Leather Goods Workers Local 349 (Shepard Convention)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1991

304 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

642
304 NLRB No. 79
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The parties stipulate that the work at issue relates to displays rented to in-
dividual exhibitors but not to displays rented to the association putting on a
trade show.
2 ‘‘European-style’’ is another name for the ‘‘versa’’ rental units at issue
here.
Brotherhood of Trade-Show and Display Workers
Union, Local 349, affiliated with the Southern
Joint Board of International Leather Goods,
Plastic and Novelty Workers Union, AFL–CIO
and Shepard Convention Services, Inc. and
Local 41, International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees of the United States and Can-
ada. Case 10–CD–314
August 27, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, following a charge filed by
Shepard Convention Services, Inc. (Employer), alleg-
ing that Brotherhood of Trade-Show and Display
Workers Union, Local 349, affiliated with the Southern
Joint Board of International Leather Goods, Plastic and
Novelty Workers Union, AFL–CIO (Local 349), has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the Employer to assign certain work to em-
ployees represented by Local 349 rather than to em-
ployees represented by Local 41, International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees of the United States and
Canada (Local 41). The hearing was held May 8,
1991, before Hearing Officer Ellen K. Hampton.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire
record, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Georgia corporation with its office
and place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, is
engaged in providing trade show and exhibition serv-
ices. The Employer during the past 12 months, a rep-
resentative period, purchased and received at its At-
lanta, Georgia facility goods and services valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside
the State of Georgia. The parties stipulate, and we
find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act,
and that Locals 349 and 41 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer, as part of its business of providing
services and equipment to the trade show industry,
rents displays to individual exhibitors.1 These displays
or ‘‘versa’’ exhibits, which are owned and housed by
the Employer, are composed of component parts which
must be assembled. The Employer’s warehouse and
freight-handling employees are represented by Local
349. It is undisputed that the Employer’s service of
setting up exhibitor-owned displays is performed by
employees represented by Local 41.
Although the Employer’s collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 349 includes ‘‘all work of every
kind relating to company-owned rental equipment and
displays,’’ it is also signatory to the industry contrac-
tors’ association’s 1985 collective-bargaining agree-
ment which recognizes Local 41 as ‘‘the primary
source for referrals [for, inter alia,] all exhibits, dis-
plays, rental units, European-style displays,2 and signs
(except aisle signs and association signs).’’
On March 8, 1991, Local 349 sent a letter to the
Employer, stating, inter alia, ‘‘you can expect a strike
and a picket at any shows when our rental display
work is being assigned to anybody other than members
of Local 349.’’
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves installing, maintaining,
and dismantling of exhibitor rental display booths and
hanging signs.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Local 349 contended at the hear-
ing that the disputed work has by established practice
been performed by direct hiring of employees rep-
resented by Local 349, and secondarily by referrals
from Local 41’s hiring hall. After the hearing closed,
the Employer moved to reopen the record and for sum-
mary judgment awarding the work to employees rep-
resented by Local 349. The Employer relied on the
ground that Local 41 had been dissolved by its Inter-
national Union.
Local 41 filed a brief in opposition to the motion,
arguing that it had been lawfully succeeded by a newly
created local which has a legitimate claim to the dis-
puted work.
On July 22, 1991, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why the factual allegations related to the
dissolution of Local 41 should not be taken as true and
why the notice of hearing should not be quashed be-
cause there are now no competing claims to the work.
Local 41 filed a response agreeing that the notice
should be quashed.
643LEATHER GOODS WORKERS LOCAL 349 (SHEPARD CONVENTION)
3 Painters Local 1396 (C. L. Wolff & Sons Painting Co.), 246 NLRB 442,
444 (1979), and cases cited therein.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to hear
and determine disputes which have given rise to
charges under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Under
this section, however, the Board’s authority is limited
to the resolution of actual disputes between competing
groups of employees. It is settled law that a jurisdic-
tional dispute no longer exists when one group of em-
ployees effectively renounces its claim to the work. In
this regard, we have held that the function of a 10(k)
proceeding evaporates when one of the unions re-
nounces the work.3
As indicated, although the Employer moved for
summary judgment awarding the work to employees
represented by Local 349, both the Employer and
counsel for Local 41 agree that Local 41 has been dis-
solved. Thus, there are now no competing claims to
the work in dispute. The Employer did not respond to
the Notice to Show Cause, and in its response Local
41 stated that the matter is moot and the notice of
10(k) hearing should be quashed. Accordingly, we
shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
The notice of hearing is quashed.