International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 631 (Freeman Expositions, Inc.)

372 NLRB No. 57 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 631 and Freeman Expositions, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 357. Case 28–CD–301415 February 23, 2023 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND WILCOX This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Free- man Expositions, Inc. (the Employer) filed a charge on August 12, 2022, alleging that the Respondent, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 631 (IBT 631), vi- olated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to en- gage in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it repre- sents rather than to employees represented by Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 357 (IBEW 357). A hearing was held on August 29 through August 31, 2022, before Hearing Officer Lisa J. Dunn. Thereafter, the parties filed posthearing briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following findings. I. JURISDICTION The parties stipulated that the Employer is a corporation with an office and place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that, during the 12-month period ending August 12, 2022, the Employer purchased and received at its Las Ve- gas, Nevada facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from points outside the State of Nevada. The parties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that IBT 631 and IBEW 357 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The Employer provides trade show and exposition ser- vices in the convention industry in and around Las Vegas, Nevada, where it has a warehouse (the Warehouse). Or- ganizers of trade shows contract with the Employer to serve as the “official services contractor” (OSC) for hun- dreds of shows each year across various venues in the Las Vegas area, including at the Las Vegas Convention Center as well as at numerous hotel properties. The organizer will contract with the venue for the use of convention space, and the Employer, as the OSC, will provide various ser- vices related to the production of the show. Exhibitors will then contract with either the OSC or a separate “ex- hibitor appointed contractor” (EAC) to perform work re- lated to their individual booths. Among other things, the Employer constructs structures with mounted flat-screen monitors for its trade-show cli- ents. This includes exhibit booths for exhibitors as well as “common area” structures that the Employer provides as the OSC, such as registration booths, reception areas, kiosks, towers, and advertisement or directional walls. The Employer devotes about half of the Warehouse to the construction and preparation of structures for trade shows. Some trade-show structures are fully constructed at the Warehouse, and the Employer generally prefers to con- struct as much of the structure as possible at the Ware- house. Other trade-show structures are partially con- structed as a “kit”—generally consisting of the frame and all the related parts and pieces—at the Warehouse and then fully assembled at the venue. Regardless of whether the trade-show structure is fully constructed at the Warehouse, the mounting of a flat- screen monitor involves the installation of an “internal bracket,” a “monitor bracket,” and an “apparatus.” The internal bracket may be wood or metal, is mounted inside of a structure wall, and acts as the “bracket bone” to which the monitor bracket may be connected. The monitor bracket is metal, can weigh up to 15 pounds, may be flat or articulated, and is mounted onto the external substrate of the structure wall. The apparatus, which typically con- sists of two vertical pieces of metal, is affixed onto the back of the monitor. The monitor is hung by connecting the apparatus (installed onto the monitor) to the monitor bracket (installed onto the structure wall and connected to the internal bracket). The installation of the apparatus is always done at the “show site,” meaning at the venue. Par- ticularly for certain types of structures, the Employer pre- fers to have the internal and monitor brackets installed at the Warehouse. However, there are occasions when both are installed at the show site, as well as occasions when the internal bracket is installed at the Warehouse while the monitor bracket is installed at the show site. As pertinent here, since at least 2004, the Employer has had separate collective-bargaining agreements with IBT 631 and IBEW 357. The Employer and IBEW 357 are party to a collective-bargaining agreement effective June 17, 2021, through June 16, 2024 (the IBEW CBA). The Employer and IBT 631 are party to a collective-bargaining agreement effective June 1, 2022, until May 31, 2026 (the DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 IBT CBA). For convenience, the Employer and the only other significant OSC in the Las Vegas area, Global Ex- perience Specialists, Inc. (GES), meet jointly with each IBT 631 and IBEW 357 to bargain their collective-bar- gaining agreements, so the Employer and GES agreements have largely the same terms with each union. The Em- ployer and GES similarly have agreements with another local union, International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Local 720 (IATSE 720), which also plays a role in hanging monitors. The IBEW CBA generally gives IBEW 357 jurisdiction over electrical and electrical-related work. In this regard, Section 3.05(a) provides as follows: Subject to Appendix “B”, the Employer recognizes the Union as having jurisdiction over the installation, oper- ation, maintenance, and repair of all electrical wiring and electrical equipment at trade shows, conventions, or events. All such electrical work and all equipment, tools, supports, materials, and temporary light and power work used to accomplish such electrical work shall be per- formed by members of the bargaining unit represented by the Union.1 And there is no dispute that IBEW 357 has jurisdiction spe- cifically over the installation of the apparatus onto certain types of monitors. In this regard, Section 3.05(b)(10) of the IBEW CBA specifies, Covered work is electrical work including but not lim- ited to: . . . . All TV monitors including; set-up, tear-down, 120v con- nectors, antennas, all mounting apparatus, and intercon- necting cables. (Emphasis added). And Appendix B, Paragraph 19(E) gives work related to certain monitors to IBEW 357, rather than IATSE 720, specifically: Single Monitors (i.e., not a video wall) except (1) moni- tors connected to live cameras (except security cam- eras); (2) monitors which are used to monitor a studio or production stage; (3) monitors on a suspended truss (without added leg support) installed by IATSE; or (4) single monitors delivered but not hung by GES Audio- visual Department to meeting rooms. When having jurisdiction over the monitor under Appendix B, IBEW 357 has jurisdiction over the steps that always oc- cur at the show site—installing the apparatus onto the moni- tor and then hanging the monitor onto the structure by 1 The referenced “Appendix B” is an agreement resolving a prior ju- risdictional dispute that was incorporated into the IBEW CBA after orig- inally being entered into by GES, IBEW 357, and IATSE 720. connecting the apparatus to the previously installed monitor bracket. The IBT CBA generally gives IBT 631 jurisdiction over construction work and other work at the Warehouse. In this regard, Article 6, Section A provides, in relevant part, as follows: The Employer recognizes the following work herein outlined as being within the scope of this Agreement and defined as erection, touch-up painting, dismantling and repair of all exhibits. This work is to include wall cover- ings, floor coverings, pipe and drape, painting, aisle cov- erings, hanging of signs and decorative materials from the ceiling, placement of all signs, erection of platforms and placement and care of furniture as well as wiping down exhibits. The Employer further recognizes within this scope the loading and unloading of all trucks of common and contract carriers as well as individual com- pany vehicles and the movement of freight, crates, and rigging within its facilities, including all work in the Company’s warehouse facilities will be bargaining unit work. In the area of rigging, packing and crating, the work performed includes, but is not limited to, unload- ing, uncrating, unskidding, painting, and assembly of machinery and equipment as well as the reverse process. It should be noted that cleaning does not include mobile washing. The contract of, in whole or in part, including any struc- tures or operations which are incidental thereto, the as- sembly, operations, maintenance and repair, and other facilities used in connection with the performance of the aforementioned work and services, and includes, with- out limitation, the types or classes of work listed under classifications, as well as any other work regularly as- signed in the past. Although the IBT CBA does not include a specific reference to the work related to the mounting of flat screen monitors to trade-show structures, there is no dispute that IBT 631 has jurisdiction over the installation of the internal bracket re- gardless of where such work is performed. There also is no dispute that IBT 631 has jurisdiction over the installation of the monitor bracket when such work is performed at the Warehouse. The dispute here is that IBT 631 and IBEW 357 each claim that its jurisdiction extends to the installation of the monitor bracket when such work is performed at the show site. On March 29, 2022, IBEW 357 filed three grievances pertaining to the performance of such work by employees of the Employer represented by IBT 631 at the Las Vegas TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 (FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS, INC.) 3 Convention Center. Two of the grievances concerned such work for common area structures, and the third griev- ance concerned such work for an exhibitor booth. By let- ters and emails to the Employer beginning in May 2022, IBEW 357 sought arbitration of the grievances. In August 2022, IBEW 357 filed another grievance pertaining to the Employer’s failure to process the three grievances to arbi- tration. By email on May 26, 2022, James Harmer, an IBT 631 business agent, informed the Employer that if it assigned the disputed work to IBEW 357, then IBT 631 would “take all necessary action to oppose that action, including by picketing the jobsite or other economic action as neces- sary.” By letter on June 30, 2022, the Employer notified IBEW 357 and IBT 631 that it intended to file a charge against IBT 631. On August 12, 2022, the Employer filed the instant Section 8(b)(4)(D) charge. B. Work in Dispute The parties agree that the work in dispute is properly described as the installation of monitor brackets to trade show structures for the mounting of flat screen display monitors. IBEW 357 argues that the disputed work is properly described as being at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Employer and IBT 631 argue that it is properly described as being in the Las Ve- gas, Nevada metropolitan area. We resolve the parties’ disagreement concerning the geographic scope of the dis- puted work in the Scope of the Award section below. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer and IBT 631 contend that the Board is authorized to determine the merits of this jurisdictional dispute, that the work in dispute should be awarded to the employees IBT 631 represents, and that the award should encompass the Las Vegas area. In its posthearing brief, IBEW 357 contends that the Board should quash the no- tice of hearing. Alternatively, if the notice of hearing is not quashed, IBEW 357 argues that the work in dispute should be awarded to the employees it represents. IBEW 357 argues that the award should be limited to the Las Ve- gas Convention Center. D. Applicability of the Statute The Board may proceed with a determination of a dis- pute under Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is reason- able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vi- olated. Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005). This standard requires finding 2 The extension agreement expired as scheduled on May 31, 2022, and IBT 631 thereafter was not subject to an effective no-strike clause until the IBT CBA was agreed to in the middle of June 2022. IBT 631 Business Agent Harmer, who sent the email at issue to the Employer, that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are com- peting claims to the disputed work and that a party has used proscribed means to enforce its claim to that work. Additionally, there must be a finding that the parties have not agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Id. We find that these requirements have been met. 1. Competing claims for work The parties stipulated, and we find, that IBT 631 and IBEW 357 both claim the disputed work. 2. Use of proscribed means We find reasonable cause to believe that IBT 631 used means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to enforce its claim to the work in dispute. As noted above, IBT 631 emailed the Employer that if it assigned the disputed work to IBEW 357, IBT 631 would “take all necessary action to oppose that action, including by picketing the jobsite or other economic action as necessary.” This type of threat constitutes a proscribed means of enforcing claims to dis- puted work. Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers (Skanska USA Building, Inc.), 366 NLRB No. 161, slip op. at 3 (2018). Absent affirmative evidence that the threat was a sham or the product of col- lusion, it establishes reasonable cause to believe that the statute has been violated. Lancaster Typographical Union No. 70 (C.J.S. Lancaster), 325 NLRB 449, 450–451 (1998). Here, no such evidence was presented. IBEW 357 notes that, as of May 26, 2022, the predecessor to the IBT CBA, including its no-strike clause, was effective pursu- ant to an extension agreement.2 However, the existence of an effective no-strike clause is not evidence that a threat was a sham or the product of collusion. Laborers Inter- national Union of North America, Local 210 (Surianello General Concrete Contractor), 351 NLRB 210, 211 (2007) (“[T]he Board has rejected the argument that a job action threat was a sham because it involved violating a no-strike clause.”). Further, we find no merit to the argument of IBEW 357 that the notice of hearing should be quashed because the hearing officer did not permit IBEW 357 to question an employer official about his belief regarding the legitimacy of IBT 631’s threat. IBEW 357 suggests that this witness would have testified that he did not believe IBT 631 would strike since IBT 631 was subject to a no-strike obligation. Such testimony would not be evidence that IBT 631’s threat was a sham or the product of collusion. As noted above, the existence of a no-strike clause is not such testified that he was aware of the consequences of violating a no-strike clause and that he was prepared to take whatever action was necessary to secure the IBT 631’s jurisdiction while such a clause was in effect. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 evidence. The same is true for evidence of what an em- ployer official believes based on the existence of an effec- tive no-strike clause, such as IBEW 357 hoped to elicit here. See R&D Thiel, 345 NLRB at 1140 (rejecting the argument that the threat was a sham or the product of col- lusion where an employer official testified that he was not sure whether the union would have followed through on its threat). 3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dis- puted work which would bind all parties. IBEW 357, nonetheless, contends that the Board should quash the no- tice of hearing because of the Employer’s obligations un- der the IBEW CBA. First, IBEW 357 argues that the Em- ployer “waived” a 10(k) hearing in Section 3.05(d) of the IBEW CBA, which states that the Employer “agrees to waive its right to seek resolution of a jurisdictional dispute through the grievance and arbitration procedure or through the NLRB” and instead bring any disputes to the Federal district court in Nevada. In addition, IBEW 357 argues that the Employer “seeks to disrupt” the jurisdic- tional settlement originally made by GES, IBEW 357, and IATSE 720 and later incorporated into the IBEW CBA as Appendix B. These arguments have no merit because “all parties to the dispute must be bound if an agreement is to constitute ‘an agreed method of voluntary adjustment.’” Glaziers District Council 16 (Service West), 356 NLRB 760, 762 (2011) (quoting Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB at 1140) (finding union party not bound); Laborers Local 1184 (High Light Electric), 355 NLRB 167, 169 (2010) (finding employer not bound). IBT 631 is a party to the present jurisdictional dispute, and IBT 631 is not bound by the IBEW CBA or the settlement it incorporates in Appendix B. Further, the Employer’s agreeing to an alternate method to resolve a jurisdictional dispute with only one of the unions does not amount to a waiver of the Employer’s statutory right to file an 8(b)(4)(D) charge. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 66 (Magnolia Contractors), 316 NLRB 294, 295–296 & fn. 5 (1995). Based on the foregoing, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. We accordingly find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination.3 3 IBEW 357 did not file a motion to quash the 10(k) notice of hearing. As it does argue in its posthearing brief that the notice should be quashed, we nevertheless have addressed that argument, and we deny it on the merits. See, e.g., Longshoremen ILWU, Alaska Longshore Division and E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 577 (1961). The Board’s determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judg- ment based on common sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular case. Ma- chinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the deter- mination of this dispute. 1. Board certifications and collective- bargaining agreements The parties stipulated that the work in dispute is not covered by any Board orders or certifications. The Employer and IBT 631 argue that the IBT CBA gives IBT 631 jurisdiction over the disputed work. Spe- cifically, they contend that the disputed work is covered by the general language giving IBT 631 jurisdiction cov- ering “erection” and “assembly” work related to trade- show structures. IBEW 357 argues that the IBEW CBA gives it jurisdiction over the disputed work. Specifically, IBEW 357 contends that the “mounting apparatus” refer- enced in Section 3.05(b)(10) of the IBEW CBA includes both the piece that we have been referring to as the “appa- ratus” and the piece that we have been referring to as the “monitor bracket.” In turn, IBEW 357 contends that the IBEW CBA defines the disputed work to be “covered . . . electrical work” by direct, specific reference. The Em- ployer and IBT 631 contest this reading of “mounting ap- paratus,” arguing that the reference is limited to the piece that we have been referring to as the “apparatus.” We are not persuaded by IBEW 357’s argument that the “mounting apparatus” referenced in the IBEW CBA in- cludes what is installed during the work in dispute. As an initial matter, the piece at issue generally is referred to as a “bracket” rather than as part of the “apparatus.” Numer- ous Employer and IBT 631 witnesses testified to this ef- fect. And IBEW 357 agrees that the disputed work in- volves the installation of the “monitor bracket.” (Empha- sis added.) Likewise, William Spielberg, an IBEW 357 business agent, testified that employees of the Employer, including those represented by IBEW 357, refer to the piece at issue as a “bracket.” Indeed, Spielberg seemingly acknowledged that the IBEW 357’s interpretation of “mounting apparatus” was manufactured for the present ILWU, Unit 22 (American President Lines, LTD), 369 NLRB No. 63, slip op. at 4, fn. 13 (2020) (addressing substantive issue of the applicability of the statute notwithstanding no motion to quash being filed). TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 (FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS, INC.) 5 jurisdictional dispute, answering “Yes” when asked: “So the phraseology of apparatus, you’re using it today be- cause you’re prepared for a hearing and you know that’s the language in the contract, right?” Further, the evidence of the bargaining history tends to belie, and certainly does not support, “mounting appa- ratus” having the expansive meaning that IBEW 357 claims. Cheryl King, the Employer’s Regional Director of Labor Relations, has negotiated the IBEW agreement for OSCs in the Las Vegas area since 2003. King testified that she has understood the intent was for “apparatus” to reference only the piece installed directly onto the back of the monitor; that is, not the monitor bracket fastened to the structure to which that piece connects. IBEW 357 Busi- ness Agent Spielberg, who has been involved in negotiat- ing the agreement since 2012, testified that IBEW 357 was aware that employees represented by IBT 631 have in- stalled the disputed monitor bracket, never filed a griev- ance in response to that assignment of work until May 2022, and did not seek to change the scope of work cov- ered by Section 3.05(b)(10) when it bargained the most recent collective-bargaining agreement. Given the above, we find that IBEW 357 has failed to show that the disputed monitor-bracket work is covered in the language of its agreement with the Employer. In con- trast, we find that the general language of the IBT CBA giving IBT 631 jurisdiction over “erection” and “assem- bly” work covers the disputed monitor-bracket installation work, just as it covers the same work at the Warehouse. Accordingly, we conclude that the factor of collective- bargaining agreements favors awarding the work in dis- pute to employees represented by IBT 631. 2. Employer preference and Current Assignment The Employer prefers to assign and has assigned the disputed work to its employees represented by IBT 631. Accordingly, we find that these factors favor an award of the disputed work to employees represented by IBT 631. 3. Employer practice and area practice Employer and IBT 631 witnesses testified that the Employer historically has assigned the installation of the monitor bracket to employees represented by IBT 631, including when such work is performed at the venue. These witnesses testified that GEC has had the same practice. They also testified that EACs have as- signed such work to employees represented by IBT 631. IBEW 357 acknowledges that employees of the Employer represented by IBT 631 have installed the monitor bracket, including at the show site. However, IBEW 357 suggests that this has been limited to times when the monitor was within the jurisdiction of IATSE 720 rather than IBEW 357. IBEW 357 witnesses testified that the employees of the Employer it represents regularly have performed the installation of the monitor bracket at the show site when the monitor is within the jurisdiction of IBEW 357. Employer and IBT 631 witnesses acknowledged that employees of the Employer represented by IBEW 357 occasionally have installed the monitor bracket, includ- ing at the Las Vegas Convention Center. However, they characterized these incidents as the result of the employees represented by IBEW 357 showing up and starting to perform the work, rather than being assigned the work. We find that the evidence regarding the employer prac- tice and the area practice are both inconclusive. Accord- ingly, we conclude that these factors do not favor an award of the disputed work to employees represented by either union. 4. Relative skills and training The employees represented by IBT 631 have experience and skills in the erection, installation, dismantling, and re- pair of the various types of trade-show structures upon which monitor brackets are installed. Likewise, IBT 631’s training and apprenticeship program focuses on construc- tion-related topics for such structures. Employees repre- sented by IBT 631 have the skills and training to ensure the monitor brackets are safely installed to bear the weight of the monitor. In contrast, the employees represented by IBEW 357 do not have expertise in the components or in- tegrity of the structure upon which monitor brackets are installed. Rather, they have expertise in the electrical work associated with the monitors themselves, which ex- tends to hanging the monitors and relatedly installing the apparatus to the monitors that attaches to the structure- mounted brackets. We find that the relative skills and training favors awarding the work in dispute to employees represented by IBT 631. 5. Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer and IBT 631 contend it is more efficient to have the employees represented by IBT 631 perform the disputed work because they are responsible for building the structures on which the monitor brackets are mounted. IBEW 357 contends that it is more efficient to have the employees it represents perform the disputed work be- cause they install the monitor apparatus and hang the mon- itor onto the bracket. We find that this factor does not fa- vor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by either union. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 CONCLUSIONS After considering all relevant factors, we conclude that the employees represented by IBT 631 are entitled to per- form the disputed work. We reach this conclusion relying on the factors of the collective-bargaining agreements, employer preference and current assignment, and relative training and skills. In making this determination, we award the work to the employees represented by IBT 631, not to that labor organization or to its members. Scope of the Award The Employer and IBT 631 request an award encom- passing the Las Vegas area. Although the Board normally limits a Section 10(k) award to the jobsite that was the subject of the unlawful Section 8(b)(4)(D) conduct or threats, an areawide award is appropriate if there is evi- dence that “(1) the disputed work has been a continuous source of controversy in the relevant geographic area and that similar disputes may recur; and (2) there is a procliv- ity by the offending union to engage in further proscribed conduct to obtain the disputed work.” Laborers’ Interna- tional Union of North America, Local 860 (Ballast Con- struction, Inc.), 364 NLRB 1781, 1786 (2016). We find these requirements are satisfied here. The evidence in this case establishes that the work in dispute has been and likely will continue to be a source of controversy at venues across the Las Vegas area. The Em- ployer and IBT 631 accurately note that the witnesses of all the parties testified to some extent that the dispute over the installation of monitor brackets onto trade show struc- tures is ongoing across many venues in the Las Vegas area. Indeed, IBEW 357 Business Agent Spielberg acknowledged that the grievances filed by IBEW 357 con- cerned performance of the disputed work at the Las Vegas Convention Center, but the dispute also “needs to be re- solved for other venues as well.” The “proclivity” standard for a broad award also is met. IBT 631 Business Agent Harmer threatened—both in his May 2022 email to the Employer and during his hearing testimony—that IBT 631 would take action against the Employer if it assigned the work to IBEW 357, regardless of the venue and irrespective of the effective no-strike clause in the IBT CBA. And although a request for an areawide award is not often granted when the charged party represents the employees to whom the work is awarded, “the critical factor is whether there is evidence that similar disputes may occur in the future.” Ballast Construction, 364 NLRB at 1786–1787 (internal quota- tion marks omitted). The evidence here, particularly the consistent testimony that the dispute is ongoing across various venues, establishes a likelihood of recurrence. Determination of Dispute The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow- ing Determination of Dispute. Employees of Freeman Expositions, Inc., represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 631, are entitled to perform the installation of monitor brackets to trade show structures for the mounting of flat screen dis- play monitors at show sites in the Las Vegas, Nevada met- ropolitan area. Dated, Washington, D.C. February 23, 2023 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD