Audio Visual Services Group, Inc., d/b/a PSAV Presentation Services,
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. d/b/a PSAV Presentation Services and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 15. Case 19–CA–167454
May 19, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
Pursuant to a charge filed by the Union on January 7, 2016, the General Counsel issued a complaint and notice of hearing on June 23, 2016, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union from January 4, to May 23, 2016, following the Union’s certification in Case 19–RC–161471. (Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).)1 The Respondent filed an answer, admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. On September 12, 2016, the Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and memorandum in support. On September 15, 2016, the General Counsel filed a brief in opposition, and the Respondent filed a reply. Thereafter, on October 13, 2016, pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the parties submitted to the Division of Judges a Joint Motion and Stipulation of Facts, in which the parties jointly moved to transfer the proceedings to the Division of Judges, waive a hearing, and authorize the judge to issue a decision based on the stipulation of facts and parties’ briefs. By order dated October 13, 2016, Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham granted the parties’ Joint Motion, approved the joint stipulation of facts and supporting exhibits, and postponed the hearing indefinitely. By sub
1 More specifically, on October 23, 2015, the Regional Director for Region 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Election. An election was conducted by secret mail ballot from November 9, 2015 to November 30, 2015. On December 18, 2015, the Regional Director issued a Decision on Challenges and Objection and Certification of Representative in Case 19–RC–161471, in which he certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. On January 4, 2016, the Respondent filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., a request for review of the both the Decision and Direction of Election and the Decision on Challenges and Objection and Certification of Representative. On May 19, 2016, the Board denied the Respondent’s request for review.
sequent order dated October 14, 2016, Associate Chief Judge Etchingham suspended briefing on the stipulated record until the National Labor Relations Board ruled on the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On November 9, 2016, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the Respondent’s September 12, 2016 motion should not be granted. The General Counsel filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment. The Union filed a response in support of the General Counsel’s motion. The Respondent filed no response.
Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits in its motion and by stipulation that from about January 4 to May 23, 2016, it declined to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees. The Respondent argues, however, that it did not violate the Act by refusing to bargain during this period because its request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and his Decision on Challenges and Objection and Certification of Representative was pending with the Board. The Respondent adds that once the Board denied its request for review on May 19, 2016, it...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP