American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 27, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 995 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO., INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL AND STAGE EMPLOYEES,
LocAL 306, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-1420.-Decided December 27, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, 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 power in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Murdock].
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the reasons
hereafter stated.
The Petitioner, as supported by its International, seeks to repre-
sent only those of the employees in the Company's engineering de-
partment who perform at the Company's New York television broad-
cast station, WJZ-TV, the duties of "projectionists," or "projection
engineers." 2 The Petition seeks to sever them from an existing
"technical" unit. Intervenor NABET opposes the restricted com-
position of the proposed unit, contending, inter alia, that the func-
tions of "projectionists" and those of the other engineering depart-
I International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, the parent organization of
Local 300, Petitioner herein, and National Association of Broadcast Engineers and
Technicans , herein called NABET, both intervened in this proceeding.
' Both terms, "projectionists " and "projection engineers ," are used interchangeably
throughout the record in referring to the group which the Petitioner seeks to represent.
92 NLRB No. 151.
995
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went employees require exercise of relatively similar skills, and are
all closely coordinated to form the chain of technical operations
necessary to the transmission of a television program over the air.3
The Company takes a neutral position as to the unit. However,
the testimony of its officials with respect to the relation of the duties
of the "projectionists" to those of the remaining technical employees
in the engineering department, substantiates the theory underlying
NABET's opposition to the composition of the unit proposed by the
Petitioner.
In the recent Fort Industry Company case,4 we had occasion to
examine at length the duties and skills of "projectionists" and their
relation to the work and interests of other employees who, together
with "projectionists" are responsible for the technical aspects of
television broadcasting,, and also to consider the question of the sev-
erance of "projectionists," for bargaining purposes, from such other
technical or "engineering" employees. Without deciding whether
(a,s the Petitioner and its International here contend), the duties and
skills of "projectionists" are such as to entitle them to be considered
a separate "craft," we found in the Fort Industry case that they
should not be separated, for bargaining purposes, from other tech-
nical employees who, like those in the Company's engineering depart-
ment here, exercise relatively similar skills, have the same over-all
supervision, the same working conditions, and work closely together
for the achievement of the common technical broadcasting result .5
We find no cogent reason, on the basis of the record before us, to
make a different determination here." Consistent with our decision
in the Fort Industry case, we find, therefore, that the unit proposed
by the Petitioner is not appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. As
' NABET additionally urges that a unit confined in scope to one station of the Company,
rather than one extending to employees performing similar technical functions throughout
the entire system of the Company' s station network , is inconsistent with the bargaining
history of the industry, and the Company as well. The Petitioner and its International
argue that such history is inapplicable and not controlling . Our finding herein, that a
unit confined to "projectionists " is inappropriate , and the absence of a question concerning
representation of employees on a more comprehensively composed unit basis, renders
unnecessary a definitive consideration of the additional issues so posed. Hence we neither
reach nor pass upon them.
' 88 NLRB 527.
5 here, as in the Fort Industry case , the record shows that a constant unbroken line of
communication between all the technical employees must be maintained at all times to
achieve the broadcasting result, and that all the functions are highly coordinated In
timing. In these circumstances , there is no material significance to the fact that "projec-
tionists" work in a physical location in the station ( viz, the "film room" ) different from
that in which other technical or engineering employees work.
6 we do not consider the fact that, in New York, "projectionists" are required to obtain
a special license in order to perform their work as a persuasive basis for distinction.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO., INC. 997
the Petitioner does not claim to represent any employees other than
"projectionists," we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.