Arizona Television Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 889 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

ARIZONA TELEVISION COMPANY 889
Arizona Television Company and International Alliance of Theat-
rical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-RC-5036. September 17, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION -
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
approved by the Regional Director on February 12, 1958, an election
by secret ballot was conducted on March 4,1958, among the employees
in the agreed appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election, a
tally of ballots was served upon the authorized observers for the
parties which disclosed the following results :
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------- 19
Void ballots----------------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for I. A. T. S. E----------------------------------------- 8
Votes cast for I. B. E. -W., Local 640--------------------------------- 7
Votes cast against participating labor organizations--------------------- 0
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 15
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 3
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots--------------------------- 18
The challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of the
election :
On March 10, 1958, the Petitioner timely filed objections to election,
a copy of which was served on the Employer and the Intervenor.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 7, the Acting Regional Director con-
ducted an investigation of the Petitioner's objections and the issues
raised by the challenged ballots, and on May 23, 1958, issued his
report on challenged ballots and objections to conduct of election.
As to the challenged ballots, the Acting Regional Director recom-
mended that the challenge to the ballot of Stanley J. Peabody be
sustained and that the challenges to the ballots of James E. Perry and
Marion B. Tuxhorn be overruled. The Acting Regional Director
further recommended that the objections be sustained and that the
election be set aside.
The Employer timely filed a statement of policy in behalf of Arizona
Television Company which is in effect and has been treated by the
Board as exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report. As no
exceptions were filed to the Acting Regional Director's recommenda-
tions respecting the challenges, we hereby adopt them pro forma.
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.
121 NLRB No. 117.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A 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.
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act :
Engineering and production department employees engaged in the
operation, maintenance, and installation of apparatus by means of
which electricity is applied in the transmission, transference, produc-
tion, or reproduction of pictures and/or sound, with or without
ethereal aid; the construction, setting up, striking, storage, and main-
tenance of scenery, flats, sets, and properties; the handling, operation,
and care of lighting equipment, cameras, pedestals, cables, mike booms,
projection apparatus including rear-view projectors, special visual
effects, teleprompters or other cueing devices; art, graphic, and card
layout work; motion picture or still photography; and editing, cut-
ting, or splicing of film and slides, but excluding all clerical employees,
janitor, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Acting
Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions, and the entire
record in this case. We find merit in the Employer's exceptions for
reasons stated hereafter.
The Petitioner alleges in its objections that within the 24-hour
period preceding the election, and prior thereto, the vice president of
the Employer called employees into his private office, individually,
and made certain anti-IATSE statements.
During the afternoon of March 3, the vice president and general
manager approached four employees and invited each into his office.
Each employee responded to the invitation and when present in the
office alone with the vice president and general manager was given
the following prepared statement to read and which the employee read
there in the office :
You have no doubt read the letters from one of the unions. We
have at all times done the best possible job we could for our em-
ployees. We incorporated many benefits in the contract with
IBEW. At the time they made their application they were the
only union that asked to represent the employees, and had signed
cards showing majority membership in the IBEW. This was no
sweetheart contract as charged. Many benefits were incorporated
into the contract. Ask those employed then about these benefits.
It was hard for the company to give these benefits. It was losing
money; and money to meet these added benefits had to be sup-
plied out of the pockets of the stockholders. -
ARIZONA TELEVISION COMPANY 891
Our company has never admitted an unfair labor practice.
We have tried in the past, and expect in the future, to follow
carefully the rules and regulations as prescribed by the National
Labor Relations Act. The original contract was extended to
cover other employees because the benefits, in fairness, had largely
been extended to others at that time, and the company wanted
the employees to have a voice in the next contract. This exten-
sion was made before the application of IATSE. We made a
settlement by way of compromise so that this controversy could
be terminated, and an election held, and you would have an
opportunity to make yourself heard, as the controversy was delay-
ing the election.
We do not feel that it is incumbent on management to answer
each and every assertion contained in the letters, as you can ob-
tain this information from your fellow employees, other than
management.
The Employer urges that such a statement was necessary in order
to dispel certain propaganda letters issued by IATSE which had re-
cently come to the notice of the vice president. There is no contention,
nor do we find, that the statement is in itself coercive.
In examining the entire record in this case, we note the following
facts. The Employer operates a television broadcasting studio at
Phoenix, Arizona, and employs a relatively small number of em-
ployees, approximately 19. The Employer has displayed no union
animus nor has it engaged in conduct or a campaign aimed to defeat
the Petitioner in the election. In reply to last minute propaganda
and accusations by the Petitioner, the vice president invited four em-
ployees into his office where he gave them the above-quoted statement.
It was temperate and did not go beyond the accusations of the Peti-
tioner. The statement was written and, insofar as the Acting Re-
gional Director's report indicates, no personal attempt was made to
dissuade the employees from voting for the Petitioner or to persuade
them to reject union representation.
In this situation, we do not consider any one of the above facts
controlling. However, in viewing them in their totality, we do not
believe that the calling of the employees into the office, individually,
under the circumstances described has such impact upon them or upon
the other employees in the unit as to warrant an application of the
principle set forth in Peoples Drug Stores, Inc.,' upon which the
Acting Regional Director relied.
'Peoples Drug Stores , Inc, et al., 119 NLRB 634. Member Jenkins joins in the deci-
sion because it relies on the test he urged in his dissenting opinion in the Peoples Drug
Store case ; that is, "whether under all the circumstances of the particular case-and not
in a vacuum or in the abstract-the conduct complained of was reasonably calculated to
11interfere with the election. .. .
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we reject the recommendation of the Acting Regional
Director that the election be set aside, and shall order that the chal-
lenges to the ballots be handled as recommended by the Acting
Regional Director.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations,
open and count the ballots of James E. Perry and Marion B. Tuxhorn,
and serve upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction.
Springs, Inc. and Hector Figueroa and Adrian Gomez . Case No.
92-CA-8. September 18, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 5, 1958, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Springs, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: -
1 The Respondent also requested oral argument. The request is hereby denied as the
record, including the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and the positions
of the parties.
121 NLRB No. 119.