Central Florida Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 473 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY 473
conclude that the Intervenor has a sufficient interest to be permitted
to intervene in this proceeding, and to be placed on the ballot .5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
S Cf. International Harvester Company, Tractor Works, 89 NLRB 212.
CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS-
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1107. May
15, 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 Morgan C. Stanford, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
I No motion to dismiss the petition was made and no other motions made at the hearing
were referred to the Boaid However , on January 22, 1951 , after the hearing, the
Employer filed a motion with the Board requesting a rehearing , and asking that this
proceeding be stayed for 30 days to allow it to file a brief, and that oral argument be held
before the Board The Employer principally urges in support of its motion that its
interest has been materially prejudiced because the hearing officer , at the outset of the
second day of the hearing, improperly excluded Will O. Murrell , "the principal witness
and representative ," of the Employer . The request for oral argument and a stay
of the proceedings is hereby denied , as we find that the transcript of the hearing and
the Employer 's motion papers adequately present the issues.
Mr. Murrell , an attorney , is one of the owners of Station WORZ , the Employer's sole
radio station He is also its secretary-treasurer . On the first day of the hearing, held
some 6 days before the second or adjournment date of the hearing, he and Theo Hamilton,
also an attorney , entered appearances on behalf of the Employer . Murrell participated
on that day , both as a witness and otherwise , in the hearing The hearing officer excluded
Murrell , however, from the second day of hearing because of a scuffle which had occurred
in the hearing room just before the hearing opened , wherein Murrell had attempted to
wrest from the possession of the Petitioner ' s representative a box of post cards directed
to Station WORZ from listeners to its programs , which Murrell asserted were improperly
in such representative ' s possession . Twelve of these cards were later offered in evidence
by the Petitioner . We find that the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in thus
excluding Murrell from the hearing We further approve the hearing officer's ruling
refusing the Employer 's request for an order directing the Petitioner ' s representative
to return the cards to the Employer , for the reason that the hearing officer was without
authority to make such an order. Although some of these cards were thereafter admitted
in evidence , the Employer as not in any manner prejudiced thereby , because the Board
has found it unnecessary to consider any of these cards in determining whether or not to
assert jurisdiction over the Employer.
We further find no merit in the Employer 's contention that by Murrell 's exclusion the
Employer was deprived of opportunity for producing further testimony on material issues.
The only issues raised relate to the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer and the
exclusion of certain persons, alleged to be supervisors , from the unit . As to the first
of these, Murrell ' s testimony on the first day of hearing , apart from and without consider-
ing the post cards submitted by the Petitioner , affords ample basis as hereinafter found,
to justify the Board's assertion of jurisdiction . As to the second of these issues , Murrell,
in testimony on the first day of hearing, stated the Employer ' s position as to which
employees it contended were supervisors , and said specifically that he was not the only
officer of the Company familiar with these matters. Despite this assertion by Murrell,
Hamilton , an expeilenced counsel who was not excluded from the hearing , elected not
to remain but also withdrew at the time of Murrell's exclusion
In view of all the foregoing , the Employer 's motion is denied.
94 NLRB No. 79.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer operates Station WORZ , an NBC affiliate, at Or-
lando, Florida, under a Federal Communications Commission license.
The station operates from 5 a. m. each day to 1 a. m. the following day.
In a 6-day week , an average of 433/4 hours is spent broadcasting NBC
programs which originate outside the State of Florida. Twenty-five
percent of the station 's total revenue during the same period was
received from advertisers obtained by Weede and Company of New
York City. Eight percent of the station 's gross revenue is annually
paid to ASCAP in Atlanta , Georgia, as royalties . We find, contrary
to the contention of the Employer, that it is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction 2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of announcer -technicians,
announcers , continuity writers, operators and/or engineers , excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the
Petitioner 's view the unit description comprises eight employees classi-
fied by the Employer as follows : One continuity writer, two an-
nouncers, one combination announcer -operator , three full -time op-
erators, and one part-time or occasional operator . The Employer
would also include an additional announcer , Walter Sickles. The
Petitioner contends that Sickles , although he does some announcing,
is in fact program director and should be excluded as a supervisor.
The Employer also contends that two of the three full -time operators,
Stonitsch and Newell , are supervisors , which the Petitioner denies.
The Intervenor , International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, AFL,
agrees with the Petitioner both as to the appropriateness of the unit
and the questions of supervisory status.
The announcers are stationed at the studio and the operators at the
transmitter which is 4 miles away. The combination announcer-
operator spends 10 to 20 percent of his time at the studio announcing.
The rest of the time he is stationed at the transmitter where he spends
most of his time in operator 's duties, although he also makes some
announcements directly at the transmitter . Some of the operators
2 TVBSR, Inc , 91 NLRB 630.
CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY 475
do some maintenance work at the studio but they do not operate the
studio control board. As a result every announcer must be able to,
and does, operate the control board. All the announcers also make
tape recordings, patch out from station to transmitter, and bring
in remotes. At least two of the three operators also make weather
announcements and one also makes spot announcements, station break
announcements, and occasionally announces and plays records at the
transmitter.
It is evident that there is an interrelation of duties and a community
of interest between the operators and the announcers which does not
exist in larger stations where their work is more sharply differentiated.
Accordingly, we find they may appropriately be represented in a
single unit.3 The continuity writer, Kuhnert, whom the Petitioner
wishes to include in the unit, when first employed worked as an an-
nouncer. Since he has been assigned to continuity work he has con-
tinued to spend some time announcing and performing the same as-
sociated technical duties as the other announcers. The Employer
contends he spends no more than an hour a day in these duties but a
recent weekly announcer's schedule, introduced in evidence, shows
several hours a day. Kuhnert himself estimates that he has averaged
25 percent of his time in announcing since his assignment to continuity
writing. During the same period he has also handled a number of
broadcasts from points outside the studio doing not only the broad-
casting but all the technical work required for such remote broadcast-
ing. Because of their employment at work in the program depart-
ment, we have previously included continuity writers in announcer
units,4 and as it appears that Kuhnert, like the announcers, has a
community of interest with the operators we shall include him in
the unit.
Nils Sahlberg is a relief operator. He takes the place of any op-
erator on vacation and is called in in emergencies. However, as he
also works at least 3 hours every Sunday, while one of the full-time
operators attends church, we find Sahlberg is a regular part-time
rather than a casual employee. In accordance with our usual policy
as to regular part-time employees we shall include Sahlberg in the
unit.
Supervisors
The Employer would include in the unit Eugene Hill, the general
and commercial manager of the station, who is in charge of all em-
ployees. He has the authority to, and does, hire, discipline, and
discharge, but only with the approval of the directors. We find that
Mr. Hill is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit.
'Associated Electronic Enterprises, Inc, 80 NLRB 295. Western Gateway Broadcasting
Corporattion, 77 NLRB 49.
4 Ridson, Inc., Radio Station WDSM, 91 NLRB No 59.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Until a short time before the hearing, the program department,
in which all the announcers and the continuity writer work, was
headed by a program director. The Employer asserts that the pro-
gram director never supervised the announcers and continuity writer,
being in charge of the program rather than the personnel, who were,
and are, supervised by the general manager. The program director
did, however, instruct announcers in addition to his main responsibili-
ties of assembling programs and advising management on the quality
of programs. He also spent about 10 percent of his time in
announcing.
The Employer testified that at present there is no program director,
but it plans to hire one soon. The Petitioner contends that Walter
Sickles, a recently hired employee, is in fact program director. An
announcer and the continuity writer both testified that Hill had
informed them that Sickles was to assume all the duties of the former
program director. Shortly afterwards, the announcers received a
memorandum from Sickles, which they each initialed, setting out a
proposed weekly schedule for announcers including Sickles himself.
It is unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence. Neither
the authority attributed to the former program director nor that
attributed to Sickles, either by the Employer or by the Petitioner,
is sufficient to establish that the program director was, or that Sickles
is, a supervisor. Accordingly, we shall include Sickles in the unit.
The three operators and the combination announcer-operator, all
of whom are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as
radio telephone operators, constitute the engineering department.
Until 2 years ago this department was in charge of a chief engineer.
Since the departure of the chief engineer, one operator, Stonitsch, has
been responsible for the maintenance and functioning of the transmit-
ter and another operator, Newell, has been responsible for the main-
tenance of the technical equipment at the studio. Neither Stonitsch
nor Newell is classified by the Employer as chief engineer or chief
operator although the Employer asserts that both are supervisors with
the right to recommend hiring or discharge. Newell works full shifts
at the transmitter during which time he does not direct the work of
any employee. Stonitsch, who has been the longest in the employ of
WORZ, does direct the work of the other operators at the transmitter,
including Newell. Stonitsch testified that his directions were couched
as requests not orders. If Newell needs any help in his maintenance
work at the studio he may ask any of the others, including Stonitsch,
to help him and may direct their work while at the studio.
The Employer asserted that it was "understood" that Stonitsch
could recommend hiring or firing, but could not say that he or anyone
else in authority had even told Stonitsch so. The only example given
PACIFIC COAST ASSOCIATION OF PULP AND PAPER MFRS. 477
of the exercise of the asserted authority was that Stonitsch had recom-
mended the dismissal of the chief engineer, who was his acknowledged
supervisor. Stonitsch denied that he was a supervisor or, that he had
even been told he was. He also testified that he had never hired or
discharged anyone or recommended this or any other personnel action.
Newell testified similarly except that he stated that he once had been
asked if he could find anyone to act as relief operator when one was
needed immediately. He then suggested Nils Sahlberg to Mr. Hill
who hired him. We find that Stonitsch and Newell do not have the
authority to initiate recommendations for personnel action and that
their direction of others is merely the routine direction commonly
exercised by experienced employees. Accordingly, we find they are
not supervisors and shall include them in the unit.5
We find that all operators, combination announcer-operators, an-
nouncers,e and continuity writers at the Employer's Radio Station
WORZ, at Orlando, Florida, excluding all other employees and su-
pervisors at defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
c Greater Erie Broadcasting Company, 92 NLRB No. 61.
Included as announcers are Sam & Marcia Roen, whom the Petitioner and the Inter-
venor would exclude. Mr. and Mrs . Roen are employed in the program department.
Their main duties are preparing and putting on a program called "The Roens at Home"
which is sometimes broadcast from their own home, sometimes from the studio . On this
show the Roens do the announcing as well as the performing . The Roens also assist in
preparing material for other programs . Their work appears to be that frequently
designated in the industry as that of a special program announcer . Although they are
not hourly paid as are the other announcers , it does not appear that their working
interests are sufficiently differentiated from those of the other announcers to justify
excluding them from the unit.
PACIFIC COAST ASSOCIATION OF PULP AND PAPER MANUFACTURERS and
AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA , CIO5 PETITIONER.
Case No. 36-RC-138. May 15, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition and amended petitions duly filed under Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before
Milton Boyd, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
94 NLRB No. 32.