Cornish College of the Arts

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Aug 11, 2021

19-RC-273405 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 11, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CORNISH COLLEGE OF THE ARTS
Employer
and Case 19-RC-273405
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES,
MOVING PICTURE TECHNICIANS,
ARTISTS, AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF
THE U.S.
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN
1 In denying review of the Regional Director’s findings with respect to supervisory status,
we note that the Employer contends that individuals voting in this election direct the work of
others, but it does not contend that these individuals exercise a degree of discretion that reflects
independent judgment within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, nor
does it describe how the petitioned-for employees are held accountable for the performance of
others. See generally Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686, 688-694 (2006). We therefore
need not address the Regional Director’s statement that the Board has not specifically found that
work-study students are employees under the Act.
In denying review of the Regional Director’s direction of a self-determination election,
we note that the Employer’s Request for Review, which has been prepared by its counsel,
disputes the Regional Director’s conclusions but in many instances fails to provide any
meaningful supporting explanation for its position. For example, it merely contends that the facts
set forth in the Regional Director’s decision (and summarized in a chart included in the Request
for Review) should have led the Regional Director to conclude that the petitioned-for employees
do not comprise an identifiable, distinct segment of the workforce, but it does not explain why
this is so. In addition, the Employer identifies factual errors in the Regional Director’s
community-of-interest analysis, such as the Regional Director’s references to the Technical
Director instead of Technical Supervisor, but it does not argue that these errors resulted in
prejudice or otherwise provide a basis for review under Sec. 102.67(d) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations. As such, we find that these contentions fail to comply with the requirement that the
Request for Review be a self-contained document enabling the Board to rule on the issues on the
basis of its contents. See Sec. 102.67(e) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
JOHN F. RING, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 11, 2021.