April 30, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
April 30, 2026 | National Labor Relations Board Division of Judges | ALJ Decision
Executive Summary
In a Division of Judges decision, Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito found that A-V Services, Inc. violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act during a union organizing campaign involving audiovisual technicians at A-V’s Jersey City locations. Local 59, IATSE sought to represent a six-employee unit of A-V technicians assigned to JP Morgan facilities in Jersey City. The General Counsel alleged that A-V responded to the campaign by restricting cross-location assignments, reducing overtime opportunities, increasing management scrutiny, withholding a market-rate wage increase given at other locations, and threatening loss of promotional opportunities if the union prevailed. A-V denied wrongdoing and argued that its operational decisions were justified by business conditions, staffing needs, and concerns about election interference. The ALJ credited much of the employee testimony, found multiple unfair labor practices, sustained several election objections, and recommended a bargaining order under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. rather than merely directing a new election. Although the case did not involve a franchise system, it offers practical lessons for franchisors, franchisees, and distributed service models because ordinary decisions about pay adjustments, cross-location staffing, overtime, promotions, and management presence may create significant labor-law risk once organizing activity begins.
Relevant Background
A-V provides audiovisual technology services to commercial clients throughout the United States. In the New York City area, A-V operated at multiple locations, including several JP Morgan facilities in Jersey City. The Jersey City technicians operated and maintained audiovisual equipment for JP Morgan meetings, broadcasts, and events. They generally worked under an onsite manager, while higher-level managers oversaw broader regional and client relationships.
In April and May 2023, several Jersey City technicians signed authorization cards for Local 59. On May 30, 2023, Local 59’s counsel sent A-V’s CEO a letter stating that the union had obtained authorization cards from “well over a majority” of the Jersey City technicians and asking whether A-V would voluntarily recognize the union. A-V declined recognition, and Local 59 filed a petition for a representation election. The stipulated unit consisted of six full-time audiovisual technicians at A-V’s three Jersey City locations.
Before the election, A-V managers met with employees and discussed the possible impact of union representation. The election took place on July 21, 2023. After a challenged ballot was later opened, the final tally was three votes for Local 59 and three votes against, meaning the union did not prevail. Local 59 filed objections, and the Regional Director consolidated several election objections with unfair labor practice allegations.
The General Counsel alleged that A-V committed several unlawful acts after learning of the organizing campaign. Those allegations included telling employees that Jersey City technicians would no longer work at other A-V locations because of the union effort, actually ceasing to assign them cross-location work, reducing overtime opportunities, increasing scrutiny and monitoring of employees, implying that promotional opportunities would be lost if the union won, and withholding a market-rate wage adjustment from Jersey City technicians while giving that increase at other locations.
Decision
The ALJ first found that A-V unlawfully stopped assigning Jersey City technicians to work at other locations, particularly in Brooklyn, in response to the union campaign. Before the campaign, technicians assigned to Jersey City and Brooklyn sometimes worked at the other location when workload, event coverage, or “power down” and “power up” events required support. The ALJ credited testimony that, shortly after Local 59 requested recognition, A-V’s onsite manager told employees that because of the “Union situation” there would be no more “cross-pollination” between Jersey City and Brooklyn. The ALJ found that A-V stopped these cross-location assignments to isolate the Jersey City employees from employees at other locations because of their union support and activities.
The ALJ also found that A-V unlawfully reduced overtime opportunities and overtime hours. The evidence showed that, after the election period, employee schedules were adjusted to limit overtime when technicians worked longer days earlier in the week. The ALJ credited testimony that management told employees overtime could not be provided and that employees were required to substantiate unscheduled overtime through an online form. A-V argued that overtime levels reflected ordinary business fluctuations, but the ALJ found its payroll evidence insufficient because it did not provide a meaningful year-over-year comparison across the relevant seasonal cycle.
The decision next addressed management presence and monitoring. The ALJ found that, after the union campaign began, higher-level managers appeared at the Jersey City location more frequently than before. The ALJ credited testimony that managers who had rarely appeared in Jersey City began visiting regularly, including at the beginning and end of shifts. The ALJ found that this change in the level, frequency, and style of management observation created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The ALJ also found that A-V impliedly threatened loss of promotional opportunities. On the morning of the election, A-V’s national account executive met privately with one technician and discussed career advancement, commissioning work, leadership opportunities, training, and the manager’s ability to “make those things happen.” The ALJ found that the same manager then implied that if “things were to change” and the union prevailed, there would be “no movement” and the workplace would be “a very different place.” Considering the timing, the manager’s authority, the employee’s limited prior interaction with that manager, and the election scheduled for later that day, the ALJ found the statements coercive.
The market-rate wage increase was central to the decision. A-V conducted a market analysis and implemented wage increases for technicians at locations other than Jersey City. It did not implement the increase for Jersey City technicians while the election and related objections remained pending. The ALJ found that this was facially discriminatory and rejected A-V’s argument that it delayed the increase to avoid interfering with the election. The ALJ explained that an employer generally must decide whether to grant benefits during an organizing campaign as if the union were not present. If an employer postpones an adjustment to avoid appearing to influence the vote, it must make clear that the adjustment will occur regardless of the election outcome and that the delay is only to avoid the appearance of interference. The ALJ found that A-V did not do so.
The ALJ rejected some allegations. In particular, she found that A-V had legitimate reasons for issuing written warnings to one technician for lateness, failure to report to the control room before getting breakfast, and incidents involving idle time. Although the General Counsel established a prima facie case based on protected activity, employer knowledge, timing, and other unfair labor practices, the ALJ found that A-V proved it would have issued those warnings for legitimate reasons.
The ALJ sustained several election objections and concluded that A-V’s unfair labor practices affected the representation election. More significantly, the ALJ recommended a Gissel bargaining order. The ALJ found that Local 59 had majority support when it sought recognition, based on signed authorization cards from four of six employees. The ALJ further found that A-V’s unfair labor practices, especially withholding the market-rate wage increase, had coercive and lasting effects that made a bargaining order appropriate. The recommended order required A-V to bargain with Local 59 on request, make Jersey City technicians whole for losses resulting from the withheld wage increase, compensate employees for other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, post notices, and preserve payroll and personnel records.
Looking Forward
This decision is not a franchise case, and it should not be described as one. But it speaks directly to labor risks that may arise in franchise systems, multi-unit operators, hospitality platforms, distributed service models, and client-site businesses. The practical issue is not the industry label. The issue is how quickly ordinary operational decisions can become labor-law evidence once employees begin organizing.
The cross-location staffing finding is especially relevant. Many franchise and multi-unit systems rely on employees, trainers, field support, opening teams, managers, technicians, and specialists who move between locations. If an employer changes that practice after organizing activity begins, the timing and explanation will matter. A restriction that looks like a neutral staffing adjustment may be treated as retaliatory if managers connect it to union activity or if the record suggests an effort to isolate employees from one another.
The wage-adjustment ruling is an important warning for franchisors and franchisee groups managing multi-location compensation. Employers sometimes delay wage changes during organizing campaigns out of concern that granting a raise may be viewed as election interference. This decision illustrates the opposite risk: withholding a planned or systemwide increase from the organizing location may itself be unlawful. The safer practice is to document the preexisting compensation process, apply ordinary wage decisions consistently, and communicate carefully when a legitimate delay occurs.
The overtime findings also deserve attention. In distributed operations, overtime may fluctuate by client needs, event volume, staffing shortages, seasonal cycles, and emergency work. But if overtime opportunities decline after union activity, employers should be prepared to show a clear business reason supported by reliable data. The ALJ criticized A-V’s payroll evidence because it did not provide the right comparison across the relevant time period. That point is practical: employers need records that explain the decision actually made, not just records that show some later pattern.
The management-presence finding is a reminder that supervisors do not need to directly spy on union meetings to create risk. The ALJ focused on a sudden change in management behavior: higher-level managers appeared more frequently, and supervisors checked the work area at shift start and end in ways employees had not previously experienced. Franchisors and operators should train managers that increased visibility during organizing activity can be lawful when tied to legitimate business needs, but abrupt or unexplained changes may create an impression of surveillance.
The promotion discussion highlights another common issue. Managers often want to discuss career paths, advancement, training, or leadership opportunities with high-performing employees. During an organizing campaign, those discussions require discipline. A conversation that suggests advancement may depend on remaining non-union can become an implied threat, even if the manager never uses explicit anti-union language.
The recommended Gissel bargaining order is what makes the case particularly significant. The ALJ did not merely recommend a rerun election. She concluded that the unfair labor practices had lasting effects and that a bargaining order better protected the employees’ earlier card-based majority support. For franchisors and franchisees watching organizing activity, that remedy is a reminder that election-period mistakes can have consequences beyond backpay or a notice posting.
This case also illustrates how small units create outsized risk. The bargaining unit had only six employees. That meant conduct affecting one or two employees could materially affect the entire campaign, and conduct affecting the whole unit carried obvious significance. Franchise systems and multi-location operators should not assume that small units create small exposure. In organizing cases, a small group may make the evidentiary and remedial stakes more acute.
For franchisors, the decision also raises a system-design point. Franchisors often do not employ franchisee employees and should avoid actions that could support joint-employer theories. But franchisors may still provide resources, training, and compliance guidance to franchisees facing organizing activity. That guidance should emphasize lawful communications, consistent wage practices, careful documentation, and avoiding retaliatory changes in scheduling, staffing, overtime, promotions, or transfers.
For franchisees and company-owned systems, the operational takeaway is direct: once organizing activity begins, treat ordinary decisions as potentially scrutinized evidence. Before changing pay, overtime, schedules, work locations, transfers, reporting requirements, promotional discussions, or management coverage, employers should ask whether the same decision would have occurred absent the union activity and whether the record proves it.
Taken together, A-V Services offers a useful labor-management lesson for franchising and other distributed models. Organizing campaigns often unfold at the local level, but the response may involve regional managers, national account leaders, HR, client-service teams, and compensation decisionmakers. The more decentralized the workplace, the more important it becomes to coordinate the response carefully. Consistency, documentation, and manager training may reduce the risk that routine business decisions become unfair labor practice findings.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Partner at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
