American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY 7
- The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All editors and assistant editors of the Employer in Los Angeles
-County, California , including the editors and assistant editors in the
film service department , the newsreel, editors in the newsreel depart-
ment, and the editor and assistant editor-in `the film exchange depart-
ment, but excluding all other employees , guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act:
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
American Broadcasting Company, a Division of American Broad-
casting-Paramount Theatres , Inc. and International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-74f1. August 31, 1955
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 Pravitz, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, National Association of, Broadcast Employees
-and- Teohnieians,' CIO, asserts that on March 28, 1955, prior to the
filing of the petition herein and Petitioner's demand- for recognition,
both occurring on the same day, March 30, 1955, the Intervenor and
the Employer executed a contract which it now alleges to be a bar to
the instant proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not
a bar on the ground that by its terms ratification by the Intervenor's
membership was a condition precedent to the consummation of a bind-
ing, legal, contract, and the contract was not ratified until after the
petition was filed.
The record shows that on or about November 1, 1951, an agreement,
hereinafter referred to as the "master contract," was entered into be-
tween the Intervenor and the Employer, and was from time-to-time
modified and extended, the last extension expiring on January 31,
1955. On January 31,1955, a stipulation (known as,the Santa Barbara
114 NLRB-NO.2
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement) was executed by the parties, but subsequently rejected'by
the Intervenor's membership. Thereafter, both parties agreed to the.
extension of the "master contract" to March 31, 1955. Negotiations
continued resulting in a modification of the Santa Barbara agreement
"effective the day following notice of ratification by NABET member-
ship," and•dated March 26, formalized March 28, 1955. On April 1,.
the parties agreed- to further extend the "master contract" until April
7. Intervenor's membership ratified- the stipulation on April 6, and
the Employer was notified of this action on April 7,1955.
The Intervenor, recognizing that the Board has • held that a con-
tract containing a provision requiring ratification cannot operate as a
bar until such provision has -been satisfied,' urges the Board to re-
consider its contract-bar doctrine and reconcile the equities existing
between industrial stability and the democratic process of ratification
,by union members. Arguing that any rule which does not permit
ratification free from fear of raid during the process puts a premium on
the undemocratic practice of depriving the rank and file of the op-
portunity to approve or disapprove the results of negotiation, it con-
tends the concept of timely filing should be modified, to allow for a
period of ratification, which, thereby encouraging ratification by the
membership of labor organizations, would contribute substantially to
industrial stability. Therefore, it proposes a rule on contract renewals
that where negotiations have resulted in a proposed new agreement
which has been reduced to writing and is in the process of being sub-
mitted to the membership for ratification, the only act remaining to
establish a binding agreement, the Board should refuse to entertain
a petition for representation until the ratification vote is taken.
The Board has considered the arguments advanced by the Inter-
venor but finds in them no reason to depart from its usual contract-
bar , rules. Where a contract contemplates ratification, the, relation-
ship between the parties cannot be deemed stabilized until ratifica-
tion occurs. Accordingly, we find the contract no bar to a present de-
termination of representatives. We find, therefore, that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the•Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and'Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4.,;The Petitioner seeks a unit of employees known as -the, film serv-
ice division which is comprised of master editors, program editors, as-
sistant editors, film traffic controllers, print inspectors, and film han-
dlers. The Employer agrees as to the appropriateness of the unit
sought, but would omit reference to the film service division. The In-
tervenor urges that the unit sought by the, Petitioner has been merged
in a larger unit covered by the Intervenor's agreement and is inap-
propriate as a separate bargaining.unit.
1 Westinghouse Electrio Corporation , Small Motor Division , 111 NLRB 497.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY 91
By virtue' of a consent agreement entered into between the In-
tervenor and the Employer, a unit of film service employees (all em-
ployees in film facilities, film services division) of the Employer in
New York City was certified on December 26, 1950. Thereafter, on
May 1, 1951, a contract was executed effective until October 31, 1952,.
applicable to "all employees in the film service division of the Com-
pany in New York City as shown in Section 7." Section 7 provided
wage scales for the following employees : master editors, program edi-
tors, assistant editors, film traffic controllers, print inspectors, and
film handlers.
Sometime after July 1, 1953, the Employer and the Intervenor pre-
pared a printed booklet entitled "NABET-ABC Master Contract-
November 1, 1951 (incorporating changes made to and including July
1, 1953)." This master contract is divided into two parts : the first
part entitled "General Sections" covers the subjects of recognition,,
dues checkoff, work schedule, overtime and penalties, vacations, holi-
days, seniority, transfers, discharges, travel time, use of employees"
cars, grievances, no strikes or lockouts, program origination, and con-
tract terms; the second part entitled "Individual Sections" contains
18 individual contracts concerning the employees of ABC. The,
master contract states its intent and purpose to set forth the "collective
bargaining agreements" of the parties, and provides for "INDIVID-
UAL SECTIONS which will contain the description of each bar-
gaining unit, which shall not be affected hereby, the rates of pay and
any unusual working conditions which have no general application."
In the event of any conflict between the general and individual sec-
tions, the contract declares that the individual sections will prevail.
Also, in each individual contract the "Scope of the Unit" is set out
including only those employees to whom the provisions are applicable.
The director of labor relations of -the Employer testified that, in
his opinion, the contracts were administered by the Employer on the
basis of separate units, and that bargaining had been conducted on
the basis of separate units. No evidence was offered that either the
Intervenor or the Employer ever had any intention, agreement, or
discussion designed to bring about a merger of the separate and dis-
tinct units. Further, the record discloses that the master contract
does not cover all the employees of the Employer, or all the employees.
of any classification.
In view of the above, and on the record as a whole, we find that the-
history of bargaining for the film service employees of the Employer
in New York City has been on the basis of a separate, appropriate.
unit as was certified in 1950.1 We further find, in view of this history,
that the master editors, program editors, assistant editors, film traffic
2 Cf. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 114 NLRB 1; American Can Company, 109.
NLRB 1284.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
controllers , print inspectors , and film handlers of the Employer in
New York City, constitute a cohesive and homogeneous unit which we
find appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
General Electric Company and Lodge No. 1000 , International
Association of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-
4162. August 31.,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On June 10,• 1955, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction
of Elections,' elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, among the employees in the units heretofore found appro-
priate? At the conclusion of the elections, tallies of ballots were
furnished the parties. The tallies show : 3 - ,
Group (a)
Approximate number of eligible voters---- --------------------------- 5
Votes cast for IBEW----------------------------------------------- 2
Votes cast against participating labor organizations ---------------------- 3
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------- 0
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ , 5
Group (b)
Approximate number of eligible voters -------------------------------- 461
Votes cast for Lodge No. 1000, International Association of Machinists, AFL
•(Petitioner)----------------------------------------------------- 223
Votes cast for International Union of Electrical , Radio^'and Machine Workers,-
CIO----------------------------------------------------------- 24
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------------- * 193
Valid votes counted------------------------------------------------ **442
Challenged ballots---------------------------------------- --------- 5
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots-------------- -------------- 447
*Includes 3 votes cast against participating labor organizations in Group (a).
"Includes 2 votes cast for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL, in
Group (a).
I General Electric Company , 112 NLRB 839.
2 The Board directed separate elections to be held among ( a) all class "A" and "B"
electricians and their helpers, and (b ) all remaining production and maintenance em-
ployees
s Pursuant to the provisions of the Board 's Decision and Direction of Elections, since
a majority of the employees in voting group ( a) did not select the union seeking to repre-
sent them separately ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL) the votes
in group ( a) were pooled with the votes in group ( b) according all votes their face value,
but counting the votes cast for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
only as part of the total of the valid votes counted
1 114 NLRB No. 3.