Stage Employees IATSE Local I (Gurena A.G. Ltd.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL I (GURENA A.G. LTD.)
Theatrical Protective Union Local 1, I.A.T.S.E.,
AFL-CIO and Gurena A.G. Ltd. and Motion
Picture Studio Mechanics Local 52, I.A.T.S.E.,
AFL-CIO. Case 2-CD-651
24 February 1984
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 15 July 1981 by the Employer (Gurena) alleg-
ing that the Respondent, Theatrical Protective
Union Local 1, I.A.T.S.E., AFL-CIO (Local 1),
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor
Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity
with an object of forcing the Employer to assign
certain work to employees it represents rather than
to employees represented by Motion Picture Studio
Me'chanics Local 52, I.A.T.S.E., AFL-CIO (Local
52). The hearing was held on 4 and 15 September,
4 and 9 November, and 2 and 7 December 1981
and 20 September 1982 before Hearing Officer
Carole Sobin.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. JURISDICTION
The Company is a Swiss corporation doing busi-
ness in New York and was engaged, at all times
material, in motion picture production in New
York, New York. Its projected revenues for the
year following September 1981 exceeded $1 million
and during the year preceding September 1981, a
representative period, it purchased goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from loca-
tions outside the State of New York. We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
Local 1 and Local 52 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. '
I Both Locals 1 and 52 admit employees to membership and exist, in
whole or in part, for the purpose of collective bargaining about wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Board has
previously found both Local I and Local 52 to be labor organizations
within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. Stage Employees IA TSE Local
One (Twentieth Century-Fox), 255 NLRB 955 (1981).
268 NLRB No. 122
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
From about the beginning of June 1981 until
mid-August 1981,2 the Employer was filming a
motion picture entitled "King of Comedy" at the
Reeves Teletape Studio in New York City. The
Employer had leased that facility, normally utilized
for television productions, as a setting for a fiction-
alized television program to be portrayed in the
film. As part of the lease agreement, the Employer
obtained the services of the six "housemen" (two
carpenters, two propmen, and two electricians)
who were regularly employed at Reeves. The six
housemen were actually employees of a company
named Imero Fiorentino Associates, Inc., which
had an agreement to supply stagehands and light-
ing directors and equipment to Reeves and which
also had a collective-bargaining relationship with
Local 1. The Employer also directly hired shooting
crew members, construction crew members, and
set decorators, all of whom were represented by
Local 52. Employees hired were in the classifica-
tions of soundmen, shop craftsmen, electricians,
propertymen, set decorators, grips, and generator
men. In April, following the hire of certain crew-
members, the Employer entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 52 covering all
those job classifications.
About the end of March, after having been ad-
vised by the Reeves representative to inform Local
I of the Employer's use of the facility, Robert
Colesberry, the Employer's production manager,
met with Richard Nimmo, the TV business manag-
er of Local 1. Nimmo told Colesberry that his
local had jurisdiction over the Reeves studio, that
the Employer was going to have to utilize a split
crew, 3 meaning an equal number of members of
Local 1 and Local 52, and that any sets had to be
constructed in a Local I shop and carry a Local 1
seal or the sets would not be permitted into the
Reeves studio.4
About the first week of April, Colesberry in-
formed Michael Proscia, president of Local 52, of
his conversation with Nimmo. Proscia said that, if
the Employer were going to deal with Local 52,
Local 52 would construct sets.
The first period of filming, which involved exte-
rior shots of the studio, began about 2 June. The
day before, Nimmo asked and was told by Coles-
' All dates are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
a According to Nimmo, the split crew count was to exempt the Local
52 soundman and the department heads.
4Nimmo generally denied saying that the sets would not be permitted
into the studio. He claimed to have told Colesberry that he would do
everything he could legally to protect the work of his membership.
1063
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
berry that seven employees who were represented
by Local 52 would be involved in the exterior film-
ing. Nimmo told Colesberry he would then have to
use seven Local I members (in addition to the six
housemen). Nimmo also told Colesberry that all
the Local 1 members were to be paid a double
rate; i.e., the Local 52 rate in addition to the Local
I rate. Colesberry did not agree to such wage
rates. He testified that, because the first shoot was
scheduled for the next night and he was concerned
with a work stoppage, he did not protest to
Nimmo at that time.
Shooting began on 2 June with seven Local 1
members (in addition to the six housemen) as well
as the Local 52 crewmembers. The following
evening, only six additional Local 1 members were
sent to the job. The additional Local I members
continued to work throughout the first period of
shooting which ended about 6 June.5 During that
week, Colesberry sought the release of the addi-
tional Local I members from a Reeves representa-
tive. The representative explained that Reeves had
been told that the Local I members could not be
let go unless Local 52 members were released as
well.
Also during that week, Colesberry spoke to
Proscia about arrangements for the second shoot-
ing period which was to involve filming and video-
taping inside the studio. Proscia told Colesberry
that the Employer had to honor their contract and
had to have the scenery constructed by Local 52.
Thereafter, on 4 June, Colesberry sent Proscia a
letter advising that Nimmo was demanding a split
local 1/Local 52 work force throughout the second
shooting period and requesting Local 52's help in
working out an accommodation. In a 9 June re-
sponse from Local 52's counsel, Colesberry was re-
ferred to a Board decision involving another dis-
pute between Local 52 and Local 1 and informed
that a breach of the Employer's contractual obliga-
tions concerning work assignment could result in
litigation as well as a possible work stoppage.6
About 10 June, Colesberry and Executive Pro-
ducer Robert Greenhut met with a Local 52 repre-
sentative and Nimmo. The Employer sought agree-
ment about the distribution of jobs during the
second shooting period and about constructing the
sets. No agreement was reached. Colesberry and
Greenhut then spoke to Nimmo alone and pro-
posed a manning agreement of one Local I
member for each two Local 52 members, with
three of the housemen to be included in the Local
I Colesberry testified that Local I members who worked during the
period in question were hired by and paid through Reeves and Imero
Fiorentino and not directly by the Employer. The Employer was billed
for their services by Reeves, who was in turn billed by Imero.
e No charges were filed against Local 52.
1 count and three to be exempted. Colesberry testi-
fied that he was led to believe at that time that the
arrangement was acceptable. Also, at some point
during the meeting, according to Colesberry,
Nimmo repeated that the sets would not be al-
lowed into Reeves' studio without a Local I seal.7
The following week Nimmo rejected the Employ-
er's proposal and again insisted on a split crew.
Thereafter, Colesberry ordered set construction to
be done by employees who were represented by
Local 52.
Subsequently, at a meeting on or about 15 July,
the Employer proposed the same compromise to
Nimmo, who reiterated Local l's demand for a
split crew. According to Colesberry, after he told
Nimmo that the sets, which were constructed by
Local 52 members, were going to be brought to
the studio, Nimmo implied that the sets without a
Local 1 seal would not be permitted into the
studio.8
Preparation for interior shooting began about 16
July. The Local I contingent on that Thursday and
Friday, 16 and 17 July, consisted of the six house-
men and five additional Local I members whom
the Employer requested. Colesberry testified at the
hearing that the additional Local 1 members were
requested "to avoid labor problems." There were
also about 15-16 crewmembers working who were
represented by Local 52.
On or about Friday, 17 July, Imero's representa-
tive, Linda Hobkirk, notified Colesberry that she
was not ordering the additional Local 1 members
because the Employer was paying these employees
only the Local I rate.9 During their discussion,
Colesberry complained about the pay rates and the
fact that the Employer did not need the additional
Local 1 members.
On Monday, 20 July, the Local 1 housemen did
not carry out their duty of turning on the house
I Nimmo in contrast to Colesberry described this meeting as occurring
about 3-4 weeks after the end of the exterior shooting. He admitted dis-
cussing manning and wage rates for Local I members, but did not de-
scribe, as did Colesberry, an indication that the Employer's proposal was
acceptable to Local 1. He testified that he told Colesberry that Local I
never relinquished the right to build scenery in its Local I shops for
motion pictures, but that the scenery could be built on the studio prem-
ises with the work split between Local I and Local 52. As noted above,
Nimmo generally denied the threat regarding the scenery.
s Nimmo claimed that by this time he had received direction from the
Union's International president to permit scenery into the studio and that
he advised Imero Fiorentino to relay that information to Gurena. Coles-
berry claimed that Hobkirk, an Imero Fiorentino representative, did
inform him that scenery built by Local 52 members had been cleared for
use in the studio, but that, when he sought confirmation from Nimmo,
Nimmo denied having heard from the International president. Nimmo
denied having any conversation about scenery with any Gurena repre-
sentative after his conversation with the International president.
9 Before each shooting period, Nimmo told Hobkirk the wage rates he
had allegedly worked out with the Employer; Imero then charged
Reeves those rates plus a percentage for its services.
1064
STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL I (GURENA A.G. LTD.)
lights. As a consequence, no employees began
work at the 8 a.m. starting time. At or about 8:30
a.m., Colesberry was notified that no work was
being performed. When he subsequently arrived at
the studio, the Reeves representative told him that
the Local 1 housemen were concerned about the
failure to call in the additional Local I members
and about the rate the Local 1 members would be
paid. The Local I housemen said they would have
to speak to Nimmo. Nimmo arrived at the studio at
10:30 a.m. Thereafter, there were discussions
among Colesberry, Greenhut, the Reeves repre-
sentative, Hobkirk, Nimmo, and another Local I
representative. The split crew and double rates
were discussed. Nimmo admitted at the hearing
that there was a dispute that morning and that it
involved Gurena's not wanting to hire the addition-
al Local I members and not wanting to split the
crew. Hobkirk testified that work did not proceed
because the additional Local I members had not
been ordered and acknowledged that what was re-
quired at the time to get the work started was for
the additional Local I members to be ordered.10
One of the Local I housemen admitted that
Nimmo told him that morning to simply wait until
the matters were resolved before doing any work.
Early that afternoon, even though the wage rate
issue remained unresolved, the Employer ordered
the additional Local I members and all employees
began working. Hobkirk testified that the addition-
al Local 1 members were "standing by" because
they expected to be called in. The sets were sched-
uled to be delivered to the studio that morning and
arrived while discussions were taking place. There
was conflicting testimony as to whether the delay
in bringing the sets into the studio was occasioned
by the dispute or by an employee lunch break.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the handling of
props, sets, and equipment and electrical and con-
struction work related to the film production of a
motion picture entitled "King of Comedy" by
Gurena A.G. Ltd. at Reeves Teletape Studio, 234
West 81st Street, New York, New York.'t The
disputed work specifically does not involve that
work performed by the six housemen in operating
the "house" equipment. 1 2
'o Hobkirk also testified that Greenhut directed that the lights be
turned on that morning when he arrived but that his direction was not
carried out until after the additional Local I members were called.
I" The parties did not explicitly agree on a description of the work in
dispute. The Board has adopted those portions of the description set forth
in the Regional Director's notice of hearing which comport with the par-
ties' contentions, as set forth in their respective briefs, and which com-
port with the record submitted.
is During the hearing, both the Employer and Local 52 took the posi-
tion that they had had no objection to Imero's continued employment, on
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Local 52 both contend that
reasonable cause exists to believe a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred based on Nimmo's
alleged threats not to permit scenery into Reeves
without a Local I seal and based on the 20 July
work stoppage. They maintain that the work in dis-
pute should be assigned to employees represented
by Local 52 because of the contractual relationship
between the Employer and Local 52, Employer
preference, area practice, skills, and economy and
efficiency.
Local I contends that there is no reasonable
cause to believe a violation occurred for several
reasons: (1) Nimmo denied having threatened not
to allow the sets into Reeves without a Local 1
seal, (2) Colesberry was told by the Imero Fioren-
tino representative that there was no longer a dis-
pute over which employees were to construct the
scenery, (3) prior to the 15 July filing of the
8(b)(4)(D) charge, which gave rise to this 10(k)
hearing, there is no evidence of violative conduct,
(4) the incident on 20 July was not a work stop-
page as the employees were not directed to per-
form work while the parties were discussing wage
rates and as the International's permission to
engage in a work stoppage was not obtained, and
(5) the dispute on 20 July concerned wage rates
and not work assignment. Local 1 also contends
that, assuming that there was a cognizable
8(b)(4)(D) violation, employees whom it represents
were entitled to share the work in dispute because
of the area practice, efficiency, and skill.
D. Applicability of the Statute
As described above, according to Colesberry,
Nimmo repeatedly threatened that scenery would
not be permitted into the studio if it were not con-
structed by Local 1 members.' s Further, Nimmo
repeatedly insisted that the Employer use a split
crew and the evidence indicates that a work stop-
page occurred on 20 July in support of Local l's
position on the manning issue. The work stoppage
behalf of Reeves, of the six housemen during the filming and that the
housemen were utilized to handle Reeves' stage equipment normally used
for television production.
is We note that Local I has not contended that it disclaimed interest
in the set construction work. Further, we do not find that Local I effec-
tively disclaimed such work at the hearing. International President Diehl
testified that Nimmo asked him, in general terms, whether Local 52 was
entitled to build sets for use in filming at a Local I studio and Diehl re-
sponded that it was if built in a location close to the studio; Diehl did not
recall the date of the conversation. Nimmo claimed the conversation oc-
curred on 14 July and that Diehl told him to permit the sets into the
studio. If this conversation occurred on that date, it preceded the 15 July
conversation described by Colesberry in which Nimmo again allegedly
implicitly threatened to interfere with receipt of the sets at the studio.
Moreover, in his testimony, Nimmo denied giving up Local I's "rights"
to the set construction for "King of Comedy" filing at Reeves.
1065
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arose when Local I housemen failed to perform
their duties apparently because extra Local 1 mem-
bers had not been hired for work that day in
accord with Local I's split crew formula. After
Nimmo arrived at the site, and while production
was halted, Nimmo asserted Local l's position by
continuing to ask how many extra Local I mem-
bers the Employer wanted to work that day and by
continuing to insist on a split crew. He also told
one of the Local 1 housemen to await the outcome
of his meeting with the Employer before com-
mencing work. When the Employer agreed to uti-
lize the same number of extra Local 1 members as
had been utilized the previous workday, produc-
tion commenced.
To proceed with a determination of dispute, the
Board need not find that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) occurred. It must find only that reasona-
ble cause exists for finding such a violation. More-
over, the Board is not precluded from considering
contradicted testimony in finding reasonable
cause.1 4 Accordingly, we are not precluded from
finding reasonable cause here because of Local l's
version of the facts for which there is contradicto-
ry record evidence and testimony.'5 Nor do we
find, as Local I argues, that absence of permission
from the International Union to engage in a work
stoppage is dispositive of whether a work stoppage
attributable to Local I occurred. Finally, Local l's
contention that the postcharge conduct here may
not support a reasonable cause finding is without
merit. Even assuming the absence of precharge
conduct to support a reasonable cause finding, we
would find it appropriate to consider Local l's 20
July conduct since the factual and legal issues con-
cerning the conduct have been fully litigated and
briefed, the issues were related to the allegations of
the charge, and the conduct occurred while the
charge was pending. 6
Therefore, since the evidence indicates that
Local 1 claimed the disputed work for its members
and there is evidence that it sought to enforce its
claim by means of threats and a work stoppage,
without ruling on the credibility of the testimony
at issue, we find reasonable cause exists to believe
that a violation occurred. And, since there is no
evidence of a method for voluntary adjustment of
this dispute to which the parties have agreed to be
bound, we find no voluntary method exists for the
'4 Stage Employees IA7TSE Local One, supra; Laborers Local 383 (Floor
Covering Specialists), 222 NLRB 950 (1976).
A" Local I's factual assertions which are contradicted directly or by
import are that: Nimmo did not threaten to deny entry into the studio of
the sets, Colesberry was unequivocally told before 20 July that there was
no longer a dispute about set construction, the Employer gave no direc-
tion to work on 20 July, and the only dispute among the parties on 20
July concerned wage rates.
is See NLRB v. Fant Milling Cao., 360 U.S. 301 (1959).
resolution of this dispute. Accordingly, we find
that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af-
firmative award of disputed work after considering
various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573
(1961). The Board has held that its determination in
a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on common sense and experience, reached by bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Gurena and Local 52 are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement, executed on 16 April
1981,17 which covers employees within the general
job category of soundman,1 s as well as the catego-
ries of shop craftsman, electrician, propertyman, set
decorator, grip, and generator man. The agreement
states:
No person other than an employee hereun-
der shall be permitted to handle, place, operate
or procure scenery, property, special effects,
electrical effects, electrical equipment, sound
effects, sound accessories, playback or equip-
ment at any time, or to construct any of the
foregoing where such work is done by or
under the control of the employer; and no
interchangeability among the crafts shall be al-
lowed.
It also states:
The employer recognizes Local 52 jurisdic-
tion when video tape is utilized on a given fea-
ture or television series covered by this collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with respect to pro-
pertymen, grips, electricans and shop crafts-
men, it being understood and agreed that the
above stage crafts shall be utilized in the
manner and as described along their craft lines
as set forth in this collective-bargaining agree-
ment with respect to film production.
Neither Gurena nor Reeves had a collective-bar-
gaining relationship with Local 1. Reeves had an
agreement with Imero Fiorentino to supply, among
17 This contract, entitled the "Feature and Series Production Con-
tract," had effective dates from I November 1978 to 31 October 1981.
18 Local I did not claim the work of employees in the soundman cate-
gory.
1066
STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL I (GURENA A.G. LTD.)
other employees, stagehands,' 9 and, in turn, Imero
Fiorentino did have a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship with Local 1. As of the period involved
here, the last prior contract had expired and nego-
tiations were being held for a new contract. The
last prior contract stated:
I. Scope of Agreement: (a) This Agreement
covers the employment by the Company, at its
television studios, theatres, stages, shops and
other facilities in New York City, at all remote
locations in New York City to the extent here-
tofore or hereafter mutually agreed upon, of
Shop Heads, Head Stagehands, Carpenters,
Electricians, Propertymen, Stage and Shop
Apprentices, Extra Men and other classifica-
tions of employees as hereinafter mentioned,
used on or in connection with the setting up,
assembly and presentation of television perform-
ances, the dismantling and "taking in" and
"taking out" of all props, scenery and equip-
ment covered hereunder and the servicing in
connection with such work (including any
warehouse crews, ramp crews, trucking crews,
prop crews, night crews, dressing crew and
utility crews to the extent specified in any
statement of operational procedures attached
hereto) whether for live television, video tape
recording, closed circuit, kinescope or other
types of electronic recording, or for other re-
lated purposes (except motion picture film).
Whenever a studio, threatre or other facility is
used for any purpose related to television
broadcasting involving the performance of
work within the scope of Local One's jurisdic-
tion hereunder, such work is recognized as
coming within the scope of this Agreement.
As used herein, the words "studio, theatre or
other facility" shall include any area of the
Company from which it originates or picks up
any program or part thereof for television
broadcasting.
In addition, this Agreement shall cover the
employment of stagehands for any stagehands'
work that may be required where a television
studio or theatre is used by the Company for
such purposes as, but not limited to, stockhold-
ers' meetings, forums, formal presentations to
groups of employees, client presentations or
meetings of affiliates (in which case the regular
basic crew and any additional necessary help
shall be assigned).
" Imero's so-called master contract with Reeves, a contract Imero had
with Reeves' predecessor and which Linda Hobkirk indicated was gener-
ally applicable to Reeves, provided that Imero would supply stagehands
and lighting directors, who would otherwise be employed directly by
Reeves. The contract did not obligate Reeves to a certain level of man-
ning.
This Agreement also covers the employment
of stagehands for construction work at the
construction shop(s) of the Company in New
York City.
These provisions shall not be construed as
requiring any particular number of men for
such work." [Emphasis added.]
It also stated:
This Agreement shall be binding upon any
lessee, succcesor or assign operating any thea-
tre or studio covered hereby for the produc-
tion of television programs (except motion pic-
ture film).
Hobkirk testified that the contract's jurisdictional
exclusion of motion picture film meant to her that
such work, performed in a facility which was cov-
ered by the contract, was not specifically governed
by the contract and would require separate negoti-
ations.
In his testimony, Nimmo referred to a provision
in the Local 1 contract which stated that the
"scope of agreement" provision was intended to in-
clude not only existing practices but those mutually
agreed on in future. He claimed that it was a past
practice to "split crews" when filming was being
done at facilities with which Local I had a con-
tract, although he acknowledged that such practice
had not been acknowledged in writing between
itself and employers with whom it contracted.
Here, Gurena, the employer in control of the
production,2 0 had a collective-bargaining agree-
ment only with Local 52.21 The Local 52 agree-
ment clearly covered the work in dispute. In con-
trast, even assuming a relationship among the par-
ties to warrant the applicability of the Local 1
agreement, its terms not only appear facially not to
cover the work in dispute, but also appear to
exempt at least the motion picture film part of the
work in dispute from its jurisdiction. Accordingly,
we find that the agreement between Gurena and
Local 52 favors assignment of the work in dispute
to employees represented by Local 52.
'o The question of who was in control of the production was a factor
in other cases in which producers had collective-bargaining agreements
with the union while the facilities at which production wu occurring, or
the agents of the facilities, had collective-bargaining agrements with an-
other union. Stage Employees A TSE Local One, supra at 957-958; Stage
Employees 1IATSE Local 84 (CBS Inc), 218 NLRB 1312 (1975).
sI Local I argues that the collective-bargaining agreement between
Gurena and Local 52 cannot be relied on because it was signed after only
one employee was hired. The evidence does not demonstrate that Our-
ena's precontract hiring was limited to one employee or constituted less
than a representative number of employees.
1067
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Company preference
The record establishes that Gurena preferred to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by Local 52. This factor, while not determinative,
favors an award of the work to employees repre-
sented by Local 52.
3. Area and industry practice
There appears to be no dispute that motion pic-
ture production companies assign work on feature
films in New York City such as that in dispute here
to employees represented by Local 52. The Em-
ployer's executive producer, Robert Greenhut, tes-
tified that 90 percent of the films shot in New York
City employ crewmembers represented by Local
52 and the remainder employ crewmembers repre-
sented by NABET. He acknowledged that there
were some employees represented by Local 1 who
had been utilized in the New York City filming of
at least one film of which he was aware, 2 2 but he
did not know whether Local 1 had a contract with
the producer of that film or in what capacity the
Local 1 members were used.
Local 1 asserts that it is the practice for crews to
be split between employees represented by Local
52 and employees represented by Local 1 when
performing work such as that in dispute at loca-
tions in New York City at which Local I has an
established collective-bargaining relationship. The
relationship on. which Local 1 bases its claim ap-
pears to be between it and the facilities used or the
employing agents of the facilities used. Further,
Nimmo claimed that, if scenery is built for, but
away from, a New York City film location at
which Local 1 has an established collective-bar-
gaining relationship, it has been the practice for
employees represented by Local I to construct the
scenery; on delivery of the set to the location, he
maintained it would be handled by a split crew.
Local I points to a 1962 "ruling" as the formali-
zation of the split crew practice, which "ruling was
issued by Diehl, the then assistant International
president and current International president. The
ruling, in pertinent part, was as follows: (1) if a
property where Local 1 has a contract or history
of bargaining closes on a temporary basis and then
temporarily reopens for the purpose of making a
motion picture, then the production crew, with the
exception of the sound crew, shall be split equally
2" This film, "Turning Point," was shot, in part, in a theatre at which
employees represented by Local I were regularly employed. According
to Local I Business Manager Robert McDonald, the arrangement on that
film involved the employer's use of housemen and other employees rep-
resented by Local I for all theatrical work on the stage, the employ of a
specified number of crewmen represented by Local 52, and crew splitting
between employees represented by Local 52 and those represented by
Local I for all other crewmembers needed.
between Local 1 and Local 52, and (2) if a proper-
ty where Local I has a contract or history of bar-
gaining closes with a definite notice of dismissal to
the crew and such property is leased or rented to a
motion picture producer for a definite period of
time during which only motion pictures are to be
made, the entire crew are to be furnished by Local
52 for the entire time in which motion pictures are
produced. While Diehl testified that he considers
the ruling to still be in effect, he also testified that
in 1962 he was not empowered under IATSE's in-
ternal rules to issue rulings because he was not
then an elected official. He also stated that Local
52 has never admitted to being a party to the
ruling, although it did not appeal it within the
Union's governing structure at the time it issued.
Finally, Diehl explained that no film producers
were present when this ruling was promulgated
and the ruling has not been accepted by any film
producer while Diehl has been president.
Local 1 also points to a variety of arrangements
it has made when films were being shot at legiti-
mate theatres, arenas, concert halls, and movie the-
atres at which it had a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship. The Employer's witness specifically de-
scribed six motion pictures and one television pro-
gram filmed between about 1967 and 1981 in such
locations during which there was crew splitting or
what was referred to as "an approximation" of
crew splitting between employees represented by
Local I and those represented by Local 52. In only
the filming of the televison production and one
motion picture did Local I establish a collective-
bargaining relationship with the film's producers; it
appears that in the remaining circumstances the
crew splitting was arranged through the facilities
used or the facilities' operating agents. It also ap-
pears that on each filming specifically described
the basic crew of housemen remained employed. In
none of these circumstances was the arrangement
between the facility and the production company
described. And, no examples were given of specific
films involving such crew splitting being shot at
television or videotape studios; the seven examples
given involved legitimate theatres. Further, while
television programs were filmed on two occasions
at the Reeves studio documenting the process of
making "Sesame Street," the television program
regularly videotaped at the studio, Hobkirk testi-
fied that there was no need for crew splitting on
either occasion because those film crews were
small and were only present while a large Local I
crew was engaged in actual production of "Sesame
Street."
We do not find the 1962 ruling to be a significant
fact in determining this dispute principally because
1068
STAGE EMPLOYEES IATSE LOCAL I (GURENA A.G. LTD.)
the evidence indicates the absence of agreement to
this manning procedure in practice among both the
Locals and motion picture producers. We also note
the parties' failure to explain the circumstances to
which the provisions of the ruling apply, their fail-
ure to conclusively show which provisions applies
to the circumstances of this case, and, similarly,
their failure to show that the circumstances in
which crew splitting occurred were directly occa-
sioned by the ruling.
Further, while there was evidence that crew
splitting has occurred when motion pictures were
filmed at facilities at which Local 1 had a collec-
tive-bargaining relationship, we do not find that the
examples given demonstrate an area practice of
crew splitting. The examples each appears to in-
volve discrete and individual circumstances, with
distinct arrangements negotiated for each film. We
also note that, in only one of the crew splitting ex-
amples given, was it indicated that employees rep-
resented by Local I had built the sets away from
the movie location; in the other arrangements as
described, whether written or oral, exclusive juris-
diction of Local 1 for off-location set construction
(when Local I had a collective-bargaining relation-
ship at the location) does not appear to have been a
part of the arrangements. Accordingly, we find
that evidence with respect to the factors of indus-
try agreement and area practice does not favor as-
signment of the work to employees represented by
either Local 52 or Local 1.
4. Relative skills
The Employer's first shooting period at Reeves
involved only filming work around the outside of
the studio. During the second shooting period,
which involved production inside the studio, there
were about 10 days of preparation work, 5 days of
videotaping, and 3 days of filming.
Local I and Local 52 both represent employees
who generally possess skills required to perform
the work in dispute. It appears that Local 52 has
traditionally represented employees who work on
motion picture film productions while Local 1 has
traditionally represented employees employed at le-
gitimate theatres, some television theatres, and stu-
dios and arenas. It further appears that employees
represented by both Unions have experience when
videotape is being used.
In asserting its position that employees whom it
represents were more skilled than their counter-
parts represented by Local 52 to perform certain
functions on this film, Local I emphasized the pro-
ducer's interest in videotaping segments to appear
as if an actual television production was being
made. Since both the housemen and other employ-
ees represented by it who worked on "King of
Comedy" were familiar with the equipment at
Reeves and had worked on actual videotape televi-
sion production at Reeves, it claims that their skills
were better adopted to coordinating with the tele-
vision director and accompanying crew involved in
the production of the television sequences.
Both the Employer and Local 52 stressed that
"King of Comedy" was a motion picture being
filmed at Reeves, that the videotape shot was in-
corporated into the film and never intended for in-
dependent direct broadcast, and that employees
represented by Local 52 were more familiar with
the equipment and techniques used in filming
motion pictures.
As the particular work in dispute at the Reeves
facility appears to have involved two types of
work for which employees represented by Local
52 and Local 1 were respectively more familiar,
but as employees represented by both Local 52 and
Local I possess similar skills and as the dispute be-
tween the Locals did not involve a division of the
work based on the work with which their members
were most familiar (but rather involved simple
crew splitting), we find that the evidence concern-
ing this factor does not favor assignment of the dis-
puted work to employees represented by either
Local 52 or Local 1.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The evidence presented and arguments made
with respect to this factor correspond to those
made in a case involving a similar dispute-filming
of a motion picture at a facility at which Local I
had a collective-bargaining relationship-between
Local 1 and Local 52.23 Here, as well as in that
case, the Employer and Local 52 point to the cohe-
siveness and efficiency that develop and the con-
sistency of the product when the same crew is uti-
lized throughout the filming of a motion picture.
They also point to the inefficient and potentially
uneconomic choice the Employer is faced with by
a demand for a split crew when it does filming at a
facility at which Local I has a collective-bargain-
ing relationship: it may lay off half of its existing
crew and temporarily replace them with employees
represented by Local 1, thereby disrupting staff
continuity and creating the risk of losing those laid
off to other jobs, or it may unnecessarily double
the size of its crew. It appears that the Employer
here was obliged to call in extra employees repre-
sented by Local I whom it did not require.
Local I contends that utilization of a split crew
involving additional Local 1 employees was effi-
23 Stage Employees IA TSE Local One, supra.
1069
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cient because of their familiarity with house equip-
ment. It maintains that disruption of the crew at
Reeves was minimized because it sought only a
split crew and not exclusive assignment of the
work.
We are persuaded that, since the work in dispute
is one part of a film project, since the Employer
seeks to achieve a certain efficiency and technical
and creative consistency by the use of a crew that
will continue to work throughout the project, since
employees represented by Local 52 traditionally
perform film work and also possess the skills to
perform all the work in dispute, both efficiency
and economy of operations are served by assign-
ment of the work to employees represented by
Local 52.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Local 52
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We
reach this conclusion relying on the applicability of
the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Employer and Local 52, the promotion of econo-
my and efficiency, and the preference of the Em-
ployer. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work to employees represented by
Local 52, not to that Union or its members. The
determination is limited to the controversy that
gave rise to this proceeding. 2 4
84 Local 52 seeks an award covering the particular work in dispute
here as well as that same work on film productions in any facility or
studio, including, but not limited to, legitimate theatres, Madison Square
Garden, the Colesium, the Metropolitan Opera House, or other places of
amusement. Local 52 made the same request in Stage Employees IATSE
Local One, supra. We find here, and the Board found therein, that film
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Gurena A.G. Ltd. represented
by Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Local 52,
I.A.T.S.E., AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
handling of props, sets, and equipment and electri-
cal and construction work, with the exception of
that work performed by the six housemen in oper-
ating the house equipment, related to the film pro-
duction of a motion picture entitled "King of
Comedy" by Gurena A.G. Ltd. at Reeves Teletape
Studio, 234 West 81st Street, New York, New
York.
2. Theatrical Protective Union Local 1,
I.A.T.S.E., AFL-CIO is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force
Gurena A.G. Ltd. to assign the disputed work to
employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, Theatrical Pro-
tective Union Local 1, I.A.T.S.E., AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 2 in writ-
ing whether it will refrain from forcing the Em-
ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D),
to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsist-
ent with this determination.
producers encompassed by Local 52's request have not participated in
this proceeding and that it is "inadvisable" to issue an award involving
employers who have not had an opportunity to participate or give evi-
dence in the proceeding. See also Plumbers Local 345 (Acme Sprinkler
Co.), 210 NLRB 22, 25 (1974). We further note that there may be consid-
erations at other jobsites which have not been presented here. Further,
there is no evidence that any further productions of the Employer will
involve circumstances similar to those involved here. Accordingly, we
deny Local 52's request to expand the scope of our award beyond the
Employer in this proceeding and the jobsite in question.
1070