### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111
J AM P R OD U C T I O N S

, L TD ., E V E NT P R OD U C TI O N S

, I N C ., S TAND I N G R O OM O NLY , I N C ., a nd V I CT ORI A O P E R AT I N G C O

. , Petitioners , Cross-Respondents ,

v.

N AT I ONAL L AB OR R E L AT I O N S B OAR D, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner,

a nd

T H E ATRI C AL S TA G E E MPL O Y E E S U NI O N , L O C AL N O

. 2 I.A.T.S .E., Intervenor-Respondent.

Peti ti o nfo r R ev i ew a nd Cro ss-A ppl i ca ti on fo r Enfo rcement o f a n

Order o f the Na ti ona l Lab o r R el a ti o ns Bo a rd. No . NLR B-1 , No . 1 3 -CA -1 8 6 5 7 5

A RGU E D D E C E MB E R 8, 2017

— D E C I D E D J UN E 28, 2 0182 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111

Befor e K AN N E a nd R OVN E R , Circuit Judges , and D URKI N , District Judge

. *
R OVN E R , Cir cuit Judge. The Nati onal Labor Relati ons Boar d (“the Boar d”) seeks to enfor c e i ts or der r equi r ing Jam Pr oducti ons, Ltd., Ev ent Pr oducti ons, Inc., Standi ng Room Only , Inc., and Vi ctor i a Oper ati ng Co. (collecti v ely “Jam Pr oducti ons” or “Jam”) to b ar gain wi th the Theatr i c al Stage Employ ees Uni on Loc a l No. 2, (“Local No. 2 ” ). J am ar gues that in the per i od befor e the electi on to dete r m in e whether Local No. 2 w ould

r epr esent Jam employ ees, the uni on attempted to in fluence the electi on outcome b y ste e r ing pr emium uni on j obs to Jam employ ees. W

e hav e j ur i sdi cti on to r ev i ew the B oar d’s appli cati on for e n f o r cement pur suant to 29 U.S .C. § 1 60(e). Because Jam p r esented enough ev id e n ce to w ar rant a hear ing on the

v ali di ty of the electi on r esults, w e deny e n fo r c ement and

r emand foran ev i denti ar y hear ing. I.
In mi d-S eptember 2015, L ocal No. 2 fi led an electi on peti ti on to r epr esent employ ees of Jam Pr oducti ons as a s ingle employ er

. J am pr oduces concer ts, shows, and ev ents a t v enues in and ar ound Chi cago, including the Ri v i er a Theatr e, P ar k W est Theatr e, and Vi c Theatr e. In conj unctio n w it h these pr oducti ons, Jam hi r es par t-ti m e a nd non-uni on stagehands to unload li ghti ng and sound equi pment into the v enue, set i t u p, maintai n i t, take i t down, and mov e i t out of the v enue after the show

. Gi v en the i r r e g u l ar s chedule of shows at any gi v en

* Of the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, si tti ng b y desi gna ti o n.Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 3

v enue ( shows follow ed b y days or w eeks wi thout per for

mances) and the f act that one v enue (the Ri v i er a) w as closed for the enti r e summer because i t lacks ai r condi ti oni ng, none of the stagehands ar e employ ed full ti m e a nd thei r employment i s gener ally spor adi c. On S eptember 30, Jam a nd Local No. 2 enter ed into a S ti pulated Electi on Agr eement i denti fyi n g the potenti al bar gai ning uni t a s stagehands at the Ri v ie r a , Vi c, and P ar k W est Theatr es employ ed dur ing the payr oll per i od ending on October 4, 2015. The uni t w as defined mor e speci fi cally as: “ All full-ti me and r egular par t-ti me s tage p r o d u cti on employ ees employ ed by the Employ er at the Ri v i er a, P ar k W est, and Vi c Theatr es, but excluding pr oducti on manager s a n d c r ew leader s, offi c e cl er i cal employ ees and guar ds, pr ofessi onal employ ees and super v i sor s a s define d in the Act.” Gi v en the spor adi c natu r e o f the w or k, the par ti es agr eed to add the follo win g addi ti onal defini ti on to the Agr eement: “Also

e l ig ib l e to v ote ar e all employ ees in the uni t who hav e bee n employ ed by the Employ er for a total of 18 concer ts, shows, and/or ev ents ov er a 1-y ear per i od i mmedi ately pr eceding the eli gibi li ty date.” The d a y after the par ti es si gned the Electi on Agr eement, h o wev er , the r epr esentati on peti ti on w as held in abey anc e pending the in v esti gati on of an u nfai r labor pr acti ce char ge that Loc a l No

. 2 had fi led only the day befor e i t fi led i ts

r epr esentat io n peti ti on. Local No. 2’s char ge w as based on Jam’s ter minati on of the Ri vi er a’s cr ew leader , Chr i s S haw and th e f i fty -thr ee employ ees he super v i sed ( the “ S h a w c r e w ” )

. Th e unfai r labor pr acti ce c ha r ge w as n ot r esolv ed u nti l Apr i l 6, 2016, when the Boar d’s Acti ng Regi onal Di rector a ppr ov ed an4 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111

agr eement contai ning a non-admi ssi ons clause and pr ov i ding that J am w ould r ei nstate the ter minated employ ees by offer ing them i mmedi ate and full par ti ci pati on i n Jam’s “on-call li s t.” Just ov er a month after the unfai r -labor -pr a cti ce char ge w as
r esolv ed, on May 16, 2016, the electi on w as held. Pr i or to the electi on, J a m had asked the Regi onal Di r ector to mov e the eli gibi li ty date of the electi on back tw o w eeks on account of the

sev en-month electi on delay

. The Regi onal Di recto r di d not i ssue an or der in r esponse, so Jam included on i ts v oter elig ib ili ty li st fi v e stagehands hi r ed in the tw o-w eek per i od after the agr eed-upon October 4, 2015 date, a long wi th a notati on about thei r hi ring date. L o c a l No. 2 pr ev ai led wi th tw enty-tw o v otes in i ts fav or and ten a gai nst; the v i ctor y w as not enti r ely deci s i v e, how ev er , because ther e wer e an a ddi

ti onal tw enty-one ballots challeng e d by ei ther Jam or Local No. 2. Ei ght of the challenges w er e uncontested, w h ic h le ft thi r teen contested b allots—all u ni on challeng e s contested b y Jam. Fi v e of those w er e the b allots cast b y the employ ees who had b een hi r ed in t h e tw o weeks following the s ti pulated eli gibi li ty date. Local No. 2 challenged the r emain ing ei ght ballots on v ar i ous gr ou n d s s uch as number of shows w or ked and whether the v oti ng employ ees w er e in fact “super v i sor s” ineli gible to v ote. Jam also t im e ly fi led an obj ecti on contesti ng the electi on
r esults o n t h e gr ounds that L ocal N o. 2 unlawfully pr ov i ded

ec o nomi c benefi ts to employ ees dur ing the cr i ti cal per i od pr eceding the electi on. S peci fi cally , Jam alleged that Local No. 2 pr o v i d e d employ ees pr emiu m, hi gher -pai d w or k a t uni on v enues in the w eeks befor e the electi on in an attempt toNos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 5

influence the employ ees—par ti cular l y the S h a w cr ew—to v ote for the uni on. I n r e s p o n s e t o J a m’s obj ecti ons, the Boar d’s Acti n g Regi ona l Di r ector conducted an inv estig a t io n a nd i ssued a Cor r ected Repor t on June 2 0, 2 016, concluding that Jam’s offer of pr oof in suppor t of i ts obj ecti on fell shor t of demonstr ati ng the r equi r ed “substanti a l a n d m a t e r i al factual i s sues,” see Park Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. , 308 NLRB 1010, fn. 1 (1992), that, i f p r ov en, w ould w a r r ant

s e t t ing asi de the electi on. Speci fi cally , the Di r ector concluded that although Jam had shown that employ ees d i d w or k uni on j obs d ur ing the c r i ti cal pe r i od, i t had n ot shown that Local No. 2 engaged in any wr ongdoi ng by hi r ing those employ ees thr ough i ts open r efer r al system. Th e r epor t fur ther concluded that Jam’s ev i dence of an undeser v ed financi al benefi t w as too speculati v e to suppor t its clai m that Local No. 2 engaged in
wr ongdoi ng. As r elev a nt h er e, the Di r ecto r also sustained Local No. 2’s challenges to the ballots of four of the fi v e employ ees hi red in the tw o w eeks after the or i gi nal eli gibi li ty d a te, 1 a nd cer ti fi ed Local No. 2 as the employ ees’ bar ga in i n g agent. J a m fi led a r equest for r ev i ew , and on Januar y 5, 2017, a thr ee-member panel of the N LRB deni ed J am’s r equest and affi r med the Regi onal Di r ector ’s Cor r ected Repor t cer ti fyi ng

1 The Regi o na l Di recto r susta i ned twel v e uni o n cha l l enges in a l l : fo u r empl o yees hi red a fter the o ri gi na l el i gi b il i ty da te a nd ei ght empl o yees who ha d no t wo rked the requi si te numb er o f sho ws a s defi ned b y the el i gi b il i ty
a greement. Beca use the ni ne rema i ni ng b a l l o ts w o ul d b e i nsuf f i c i ent t o i mpa ct the el ecti o n resul ts, the R egi ona l Di r e cto r di d no t co nsi der tho se cha l lenges.6 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111
Local No. 2 a s the r elev ant bar gaining uni t. On the i ssue of challenged ballots, one member o f the panel w ould hav e
ov er r uled the four Local No. 2 b allot challenges to employ ees hi r e d a f ter the eli gibi li ty date. The di ssenting panel member

r easone d t h at the delay occasi oned by the Boar d’s resoluti on of the unfai r labor pr acti ce pr ev ented the Boar d fr om enfor c ing other mater i al ter ms of the Electi on Agr eemen t l ike the eli gibi li ty date; he also noted that ther e w a s n o pr ej u di ce to Local No. 2 b e c ause Jam pr ov i d ed pr oper noti ce a s to those four empl o y e e s. He w ould hav e, how ev er , deni ed Jam’s

r equest for r ev i ew of f iv e addi ti onal uni on challenges, so the four ballots h e w ould hav e allow ed w ould not h av e i mpacted the electi on’s outcome. Jam then r efused to r ecogni ze or en gage in collecti v e bar gai ning wi th Local No. 2, p r ompti ng the Boar d ’s ge n e r al counsel to fi le a complaint allegi ng an unfai r labor pr acti ce in
v i olati on o f § 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the N ati onal Labor Relati ons Act, 29 U.S .C. §§ 1 5 8 ( a ) (1) a nd (5). In i ts answer to the c omplaint, Jam r epeated i ts obj ecti ons and c ha l le nges to the

cer ti fi cati on of the electi on, but the Boar d r ej ected J a m ’s affi rmati v e defenses and i ssued an or d er holding that Jam’s

r efusal to b ar gai n amounted to an unfai r labor pr acti c e. See id. Jam ti mely peti ti oned for r ev i ew of the Boar d’s or der compellin g i t to bar gai n, and t he Boar d cr oss-appli ed for i ts enfor cement.
II.
Be c a u s e Jam r efused Local No. 2’s r equest to enter into collecti v e bar gai ning, the centr al i ssue on appeal i s whether the Boar d r easonably cer ti fi ed Local N o. 2 as the J am employ ees’Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 7

r epr esentati v e. As d e t ai led abov e, an employ er ’s path to j udi ci al r ev i ew of a B oar d’s deci si on upholding an electi on and

cer ti fy in g a uni on i s “ci r cui tous.” Hanson Cold Storage Co. v

. NLRB , 860 F .3d 911, 914 (7th Ci r . 2017) (quoting NLRB v . Serv

. Am. Corp. , 8 4 1 F .2d 191, 193 n.3 (7th Ci r

. 1988)). Unli ke an unfai r labor pr acti ce or der b y th e Boar d, Boar d-cer ti fi cati on deci si ons ar e not i mmedi ately appealable. Thus, an employer seeki ng j udi ci al r ev i ew must, as Jam di d her e, expose i tself to

an unfai r labor p r acti ce char ge by r efusing to bar gai n wi th the Boar d-cer ti fi ed uni on. O nly once L ocal No. 2 fi les an unfai r labor p r acti ce char ge that i s sustained b y t h e Boar d can w e
r ev i ew the B oar d ’s under lyi n g c er ti fi cati on de c is i on. See id. (descr ib ing pr ocess for employ er to obtai n j udi ci al r ev i ew o f Boar d’s deci si on upholding electi on and cer ti fyi n g uni on); see also Ruan T

ransp. Corp. v

. NLRB , 674 F

. 3 d 6 72, 674 (7th Ci r

. 2012).
W e hav e j ur i sdi cti on under 29 U.S .C. §§ 160(e) and (f ) ov er Jam’s peti ti on for r ev i ew of the Boar d’s May 16, 2017 deci si on. See, e. g

. , NLRB v

. City W ide Insulation, Inc. , 3 70 F .3d 6 54, 657 (7th Ci r

. 2004). If the Boar d acted reasonably in cer ti fyi n g Local N o

. 2 , w e wi l l uphold the Boar d’s enfor cement of i ts or der compelling Jam to enter into collecti v e bar gai n ing. See NLRB v

. River City Elevator Co., Inc. , 289 F .3d 1029, 1032 (7th Ci r

. 2002). W e rev i ew factual conclusi ons by the Boar d to ensur e that they

ar e suppor ted b y “substanti al ev i dence” and expect i ts l e gal conclusi ons to hav e a “r easonable b asi s in l aw .” City W

ide Insulation , 370 F .3d at 6 5 7. Both standar ds ar e defer enti a l ; the Boar d’s factu al conclusi ons ar e s uppor ted by substanti al

ev i dence when they ar e based on “ such r elev ant ev i dence as a
r easonable mind mi ght accept as adequ a t e t o suppor t a8 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111
conclusi on.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v

. NLRB , 349 F .3d 4 9 3, 502–03 (7th Ci r

. 2 003) (inter nal quotati ons and ci tati on omi tted); NLRB

v

. O’Daniel T

rucking Co., 2 3 F .3d 1 144, 1148 (7th Ci r

. 1 994) (same). W

e r ev i ew the B oar d’s d eter min a t i on not to hold a hear ing on an employ er ’s obj ecti ons underthe same substanti al ev i dence standar d. Clearwater T ransport, Inc. v

. NL R B , 133 F .3d 1004, 1008 (7th Ci r . 1998). Jam’s p r i mar y ar gument on appeal i s that the Boar d er r ed in cer ti f yi ng the electi on r esults wi thout holding a hear ing on i ts obj ecti ons. S p eci fi cally , Jam challenges the B oar d’s deter mi

nati on that Local No. 2 w or k gi v en to the Shaw cr ew pr eceding the electi on di d not make the electi on unfai r

. Her e, Jam contends that L ocal No. 2 engaged in a concer ted effor t to steer hi gh-payi ng uni on j obs to the tw enty-one v oti ng member s of the recently r ei nstated S haw cr ew ( whose v otes made u p a m aj o r it y of the counted v otes). Jam submi tted an offer of pr oof outlining multi ple instances in the cr i ti cal per i od b e f o r e the electi on (betw een Apr i l and the fi r st half of M a y 2016) wher e Local N o. 2 chose member s of the S haw cr ew to

w or k shows Jam alleged w o uld hav e or dinar i ly been staffed b y Local No. 2 Uni on member s. Local No. 2 s e l ects stagehands for shows thr ough an “automated call st e w ar d ” system accessi ble thr ough i ts w eb si te. Indi v i duals could log in to the automated system, wher e they fi lled out a member p r ofi le descr ib ing thei r appli cable job classi fi c a ti ons a n d a v a il abi li ty

. S tagehands then r ecei v ed job offer s v i a text, and si mply r epli ed to confi r m or deny offer s. T o suppor t i ts theor y

, J a m s ubmi tted the anti ci pated tes t i m ony of Behr ad Emami, the pr oducti on manager at theNos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 9

Ri v i er a Theatr e, an d E r i c Linz, a r unner who w or ked at a Dav i d Gi lmour s how at the Audi tor i um Thea t er on Apr i l 5. Based on telephone conv er sati ons a nd text messages (attached to Jam’s pr offer ) , Emami w ould h av e testi fi ed to a nu m b er of inter a cti ons wi th the member s of the S haw cr ew who w er e
unav ai lable to w or k or attend meeti ngs at the Ri v i er a because they w er e w or ki ng at uni on v enues d u r ing the c r i ti cal per i od. Emami w as pr epar ed to testi fy that of the tw enty- o ne v oti ng member s of the S haw cr ew , at least thi r teen wer e hi r ed to w or k uni on shows dur ing the cr i ti cal per i od, includin g the Dav i d Gi lmour show a t the Audi tor i um Theatr e on Apr i l 5 a nd 6 ; the Ri hanna show at the Uni ted Center fr om Apr i l 14 to 16; the NFL Dr a ft in Gr ant P ar k fr om Apr i l 2 8 to 30; and the stage set up a t Nor ther ly Island at the begi nning of May

. Er i c Linz
w ould hav e te s t i fi ed that he had seen at least s i x member s of the S h aw c r ew whi l e he w as w or ki ng as a r unner at the Dav i d Gi lmour show

, in cluding tw o mor e not included in the thi r teen li s ted by Emami

. Jam a l so offer ed i ts own recor ds fr om shows i t pr oduced a t uni on v enues 2 demonstr ati ng that when Local No. 2 had suppli ed stagehands for Jam outsi de the cr i ti cal per i od, i t di d not hi r e non-uni on employ ee s. Jam’s r ecor d s demonstr ated that a t thr ee lar ge pr oducti ons at the Uni ted Center outsi de the

cr i ti cal per i od—Januar y 13 (a Muse concer t w ith 129 stagehands), J anuar y 19 (a Br u ce Spr ingsteen c oncer t wi th 109

s t a g e h ands), and Febr uar y 17 (an AC/DC concer t wi th 116

2 In a ddi ti o n to the R i v i era, Vi c, a nd Pa rk West Thea t res, Ja m o cca si o na l l y pro duced sho ws a t uni o n v enues. Fo r tho se sho w s Lo ca l N o

. 2 ty pi ca l l y pro v i ded the sta geha nds.10 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 stagehands)

— L o cal No. 2 d i d not hi r e any member s of the S haw c r ew

. And Jam i denti fi ed (as a hostil e w it ness) the indi v i dual on the S h aw cr ew , Justin H offman, who i t beli ev ed helped coor dinate the plan to offer uni on j obs. Fi nal l y , J a m sought employment r ecor ds fr om Local No. 2 for the tw entyone v oti ng employ ees o f t he S h aw cr ew so that Jam could demonstr ate that i t w as unusual for t he S haw c r ew to hav e
r ecei v ed uni on j obs. Local No. 2 r efused to p r o v i de any of the r equested r ecor ds, and the Regi onal Di r e c t o r declined to inter v i ew any of the indi v i duals i de n ti fi ed in the offer of pr oof or requi r e Local No. 2 to tur n ov er any business r ecor ds. In r ej e cting Jam’s

r equest for a hear ing, the Regi o n a l D i r ector acknowledged that the S haw cr ew h ad r ecei v ed uni on jobs dur in g the cr i tical per i od, b ut concluded that Jam had n ot de m o n str ated that Local No. 2 made a gi ft of “tangible economi c v alue” to gar ner uni on v otes. The Regi onal Di r ector i s obli gated to hold a hear in g only when the obj ecti ng par ty rai ses “ s ubstanti al and mater i al factual i ssues” suffi ci ent t o s uppor t a p r i ma faci e s howing of obj e c t ionable conduct. Clearwater T ransport, 133 F .3d at 1011 ( quoti ng NLRB v

. Lake Holiday Assoc., Inc. , 930 F .2d 1231, 1236–37 ( 7 t h Ci r

. 1991)); 29 C.F .R. § 102.69(c)(1)(i ). Jam could meet i ts b ur d en by allegi n g m i sconduct that, i f pr ov en, w ould

w ar r ant s etti ng asi d e the electi on under the substanti v e l aw of

r epr esentati on electi ons. See, e.g. , NLRB v

. AmeriCold Logistics, Inc. , 214 F .3d 9 35, 938 (7th Ci r . 2000) (“The NLRB must hold a hear ing when the employ er makes a p r i ma faci e sho w in g of mi sconduct that w ould be suffi ci ent to s et asi de the electi on.”);Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 11

see also Serv

. Am. Corp. , 841 F

. 2d a t 195; Clearwater T ransport, 133 F .3d at 1011. Although the standar d of rev i ew i s defer enti al, w e beli ev e Jam pr esented enough ev i d en c e to obtai n a n ev i denti ar y hear ing, and that the Boar d abused i ts di scr eti on by fai l ing to hold one. Whe n conducting a r epr esentati on electi on, the Boar d has w i de di scr eti on to “ensur e the fai r and fr ee choi ce” of bar gai nin g r epr esentati v es by employ ees. NLR B v

. Savair Mfg. Co . 414 U.S . 270, 276–77 (1973). Thi s obli gati on to ensur e fai r and fr ee choi ce includes a p r ohibi ti on on campai gn tacti cs by ei ther the employ er or the u ni on that induce w or ker s to cast thei r v otes on gr ounds other than the a dv antages an d d isadv antages of uni on r epr esentati on. See id. (“W e do n ot beli ev e that the s tatutor y p oli cy of fai r electi ons

... per mit s endor sements, whether for or agai nst the u ni on, to b e b ought and sold in thi s fashi on.”); see also Freund Banking Co. v

. NLRB , 1 65 F .3d 928, 931 (D.C. Ci r

. 1999). Not only does the Act forb i d employer s fr om uti li zin g thr eats or r ew a r ds as campai g n t a cti c s, i t p r o hib i ts “both cr ude and subtle forms of vote-buying ” by the uni on. Freund, 165 F .3d at 931 ( emphasi s added). Thus, a uni on i s bar red fr om both blatantly gi v ing something of v alue to an employ ee in exchange for hi s v ote as w ell as offer ing a benefi t in a w ay that “ taci tly o b l i g e s the employ ee” to v ote for the uni on. Id. (ci ti n g Savair , 414 U.S

. at 277–78).
In consi der ing whether a par t ic u lar incenti v e tai nts the fai r n ess of the electi on, w e a sk whether w h a t i s offer ed i s “‘suffi ci ently v a luable and desi r able in the ey es of the per son to whom they ar e offer ed, t o h av e the potenti al to influence that per son’s v ote?’” River City E l e v a t or , 289 F

. 3d at 103312 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 (quoti n g Nestle Ice Cream Co. v

. NLRB , 4 6 F .3d 5 78, 583 (6th Ci r

. 1995)). S peci fi cally

, the Boar d has held that a uni on i s forbi dden fr om p r ov i ding v oter s anythi ng of “tangible economi c benefi t” dur ing the cr i ti cal per i od befor e the electi on. See King Elec., Inc. v

. NLRB , 440 F .3d 471, 474 ( D.C. Ci r

. 2006) ( quoti ng Freund, 1 65 F .3d at 931–32); see also Mailing Servs., Inc. , 293 NLRB 565, 565–66 (1989)). The financi al benefi t of the hi gher -paying j obs i mmedi ately pr eceding the electi on could plausi bly b e seen as an economi c inducement to secur e v otes in fav or of Local N o. 2. The NLRB has r efused to cer ti fy electi ons wher e a uni on h a s offer ed benefi ts to employ ees o f si m i l ar or l esser v alue than the pr emium-pay j obs allegedly offer ed her e. S e e Owens-Ill., Inc. , 271 NLRB 1235, 1235–36 (1984) (gi ft of uni on j a ckets); Mailing Servs. , 293 NLRB at 566 (fr ee medi cal s cr eenings o f f er ed b y uni on i mper mi ss ib l e confer r a l of b enefi t); W agner Elec. Corp. , 167 NLRB 532, 533 (1967) (uni on’s gi ft of li fe insur ance cov er
age “i s a tangible economi c benefi t”). The Boar d defends the r efusal to inv e s t igate or h old a hear in g o n t h e gr ounds that uni on j ob r efer r als “in the or di

nar y cour se of i ts r efer r a l system, a c cor ding to the pr e-exi sting standar ds and pr a c ti ce” pr ov i de no r eason to suspect Local No. 2 of using the j obs to induce v otes. B u t w h e t h e r the j obs

w er e in fact offer ed to t h e S h a w cr ew “accor ding to pr eexi sting s tandar ds and pr acti c e” i s pr eci sely the questi on Jam

s o u ght to answer wi th i ts obj ecti on. The Boar d attacks Ja m ’ s offer of pr oof as n othi ng mor e than a f i shin g expedi ti on, d e v o id of the type of “speci fi c ev i d ence” about “speci fi c people” requi red to w ar r ant an ev i denti ar y hear ing. See NLRBNos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 13

v

. Serv i c e Am. Corp. , 841 F .2d 191, 195 ( 7th Ci r

. 1988). But in descr ibing the alleged defi c i enci es in Jam’s offer of pr oof, the Boar d hi ghli ghts pr eci sely the Catch-22 Jam faced in attempting to demonstr ate that the refer r als w er e in fact an aber r ati on fr om Local No. 2’s or dinar y r efer r al oper ati n g system. For instance, the Boar d faults Jam’s offer of p r oof for fai ling to pr ov i de ev i dence showing (1) Local No. 2’s nor mal r efer r al pr ocedur es; (2) whether the v oti ng employ ees w er e tr eated di ffer ently than other s wi th access to the r efer r al sys t e m ; or (3) whether the employ ees who r ecei v ed Local No. 2 j obs w er e member s of Local No. 2 or not. But these ar e the v er y questi ons Jam sought to hav e answer ed wi th i ts offer of pr oof.
As detai led abov e, J am pr ov i d ed m or e than v ague, u nsubstanti ated accusati ons. Using i ts own employment r ecor ds , i t compar ed the li keli hood of non-uni on me mber s recei v ing uni on jobs befor e the cr i ti cal p er i od to what appear ed to be the dr amati c incr ease in av ail a b il ity of uni on j obs dur ing the

cr i ti cal per i od. It also i denti fi ed by name thr ee indi v i duals who could p r ov i de fur ther detai l about ho w t he refer r a ls w er e gi v en and whi ch speci fi cemploy ees had r ecei v ed Local No. 2

w or k. And i t requested the v er y uni on r ecor ds that the Boar d

now faults i t for fai ling to pr oduce: Local No. 2’s employment

r e cor ds that w ould hav e i denti fi ed uni on member s and s hed li ght on the r efer ral pr ocedur es an d w hether the S haw cr ew
r ecei v ed di ffer ent tr eatment dur ing the cr i ti cal per i od. The Boar d’s pr i m ar y a r gument i s that Local No. 2 d i d not engage in obj ecti onable conduct because the r efer ral system

w as a v ai lable to non-uni on member s an d t h u s i t w as unr em a r k a bl e that the S haw cr ew recei v ed uni on w or k. But that14 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111

r easoning begs the questi on whether , despi te the availability of the r efer r al system, non-uni on employ ees wer e ev er selected for uni on j obs outsi de of the cr i ti cal per i od. As w e n o t e d in Service A merican Corporation , “[t]he whol e pur pose for the hear ing i s to inqui r e into the allegati ons to deter min e whether they ar e mer i tor i ous; i t makes li ttle sense to expect the employ er to pr ov e i ts case, especi ally wi thout pow er of subpoena, to the Regi onal Di r ector befor e a hear ing wi l l be gr a nted.” 841 F .2d a t 197 (q u oti ng NLRB v

. J-W ood/A T appan Div

. , 720 F .2d 309, 315 (3d Ci r

. 1983)). B ecause the Regi onal Di r ector declined to in ter v i ew ei ther J u s ti n Huffman, who Jam beli ev ed w as
r esponsi ble for coor dinati ng j obs for the S haw cr ew dur in g the

cr i ti cal per i od, or any of the tw enty-one S haw cr ew member s i denti fi ed in Jam’s offer of pr oof, he had no w ay of knowi ng i f member s of S haw’s cr ew or din ar i ly r ecei v ed uni on j o b offer s outsi de the cr i ti cal per i od.
Wi thout subpoena pow er , Jam pr oduced as m u ch ev i dence

as i t ha d a v ai l able tendi n g to suggest that non-uni on v oti ng employ ees r ecei v ed a sudden in cr ease in offer s to w or k uni on j obs in the per i od i mmedi ately pr eceding the electi on. Although such a b enefi t may n ot hav e fo r mally obli gated member s of the S haw cr ew to v ote for L ocal No. 2, hav ing b een the benefi c i ar i es of the pr emium-pay j obs, m ember s of the S haw cr ew may w ell hav e felt some duty to r etur n t he f av or wi th a u ni on v ote. See Sa v a i r, 4 1 4 U.S

. at 277 (noti n g that although an employ ee m ay n o t b e “ legally bound to v ote for the uni on a nd has n ot pr omi sed to do so in a ny for mal sense”

some “ would feel obliged ” to c ast a uni on v ote after hav ing si gned a uni on r e c o gni ti on sli p) ( emphasi s a d ded). Thi s m ay be especi ally tr ue i f

, outsi de of the cr i ti cal per i od, the j obs offer edNos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 15

w er e r ar ely

, i f ev er , av ai lable for those n o n-uni on v oti ng employ ees. Gi v en the lar ge pay di spar i ty for uni on and n o n
- uni on stagehands, cer tai nly the j o b s a t uni on v enues dur ing the

cr i t i c a l p er i od could be seen a s a gi ft of “tangible economi c
v alue.” If the jobs w er e in f act, as Jam maintai ns, pr ev i ously

unav ai lable to those employ ees, the offer of the pr emium-pay j obs could cer tai nly be seen as an unear n e d b e nefi t to in duce uni on s uppor t. Savair

, 414 U.S

. at 280 (“[A]lthough the b enefi ts gr anted by the employ er w er e per m anent and uncondi ti onal, employ ees w er e ‘not li kely to mi ss the infer ence that the sour ce of benefi ts now confer r ed i s also the sour ce fr om whi ch futur e benefi ts must flow a nd whi ch may dr y up i f i t i s n ot obli ged.’”) (quoti n g NLRB v

. Exchange Parts Co. , 375 U.S

. 4 05, 409 (1973)). A n d , as di scussed abov e, wi thout an ev i denti ar y hear ing o n Jam’s obj ecti ons, i t i s i mpossi ble to deter mine whether the j obs at uni on v enues amounted to a n i mpr oper inducement to v ote in fav or of Local No. 2.
It follows that Jam’s ci r cumstanti al ev i dence of a concer ted effor t to incenti v i ze non-uni on employ ees wi th access to Local 2 j obs pr i or to the v ote establi shed a “ substanti al a nd mater i al factual i ssue” s uffi ci ent to w ar r a nt an ev i denti ar y hear ing. The Regi onal D i r ector t h u s abused hi s d i s cr eti on by fai ling to inv esti gate or hold such a hear in g. That l eav es Jam’s contenti on that the Boar d ’s rulings on the challenged ballots w er e clear ly er r oneous. Jam takes i ssue pr i mar i ly wi th the Boar d’ s deci si on to uphold the Regi onal Di r ector ’s r efusal to mov e the eli gibi li ty date in li ght of t he delay at t r ibutable to the unfai r labor pr a cti ce char ge. Jam16 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111
suggests that b y fai ling to count the v otes of those employ ees hi r ed shor tly after the or i gin al da te in the Sti pulated Electi on Agr e ement, the Boar d effecti v ely d i s enfr anchi sed those employ ees. Under the Boar d’s electio n r ules, the par ti es may enter a sti pulated electi on agr eement, whi ch must include, among other thi n gs, the payr ol l p e r iod to be u sed f or deter mining
v oter eli gibi li ty

. See 29 C.F .R. § 102.62(b). The Boar d ha s l o n g t r e a t e d s uch electi on agr eements as “ ‘contr acts,’ binding on th e par ti es that executed them.” T & L Leasing, 318 NLRB 324, 325 (1995) ( quoti ng Barceloneta Shoe Co rp

. , 1 7 1 NLRB 1 333, 1343 (1968), enfor ced mem. , 1970 W L 5 417 (1st Ci r

. 1970)). As such, electi on a gr eements wi ll be enfor ced except in li mi ted ci r cumstances. For instance, upon a s howin g of “c a u s e , ” Regi onal Di r ector s may rev oke thei r appr ov al of the a gr eements. And the par ti es may wi thd r a w fr om electi on agr eements u pon agr eement of all the par ti es or an “aff i r mati v e showing of unusual ci r cumstances.” T & L Leasing, 318 NLRB at 325. Other wi s e, the a gr eement wi ll be enfor ced so long as the ter ms
ar e c l ear and unambi guous and i t does not r un afoul of s ettled Boar d poli cy or speci fi cstatutor y exclusi ons. Id.
Gi v en the expr ess and unambi guous payr oll per i od cut-off of October 4, 2015 in the sti pulated agr eement, w e w ould be har d-pr essed to conclude that the Boar d c ommi tted clear er r or by r efusing to allow the ballots of the employ ees who star ted

w or ki ng after the cut-off date. Jam ci tes sev er al cases i t clai ms lend suppor t to i ts ar gument that eli gibil i ty dates may be

mov ed in the case of a delay ed electi on. But the c ases Jam c i tes not only inv olv e much longer delays (tw o or mor e y ear s ) thanNos. 17-2042 & 17-2111 17
the sev en months at i ssue her e, they also speak to the i ssue of whether the Regi onal Di rector has the authority to change the eli gibi li ty d a te when a n electi on i s delay ed, not to whether i t

w ould be an abuse of di scr eti on to enfo r c e the agr eed-upon eli gibi li ty d ate. See Hartz v

. Mountain Corp. , 260 NLRB 323, 327 (1982) (thr ee-membe r panel of the Boar d a ffi r med deci si on allowing uni on that had not par ti ci pa t e d in pr oceedi ngs for electi on held tw o y ear s ear li er to wi thdr aw peti ti on for

cer ti fic a ti on and inter v enti on in another uni on’s peti ti on); Interlake v

. Steamship Co. , 178 N LRB 1 28, 129 (1969) (concluding that a new eli gibi li ty date w ould b e a p p ropr i ate f or a second runoff election held three years after or i ginal electi on) (emphasi s added). No one di sputes that the Regi onal Di r ector could have allow ed the p ar ti es to agr ee on a new eli gibi l i ty date or p e rh a p s accepted Jam’s r equest to push back the eli gibi li ty d a t e tw o weeks on account of t he delay

. Indeed, on r ev i ew one member of the panel would have allow ed Jam to push back the eli gibi li ty d a t e

. Th at ther e wer e r easons for allowing the addi ti onal v oter s who shar ed a communi ty of inter est w i th the other employ ees does not mean that i t w as clear er r or n o t to count the challenged v otes. As the Boar d n oted, the ter ms of the sti pulated agr eement

w er e clear and unambi g u o u s

. As detai led abov e, such ter ms wi ll or d inar i ly b e enfor ced. Ther e w as n o t h ing so extr aor di

nar y about the delay pr eceding the electi on her e that the Boar d commi tted clear er ror by upholding Local No. 2’s challenges to the v oter s h i r ed after the agr eed-upon eli gibi li ty date. In li ght of our defer enti al standar d of r ev ie w , w e affi rm the Boar d’s

r u ling on the challenged ballots.18 Nos. 17-2042 & 17-2111

III.
For the for egoi ng r ea s o n s, w e GRANT Jam Pr oducti ons’ peti ti on for r ev i ew and REMAND for a hear ing on i ts electi on objecti on, a nd DENY the Boar d’s cr oss-appli cati on for enfor cement.