Norfolk Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 244 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the high degree of integration demonstrated here .among all the em-
ployees engaged in programing operations "o
5. The present unit finding in the case is wholly inconsistent with
the existing precedents, which were relied upon in the original de-
cisions?1 Our colleagues now attempt to reconcile these cases with the
observation that the disputed employees included in the units there
did in fact appear "regularly or frequently" before the microphones.
But such a unit as is now found here was not in issue in those cases.
The disputed employees there were included with the other employees
in the unit because of their community of interests as programing
employees, and not because they, like many of the miscellaneous station
employees, spent .some small portion of their time on the air. The
Westchester case is entirely clear on the point :
Developing and scheduling programs, writing continuity, and
soliciting appearances on station programs are all activities which
are closely related to the actual broadcast, and are as necessary
to it as the station announcements and other activities actually
performed before the microphone 2 As even the staff announcers
spend substantial portions of their time in activities preparatory
to broadcasting, we are satisfied that a unit consisting of an-
nouncers and others engaged in program preparation constitutes
a homogeneous and cohesive group, without regard to the portion
of their time spent in actual announcing, or whether some may in
fact do no announcing at all. (Emphasis added.)
2 Miami Valley Broadcasting Corporation , 70 NLRB 1015 ; West Central Broadcast-
ing Company, 77 NLRB 366 ; Delaware Broadcasting Company , 82 NLRB 727; and
Ridson, Inc., 91 NLRB No. 59. WWEZ Radio, Inc., 91 NLRB 1518, and Badger
Broadcasting Co., 92 NLRB No. 161, to the extent that they are inconsistent herewith,
are hereby overruled.
We would not alter the unit originally found appropriate in this
case. Sympathy with the Petitioner's objectives as set forth at oral
argument is not enough to induce us to join in a departure from
precedent which-is so sharp and so fraught with serious practical
consequences for the broadcasting industries.
io Cf. National Tube Company , 96 NLRB 1199.
n E. g., Westchester Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1346 , supra; Delaware Broad-
casting Company, 82 NLRB 727, and cases cited therein.
NORFOLK BROADCASTING CORPORATION (WNOR) and AMERICAN FED-
ERATION or RADIO ARTISTS , AFL, PETTrIONER. f Case No. 5-RC-970.
July 15,1952
Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election
On April 4, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled case in which a majority of the Board
100 NLRB No. 2.
NORFOLK BROADCASTING CORPORATION (WNOR) 245
rejected the Petitioner's request for a unit confined to all employees
appearing before the microphone and found that the sole appropriate
unit was one encompassing all employees engaged in announcing and
in continuity and traffic functions. Member Styles dissented in a
separate opinion on the ground that a unit confined to the employees
appearing before the microphone was also appropriate. Member
Peterson did not participate in that decision.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Board's decision insofar as it held that the exclusion of the two traffic
and continuity employees, neither of whom regularly or frequently
appeared before the microphone, would render inappropriate a unit
of announcing employees. It also requested an opportunity to argue
orally before the Board.
On May 22, 1952, oral argument was had before the full Board at
Washington, D. C., and all parties participated in the argument.
For the reasons stated in our Supplemental Decision in Hampton
Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH),100 NLRB 238, issued this
day, we shall amend the original unit to exclude the traffic and con-
tinuity employees Matthews and Moody, as neither regularly nor
frequently appears before the microphone. In all other respects, we
reaffirm the original decision.
Accordingly, we find that all employees who regularly or frequently
appear before the microphone at the Employer's Radio Station
WNOR, Norfolk, Virginia, including announcers, announcer-engi-
neers, and Howard Sheets, but excluding the employees engaged in
traffic and continuity functions (Matthews and Moody), the recep-
tionist (Barnes), the salesman (Pritchard), and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in
this volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOO and MEMBER MuRDOCK, dissenting :
For the reasons fully set forth in our dissenting opinion in Hamapton
Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 100 NLRB 238, we would
not change the unit found appropriate in the original decision in this
case.1
3 98 NLRB 1095.