American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY 927
American Broadcasting Company, a Division of the
American Broadcasting Companies , Inc. and Na-
tional Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians , AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner.1 Case
31-RC-2778
March 6, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On August 5, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the
petition on the ground that the requested unit of film
processors was inappropriate in view of their history
of bargaining as a part of a broader unit , and that no
compelling reasons exist to warrant severance there-
from . Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the Petitioner
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's decision on the grounds , inter alia, that he
made erroneous factual findings and departed from
officially reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated November 20, 1974, the
request for review was granted . Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Petitioner 's brief on review , and finds
that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(cXl) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
NABET contends, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, that the record does not establish that the
requested film processors have been part of a
broader unit . We agree.
i The Petitioner and the Employer are sometimes referred to herein as
NABET and ABC, respectively.
3 Employees in this group are referred to hereinafter simply as film
editors.
3 Local 776 did not intervene herein but its business agent testified at the
hearing as a witness for the Petitioner and indicated that Local 776 has no
objection to the representation of ABCs film processors by NABET. A
number of other groups of employees in the news department at the center
are represented by different labor organizations , among others, NABET
and two other IATSE locals.
4 Counterpart film processors at CBS are also represented by Local 776;
216 NLRB No. 178
ABC, which is engaged in local and national
television broadcasting, operates a TV center in Los
Angeles, California. The requested film processors,
four full-time and one part-time, are part of the news
department and are located in the technical building
at the center. They work in the basement which has
restricted access and devote their time to the
processing of exposed film. After the film is pro-
cessed, it is sent upstairs to the newsroom where it is
edited and commercials are spliced into it. Working
in the newsroom are 10 film editors and an
unspecified number of ancillary employees. The film
is then sent to another building at the center for
inclusion in news broadcasts.
Both the film processors and the group of film
editors and related employees 2 working in the
technical building have been represented by Motion
Picture Film Editors Local No. 776, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving
Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 776,
IATSE).3 The film editors employed in the news
departments of the Columbia Broadcasting System
(CBS) and National Broadcasting Company (NBC)
at their West Coast facilities are also represented by
Local 776.4
For a number of years, the three networks have
negotiated jointly with Local 776 concerning the film
editors at their respective West Coast facilities, and
each network has executed with it a series of separate
3-year agreements, essentially similar in their terms.5
The last Film Editors Agreement expired July 31,
1974.6
Although not entirely clear from the record, it
appears that around December 1966, when ABC
established its own color film processing laboratory
at the TV center and created the film processor
classification in its present form, ABC and Local 776
agreed by letter that the terms of the Film Editors
Agreement would apply to the film processors,
except that wage rates would be the same as those
provided for film processors in the large film
laboratories of the motion picture industry under the
Basic Film Agreement between IATSE and a
number of its locals 7 and the Association of Motion
Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). When
the 1968 Film Editors Agreement was executed, a
those at NBC are represented by NABET.
s The agreement with ABC is entitled "ABC-Film Editors and Cutters
Collective Bargaining Agreement," hereinafter referred to as the Film
Editors Agreement. The contracts with each network contain minor
variations to reflect slightly different fringe benefits. It is not clear-and we
need not here determine-whether or not a multiemployer unit was
established.
6 At the time of the hearing the agreement had not expired.
r Under that agreement , Local 683 represents laboratory technicians,
including film processors, and apparently Local 776 represents film editors.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
side letter pertaining to ABC's film processors was
attached which stated: "Except for rates of pay such
employees operate under and are covered by all
provisions of the local agreement between us." The
letter also sets forth as their pay rates those
contained in the existing Basic Film Agreement. A
similar side letter was attached to the 1971 Film
Editors Agreement. At that time the Basic Film
Agreement, which again governed the rates to be
paid ABC's film processors, was not due to expire
until January 31, 1973. During the negotiations
leading to the 1971 Film Editors Agreement, Local
776 made certain demands with respect to the film
processors and proposed that the unit description in
the Film Editors Agreement be modified to include
specifically the film processors. However, ABC
rejected the proposal, claiming the proposed changes
were tied to wage rates which were not subject to
reopening until January 31, 1973. Negotiations for a
new agreement on film processor wage rates did not
commence until January 1974. No new agreement
has been reached between Local 776 and ABC as to
such rates and the film processors are still being
compensated at the rates provided under the expired
Basic Film Agreement.8
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that
ABC and Local 776 have manifested their intent,
either by the language of their agreements9 or by
their conduct, to merge ABC's film processors and
film editors into a single unit. In so concluding, we
8 A new agreement was reached regarding rates of pay for film
processors at CBS . while not entirely clear from the record, it appears that
the delay in negotiating a new wage rate for ABC's film processors is at least
partially attributable to difficulties encountered by the parties to the
IATSE-AMPTP negotiations regarding appropriate pay rates for film
processors and other covered employees . Several IATSE locals , including
Locals 776 and 683 , apparently declined to ratify the proposed agreement
but allowed employees represented by them to be paid according to rates
established thereunder despite their disagreement.
9 We do not view language therein making all terms and conditions other
rely primarily on the facts that the three major
networks have bargained jointly with Local 776
concerning their respective film editors; the Film
Editors Agreement by its terms covered a unit
comprised only of the film editors; the side letter
agreements between Local 776 and ABC do not
specifically state that the film processors shall be
included in the same unit with the film editors; and
the agreed wage rates for the film processors were in
fact "tracked" to the Basic Film Agreement above
referred to which had an effective period different
from that of the Film Editors Agreement.
Accordingly, as we have concluded that the film
processors have a history of representation by Local
776 in a separate unit apart from the film editors, we
shall direct an election among them, as requested by
NABET, in the unit described below, which we find
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time 10 film pro-
cessors employed by the Employer at its facility at
4151 Prospect Avenue, Los Angeles, California,
excluding all office clerical employees, profession-
al employees, guards and supervisors" as defined
in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
than wages applicable to the film processors as sufficient , in itself, to
establish an intent to create a single unit of film editors and film processors.
10 At the time of the hearing Dick Dow had been employed as a regular
substitute for a processor who had been absent for a period of 3 months due
to illness . The record shows that Dow is called on a regular basis to fill in for
film processors who are absent for vacation and illness . There appears to be
no dispute as to his inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, he is included.
11 The parties stipulated at the hearing that Axel Dag, referred to as the
supervising processor , is not a supervisor as defined in the Act . Accordingly,
he is included in the unit.