union), as the exclusive collective bargaining representative in
the following appropriate unit:
All employees of the Respondent who perform erection, touch-up painting,
dismantling and repair of all exhibits including Decorating, Freight, I&D, Specialty
Crafts, and leadman/foreman, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to refuse to honor the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement we have entered into with the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for employees in the above described unit.
(b) Adhere to our collective-bargaining agreement with the Union during its term and
any renewals of it, and make whole employees for any losses of wages and benefits, including
those who would have been referred by the Union had Respondent requested employees
through the dispatch procedure as provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Las Vegas,
Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 25 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Company’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company immediately on receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Company have gone out of business, closed a
facility involved in these proceedings, or has laid off employees, Respondents shall duplicate
and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Company at any time since February 6, 2009.

25 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted Pursuant to an Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall
read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(SF)–43–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondents have taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 27, 2009.
____________________
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–43–09
Las Vegas, NV
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain collectively with Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 631, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (the Union) as the representative of the appropriate unit of employees by
repudiating and refusing to honor our collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. The
appropriate bargaining unit (the Unit) is:
All employees of the Respondent who perform erection, touch-up painting,
dismantling and repair of all exhibits including Decorating, Freight, I&D, Specialty
Crafts, and leadman/foreman, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to honor the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement we
have entered into with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any similar way frustrate your exercise of the rights stated above.
WE WILL adhere to our collective-bargaining agreement with the Union during its term and any
renewals of it, and WE WILL make whole our employees for any losses of wages and benefits,
including those who would have been referred to us by the Union had we requested employees
through the dispatch procedure as provided for in our collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the Unit, concerning wages, hours, and terms and conditions
of employment of the Unit.
300 EXHIBIT SERVICE & EVENTS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD(SF)–43–09
Las Vegas, NV
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 602-640-2146.