Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 566 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perience is required of these three groups than that of the average
production employee in this particular plant. Furthermore there is
nothing in the record to show that their inspection duties involve any
greater discretion or responsibility than that of the usual production
inspector whom the Board normally includes in production and main-
tenance bargaining units. We thus find no merit either in the Pe-
titioner's contention that only group (a) employees should be included
in the unit, nor in the Employer's contention that all of research and
engineering employees should be excluded. We shall include em-
ployees in groups (a), (b), and (c) in the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees employed
at the Bristol plant of the Employer, including the employees of the
engineering and research department who perform "quality control"
duties, electrical testing and final testing of radio sets, but excluding
all other employees of the research and engineering department, office
and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, work-
ing foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within.
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.8
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Although the unit as certified in 1947 excluded all research and engineering employees,
that unit , as noted above , was based on a consent election and is not determinative.
8 At the hearing the Petitioner stated that they were desirous of representing any addi-
tional employees of the research and engineering department found to be properly included
within the unit . The Petitioner 's showing is sufficient for the broader unit , herein found
appropriate.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., AND COLUMBIA BROADCASTING
SYSTEM, INC., OF CALIFORNIA 1 and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROAD-
CAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, CIO, PETITIONER 2
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. and MOTION PICTURE FILM
EDITORS, LOCAL 776 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL , PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
13-RC-1888 and 21-RC-1983. December 17,,-951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearings were held in Case No.
13-RC-1888 before I. M. Lieberman, hearing officer, at Chicago, Illi-
i The Columbia Broadcasting System , Inc., of California is a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. For purposes of this decision , we shall treat the
two corporations as one employer.
2 The name of the Petitioner in Case No . 13-RC-1888 appears as amended at the hearing.
97 NLRB No. 81.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 567
nois, and Irving M. Friedman, hearing officer, at New York City, and in
Case No. 12-RC-1983 before Jerome A. Reiner, hearing officer, at Los
Angeles, California. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hear-
ings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 3
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer .4
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
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 or units :
In Case No. 13-RC-1888, NABET seeks representation of an Em-
ployer-wide unit composed of employees engaged in the design, con-
struction, maintenance, and operation of the Employer's technical
facilities for radio and television broadcasting and recording, includ-
ing film cutters and editors, motion picture cameramen, employees
engaged in "front and rear" projection, the lighting director in the
Los Angeles television station, engineers in the general engineering
and the engineering research and development departments, drafts-
men, and machinists. It would exclude sound effects men employed
in the Chicago operations presently represented by AFRA; platter
turners and turntable operators in the Chicago and St. Louis opera-
tions, presently represented by AFM; 8 and lighting and special visual
8 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., the Employer in Case No 21 -RC-1983, and
National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians , CIO, herein called NABET,
the Intervenor in that case , moved to dismiss the petition in Case No . 21-RC-1983, on the
ground that the employees involved had been included within the scope of the unit requested
by NABET's petition in Case No . 13-RC-1888 , and that the issues concerning them had
been fully litigated in that case . The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board.
As the petitioner in Case No . 21-RC-1983 , herein called Local 776, was not a party to the
proceedings in Case No . 13-RC-1888-although the international organization with which
Local 776 is affiliated was such a party, and participated fully in that case-we shall deny
the motion to dismiss . Moreover, as the record developed in Case No . 21-RC-1983 supple-
ments and amplifies the record in Case No 13-RC-1888 in respect to the film cutters and
editors in Los Angeles , the two cases are hereby consolidated for purposes of this decision.
4 The following labor organizations were permitted to intervene in Case No . 13-RC-1888
upon a showing of contractual or other representative interest : International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers , AFL, herein called IBEW ; International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada,
AFL, herein called IATSE ; Local No. 1, IATSE , herein called Local No. 1; American
Federation of Musicians , AFL, herein called AFM ; and American Federation of Radio
Artists, herein called APRA.
The following labor organizations were permitted to intervene in Case No . 21-RC-1983
upon the basis of their interest established in Case No. 13-RC-1888: NABET , the Petitioner
in Case No . 13-RC-1888 ; and IBEW Local 45.
6 The only interest of AFRA and AFM in these proceedings was by virtue of representation
of these employees whom NABET, the Petitioner in Case No 13-RC-1888, agreed to exclude.
Having been satisfied as to their exclusion , AFRA and AFM withdrew from further
participation in the proceedings.
568 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effects employees in the New York City operations, presently repre-
sented by IATSE Local 16
- IBEW, the present contractual representative of a unit of the Em-
ployer's technical employees, agrees with NABET's position, and
desires to,participate in an election in the unit asserted by NABET to
be appropriate. IATSE takes no position as to NABET's (and
IBEW's) request for inclusion of the engineering employees, drafts-
men, and machinists, but contends that the employees described as
film cutters and editors, cameramen, employees engaged in "front and
rear" projection, and the lighting director in the Los Angeles televi-
sion operation, should be excluded. The Employer would exclude
these same employees, and would also exclude the engineering em-
ployees, the draftsmen, and machinists. The Employer further urges
that the unit found to be appropriate by the Board should be described
according to the functions of its various employees, rather than
according to their classifications or job titles.
In Case No. 21-RC-1983, IATSE Local 776 seeks to represent a
unit composed of film and magnetic tape cutters and editors employed
by the Employer at two Los Angeles locations, excluding all other em-
ployees. Local 776, however, limits its request for inclusion of mag-
netic tape editors and cutters to those who cut and edit magnetic tape
that is used for the purpose of synchronization with motion picture
film or as a substitute therefor. It would not include employees
whose work on magnetic tape pertains solely to audio recording or
presentation. NABET and IBEW Local 45 contend that the separate
unit requested is inappropriate, and that these employees properly are
part of the Employer-wide technicians' unit. The Employer agrees
with the request for a separate unit of Los Angeles film cutters and
editors, but contends that all magnetic tape cutting and editing em-
ployees appropriately belong in the unit with its other technical
employees.
Apart from artists and announcers, the Employer's television broad-
casting operations employees may be roughly divided into two groups :
those who make use of technical skills,' and those engaged in the tra-
ditional stage crafts, such as stage electricians, stage carpenters, and
6 IATSE Local 1 intervened solely to assert its interest in the lighting and special visual
effects employees in New York City.
7 These employees have experience in working with electronic equipment . For job title
purposes some of the technicians are classified as "supervisors" and "assistant super-
visors." These supervisors and assistant supervisors have no power to hire, discharge,
or to effect any change in the status of any of the Employer 's employees , or effectively to
recommend any such action . All parties have agreed that they are not supervisors within
the meaning of the Act . Others are classified as technicians and assistant technicians,
master control video-shaddrs , and audio men. Working with them are employees whose
function is to push cameras mounted on wheeled pedestals and microphone booms, and
men who move cables, drive equipment trucks , and mechanics who do the maintenance
work on such trucks.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 569
stage property men.8 There is in general no dispute as to the alloca-
tion of these two groups of employees. Thus IATSE, which has tra-
ditionally represented employees in the stage crafts, does not in gen-
eral claim to represent the technical employees. Likewise, neither
IBEW nor NABET desires to represent any of the traditional stage
crafts. Between these two roughly defined groups, there are certain
classifications claimed by NABET and IBEW, on the one hand, and
by IATSE, on the other; they are "fringe" categories not fitting
clearly into either the technical or stage craft patterns. The follow-
ing are the classifications in dispute in this proceeding :
Motion picture cameramen and film cutters and editors: These em-
ployees are sought to be included by NABET and IBEW on the basis
of bargaining history. At the Employer's New York operations, these
employees have been represented by IBEW as part of the unit of tech-
nical employees since approximately 1946. Their interests do not
appear to be so divergent from those of the other employees in the
technical unit as to require that we now exclude them. Moreover, no
labor organization here seeks to represent them on any other basis.
We find no merit in the contention of the Employer and IATSE that
such employees should be excluded from the unit, and shall include the
New York cameramen, film cutters, and editors in the unit of technical
employees.
The film cutters and editors at the Employer's Los Angeles opera-
tions,' however, have been expressly excluded from the IBEW's most
recent Nation-wide contract for the technical employees, executed on •
June 30, 1950, for a 1-year period. Before this, the Los Angeles film
cutters and editors had been included in the technical unit. These are
the employees whom Local 776 seeks to represent as a separate unit by
its petition filed in Case No. 21-RC-1983.
The Los Angeles film cutters and editors work at two locations-a
film editor and two assistant editors at Station KTSL, and two film
editors and four assistants at the CBS studio, both in Hollywood.
The editor and his assistants at KTSL are engaged solely in preparing,
for use on television broadcasts, motion picture film on which is im-
pressed a sound track as an integral part of the film. The employees
at the CBS studio perform a similar task, but also cut and edit mag-
netic tape which carries sound to accompany the motion picture film.
The Employer opposes the inclusion of magnetic tape cutters and edi-
tors in the proposed unit of Los Angeles film cutters and editors, on the
ground that those working on magnetic tape were not excluded from
IBEW's recent contract, and that they appropriately belong in the
8In the latter group are included various kinds of stage hands, and wardrobe and makeup
men.
9 There are no cameramen employed by the Employer at Los Angeles.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit of technical employees. Local 776 concedes, however, that it does
not seek to represent employees who work on magnetic tape for
purposes other than for use with film, such as for recording the audio
portion of a radio program. It limits its request to those editing
magnetic tape used either "for purposes of synchronization in conjunc-
tion with the editing of motion picture film or as a substitute for mo-
tion picture film." The unit sought thus is limited to employees whose
primary function is that of cutting and editing motion picture film,
and does not include employees editing magnetic tape as their primary
duty.
The bargaining history before June 30, 1950, involving the Los
Angeles film cutters and editors and the inclusion of similar employees
at New York City, indicates that film editors and cutters may appro-
priately bargain in a unit with technical employees. On the other
hand, as these employees in Los Angeles are now excluded from the
Nation-wide technical unit, and as IATSE Local 776, the Petitioner in
Case No. 21-RC-1983, is seeking to represent them separately, we
believe that these employees should not be joined in the broader unit
without first being given the opportunity to express their desires as to
unit placement in an election. We shall, therefore, direct that a
separate election be held in a voting group consisting of the Employer's
film cutters and editors in Los Angeles.
The lighting director in Los Angeles: There is only one individual
in this category at the Employer's Los Angeles operations. In New
-York City the lighting directors are included in a separate unit of
employees engaged in television lighting and special visual effects, for
which IATSE Local 1 was recently certified as the representative pur-
suant to a consent election. The Los Angeles lighting director, like
his New York counterparts, possesses training and knowledge in the
art of dramatic lighting and background. Like them, he prepares
lighting plans for television presentations, which are carried into
effect by the stage hands and stage electricians. His contacts appear
to be more with the programming and stage craft employees than with
the technicians. We believe that he does not possess sufficient interests
in common with the technical employees to justify his inclusion in the
technical unit io -
Employees engaged in front and rear projections: This process
consists of the projection of moving or still pictures on a screen to
serve as scenic background for a television presentation." The rec-
10
At the hearing , the Employer contended that the Los Angeles lighting director should
be excluded as a supervisor for the reason that he may in the future supervise other
employees who are later to -be employed. As we have excluded him for other reasons, we
need not pass upon this contention.
11 This is distinguished from "telecine ," wherein the picture is projected directly into
the face of the television camera . All parties agree that telecine operators are appro-
priately within the unit of technical employees.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 571
ord is clear that this is basically a part-time assignment, performed
sometimes by the Employer's technicians, and at other times by
stage hands. The Employer has no employees who perform this as
a principal function. Those who perform it are paid no special rate,
brit continue to be paid at the rate they earn in their principal em-
ployment. It is clear that those who perform this function on a minor
part-time basis retain their status either as technicians and thus are
within the unit, or as stage hands and thus are without the unit.
Because there are no employees who now perform this disputed func-
tion a sufficient portion of their time to be denominated : "front and
rear projectionists," we shall make no present determination as to
the inclusion of front and rear projectionist in the unit 12
Engineers in the General Engineering and Engineering Research
and Development Departments: These employees design and develop
equipment and plant installations, engage in research, and perform
other services for which they are qualified by reason of their advanced
training and engineering experience. The parties agree, and the
record establishes, that they are professional employees within the
meaning of the Act. The parties further recognize that, as pro-
fessional employees, they may not be included within the technical
unit unless the Board accords them a separate self-determination
election 13
The Employer contends that they cannot in any event be .included
in the same unit with the technicians because of their different super-
vision, functions, education, and training, and the fact that there
has been no bargaining history covering them as there has been in
the case of the other employees in the unit. The Board, however,
has frequently found that employees possessing the advanced qualifica-
tions and performing the functions of professional employees, such
as those involved in this case, may, if they so desire, be joined in a
unit with technical employees. Indeed, the provisions of the Act,
which provide for an expression of choice as to unit by professional
employees, indicate that professional employees need not necessarily
be represented in a separate unit. As we perceive no sufficient reason
here to depart from established Board practice, we shall direct that
a separate election be held among the professional employees to
determine whether or not they desire to be included in the unit with
the technical employees.
'8 Were there such employees , the record supports a finding that their interests would
be aligned with those of the stage hands rather than the technicians . No special knowl-
edge of electronics is required , such as, In general, is characteristic of the technical
employees . The work pertains to the providing of scenic background , which , like stage light-
Ing; is traditionally the function of members of stage hands groups. Cf . National Broad-
casting Company, Inc. (supplemental decision ), 95 NLRB 736.
28 Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act provides , in substance , that the Board shall - not find
appropriate a unit including both professional and nonprofessional employees unless a
majority of the professional employees vote for such Inclusion.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Draftsmen: These employees are part of the engineering research
and development department and work under the supervision of
the design engineer. They are engaged in preparing drawings and
tracings of equipment planned 'by the professional engineers. Since
1947, they have been represented by IBEW in a separate unit. The
Board has frequently held that the interests of draftsmen are such that
they may be included in the unit with technical employees 14 We
perceive no sufficient reason why, in the present case, the draftsmen
may not appropriately be included in the technical unit, and as the
only labor organizations here seeking to represent the draftsmen
are seeking them as part of the broader technical unit, we shall include
them 15
Machinists: The machinists, who are also employed in the engineer-
ing and research development department, construct and assemble
electronic mechanisms from blueprints prepared by the draftsmen, in
accordance with standard machine shop practice. Like the draftsmen,
they have been represented since 1946 by IBEW in a separate unit.
The Employer asserts, in effect, that both the bargaining history and
the fact of their employment as skilled craftsmen in the machinists
trade, demonstrates the possession of such divergent interests that
they should not be joined for purposes of collective bargaining with
the employees in the technicians' unit. However, their possible pos-
session of craft status--which we need not here determine-is not in
itself sufficient reason for excluding them from participation in bar-
gaining on a broader basis. The record indicates that the unit of
technicians of which the IBEW has been contractual representative,
and which the parties have agreed in general to be appropriate in this
case, is a broad grouping containing not only those technicians whose
functions are dependent primarily upon their knowledge and training
in electronics or skill in utilizing electronic equipment, but also in-
cludes other categories who may not possess equivalent training or
skill but who work in a close relationship with the others in the tech-
nical unit.' In these circumstances, we do not believe that the inter-
ests of the machinists,- whose work is the construction of electronic
equipment, is so divergent, from those in the technical unit as to pre-
clude their inclusion. As no labor organization seeks to represent
the machinists on a separate basis, we shall include them.
We shall direct elections among the following voting groups :
(a) All technicians employed in the Employer's technical opera-
tions departments and the engineering research and development de-
14 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666.
el The Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76; Metz Bakang Company, 92 NLRB 108.
16 Among such employees are those whose duty is to push television camera dollies , those
whose principal duty it is to drive trucks containing technical television or radio equip-
ment, and the repairmen engaged in the maintenance of such trucks.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 573
partment, in New York City and throughout the United States,
including technicians employed in the laboratory in the general en-
gineering department, draftsmen and machinists in the engineering
research and development department, and motion picture cameramen
and film editors and cutters in New York City, but excluding film
editors and cutters at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, estab-
lishments, sound effects employees employed at Chicago, Illinois, turn-
table operators employed at Chicago, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri,
lighting directors and special visual effects employees in New York
City and the lighting director in Los Angeles, California, engineers
in the general engineering and engineering research and development
departments, stage hands, manual or mechanical cueing and titling em- -
ployees,-guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act'7
(b) All film editors and cutters employed at the Employer's Los
Angeles, California, establishments, including those who cut and edit
magnetic tape used in conjunction with or as a substitute for motion
picture film, but excluding magnetic tape editors and cutters, all other
employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) All the Employer's engineers employed at its New York gen-
eral engineering and engineering research and development depart-
ments, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
If a majority voting in group (b) vote for IATSE Local 776, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to IATSE
Local 776 for the unit described in subparagraph (b) of paragraph
numbered 4, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
The employees in the professional voting group (c) will be asked
two questions on their ballot : (1) Do you wish the professional em-
ployees to be included with the unit of the Employer's technical
employees?, (2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes of col-
lective bargaining by National Association of Broadcast Engineer
and Technicians, CIO, or by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL, or by International Alliance of Theatrical Employees
and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada, AFL, or by none? If a majority of the professional em-
17 Although the Employer contended at the hearing that the unit found appropriate by
the Board should be described according to the functions of its various employees rather
than according to their classifications or job titles , in its brief it offered an alternative unit
description , which, with some modifications to conform to this decision, is that set forth
above. We find it infeasible to describe the employees who appropriately should be included
in this unit according to their functions.
•574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees vote "yes" to the first question, indicating their wish to be
included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will be
so included. Their votes on the second question will then be counted
together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to
decide their representative for the Employer-wide unit described in
group (a), and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue, a certification of representatives to the
labor organization for whom a majority of the employees voting cast
their ballots. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional
employees voting in group (c) vote against inclusion, they will not be
included with the nonprofessional employees, and their votes on the
second question will then be counted to decide whether and which labor
organization they want to represent them in a separate professional
unit'$
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
is Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683. .
WOOD, WIRE AND METAL LATHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No.
234, AFL and AcousTl ENGINEERING COMPANY
WOOD, WIRE AND METAL LATHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No.
234, AFL and LATHING AND PLASTERING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
or ATLANTA . Cases Nos. 10-CC-24 and 10-CC-25. December 18,
1951
Decision and Order
On September 14, 1951, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
1 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 Murdock].
97 NLRB No. 84.