GREEN LINE GROUP INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 2016

01-RC-181492 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GREEN LINE GROUP INC.
Employer
and Case 01-RC-181492
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1228, AFL-
CIO
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.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 21, 2016.
Member Miscimarra, dissenting.
The Employer, Green Line Group, refers technical personnel or crew members to clients
(e.g., Comcast, the New England Sports Network) that televise professional sports events, such
as Boston Red Sox baseball games (at Fenway Park), Boston Bruins hockey games (at the
Boston Garden), and Boston Celtics basketball games (also at the Boston Garden). The technical
crew members referred by Green Line Group include a technical director, camera operators,
graphics operators, statisticians, and stage managers, among others. The Regional Director
concluded that the crew members were employees of Green Line Group. I would grant review
on the basis that some evidence relevant to determining whether the petitioned-for individuals
are employees or independent contractors raises substantial questions regarding whether the
technical personnel are independent contractors, with Green Line Group functioning more like a
referral agency than an employer. For example, Green Line Group does not direct the technical
personnel when they are working; the equipment operated by the referred personnel is generally
provided by the clients, not Green Line Group; the clients determine the number of positions
they need to fill for each event and often hand pick specific crew members they desire; each
crew member decides what particular events he or she will work; and there is no minimum
number of events that crew members must work in a given year. Accordingly, I respectfully
dissent from my colleagues’ decision to deny review.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER