Union Square Theatre

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 618
Union Square Theatre Management, Inc. and Theat-
rical Protective Union, Local One, I.A.T.S.E,
AFL-CIO. Cases 2–CA–28430 and 2–RC–21540
February 12, 1999
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On August 17, 1998, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding.1 In
that decision, the Board held that the administrative law
judge had properly allowed the Respondent to relitigate
the issue of whether its technical directors were employ-
ees, as the Regional Director had found in his Decision
and Direction of Election in Case 2–RC–21540, or statu-
tory supervisors, as the Respondent contended. However,
the Board reversed the judge’s finding that the technical
directors were employees and found, instead, that they
were supervisors. Because the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint were directed toward the technical
directors, the Board dismissed the complaint in Case
2-CA-28430. And because the Charging Party Union had
petitioned to represent a bargaining unit consisting en-
tirely of the technical directors, the Board also dismissed
the petition in Case 2–RC–21540.

1 326 NLRB 70 (1998).
On October 14, 1998, the Union filed a Motion for Re-
consideration of the Board’s Decision and Order. In sup-
port of its motion, the Union contends that the Board
erred in allowing the Respondent to relitigate the issue of
the technical directors’ status. It also contends that the
Board erred in finding the technical directors to be su-
pervisors.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-
ing to a three-member panel.
The Board having duly considered the matter,1
IT IS ORDERED that the Charging Party’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied as lacking in merit.2
1 The Union has called our attention to the fact that, after the admin-
istrative law judge issued his decision, the General Counsel attempted
to file exceptions and a supporting brief. Those documents were not
forwarded to the Board members and therefore were not considered by
the Board in its earlier Decision and Order. We have carefully consid-
ered the General Counsel’s arguments and find that they do not require
a different result.
2 The Union has called our attention to the fact that, after the admin-
istrative law judge issued his decision, the General Counsel attempted
to file exceptions and a supporting brief. Those documents were not
forwarded to the Board members and therefore were not considered by
the Board in its earlier Decision and Order. We have carefully consid-
ered the General Counsel’s arguments and find that they do not require
a different result.

327 NLRB No. 121