A. H. Belo Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 268 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new contract, eliminating the unlawful union-security clause 2 and
extending the 1950 contract, with certain changes not here pertinent,
to September 30, 1954. The Petitioner requested recognition on
July 25, 1952, and filed its petition on July 30, 1952.
The Petitioner contends the 1952 contract is a premature extension
of the 1950 contract and cannot therefore bar an immediate election.
The Employer and Intervenor assert that the premature extension
rule is inapplicable to the 1952 contract because, among other things,
the 1950 contract contained an unlawful union-security clause and
thus constituted no bar from its inception. As the Petitioner's claim
and petition followed the execution of the valid 1952 contract, they
contend the latter contract bars the present petition. We agree with
the Employer's and Intervenor's contention.
The Board has previously held that the premature extension rule
is applicable only if the original agreement was a bar to an election
at the time the subsequent agreement was executed. If the original
agreement was not a bar, the premature extension rule is inapplicable
to the subsequent agreement.' Here, the 1950 contract was never a
bar because of its unlawful union-security clause. The 1952 con-
tract, therefore, was no "premature extension" and, as the Petitioner's
claim and petition were untimely with respect to that contract, it
constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives.
Accordingly, we shall order that the petition be dismissed.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
' In its letter to the Employer on July 11, 1952, the Intervenor stated that for some
time counsel had been urging the Intervenor to correct the unlawful union -security clause
in the 1950 contract.
8 Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121 ; The Broderick Company, 85 NLRB 708.
A. H. BELO CORPORATION and RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS, LOCAL
UNION 1257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 16-RC-114.9. November 10, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Renkel, Jr.,
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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
101 NLRB No. 77.
A. H. BELO CORPORATION 269
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of the Employer' s television
technicians. The Employer contends that only a unit that in-
cludes both its television and radio technicians is appropriate.
For a number of years, the Employer has operated radio station
WFAA-AM in Dallas, Texas. In 1950, it purchased the property
and equipment of a television station, now known as WFAA-TV, took
over most of this station's operating personnel, and since that time
has continued to operate the station as one of its several business en-
terprises in Dallas.' The television and radio stations are about 2113
miles apart.2 Though each station has its own immediate supervisor,
the Employer has placed both stations under the common over-all
supervision of its chief engineer. The record discloses that since the
Employer's acquisition of station WFAA-TV, there have been at
least 19 instances of interchange of technicians between the radio and
television stations. In general, although additional training is re-
quired to enable the Employer's AM radio technicians to become
competent to operate some of the TV equipment, the television tech-
nicians as a whole are qualified by training and experience to assist in
the radio operations.3 In view of the common over-all supervision
of technical operations, the comparative proximity of the Employer's
radio and television stations, the similarity of duties and qualifications
of the employees, and the substantial interchange among technicians
in the 2 stations, we find that a unit limited to the Employer's tele-
vision technicians is inappropriate.4 We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
3 The Employer also owns and operates the Dallas Morning News, a daily newspaper.
2 The Employer has recently connected theme stations with a coaxial cable . Although it
intends eventually to bring the two stations under the same roof, the Employer cannot
definitely predict when this can be accomplished.
8 Nineteen of the television technicians have had radio experience.
4 Fort Industry Co., 88 NLRB 527. See also Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc., 93 NLRB 1095;
Florida Broadcasting Co., 93 NLRB 1568 ; Radio Station WLAV, WLAV FM, and
WLAV-TV, 87 NLRB 1570.