300 Exhibit Services & Events, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 415 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

300 EXHIBIT SERVICES & EVENTS 415
300 Exhibit Services & Events, Inc. and Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No. 631 affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Southwest Re-
gional Council of Carpenters and its Local 1780,
Intervenor. Case 28–CA–22347
December 30, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BECKER, PEARCE, AND HAYES
On November 27, 2009, Administrative Law Judge
John J. McCarrick issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions, to
1 The Respondent excepts to many of the judge’s evidentiary rulings.
It is well established that the Board will affirm an evidentiary ruling of
an administrative law judge unless that ruling constitutes abuse of
discretion. See Aladdin Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585, 587 (2005),
petition for review denied sub. nom. Local Joint Executive Board of
Las Vegas v. NLRB, 515 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008). After a careful re-
view of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in any of the chal-
lenged rulings.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings. In doing so, we note that “[a] trier of
fact need not accept uncontradicted testimony as true if it contains
improbabilities or if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that it
is false. It is well settled that a witness’ testimony may be contradicted
by circumstances as well as by statements and that demeanor may be
considered in such circumstances.” Operative Plasterers, Local 394,
207 NLRB 147, 147 (1973) [footnote omitted]; see also Richard Mel-
low Electrical Contractors Corp., 327 NLRB 1112 fn. 1 (1999).
We agree with the judge that Sec. 10(b) bars the Respondent’s chal-
lenge to its earlier recognition of the Union based on the absence of
proof of the Union’s majority status. In doing so, we find that the
Respondent recognized the Union by its course of conduct in June and
July 2008, more than 6 months prior to the Union’s filing of the first
unfair labor practice charge alleging the Respondent’s refusal to bar-
gain. During that period, the Respondent applied the Union’s collec-
tive-bargaining agreement’s terms to its employees (e.g., the contractu-
al requirements as to wages, benefits, and the grievance procedure). In
addition, the Respondent’s president, Michael Cunningham, and secre-
tary treasurer, Kurt Walsiak, acknowledged the Respondent’s contrac-
tual relationship with the Union to its payroll services company, Em-
ployco, in June/July 2008 email exchanges. The Respondent also was
conspicuously silent when it failed to deny the existence of a contractu-
al relationship after third-party beneficiary Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund referred to the collective-bargaining
modify his remedy,3 and to adopt the recommended Or-
der as modified.4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, 300 Ex-
hibit Services & Events, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the recommended Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
“(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Las Vegas, Nevada facility, 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 Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since February 6, 2009.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
agreement between the Respondent and the Union in a series of letters
to the Respondent and mailed it reporting forms required by the agree-
ment.
3 The make-whole relief included in the judge’s Order shall be com-
puted in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB 6 (2010).
4 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to provide for the
posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11
(2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini
Flooring, Member Hayes would not require electronic distribution of
the notice.
356 NLRB No. 66

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 416
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 vio-
lated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights. More particularly:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain collective-
ly with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No. 631, affiliated with the Inter-
national 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 300 Exhibit Service & Events,
Inc. who perform erection, touch-up painting, disman-
tling and repair of all exhibits including Decorating,
Freight, I&D, Specialty Crafts, and leadman/foreman,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL NOT refuse to honor the terms of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement we have entered into with the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any similar way frustrate your exer-
cise of the rights stated above.
WE WILL adhere to our collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union during its term and any renewals of
it, and WE WILL make whole our employees for any loss-
es 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 Un-
ion.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the Unit, concerning wages, hours, and terms
and conditions of employment of the unit

300 EXHIBIT SERVICE & EVENTS, INC.
Mara-Louise Anzalone, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gregory E. Smith, Esq. and Mohamed A. Iqbal Jr., Esq. (Li-
onel, Sawyer & Collins), of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Re-
spondent.
John M. Masters, Esq., of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Charging
Party.
Kathleen M. Jorgenson, Esq. (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 amended,1 issued on May 27, 2009, by the
Regional Director for Region 28.
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 col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 631 (Un-
ion). 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 Respondent,3 I make the
following findings of fact.
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admitted it is an Illinois corporation with an of-
fice and place of business located in Las Vegas, Nevada, where
it is engaged in providing trade show installation and disman-
tling services. Annually, Respondent in the course of its busi-
ness 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.
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 Sec. 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
Sec. 8(e) of the Act.
2 In its brief, Respondent moves that its rejected Exhs. 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 posttrial brief. Good cause having been shown for the
late filing and there being no objection filed, I grant Respondent’s
motion.

300 EXHIBIT SERVICES & EVENTS 417
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admitted and I find that the Union is a labor or-
ganization 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 share-
holders of Respondent were: Michael Cunningham, president;
Kurt Walisiak, secretary treasurer; William Muhich and Joseph
Holgado, vice presidents for sales. In May 2008, Edward Ro-
driguez was Respondent’s Las Vegas City manager.5 In Sep-
tember 2008, Rodriguez became a 15-percent owner of Re-
spondent’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 jour-
neymen without completing the Union’s apprenticeship pro-
gram. 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 Will-
work’s employees obtain journeyman status through the ap-
prenticeship 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 Re-
spondent 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 ser-
vices 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 opera-
tions of Respondent or its employees. While Respondent con-
tends that it utilized an Employco collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union to secure union labor in Las Vegas, no
evidence of such an agreement was produced nor did an Em-
ployco 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 lead-
man on the Ozram job at the Light show the same day he se-
cured the Ozram agreement. On May 24, 2008, Holgado faxed
a letter to the Union notifying them that Rodriguez was Re-
spondent’s Las Vegas City Manager in charge of coordinating
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 em-
ployees. I find that Rodriguez, in his capacity as city manager, was a
supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2 (11) of the Act.
6 R. Exh. 14.
payroll for Respondent.7 The installation work was to com-
mence on May 25, 2008. On May 21, 2008, Rodriguez made a
request through the Union’s hiring hall for eight men Cunning-
ham 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 enti-
tled 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, Cun-
ningham told Rodriguez to pick up some documents from Un-
ion Agent Tim Koviak (Koviak). Cunningham explained he
would fly to Las Vegas the following day to look at the docu-
ments. 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 follow-
ing 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 Cun-
ningham did not make it to Las Vegas. Koviak said that Cun-
ningham needed to sign the contracts or Respondent was not
working 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 con-
tains 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 Accord-
ing 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 agree-
ment12 the Union required on behalf of Respondent. Cunning-
ham 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,
7 GC Exh. 5.
8 GC Exhs. 13, 14, and 15.
9 GC Exh. 16.
10 Id. at pp. 5–8, art. 4, sec. 1E.
11 Id. at page 6, art. 4, sec. 1A.
12 GC Exh. 12.
13 GC Exh. 9.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 418
2008, the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust sent
Cunningham written notification of labor agreement ac-
ceptance14 to the same address as the June 9, 2008 letter advis-
ing 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 Team-
sters Pension Fund demanding remittance of pension contribu-
tions 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 Representa-
tives 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 em-
ployees named in the addendum notwithstanding the provisions
of the hiring procedures set forth in the GES Exposition Ser-
vices labor agreement.17 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 Ro-
driguez.18 That same day Chen requested a copy of Respond-
ent’s collective-bargaining agreement from Respondent’s secre-
tary in Las Vegas who replied that there was a copy in Chica-
go.19 On July 18, 2008, Chen emailed Walsiak that the Team-
sters Southwest Administrators had mailed a copy of Respond-
ent’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 journey-
men. The Union again refused to allow Respondent’s employ-
ees 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 re-
ferrals.
On January 30, 2009, Cunningham met with Union Business
Agent Steve LoPresti (LoPresti) and once again tried to have
14 GC Exh. 8.
15 GC Exh. 11.
16 The terms of the agreement between the Union and Willwork spe-
cifically limited the Willwork employees to be treated as journeymen
only for hiring hall requests made by Willwork.
17 GC Exh. 16.
18 GC Exh. 4, p. 1.
19 Id. at p. 2.
20 Id. at p. 6.
Respondent’s employees grandfathered as union journeymen.
LoPresti said it could not be done.
On February 5, 2009, Cunningham and Danny Gai, Re-
spondent’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 Philli-
penas 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 the 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 Cun-
ningham testified that LoPresti said, “go to the Carpenters” but
admitted he could not recall if LoPresti had prefaced his state-
ment 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 dat-
ed 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 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. The 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 agree-
ment by its conduct. Counsel for the General Counsel contends
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section
21 I credit Cunningham’s version of the statement when initially
called as a witness by the General Counsel. It is consistent with Gai’s
affidavit.
22 R. Exh. 8.

300 EXHIBIT SERVICES & EVENTS 419
8(d) of the Act when it repudiated its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union. The 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 collec-
tive-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 bar-
gaining 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 restat-
ed the standard for determining apparent authority it had ap-
plied 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 al-
leged 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 au-
thorized 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 satisfied in order to establish appar-
ent 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 Cunning-
ham’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, when Rodriguez signed Cunningham’s name to the
short-form union contract, Cunningham had made no represen-
tations 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 Rodri-
guez himself had authority to negotiate and sign a collective-
bargaining agreement for Respondent. From about
May 19, 2008, until September 2008, Rodriguez held the posi-
tion 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 agree-
ment. The adoption by conduct rule applies to both 9(a) and
8(f) contracts. ESP Concrete Plumbing Co., 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 wheth-
er that conduct be appraised as expressing the intent of the par-
ties 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 assum-
ing 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 con-
tention incredible.
Commencing in early June 2008 the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust sent Respondent a series of three let-
ters 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 col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Both Cunning-
ham 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
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 420
raised by the Union and securing all labor through the hiring
hall. Respondent’s contention that its conduct over an 8-month
time period is insufficient to establish a contract through adop-
tion. I disagree. Nothing in the Board’s cases cited by Re-
spondent suggests there is a minimum time period for evaluat-
ing 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 grandfa-
thered Respondent’s employees as journeymen so that they
could be referred from the hiring hall. At no time did Respond-
ent submit any bargaining proposals for any terms of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement as would be expected from an em-
ployer seeking an initial collective-bargaining agreement. Ra-
ther 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 creat-
ed 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 de-
fending 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 nonconstruc-
tion 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 relation-
ship 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 rec-
ognized 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 be-
came signatory to the short-form agreement binding them to the
recognition clause of the GES agreement,23 more than 6 months
prior to the Union’s filing of the first unfair labor practice
23 GC Exh. 16, at p. 4.
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 ma-
jority status.
I find that by its actions Respondent has adopted the May 24,
2008 agreement signed by Rodriguez.
3. Did the Union repudiate its agreement with Respondent?
Finally, Respondent asserts that the Union repudiated its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. The evidence
does not support this contention. At the February 5, 2009 meet-
ing between Cunningham and Danny Gai, Respondent’s New
Orleans, Louisiana City Manager and Union Business Agent 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 repudi-
ate interest in the bargaining unit or the contract with Respond-
ent. Longshoremen Local 1294 ILA (Cibro Petroleum Prod-
ucts), 257 NLRB 403, 406 (1981).
When Respondent signed the collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Carpenters on February 6, 2009, it repudiated its
agreement with the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) and Section 8(d) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 8(d) of the Act by failing and refus-
ing 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 practic-
es 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, 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 au-
thority to rule on the 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 un-
fair 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 recommended24
24 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-

300 EXHIBIT SERVICES & EVENTS 421
ORDER
The Respondent, 300 Exhibit Services and Events, Inc., 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 Brother-
hood 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 in-
cluding Decorating, Freight, I&D, Specialty Crafts, and lead-
man/foreman, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

(b) Failing and refusing 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 effec-
tuate 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
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
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 provid-
ed for in the collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities 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 con-
secutive 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 du-
plicate 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.
(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.

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.”