Stage Employees Local 6

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 214
St. Louis Theatrical Brotherhood Local No. 6 of the
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees, Moving Picture Machine Technicians &
Artists of the United States and Canada, AFL–
CIO and Kiel Center Partners, L.P. d/b/a Savvis
Center and Local 1, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO. Case 14–CD–
1011
June 6, 2001
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
The underlying charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding
was filed on January 24, 2001, and amended on January
30, 2001, by Kiel Center Partners, L.P. d/b/a Savvis Cen-
ter (Savvis or the Employer). It alleges that the Respon-
dent, IATSE Local 6 (Local 6 or Stagehands), violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act
by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forc-
ing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it
represents rather than to employees represented by IBEW
Local 1 (Local 1 or Electricians). The 10(k) hearing was
held on February 13, 2001, before Hearing Officer Don-
ald F. Jueneman.
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 re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Missouri partnership with its sole of-
fice and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, is en-
gaged in the nonretail rental of space for sporting and
entertainment events. It annually purchases and receives
at its St. Louis, Missouri facility, directly from points
located outside the State of Missouri, goods valued in
excess of $50,000. The parties stipulate, and we find,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further
find, based on the stipulations of the parties, that Local 6
and Local 1 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Savvis Center is a large, multiuse arena in St. Louis,
Missouri. Savvis hosts hockey games, basketball games,
trade shows, concerts, and other gatherings that require
an arena of its size. During the 1999–2000 National
Hockey League season, Savvis leased some lights as part
of its pregame theatrical production for St. Louis Blues
hockey games. These lights (generally referred to by the
parties as “moving lights”) can move up and down, arc in
different directions, narrow or widen their focus, change
hundreds of colors, and project ads, logos, flag symbols,
or other pictures.
During the 1999–2000 season, employees represented
by the Stagehands operated these lights. The collective-
bargaining agreement between Savvis and the Stage-
hands covers “work in connection with handling all
equipment that is brought into the arena in connection
with setting, placement, handling, operation, dismantling,
[and] striking of all equipment used for any type of theat-
rical production,” as well as any “temporary lighting.”
The contract also covers the operation of the houselights
and spotlights. During the pregame production, employ-
ees represented by the Stagehands would turn off or dim
the houselights and then operate the spotlights and the
moving lights. While Savvis was leasing moving lights,
the Electricians did not dispute their operation by em-
ployees represented by the Stagehands.
Before the 2000–2001 season, Savvis decided to buy
moving lights. Savvis bought 10 of the lights, and em-
ployees represented by the Electricians installed them.
The collective-bargaining agreement between Savvis and
the Electricians covers both the maintenance and opera-
tion of all “lighting fixtures.”
According to Jack Beckman, business representative of
the Stagehands, some Local 6 employees learned from
Local 1 employees that the Electricians would be claim-
ing the operation of the moving lights after their installa-
tion. On August 29, 2000,1 the Stagehands filed a griev-
ance to make sure that they continued to operate the
moving lights during the upcoming hockey season. In
response, on September 8, Lawrence (Butch) Hepburn
Jr., business representative of Local 1, sent a letter to
Savvis advising that the Electricians now considered
these lights a fixture, and thus subject to the Electricians’
work jurisdiction.
Without objection from the Stagehands, Savvis invited
the Electricians to Local 6’s grievance meeting on Sep-
tember 11. At the meeting, the two unions did not agree
on an assignment of the work. Consequently, on Sep-
tember 14, Savvis assigned the operation of the moving
lights to the Stagehands, and the installation and mainte-
nance to the Electricians. Savvis based its decision on
the theatrical nature of the lights, the Stagehands’ opera-
tion of other theatrical-type lighting effects (houselights
and spotlights), and past practice during the 1999–2000
season.

1 All dates are in 2000 unless indicated otherwise.
334 NLRB No. 1
STAGE EMPLOYEES IASTE LOCAL 6 215
The Electricians filed a grievance under their contract
on September 14. Savvis denied it on October 2, and
employees represented by the Stagehands continued to
operate the moving lights. The Electricians proceeded
with their grievance against Savvis, and at the time of the
instant hearing, had selected an arbitrator.
On January 5, 2001, Local 6 mailed, faxed, and hand-
delivered a letter to David Coverstone, vice president of
human resources for Savvis, in which the Stagehands
stated that unless they continued to receive the assign-
ment of the operation of the moving lights and appropri-
ate assurances thereto, they would “strike in protest,”
regardless of the no-strike provision in their contract.
The Employer continued its assignment of the work to
employees represented by the Stagehands and filed the
instant charge.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute concerns the operation of the
moving theatrical lights during events at Savvis Center,
1401 Clark Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Electricians have moved to quash the notice of
hearing on two separate grounds. First, they contend that
there is no 10(k) dispute because there is no reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vio-
lated. They assert that the Stagehands’ alleged threat to
strike is a sham, made only in order to invoke the juris-
diction of the Act. Second, they urge the Board to adopt
a new rule governing the circumstances of this case and
to quash the notice based on this new rule. Alternatively,
the Electricians argue that if the Board does find that it
has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute, the
relevant factors favor an award to Local 1.
The Employer and the Stagehands contend that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. Both parties contend that the Stagehands
threatened to strike in their January 5, 2001 letter, con-
firmed the threat to Coverstone orally, and repeated the
threat at the hearing. They contend that the work in dis-
pute is thus properly before the Board for determination
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, that there is no sin-
gle voluntary means for adjustment binding on all three
parties here, and that the motion to quash should be de-
nied. Additionally, the Employer and the Stagehands
contend that the relevant factors favor an award of the
disputed work to the employees represented by the
Stagehands.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that the parties have not
agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute.
On January 5, 2001, the Stagehands sent a letter to the
Employer threatening a strike if they did not continue to
receive the assignment of the work in dispute and receive
assurances to that effect. Although the Electricians urge
the Board to find that the circumstances involved suggest
no such strike ever would have occurred, they offer only
conjecture in support of such a finding. Local 6’s letter,
on its face, constitutes a threat to take proscribed action.
There is no affirmative evidence that the threat was in
fact a “sham.” Brewers & Maltsters Local 6 (Anheuser-
Busch), 270 NLRB 219, 220 (1984).
The existence of a no-strike clause in the Stagehands’
collective-bargaining agreement does not alter this analy-
sis. Lancaster Typographical Union No. 70 (C.J.S. Lan-
caster), 325 NLRB 449, 451 (1998). We reject the Elec-
tricians’ argument in this regard. We likewise decline
their invitation to quash the notice of hearing based on a
new rule, which would entail overruling existing prece-
dent. We therefore find reasonable cause to believe that
a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjustment
of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the
Act. 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 affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Co-
lumbia Broadcasting), 364 US 573 (1961). The Board
has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on common sense and ex-
perience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a
particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (Jones Construc-
tion), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are
relevant in making the determination of this dispute.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements
The parties stipulated that there are no Board certifica-
tions concerning the employees involved in this dispute.
Both Unions have a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Employer. The Stagehands assert that the juris-
dictional language in their contract covering the opera-
tion of equipment brought into the arena for a theatrical
production, temporary lighting, and houselights, all favor
an award of the disputed work to the employees they
represent. The moving lights are used in the pregame
theatrical production. However, the equipment is not
being brought into the arena anymore. It has been per-
manently installed. Similarly, the lights are no longer

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 216
“temporary,” although they are virtually the same lights
that the Stagehands operated the previous season when
they were “temporary.” The moving lights do not fall
into the houselights category either, although they are
operated in concert with the houselights, and require that
the houselights be turned off or dimmed prior to their
operation.
The Electricians assert that their jurisdiction over
“lighting fixtures” favors an award of the disputed work
to the employees they represent. It is undisputed that the
Electricians performed the installation work on the mov-
ing lights, and that these lights are now permanently af-
fixed to Savvis Center. Even so, the moving lights are
quite different from the other nontheatrical lighting fix-
tures in the arena, whose operation and maintenance by
the Electricians the Stagehands do not dispute.
Based on the foregoing, we find the evidence insuffi-
cient to support any affirmative finding regarding this
factor. Therefore, this factor does not favor an award of
the disputed work to either of the competing employee
groups.
2. Employer preference and current assignment
The Employer assigned the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by the Stagehands and prefers that the
work in dispute continue to be performed by employees
represented by the Stagehands. Accordingly, this factor
favors awarding the work in dispute to the employees
represented by the Stagehands.
3. Employer’s past practice
It is undisputed that when Savvis leased moving lights
for the 1999–2000 season, employees represented by the
Stagehands operated them. The Electricians assert that
they did not challenge this assignment because the lights
were not fixtures at that point. The Electricians also ar-
gue that the strobe lights (which turn on when a goal is
scored), advertising panels, sound system, scoreboard,
and other electronic systems, all of which they operate,
have theatrical-type effects similar to the moving lights.
By contrast, the moving lights have a purely theatrical
effect and are used only during a discrete time frame
before a game in conjunction with other objects operated
by employees represented by the Stagehands. Accord-
ingly, we find that this factor favors an award of the
work in dispute to the employees represented by the
Stagehands.
4. Area and industry practice
Moving lights are theatrical lights. Coverstone and
Fred Corsi, vice president of operations for Savvis, both
testified that the Stagehands operate theatrical lights in
the St. Louis area. Beckman testified that only employ-
ees represented by the Stagehands operate these lights in
the St. Louis area. According to Beckman, only 3 (in-
cluding Savvis) of the 18 employers with which Local 6
has a contract own moving lights. Due to their highly
technical nature and the rapid changes in technology,
most contractors prefer to rent them. In most cases,
moving lights are brought into a venue and operated by
the Stagehands. These facts make Savvis’ permanent
installation somewhat unusual. Still, it is undisputed that
Electricians do not operate moving lights anywhere in
the St. Louis area. We find that this factor favors an
award of the work in dispute to the employees repre-
sented by the Stagehands.
5. Relative skills
When Savvis leased the moving lights, the Stagehands
received training on them. They received new training
when Savvis purchased a slightly upgraded version of the
moving lights. Local 6 has now established a training
program to instruct local contractors in the operation of
moving lights. The Electricians have not been trained on
the moving lights, and most likely would require some
training in order to operate them. Corsi speculated that
the Electricians probably would have been scheduled for
training during the time when Local 1 was installing the
lights and claimed their installation. We find that this
factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Stagehands.
6. Economy and efficiency of the operations
Employees represented by the Stagehands operate the
moving lights from the overhead catwalk, where they use
a computerized control panel. Employees represented by
the Stagehands are already on the catwalk to operate the
spotlights for the pregame production. Employees repre-
sented by the Electricians might go up on the catwalk to
perform maintenance or installation work, but, unlike the
Stagehands, it is not their normal work area. The Elec-
tricians admitted that if awarded the work, they would
have to bring in an additional employee to operate the
moving lights. During the pregame production, the mov-
ing lights are used in close conjunction with the house-
lights and spotlights, both of which the Stagehands oper-
ate. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors award-
ing the work in dispute to employees represented by the
Stagehands.
Conclusion
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that Savvis’ employees represented by the Stagehands
are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion relying on the factors of employer prefer-
ence and assignment, employer past practice, area prac-
tice, relative skills and training, and economy and effi-
ciency of the operations. In making this determination,

STAGE EMPLOYEES IASTE LOCAL 6 217
we are awarding the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by St. Louis Theatrical Brotherhood Local No. 6
of the International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees, Moving Picture Machine Technicians & Artists
of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO, not to that
Union or to its members. This determination is limited
to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Kiel Center Partners, L.P. d/b/a Savvis
Center represented by St. Louis Theatrical Brotherhood
Local No. 6 of the International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees, Moving Picture Machine Technicians
& Artists of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO are
entitled to perform the operation of the moving theatrical
lights during events at Savvis Center, 1401 Clark Ave-
nue, St. Louis, Missouri.