An administrative law judge for the NLRB came to the conclusion that Chuck Parker, the national executive director of the Art Directors Guild, “illegally” fired the guild’s longtime accountant “in retaliation” for her being successful in her efforts to form a union among the guild’s employees.
This decision came as a stinging rebuke to both Parker and the Art Directors Guild.
The guild said in a statement that “This is an ongoing case and will be appealed” in response to Deadline’s request for comment.
Nicole Oeuvray, who had been the guild’s head accountant for 16 years, was a leader of the campaign to unionise the guild’s staff in 2019 under the auspices of Local 537 of the Office of Professional Employees International Union.
This campaign was carried out under the auspices of the Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU).
Studio City, California serves as the location of the headquarters for the 3,500-strong guild, which is one of only three IATSE locals with national jurisdiction. has an administrative workforce consisting of fewer than thirty people.
In his deposition, Parker referred to the atmosphere of the rather cramped office as a “fishbowl.”
Parker and the guild, who was referred to as the “Respondent” in the complaint that Oeuvray submitted to the National Labor Relations Board in November 2020, were against the drive to unionise the employees. In August of the previous year, some hearings lasted for a total of three days.
In a decision that was 38 pages long and was handed down on Friday, Judge Gerald Etchingham came to the conclusion that Parker’s stated reasons for firing Oeuvray on May 15, 2020, were “pretextual and her discharge was discriminatorily motivated.”
Parker claimed that she was fired because she had written a check that bounced due to insufficient funds in a guild account back in 2017; because she was late with her financial reports; and because she wasn’t getting along with some members of the guild’s Il
Nevertheless, Judge Etchingham came to the conclusion that the real reason she was fired was due to her “important position as a union organiser.” At one point in the process of unionising, Parker was caught yelling loudly, “Fuck OPEIU.”
During the organising drive that took place in September 2019, the judge wrote in his decision that Oeuvray “recognised Parker’s voice and observed him at (the guild’s) facility in the presence of Oeuvray, who was in the kitchen of the facility approximately 10–15 feet away from Parker, and Oeuvray clearly heard Parker” when Parker said, “fuck OPEIU very loudly so other bargaining unit employees and management would hear it.” Oeuvray also observed Parker
Look at the decision that the judge made here:
Please use this link to obtain the judges-orders-1.pdf file.
Lydia Prescott, who is the director of member services for the guild, stated in her testimony that she also heard it.
“Prescott also heard Parker’s profane outburst,” the judge wrote, “and was surprised to hear Parker say to her: ‘fuck OPEIU’ as he left her office at the end of their meeting.” “Prescott also heard Parker’s profane outburst,” the judge wrote.
“Prescott also heard Parker’s profane outburst.” Prescott specifically recalled that Parker had been in her office while they were talking about something related to the organising employee staff.
As Parker was leaving Prescott’s office, she asked him if he needed her to also discuss the matter they had been discussing with OPEIU, and Parker’s shocking response to Prescott was heard throughout the facility as he said, “fuck OPEIU.”
Prescott specifically recalled that Parker had been in her office while they were talking about organising employee staff.
The court stated in her ruling that “Prescott was taken aback by Parker’s outburst since she said that she ‘did not expect to hear fuck and OPEIU in the same phrase.'”
According to the judge’s written statement, Parker, who was re-elected in April, “does not deny stating ‘fuck OPEIU.'”
“But attempts to explain it as simply being frustrated and wanting to blow off steam because he had to spend time on less important union organising considerations, and OPEIU coming into Respondent was viewed by Parker as something that was inconveniencing (him)'”
“Parker’s offensive and profane outburst in September 2019 yelling, ‘fuck OPEIU’ in the presence of Oeuvray, Prescott, and other employees indicate that Parker was opposed to the Union representing Respondent’s employees and harboured anti-union sentiments,” the judge stated.
“This indicates that Parker was opposed to the Union representing Respondent’s employees.”
Instead of freely recognising the OPEIU as the negotiating agent for its then-28-member staff, the guild decided to compel an election to exercise its right to choose its own representative.
Oeuvray was even denied the right to vote by the guild because they asserted that she was a “confidential employee,” which was a claim that was shot down by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The election was marked by bitter conflict. According to a report that was published by Deadline in 2019, supporters of the unionisation drive claimed that the leadership of the guild, IATSE Local 800, added six part-time employees to the bargaining unit after the representation cards were signed to defeat the drive.
The guild categorically denied the allegations made by the supporters of the unionisation drive. In addition to this, they accused Casey Bernay, the director of education for the local, of “union busting,” which is a claim that she adamantly and furiously disputed.
Jacqueline White-Brown, who was the business manager and secretary-treasurer for OPEIU Local 537 at the time, told Deadline that she had heard that someone in that location was attempting to bust a union.
Despite this, White stated that “We are looking forward to winning this election and to be able to present them with a collective bargaining agreement.”
“That is what I heard from another employee.” We are aiming to provide a fantastic contract for our members, just like Local 800 does for theirs, as they have done for theirs.
Local 537 is also the union that represents the office staff at SAG-AFTRA. Our goal is to become the union within the union.
The fight to unionise the staff of the Art Directors Guild has become contentious
In May of 2020, when Parker terminated Oeuvray’s employment, she was within three months of becoming eligible for benefits under the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan.
She pleaded with him to let her keep her job until September, when, on her 62nd birthday, she would be fully vested for lifetime health benefits, “rather than lose them because she fell three months short.”
During those three months, she told Parker, she could train the person who would be taking her place. He agreed to let her keep her job until September.
“Once more, when I review the documentary evidence, in this case, I find Oeuvray much more believable when I observed her testifying on this subject in contrast with Parker and Miller whose testimony is rejected,” the judge wrote in his opinion.
“I find Oeuvray much more believable when I observed her testifying on this subject in contrast with Parker and Miller.”
And Prescott “was a very credible witness,” he wrote, noting that “her testimony is quite believable as she faced the wrath of Respondent’s management, including Supervisor Parker, who has shown to be arbitrary and discriminatory in his treatment of employees,” which means that Prescott’s factual recollection and opinions were made with risk to Prescott, but I find that they are more aligned with Oeuvray’s version of the facts than Parker’s version of the facts
“In contrast, I regarded the testimony of Treasurer Miller and Supervisor Parker to be particularly unpersuasive as a result of their inferior manner when compared to that of the other witnesses,” the author writes.
“After observing Parker testify at the hearing,” the judge wrote, “I further find that he was very full of himself and was nonresponsive as he seemed to prefer listening to himself talk rather than directly answering questions posed to him.”
“After observing Parker testify at the hearing,” the judge wrote, “I further find that he was very full of himself and was nonresponsive as he The only person less believable than Parker was the Treasurer, Miller.
“I observed Parker be a very arrogant witness who was outwardly annoyed by being one of Oeuvray’s direct supervisors as he openly scorned the OPEIU Union and was mostly focused on his membership and could not be bothered with the day-to-day inner workings of Respondent’s accounting department or Oeuvray or her work duties,”
The judge also came to the conclusion that there is “strong evidence” that the guild “treats its employees inconsistently despite its professed progressive discipline system.”
As an illustration of this, the judge pointed out that Casey Bernay, who had retired from his position as the guild’s longtime director of education and special projects in September of last year, had “engaged in serious misconduct that no reasonable employer would or should tolerate without discipline.”
Bernay has been involved in several hostile work events, and she has also failed to present data on time as requested by Treasurer Miller; despite this, she has not been subjected to any form of discipline, including a verbal warning or a first written warning, let alone a suspension, final warning, or termination as Oeuvray has been.
The fact that Bernay has not been disciplined for these unfriendly incidents is proof of unequal treatment, whether it is for missing a deadline for reporting data to Treasurer Miller or for bad behaviour in general with coworkers.
Again, because Parker representing Respondent has allowed Bernay to abuse coworkers and fail in her duties without so much as a reprimand or written warning at Stage 1, I regard (the guild’s) actions and treatment of Oeuvray as discriminatory.
The judge cited what he called the guild’s “historically strained relations” with its New York-based Illustrators and Matte Artists Council (IMA Council) as a significant factor in Oeuvray’s dismissal, as well as Parker’s own “personality differences” with the IMA Council, which was forced to merge with the guild in 2008 after contentious litigation. The IMA Council was based in New York.
One of the four craft councils that collectively represent the guild’s members is called the IMA Council. The remaining members serve as representatives for art directors, set designers, and scenic and graphic artists.
As a result of the dispute, the judge stated that the IMA Council “never desired to be linked with Respondent (the guild) in California as they are in New York but was compelled to” integrate together.
Even though she had nothing to do with the forced merger, Oeuvray described her interactions with the IMA Council as being “hostile,” and the judge wrote in his decision that Oeuvray’s interactions with the IMA Council “have not been amicable at any time” since 2008.
The judge also noted that Oeuvray described her interactions with the IMA Council as being “hostile.”
The judge wrote in his opinion that “Oeuvray confirms that the IMA Council does not want to be represented by Respondent (the guild)” and that “in the past, there was federal litigation that Respondent won to force the IMA Council to become one of Respondent’s craft councils over the objections of the IMA Council.”
“Oeuvray confirms that the IMA Council does not want to be represented by Respondent (the guild)” Therefore, these antagonistic interactions that began in 2008 have persisted up until 2016,” which is when Parker was appointed as the national executive director of the guild.
The judge referred to the event that took place in February 2017 as the “bounced check incident.” This incident took place after the IMA Council requested a check for approximately $29,000, and Oeuvray drew up the check for signatures from guild officials and the IMA Council.
However, the check was returned unpaid. This incident further strained the already tense relationships between the parties.
The judge wrote that “this check bounced for insufficient funds in the IMA Council’s bank account,” and went on to say that this was “apparently the one and only time that a check had bounced” at the guild.
The judge also noted that this was “apparently the one and only time that a check had bounced.”
“Rather than provide a fair and balanced progressive discipline to Oeuvray for her late-submitted reports or accounting deficiencies,” the judge wrote, “Parker preferred a quick termination and repeated disciplines for the same bounced check incident from 2017 so that Parker could satisfy the IMA Council and terminate Oeuvray by using the bounced check incident against her two times on April 5, 2019, and again on May 15, 2020, despite not disciplining Oeuvray at all in February.” The bounced check incident occurred in 2017. Parker
In addition, the judge arrived at the conclusion that “Parker manufactured additional supporting claims that Oeuvray could not amicably cooperate with the IMA Council.”
Parker, on the other hand, was unable to move on from the bounced check incident and allowed his personality differences with the management of the IMA Council to dominate his unlawful treatment of Oeuvray.
The IMA Council treated Parker unfairly by unfairly causing Parker to base his termination of Oeuvray on the bounced check incident from 2017 and a made-up story that Oeuvray could not work amicably with the IMA Council when in reality, it was Parker who was unable to
The judge ordered that Oeuvray be given her old job back; that she be made whole for the two years of income she lost – plus interest; and that Parker himself must read the judge’s remedial notice out loud to the employees of the guild, or have an agent of the NLRB read it to the employees in the presence of Parker.
This was done to remedy the guild’s violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Oeuvray was given her old job back; she was made whole for the two years According to the financial reports that the guild submitted to the United States government in 2019, Oeuvray earned a total of $83,535 during her final full year of employment at the guild. The Department of Labor
The judge wrote in his opinion that “a public reading of my remedial notice is appropriate here given the especially egregious conduct by Respondent’s executive director and treasurer immediately after union activities began and all during the union campaign which resulted in a successful vote in favour of the OPEIU on November 22, 2019,” which was the date of the successful union election.
“The Respondent’s violations of the (National Labor Relations Act) are sufficiently serious, and anything less than that would chill the momentum that the (OPEIU) Union has created in 2019 and 2020.”
The reading of the notice is required because it is necessary to dissipate as much as possible any lingering effects of the Respondent’s egregious conduct and because it is required. After all, it will enable employees to exercise their Section 7 rights (to organise) without being coerced.
“Therefore, I will require that the remedial notice be read aloud to the Respondent’s employees by Supervisor Parker – or, if he is no longer employed by the Respondent, the current national executive director of Respondent – in the presence of an (NLRB) Board agent or, at the Respondent’s option, by a Board agent in that official’s presence.”
“Therefore, I will require that the remedial notice be read aloud to the Respondent
The judge also issued an order requiring the guild to acknowledge in its offices that “The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labour law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.”
The notice must state that “The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labour law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.”
To be more specific, the notice is required to inform the employees of the guild that “Federal labour law gives you the right to form, join, or assist a union; choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf; act together with other employees for your benefit and protection, and choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.” This information must be included in the notice.
In the notice, you are required to include the statement “We will do nothing to prevent you from exercising the rights outlined above.”
Your participation in union activities will not be a reason for us to fire you. Your rights as outlined in Section 7 of the Act will not be infringed upon by us in any way, shape, or form, and we promise not to.”
Read more:-
- The Term “Recession” Has a Fluid Definition in the US
- J.D. Vance, a Candidate for the U.S. Senate, Gave an Exclusive Interview to the Guardian
- Manchin and Schumer Announce an Agreement for an Energy and Health Care Measure, Giving Democrats a Significant Boost
The decision includes a footnote which states that “If this Order is enforced by a judgement of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read ‘Posted Under a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.'”
