JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 5, 2017

13-RC-160240 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 5, 2017)

Chicago, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JAM PRODUCTIONS, LTD., EVENT
PRODUCTIONS, INC., STANDING ROOM ONLY,
INC., AND VICTORIA OPERATING CO., A
SINGLE EMPLOYER
and Case 13-RC-160240
THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL NO. 2, IATSE
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Corrected Report on
Objections and Challenges and Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no
substantial issues warranting review. 1

1 We have treated the Regional Director’s “Corrected Report on Objections” as a Decision on
Objections. See 79 Fed. Reg. 74412 fn. 464 (Dec. 15, 2014). In denying the Employer’s
Request for Review, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Petitioner’s Request for Review, as the
ballots at issue there would not alter the outcome of the election.
Member Miscimarra joins his colleagues in affirming the Certification of Representative,
but would overrule four ballot challenges sustained by the Regional Director. The Board agent
challenged the ballots on the ground that the employees had been hired after the eligibility date
set forth in the Stipulated Election Agreement. The election, however, had been deferred for
approximately seven months under the Board’s “blocking charge” doctrine and, following a
settlement of the blocking charges, the Employer timely submitted the Excelsior list with the
four additional voters included. In Member Miscimarra’s view, where the Board’s blocking
charge doctrine results in a change to the election date in the Stipulated Election Agreement, the
Board cannot reasonably enforce other material terms of the Agreement—here the eligibility
date—against either party. Tekweld Solutions, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 18, slip op at 3-4 (2014)
(Member Miscimarra, dissenting in part), affd. 639 Fed. Appx. 16 (2d Cir. 2016). Moreover,
there is no prejudice to the Union here because it received proper notice regarding the four voters
when the Employer submitted the Excelsior list. Accordingly, Member Miscimarra would
overrule the challenges to these four ballots. He would therefore reach and deny the Petitioner’s
Request for Review regarding five additional ballots challenged by the Board agent because the
employees did not meet the stipulated eligibility criteria on grounds unrelated to the election’s
postponement. As a result, the four challenged ballots discussed above are non-determinative,
___________________________________
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN

_________________________________
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
_________________________________
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 5, 2017.

unlike those at issue in Tekweld, and Member Miscimarra would therefore find no need to set
aside the election results and direct a new election.