International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees v. NLRB, No. 16-3686 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit denied IATSE's petition for review of the Board's decision finding that IATSE violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its hiring practices. The court held that the Board's conclusion that it had jurisdiction over SMG Pershing was supported by substantial evidence; the Board's finding that IATSE operated an exclusive hiring hall with respect to Freeman, as well as to SMG Pershing, was supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that IATSE failed to show that suspending certain members was necessary for effective performance of representing its constituency and the Board's finding that IATSE violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA by suspending these individuals from the referral list; substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that the refusal to refer two employees to the February 2013 Freeman job at the Cornhusker Hotel violated section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA; and the ALJ's findings of fact, credibility determinations, and ultimate conclusion, which were all adopted by the Board on IATSE's claim that the charge with respect to the referral lists was untimely, were supported by substantial evidence.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - National Labor Relations Board. The Board followed its discretionary guidelines for interstate impact in determining that it had jurisdiction over the employer; the Board did not err in determining that the union operated an exclusive hiring hall with respect to the two employers involved in this matter; the Board did not err in finding that the union's decision to suspend seven employees from the referral list was an unfair labor practice as the union failed to show the suspensions were necessary for effective constituent representation; the Board did not err in finding that the union's refusal to refer two members to a particular job was an unfair labor practice as the union failed to meet its burden to show that the decision was necessary to the effective performance of its representative function; the Board did not err in finding the union had discriminated against nonmembers in maintaining its referral list; Board's conclusion that the union's 10(b) defense was without merit is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.