Pennsylvania Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 254 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PENNSYLVANIA BROADCASTING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF RADIO ARTISTS, A BRANCH OF ASSOCIATED ACTORS AND ARTISTES
OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1352. July 15,
1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to all staff announcers at the
Employer's radio station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Inter-
venor, American Communications Association, Broadcast District
Local No. 1, Independent, contends that only the existing unit of the
technical department employees and staff announcers is appropriate.
The Intervenor has bargained for such a unit for 12 years and bases
its unit contention on that history of bargaining. The Employer
takes no position as to the appropriateness of the requested unit.
There are approximately 26 employees in the existing unit of the
technical department employees and staff announcers. The techni-
cians, who comprise the major classification in the existing unit ,l are
required to hold a first class radio operator's license and perform the
usual functions of their classification in the operation and maintenance
of the Employer's radio broadcasting equipment. The staff an-
nouncers are hired on the basis of their voice quality, previous radio
experience, educational background, and general adaptability to the
requirements of the position. They work under the supervision of
the program director and are, of course, separately supervised from
technicians. Although close cooperation between technicians and staff
announcers is of importance to good production of a radio broadcast,
there are no transfers between the two groups and their work is dif-
ferent in character.
In addition to the staff announcers sought by the Petitioner, it
appears that there are at the Employer's radio station other employees
who regularly or frequently appear before a microphone. This group
includes at least a sport's director, a women's director, four "feature
a Also included in the existing unit are a general utility man and two pages who, like the
technicians , are under the supervision of the head of the technical department.
100 NLRB No. 41.
PENNSYLVANIA BROADCASTING COMPANY 255
artists," and possibly some news employees. In accordance with
Board precedent, such employees should be included in the requested
unit with staff announcers 2
The Board has this day held that all employees who regularly or
frequently appear before a microphone at a radio station are a tradi-
tional group of employees who may constitute a separate appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.3 We believe that, with
the additions mentioned above, the employees in the unit requested by
the Petitioner constitute such a group and that, despite the history
of bargaining at the Employer's radio station, the employees in that
group may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit
apart from the Employer's technical department employees.' They
may also, if they so desire, be-represented in a unit with the Employer's
technical department employees.5
Our dissenting colleagues, who likewise dissented from the above-
mentioned Board decisions finding appropriate units of employees
who regularly or frequently appear before a microphone,6 believe that
in this case the Board should not disturb the existing unit because of
the history of bargaining in that unit. In particular, they would not
disturb the existing unit because the petition does not include all other
program department employees.
However, it is clear that the Board would not have established the
existing unit as an original proposition,' and that the existing unit
which our dissenting colleagues seek to protect is as defective in scope
as the unit in the petition which they would dismiss. Moreover, such
defects as do exist in the petition may be remedied by the additions
made above to the requested unit, and the Petitioner has an adequate
showing of interest in such an enlarged unit. Accordingly, we do not
believe that the history of bargaining at the Employer's radio station
2 Radio Station KHMO, 97 NLRB No. 185 ( women's director ) ; Neptune Broadcasting
Company, 94 NLRB 1052 ( feature artists ) ; Delaware Broadcasting Company, 82 NLRB
727 (women 's director and news employees ) ; Miami Valley-Broadcasting Corp ., 70 NLRB
1015 ( sports director and news employees).
BHampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 100 NLRB 238, issued this day;
Norfolk Broadcasting Corporation ( WNOR ), 100 NLRB 244 , issued this day.
4 Cf. Crown Zeilerbach Corporation, 96 NLRB 378 ( powerhouse employees ) ; Armour
and Company, 86 NLRB 539 (truck drivers ) ; Goslin-Birmingham Mfg. Co., 84 NLRB 95T
(foundry workers ). Cf. also International Paper Company, 94 NLRB 483 , 491, and
W. S. Tyler Company, 93 NLRB 523, in which the Board refused to give controlling weight
to histories of bargaining on a members only basis , and Inyo Lumber Company, 92 NLRB
1267 , 1270 , footnote 3, in which the Board refused to give controlling weight to a history
of bargaining based on oral contracts.
3 Cf. HTTV, Inc., 97 NLRB 1477 ; B:MTR Radio Corporation KLAC--TV, 85 NLRB 99.
E See footnote 3, supra.
7 At large radio stations such as the Employer 's, announcers are normally excluded from
a unit of technicians . Florida Broadcasting Co, 93 NLRB 1568 , 1571, and cases there cited-
Thus, it appears that the Board would not have included the staff announcers in the
existing unit.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should be given such weight as to preclude the establishment of an
appropriate unit of all employees who regularly or frequently appear
before a microphone.8
However, we shall make no final determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of the employees in the election herein-
after directed. We shall direct an election in the following voting
group:
All employees who regularly or frequently appear before a micro-
phone at the Employer's radio station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
including staff announcers, the sport's director, the women's director,
and the "feature artists," but excluding all other employees and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In
the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the exist-
ing unit, with the additions made above, to be appropriate and the
Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such
effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in our dissenting opinion in Hampton Roads
Broadcasting Corporation (WGH)9 we do not believe that a group of
employees who regularly or frequently appear before a microphone
could under the present circumstances constitute an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining. We would not, therefore,
direct an election in the voting group designated by the majority in
this case. Moreover, we would also refuse to direct such an election
in this particular case because there has been an extensive history of
bargaining on a broader basis.
Where there has been a long history of bargaining for an existing
unit, the Board is ordinarily reluctant to disturb such a unit. We do
so only where the Act itself or the Board's established policy requires
changes in the existing unit, because the requested group is comprised
of professional employees or constitutes a recognized craft group or a
group which has traditionally been accorded the right of self repre-
s See footnote 4, supra.
100 NLRB 238, issued this day.
THE FEDERAL REFRACTORIES CORPORATION 257
sentation.10 The voting group established by the majority here does
not, in our opinion, satisfy any of these criteria. We therefore would
not disrupt the present 12-year-old unit,11 which suffers from no omis-
sions different from those from which the petition itself suffers, and
whose structure does not contravene Board policy12 We would leave
well enough alone.
10 Albert's Incorporated, 90 NLRB 110, 111; Weetinghouae Etectrdo Corporation, 89
NLRB 8 , 10. Cf. Illinois Oitiea Water Company , 87 NLRB 109.
01 Madden Form Brassiere Co., 96 NLRB 678 Pacific Tradiwaye, 91 NLRB 559; Aibert'e
Incorporated, Supra.
Cf. STTV, Inc., 97 NLRB 1477; KMTR Radio Corporation , KLAC-TV, 85 NLRB 99.
THE FEDERAL REFRACTORIES CORPORATION , PETITIONER and UNITED
BRICK AND CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 469, AFL. Cabe
No. 8-RM-86. July 16,196,'
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Carroll L.
Martin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. ' As the result of a consent election conducted in 1945, United
Brick and Clay Workers of America, Local 469, AFL, herein called
Local 469, was certified as the bargaining representative for the, em-
ployees here involved.' Since 1945, Local 469 has, with the assist=
ance of its parent organization, acted as the bargaining agent of
these employees under successive contracts with the Employer. On
December 26, 1951, and again on January 30, 1952, United Construc-
tion Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers, challenged the
majority status of Local 469 and requested recognition by the Em-
ployer as the bargaining representative for its employees. There-
after, on February 4, 1952, the Employer filed the instant petition.
We must, however, decline to pursue this investigation of repre-
sentatives any further. For the Board records show that no com-
pliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act has ever been
1 Case No. 8-R-1846.
100 NLRB No. 35.