American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1410 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with his findings in Case No. 21-CA-375, the undersigned also
recommends that the amended consolidated complaint be dismissed so far as
it alleges that the Respondent discriminated against George Cody in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record of
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oil Workers International Union and Locals 120 and 128 thereof, which
are affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
claimants named in Appendices A, B, and C, attached hereto, thereby discourag-
ing membership in Oil Workers International Union, Locals 120 and 128 thereof
(all affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations), the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent did not discriminatorily refuse to employ George Cody to
discourage membership in a labor organization.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. (KECA-TV ) and SCREEN
DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA ( INCORPORATED ), PETITIONER. Case
No. 21-RC-1377. April 16, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M. Purver,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error are hereby affirmed?
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
I The Petitioner's motion to deny intervention by Hollywood Local, Radio and Television
Directors' Guild, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor, on the ground of alleged
fraud in complying with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, was rejected by the
bearing officer. The Board has consistently held that investigating the truth of affidavits
filed under Section 9 is by the Act made a function of the Department of Justice. Seaboard
Radio Broadcasting Corporation, 92 NLRB No. 55.
2 The requests of the Employer and the Intervenor for oral argument are hereby denied
as the record and briefs, in our opinion, sufficiently present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
93 NLRB No. 245.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC . 1411
2: The Petitioner is,a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.3
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and '(7) of the Act, for the following
masons :
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of television directors, as-
sistant directors, and floor managers, excluding directors of radio
programs and supervisors 4 The Employer contends that this unit is
inappropriate on the ground that it is composed almost entirely of
supervisors . The Intervenor takes no position with regard to the
unit.
The Employer owns and operates television station KECA-TV
with studios in Hollywood, California, producing a wide variety of
live programs, some of which are recorded by kinescope for future
telecast over affiliated stations throughout the country. The Em-
ployer's operations are conducted under the over-all supervision of a
general manager, who is subordinate to the vice president in charge
of the Employer's western division. In immediate charge of pro-
gramming and producing television shows at IiECA-TV is the pro-
duction manager, who authorizes the assignment of a director to a
script for telecast. The function of the director is to adapt the story
or idea of the script to the medium of television. Directors are,
required to have previous television, movie, or allied experience.
Their salaries range from $433 to $640 per month.
The Employer telecasts house shows, produced by KECA-TV per-
sonnel, and outside package shows, purchased from an agency with
actors and script already assembled and prerehearsed, to which the
Employer furnishes directors, technical personnel, and facilities for
final rehearsal and telecast. A major part of PECA-TV telecasts are
outside packages but house shows are increasing in number.
When assigned a script, the director discusses the problems involved
principally with the production manager and the author and, on an
outside package, with the packager as well. The director may make
changes in the script, but drastic changes must be approved by the
8 The Employer and the Intervenor , which intervened on the basis of its showing of
interest although it made no claim of representation of employees in an appropriate unit,
moved to dismiss the petition . They alleged that the Petitioner ( a) is composed in
large part of employers in the motion picture industry , and (b ) solicited members among
the employees involved herein through supervisors of the Employer . As to ( a), as the
record shows that the Petitioner includes in its membership employees as well as repre-
sentatives of management , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act. N. L R B v. Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co, 169 F. 2d 571 (C. A. 6).
As to ( b), in view of our decision below granting the Employer 's motion to dismiss
because the unit sought is inappropriate , we do not pass upon the Petitioner 's ability to
serve as bargaining representative herein. For the same reason , the Intervenor ' s motion
to remand this proceeding to take evidence as to the alleged economic identity of employers
in motion picture and television industries is denied.
" The Petitioner 's unit request appears as amended at the hearing.
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
production manager. On a number of house shows, directors have
hired 5 all or part of the "talent" except those top performers w,ho
have been contracted for by executives of the Employer. Directors
given casting responsibilities on house shows have on occasion te-
ceived extra compensation,6 or screen credit as "producer,"' or both.
The director consults with the art, property, and make-up de-
partments, and indicates his requirements for the show. Through the
operations department, the director arranges for music, sound effects,
films, titles, slides, and announcer, and, through the engineering de-
partment, for facilities such as lights, cameras, and sound booms. It
is the director's responsibility to obtain clearance of music through the
appropriate department and to arrange for rehearsal space and time
with the operations department. He may request the services of a
particular assistant director, floor manager, cameraman, or electrician.
Insofar as permitted by budget, schedule, and technical limitations,
the director's requests are granted.
The director conducts the preliminary rehearsal, which is confined
to going over the scenes with the actors and blocking out their move-
ments. If time permits, an additional preliminary rehearsal is held
on the set with cameramen and technical director present. Camera
rehearsals follow during which the director remains in the control
booth and views on monitor screens what is eventually to be telecast.
After a final rehearsal, the positions of the actors, cameras, and
technical personnel have been fixed and the show is ready for the air.
The director may order an. additional rehearsal subject to overtime
and budgetary factors.
During the telecast, the director is in the control booth and views,
on a series of monitor screens, the picture from different camera
angles. He instructs the technical director on his right which pic-
ture to project, and the technical director pushes a button to put the
indicated picture on the air.' On the director's left is the assistant
director, who-follows the script to keep check on the timing of the
sequences. Also in the booth is the video shaper, who keeps up the
level of picture quality, and, in a separate compartment, the audio
man, who regulates the sound. The director is in constant communi-
cation with key technical personnel by an intercommunications sys-
tem over which he instructs a cameraman to move in for a shot, gives
the'audio man his sound cues, and, through the floor manager, cues
the actors, signals the audience to applaud, or has the stage hand move
5 Director Philip Booth engaged two free lance writers for a particular house show
6 It appears that on certain , shoitis, the extra compensation also covered the writing of
scripts by the directors
On occasion , directors have effectively recommended the hiring of talent for outside
packageis, for which they have received extra compensation from the outside agency
'Directors i egulaily receiv e the screen credit line "directed by "
'The record does not support the Petitiouei's contention that the, 'technical director
may overrule the instructions of the television director.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 1413
props, T,he director is responsible for timing the show and; may
eliminate a; scene by instructing the fiobr manager to tliat effect.. When
informed by the engineering department that a film recording of a
televised performance is technically defective, the, director. may, in
his.discretion, retake the defective portion.
The Employer holds the director responsible for the final results;
of the show to which he is assigned. Directors have been reprimanded
for the use of lines in bad taste, undesirable scenes, and failure to clear
music as to copyright.
The Petitioner maintains that directors do not "responsibly, direct"
within the meaning of the definition of supervisors in the Act, be-
cause their directions are not orders but "suggestions, requests, -cues."
Thus the Petitioner contends that a director does not tell an actor to
stand closer; he says, "Now think ... how close do .you stand in every,
day life." However, we do not regard as significant in determining
the status of directors that, rather than issue orders, they may evoke
response by "suggestion." What would be a - direction ^ in -another
industry may-be termed a "suggestion" in the field of television, but
nevertheless it is the director's concept of the desired result that gov-
erns the response of the performer, regardless of the manner of com-
munication. Accordingly, we find this contention of the Petitioner
without merit.
The Petitioner also contends that the authbrity to hire talent on -
house shows is exercised only in the rare instances when the director
is acting in the capacity of "producer." On four of six house shows
produced from April through September 1950, however, three direc-
tors and two assistant directors, assigned as full directors on various
occasions, cast all' or part of the productions. Nor do we believe that
directors hire only in the capacity of "producer," for on the occasions
when directors hire talent, they perform none of the other duties asso-
ciated with the work of a "producer" such as drawing up'budgets and
contracting for outside package shows and top "talent." 9 Moreover,
even if "producer" be considered a separate function, the fact that
directors regularly perform such work is sufficient to tie their interests
with those of management.,' For these reasons, we reject the Peti-
tioner's contentions.
Under all the circumstances, we find 'that television directors' at
KECA- TV, by the exercise of independeiit judgment, responsibly
direct the employees" of the Employer engaged in the production
'These duties are the responsibility of the executives of the Employer including the
production manager.
° American- District Telegraph - Company of Pennsylvania , 89 NLRB 1635 ; The Texas'
Company, Salem Gasoline Plant, 85 NLRB 1211.
11 We do not deem it necessary for the purposes of this decision to determine whether
"talent'! on outside package shows are employees of the Employer within' the meaning 'of
the Act. The director clearly- has within his directorial ambit, as employees of the
Employer , technical personnel on outside shows and all personnel on house shows.
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of shows for television," and that television directors at KEC'A-rV
also exercise the authority to hire employees of the Employer. Ac-
cordingly, we further find that the television directors of the Employer
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, and
that the proposed unit is therefore inappropriate.13 We shall there-
fore dismiss the petition herein.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this, case, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
^'IVCAU, Inc, 93 NLRB 1003
'3 As the Petitioner sought only a unit which includes directors , we make no finding
herein as to the other individuals in the proposed unit.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY and INDEPENDENT.SOFT DRINK
WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-1113. April 16,
1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all driver-salesmen, help-
ers, and over-the-road drivers employed at the Employer's Cincinnati,
Ohio, plant, excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
'Soft Drink and Dlineral Water Drivers, Helpers and Employees, Local 152, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract
2 The Petitioner filed its petition on January 18, 1951 ; the Intervenor asserts its current
ontract executed on November 6, 1950, which expires March 31, 1951, is a bar to this
proceeding As this contract has already expiied, it cannot bar an election.
93 NLRB No. 247.