World Theatre Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 969 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

969
316 NLRB No. 145
WORLD THEATRE CORP.
1 In its exceptions, the Employer requests oral argument. The re-
quest is denied as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
World Theatre Corporation and International Alli-
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 20,
Petitioner. Case 18–RC–15612
March 30, 1995
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND BROWNING
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered a determinative chal-
lenge in an election held on August 5, 1994, and the
hearing officer’s report recommending disposition of it.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision and
Direction of Election issued on July 12, 1994. The
tally of ballots shows 5 for and 5 against the Peti-
tioner, with 1 determinative challenged ballot.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions1 and brief, and has decided to adopt the
hearing officer’s findings and recommendations, as fur-
ther discussed below.
In his Report and Recommendation to the Board on
Challenged Ballots Affecting the Results of the Elec-
tion, the hearing officer found, inter alia, that the few
instances when Technical Director Paul Froid called in
his nephew, Chris Cameron, to work for the Employer
did not establish that Froid had statutory authority to
hire, whether he credited Director of Operations Brian
Sanderson’s or Froid’s version of the events. We agree
with the hearing officer.
Cameron twice helped Froid with between-show
maintenance projects and was paid $5 per hour by
Froid out of Froid’s own pocket. Froid did not put
Cameron on the Employer’s payroll. Cameron also
performed stage crew work on one occasion. The hear-
ing officer noted that under Sanderson’s version of this
event, although he did not approve of Cameron’s em-
ployment in advance, he subsequently approved Cam-
eron’s timesheet and paid Cameron a special wage rate
not paid to other extra employees. Further, under
Froid’s version, Sanderson approved the hiring of
Cameron in advance, based on Froid’s recommenda-
tion. The hearing officer noted that other non-
supervisory employees also recommend potential crew
members to Sanderson.
Contrary to the Employer’s contention, we agree
with the hearing officer that the Chris Cameron inci-
dents do not warrant a finding that Froid was a statu-
tory supervisor. The record shows that on the first two
occasions when Cameron assisted Froid with mainte-
nance projects, Cameron was not on the Employer’s
payroll, because Froid paid Cameron out of his own
pocket. We note that even if Froid charged the Em-
ployer extra time on his timesheet for some of Cam-
eron’s work, Froid testified that Sanderson approved
Cameron’s work and told Froid to make sure that
Cameron got on the payroll the next time Cameron
worked for the Employer. Thus, the record shows that
the next time Froid called in Cameron to help with last
minute stage crew work, Sanderson approved Cam-
eron’s timesheet and paid Cameron $8.50 per hour
which was not usually paid to other extra employees.
The fact that Froid recommended Cameron’s hiring is
not dispositive where, as here, unit employees rou-
tinely recommend other employees for hire. The record
shows that the final hiring decision rests with
Sanderson.
In its brief in support of exceptions, the Employer
also contends, relying on testimony by Sanderson, that
Froid ‘‘hired an additional person for a ‘load-out’
without Sanderson’s prior approval.’’ The record is un-
clear as to whether this testimony refers to the Cam-
eron incident discussed above or an additional instance
of alleged hiring by Froid. The record contains no spe-
cific evidence that Froid hired other employees, and
there is no further testimony indicating that the load-
out incident involved the hiring of anyone other than
Cameron. Under these circumstances, we cannot find
that the vague references in Sanderson’s testimony to
a load-out incident are sufficient to warrant a finding
that Froid possessed the statutory authority to hire.
Based on the above, we find that the record dem-
onstrates that Sanderson, and not Froid, possesses the
authority to hire crew members. Because we also agree
with the hearing officer that the Employer failed to
show that Froid possessed any of the other indicia of
supervisory authority listed in Section 2(11), we agree
that Froid has not been shown to be a supervisor with-
in the meaning of the Act.
DIRECTION
IT IS DIRECTED that the Regional Director for Re-
gion 18 shall, within 14 days from the date of this De-
cision and Direction, open and count the ballot of Paul
Froid. The Regional Director shall then and serve on
the parties a revised tally of ballots and issue the ap-
propriate certification.