Radio & Television Station WFLA

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 903 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

RADIO & TELEVISION STATION WFLA 903
as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead, and in
this instance have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent Union engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the statute.
Specifically it has been found that the Respondent Union, by its officers, agents,
and designated representatives, has induced or encouraged the employees of James I.
Barnes Construction Company and various other employers to engage in a strike or
a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services for their respective employers with the object of forcing or
requiring James I. Barnes Construction Company and Cramer Acoustics to cease
doing business with Power Brothers, Inc., because of the latter's failure or refusal
to employ lathers for a part of the work involved in the performance of its contract
to install dry-wall material at the California Electric job. It will be recommended
therefore that the Respondent Union cease and desist from such conduct, and that
it post notices at appropriate places, declarative of its intention to do so.
In the light of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I have reached the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. James I. Barnes Construction Company and Power Brothers, Inc., are em-
ployers engaged in business activities which affect commerce, within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, as amended.
2. Lathers' Local Union No. 252, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers' International
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act, as amended.
3. The above-named labor organization has engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, as amended, by inducing
or encouraging the employees of James I. Barnes Construction Company, and vari-
ous other employers, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services,
with the object of forcing or requiring James I. Barnes Construction Company and
Cramer Acoustics to cease doing business with Power Brothers, Inc., because of the
failure or refusal of the latter enterprise to employ lathers for a part of the work
involved in the performance of its dry-wall construction contract at a construction
job in San Bernardino and Rialto, California.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, as amended.
5. No adequate basis has been established, under the Act, as amended, for a
conclusion that the above-named labor organization has engaged in an unfair labor
practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, as amended, by
the course of conduct described above.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Radio & Television Station WFLA (The Tribune Company) and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 108, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-,048. May 12,
1958
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 Rose Mary Filipowicz,
120 NLRB No. 121.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 organization involved claims 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of all radio and television staff an-
nouncers, floormen, directors, photographers, and film editors in the
Employer's production or program department, excluding office,
clerical, traffic, talent, copy, professional, administrative, and art de-
partment employees, news editors, special program announcers, book-
keepers, sales personnel, supervisors and guards as defined in the Act,
and all other employees. The Employer contends that there should
be two separate units : a "non-performing" unit of floormen, photog-
raphers, news editors, film editors, and art department employees,
and a "performing" unit of staff announcers, special program an-
nouncers, and talent employees. The Employer would also exclude
the directors from any unit as supervisors within the meaning of the
Act. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, seeks the exclusion,
as supervisors, of Floorman Jack Breit, Photographer Emmet Mattis,
and Film Editor Peter Holst.
The Board has held that either an overall program department
unit or separate units of employees regularly and frequently appear-
ing before the microphone and employees who do work preliminary
to the broadcasts or telecasts may be appropriate.' In the instant
case, inasmuch as no labor organization is seeking to represent the
performing and nonperforming employees separately, we. find that
a single unit of the program department employees is appropriate.'
However, the unit placement of the following employees requires
discussion.
The Employer would exclude the directors from any unit as super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. Although there is some conflict
in the evidence, it appears that the directors are responsible for the
1 The Employer has requested permission to present oral argument before the Board.
As the record and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the
request is hereby denied.
'Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation ( WGH), 100 NLRB 238, 240;'WTAR Radio
Corporation, 100 NLRB 250, 251.
3 Corn? esker Television Corporation , 117 NLRB 1065.
RADIO & TELEVISION STATION WFLA 905'
coordination and presentation of their shows and operate a control
panel in order to switch from one camera to another or to and from
file selections. The Employer's directors exercise less authority than
some of those employees with like classifications in larger stations but,
nevertheless, they do responsibly direct the employees involved in
presenting the commercials and programs emanating from WFLA.
Therefore, we shall exclude them as supervisors within the meaning
of the Act .4
The art department employees 'do the artwork connected with the
television shows. As they constitute an essential part of the program
department, we shall include them in the unit.' The news editors,
too, are part of the program department and we shall include them
in the unit.6 Moreover, as the record reveals that the Employer ex-
ercises sufficient control over the work of the special program an-
nouncers and talent personnel to bring them within the Act's definition
of "employees," we shall include them in the unit .7
The Petitioner would exclude three individuals as supervisors.
The Employer claims that they are merely leadmen. The employees
involved are: Jack Breit, the senior floorman; Emmet Mattis, the
senior photographer; and Peter Holst, the senior film editor. The
evidence shows that Mattis; performs the same duties as the other
photographers. With regard to Holst, he does the same work, as the
other film editors but also handles the receiving and shipping of films.
Any directions passed on to his coworkers are given to him by others.
The higher salaries these employees receive result from their ability
and seniority. Accordingly, we find that Mattis and Holst are not
supervisors and we shall include them in the unit.
There is conflicting evidence concerning Breit's supervisory status.
There is testimony in the record that Breit's authority does not exceed
that possessed by the senior employees in the film editor and photog-
rapher groups, whom we have included in the unit. However, there
is other testimony indicating that he may effectively recommend dis-
ciplinary action and discharge and that his powers extend beyond
those of a crew chief or leadman. We shall, therefore, permit Breit
to vote subject to challenge.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act."
' Northwest Publications, Inc., 116 NLRB 1578.
5 Empire Coil Co ., Inc., 106 NLRB 1069.
Delaware Broadcasting Company, 82 NLRB 727.
z Westinghouse Radio Stations , Inc., 107 NLRB 1407.
8 Although the unit found appropriate herein is larger than that requested by the
Petitioner , we shall nevertheless direct that an election be held, in view of the sufficiency
of the Petitioner's showing of interest in the larger unit. However , the Regional Director
is authorized to permit the withdrawal of the petition without prejudice upon the timely
request of the Petitioner.
906 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production ' department employees at the Employer's Radio &
Television Station WFLA, at Tampa , Florida , including the staff and
special program announcers , talent employees , news editors ,'floormen,
photographers , film editors , and art department employees, but
excluding the directors , office clerical , traffic , copy, professional,
administrative , bookkeeping , and sales employees , all other employees,
guards, and 'supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted , from publication.]
United States Gypsum Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1476: May 12,
1958
• DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ralph A. Dunham,
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
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 organization involved claims to represent 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's gypsum products plant and
mine at Shoals, Indiana. There are about 225 employees in the plant
and mine, of whom approximately 35 are salaried and not in dispute.
The remaining 190 employes are hourly, paid and comprise the unit
sought by the Petitioner.
.
The Employer would exclude • from the. unit certain hourly paid
leadmen who it contends' are supervisors, and would exclude testers
as technical employees. It relies in part upon the, fact that these lead-
men were previously found to be supervisors and, together with the
testers, were excluded from the production and maintenance unit
found to be appropriate at these operations by the Board in its deci-
sion in Case No. 35-RC-1274 dated July 10, 1956.1 However, we do,
1 Not printed. In that case testers were excluded from the unit by agreement of the
parties. No bargaining representative was selected as a result of the election held therein.
120 NLRB No. 128.