Columbia Pictures Corp., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Company has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By renewing , continuing , and reaffirming the said contract containing un-
lawful union-security provisions, with the intention that such provisions be
enforced, Local 830 joined with the Respondent Company in creating conditions
which would result in future discrimination , thereby attempting to cause
the Respondent Company to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent Company has not violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
7. Local 830 has not violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
8. `65', The Wholesale, Retail and Warehouse Workers' Union of New York
and New Jersey, has not violated the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION, ET AL .1 and SOCIETY OF MOTION
PICTURE ART DIRECTORS, PETITIONER. Case No. 01-RC-12521.
May 15, 1951
Decision and Order
,Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Harrington,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in the classifications of
set designer, illustrator, sketch artist, assistants, and apprentices, and
set model builder, assistants, and apprentices in the art departments
'Columbia Pictures Corporation , Loews, Incorporated ( Metro-Goldwyn -Mayer),
Paramount Pictures Corporation , Republic Productions , Inc., RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation , Universal Pictures Company, Inc., and Warner
Brothers Pictures, Inc.
'Exhibits consisting of a number of collective bargaining contracts between the Em-
ployers and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture
Operators of the U. S. and Canada , AFL, hereinafter termed IATSE , were admitted in
evidence at the hearing by the hearing officer over the objection of the latter organization.
In the course of hearing , this decision of the hearing officer was appealed to the Board.
At that time the Board denied the appeal on the ground it would decide the case on the
entire record At the completion of the hearing , the appeal was renewed. The appeal
from the ruling of the hearing officer is herewith denied for reasons stated in paragraph
numbered 2 of the instant decision.
94 NLRB No. 72.
COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION, ET AL. 467,
of the Employer's studios. IATSE contends that the Petitioner is,
organized and dominated by supervisory personnel and is thus in-
capable of representation of nonsupervisory employees in the requested
unit. The Employers take no position as to this issue.3
The Petitioner was organized in 1937 as a union of employees in
motion picture studios classified as supervising art directors, art
directors (also known as unit art directors), assistant art directors,
and art directors in charge of drafting rooms (also known as head
draftsmen). The organization was then dormant until 1939 when it
was certified by the Board as representative of all supervising art
directors, art directors, and follow-up men at the Employers' studios 4
In August, of the same year, supervising art directors were restricted
to inactive membership and participation in the Union. As a result,
the Petitioner's present active membership consists of employees in the
classifications of art director, assistant art director, and head
draftsman.
The Petitioner's membership and the employees sought in the instant
petition all work in the art departments of motion picture studios
where their work is concerned with the conception, development, and
design of stage settings including the preparation of sketches, models,
and designs.' Studio art departments consist of employees in the
classifications of supervising art director, assistant supervising art di-
rector, art directors, assistant art director, head draftsman, set de-
signer, illustrator, sketch artists, and model builder. All but two of
the Employers' art departments are under the over-all supervision of
a supervising art director who has unquestioned authority to hire, dis-
charge, and perform other functions of supervision.- Head drafts-
men are directly responsible for the work done by the drafting room,
which consists of the employees in the unit requested by the Peti-
tioner. Head draftsmen also have clear authority to hire, discharge,
and discipline these employees. Art directors, who occupy a position
roughly comparable to that of an architect, are concerned with the
conception and preparation of sets, sketches, and designs and models,
used in the construction of sets. In the course of their work they
collaborate with and allegedly supervise the drafting room employees
whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. Assistant art directors act
a Local No. 1421 , Screen Set Designers , Illustrators and Decorators , Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America , AFL, was also granted intervention at
the hearing but presented no evidence and took no position as to the issues therein.
4 13 NLRB 898; 15 NLRB 247.
A small number of members of the Petitioner work in the television industry. The
great majority , however, work either*at studies of the Employers or at independent studios.
6 The remaining two art departments are under the supervision of department heads
who do not have the classification of supervising art director and act only in an adminis-
trative capacity . At the studios of at least one of the Employers , the supervising art
director has an assistant who assumes his duties and authority in his absence.
468 DECISIONS OF NATION 1L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as "leg men" for the art director and generally assist them in their
work.
The drafting room employees-sketch artists , illustrators , set de-
signers, and set model builders , as well as their respective assistants
and apprentices, are all directly supervised by the head draftsman and
work in close coordination with the art director to whom the particular
picture is assigned . Illustrators and sketch artists, as the names
imply, make sketches of sets to be used in the production of a motion
picture. The layouts and working drawings for the construction
and erection of the sets are then produced by the set designers; while
model builders create models for use in the same process . The record
shows that the type, manner , and amount of direction of these em-
ployees by the art director vary with the individuals and the particular
problems involved in each instance because of the unusual character of
the work produced . An individual art director assigned the task of
designing sets and backgrounds for a motion picture first creates the
basic ideas for the sets which the illustrator , set designer, and model
builder must then transform into sketches , drawings , and scale models.
The resulting work relationship , of necessity , involves a close coordina-
tion of the art director 's ideas and the particular skills of the illustra-
tor, set designer, or model builder. As the work progresses, the art
director offers criticism , corrections , and instructions of various types
in order that the resulting sketch or set model will reflect his original
ideas and the demands of the assignment . Assignments of drafting
room personnel to the art director are made by the head draftsman
and final approval of the work of these employees is given by the
supervising art director.
Organization of the employees in the drafting room commenced
at the instigation of various set designers , illustrators , and model
builders who approached the Petitioner as to the possibility of affilia-
tion or membership. Several meetings followed which were attended
by art directors and by representatives of the various classifications
named in the petition . A committee from the various studios was
elected which presented a petition for affiliation to the Petitioner.
The record shows that some of the organizational work was carried
on during working hours in the studio art departments and that art
directors , allegedly acting in their private capacity and not as official
representatives of the Petitioner, assisted the employees in the
affiliation attempt.
It is contended by IATSE that the Petitioner 's membership is com-
posed in part or in whole of supervisors - as defined in the Act ; that
supervisors have been instrumental in the formation of, and at present
control , the Petitioner ; and that supervisors have materially partici-
pated in the organization of the employees who are the subject of
COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION, ET AL. 469
this petition. It is therefore urged that the Petitioner is not com-
petent, under long-standing Board policy, to serve as a bargaining
representative.' The Petitioner contests the assertions of supervisory
control and influence and further argues that, even if a substantial
portion of its membership is regarded by the Board as supervisory
in character, it should not be disqualified as a possible representative
of these employees in view of the motion picture industry practice of
commingling minor supervisors and employees in one union.
Both parties agree that supervising art directors and head drafts-
men are within the definition of supervisor found in Section 2 (11)
of the amended Act. Of these individuals, only head draftsmen are
active members of the Petitioner." Accordingly, the issue of domina-
tion of the Petitioner by supervisory personnel must be settled by a
determination of the status of the art directors who comprise the great
majority of its membership .9 The record shows that the art directors
at the Employers' studios do not have authority to hire, discharge,
transfer, suspend, recall, promote, assign, reward, discipline, adjust
grievances, or effectively recommend such action 10 The question re-
4 The policy of the Board is not to direct an election where the union seeking the
certification lacks the attributes of a bona fide labor organization and is therefore incapable
of serving as a representative of employees . The principle was early established that an
organization dominated by an employer was incapable of consideration as a bargaining
representative because of its inherent inability to bargain at arms length . In Douglas
Aircraft Company, Inc, 53 NLRB 486, this principle was applied to find that a labor
organization conceived and organized by a supervisory employee was ineligible for certifica-
tion. The rule was held to cover a situation where the petitioning union's showing of
interest was secured through the assistance of a supervisor , Toledo Stamping and Manu-
facturinq Company, 55 NLRB 865, or where supervisory members of the organization
outnumbered employees and controlled the union ' s policies and practices, Rochester and
Pittsburgh Coal Company, 56 NLRB 1760. The policy has been reiterated in recent
decisions of the Board. See Alaska Salmon Industry , Inc, 78 NLRB 185; American
District Telegraph Company of Pennsylvania, 89 NLRB 1635. See, however , California
Packing Company, 59 NLRB 941; Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 59 NLRB 1160; Comfort
Spring Corporation, 61 NLRB 980; Merrimac Mills Company, 63 NLRB 781; Allen B.
Dumont Laboratories, Inc, 88 NLRB 1296, where mere membership , limited participation,
or position of a supervisor in a labor organization was held not to destroy, per se, capacity
to act as a bona fide representative. See also, Stokely Foods, Inc, 81 NLRB 1103 , and
Alaska Salmon Industiy, Inc, 90 NLRB 168, where charges that the petitioners were
not bona fide representatives because of supervisory participation were found lacking in
merit with particular reference to the absence of any charge of domination under Section
8 (a) (2) of the Act.
8 The inactive status of supervising art directors was challenged at the hearing on
the ground that they are listed on the membership roster as active members and serve
on certain committees. The listing involved, however, appears to be one used for the
assistance of members of the Petitioner seeking positions and for informational purposes
only. The only supervising art directors serving on committees are two individuals on
the "Awards Committee" who receive and act on nominations for awards presented at
an annual banquet.
9 Although the status of assistant art directors was also challenged inferentially by
IATSD, the record supports the Petitioner' s contention that these employees are merely
helpers who have none of the statutory criteria of supervisory power. We do not pass
upon the question as to whether the inclusion of the small number of head draftsmen in
the active membership of the Petitioner would alone disqualify that organization.
10 Some independent studios, not involved in this case , do not employ supervising art
directors. At these studies , art directors who are active members of the Petitioner
exercise authority to hire and discharge.
470 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mains as to whether their work involves the use of responsible direction
of the employees in the proposed unit. The Petitioner contends that
the art director has no responsible control over the talents of the
drafting room employees and cannot exert any such control because
of the unique type of work involved. Although the exercise of in-
dividual skills by the sketch artist or other drafting room employees
may be outside the direct control of the art director as to certain
aspects of technique, it seems clear from the relationship involved
that the responsibility and authority for seeing that the ultimate
product expresses the art director's thought, is with the latter.11 On
the entire record, the Board is persuaded, and finds, that the art di-
-rector has the power of responsible direction over subordinate em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. Accordingly,
the Board finds that art directors are supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Board is of the further conclusion therefore that the Petitioner
Js predominantly composed of supervisors and that these supervisors
have materially participated in the organization of the employees
concerned herein.12 The Petitioner, however, urges that consideration
be given to industry custom as to the commingling of supervisors
and employees in the same bargaining representative and contends
that the motion picture industry has long adhered to such a pattern.
The Board has carefully considered the contract exhibits 13 submitted
by the Petitioner which allegedly substantiate the existence of such
a custom in this industry. While the Board does not consider these
.exhibits as necessarily irrelevant to the question presented herein, it
does not find that the contracts present persuasive evidence that the
customary rule of disqualification of organizations dominated by
supervisors should be deviated from in the present case. Accordingly,
as the Petitioner is predominantly composed of, organized, and con-
trolled by supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the amended
Act, the Board finds that the Petitioner is incapable of serving as the
bargaining representative of the nonsupervisory drafting room em-
ployees of the Employers and shall grant the motion of IATSE to
dismiss the petition.
1 The Board notes. in this connection, that contracts between the Petitioner and the
Employers covering units of art directors, define the classification as one "deemed to
mean an employee who directs the preparation of and /or prepares sketches and designs
of motion picture sets and/or backgrounds, and generally supervises the execution of such
designs and the decorating of said sets and /or backgrounds ." [ Emphasis added ]
y In view of our finding as to the status of art directors , the only members of the
Petitioner who remain as nonsupervisory are assistant art directors and a small number
of set designers who have membership in that organization
33 These contracts are between the Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc , on
,the one hand , and affiliated Property Craftsmen , Local 44 ; Motion Picture Costumers,
Local 705 ; Motion Picture Film Editors , Local 776 ; International Sound Technicians,
Local 695; International Photographers, Local 659; Make-up Artists and Hair Stylists,
Local 706 , and Studio Electrical Technicians , Local 728, all, affiliated with IATSE, on
the other hand, respectively.
A. SIEGEL & SONS, INC. 471
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERzoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
A. SIEGEL & SONS, INC. and LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION 80, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-997. 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 E. Don Wilson, hear-
ing 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, Murdock, 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 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.
On February 2, 1950, the Employer and Local 80, Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO, herein-
after called FTA Local 80, executed a collective bargaining contract
which provided that it was to continue in force and effect until
December 31, 1950. On September 27, 1950, the parties entered into
a supplemental agreement which, among other things, extended the
February 2 contract to December 31, 1951. The Petitioner, who filed
its petition on November 9, 1950, contends that the supplemental agree-
ment prematurely extended the basic contract, and, therefore, that the
contract as extended cannot operate as a bar to this proceeding. The
Employer takes no position with regard to the contract bar issue.
As the petition was timely with respect to the contract's original expi-
i At the hearings , the Petitioner moved that the request to intervene of Local 80, FTA
Division of Distributive , Processing and Office workers of America , hereinafter called
the Intervenor , be denied . The hearing officer allowed the Intervenor to participate in
the hearing but referred the Petitioner 's motion to the Board. The motion is denied for
reasons set forth below.
94 NLRB No. 78.