William Penn Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1175 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WILLIAM PENN BROADCASTING COMPANY 1175
Having found that Respondent has refused unlawfully to bargain with the
Union, - it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from such
refusal and upon request bargain with the Union 'in respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
Having found that Respondent granted wage increases for the purpose of
interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist
from such conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLusIoNS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists , District Lodge #49, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees in the machine shops and toolroom at the Respondent's
Phoenix, Arizona, plant, excluding office, clerical, and supervisory employees
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.
3. International Association of Machinists , District Lodge #49, was , on July 7,
1950, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain on July 10 and July 22, 1950, and thereafter, and
by unilaterally instituting wage increases on July 17, 1950, and thereafter,
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
' the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By such conduct, Respondent 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
WILLIAM PENN BROADCASTING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 4-Off--354. June
12,1951
Order Reopening Record
On April 2, 1951, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled matter, in which it dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the General Counsel failed to establish prima facie the
violation alleged. The Board held that the General Counsel failed
to prove that a real question concerning representation existed when
the Respondent renewed its contract with the ACA on February 3,
1950, in that, among other things, he did not produce necessary evi-
dence that the representation petition of the IBEW, pending at the
94 NLRB No. 188.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time of the contract renewal, encompassed employees within an appro-
priate unit.
On May 7, 1951, the General Counsel filed a motion to vacate the
Decision and Order of April 2, 1951, and to reopen the record, on
the grounds, inter alia, that because the General Counsel "did not
foresee that the Board would decide the case on an issue for the first
time deemed relevant, he did not introduce evidence relating to the
question of the appropriate unit," and that the "General Counsel
has evidence indicating the appropriateness of the unit embraced
by the IBEW's petition."
On May 9, 1951, the Board granted all parties leave to file briefs
in opposition to or in support of the General Counsel's motion. Briefs
were accordingly received from the IBEW and the ACA .1
The Board, having duly considered the General Counsel's motion,
the briefs of the IBEW and the ACA, and all matter in the record
pertinent to the issue, finds merit in the motion of the General Counsel
to reopen the record. Upon reconsideration, the Board believes that
further hearing is desirable, under the circumstances of this case, on "
the issue of whether a question concerning representation existed
when the Respondent executed its contract with the ACA, and in par-
ticular, whether the employees sought to be represented by the IBEW
constitute an appropriate unit, so that the case may be decided upon
the merits rather than upon a technical failure of the evidence.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order of April 2, 1951, dismissing
the complaint, be, and it hereby is, vacated; that so much of the De-
cision of April 2, 1951, as relates to the refusal to remand be, and it
hereby is, set aside; and that the record herein be, and it hereby, is,
reopened.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be, and it hereby is, reinanded
to the Trial Examiner to permit the introduction of further evidence
on the issue of whether there existed, when the Respondent executed
its contract with the ACA on February 3, 1950, a real question con-
cerning representation, in accordance with the principles described
in the Decision and Order of April 2, 1951, and in conformance with
the purposes outlined hereinabove; and that the Trial Examiner pre-
pare and issue an appropriate Supplemental Intermediate Report.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part, in the consideration of the above
Order Reopening Record.
1 The ACA's motion to Intervene , more fully described in the Decision and Order,
Is granted.