93 N.L.R.B. 936 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

Southwestern Sales Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 26, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 936 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gloria Films Gloria Film Productions, Inc. Golden Pictures, Inc. Robert Goelet, Jr. Samuel Goldwyn Edward Gross Horizon Pictures, Inc. Stanley E . Kramer Sol Lesser William and Edward Nassour (Nasbro Pictures, Inc.) Tames Nasser ( Star Films, Inc., Strand Productions, and LeBrea Productions Seymour Nebenzal Normandy Productions, Inc. Mary Pickford Harry M. Popkin Albert S. Rogell Charles R. Rogers Roxbury Productions, Inc. Harry Sherman Edward Small (Reliance Pic- tures, Inc.) Robert Stillman Hunt Stromberg Vanguard Films Venture Pictures Corpora- tion Walter Wanger Jack M. Warner Productions (Phoenix Films) W. Lee Wilder Appendix D Case No. 21-RC-1286 Apex Film Corporation Jerry Fairbanks, Inc. Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc. Flying A. Pictures, Inc. Cisco Kid Pictures, Inc. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. -SOUTHWESTERN SALES CORPORATION (RADIO STATION KVOO) and NA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS & TECHNICIANS (OMA- HA CHAPTER), PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-667. March 06, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Evert P. Rhea, hear- ing 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- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- 93 NLRB No. 157 SOUTHWESTERN SALES CORPORATION .937 tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Employer is engaged in the operation of an AM commercial radio broadcasting station at Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the radio engineers and technicians at the Em- ployer's station. The Employer does not dispute the appropriate- ness of the unit sought but contends that the following individuals, whom the Union would include, should be excluded from the unit : Hugh Carpenter.-The employer contends that Carpenter is a su- pervisor. Carpenter, who has been employed by the Employer for approximately 20 years, now has the title of studio supervisor. His duties consist primarily of scheduling working hours for the five em- ployees working with him, making arrangements necessary for re- cording and remote control pickup, and in general overseeing the rou- tine operation of the control room. Approximately half of Carpen- ter's time is spent in routine control room work, and a considerable portion of this time is devoted to remote pickups outside the station. Carpenter is under the supervision of the Employer's chief engineer. He receives no extra compensation for his alleged supervisory duties. The record shows that Carpenter has no authority to hire, discharge, transfer, or discipline these employees or effectively to recommend such action. We find that Carpenter is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore include him in the unit with the radio engineers and technicians.' William LaFarlett.-The Employer contends that LaFarlett should be excluded from the unit as a maintenance man. The record shows that LaFarlett has no engineer's license and is engaged primarily as a night guard and in the general maintenance of the interior of the transmitter building. This work is essentially the work of a jan- itor, but due to LaFarlett's approximately 22 years of service with the Employer he is entrusted on occasion with some of the more rou- tine duties customarily performed by an electrician or an engineer. We find that LaFarlett is not a technician and we shall therefore exclude him from the tuts.' Vick Webster White.-This employee is engaged in routine control room operation. He works in the control room with the other engi- neers and technicians. White does not have, nor does his work re- quire, an engineer's license. We find that White is a technical em- ployee, and we shall include him in the unit with the radio engineers and technicians.3 1 Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation, 87 NLRB 1567. a See Inter-City Adver tising Company of Greensboro , N. C., Inc, 89 NLRB 1103. s Radio Station KTBS, Inc., et at, 90 NLRB No 218 938 o DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lloyd Herbert Drayheimm.-The Employer contends that this em- ployee should be excluded from the unit as a maintenance employee. lie is engaged in construction and maintenance work principally under the direction of Bushnell, the professional employee discussed below, and also does routine transmitter operation 1 day a week. He holds an engineer's license. We find that Drayheim is a technical employee, and we shall therefore include him in the unit with the radio engineers and technicians. John Merrill Bushnell.-The Employer would exclude Bushnell from the unit as a professional employee. Bushnell holds a first-class engineer's license. Ninety percent of his time is spent in research work in connection with improving the operating equipment and ex- perimenting with television transmission. This work is not routine and requires an academic background in the field. Bushnell was hired primarily for this research and not for the operating staff of the station. The remaining 10 percent of his time is spent as a regular station engineer' Bushnell works under the direct supervi- sion of the Employer's chief engineer. Upon the entire record, we find that Bushnell is a professional employee. The Board is prohibited by the Act from including professional employees in a unit with nonprofessional employees unless the ma- jority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such a unit. Accordingly, we must ascertain the desire of the one professional em- ployee involved herein as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees.5 We shall therefore direct separate elections in the fol- lowing voting groups: (a) All radio engineers and technicians who operate and/or maintain those facilities of the engineering department of the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, station, used in transmitting, converting, and/or conducting audio, FM, video, and/or radio fre- quencies for use in broadcast, rebroadcast, audition, rehearsal, record- ing, and/or "on the air" playback, excluding all other employees, professional employees, and supervisors; (b) the professional em- ployee (John Merrill Bushnell) in the engineering department of the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, station, excluding all other employees and supervisors. The employees in the nonprofessional voting group (a) will be polled as to whether or not they wish the petitioning union to repre- sent them. The employee in the professional voting group (b) will be asked two questions on his ballot : (1) Do you desire to be included in a unit composed of the radio engineers and technicians in the en- gineering department of the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, station, for the purposes of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by National * Apparently this operating time is required in order to maintain his engmeei ' s license. 5 See Sonotone Corporation , 90 NLRB 1236. NATIONAL OATS COMPANY 939 Association of Broadcast Engineers & Technicians (Omaha Chap- ter) ? If the professional employee in voting group (b) votes "yes" to the first question, indicating his wish to be included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, he will be so included. His vote on the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide the repre- sentative for the engineering and technical unit. If, on the other hand, the professional employee votes against inclusion, he will not be included with the nonprofessional employees, and his vote on the second question will not be counted. 'Our unit determination is based, in part, then, upon the ballot of the professional employee. However, we now make the following findings in regard to the appropriate unit : 1. If the professional employee votes for inclusion in the unit with the nonprofessional employees , we find that the following employees will constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All radio engineers and technicians who operate and/or maintain those facilities of the engineering department of the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, station, used'in transmitting, converting, and/or conduct- ing audio, FM, video, and/or radio frequencies for use in broadcast, rebroadcast, audition, rehearsal, recording, and/or "on the air" play. back, including the professional employee, but excluding all other em- ployees, and supervisors. 2. If the professional employee does not vote for inclusion in the unit with the nonprofessional employees, we find the unit set forth above to be appropriate, with the exclusion, however, of the profes- sional employee. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] NATIONAL OATS COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GRAIN MILLERS, LOCAL 167, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-1278. -March 26, 1951 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 Milton O. Talent, hearing officer. The hearing officer's 'rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., ' In accordance with a stipulation of the parties , the testimony of J J Mooney is stricken from the record The motion of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 149, AFL, to correct certain minor errors in the record is granted and the record is hereby amended accordingly 93 NLRB No. 156.