Group One Broadcasting Co., West

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO. 993
Group One Broadcasting Co., West and American
Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Denver
Local, AFL-CIO. Case 27-CA-4406
February 20, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On July 25, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Jer-
rold H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed an answering 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
According to credited testimony, on the morning
of January 31, 1975,' disc jockey McCuen told AM
Program Director Knight and engineer Westerberg
that he was very upset about "the talk of unions"
around the station and stated "anybody who is trying
to upset this radio station should be fired." Knight
emphatically agreed stating, "you are f right,
they should be," and volunteered the fact that he had
received a call from part-time engineer Redding,
who, Knight said, had told him some things he had
not known before. In fact Redding had called Knight
after Westerberg, terminated disc jockey Saul, and
disc jockey Shannon had visited him at his home on
the evening of January 30 and solicited him to sign a
union authorization card.
The Administrative Law Judge found that, when
McCuen said anyone supporting a union should be
fired, Knight not only failed to disavow the coercive
threat but emphatically ratified and adopted it. He
then stated that, although he would ordinarily find
this threat to be an 8(a)(l) violation, he would dis-
miss the allegation herein because he was of the opin-
ion that Knight's threat to Westerberg lost its coer-
cive effect in view, of Respondent's subsequent
conduct. In so finding he relied on the following: On
February 6 (the Administrative Law Judge inadver-
tently referred to January 6 in his decision) General
Manager Yacovazzi told the employees that no em-
ployee would be fired because of his views concern-
' Unless otherwise indicated all dates are 1975.
ing the Union, and on February 26 and again on
March 10 Yacovazzi told the employees there would
be no reprisals and no one would be fired for union
activity. Also, Westerberg admitted that Knight had
told him after January 31 that no one would be fired
for union activity. The Administrative Law Judge
found that Yacovazzi and Knight unequivocally and
specifically 2 repudiated Knight's threat; he therefore
dismissed the 8(a)(1) allegation.
The Charging Party excepts, contending
Yacovazzi's purported repudiation was untimely;
that on the day before the threat Saul, one of the
union organizers, had been fired at a time so coinci-
dental with the initiation of union activity that it
would be naive to believe the employees did not sus-
pect, rightly or wrongly, that the Union was the rea-
son for Saul's discharge; and that Respondent com-
mitted other 8(a)(1) violations which would lead the
employees to question Respondent's alleged indiffer-
ence to further union activity? We find merit in the
Charging Party's exceptions.
The charge alleging Saul's discharge as violative of
Section 8(a)(3) was filed on January 30, the date of
his discharge. The Administrative Law Judge in dis-
missing the 8(a)(3) allegation noted that Saul's dis-
charge was suspicious. That is at best an understate-
ment. Nonetheless in view of Barnwell's deposition
(she was unavailable to testify at the hearing) we are
constrained to agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Saul's discharge did not violate
Section 8(a)(3) even though Barnwell's deposition
conflicted in pertinent part with her Board affidavit.
Yet the highly suspicious nature of Saul's discharge is
a factor to be considered in determining whether Re-
spondent effectively repudiated Knight's threat. In
addition certain factual findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge in connection with the dis-
charge, and to which the Charging Party excepted,
deserve mention.
The Administrative Law Judge, after discussing
the extent to which Saul's Arbitron (ARB) ratings
had declined, allegedly the reason for his discharge,
noted only that "in general KLZ's performance had
suffered." Saul was allegedly discharged because his
hourly ratings for female listeners had slipped from
40 to 56 percent and his overall ratings from 34 to 40
2In his speech Yacovazzi did not specifically deny Knight's threat Rath-
er he not only denied that any supervisors knew who had signed cards but
also added that if they knew it would not make any difference to Respon-
dent.
3 The Charging Party also points to the Administrative Law Judge's com-
ment on the record when Respondent introduced a copy of Yacovazzi's
February 6 speech into evidence ; the Administrative Law Judge said:
It is the most blatant type of self serving statement . After the unfair
labor practice charge was filed ... and I will say if I give any weight
[it] . will be the slimmest type of weight.
222 NLRB No. 160
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
percent. But, McCuen, who preceded- Saul, lost be-
tween 18 and 35 percent of his overall 4 audience-be-
tween 8 and 10 a.m. Knight, Saul's supervisor and
the person who fired him, suffered a decline of from
42 to 49 percent (35 to 50 percent for females) in his
overall hourly ratings, and Shannon, who followed
Knight, declined from 7 to 34 percent in his hourly
ratings. Yacovazzi, however, testified only Saul suf-
fered a sharp drop in ratings.
In seeking an alleged replacement for Saul, Re-
spondent published an ad in Broadcasting magazine
on January 13, for a "Creative Morning Personality."
Saul, however, was not a "morning" personality but
rather a "mid-day" personality. And this is not mere-
ly a distinction without a difference. For the testimo-
ny reveals that there is a clearly defined difference
between "morning," "mid-day," "afternoon," and
"night" personalities. Thus Barnwell in her deposi-
tion testified:
Q. Are these ["morning," "mid-day," and
"afternoon"] personalities that you have been
describing generally recognized throughout the
broadcasting industry?
A. Absolutely. I really firmly personally be-
lieve that the combination of rating books avail-
able, the trade magazines, the broadcast associa-
tions, I would say all resources in that
professional area that are available, define very
candidly who our morning personalities are,
who our mid-day personalities are; who our .. .
afternoon personalities and night show person-
alities are, yes.
Furthermore, Yacovazzi in explaining his precipitate
decision to discharge Saul indicated that he had a
problem in the "mid-day" period. If in fact Respon-
dent sought a replacement for "mid-day" personality
Saul why did it advertise for a "morning" personali-
ty, and,then try to hire Barnwell, a "morning" per-
sonality.
The Administrative Law Judge in- glossing over
this distinction said merely that Respondent must
have had Saul in mind because the only other "morn-
ing" personality at KLZ was McCuen who had the 6
to 10 a.m. show and had made substantial gains in
the ARB. In fact McCuen, although he had gained
listeners between 6 and 7 a.m., had lost between 28 to
35 percent of his 8 to 10 a.m. audience.
Yacovazzi in his February 6, 1975, speech to the
employees told them inter alia:
The Union has said we fired Bill Saul because of
his union activities . . . . I think you are entitled
4 Overall ratings are used as they give a clearer picture of how badly
Respondent suffered rating declines.
to know what the facts really are : . . our target
audience at KLZ is adults 25-29 .... From the
May ARB's to November ARB's . . . Saul's
program lost between 40 and 56% of its 25-49
year old women listeners... .
At another point Yacovazzi said, "We are not going
to fire anyone who is doing his job effectively wheth-
er he is for or against the Union. All I care about is
performance."
In view of the following we do not believe
Respondent's employees could unhesitatingly give
credence to Yacovazzi's assurances-that Saul was not
fired for his union activity or that they would not be
fired for union activity: the numerous 8(a)(1) interro-
gations by Respondent; the knowledge that Saul, one
of the leading union advocates, was fired on January
30, at the initiation of the union campaign under
highly suspicious circumstances and had filed unfair
labor practice charges on the same day; and the fact
that virtually all Respondent's announcers' ARB rat-
ings were down almost as much as Saul's. Could disc
jockey Shannon, also active in the Union, for exam-
ple, knowing his ratings were down as much as
Saul's, believe that Saul was really discharged only
because of his ratings? It is our opinion that, in the
circumstances of this case and particularly consider-
ing the precipitate nature of Saul's discharge, it
would be unrealistic to conclude that the employees
did not suspect, whether rightly or wrongly, that the
discharge of Saul was not in some way connected to
his union activities. It is our further opinion that in
these circumstances the absence of Saul precluded
Respondent's effectively dispelling the effect of
Knight's threat.
Finally, we might find the Administrative Law
Judge's finding more plausible if after Yacovazzi's
purported disavowal Respondent had not committed
additional unfair labor practices. But such was not
the case for, on February 26, the same day that Ya-
covazzi again told the employees Respondent would
not -engage in reprisals for union activities, Knight
removed Judson's notice from the bulletin board and
told him he was not to talk about the Union while at
the station. The Administrative Law Judge found
Knight's conduct, both removing the notice and his
statement, violative of the Act and that Respondent
not only acted discriminatorily but was also motivat-
ed by its hostility toward the employees' organiza-
tional activity. After this incident could Judson or
the other employees take seriously Yacovazzi's argu-
ably self-serving statement, made only after-charges
were filed, that there would be no reprisals and that
Respondent was indifferent to the organizational ac-
tivity? We think not. Could Judson have insisted
upon his right to speak about the Union on breaks
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO.
without fear of reprisal in the face of Knight's warn-
ing? Judson apparently did not think so.
Based on the foregoing we find Respondent did
not effectively repudiate Knight's January 31 threat
to Westerberg and we find the threat violated Section
8(a)(1).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended,'the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Group
One Broadcasting Co., West, Denver, Colorado, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(c) and relet-
ter existing' paragraph 1(c) and subsequent para-
graphs accordingly:
"(c) Threatening its employees with discharge for
engaging in union activities."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge. -
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED -BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
their union sympathies and activities or about
the union sympathies and activities of their fel-
low employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis-
charge for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or maintain any rule
or regulation prohibiting our employees from
soliciting on behalf of American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists, Denver Local,
AFL-CIO, or any other union, during their
working hours while on nonworking time on our
property. -
WE WILL NOT remove from the bulletin board
notices concerning the above-named union or
any other union which have been posted by our
employees.
WE WILL NOT- in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO., WEST
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
995
JERROLD H. SHAPIRo, Administrative Law Judge: The
hearing in this case held on May 22, 1975,' is based upon
unfair labor practice charges filed by American Federation
of Television and Radio Artists, Denver Local, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union or Charging Party, on January 30,
1975, and a complaint and an amendment to the complaint
issued respectively on March. 19, 1975, and May 8, 1975,
on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, Region 27, alleging that Group One
Broadcasting Co., West, herein called Respondent, has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NationalLabor Relations Act,
herein called the Act, as amended. Respondent filed- an
answer to the complaint, as amended, denying the commis-
sion of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record,2 from my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and having considered the post-
hearing briefs submitted by the counsels for the General
Counsel, Respondent, and.William Saul,3 I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Group One Broadcasting Co., West, the Respondent, is
a Colorado corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Denver, Colorado, where it operates radio
station KLZ-AM and FM, herein called the station or
KLZ, which annually does a gross volume of business in
excess of $100,000 and annually derives revenues in excess
of $50,000 from national advertising accounts, and pur-
chases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points and places outside Colorado.
Respondent admits that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
i On May 23, the day after the hearing closed, the Charging Party, which
was unrepresented during the hearing, filed a "Motion For Continuance of
Hearing" which is in the nature of a motion to reopen the record so as to
enable the Charging Party to be represented by an attorney and to intro-
duce "certain evidence material to the case" and to cross-examine deponent
Rosemary Barnwell. In response to my order to show cause, Respondent
and the General Counsel filed oppositions to the Charging Party's motion. I
have carefully considered the. Charging Party's motion and the oppositions
filed by the Respondent and General Counsel and for the reasons set out in
their oppositions I hereby deny the Charging Party's "Motion For Continu-
ance of Hearing."
2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
3 The alleged discrmunatee, William Saul, during the hearing did not ask
to intervene in the proceeding. After the hearing closed Attorney Robert
Lubowitz entered an appearance as Saul's attorney of record I have treated
this as a motion to intervene on behalf of Saul and hereby grant the motion.
I deny Respondent's request that I "utterly" disregard the "memorandum
brief" filed on behalf of William Saul. In considering Saul's brief I have,
however, ignored those portions which are without support in the record,
particularly, references to the October/November 1973 ARB ratings and to
Saul's preheanng affidavit submitted to the Board.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED lie, and was on his way out of the room when Knight, as he
testified, pointed out that Saul in addition to being a disc
jockey was also the station's assistant program director
and, this being the case, asked "would you tell me if you
knew of any union activities." Saul simply "shrugged," did
not answer the question, and left the room. The only part
of this conversation in dispute is, when Saul indicated his
lack of knowledge about the union activities did Knight
state, "we can remedy that" and made a knife-like gesture
with his hand across his [Knight's] throat. Knight, who de-
nied engaging in this conduct, impressed me as being the
more trustworthy and reliable of the witnesses on this
point. Accordingly, I find that he did not engage in this
conduct.
Regarding Knight's conversation with Finn it is undis-
puted that on January 29 at or about 5:30 p.m. Finn was at
the station on business when Knight spoke to him about
the Union. Knight indicated he wanted to speak to Finn
and took him into a production room and "asked [Finn] if
[he] knew anything about a union." Finn untruthfully an-
swered in the negative. Knight then told him, "KLZ liked
loyal employees, not people who made trouble" and point-
ed out that the employees were getting paid above union
scale. They talked a few more minutes about business and
then Knight told Finn to "stick around" because he want-
ed to continue their conversation. Finn waited approxi-
mately 5 or 10 minutes at which time Knight and he went
into the employees' lounge-also known as the employees'
lunchroom-where Knight asked "if [Finn] was sure that
[he] did not know anything about the union," and whether
"there were any meetings." Finn answered in the negative.
Knight then asked whether disc jockeys Ric Judson or Wil-
liam Saul "had talked to [Finn] or any of the other employ-
ees about joining the Union or starting union activity or
the feasibility of the Union." Finn answered "no." The
conversation ended with Knight complimenting Finn's
work and stating that the next day Knight would have a
surprise for him.5
To recapitulate, this portion of the complaint alleges that
Knight on January 29 interrogated employees Saul and
Finn concerning the employees' union activities and
threatened them with reprisals. The credited evidence, set
out above, does not preponderate in favor of a finding that
Knight threatened either Saul or Finn with reprisals for
engaging in union activities. Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that this portion of the complaint be dismissed. On
the other hand, I am of the view that the General Counsel
has proven that Knight's interrogation of Saul and Finn
reasonably tended to coerce them in the exercise of their
right to support the Union. Knight asked Saul "if he knew
of any union activities ... or anything about a union."
When Saul answered in the negative, Knight, rather than
forget the matter, asked "would you tell me if you knew of
5 The description of what transpired between Knight and Finn on Janu-
ary 29 is based upon Finn's credible testimony. Of the two, Finn impressed
me as being more trustworthy than Knight regarding this episode. Knight
testified he met with Finn once in the employees' lounge about 5:30 p.m.
and asked hun two questions: "if he knew of any union activities or any
union being organized at KLZ," and, if he had "heard of any talk of union
from other people in the halls." When asked if he referred to Judson or Saul
in his questioning, Knight was unable to remember. He testified "I Just
don't remember how I phrased the question."
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
Denver Local , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is ad-
mittedly a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
Respondent's radio station KLZ employs approximate-
ly 55 employees of whom about 25 are disc jockeys, news-
men, and engineers. This case involves the Union's effort
to organize these employees. The Union initiated its orga-
nizational drive during the last week in January 1975.4 The
General Counsel contends that .the Respondent, which is
admittedly opposed to the unionization of its station, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its supervisors coer-
cively interrogated employees about their union activities,
threatened them with reprisals if they supported the Union,
offered an employee a promotion to discourage him from
supporting the Union, prohibited an employee from solicit-
ing for the Union within the station, and violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act when it discharged disc jockey William
Saul because of his union activities. I shall evaluate the
evidence pertinent to the alleged violations of Section
8(a)(1) and then deal with the contention that Saul's dis-
charge was unlawfully motivated.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
These allegations involve conduct attributed to KLZ's
operations manager and AM program director, Russell
Moore, known as Russell Knight, and its FM program di-
rector, William Struck, both of whom are admittedly statu-
tory supervisors whose conduct is attributable to Respon-
dent.
1. The interrogation and threats of reprisal allegedly
engaged in by Knight on January 29 (par. V, a of
complaint)
The evidence pertinent to this allegation is based upon
conversations between Knight with disc jockeys William
Saul and Mike Finn on January 29 shortly after Knight
first learned of the Union's organizational campaign.
It is undisputed that on January 29 at or about 3 p.m.,
about 30 minutes after Knight first learned of the existence
of union activities at the station, that Saul went into the
station's AM control room, where Knight was announcing
his show, for the purpose of speaking to him. Knight,
whose testimony substantially jibes with Saul on this point,
testified that before Saul could utter a word that Knight
asked, "do you know of any union activities at KLZ or
anything about a union." Saul answered "no," which was a
All dates herein, unless otherwise specified, refer to 1975.
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO. 997
any union activities." In the case of Finn's interrogation,
Knight asked "if he knew anything about a union." When
Finn replied in the negative, Knight, not satisfied with the
denial, thereafter asked Finn "if he was sure that he did not
know anything about the Union" and specifically asked
whether "there were any meetings." Finn again answered
in the negative but Knight continued to press the matter
and asked whether disc jockeys Judson and Saul had solic-
ited him or any other employees to support the Union.
The above-described interrogation of Saul and Finn was
calculated to invite disclosure of their own and other em-
ployees' union sentiments and activities and was conduct-
ed by a supervisor, Knight, who had power over the em-
ployees being questioned. The interrogation occurred
during conversations initiated by Knight who had no legiti-
mate business purpose for the interrogation which was con-
ducted without any assurances given either Finn or Saul
against reprisals. The repetitious manner of the interroga-
tion-Knight, rather than accept the employees' professed
lack of knowledge, continued to question them-shows
that its purpose was more than to dust get information but
reveals an intent to intimidate the employees. In other
words, the very manner in which the interrogation was car-
ried out indicates that it was not a mere inquiry to de-
termine union support; rather the repetitious manner of the
questioning suggests that the employees were being ac-
cused of lying, thus creating an atmosphere of antagonism
toward the Union and intimidating the employees. The
fact that an atmosphere of antagonism was indeed created
by the interrogation is evidenced by the fact that both Saul
and Finn felt compelled to he to Knight. Finally, an addi-
tional indicia which reinforces the coercive nature of
Knight's interrogation of Finn is Knight's statement-
made in the same breath as his interrogation-that "KLZ
likes loyal employees, not people who made trouble." This
statement when viewed in its context can only be construed
as a declaration that the Respondent did not like employ-
ees who support the Union. For all of the foregoing rea-
sons, I find that Respondent, by Knight's January 29 inter-
rogation of employees Saul and Finn, engaged in conduct
tending to interfere with or coerce its employees in the free
exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act, thus violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The threat to discharge employees allegedly made by
Knight on January 31 (par. V, d of complaint)
This allegation pertains to an episode which took place
during the morning of January 31 in the station's AM con-
trol room where disc jockey Mike McCuen was announc-
ing his show and Knight was preparing for his show which
was scheduled to start very shortly. Also present was engi-
neer Girard Westerberg. McCuen indicated to both Knight
and Westerberg that he was very upset about "the talk of
unions" which was going on at the station and, in this con-
nection, vociferously stated that "anybody who is trying to
upset this radio station should be fired," whereupon,
Knight declared, "you are f right, they should be,"
and volunteered the fact that he had received a call from
part-time engineer Greg Redding- who, Knight said, told
him a couple of things he had not known before .6 This is
Knight's description of what occurred. Westerberg in sub-
stance testified that Knight was the one who initiated the
threat to discharge all of the employees and when he made
the threat-stuck his finger 6 inches from Westerberg's face.
Knight contradicted Westerberg's version. Of the two,
Knight impressed me as the more trustworthy witness con-
cerning this conversation; accordingly, I have credited his
version, described above, of what took place.
To recapitulate, employee McCuen, in the presence of
employee Westerberg and Supervisor Knight, declared that
anybody who was trying to upset the radio station by sup-
porting a union should be fired,7 whereupon Knight em-
phatically voiced his agreement with this sentiment. This is
not then a case where a supervisor simply fails to disavow
a coercive statement made by an employee in his presence.
Here Knight not only failed to disavow the coercive threat
but emphatically ratified and adopted the threat. Under
the circumstances I would ordinarily find that Respondent
through Knight's conduct violated Section 8(a)(1), as al-
leged in the complaint. Respondent, however, persuasively
urges that the effect of any improper activity on the part of
Knight when he ratified this threat was dissipated and disa-
vowed by the subsequent conduct of Knight and his super-
visor, General Manager Yacovazzi, and Respondent is thus
absolved from responsibility for Knight's threat.
The evidence pertinent to Respondent's "disavowal" ar-
gument is undisputed and can be briefly stated. Within a
week after Knight's threat, on January 6, Yacovazzi at a
staff meeting told all of the employees, including Wester-
berg, that no employee would be "coerced, intimidated,
brow beaten or punished or fired because of his views con-
cerning the union," and said, that even if Respondent
learned that an employee had signed a card for the Union
that "it would not make any difference to us," and further
stated:
The union has also stated to the press that we have
threatened to fire all of our FM DJ's. This is pure
nonsense and there is absolutely no truth to this at all.
None of our supervisors recalls making any such state-
ment and if someone in some offhanded or joking
manner did make any such statement, I am here to tell
you that's simply not true. We are not going to fire
anyone who is doing his job effectively whether he is
for or against the, union. All I care about is perfor-
mance, not union membership, authorization cards, or
attendance at meetings.
Then, on February 26 Yacovazzi again told all the employ-
ees that Respondent would not engage in any reprisals
against them because of their union activities, and, again
on March 16, 10 days, before- the representation election,
6 The previous evening Westerberg with Union Representative Thomas,
plus disc jockeys Saul and Shannon, had visited Redding at his home and
solicited him to sign a union authorization card
7 McCuen did not expressly say that union adherents should be fired but
it is clear from the context in which the threat was made that it referred to
those employees who supported the Union and that Knight and Westerberg
so construed the threat. In this respect, I note that Knight's reference to
Greg Redding makes sense only in the context of Westerberg's visit the
previous night to solicit Redding' to support the Union's organizational
drive.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told the employees that there would be absolutely no repri-
sals and no one would be fired because of their union sym-
pathies. Finally, Westerberg admits that subsequent to-Jan-
nary 31 that Knight personally told Westerberg, as well as
other employees, that no employee would be retaliated
against-or,discharged because of their union activities. In
sum, both Knight and his superior, Yacovazzi, in a timely_
fashion unequivocally and specifically repudiated Knight's
threat to discharge employees if they supported the Union.
Under these circumstances-and considering the manner in
which the threat was uttered-Knight ratified an
employee's statement-I am convinced Knight's threat to
Westerberg lost its coercive effect. Accordingly I shall rec-
ommend.that this allegation be dismissed. Tunica Manufac-
turing Company, Inc., 182 NLRB 729, 733 (1970); Crystal
Laundry and Dry Cleaning Company, 132 NLRB 222, 227-
228 (1961); Livingstone Shirt Corporation, 107 NLRB 400,
402-403 (1953); and-Marr Knitting, Inc., 90 NLRB 479,
480 (1950).
3. Knight prohibits an employee from posting a notice of
a union meeting on the station's bulletin board and
prohibits the employee from soliciting on behalf of the
Union (par. V, e and f of complaint)
On February 26 disc jockey Ric Judson posted a notice
on KLZ's bulletin board located in the employees' lounge.
The notice, signed by Judson as the"acting Union stew-
ard," announced a union meeting. The notice read:
To Election Participants:
There will be an informal meeting of [the Union] at 8
p.m. at the Bolero Club Apts. [address] from 6 p.m. to
8 p.m. this Sunday evening March 2nd.
Please attend if you wish . . . Bring your wife or
friend. Food and drink will be provided!
It is undisputed that Respondent allows employees to post
nonwork related notices, i.e., renting apartments, things for
sale, places to eat, on the station's bulletin board and had
not previously indicated to the employees, either in writing
or orally, that certain types of notices, because of their
content, were not allowed on the bulletin board.
On February 27 when Judson arrived for work, Knight,
who had removed the above-described notice from the bul-
letin board, returned it to Judson. Knight, without any ex-
planation, told Judson that Respondent did not want the
notice posted on its property and also instructed him that
he was not to talk about the Union during the time he was
at the station. Judson replied that he thought that he had a
legal right -to talk to the employees during their break peri-
ods. Knight reiterated that Respondent did not want the
notice posted in the building and did not want Judson talk-
ing about the Union while on duty. Judson accepted the
instruction with the comment "you cannot blame me for
trying." I
8 The conversation between Judson and Knight, described above, is based
upon Judson's credible testimony. Knight agrees that, without any explana-
The allegation pertaining to Knight's restriction on
Judson's right to solicit for the Union at the station in-
volves a question of credibility. If I credit Judson' s account
of what occurred, as Resondent recognizes in its posthear-
ing brief, "there is no alternative but to find that this was
an invalid. no-solicitation rule." Accordingly, based on the
foregoing, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by virtue of Knight's February 27 statement to
Judson prohibiting him from soliciting for the Union at
KLZ during his working hours while on nonworking time.
Regarding the question of the Respondent's refusal to
allow its employees to use its bulletin board to post union
notices, the law seems settled that the Act does not give
employees the right to use their employer's bulletin board
to post notices connected with an effort of a labor organi-
zation to, organize the employer's employees. Eastex, Incor-
porated, 215 NLRB No. 58 (1974) and, Nugent Service, Inc.,
207 NLRB 158 (1973). But, an employer who discriminates
against the posting of such union notices because of his
hostility toward unionization violates the Act. Challenge-
Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc., 153 NLRB 92, 96, 99 (1965)
enfd. on this point 374 F.2d 147, 152-154 (C.A. 6, 1967). I
am convinced that the record demonstrates that in remov-
ing and refusing to allow employee Judson to post the mes-
sage announcing a union organizational meeting Respon-
dent discriminated against Judson and did so because of its
hostility toward the Union's organizational campaign. In
arriving at this conclusion I have been influenced by these
considerations:-
1. Prior to the Union's organizational campaign and its
filing of a petition to represent KLZ's employees Respon-
dent had not announced to its employees that they were
forbidden to post notices on the bulletin board dealing
with unions or that they were otherwise restricted from
posting notices of a particular kind. To the contrary, Re-
spondent has always permitted the employees to post vari-
ous notices unrelated to their work.
2. Respondent is admittedly opposed to the unioniza-
tion of KLZ and its operations .manager, Knight, at the
same time he refused to allow Judson to post the notice of
the union meeting also unlawfully refused to allow him to
orally solicit for the Union at the station.
3. When Knight refused to allow Judson to post the no-
tice of the union meeting he offered no explanation to Jud-
son even though it was contrary to Respondent's normal
policy of allowing employees to post messages unrelated to
their work and even though Knight knew that Judson had
no prior knowledge, that Respondent had any kind of a
policy which- restricted the types of notices which could be
posted. I am convinced that if Knight's refusal to allow
Judson to post the union message was based on a legiti-
mate reason relating to the management, production or
discipline of the radio station that Knight would have ex-
plained this to Judson rather than, without explanation,
abruptly prohibit -him from posting the message. At the
hearing Knight in effect testified that his reason for remov-
ing the notice was that KLZ does not allow "controversial
materials" to be placed on its bulletin board. This testimo-
tion, he told Judson he could not use the bulletin board for the union talk to other employees during their working time as contrasted to break-
message but denies he told him he could not talk about the Union at any time. Of the two, Judson impressed me as the more trustworthy witness and
time while at the station, but testified, in effect, that he told Judson not to I have credited his version.
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO. -999
ny, in my view, is self-serving in its most pejorative sense.
For, until the hearing in this case, this alleged rule or policy
was never communicated by the Respondent to KLZ's em-
ployees, nor was Knight's testimony on this point corrobo-
rated by anybody else from management. Also, when he
presented this testimony Knight, in bearing and demeanor,
was an unconvincing witness who was unable to explain
the basis for the Respondent's alleged policy against "con-
troversial" notices; nor, did Knight offer any explanation
why the notice of the union meeting was considered con-
troversial and did not point to any other occasion when
Respondent had removed a message from its bulletin
board. For all of these reasons I do not believe that Knight
was a truthful witness when he testified as to his reasons
for removing the Union's message announcing a meeting.
All of the above-described circumstances taken together
convince me that the General Counsel has established by a
preponderance of the. evidence that Respondent, in remov-
ing the notice of the union meeting posted by Judson on
February 26, acted discriminatorily and was motivated by
its hostility toward the employees' organizational activities.
Accordingly, by engaging in this conduct Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Challenge-Cook Brothers,
supra. In so concluding I have considered the Respondent's
contention that the Union has no cause to complain since
it has ample alternative means of reaching the employees
with its message. In this regard Knight testified that Judson
could have deposited his message in the employees' indi-
vidual mail slots at the station. This testimony however
smacks of an afterthought for the employees were-never
informed that they should use the mail boxes for publiciz-
ing "controversial" messages rather than the bulletin
board. In any event, I am of the view that once the General
Counsel has proven that Respondent's prohibition against
union notices on its bulletin board was discrimmatorily
motivated it is irrelevant that Judson could have reached
the employees with his message in some other manner.
Challenge-Cook Brothers, supra at 153.
4. On January 29 Struck allegedly interrogates an
employee about his union activities and suggests a
promotion and the next day offers to promote the
employees in order to influence him against the Union
(par. V, b of complaint)
On January 29, within 15 minutes after hearing rumors
that the Union was conducting a campaign to organize
KLZ's employees, William Struck, the FM program direc-
tor, went into the FM control room where disc jockey Jon
Stone was announcing a show and said to Stone, "I heard
there are rumors about the union, I cannot believe it."
Stone in essence declared he had not been approached.
Struck asked if Stone thought the employees were dissatis-
fied with Respondent's operation of the station. When
Stone answered in the affirmative, Struck asked "why,"
and Stone, in substance, stated that it was his opinion that
the employees were unhappy over the Respondent's failure
to grant them wage increases. Struck concluded the con-
versation by telling Stone to speak with General Manager
Yacovazzi during the next 'news break about a wage in-
crease .9 This description of what occurred on January 29
between Stone and Struck is not „disputed. Stone further
testified, however, that during the conversation Struck also
stated-that, as previously discussed, there was still a possi-
bility that Stone would be promoted to the position of as-
sistant FM program director. It was only after the General
Counsel refreshed his recollection that Stone was able to
remember that this subject had been introduced by Struck,
Struck credibly denied that he made any reference to this
subject during the conversation.
Later that day Struck was notified by General Manager
Yacovazzi that as of January 30 he would be going on the
air as a disc jockey from 1 to 4 p.m. on KLZ-AM which
would in all- probability necessitate his getting assistance in
performing the job of FM program director. In this regard,
it is undisputed that on several occasions from October
1974 into January 1975 Struck had indicated to Stone that
if the position of assistant FM program director was creat-
ed that Stone would be the most logical candidate for the
position. So, on the morning of January 30 Struck offered
Stone the position of assistant program director for KLZ
FM explaining that he was taking over a show on
KLZ-AM. Stone asked if the offer had anything to do with
the Union. Struck- answered in the negative and pointed
out that even before the Union' s organizational drive they
had discussed-the possibility of Stone filling this position,
and, apparently referring to the Union Struck stated that
Respondent "would not be pressured to do anything."
Stone replied he was flattered by the offer but, wanted to
think about it. Stone never mentioned the subject- thereaf-
ter nor did Struck since he felt that if Stone really wanted
the job that he would have accepted it on the spot. There is
no evidence in the record whether or not this position was
ever filled.
In evaluating the evidence bearing on this allegation it is
desirable first to point out what is not involved. Not in-
volved is whether Respondent violated the Act- when
Struck solicited the employees' complaints from Stone and
when, in the same breath, he told Stone to speak to Yaco-
vazzi about a wage increase. These matters were - not al-
leged as unfair labor -practices _in the complaint nor were
they litigated. The complaint in connection -with Stone's
January 29 and 30 conversations with Struck alleges in es-
sence two things; namely, (1) Struck offered to promote
Stone in order to discourage him from supporting the
Union and (2) interrogated him about the employees'
union activities. -
Regarding (1), the evidence shows that for legitimate
business reasons Struck offered Stone a promotion to assis-
tant FM program director. Struck prior to the Union's or-
ganizational campaign had indicated to Stone that if such a
position were created he was the logical choice for the job.
Thereafter, on January 29 the Respondent for business rea-
sons decided to create the position of assistant FM pro-
gram director and the next day Stone , as previously prom-
ised by Struck, was offered the position. The evidence does
9 The description of the above conversation between Stone and Struck is
based upon a composite of their testimony which is not inconsistent. I have
not relied on- the testimony of Westerberg which was not consistent with
Stone's or Struck's testimony Neither Stone nor Struck placed Westerberg
at the scene of the conversation
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not establish that in offering the job to Stone Respondent
was motivated by a desire to discourage him from support-
ing the Union. Accordingly, `I shall recommend that this
allegation be dismissed.
Regarding (2), it is undisputed that Struck did not ques-
tion Stone about his or his fellow employees' union activi-
ties or sympathies; rather, he simply made the observation
that he had heard rumors about the Union which he could
not believe. I realize that to constitute unlawful interroga-
tion it is not necessary that a statement be cast as a query,
but, I am not convinced that the circumstances surround-
ing the statement involved herem demonstrate that it was
made with the intent to elicit information or to invite dis-
closure of Stone's union sentiments or that it was reason-
ably calculated to intimidate or coerce the employee. Ac-
cordingly, I shall recommend that this _ allegation be
dismissed.
5. Struck allegedly threatens KLZ's FM announcers with
reprisals for engaging in union activities (par. V, c of
complaint
In support of this allegation the General Counsel relies
upon the undisputed testimony of Jon Stone that on the
morning of January 30 there was a staff meeting attended
by all of KLZ's FM announcers at which time FM Pro-
gram Director Struck made a speech in the nature of a pep
talk designed to encourage the announcers to improve their
work performance, thus improving the station's competi-
tive standing. Stone testified that Struck also asked the an-
nouncers if they wanted KLZ to be the number one station
in the area among its competition and told them that each
day he received audition tapes from job applicants and
that although he did not want to scare anyone that all of
the staff announcers, including himself, were expendable.
During his talk' Struck at one point stated that the "compa-
ny would not be pressured into anything." Stone did not
place this remark in its context.
Based on the foregoing I find the evidence is insufficient
to support the allegation that Struck at this meeting threat-
ened employees with reprisals for engaging in union activi-
ties. All Struck did was threaten them with reprisals if
KLZ's rating did not improve. The record does not estab-
lish that Struck directly or indirectly threatened them with
reprisals because of their union activities or to discourage
them from such activities. In fact, Stone, the sole witness
who testified about this meeting, testified Struck did not
threaten the employees with reprisals for engaging in union
activities. For all these reasons I shall recommend that this
allegation be dismissed.
B. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(3): Saul's
Discharge
William Saul, a disc jockey employed by KLZ, was dis-
charged on January 30. Earlier that week, on January 28,
Saul with several other employees went to the apartment of
disc jockey Judson and attended the Union's initial organi-
zational meeting where it was announced that the next
union meeting would be held at Saul's apartment on Sun-
day, February 2. The same evening, January 28, Judson
informed newsman Jack Tyson about the union meeting
held that night at his apartment and invited Tyson to at-
tend the next meeting scheduled for Saul's apartment. The
following morning, January 29, KLZ' s general manager,
Yacovazzi, learned from Tyson about the Union's organi-
zational campaign and Judson's involvement. The same
morning KLZ's operations manager, Knight, as found
above, interrogated disc jockeys Saul and Finn about the
employees' union activities and specifically asked Finn
whether Judson and Saul were engaged in activities on be-
half of the Union. Saul was discharged the next day, Janu-
ary 30. The General Counsel and Saul argue that Respon-
dent discharged Saul, because of his union activities.
Respondent takes the position that-it was a coincidence
that Saul's discharge occurred hard on the heels of his
union activities; that the record does not establish it knew
of Saul's union activities or sentiments; and that, assuming
it did have this knowledge, the decision to discharge Saul
was arrived at long before his union activities. The evi-
dence pertinent to an evaluation of the Respondent's de-
fense is as follows.
Respondent took over the operation of KLZ in 1972.
Saul had begun work for KLZ in 1968 and in August 1973
was promoted to assistant AM program director at which
time he also took over the mid-day AM radio show which
was programed from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
KLZ is a personality radio station in contrast to one
where the announcer simply gives the time, temperature,
and plays records without comment. KLZ's announcers
are expected to talk in a manner calculated to cause the
audience to identify with or relate to the announcer. Its
programming is directed toward the 25-year to 49-year age
group, and in particular, during the time of the day Saul's
show was broadcast, its programing is directed toward the
housewives in this age bracket. Like other radio stations
KLZ's business is to sell advertising. And like the other
stations in the Denver area, in order to persuade the adver-
tising agencies to use their station, KLZ depends on a rat-
ing survey which shows the number of persons, broken
down into age groups and sex, who listen to KLZ through-
out the broadcasting day. The rating service used by virtu-
ally all of the radio stations in the Denver area is Arbitron
Radio (ARB) which issues ratings twice yearly. ARB's rat-
ings for April/May issue in June and for October/Novem-
ber in December. These are the ratings which influence the
advertisers.
KLZ received AR-B's October/November 1974 ratings-
on December 22, 1974. The ratings, described below, re-
vealed that Saul's show suffered a sharp decline in listeners
particularly women between the ages of 25 to 49, the age
group the show was supposed to reach. In 1974, subsequent
to ARB's April/May ratings both Knight and Yacovazzi
became dissatisfied with Saul's performance because they
felt he was not relating to the audience his program was
supposed to be reaching; namely, housewives between the
ages of 25 to 49. Knight prior to and after the issuance of
the October/November 1974 ARB ratings, as he credibly
testified, spoke to Saul on several occasions about the fact
that he did not seem to be "getting across" to the 25 to 49
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO. 1001
age group, in particular the housewives.10
The ARB ratings received by KLZ on December 27,
1974, confirmed the suspicions of Knight and Yacovazzi
about Saul's performance. The ratings showed that Saul's
show had lost from 23 percent to 56 percent of its total
listening audience in KLZ's target demographic audi-
ence-the age group from 25 to 49-and that his show had
dropped from fifth place to a tie for eighth place in the
Denver market. It also revealed that Saul's show had lost
between 40 and 56 percent of its female listeners in the 25-
to 49-year age bracket and from 23 to 48 percent of the
male audience in this age bracket. The ratings also indi-
cated that in general KLZ's performance had suffered.
The October/November ARB ratings resulted in Gener-
al Manager Yacovazzi changing KLZ's music format to
stress more than ever a "middle of the road" (MOR) ap-
proach; "Cuts" from albums were substituted in place of
certain "hit singles," thus supposedly increasing the appeal
of the station to the 25 plus age group. In addition, Yaco-
vazzi decided to replace Saul.
Regarding Saul's replacement, the credible testimony of
Yacovazzi, corroborated by Knight, establishes that upon
the receipt of the ARB ratings on December 27, 1974, Ya-
covazzi decided Saul had to be replaced. He communicat-
ed this decision to Knight and instructed him to advertise
for Saul's replacement. On the same date, December 27,
Knight submitted advertising copy for a "Creative Morn-
ing Radio Personality" to Broadcasting magazine which
published this ad in its issue of January 13.11 Then a few
days after the ad was placed Yacovazzi learned that Rose-
mary Barnwell, a well known local radio personality, had
been terminated by radio station KHOW, one of KLZ's
competitors. Ms. Barnwell, who left KHOW on December
30, 1974, had been announcing a highly successful morning
show with a male partner. The show which was known as
the "Charlie and Barney" show was basically aimed at the
same demographic age group as Saul's show. When Yaco-
vazzi learned of Barnwell's termination he immediately
contacted her and arranged a meeting for January 6. Pre-
sent at this meeting were Barnwell, Yacovazzi, and Knight.
Yacovazzi offered and Barnwell accepted employment
with KLZ. They agreed Barnwell would do a show similar
in content to the one she had done for KHOW, that it
would replace Saul's 10 a.m. to 2 p.m, show, and that
Barnwell's partner would be Russ Knight and the show
would be called the "Russ and Barney" show. However,
Barnwell was not able to unequivocally commit herself to
begin work for Respondent since she expected to be mar-
ried in the immediate future and her husband's employer-
an airline-might transfer him to another city. Because of
this uncertainty Yacovazzi and Barnwell agreed that her
to Saul admits that within the 6-month period prior to his discharge that
Knight told him his performance needed to improve in order to appeal to
the over-25 housewives and that he needed to relate to this audience more
than he had been doing.
n I accept the credible testimony of Yacovazzi and Knight that KLZ's
intent when it placed this ad was to secure a replacement for Saul. The only
other show which would need the "morning radio personality" called for in
the ad was the 6 to 10 a.m. show handled by Mike McCuen. The October/
November ' ARB ratings reveal that McCuen's show had made substantial
gains for both men and women Obviously Respondent did not intend to
replace McCuen.
employment with KLZ would be contingent upon her hus-
band remaining in the Denver area and that Barnwell
would be given approximately 2 to 3 weeks to resolve this
question.12
Following the January 6 meeting Yacovazzi on a num-
ber of occasions contacted Barnwell and was informed that
Barnwell's husband's transfer was still in doubt. In the
meantime, on Friday, January 24, as Knight credibly testi-
fied, he told Saul he did not appreciate his griping about
Knight's selection of certain records from albums in place
of a "single" and about the station's emphasis of the "mid-
dle of the road" approach. Knight also told Saul he was
not relating to the housewives, he sounded too mechanical,
and was not generally relating to his audience, and suggest-
ed Saul look for another job.13
The following week, on January 29, Barnwell was in-
formed that her husband's employer had decided to trans-
fer him to another city. Accordingly, on January 29 at or
about 5:30 p.m. Barnwell phoned Yacovazzi and notified
him that she was unable to work for KLZ. Yacovazzi testi-
fied that when he learned Barnwell was unable to replace
Saul he decided that Saul would be terminated immedi-
ately and replaced by Knight who was then handling a
show from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. and that Knight's show
would be taken over by the FM program director Struck
who had previously worked as a disc jockey for Yacovazzi
at another station. Yacovazzi testified the reason he decid-
ed to replace Saul immediately with the personnel on hand
rather than wait until he could hire someone from the out-
side 14 was that:
I knew that I had a problem in that mid day period
and I did not want the problem to perpetuate itself'so
I just made the decision.
... we had just come off a 'disaster book [referring to
the Oct/Nov 1974 ARB rating]. The next rating taken
was going to be in April/May 1975, and in order to
solidify a personality in the market it takes a certain
degree of time for a person to establish himself and
identify himself with the appreciable audience in the
market and I had a tremendous responsibility to make
sure we did not get crushed again in April/May.,
On January 29 Yacovazzi notified Knight and Struck of his
decision and the next day, January 30, prior to the start of
12 What occurred at the January 6 meeting is based upon the credible
testimony of Yacovazzi and Knight which was substantially corroborated
by Barnwell's deposition I have considered Barnwell's failure to recall
whether Yacovazzi mentioned the hours that her show would be scheduled.
Barnwell did testify however that Yacovazzi stated that her show would be
aired between McCuen's morning show and Shannon 's afternoon show.
Since she was a morning personality this indicates that Barnwell's show was
to replace Saul's. Also , Barnwell emphatically testified that it was her under-
standing from Yacovazzi's remarks that it was the intent of KLZ to termi-
nate Saul's employment when she began work for KLZ
13 Knight credibly testified , and Saul admitted, that Saul was complaining
to the other disc jockeys about certain records that had been selected by
Knight. Knight also credibly testified that Saul told Knight, as well as other
disc jockeys, that he disagreed with the station's middle of the road ap-
proach
14 The ad in Broadcasting magazine which was published on January 13,
as of January 30, had not uncovered any applicants who Yacovazzi felt
qualified for Saul's show
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, Knight told Saul he was terminated and handed him
a written memo which explained that "the reasons" for his
termination were "poor ratings and a bad attitude. He can-
not relate to the audience . . . and at times he has not
followed KLZ music formal."
To recapitulate, the record establishes that Respondent
decided to discharge Saul on December 27 because of dis-
satisfaction with his manner and style of announcing
which Respondent believed was responsible for causing the
drastic drop in the ratings for his show issued that date.
Respondent thereafter diligently sought to find a suitable
replacement for him. It advertised in the industry's trade
magazine and on January 6 Saul's job was offered to Rose-
mary Barnwell, a very successful disc jockey at another
Denver radio station, who accepted the job. Until it was
definite that Barnwell could report for work Saul remained
in Respondent's employ. Barnwell, however, because of a
personal commitment notified General Manager Yacovaz-
zi on January 29 that she could not accept the job. Yaco-
vazzi then decided to discharge Saul immediately and re-
place him with personnel already employed at KLZ rather
than wait until he could hire someone satisfactory from the
outside, since it was mandatory that a switch be made as
quickly as possible in order to begin acclimating the audi-
ence to a new personality in Saul's timeslot so that KLZ
would have sufficient time to gather and increase its audi-
ence before the next ARB survey in April/May 1975.
Based on the foregoing, I agree with Respondent's con-
tention that even assuming it knew of Saul's union activi-
ties that these activities had nothing to do with his termina-
tion since the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the
decision to terminate Saul was made prior to the com-
mencement of any union activity. The only evidence in the
record which casts any cloud of doubt on the bona fides of
the termination is the abrupt and precipitate nature of the
termination which imposed substantial additional burdens
upon both Knight and Struck. But, in view of Yacovazzi's
not unreasonable explanation for this action and in view of
the overwhelming evidence which shows that Respondent
had decided to terminate Saul long before his union activi-
ties, the precipitate nature of the termination raises only a
suspicion in my mind insufficient to support a finding of a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and at most indicates that Re-
spondent, knowing that Saul was a union sympathizer, wel-
comed the opportunity to discharge him. Cf. Klate Holt
Company, 161 NLRB 1606, 1612 (1966). Accordingly, I
find that Respondent's termination of Saul was not unlaw-
ful, and I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the termination of Saul violated
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Group One Broadcasting Co., West, the Respondent,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
Denver Local, AFL-CIO, the Union, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their own and
other employees' union activities and sympathies, by pro-
hibiting an employee from soliciting for the Union on his
nonwork time, and by removing from its bulletin board a
notice concerning the Union which was posted by an em-
ployee, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning 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.
5. Respondent has otherwise not violated the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 15
Respondent, Group One Broadcasting Co., West, Den-
ver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees about their union sym-
pathies and activities or about the union sympathies and
activities of their fellow employees.
(b) Promulgating or maintaining any rule or regulation
prohibiting its employees from soliciting on behalf of
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
Denver Local, AFL-CIO, or any other union, during their
working hours while on nonworking time on its property.
(c) Removing from its bulletin board notices concerning
the above-named Union or any other union which have
been posted by its employees. 16
(d) In any like or 'related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Denver, Colorado,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 27, after being duly signed by
15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
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.
16 Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the removal of a notice
which has become out of date by the passage of time.
17 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
GROUP ONE BROADCASTING CO. 1003
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respon-
dent, 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 the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here-
by is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not specifically found herein.