Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 521 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

1, 11 the Matter of ASSOCIATION OF MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS, INC., AND
ITS MEMBERS; 1 COLUMBIA PICTURES CORP.; SAMUEL GOLDWYN
STUDIOS; LOEW's, INC. ; PARAMOUNT PICTURES , INC. REPUBLIC PRO-
DUCTIONS , INC.; RKO RADIO PICTURES , INC.; HAL ROACH STUDIOS,
INC.; TWENTIETH CENTURY Fox FILM CORP.; UNIVERSAL INTERNA-
TIONAL; WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES , INC.; AND INDEPENDENT MO-
TION PICTURE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS; 2 CATHEDRAL.
FILMS, INC. ; MONOGRAM PRODUCTIONS, INC.; NASSOUR PRODUCTIONS;
JOHN J. SUTHERLAND PRODUCTIONS ; FALCON PRODUCTIONS ; AND
SOCIETY Or MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS AND ITS MEMBERS : 3 WALT
DISNEY PRODUCTIONS; AND UNAFFILIATED INDEPENDENT MOTION
PICTURE PRODUCERS : 4 PINE THOMAS PRODUCTIONS ; JERRY FAIR
BANKS, INC . ; EAGLE LION STUDIOS , INC.; AND MOTION PICTURE.
RENTAL STUDIOS : 5 CALIFORNIA STUDIOS; RESSAN INC., D/B/A GEN-
ERAL SERVICE STUDIOS; MOTION PICTURE CENTER STUDIOS , EMPLOYERS.
and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
AND MOTION PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF UNITED STATES AND.
CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-4088.-Decided February 7, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held on various%
days between August 4 and August 29, 1949, before Eugene M. Purver,,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.6
i Hereinafter referred to as Major Producers.
2 Iereinafter referred to as Independent Producers.
8 Hereinafter referred to as Walt Disney.
I Hereinafter referred to as Unaffiliated Producers.
6 Hereinafter referred to as Rental Studios.
6 At the hearing , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , and Studio.
Carpenters Local 946 , AFL, herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the,
ground of an alleged contractual interest . The hearing officer denied the motion to inter-
vene of certain individual members of the Intervenor . The individual members have filed an
appeal from the hearing officer 's ruling. As it clearly appears that such individual mem-
bers do not purport to be, or function as, a collective bargaining representative , the ruling-
of the hearing officer is affirmed , and the motion and appeal therefrom is hereby denied-
Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., 82 NLRB 1395 ; The Nashville Corporation, 77 NLRB 145-
88 NLRB No. 102.
521
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling thereupon, a
motion by the Intervenor to dismiss the petition. For the reasons set
forth in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4 below, this motion is hereby
denied.
Upon the entire record in this case,7 the Board 8 finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
3. The Intervenor contends that the Board should not entertain the
petition because: (1) Jurisdiction over the carpenter employees
sought to be represented by the Petitioner was awarded by the AFL
Executive Councils to the Intervenor following a jurisdictional dis-
pute between the two unions over such employees; (2) unfair labor
practice charges were pending at the time the petition was filed; and
(3) certain contracts in which the Intervenor and some of the Em-
ployers are involved as parties are now in effect covering employees
sought to be represented by the Petitioner.
We find no merit in the Intervenor's contentions. As we have indi-
ecated in recent decisions,'° the existence of a jurisdictional award does
not, in our opinion, constitute a valid reason for our refusal to permit
the employees to decide which of the competing unions they desire
should represent them through the election processes of the Board.
Nor does the pendency of the unfair labor practice charges at the
time the petition was filed warrant a delay in the determination of
.representatives, in view of the fact that such charges have been dis-
missed by the General Counsel .l Although the Intervenor here at-
tempted to obtain a disposition of the charges on their merits, we, of
7 The Intervenor's request for oral argument is denied as the record and briefs adequately
present the positions of the parties and the issues involved herein.
We find no merit in the allegation of bias with respect to the hearing officer and the two
members of the Board. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss upon this ground is hereby
denied. See Stokely Foods, Inc., 78 NLRB 842.
1 Pursuant to'the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
'[Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
U The AFL is the parent organization of both the Intervenor and the Petitioner.
10 See Air Conditioning Company of Southern California, at al., 79 NLRB 1396; Reynolds
Metal Company, 73 NLRB 352, 354; Grinnell Company of The Pacific, 71 NLRB 1370,
wherein we said, "The authority of the bargaining agent in such circumstances must be
sought in the employees' consent and not . . . in the exact extent of the union's jurisdic-
tional grant." See also Foote d Davies, 66 NLRB 413.
11 Charges filed by the Intervenor against the Employers (21-CA-13 through 21-CA-22),
against the Petitioner (21-CC-1 through 21-CC-10), were dismissed by the General Counsel
on March 2, 1948. Subsequently, charges based on identical incidents and allegations were
filed on September 12, 1949 (21-CA-563 and 21-CC-74). For the reasons stated in
Columbia Pictures Corporation, at al., 81 NLRB 1313, wherein the Board, in its discretion,
directed an immediate election despite the pending unfair labor practice charges, we find
the filing of the subsequent charges not a bar to this proceeding.
ASSOCIATION OF MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS , INC. 523
course, have no power to make any such disposition 12 The third.
contention of the Intervenor based upon any alleged contract bar
rests upon the fact that in 1946 two agreements were concluded by it
and the Major Producers and the Independent Producers . However,
as such contracts are of indefinite duration and thus, under established
Board decisions , are protected for only a 2 -year period , they cannot
thereafter constitute a bar to this proceeding 1 3 The - Intervenor's
motion to dismiss the petition on the afore -mentioned grounds is hereby
denied.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of
Section 9 ( e) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
All parties to this proceeding are in agreement as to the composition
of the unit , namely : all employees classified as carpenters and set erec-
tors, excluding all other classifications of employees , and supervisors
as defined in the Act. The only unit issue raised in this case relates
to the scope of the unit . The Petitioner seeks a single multiple-em-
ployer unit extending to all employers in the motion picture industry
in Southern California . The Intervenor maintains that the employees
of such Employers as are members of Major Producers , and of Inde-
pendent Producers , constitute separate appropriate units, and also
that separate units should be established for the employees of each of
the other Employers named by the Petitioner.14
We agree with the Intervenor 's position . The history of joint
action with regard to collective -bargaining agreements among the
various members comprising the Major Producers and those compris-
ing the Independent Producers has now been well established by Board
decisions." Nevertheless , the Petitioner asserts that the instant case
provides an exception to the rule announced in Associated Shoe Indus-
tries of Southeastern Massachusetts , Inc., et al.,16 wherein we held that
the essential element for establishing a multiemployer unit is partici-
pation by a group of employers , whether members or nonmembers of
an association in joint bargaining negotiations . As basis for its con-
12 The Board, under Section 3 (d) of the Act, is not empowered to review the refusal of
the General Counsel to issue a complaint in such matters.
12 See Red Wing Potteries, Inc., 87 NLRB 1095; Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc., 84 NLRB
654, and cases cited therein.
14 The Intervenor contends that if the area-wide unit is inappropriate, the petition should
be dismissed . We find no merit in this contention , as the Petitioner at the hearing
alternatively expressed a desire to participate in any election which the Board may direct.
As the area-wide unit is inappropriate for the reasons hereinafter stated, we shall construe
the Petitioner's alternative request as a motion to amend its petition, which motion is
hereby granted . The Intervenor 's motion to dismiss on this ground is accordingly denied.
15 Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., et al., 87 NLRB 657; and 85 NLRB 902.
16 81 NLRB 224.
,524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tention in this regard, the Petitioner points to the fact that the Em-
ployers herein have, in the past, drawn carpenters from a common labor
pool; 17 that such carpenters are employed under similar working con-
ditions and on occasion are rotated from one employer to another. We
do not agree that such facts warrant an exception in this case. As
previously indicated, both the Major Producers and the Independent
Producers have bargained for their respective members with various
labor organizations on an association-wide basis."' On the other hand,
there is little evidence in the record of multiemployer bargaining with
regard to Walt Disney, the Unaffiliated Producers, or Rental Studios.
In view of the foregoing, the factors upon which the Petitioner relies
in support of its contention for an industry-wide unit are not relevant
in determining the appropriateness of such a unit. Where, as here,
evidence is lacking as to any history of joint collective bargaining by
-all the Employers on an industry-wide basis, we find that the industry-.
wide unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate.19 However, as the
record shows that the members of the Major Producers and the mem-
bers of the Independent Producers have indicated respectively a desire
for joint action with regard .to collective bargaining within their par-
ticular Associations, we find that association-wide units in these two
instances are appropriate. Further, we find that as the remaining
.Employers have not participated in joint collective bargaining negotia-
tions, a separate Employer unit for each of these is appropriate.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, we find that all em-
ployees classified as carpenters and set erectors employed by each of
the Employers or Employer groups as listed in the Appendix, exclud-
ing from each unit all other employees, professional employees, guards,
.and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute separate units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
,of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 20
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Association of Motion Picture
IT Since September 26, 1946, each of the Employers hires its own carpenters from its
-employment lists and from applications received by it.
18 See footnote 15, supra.
19 See Strathmore District Orange Association , 85 NLRB 1029 , wherein we established
-separate units for production and maintenance employees of each of three cooperative
orange packing associations where the only history of collective bargaining had been on a
single-employer basis , although the three associations were under the joint operation of
one manager , whose salary was divided among the three employers , and employees frequently
transferred from one packing shed to the other.
20 Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
. approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
ASSOCIATION OF MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS, INC. 525
Producers, Inc., and its members, Independent Motion Picture Pro-
,ducers Association and its members, Walt Disney Productions'21 Pine
Thomas Productions, Jerry Fairbanks, Inc., Eagle Lion Studios, Inc.,
California Studios, Ressan, Inc., d/b/a General Service Studios, and
Motion Picture Center Studios, respectively, separate elections by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, and sub-
ject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, among employees in the units found appropri-
ate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the
payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of
Elections, including employees who did not work during said payroll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the elections, and also excluding employees on strike who are not
entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Alli-
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine
Operators of United States and Canada, AFL, or by United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Studio Carpenters Local
946, AFL, or by neither.
APPENDIX
A. The employer groups.
(1) The following Employers who are members of the Asso-
ciation of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., viz, Columbia Pictures
Corporation, Samuel Goldwyn Studios, Loew's Inc., Paramount
Pictures, Inc., Republic Productions, Inc., RKO Radio Pictures,
Inc., Hal Roach Studios, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
Universal International and Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., and
(2) The following Employers who are members of the Inde-
pendent Motion Picture Producers Association, namely, Cathe-
dral Films, Inc., Monogram Productions, Nassour Productions,
John J. Sutherland Productions, and Falcon Productions.
21 Although the Petitioner named the Society of Motion Picture Producers and its members,
as an Employer , the record clearly shows that the Society does not participate in collective
bargaining negotiations . In view of the foregoing , we shall limit our unit finding herein
to Walt Disney Productions , the sole member of the Society involved in this proceeding.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The separate employers.
(1) Walt Disney Productions;
(2) Pine Thomas Productions;
(3) Jerry Fairbanks, Inc.;
(4) Eagle Lion Studios, Inc.;
(5) California Studios ;
(6) Ressan, Inc., d/b/a General Service Studios;
(7) Motion Picture Center Studios.