Buffalo Broadcasting Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 13, 1979242 N.L.R.B. 1105 (N.L.R.B. 1979) Copy Citation BUFFALO BROADCASTING CO. Buffalo Broadcasting Co., Inc. (WIVB-TV) and Na- tional Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, AFL- CIO Petitioner. Cases 3-RC-7306 and 3-RC-7341 June 13, 1979 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO Upon petitions' duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Louis J. Kurek. Fol- lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer and Petitioner, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO (hereafter called NABET), filed briefs, while Petitioner, Ameri- can Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO (hereafter called AFTRA), filed a letter stating its position. 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 and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a television broadcasting station in Buffalo, New York. It has had a bargaining agreement with AFTRA cov- ering a unit of employees who appear on the air by voice and/or image, as well as an agreement with NABET covering two separate units described as sec- tions I and 2. The former is defined as covering "tech- nicians" with the latter covering "announcers and I On November 3, 1978, the Regional Director issued an order consolidat- ing the above cases and fixing November 22. 1978, for a hearing on the above petitions. newswriters/editors" and also including "street re- porters." The Employer takes the position that only two units are appropriate, a unit of all employees who appear on the air by voice and/or image and those employees who directly service their functions, which includes employees presently represented by both AFTRA and NABET, and an all technical unit. Thus, as we read the record and the briefs of the parties, it appears that the Employer and AFTRA essentially agree as to the appropriateness of a unit of all employees appearing on the air while NABET seeks a wall-to-wall unit of all on-air employees in- cluding those represented by AFTRA and all televi- sion engineers and/or technicians. In the alternative, NABET contends that a grouping of all "on the air personnel" together with news photographers, news- writer-editors, and staff reporters would constitute an appropriate unit. The Employer's position is based on its contention that over the years changes have taken place resulting in the overlapping of work assignments and inter- changeable duties between the AFTRA unit and the NABET section 2 unit, and therefore these two units should be merged. There was also testimony that technical developments in equipment have eliminated some work causing changes in work assignments. In one instance testimony showed that although at one time there were no street reporters as such, i.e., some- one who covers a story by gathering the news and presenting it on the air by voice and/or image, pres- ently by virtue of side letters of agreement in both contracts, AFTRA announcers and NABET news- writer-editors and newsroom assistants are perform- ing this function. In the past, editors did the reporting and AFTRA talent staff announcers read on the air what the editors wrote. Testimony was also taken with respect to the duties of ENG photographers and photographer/proces- sors, whom NABET would also include in a unit of on-the-air employees. Such testimony, however, shows that those employees do not regularly appear by voice and/or image and would appear on the air rarely and then only incidentally to their main func- tion of producing and processing film that is shown on the air. As heretofore noted, this case does not involve ini- tial organization but rather a regrouping of three ex- isting units. The current overlapping of work assign- ments and interchangeable duties between the AFTRA unit and the NABET section 2 unit person- nel are sufficient to justify a merger of the two units, especially where no party seeks to continue their separateness. However, the long history of collective bargaining has recognized a clear distinction between the work performed by employees engaged in on-the- air work and in writing and editing news as opposed 242 NLRB No. 152 1105 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the work performed by employees in the technical unit (i.e., NABET section ). In light of this bargain- ing history2 and the dichotomy of job functions and interests between the on-the-air employees, who are engaged in the actual preparation of news stories for broadcast, and the technical employees, who provide I In determining appropriate bargaining units. the Board has long given substantial weight to prior bargaining history. The Board is reluctant to disturb units established by collective bargaining as long as those units are not repugnant to Board policy or so constituted as to hamper employees in fully exercising rights guaranteed by the Act. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 153 NLRB 1549 (1965); West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 120 NLRB 1281, 1284 (1958). technical assistance, we find that two separate units, as proposed by the Employer and AFTRA, are ap- propriate for collective bargaining. The units pro- posed by NABET fail to take into account the par- ties' significant bargaining history and the separate communities of interest of the on-the-air and the tech- nical employees.' [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] I Inasmuch as AFTRA does not seek to represent employees in the techm- cians unit (i.e., NABET section I) and as the Employer concedes that NABET has been, and remains, the exclusive representative of employees in this unit, no question concerning representation exists as to the technicians umt. 1106 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation