Belo Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 253 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

BELO BROADCASTING CORP. 253
Belo Broadcasting Corporation , WFAA-TV and Local
Union 1257 of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner.
Case 16-UC-70
June 29, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in
Case 16-RC-7005, a hearing was held before a Hear-
ing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
Thereafter, on November 10, 1975, the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 16 issued a Decision and
Direction of Election I in which, inter alia, he con-
cluded that the lighting director and assistant direc-
tor at the Employer were supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and therefore
excluded from the unit the Acting Regional Director
found appropriate.'
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a timely request for re-
view of the Acting Regional Director's finding con-
cerning the status of the lighting director and the as-
sistant director. By order dated December 17, 1975,
the Board ruled that ". . . the supervisory status of
[the lighting director and the assistant director] .. .
can best be resolved through the challenge procedure
[and] the decision is amended to permit them to vote
subject to challenge." Thereafter, an election was
held on December 18, 1975. The tally of ballots
served on the parties indicated that a majority of the
employees in the unit described by the Acting Re-
gional Director had voted for representation by Peti-
tioner and that the challenged ballots were not suffi-
cient in number to affect the election's results.
Therefore, on December 29, 1975, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 16 issued a Certification of Repre-
sentative certifying Petitioner as the exclusive repre-
:;,entative in the bargaining unit defined by the
original Decision and Direction of Election and the
First Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion. As rioted supra, this unit excluded the lighting
director and assistant director.
On January 6, 1976, Petitioner filed a motion to
amend the certification with the Regional Director
i As amended by a First Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued on November 11, 1975
2 The appropriate unit was:
All employees of the Employer in studio production , including assis-
tant lighting directors and crew chiefs, at its station WFAA-TV, Dal-
las, Texas, but excluding all other employees of the Employer , lighting
director , assistant rirector, studio production directors, office clerical
employees , watcher en , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
for Region 16 seeking to amend its certification to
include the lighting director and the assistant direc-
tor in the unit. That motion was denied by the Re-
gional Director on January 8, 1976. Subsequently,
Petitioner filed with the Board an appeal of the Re-
gional Director's denial of its motion to amend the
certification. However, Petitioner thereafter with-
drew its appeal and filed instead the instant petition
in Case 16-UC-70 with the Regional Director, in
which it seeks clarification of its unit by the inclusion
of the lighting director and the assistant director. Pe-
titioner also filed with the Regional Director a mo-
tion to transfer the instant proceeding to the Board
for resolution. The Employer thereafter filed a mo-
tion to protest the processing of the unit clarification
petition and, in the alternative, also filed a motion to
reopen the record with respect to an employee classi-
fication included in the certified unit which the Em-
ployer wished to be excluded.
Thereafter, on March 2, 1976, the Regional Direc-
tor, pursuant to Section 102.63(b) and 102.67(h) of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, transferred the
instant proceeding, including the entire record in
Case 16-RC-7005, to the Board for resolution. Both
Petitioner and the Employer subsequently filed briefs
in support of their various motions.3
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing in Case 16-RC-7005 and
finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They
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 organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer'
J Both Petitioner and the Employer have been afforded an opportunity to
present new evidence , if any, with respect to the categories of lighting direc-
tor and assistant director, but rely on the record made in Case 16-RC-7005.
It is on the basis, then, of that record and the briefs filed in the instant
proceeding that we have made our findings on these two categories.
We herein are clarifying the unit in which Petitioner is certified by de-
ciding whether the lighting director and assistant director are categories
properly included in the certified unit. This was an issue left unanswered by
our allowing individuals in these categories to vote subject to challenge in
the election . We note that the Employer in its present brief to the Board
urges that the record be reopened to permit the admission of additional
evidence concerning the status of crew chiefs. In his initial Decision and
Direction of Election in Case 16-RC-7005, the Acting Regional Director
included this classification in the unit As the Petitioner filed a request for
review regarding the status of the lighting director and the assistant director,
so too did the Employer file a request for review on the status of the crew
chiefs . However, while the Board permitted the lighting director and assis-
tant director to vote subject to challenge , thus not passing on their status,
the Board denied all other aspects of the requests for review as raising no
Continued
225 NLRB No. 30
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged
in operating television station WFAA-TV in Dallas,
Texas. In the course of fulfilling its function to air
programming which, as required by its FCC license,
is in the public interest, the station shows various
types of programs. Some of these programs are sup-
plied by the national television networks and others
the station purchases from film companies and syn-
dication companies. Additionally, the station pro-
duces certain of its own programs and a number of
commercial spot announcements for various of its
clients. This last responsibility is handled primarily
by the station 's production department. The de-
partment's specific responsibilities are to manage
the facilities and crews that produce the commer-
cials , promotional announcements, and programs for
the station; to provide the facilities and crews to out-
side people engaged in commercial production; and
to produce spots in commercials for local, regional,
and national distribution. Both disputed classifica-
tions of lighting director and assistant director are
within the production department.
Lighting director: David Calhoun is the lighting di-
rector and has been employed at the station since
1968. Calhoun's immediate supervisor is Bill Hag-
mann who is the station's facilities manager. Hag-
mann supervises the station's floor crew, including
the crew chiefs, camera operators, lighting personnel,
and assistant directors, and is, in turn , supervised by
the station's operations manager.
With respect to the lighting director's responsibili-
ties , the Employer introduced into evidence a job de-
scription of the position which was drawn up in 1970
and which apparently is still in effect. According to
the job description, the lighting director is generally
responsible for the overall planning of lighting serv-
ices at the station and is also responsible for the
training and development of other employees in the
lighting skill. These general responsibilities are fur-
ther delineated by certain specific duties which in-
clude the holding of seminars to advance the lighting
employees' training; the initiation of recommenda-
tions and purchase orders for the acquisition of new
lighting equipment; the supervision of the mainte-
nance and repair of existing equipment; and the su-
pervision of lighting plots or design for all live and
tape programming, for various remote telecasts, and
for in-studio and remote commercial film operations.
substantial issue warranting review Thus, the Board affirmed the Acting
Regional Director's inclusion of the crew chiefs in the unit and rejected the
Employer's argument to the contrary
Further, it appears that the Employer incorporated its present motion to
reopen the record in its initial request for review to the Board . That motion
was considered and denied at that time and there is insufficient reason to
reverse that determination presently. We thus deny the Employer's motion
to reopen the record to take additional evidence on the crew chiefs' status
As part of his responsibility as lighting director,
Calhoun is in charge of and responsible for the tech-
nical and artistic appearance of the lighting on the
sets on which he is working. He is not aesthetically
limited by any preexisting production policies, but he
has no voice in any program policies. The Employer
does not seriously contend that this technical aspect
of Calhoun's job makes him a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. However, the Employer con-
tends that certain of Calhoun's other functions are
supervisory in nature.
It is clear that Calhoun has never been advised
that he could hire, fire, suspend, lay off, recall, pro-
mote, assign, reward, discipline, or adjust the griev-
ances of other employees. Calhoun further cannot
authorize overtime nor can he schedule vacations.
Crew shift assignments on the lighting crew are made
by Facilities Manager Hagmann, and Calhoun does
not have the authority to request specific individuals
for assignment to a crew. He may be consulted about
such an assignment, however.
At the time of the hearing, there were two other
employees besides Calhoun in the station's lighting
crew. Normally, at the time Calhoun would be work-
ing, one of these other employees would also be en-
gaged in lighting work on another set. The remaining
employee would work on another shift. At times,
however, a lighting employee may be assigned to
work with Calhoun in order that the employee might
observe Calhoun's work and have Calhoun explain
to the employee the work he is doing. Calhoun has
also viewed tapes of other lighting employees' perfor-
mances when he was not immediately available to
view their work first hand and has therefore critiqued
the employees' performances. Calhoun has the high-
est degree of understanding of lighting at the station
and, in fact, has trained all those presently involved
in lighting.
As noted, one of the lighting director's responsibil-
ities is the supervision of the maintenance and repair
of existing lighting equipment at the station. To that
end, at a time when the operations manager was on
vacation, Calhoun issued to all production depart-
ment personnel a policy statement on the use of
lighting equipment. In the memo, however, Calhoun
noted that this policy had been set down by the oper-
ations manager; that he was reiterating that policy;
and that any changes in the policy would have to
come from the operations manager.
There was introduced into evidence a statement of
annual goals which the station at one time had estab-
lished for lighting employees. The establishment of
these goals ceased in 1973. These goals were drawn
up by individual members of the lighting crew and
submitted to Calhoun who would tht:n draw up pro-
BELO BROADCASTING CORP. 255
posed goals for the year for the lighting crew based
on his own -and the other employees' goals. These
goals would then be submitted to the operations
manager who would decide which goals the lighting
crew would then work on. The goals submitted by
the employees on the lighting crew to Calhoun stress
the training Calhoun was supplying them as they
learned the lighting trade. Calhoun's goals, in turn,
stressed to the operations manager the necessity for
adequate training of the lighting personnel. Calhoun
indicated that the basic desire of the employees was
for opportunity to perform, which Calhoun indicated
he would attempt to provide to the employees, and
then critique their performance. Calhoun indicated
in one of his memos to the operations manager that
the section's goals as submitted were themselves sug-
gested by members of the lighting staff. Calhoun in-
dicated his intent to monitor the goals the employ-
ees, themselves, had set out for themselves, but such
may be construed as another way of indicating that
Calhoun would monitor their training.
At the request of the operations manager, Calhoun
has made reports on the possibility of promoting
people into a lighting crew position. Before taking
any such action, however, the operations manager
also inquires of studio directors concerning such an
employee's performance. There has been no situation
where the operations manager had to choose be-
tween Calhoun's recommendation and that of any
director regarding any employee as there apparently
had been a consensus on such recommendations.
Calhoun did recommend certain shift changes for
lighting personnel which thereafter occurred. It is
clear that in at least one instance the employee shift-
ed wanted to do so and it is unclear whether there
was a pay raise in that or any shift change.
In addition to these above-mentioned duties, Cal-
houn has initiated purchase orders for lighting equip-
ment, but these orders are thereafter subject to the
approval of others in the Employer's supervisory hi-
erarchy. Calhoun, at times, also functions as a grip,
locating, focusing, and moving and removing lights.
In concluding that Calhoun was a supervisor, the
Acting Regional Director found that Calhoun effec-
tively recommended the advancement in pay and
grade of subordinate employees and responsibly di-
rected the training and development of various em-
ployees. We reach a different conclusion from that of
the Acting Regional Director based on our indepen-
dent evaluation of the record. Based on that analysis,
we conclude that Calhoun has not made effective
recommendations on employee advancement inas-
much as such recommendations as have been re-
quested of him have been independently investigated
by the operations manager's also inquiring of the di-
rectors concerning an employee's skill. With respect
to the direction Calhoun gives the employees, this
apparently is not carried on while the employee is on
the job but consists primarily of critiques of the em-
ployees' performance in their training capacity. The
relationship between Calhoun and the other lighting
employees in such circumstances is more akin to a
skilled employee aiding a less skilled employee than
it is to a supervisor responsibly directing an employ-
ee.
Calhoun's involvement in the reiteration of the
Employer's policy on the use of the lighting equip-
ment and in the formulation of goals for the lighting
department also does not persuade us that he is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Control
over equipment does not indicate here a supervisory
status and, in the formulation of goals, Calhoun ap-
pears to have been primarily a conduit, as the actual
goals for the lighting crew were finally decided on
not by Calhoun but by the operations manager.
While Calhoun's recommendations on employee
shift changes may have been acted upon, the result of
such changes is unclear and in such circumstances
cannot be relied upon to establish supervisory status.
In essence, Calhoun appears to be a trusted nonsu-
pervisory employee who is looked to for a large train-
ing function because of his expertise and who was
also looked to for suggestions on certain areas of em-
ployee development but who did not responsibly rec-
ommend employee advancement or responsibly di-
rect employees within the meaning of the Act.
Assistant director: The position of assistant director
is filled by Clyde Chappel. Chappel spends 60 per-
cent of his worktime operating a television camera.
The balance of his time is spent acting as the director
for WFAA-TV's weekend news programs and for
"Peppermint Place," a children's program. Addition-
ally, Chappel has substituted for other directors on
other shows. As director, Chappel does not draw up
program policy or statements thereon. Rather, he is
responsible for the "look" of a particular show. He
cannot overrule a producer on a program's content,
but he can do so on a technical aspect which affects
the show's quality. He is given a script or format for
the shows which he directs, e.g., the newscast script is
verbatim and the children's show has an extensive
outline. As a director, Chappel gives the studio tech-
nical crew instructions on lights, camera positions,
set construction, audio requirements, tiring and pro-
cedure, and the switching of cameras. The crewmem-
bers are supplied with the program's script and be-
cause of this and because of their experience are
often able to anticipate Chappel's instructions. These
instructions, relating to the look of the show, relate to
aesthetic considerations.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chappel does not have the authority to hire, fire,
transfer , suspend, lay off, recall , or promote employ-
ees; grant time off ; instruct employees to work over-
time ; reward or discipline employees ; assign them to
shifts ; or receive or adjust their grievances or com-
plaints. As a director of certain shows , he gives ap-
praisals of employees ' performance to the station's
operations manager or facilities manager . He does
not directly critique or criticize any employee's defi-
cient performance but simply refers the matter to his
supervisor . He is not aware of whether his appraisals
have had any significant influence on the employees'
careers , and it appears his suggestions on an
employee 's performance are considered along with
others supplied by other personnel.
It was unclear at the time of the hearing whether
Chappel's duties are to remain at the ratio of 60 per-
cent camera work to 40 percent direction responsibil-
ities. The two assistant directors prior to Chappel did
not do camera work. Chappel began his camera work
at the percentage quoted in April 1975 when cut-
backs decreased his direction work . While the Em-
ployer indicated a desire to restore Chappel to full-
scale direction work , it admitted that it had never
told Chappel this fact and Chappel indicated that he
had not been presented with a goal of increased di-
rection responsibilities.
In excluding Chappel from the unit , the Regional
Director concluded that Chappel responsibly direct-
ed and coordinated the activities of the production
crew in the preparation for transmission of the week-
end newscast and the children 's show , citing Great
Western Broadcasting Corp. d/b/a KXTV, 192 NLRB
1203 (1971), for support . That case is inapposite here
since the individuals considered therein had full re-
sponsibility for shows "from the planning stage
through the presentation over the air." 5 Here, by
' 192 NLRB 1203, 1204
contrast , Chappel's direction duties are confined
only to the actual show . Further, his directions are
either routine in nature or motivated by artistic ef-
fect. As Chappel is limited by preexisting production
policies or the detailed guidelines of a script , we con-
clude that he does not use the requisite independent
judgment necessary to find him a supervisor and is
akin to a conduit , issuing orders which crewmem-
bers, each supplied with a script , can already antici-
pate.
It is true that Chappel offers critiques to higher
management about the work of those serving on
crews while he is director . Others offer critiques on
employees also. We conclude that the record does
not show whether Chappel's reports have had any
significant influence on the station 's personnel poli-
cy.
The Employer attempted to show that Chappel
was being groomed to become a permanent studio
production director, a category excluded from the
unit . There is not any record evidence of substance
setting out the duties of the studio production direc-
tor. It is also unclear from the record when , if ever,
the Employer 's hoped -for progression of Chappel to
a full-fledged director would take place . In such cir-
cumstances , where the facts otherwise warrant a
finding that Chappel is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, we will not exclude him from the
unit on this last basis proposed by the Employer.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the certification in Case
16-RC-7005 heretofore issued to Local Union 1257
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, CLC, be, and it hereby is, clarified by
specifically including therein the categories of light-
ing director and assistant director.