Venue Trading Co. d/b/a Trade Show Supply

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 2013

359 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

TRADE SHOW SUPPLY 977

359 NLRB No. 106
Venue Trading Co. d/b/a Trade Show Supply and
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees, Local 835, AFL–CIO. Case 12–CA–
074022
April 30, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
On September 20, 2012, Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Ringler issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Acting General Counsel filed an answering brief.
1
The
Acting General Counsel also filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, the Respondent filed an answering brief,
and the Acting General Counsel filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,
2
and conclusions as modified,
3
and to adopt the
recommended Order as modified.

1 The Respondent also filed a “Reply and Notice of Limited With-
drawal of Exceptions,” in which the Respondent withdrew its excep-
tions 8, 9, and 10 and requested that the Board ignore the corresponding
portions of its supporting brief. As a result, there are no exceptions to
the judge’s finding that the charge was timely served upon the Re-
spondent.
2 We agree with the judge that the Union established the relevance of
the information it requested on September 8, 2011, and that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide
it. The judge found that the Union was entitled to the information in
order to evaluate whether to pursue a grievance, even though the Un-
ion’s position “might eventually prove unsuccessful” due to the lack of
express contractual support, and the prospects for arbitral success might
be “diminish[ed]” by the Union’s earlier failure to vigorously represent
the Respondent’s “staff employees.” We agree with the judge that the
relevance of the Union’s information request does not depend on the
merits of a potential grievance or arbitration. We do not, however,
express any opinion on the merits of any potential grievance or arbitra-
tion in this case. See DaimlerChrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1324
(2000), enfd. 288 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“In considering an infor-
mation request, the Board is not concerned with the merits of a griev-
ance, and it is therefore not willing to speculate about what defenses an
employer will raise in an arbitration proceeding.”).
In finding that the Union’s rationale for its September 8, 2011 in-
formation request was “previously communicated” to the Respondent,
the judge referred to both a January 20, 2010 letter (AGC Exh. 5) and a
November 29, 2010 letter (AGC Exh. 6). In adopting the judge’s find-
ing that the Union’s rationale for its September 8, 2011 information
request was previously communicated to the Respondent, we do not
rely on the January 20, 2010 letter.
3 The Acting General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to find
that the Respondent’s “staff employees” are unit employees and there-
fore that the information that the Union requested about them was
presumptively relevant. We agree with the judge that, because the
Acting General Counsel proved relevance, it is unnecessary to pass on
this issue.
We also find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that the
parties’ relationship was governed by Sec. 8(f) of the Act, rather than
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 3.
“3. The Union was, at all material times, the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the following
appropriate unit:

All employees of Venue Trading Co., d/b/a Trade
Show Supply, who perform the work described in the
Scope of Agreement article of the September 1, 2011 to
August 31, 2014 collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and the Union on all present and fu-
ture job sites within the jurisdiction of the Union, ex-
cluding all other employees, supervisors and guards as
defined in the Act.”

ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Venue
Trading Co. d/b/a Trade Show Supply, Orlando, Florida,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
“a. Failing and refusing to provide the Union with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to its
performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All employees of Venue Trading Co., d/b/a Trade
Show Supply, who perform the work described in the
Scope of Agreement article of the September 1, 2011 to
August 31, 2014 collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and the Union on all present and fu-
ture job sites within the jurisdiction of the Union, ex-
cluding all other employees, supervisors and guards as
defined in the Act.”

Sec. 9(a). Because the refusal to provide information occurred during
the term of the collective-bargaining agreement, we would find a viola-
tion in either instance. We shall also delete the judge’s reference to the
Union’s status as the “limited” collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees in his conclusions of law, recommended Order, and
notice. During the term of a collective-bargaining agreement estab-
lished under Sec. 8(f), the union is the employees’ exclusive collective-
bargaining representative, plain and simple. Referring to its representa-
tional status as limited is erroneous.
The Acting General Counsel also excepts to the judge’s description
of the unit set forth in his conclusions of law, recommended Order, and
notice. The Acting General Counsel asserts that the judge’s unit de-
scription is too narrow because it refers only to those employees who
“install and dismantle trade show exhibits” and does not refer to the
other functions listed in Section 1.02 of the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement, or alternatively, include a reference to that sec-
tion. We agree, and we shall modify the judge’s unit description to
more accurately reflect the unit described in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
978 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide the Union with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to its
performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the following
appropriate unit:

All employees of Venue Trading Co., d/b/a Trade
Show Supply, who perform the work described in the
Scope of Agreement article of the September 1, 2011 to
August 31, 2014 collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and the Union on all present and fu-
ture job sites within the jurisdiction of the Union, ex-
cluding all other employees, supervisors and guards as
defined in the Act.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights set forth above.
WE WILL, to the extent that we have not already done
so, provide the Union with the information requested in
its September 8, 2011 letter.
VENUE TRADING CO. D/B/A TRADE
SHOW SUPPLY

John F. King, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel.
Thomas Royall Smith, Esq. (Jackson Lewis LLP),
for the Respondent.
Toby M. Lev, Esq. (Law Offices of Toby M. Lev), for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. On August
13, 2012, this case was tried in Orlando, Florida. On February
7, 2012, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employ-
ees, Local 835, AFL–CIO (the Union) filed the underlying
charge.1 The resulting complaint alleged that Venue Trading
Co. d/b/a Trade Show Supply (Trade Show or the Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) by failing to provide certain relevant information
to the Union regarding their usage of in–house employees to
perform bargaining unit work.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after thoroughly considering the
parties’ briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Trade Show, a corporation, with a
place of business in Orlando, Florida (the facility), has been an
exhibit services provider. Annually, it purchases and receives
at the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points located outside of the State of Florida. Based upon the
foregoing, it admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged
in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act. It further admits, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Introduction
Trade Show constructs, warehouses, installs, and dismantles
trade show and convention exhibits within the greater Orlando
region. It also rents exhibition equipment, and prints signs and
related materials. It is a signatory to the Union’s Exhibitor
Appointed Contractor Collective-Bargaining Agreement.2 See
(GC Exhs. 3–4). Its current agreement with the Union extend-
ed from September 1, 2011, to August 31, 2014 (the 11–14
CBA).3 (GC Exh. 4.)
B. 11-14 CBA
1. Hiring hall arrangement
Under the 11–14 CBA, the Union refers, through its hiring
hall, employees to perform the following duties at Trade

1 The charge, which was mailed on February 8, 2012 (see (GC Exh.
1)), and served upon Respondent on the same date (see Board’s Rules,
Sec.102.14)), was timely served within the 6-month period set forth
under Sec. 10(b). See New York Presbyterian Hospital, 354 NLRB 71
(2009) (Sec. 10(b) does not run from the date that an information re-
quest is made (i.e., September 8, 2011), but, from the date that Re-
spondent unequivocally refuses to furnish the information (i.e., in or
about November 2011)). Moreover, I do not credit Christopher Grif-
fin’s, who is Respondent’s president, self-serving and implausible
claim that Respondent never received the charge.
2 Under Sec. 8(f) of the Act, construction industry employers may
grant recognition to unions, without regard to the establishment of its
majority status. See John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987),
enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F. 2d 770 (3d Cir.
1988).
3 Its prior agreement ran from September 1, 2007, to August 31,
2011 (GC Exh. 3).
TRADE SHOW SUPPLY 979
Show’s jobsites (unit work):

[E]recting and dismantling of display booths and/or exhibits,
modular systems, pegboards, tack boards, drape hung or
rigged, carpeting, furniture, platforms, I.D. signs within the
booth, handling and placing of pipe, bases, drape, table drap-
ing, floor marking, waste baskets, aisle banners, signage, table
risers . . . . rigging and the installation, operation, dismantling
of lighting, sound, projection, and audio-visual equipment
[subject to limited exceptions] . . . . [and] on-site freight
. . . . (GC Exh. 4 at Sec.1.02).
2. Trade Show’s usage of staff employees and the
Union’s hiring hall
Unlike most hiring hall arrangements, Trade Show is not re-
quired to use the Union’s hiring hall to satisfy its total demand
for unit work. It may, instead, use up to 15 in-house employees
to perform unit work, before seeking hiring hall referrals.4 (Id.
at Sec.1.03). In-house employees, who perform unit work, are
called “staff employees.”5
The 11–14 CBA states that it “extends to all Staff employ-
ees,” and indicates that Trade Show will give the Union “a list”
of such employees. (Id. at Secs.1.01, 8.07). It also regulates
staff employees’ health and retirement benefits and provides
that:
If the Employer provides health insurance for Staff employ-
ees, the Employer shall not be responsible for the hourly con-
tribution to the IATSE Health & Welfare Fund for these em-
ployees. If the Employer provides retirement benefits for
Staff employees, the Employer shall not be responsible for the
hourly contribution to the IATSE Annuity Fund for these em-
ployees.

[Id. at Sec.11.04.] The 11–14 CBA is, however, silent re-
garding other key staff employee issues, and neglects to con-
cretely describe their wages and other terms and conditions of
employment.
C. Initial Information Request
On November 29, 2010, the Union sent the following infor-
mation request to Trade Show concerning staff employees and
their usage:

This letter . . . . is prompted by concerns that the hiring provi-
sions of our collective bargaining agreement are not being ful-
ly complied with.

Unfortunately, we have discovered that some of our signato-
ry employers are using persons outside the referral hall for
bargaining unit work and misidentifying those persons as
“staff” employees. As we all are aware, our agreement permits

4 Once the 15-person cap is reached, Trade Show must “request one
worker from the Union for each . . . additional Staff employee.” (Id. at
Secs. 1.021, 1.03).
5 The 11–14 CBA defines staff employees as “exclusive to one (1)
employer.” (GC Exh. 4 at Sec.1.02.) Griffin testified that staff em-
ployees work solely for him, and do not include temporary agency
workers. Frank Bernstein, division manager for MC Squared, a signa-
tory to the 11–14 CBA, defined a staff employee as “an employee that
works for me full-time that I use occasionally out on the trade
show floor.” (Tr. 174.)
the use of staff employees. However, a worker must work ex-
clusively for that contractor to qualify as a staff employee.
Calling a temporary worker a “staff” employee and working
them within Local 835’s jurisdiction violates our agreement. It
also deprives workers on the referral list with work and com-
pensation provided for in the agreement . . . .
To assist us in enforcing our agreement, we ask for the fol-
lowing information:

The names and dates of work for persons employed as “staff”
workers within the jurisdiction of Local 835 during the last 90
days . . . . (GC Exh. 6).
D. Trade Show’s Response
On December 7, 2010, Trade Show replied:

[We] . . . employ. . . 24 staff employees . . . . As part of our
. . . privacy policy, [however], we do not provide personal
employee information . . . . (GC Exh. 7).
E. Second Information Request
On September 8, 2011,6 the Union tendered this information
request:

The union is requesting the following information for all staff
employees . . . for the period beginning September 1, 2008 to
August 31, 2011.

1. The names and addresses of staff employees . . . .
2. The[ir] hire dates . . . .
3. The termination date of each staff employee . . . .
4. The[ir] wage rates . . . .
5. Proof of Health insurance for each staff employee.
6. Proof of a retirement plan for each staff employee.
7. The total number of hours worked by each staff employ-
ee . . . for years ending August 31, 2009, and 2010, and 2011.
. . . (GC Exh. 8).
F. First Unfair Labor Practice Charge and
Connected Withdrawal
On October 14, Union filed an unfair labor practice charge
concerning Trade Show’s failure to respond to its September 8
information request (GC Exh. 10). On November 15, Trade
Show sent the following dispatch to the Union:

In compliance with our IATSE contract section 8.07 (i.e.,
"The Employer will provide to the Union a list of its Staff
employees"), please find the attached list of IATSE members
that we've employed from 9/01/08 through 08/31/11. Also at-
tached is a list of [20] Trade Show Supply employees ("staff
employees") that . . . perform exhibit and I&D work at various
convention venues in Florida . . . .

[The Union’s] . . . request for detailed information [i.e., ad-
dresses; hire and termination dates; wage and benefit infor-
mation; and hours worked] regarding "all Trade Show Supply
staff employees" goes beyond the scope of information that we
are required to provide . . . .
(GC Exh. 10) (emphasis added). Following the Union’s re-

6 All dates herein are in 2011, unless otherwise stated.
980 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

ceipt of this partial reply, it withdrew its charge, in order to
afford Trade Show additional time to respond. (GC Exh. 17,
31–32.)
G. February 7, 2012 – Re-Filed Unfair Labor Practice Charge
On February 7, 2012, the Union re-filed the unfair labor
practice charge (GC Exh. 1). Trade Show responded to the
charge, by filing a position statement with the Board, which
denied its obligation to provide the requested information (GC
Exh. 14).
1. Union’s rationale
Union Business Agent Richard Vales explained that he re-
quested staff employee information, on the basis of his suspi-
cion that Trade Show was not paying staff employees the health
insurance benefits required by the 11–14 CBA, and potentially
evading its hiring hall obligations by using temporary employ-
ees to perform unit work. Specifically, he stated:

[On] the show floor, . . . workers come up to me asking me
[whether] . . . workers working under Trade Show Supply
blue shirts . . . [had a] steward. . . . [Although] they pretty
much kept under the 15[,] . . . it just raised a red flag because
when I do walk on the show floor, I . . . [saw] different faces.
[As a result, I was] . . . prompted . . . to find out who is work-
ing for them, [and] how long they worked for them. [It’s] . . .
part of the contract that if they work . . . over 1,000 hours,
they should be paid under the journeyman rate. And plus if
the Company has not paid on health insurance . . . [, then]
they have to make contributions into our health insurance.

(Tr. 76–77). Regarding the potential usage of temporary
employees, he added that:

My concern was [that] . . . they [are] hiring these people on a
show-by-show basis [instead of using the Union’s hiring hall].
So, . . . , if they have a large show coming in, [and] they don't
have enough staff, they bring extra people from . . . labor pool
. . . [or a] friend to friend. And then once the show is over, . . .
they let them go.

[Tr. 77.] He averred that his information request was de-
signed to confirm that Trade Show was following the 11–14
CBA. He noted that their hiring hall referrals paled, in relation
to similarly situated employers.
2. Trade show’s position
Griffin testified that the requested information was confiden-
tial and irrelevant. He alleged that the Union never previously
sought to represent staff employees and, therefore, abandoned
their right, if any had ever existed, to represent them now. He
added that the Union never complained about the usage of staff
employees, when the 11–14 CBA was negotiated. See (R. Exh.
2).
III. ANALYSIS
Trade Show violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed fully re-
spond to the Union’s September 8 information request.7 Gen-
erally, an employer must provide requested information to a

7 These allegations are listed under pars. 6 through 9 of the com-
plaint.
union representing its employees, whenever there is a probabil-
ity that such information is necessary and relevant to its repre-
sentational duties. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
This duty encompasses the obligation to provide relevant col-
lective bargaining and grievance-processing materials. See
Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002).
Information, which concerns unit terms and conditions of
employment, is “so intrinsic to the core of the employer-
employee relationship” that it is presumptively relevant. See
U.S. Information Services, 341 NLRB 988 (2004). Information
about persons outside the bargaining unit, however, does not
enjoy a presumption of relevance. Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346
NLRB 1159 (2006). Nevertheless, the burden to establish the
relevance of extra-unit information requests is “not exceptional-
ly heavy.” Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136,
139 (1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983). In such cases,
the Board uses a broad, discovery-type of standard to assess
relevance. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258,
259 (1994). Moreover, the sought-after evidence need only
have a bearing upon the disputed issue. See Pfizer, Inc., 268
NLRB 916 (1984).
The Union established the relevance of its September 8 in-
formation request.8 On September 8, the Union requested, for
the period beginning September 1, 2008, to August 31, 2011:
names and addresses of staff employees; their hire and termina-
tion dates; their wage rates; their proof of health insurance and
retirement plans; and the total number of annual hours worked
by each staff employee (GC Exh. 8). The Union sought this
information, in order to assess whether Trade Show was com-
plying with the 11–14 CBA’s: limitation on temporary employ-
ees; cap on staff employee usage; and wage and benefit provi-
sions. The Union’s rationale was previously communicated to
Trade Show. See (GC Exhs. 5–6).
A. Limitation on Temporary Employees
Given that the 11–14 CBA narrowly defines a staff employee
as “exclusive to one (1) employer,” and Griffin conceded that
temporary agency workers are not considered staff employees,
the Union’s request for staff employee contact information,
wage, and other personnel information would have permitted it
to independently investigate whether Trade Show was improp-
erly using temporary agency employees to perform staff em-
ployee duties, instead of requesting referrals from the Union’s
hiring hall. Vales’ suspicions about this issue were based upon
jobsite observations and employee reports. See Magnet Coal,
Inc., 307 NLRB 444 fn. 3 (1992), enfd. mem. 8 F.3d 71 (D.C.
Cir. 1993) (information requests can be based upon hearsay).
B. Staff Employee Cap
Inasmuch as Trade Show was only permitted to use up to 15

8 This relevance analysis is based upon the debatable assumption
that staff employees are outside the unit, and actually required a show-
ing of relevance. Given that the 11–14 CBA expressly states that it
“extends to all Staff employees,” and regulates their health and retire-
ment benefits, they might arguably be unit employees, whose connect-
ed information was presumptively relevant. See U.S. Information
Services, supra.
TRADE SHOW SUPPLY 981
staff employees at a jobsite before seeking hiring hall referrals,
contact information, and tenure dates would have permitted the
Union to independently investigate Trade Show’s compliance
with this rule. Vales credibly testified that he grew concerned
about this issue because Trade Show’s hiring hall referrals
seemed to be fewer than expected, and on the basis of his own
jobsite observations and employee reports.
C. Wage and Benefit Provisions
The Union requested staff employee wage and benefit in-
formation, in order to evaluate whether it should file a griev-
ance about these matters. Concerning benefits, the 11–14 CBA
required Trade Show to make Union benefit contributions on
behalf of staff employees, absent a showing of alternative cov-
erage. See (GC Exh. 4 at Sec. 11.07). The requested health
and benefit information would have permitted the Union to
evaluate Trade Show’s compliance with this provision. Re-
garding wages and hours worked, although the 11–14 CBA was
silent as to staff employees’ wages, Vales contended that they
should have been paid in the same manner as other hiring hall
referrals, which was in accordance with their hours of unit work
performed. See (GC Exh. 4 at Art. 12). Thus, the requested
wage and hour information would have allowed the Union to
determine whether staff employees were paid in accordance
with its contractual theory, and otherwise evaluate a potential
grievance. Although the Union’s position on wages lacked
express contractual support and might eventually prove unsuc-
cessful, it was nevertheless entitled to evaluate whether to pur-
sue such a grievance.9 See Raley's Supermarkets & Drug Cen-
ters, 349 NLRB 26 (2007).
D. Conclusion
The Union was entitled to seek information about the staff
employees. It sought this information in order to enforce the
11–14 CBA, and gauge how the usage of staff employees af-
fected the unit’s workload. The Board has repeatedly support-
ed a union’s right to request information about workers outside
of a unit, who are potentially diverting work from a represented
unit. See, e.g., Lenox Hill Hospital, 327 NLRB 1065, 1098–
1069 (1999) (use of extra–unit workers to supplant unit work
was relevant); W-L Molding, 272 NLRB 1239 (1984) (subcon-
tractor usage); Peterbilt Motors Co., 357 NLRB 47, 48–49
(2011) (work performed by unrepresented employees at other
facilities); Magnet Coal, Inc., 307 NLRB 444
fn. 3 (1992), enfd. mem. 8 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (agency
employee usage); Globe Stores, 227 NLRB 1251, 1253–1254
(1977) (managers performing unit work). The Union’s request,
therefore, satisfied the Board’s “broad, discovery-type of stand-
ard,” and Trade Show violated the Act by withholding such
information.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Trade Show is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of

9 While the fact that the Union never previously represented staff
employees in a vigorous manner might diminish its prospects for arbi-
tral success, it was still entitled to review this information.
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union is, and, at all material times, was the limited
exclusive bargaining representative of the following appropri-
ate unit:

All employees of Trade Show, who install and dismantle
trade show exhibits within the jurisdiction of the Union, as
described under its September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014
collective bargaining agreement with the Union, excluding all
other employees, supervisors and guards as defined in the
Act.

4. Trade Show violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
failing and refusing to provide information requested by the
Union, which was relevant to its representational duties.
5. The unfair labor practice set forth above affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Trade Show committed an unfair labor
practice, it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Accordingly, it shall be ordered to furnish the Union with
the information requested in its September 8, 2011 letter. It
shall also distribute appropriate remedial notices electronically
via email, intranet, internet, or other appropriate electronic
means to its employees, in addition to the traditional physical
posting of paper notices, if it customarily communicates with
employees in this manner. See J Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
Venue Trading Co. d/b/a Trade Show Supply, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to its performance of
its duties as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in following appropriate unit:

All employees of Respondent, who install and dismantle trade
show exhibits within the jurisdiction of the Union, as de-
scribed under its September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014 col-
lective bargaining agreement with the Union, excluding all
other employees, supervisors and guards as defined in the
Act.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) To the extent that it has not already done so, Respondent

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
982 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

shall provide the Union with the information requested in its
September 8, 2011 letter.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, physically
post at its Orlando, Florida facility, and electronically send and
post via email, intranet, internet, or other electronic means to its
employees who were employed at its Orlando, Florida facility
at any time since September 8, 2011, copies of the attached
Notice marked “Appendix,”11 if it normally communicates with
its employees in this manner. Copies of the Notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being
signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be

11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
physically posted by Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
Notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the Notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the Notice to all current and former employ-
ees employed by it at the facility at any time since September 8,
2011.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that it
has taken to comply.