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

Docket Number13-CA-186575

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.

Jam Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., a single employer and Theatrical Stage Employees Union Local No. 2, IATSE. Case 13-CA-186575

May 16, 2017

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respondent is contesting the Union's certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on October 20, 2016, by Theatrical Stage Employees Union, Local No. 2, IATSE (the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on January 19, 2017, alleging that JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., a single employer (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union's request to recognize and bargain with it following the Union's certification in Case 13-RC-160240. (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(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.

On February 3, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 6, 2017, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response.

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment

The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but contests the validity of the Union’s certification of representative on the basis of its contentions, raised and rejected in the underlying representation proceeding, that the Union unlawfully provided economic benefits to employees to induce them to support the Union, the Regional Director’s rulings as to the challenged ballots were erroneous, the Regional Director failed to conduct a proper investigation of the Respondent’s objections, the Regional Director improperly refused to schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve the Respondent’s objections, and the Respondent was denied due process of law.

In addition, the Respondent denies that at all material times JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have formulated and administered a common labor policy; have shared common premises and facilities; have provided services for and made sales to each other; have interchanged personnel with each other; and have held themselves out to the public as a single-integrated business enterprise, and denies that it is a single employer within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent also denies the appropriateness of the unit.

The Respondent admits, however, that it entered into a Stipulated Election Agreement in the underlying representation proceeding.1 In that Stipulated Election Agreement, the Respondent stipulated that JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., constitute a single employer, and it further stipulated that the unit was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The commerce section of the Stipulated Election Agreement specifically states that “[f]or purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only Inc., and Victoria Operating Company, LLC, a single employer, with a place of business in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the business of producing concerts, shows, and events at venues … in Chicago, Illinois.”2 The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine in this proceeding the stipulation of single employer status and the appropriateness of the unit in the representation

1 The complaint, at par. II (b), alleges that “[o]n September 30, 2015, Respondent entered into a Stipulated Election Agreement in Case 13-RC-160240 in which it acknowledged JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., status as a single employer.” The Respondent’s answer denies these allegations, “except to admit that the parties entered into a Supplemental Election Agreement on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP