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

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 October 2, 2015 to make clear that to avoid the time and expense of a hearing a Stipulated Election Agreement was entered into solely for the purpose of resolving contested issues in Case No. 13-RC-160240 only.” The Respondent’s statement is an apparent reference to a “Second Supplemental Election Agreement” which was entered into on October 2, 2015, by the Respondent and the Union, but not the General Counsel. However, neither the Second Supplemental Election Agreement nor the Stipulated Election Agreement indicate that the stipulated facts are limited “solely” to resolving issues in the representation proceeding, and the Respondent has provided no evidence in support of this assertion.

² During the representation proceeding, the Respondent did not withdraw from the Stipulated Election Agreement, object to its status as a single employer, or challenge the appropriateness of the unit.

proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent’s denial that JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., constitute a single employer and its denial that the unit is appropriate do not raise any issue warranting a hearing in this proceeding.

All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. 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 the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).

Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.³

On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTION

   Based on its entry into the Stipulated Election Agreement described above, we find that JAM Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc., and Victoria Operating Co., constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.

   At all material times, JAM Productions, Ltd., an Illinois corporation with an office and place of business located at 207 W Goethe Street, Chicago, Illinois, has

   DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

   ³ The Respondent’s request that the complaint be dismissed and that it be awarded its costs, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses is therefore denied.

   In the underlying representation proceeding, then-Member Miscimarra would have overruled four ballot challenges sustained by the Regional Director. The Board agent had challenged the ballots on the ground that the employees had been hired after the eligibility date set forth in the Stipulated Election Agreement. Member Miscimarra found, however, that where the Board’s blocking charge doctrine results in a change to the election date in the...