Booth American Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 153 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY
Booth American Company, Booth Broadcasting Divi-
sion and Henry P. Meinhardt . Case 7-CA-7959
June 15, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER and MEMBERS FANNING
and BROWN
On January 18, 1971, Trial Examiner Thomas S.
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that 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 at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter Re-
spondent filed exceptions to certain portions of the
Decision, and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Booth
American Company, Booth Broadcasting Division,
Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order.
Without passing on the broad implications of the Trial Examiner's
characterization of the legal principles applicable in "mixed motive" cases,
we agree on this record with his conclusion that Meinhardt's protected
activites were a substantial motivating factor leading to his discharge, and
that but for such activities, his logging violations would not have resulted
in his discharge
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge duly
filed on May 25, 1970, by Henry P. Meinhardt, an individual,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board,
respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 7, Detroit,
Michigan, issued its complaint dated July 24, 1970, against
' This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing.
153
Booth American Company, Booth Broadcasting Division,'
herein referred to as the Respondent.
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as
amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denying the commision of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before me
in Detroit, Michigan, on September 15 through 19, 1970. All
parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
material and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the
hearing, oral argument was waived. A brief was received from
Respondent on November 30, 1970.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted , and I there-
fore find:
Booth American Company, Booth Broadcasting Division,
is, and has been at all time material herein, a corporation duly
organized under , and existing by virtue of, the laws of the
State of Michigan . At all times material herein , Respondent
has maintained its only office and place of business at 2300
Buhl Building in Detroit , Michigan . Respondent is, and has
been at all times material herein, engaged in the operation of
various radio stations in the States of Michigan, Ohio, and
Indiana, including Station WJLB and Station WMZK
located at 3100 David Broderick Tower, in Detroit , Michi-
gan, the only facilities involved in this proceeding . During the
year ending December 31, 1969, which period is representa-
tive of its operations at all times material hereto, Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived
gross revenues in excess of $500 ,000. During the same period,
Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions, held membership in, or subscribed to, various interstate
news services , including the Associated Press, and received a
gross revenue in excess of $50 ,000 from the advertising of
various nationally sold products , including automobiles
manufactured by General Motors Corporation and Ford Mo-
tor Company.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent is now, and has been
at all times material herein , engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE UNION INVOLVED
Local 1218, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' The name of Respondent has been changed in the title in accordance
with the agreement of counsel at the hearing
' Although General Counsel requested and received two extensions of
time in which to file a brief, he ultimately filed none
191 NLRB No. 23
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Henry P. Meinhardt began his employment with Respond-
ent in 1961 as a combined control room operator and staff
announcer for Stations WJLB and WMZK which Respond-
ent operates on the 31st floor of the Broderick Tower Build-
ing in Detroit, Michigan. He continued in that capacity, with
a break in service in the early 1960's, until discharged by
Respondent on April 15, 1970, under circumstances to be
discussed hereinafter.
Jerry V. Tertzakian and Donald L. Mozak joined the staff
in comparable positions in 1962. Tertzakian also became a
radio personality (disc jockey) during 1968.
From 1968 to date Respondent's control room staff has
always consisted of six such operators.
Early in 1968 the operators decided that they needed a
union. Meinhardt thereupon contacted one "Doc" Sprenkle
of AFL-CIO who gave him union authorization cards for the
Union for the operators to sign. Meinhardt succeeded in
getting such authorization cards signed including that by
Mozak. He also invited Tertzakian to attend a union meeting
with "Chuck" Wilson, business agent of the Union, at which
time Tertzakian also signed a union authorization card.
After receipt of these signed cards from Meinhardt, Local
1218 filed a representation petition for an election in a unit
of the control room operators. On February 20, 1968, the
Board held a representation hearing at which Meinhardt tes-
tified as the only witness on behalf of the Union on the unit
question. Thereafter Respondent Vice President Edward H.
Clark, Station Manager DeSautel, and Director of Engineer-
ing Wolfcale testified on behalf of Respondent.
On April 18 , 1968 , the representation election was held.
The Union lost on a three to three vote.
On April 26, 1968, Respondent called a meeting of its
operators at which Clark, DeSautel, and General Manager
Thomas J. Warner were present along with the operators.
Respondent wanted to know the employees' problems. At
this meeting Meinhardt asked about company policy and
requested that Respondent put the job duties of the operators
on paper. Respondent refused on the ground that the opera-
tors were "a team," each member of which "should pick up
the ball if it were dropped." During this meeting, in response
to a question by Meinhardt, Warner announced the appoint-
ment of Tertzakian as the control room supervisor who
would be the representative of the operators and be their
"mouthpiece" for their gripes. It was also announced at this
time that Mozak was being promoted to the engineering de-
partment.
Among other duties it is the responsibility of the control
room supervisor, Tertzakian, to check the program logs kept
by the operators and to either make corrections himself
thereon or to have the operators make the necessary correc-
tions. Tertzakian testified that "very frequently" he makes
the corrections on the program logs himself. Although it is
the business of the engineering department to check the trans-
mitter logs, Tertzakian, as he phrased it, "took it upon myself
approximately in December and January of 1969 and '70 to
periodically check the transmitter logs" while "constantly
attempting to upgrade our [control room] performance." So
Tertzakian undertook "the obligation" to check the transmit-
ter logs periodically in addition to his regular duties.
Then in early 1970 Tertzakian turned up the sound on the
FM monitor of Station WMZK in the control room to such
a degree that it bothered Meinhardt and operator Edward L.
Gajec, at least. Meinhardt requested Tertzakian to turn the
volume down on the minitor. Tertzakian refused and threat-
ened to discharge anyone who lowered it.
Gajec and Meinhardt then took the question of lowering
the volume of the FM monitor to Station Manager DeSautel
who could only say that he could not do anything about it and
referred the men to his superior, Warner. The men saw
Warner that same day. Warner agreed that the volume
should be turned down, acknowledging that it could interfere
with the work of the operators but stated that he "could do
nothing about it."
A day or so later Tertzakian inquired of Meinhardt why he
and Gajec had gone to see Warner about the monitor.
Thereafter the following memorandum over the signature
of Tertzakian appeared at the control console:
This monitor level has been properly adjusted....
It is not to be altered...
Should I learn of any staff member altering this level,
he will be discharged...
Once again the control room operators decided that they
needed a union. Once again Meinhardt went to Sprenkle and
Chuck Wilson, received union authorization cards, and had
the operators execute them and return the signed cards to
Sprenkle. Meinhardt got the cards signed in the control room
of the station.
On March 19, 1970, Local 1218 filed another representa-
tion petition with the Board. Sometime between then and
March 25 the Board's Regional Office notified Respondent of
the filing of this petition.
By telegram sent at 3:18 p.m. on March 25 Respondent's
attorneys requested the Regional Office to postpone a hearing
on the Union's petition then scheduled for March 30.
On March 25 Meinhardt reported for his 4 p.m. to mid-
night shift as usual . At 6:50 p.m. he attempted to shift from
the daytime transmitter to the Collins 250-watt transmitter
as was customary but was unable to do so by remote control
due to a mechanical malfunction. He called Vernon Robbins,
the chief engineer. At 9:40 p.m. he noted the meter readings
on the station transmitter log. At 9:44 p.m. the switch to the
Collins transmitter was successfully accomplished and Mein-
hardt reported the meter readings to Robbins orally over the
telephone but he did not record them on the log.
At this time Meinhardt was busy helping the disc jockey
with his show, recording two news reports for broadcast over
the two stations, and answering the public telephones." Mein-
hardt failed to take the transmitter meter readings at 10:08,
10:37, and 11:05 p.m. as required by Federal Communication
Commission rules. Upon noting these omissions Meinhardt,
forgetting the change of transmitters at 9:44 p.m., copied the
meter readings previously made for the daytime transmitter
as the meter readings on the Collins transmitter for those
three periods. At 11:34 p.m. Meinhardt actually took the
readings and reported them correctly on the log. This called
his attention to the fact that his log readings for the interven-
ing periods were incorrect. He made no attempt to correct the
log.
According to the testimony of Meinhardt, he reported the
incorrect readings on the log to chief engineer Robbins and
asked how his errors could be corrected on the log. According
to the testimony of Robbins, there was no such telephone call.
While performing his self-imposed "obligation" of examin-
ing the transmitter logs, in addition to his regularly assigned
duty of checking the program logs, Tertzakian discovered the
errors Meinhardt had made on the March 25 log on the
morning of March 26 and promptly called them to the atten-
tion of Engineer Cliff Yaney. Yaney in turn brought the
errors to the attention of Warner. Warner in turn called the
° On the 4 p.m to midnight shift which Meinhardt worked the operator
was required to take care of the telephone calls as there was no telephone
operator on duty after 5 p.m.
BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY
matter to the attention of Vice President Clark who advised
Warner to send a letter of reprimand to Meinhardt . So that
day with Clark 's assistance Warner had the following repri-
mand typed up which he handed to Meinhardt the next time
he saw Meinhardt:
Subject-Falsifying Logs
It has been brought to my attention that you wrong-
fully made entries in WJLB 's station log of March 25,
1970, during the period of your shift , 4:00 p .m. to mid-
night.
Your log entry showed reduced RCA at 6:45 p.m. The
further entry shows a switch to Collins at 9:44 p.m. Yet
the RCA readings were maintained from 6 : 51 to 11:05
in spite of the change.
Further, at 9:44 p.m. you notified the Chief Engineer
that the read out on dial 5 was 2 . 63. It did not so appear
on the log.
This is a willful and repetitive violation . It is against
FCC regulations and Company policy . A repetition of
this act will result in your dismissal.
At some time undisclosed in the present record because
Warner could not recall the date, Warner requested a "dis-
crepancy report" regarding the March 25 log from Mein-
hardt.
During his shift in the control room on April 2 Meinhardt
prepared the following DR (discrepancy report) regarding
the March 25 log:
WRONG READINGS ON WJLB OPERATING LOG
FROM 9 44 PM TO 11 34 PM
WAS RUNNING ON THE RCA 250 W UP UNTIL 9 44 PM
CHIEF ENGINEER CALLED IN AT 9 44 PM AND I CHANGED OVER
PER HIS REQUEST TO THE COLLINS 250 WATTER THE COLLINS 250
W IS THE PREFERRED TRANSMITTER HOWEVER THIS PARTICULAR
DAY THE COLLINS WOULD NOT "KICK ON " DURING THE POWER
CHANGE (6-45PM) CALLED VERN ROBBINS AT 6 50 PM NOTIFING
HIM) OF THE MALFUNCTION OF THE COLLINS 250 WATTER CHIEF
TOLD ME THAT HE COULD NOT GO TO THE TRANSMITTER AT THAT
TIME BUT HE WOULD GET THERE IN A COUPLE OF HOURS SAID HE
HAD SOME WORK TO DO (STATION WORK) NORMALLY, HE
WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN ABOUT 15 TO 20 MINUTES DURING
THE TIME I CALLED VERN AND HE CALLED IN FROM THE TRANS-
MITTER-I GOT TIED UP WITH PROGRAMMING AND THE GENERAL
PUBLIC TELEPHONE AND THE LOUD FM MONITOR OF WHICH CAN-
NOT BE TURNED DOWN PER JERRY 'S ORDERS AT THIS TIME I
WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO DETAIL AT 900 PM I WAS ASKED BY
JOHNNY ZOIS OF THE DETROIT HOUR TO ASSIST HIM WITH HIS
PROGRAM HE ASKED ME IF I WOULD CHANGE THE RECORDS
WHILE HE PLAYED A TAPE AND OPERATED THE CART MACHINES
I ASSISTED HIM IN THE REQUEST- (COMPANY POLICY
PICKING UP LOOSE ENDS ) THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM WAS
LONGER THAN THE USUAL TIME THAT NIGHT IT WAS ON ONE
HALF HOUR LONGER FROM 900 PM TO 10 00 PM WHEN VERN
CALLED AT 9 44 PM I WAS VERY BUSY HAD TO PREPARE A AM
NEWSCAST FOR 9 -50 PM OF WHICH HAD TO AIR JUST 6 MINUTES
AFTER HE CALLED IN AND THEN I HAD TO PREPARE A RECORDED
FM NEWSCAST FOR 1000 PM JUST TEN MINUTES LATER I
CHANGED TO THE COLLINS 250 WATTER AND GAVE HIM THE NUM-
BER FIVE READING QUICKLY I HAD TO GET HIM OFF THE PHONE
BECAUSE NOT ONLY DID I HAVE TO PREPARE A NEWSCAST THAT
WOULD AIR IN JUST 6 MINUTES BUT THE "GENERAL TELEPHONE"
WAS ACTIVATING THAT NIGHT MORE THAN USUAL AND THE FM
MONITOR WAS UP SO HIGH THAT IT WAS A STRUGGLE TRYING TO
COMPREHEND THE NEWS PRIOR TO GOING ON THE AIR AND
THEN ATTEMPTING TO RECORD ANOTHER NEWSCAST FOR OUR
OTHER STATION WMZK IN TEN MINUTES AFTER THE 10 00 PM NES
ON WMZK-FM OF WHICH I HAD TO FINALLY AIR IT LIVE FROM
STUDIO "E" BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL TELEPHONE CALLS PUMP-
155
ING THRU MASTER CONTROL I FINALLY SETTLED DOWN IN
MASTER CONTROL AND STARTED MY LOGGING ON THE FM PRO-
GRAM LOG AS WELL AS THE AM PROGRAM LOG. IT WAS AROUND
10 15 PM WHEN I STARTED LOGGING MY BACK LOG OF LOGS ON
THE FM PROGRAMS THAT HAD ALREADY AIRED THE POLISH PRO-
GRAM THE GERMAN PROGRAM AND THE DETROIT GREEK HOUR
PROGRAM THIS TOOK ME TILL AROUND 10 30 PM . AT THAT TIME
I HAD TO PREPARE FOR MY 10 50 NEWSCAST FOR WJLB OF WHICH
I DID ALSO ANSWERING THE GENERAL TELEPHONE WHILE DOING
THIS . AFTER THE 10:15 PM NEWSCAST I RECHECKED AM AND FM
PROGRAM LOGS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING (COMMERCIAL
MATTER) HAD AIRED AND CONTINUED LOGGING AM PROGRAM
LOG WHILE LOGGING BACKLOG ON FM (POLISH, GERMAN, AND
GREEK) 10 05 PM TO 10 30 PM METERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ.
DURING NORMAL CONDITIONS THEY WOULD HAVE COME TO MY
MIND TO BE READ . BUT ALL THRU THE LOGGING OPERATION
FROM THAT TIME TILL I DID TAKE A CORRECT METER READING,
CONCENTRATION ON METER READINGS WERE ALMOST IMPOSSI-
BLE DUE TO THE FM MONITOR BEING ON SO LOUD AND CON-
STANT INTERRUPTIONS FROM THE "GENERAL TELEPHONE" THE
ONLY REMINDER TO LET YOU KNOW TO TAKE A METER READING
IS YOUR MIND HAS TO BE FREE FROM CONCENTRATION AND
THAT IS WHAT I DID NOT HAVE AFTER WORKING IN THIS ROOM
FOR MANY YEARS MY EARS HAVE BEEN TUNED TO LISTENING TO
EVERYTHING BUT THIS NEW INNOVATION OF THE FM MONITOR
BEING ON AS LOUD AS IT IS, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME KIND
OF INDICATOR OR SOMETHING TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF METER
READING AT 11 34 PM I FINALLY (AFTER MY FM 11 30 PM NEWS-
CAST) TOOK A METER READING AND REALIZED THAT I MADE AN
ERROR ON THE WJLB OPERATING LOG I DID COPY DOWN THE
WRONG READINGS BUT IT WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY
I, DID NOT MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT THE
WRONG READING BECAUSE IT IS COMPANY POLICY THAT THE
ERROR OR ERROR 'S ARE MADE BY THE LICENSE ON DUTY AT THAT
TIME BUT WITH THE ASSIST OF THE ENGINEERING DEPT WHO
WILL SHOW THE LICENSEE HOW TO MAKE THE CORRECTION THE
FOLLOWING DAY, THURSDAY , I WAS WAITING FOR AN ENGINEER
TO SHOW ME HOW TO CORRECT MY ERROR I WAS ALSO ON MEDI-
CATION PER DOCTOR 'S PRESCRIPTION [SIC}.
While preparing this DR, Meinhardt once again was late
in taking one of the half hour meter readings required by the
FCC. Once again he forgot the change to the Collins 250-
watt transmitter and once again repeated the reading in the
log for the prior transmitter in use. This time Meinhardt
noted his error and tried to erase the errorwith the result that
he tore a hole in the log. Figuring that FCC would not think
highly of a torn log especially at a time when Respondent's
license was up for renewal , Meinhardt got out another blank
log and copied the entries from the original log into the new
log. This copying was verbatim including the signatures and
initials of the prior operators . At the end of his shift Mein-
hardt left the reconstructed log at the station but took the
original torn log home with him.
On the morning of April 3 Engineer Yaney checked over
the transmitter log of April 2 in the same room with Tert-
zakian. Yaney then took the log he was inspecting from the
room to confer with Warner in Warner 's office. According to
Tertzakian , he, Tertzakian , became "concerned" about Ya-
ney's taking the log from the room so he "broke into" the
Warner-Yaney conference in Warner 's office but was told
that they "would get to him" later . Shortly thereafter
Warner , according to Tertzakian , asked Tertzakian 's opinion
as to the authenticity of the signatures and initials of the
operators on the April 2 log . Tertzakian voiced the opinion
that they were not authentic. Warner promptly notified Vice
President Clark of the suspected reconstruction of the log and
was instructed by Clark "to be sure." About 3 o'clock that
afternoon Warner sent Tertzakian to operator Dana's home
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to ascertain if Dana's signatures and initials on the April 2
log were in fact authentic. Dana denied that they were his.
Warner investigated the authenticity of the signatures and
initials from operator Grant who also denied their authen-
ticity. That evening after receiving Tertzakian's report,
Warner wrote out identical affidavits to the effect that his
signatures and initials were not authentic for operators Grant
and Dana to execute. Dana executed his affidavit but Dana
refused to execute the affidavit prepared for him on the
grounds that "in good conscience" he could not. No effort
was made to contact Meinhardt about the matter.
On Monday, April 6, the parties to the R case met at the
Board's office to discuss the possibility of a consent election
which was ultimately agreed to. Among those present were
Meinhardt, Clark, and Warner. At this time Meinhardt's
name was included among the eligible voters in the election
without objection.
About 4:30 that same day after Meinhardt had begun his
shift, Tertzakian informed Meinhardt that Vice President
Clark wanted to see Meinhardt at Clark's office in the Buhl
Building. Upon arrival there Meinhardt discovered Warner
and Treasurer Wolfcale with Clark in the office. Clark had
the reconstructed log of April 2 in his hand and told Mein-
hardt that he was trying to clear up discrepancies in the logs
because of the impending license renewal before the FCC.
Meinhardt answered that he was glad that Clark had brought
up that matter and pointed out that Mozak's license had been
hanging on the wall of the station for 2Y, years unsigned and,
therefore, invalid . Clark then inquired if the readings were
valid and if the signatures were authentic on the April 2 log.
At this point Meinhardt refused to answer and told Clark to
see Meinhardt's attorney. Warner requested that Meinhardt
prepare a DR about the April 2 log and requested that Mein-
hardt return the original log. With that the meeting broke up.
Thereafter Meinhardt continued working his regular shifts.
During the week of March 29 Tertzakian telephoned oper-
ator Jay Dana and asked Dana to meet him downtown at the
Mayflower Coffee Shop. At the coffeeshop Tertzakian in-
formed Dana that the station manager 's job had become
vacant,' that he thought that he, Tertzakian, had a good
chance of getting the job and felt that Dana was the "logical"
person to succeed him in his supervisor 's job . Tertzakian
explained that it was more exciting to work for a company
where he had a chance "to advance" rather than "to remain
relatively frozen in a routine job."
On April 3 Tertzakian called in person, as noted above, at
Dana's home when Dana orally informed Tertzakian that the
signatures and initials on the April 2 log were not authentic.
However on April 6 when Tertzakian asked Dana to execute
an affidavit to this effect , Dana refused, even after Tertzakian
called in Warner to argue with Dana, on the grounds that he
could not sign the Affidavit "in good conscience."
Then a few days after the April 6 meeting in the Board's
offices, Tertzakian had another conversation with Dana. At
this time Tertzakian told Dana that he, Tertzakian, "now
knew" where Dana stood, that Dana would not be "fed"
more information , and that he was disappointed because he
felt that Dana had the potential for growth in the Company
and that "no station promoted personnel from within the
bargaining unit to a position outside the unit."6
As Meinhardt reported for work on April 14, he presented
Respondent with his DR regarding the April 2 log. This DR
read as follows:
' At or about this time DeSautel was transferred from the station mana-
ger's job.
6 In his testimony Tertzakian denied none of the above testimony by
Dana.
SHORTLY AFTER POWER CHANGE, (715 PM) ON 412170
I COPIED DOWN THE READINGS OF THE COLLINS 1000 WATTER MY
MIND WAS ON THE REPORT THAT MY SUPERVISOR "REQUESTED
IMMEDIATELY" FOR APRIL 25, 1970 IT MADE IT VERY HARD (FM
MONITOR) TO CONCENTRATE ON THE APRIL 25, REPORT AS I WAS
COMPOSING THIS REPORT, ON THE TYPEWRITER AND ANSWER-
ING THE TELEPHONE AND THE FM MONITOR ON LOUD, PER
SUPERVISOR'S REQUEST THAT MONITOR LEVEL MAY NOT BE
TURNED DOWN OR BE DISCHARGED, I LOOKED OVER AT THE OP-
ERATING LOG (AM) AND NOTICED THAT I WAS BEHIND A READ-
ING I COPIED DOWN THE PRIOR READINGS THEY WERE THE
READINGS ON THE COLLINS 1000 WATTER I NOTICED THIS ERROR
WHEN I WAS ABOUT TO TAKE THE NEXT READING I MADE AN
ATTEMPT TO ERASE THE ERROR AND PUT THE RIGHT READING IN
IT'S PLACE I PUT A SMALL HOLE THRU THE LOG I KNEW THAT THE
FCC MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT HOLE WHEN THEY COME IN FOR IN-
SPECTION I THEN MADE A COPY OF THE LOG WITH THE CORRECT
READINGS AND FILLED OUT EVERYTHING ELSE SIGNATURES
AND ALL THE NEXT DAY I NOTIFIED THE CHIEF ENGINEER-
VERN ROBBINS OF MY ACTION AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE
ORIGINAL LOG WAS NOT DESTROYED
I HAVE ALSO BEEN UNDER MEDICATION PRESCRIBED
BY MY DOCTOR [SIC]
On April 14 Clark and Warner conferred again on the
Meinhardt affair. Clark telephoned Robbins regarding Mein-
hardt's claim in the DR that he had spoken to Robbins about
correcting the March 25 log. Robbins denied having had any
such conversation. Clark and Warner decided to discharge
Meinhardt and set about drafting a letter of dismissal for
Warner to sign.
A very few minutes before going on duty on April 15
Meinhardt returned the original log of April 2 to Warner.
Three minutes after commencing work at 4 p.m. Warner
summoned Meinhardt to his office. Meinhardt signed off the
log and an engineer signed on in his place. In his office
Warner read Meinhardt the following letter:
April 15, 1970
Dear Mr. Meinhardt:
On March 26th you were given a warning that a repe-
tition of your failure to make proper transmitter log
entries during your duty shift as evidenced on the WJLB
transmitter operating log of March 25, 1970 will result
in your dismissal. It is evident from your answer to
Company's memo of March 26th regarding the log of
March 25th that your entries in question were not made
in accordance with instructions and in violation of
F.C.C. regulation 73.113 (regarding time of readings).
On Thursday, April 2, 1970 during your duty shift
(4:00 PM to 12 Midnight) the WJLB transmitter operat-
ing log for that day was removed from the control room
and another log similarly dated and reconstructed sub-
stitued [sic]. An examination of the signatures and ini-
tialing disclosed those of Jay D.M. Dana and Robert
Grant were forged. This, according to your report has
been acknowledged by you.
Your written explanation of attempting erasures on
the original log, plus your statement that you did in fact
reconstruct the operating log of April 2nd, together with
writing the signatures of Dana and Grant , are inexcusa-
ble.
Your refusal to sign your own discrepancy report at
my request which you hand delivered to me in my office
at 4:00pm, April 14th, was defiance of authority.
Further, you removed the original operating log from
the file. It was only after another direct order from me
that it be returned forwith, [sic] that the log was re-
BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY
turned. This original log was not in the possession of the
station for 13 days.
The removal and destruction of an operating log is a
serious violation of F.C.C. regulations, Section 73.11(c).
In view of the above serious infractions, this is your
notice of immediate dismissal.
At the conclusion of reading the above letter Warner in-
structed Tertzakian who was also present in the office that he,
Warner, did not want Meinhardt on the floor any more and
to make sure that he was not.
Thus ended Meinhardt's employment with Respondent.
He has not been reinstated since.
On July 1 the Michigan Employment Security Commission
(herein called MESC) held an appeals hearing on a compen-
sation claim filed by Meinhardt from a prior ruling of the
commission that Meinhardt had been "discharged from em-
ployment with Booth American Company for misconduct."
According to the recollection of Respondent's attorney this
hearing began about 1 p.m. Operator Edward Gajec had been
subpenaed as a witness on behalf of Meinhardt. He testified
either on July 1 or at a resumption of the hearing on July 13.
Under date of July 1 the following written reprimand over
the signature of Warner was given to Gajec:
July 1, 1970
Dear Mr. Gajec:
On March 22, 1970, after taking and logging a total
of eight (8) consecutive WJLB transmitter readings over
the output power limits without any reason for this im-
proper action, you were advised on March 23, 1970, and
for a number of times thereafter, of the vital importance
of correcting the affected transmitter and/or qualifying
readings regarding over/under output power limits.
On Monday, June 29, 1970, you logged three (3) con-
secutive over limit output power readings on the RCA
250 watt transmitter-without any qualification, or appar-
ent attempt to correct the affected transmitter.
Your actions of March 22, 1970, and June 29, 1970,
are in violation of FCC Regulation 73.113, as pertaining
to the operating (transmitter) log.
Further, on June 3, 1970 , you were presented in great
detail by your immediate supervisor, Jerry V. Tert-
zakian, an explanation of FCC Regulation 73.11 /c, per-
taining to logging procedure.
Since that date , examination of the operating (trans-
mitter) logs by the engineering department has revealed
a grand total of twenty-four (24) violations of the afore-
mentioned regulation.
BREAKDOWN:
6/19 WMZK-1
6/19 WJLB-2
6/20 WMZK-2
6/23 WJLB-4
6/24 WJLB-9
6/29 WMZK-1
6/29 WJLB-1
6/30 WMZK--4
In spite of the repeated warnings you continue to
violate FCC regulations.
You are now on notice that a repetition of these
offences will call for your immediate dismissal.
Following the MESC hearing the following over the signature
of Warner was posted in the control room for the edification
of the control room operators:
For Control Room Operators and Engineering Person-
nel:
157
In a recent hearing concerning unemployment benefits
for Henry P. Meinhardt some WJLB/WMZK Control
Room operators expressed their opinion that Manage-
ment condoned or permitted false entries of transmitter
readings in the transmitter logs; such as the copying of
prior readings in lieu of actual readings , and/or the sign-
ing in or out of other operators who neglected to sign in
or out themselves, and/or the destruction or removal of
original logs, in the event it is necessary to start a new
log.
For the information of those concerned, Management
has not or will not condone or knowingly permit false log
entries, false signatures or any other violations of all
Federal Communication Commissions Rules concerning
the operation of Radio Broadcasting Stations.
Please be advised that should a licensed control room
operator or other F . C.C. licensed personnel be ruled
guilty of violation of the F.C.C. rules and regulations the
F.C.C. may take direct action against the licensed opera-
tor.
Management considers that sufficient warning has been
given to Control Room operators and other licensed
personnel that evidence of violation of the following will
result in immediate dismissal:
(1) False log entries
(a) Transmitter readings not actually made.
(b) Signatures or initials of other operators.
(c) Destruction or removal of original log sheets.
(d) Reconstructing logs without direct authoriza-
tion of Management.
(e) Erasure or overwriting of log entries.
(2) Other Regulations:
(a) Failure to inform Engineering of "off limit"
transmitter operation, and take corrective action.
(b) Failure to make proper program log entries.
(c) Engaging in any form of "Payola."
In the event a time period for a log entry is exceeded the
actual time of the reading when made must be entered
and a notation made on the log as to why the late reading
was made.
In the event an operator is unable to correct "off limit"
transmitter operation it is the responsibility of the opera-
tor on duty to immediately inform Engineering at the
earliest possible moment , and remove the "off limit"
transmitter from the air.
Your initial below indicates that you have read this no-
tice and understand its contents.
On July 28 Referee Wesleyan Voigt affirmed the prior
decision against Meinhardt in which the following appears:
A further matter brought out by the claimant was his
contention and belief that his discharge had some bear-
ing on his union activities. Claimant stated that he had
been active in organizing a union and having an election,
and that two elections had been held as to operators for
the company. This was denied by the employer, it being
indicated by supervisory and management witnesses,
that they had no knowledge of claimant 's union activi-
ties, and that such had no connection with his final
discharge.
On the basis of the evidence presented in this respect,
it is the opinion of the referee that it was not established
that claimant had been discharged because of his union
activities , but it appears that his discharge came about
through infractions of company rules and rules set down
by the Federal Communications Commission, which re-
sulted first in a written warning, and secondly in his final
discharge. While it is evident from the testimony pre-
sented that there had been some copying of prior read-
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings on logs by operators, it was not shown that the
employer had endorsed such practices or had formulated
any company policy in regard thereto.
As far as copying of readings is concerned, it appears
that the claimant had been warned in this respect, but
that his discharge came about over the reconstruction of
a log and removal of the original log from the employer's
premises, which was considered a serious infraction of
the rules. It was indicated on behalf of the employer that
.this matter had been discussed with an official or repre-
sentative of the FCC,' and that the final action was taken
by the employer thereafter.
B. Conclusions
There is no doubt in this case that Meinhardt violated
various and sundry FCC regulations during his two tours of
duty on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift on both March 25 and
April 2, 1970. These acknowledged "infractions," as Warner
referred to them, would have constituted "good cause" for
the discharge of Meinhardt on April 15, 1970, provided, of
course, that these infractions were the real cause for the
discharge.
On the other hand if, in addition to these infractions, Re-
spondent was also motivated in its discharge of Meinhardt on
April 15 by his union or protected activities, then this case
becomes one of the "mixed motives," one legal (good cause)
and one illegal (union activities). It is now well settled in both
Board and court law that, where an employer is motivated by
both good cause and by union activities in the discharge of
an employee, the illegal motive becomes the operative one
and the discharge thus violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.'
Respondent witnesses Clark, Warner, and Tertzakian each
testified, and Respondent argues vigorously in its brief, that
Respondent had no knowledge at all of any union activities
in the station until Warner received a copy of the representa-
tion petition from the Board on the afternoon of March 26
and thus after Respondent's letter of reprimand dated March
26 to Meinhardt for his admitted log derelictions on March
25. Further the brief argues that even the receipt of this R
petition did not indicate Meinhardt's involvement in any
union activity.
As Respondent's brief states, there is in this case no "direct
evidence" that Respondent "knew" of Meinhardt's involve-
ment in the union activities at the station which resulted in
the R petition in 1970. However, it has been pointed out by
numerous courts that "direct evidence" of such knowledge is
offtimes difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.'
Clark and Warner each testified that the first knowledge he
had of any union activities in the station came on the after-
noon of March 26 with the receipt of the mail from the
Regional Office regarding the R petition. Warner promptly
called Tertzakian to his office and informed him of the R
petition. Both Warner and Tertzakian stressed the shock
which came upon Tertzakian's face upon the receipt of this
information.
' At the instant hearing the individual so consulted was Respondent's
attorney in Washington, D.C.
8 N.L.R . B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (C.A.1); N.LR.B.
v. Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F.2d 725 (CA. 2); N.L.R.B. v Whitfield
Pickle Co., 374 F.2d 576 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Barberton Plastics Products,
Inc., 354 F.2d 66 (CA 6), N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing Co., 328
F.2d 835 (C.A. 7).
' Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. N.L R.B. 362 F .2d 466 (C A. 9).
But the evidence also shows that at 3:18 p.m. on March 25
Respondent's attorneys had telegraphed the Regional Office
requesting a postponement of the scheduled hearing in the R
case. Neither Clark nor Warner was able to account for the
discrepancy in the dates. The telegram did refresh Clark's
memory to the extent that he recalled having received a tele-
phone call from somebody at the Regional Office about the
R petition-but, despite this, Clark still claimed no knowl-
edge because he "had no papers." Apparently Clark obtained
"knowledge" only upon legal service of papers.
So, despite the testimony of Clark and Warner, it is obvious
that Respondent knew that there was union activity at the
station at least by the afternoon of March 25 and thus before
Meinhardt's derelictions with the log.
As to Meinhardt's union activities or sympathies Clark
testified as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Smith) Did you have any knowledge of
Mr. Meinhardt's union activities or membership in the
union?
A. No, I did not, until after he was discharged. I had
no previous knowledge. No knowledge, prior to his dis-
charge, of his activities which he may have had in con-
junction with the union at all.
Q. Was there anything-any knowledge that you have
-whereby you could reasonably believe that he was a
member of the union?
THE WITNESS: No, I had no knowledge that would
even make me believe that he either had a union card or
was for the union. I didn't know, and I had no reasona-
ble [information] or reports to indicate this.
Contrary to this testimony, Clark had attended and tes-
tified on behalf of Respondent at an R case hearing on Febru-
ary 20, 1968, at which Meinhardt was called by and testified
as the only witness on behalf of the Union. Clark recalled the
hearing but denied knowing that Meinhardt was testifying
,,on behalf of the Union." Clark may be naive but hardly this
naive; especially as he recalled an occasion on which he him-
self testified "on behalf of" a union and, indeed, knew that he
had testified on behalf of the Respondent at this same R
hearing on February 20. Even though this occurred 2 years
before, this even alone would constitute a reasonable basis for
at least a suspicion that Meinhardt was either a member or
sympathizer of the Union.
About 1 week after the Union lost the 1968 representation
election on a 3 to 3 vote, Respondent promoted Tertzakian
to be the supervisor of the operators. 10 Admittedly it was
Meinhardt who had induced Tertzakian during this 1968
union organizational campaign to attend union meetings, if
not to sign the union authorization card which Tertzakian
signed. Upon his promotion to supervisory status, Tert-
zakian's knowledge of Meinhardt's union activities could pos-
sibly be imputed to Respondent.
But even without imputing such knowledge, the evidence
here shows that, as soon as Respondent received the informa-
tion about the filing of the R petition in 1970, Warner and
Tertzakian discussed the probable outcome of the election
and how the individual employees would vote, albeit, accord-
ing to the testimony of Tertzakian, his answer was that he did
not know. Warner and Clark also discussed the same ques-
tion.
10 It was on the same occasion Respondent announced the transfer of
Operator Mozak to the engineering department, a transfer which Mozak
considered a promotion.
BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY
Also the evidence here shows without dispute that, al-
though they may well have had no knowledge of any union
activities in the station, both Warner andf Station Manager
DeSautels" knew from personal experience that Meinhardt
and Gajec were engaging in protected -concerted activity
when they protested to each of them prior to the middle of
March" that Tertzakian had turnedup,the volume on the FM
monitor at the station so high that it was interfering with
their work. Thus even though this concerted-=protest was
rejected by both DeSautels and Warner, each` of them knew,
prior to March 25, 1970, that there was activity, either con-
certed or union, among, the employees at the station. It also
marked Meinhardt and Gajec as the leaders of whatever the
movement might be. The reasonable man recognizes that
rejected concerted protests frequently lead to the next step:
union activity.
Supervisor Tertzakian also knew of, and resented, the con-
certed effort made by Meinhardt and Gajec. According to
Tertzakian, he and Meinhardt ceased speaking. According to
Gajec, nothing that he did thereafter was satisfactory to Tert-
zakian . And Tertzakian promptly posted a notice that anyone
lowering the volume on the FM monitor would be dis-
charged. Thus did Respondent react to the concerted activity
among its employees.
So it becomes clear that, whereas the notice of the filing of
the R petition on March 25 or 26 may have been the first
knowledge Respondent had of any renewed union activity in
1970, all Respondent's officials knew all too well that Mein-
hardt was engaging in concerted, if not union, activity in the
station. Respondent's reaction thereto indicated that Re-
spondent did not approve thereof. Thus this undenied and
admitted testimony effectively disproves Respondent' s claim
of lack of knowledge.
It is also noteworthy that it was about this same time that
Tertzakian took upon himself, as he phrased it, the obligation
of examining the transmitter logs on a daily basis (which was
not his job) in addition to examining the program logs (which
was part of his duties)."
Soon after the receipt of the representation petition Re-
spondent, through Tertzakian, reacted in another quarter.
Prior to April 314 Tertzakian telephoned Operator Dana at
home and asked Dana to meet him "downtown" at the May-
flower Coffee Shop. At that time and place Tertzakian in-
formed Dana that the station manager's job had been
vacated, that Tertzakian had a good chance to get the station
manager's job, and, if Tertzakian did, he felt that Dana "was
the logical one" to succeed to Tertzakian's supervisory posi-
tion. Then on Friday, April 3, Dana acknowledged orally to
Tertzakian that the signatures and initials purporting to be
Dana's on the April 2 log were in fact not his. On the morning
of April 6 Dana was asked by Tertzakian and also by Warner
to execute an affidavit to that effect which Dana stated that
he could not do "in good conscience." A few days after the
April 6 consent election meeting at the Board's offices, which
Dana attended, Tertzakian and Dana met privately again. On
this occasion Tertzakian stated that he "now knew" where
Dana stood, that Dana would be fed no more information
through him, that he was disappointed, but that "no station
" DeSautels did not testify at the hearing.
12 The date of this joint protest to Warner and DeSautels is indefinite in
the record but occurred sometime between the end of January 1970 when
the volume of the FM monitor was turned up and the middle of March
" Tertzakian testified that he took upon himself this new obligation in
December 1969 or January 1970. However, the letter of reprimand to Gajec
dated July 1, based on information supplied by Tertzakian, cites no viola-
tions prior to March 22, 1970.
" This conversation occurred before the investigation of the April 2 log.
159
promoted personnel from within the bargaining unit to a
position outside the unit."15
It appears quite clear from the above that Respondent not
only knew Meinhardt (and Gajec) were engaged in activities
protected by the Act but also that this knowledge, or suspi-
cion, played a definite motivating part in Meinhardt's dis-
charge. The violation of the FCC rules was clear as early as
March 26 yet, even after the-April 2 episode and as late as
April 13 when Respondent got out the Excelsior list of eligi-
ble voters, Meinhardt was still in Respondent's eyes an eligi-
ble voter.
That raises the question as to just how serious Meinhardt's
violations of the FCC rules actually were. Respondent main-
tains that such violations subjected Respondent to great lia-
bility therefor and produced decisions of FCC as proof
thereof.16 While it is true that stations can and will be penal-
ized for violations of FCC rules and regulations, the cases
cited by Respondent also show that such penalties are in-
curred only in cases of much more flagrant and persistent
violations than have occurred here. But, as noted heretofore,
the violations here standing alone would have justified the
dismissal of the operator. The violations here, though clearly
violations, were minor and relatively insignificant and, per-
haps, even excusable. For instance the evidence shows that
Tertzakian himself at one time owed Warner some 18 cups
of coffee for violations of logging procedures which Warner
had detected in Tertzakian's work." Tertzakian admitted
that he had in fact copied prior meter readings on occasions
and committed other violations of FCC rules, that he consid-
ered such violations to be "very serious"-but Respondent
made him a supervisor after the 1968 representation election.
Even the fact that Respondent had "discrepancy reports"
indicates that Respondent anticipates that operators, being
only human, will make human errors. Even Respondent's
reaction to Meinhardt's proven violations of FCC rules on
March 25 and April 2 indicates that these "infractions"
became "major" or serious violations only because of the
union organizational campaign in the station. This is proved
by the aforementioned Tertzakian-Dana conversations away
from the station. Without the organizational attempt Mein-
hardt's logging errors would have remained "infactions"
rather than "major violations" of the FCC rules.
As if to confirm the above findings, it was not until June
3, 1970, that Respondent issued an interoffice memorandum
to the control room staff over the names of Clark and Tert-
zakian which threatened "summary dismissal" to any mem-
ber of the staff "found to commit deliberate falsification of the
logs and/or deliberate violation of established logging rules
and regulations."
15 Although this is a patent independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, I make no such finding here solely because the complaint contains
no allegations of any independent 8(a)(1) violations.
11 At the hearing I rejected the decisions proffered by Respondent as
exhibits on this point on the grounds that said decisions could be found in
the official published volumes of the FCC. Having now discovered some
difficulties in securing volumes of FCC decisions, I hereby reverse the above
ruling and admit the proffered decisions in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit
15
'? Tertzakian testified that 18 cups was an "exaggeration" while Warner,
in his testimony, denied that any cups were ever owed
11 Apparently to counteract the above evidence Respondent introduced
in evidence a memorandum to the control room staff posted on December
15, 1966, which required the control room staff to "read and understand"
certain control room procedures. The evidence was that this memorandum
was still posted in the control room as of the date of the hearing. Meinhardt
had initialed said document as having read and understood the regulations.
But it is interesting to note that at least three of the present control room
staff, Grant, Dana, and Gajec, were not listed thereon and had not initialed
the same. Apparently this was not a continuing obligation or requirement
(Cont)
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Then in further confirmation is the reprimand given by
Respondent to Gajec, who had engaged in protected activities
with Meinhardt , on July 1, 1970, in which Gajec was threat-
ened with dismissal for any repetition of the eight alleged
transmitter logging violations committed by him on March
22, 1970 , and the 24 alleged violations committed between
June 19 and June 30, 1970 . This reprimand was put in Gajec's
box at the station on the morning of July 1 on direct orders
of Clark and over the expressed reluctance of Warner that,
"Well, Mr . Clark, there is a hearing that is imminent, and I
did not wish to disturb the balance, and therefore I held off
until this last minute ." The imminent hearing referred to was
the hearing on the afternoon of July 1 before the Michigan
Employment Security Commission on the claim for unem-
ployment compensation by Meinhardt. Gajec was scheduled
to testify therein as a witness for Meinhardt . Among other
issues, according to the referee, was Meinhardt 's "contention
and belief that his discharge had some bearing on his union
activities" [sic]. Clark obviously did not share Warner's
reluctance about the possibility of disturbing the "balance."
Respondent urges that, as a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board , I should be guided by the determina-
tion (now on appeal) of the MESC referee that "On the basis ^
of the evidence presented in this respect , it is the opinion of
the referee that it was not established that claimant [Mein-
hardt] had been discharged because of his union activities,
but it appears that his discharge came through infractions of
company rules and rules set down by the Federal Communi-
cation's [sic] Commission , which resulted first in a written
warning, and secondly in his final discharge . While it is evi-
dent from the testimony presented that there had been some
copying of prior readings on logs by operators , it was not
shown that the employer had endorsed such practices or had
formulated any company policy in regard thereto." Legally
it is obvious that the decision of the MESC referee is not
binding upon the NLRB . The referee 's consideration of the
issue involved here is a little less than adequate . In addition
it is obvious also that the MESC referee knew as little about
the intricacies of the National Labor Relations Act as this
Examiner knows about the law which the referee was enforc-
ing. Under the facts presented at the hearing before me I must
respectfully decline to follow the findings of fact made by the
referee insofar as they pertain to the issue presented in the
instant hearing.
Accordingly I am convinced and, therefore , find that Re-
spondent discharged Henry P . Meinhardt in whole or in large
part because Respondent knew and objected to the fact that
he was engaging in activities , concerted and/or union, pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act and in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations described
in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
for the control room staff.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices , I shall recommend that Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard to
hire and tenure of employment of Henry P . Meinhardt by
discharging him on April 15, 1970 , I will recommend that
Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
that which he would have earned from the date of the dis-
crimination against him to the date of his reinstatement less
his net earnings during such period in accordance with the
formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Because of the type of the unfair labor practices engaged
in by Responendent , I sense an opposition by Respondent to
the policies of the Act in general and I deem it necessary to
order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed its employees in Section
7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1218, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Henry P. Meinhardt by discharging him on
April 15, 1970, because of his concerted activities and his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and in
order to discourage such union membership and activities,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. By so interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in this case , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:1°
ORDER
Respondent, Booth American Company, Booth Broad-
casting Division, Detroit , Michigan , its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or of any term or condi-
tion of employment of its employees because of their member-
ship in and activities either concerted or on behalf of the
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY
Union herein or of any other labor organization of their
choice.
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Henry P. Meinhardt immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(c) Post at its radio station in Detroit, Michigan, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.21
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless the Respond-
ent notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from the
receipt hereof that it will take the action here recommended,
the Board issue an order directing Respondent to take the
action here recommended.
2° In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
161
WE WILL offer to Henry P. Meinhardt his former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges , and we will pay him for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimina-
tion against him together with interest thereon at 6 per-
cent per annum.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment or of any
term or condition of employment of our employees be-
cause of their membership in and activities either con-
certed or on behalf of the Union herein or of any other
labor organization of their choice.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form , join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, including the Union here, to bargain collectively
through a bargaining agent chosen by our employees, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any such activities.
BOOTH AMERICAN
COMPANY,
BOOTH BROADCASTING
DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.