Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1468 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its initial contract with the employer . Newly certified unions
will no longer be willing to settle for short -term contracts.
On the other hand , as the employer ' s absolute duty to bargain
with a newly certified union will henceforth be measured by
the contract term rather than by the 1 -year rule , employers
will of course prefer short -term contracts . Thus, the term
of the initial contract between an employer and a certified
union will be one of the hotly contested issues at the bargaining
table . Consequently , we think it reasonable to infer that fewer
contracts will be executed during the certification year and
industrial unrest will increase . The end result will be that
the 1 -year certification rule as herein modified will no longer
encourage the execution of collective -bargaining contracts nor
enchance the stability of industrial relations , the very purposes
for which it was designed.
For these reasons we cannot concur in the majority's
decision to overrule the Quaker Maid principle and modify the
Centr - O-Cast doctrine . We would dismiss the petition in this
case on the ground that the existing contract between the
Employer and the IAM is a bar to an immediate election.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM INC., and LOCAL 1220,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL,' Petitioner and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, CIO.
Cases Nos . 13-RC-3421 and 13-RC-1888 . June 25, 1954
DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act in Case No. 13-RC-3421, and upon the
Employer' s motion for clarification of the certification in
Case No. 13-RC-1888, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hubert J. Sigal, hearing officer . 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 mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Contrary to the Employer and the IBEW, the Intervenor,
Local 666, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
& Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and
Canada (IATSE), AFL, herein called Local 666, contends that
1 Herein called the IBEW.
108 NLRB No. 206.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 1469
a current contract is a bar to this proceeding. This collective-
bargaining agreement was entered into by the Employer's
predecessor, Balaban and Katz Corporation, and Local 666 on
June 9, 1952, effective retroactively from May 26, 1952, to
November 26, 1954. It will, therefore, have been in effect at
least 2 years before an election can beheld in this proceeding.
As the record does not establish that collective-bargaining
agreements exceeding 2 years' duration are customary in this
industry, we find that the contract is not a bar.2
The Intervenor, Local 110, International Alliance of Theat-
rical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators
of the United States and Canada (IATSE), AFL, herein called
Local 110, asserts that its informal arrangement with the
Employer whereby the latter applied to the telecine projection-
ists the terms and working conditions of a collective-bargain-
ing contract between Local 110 and an association of motion
picture theatre operators covering motion picture projection-
ists bars this proceeding. As the Employer has at no time
been a party to the multiemployer contract and as the informal
arrangement, at best, can only be considered as an oral con-
tract, we find that it is not a bar.
4. The appropriate unit:
The IBEW seeks to represent a unit of all technicians, in-
cluding television cameramen, at the Employer's Chicago,
Illinois, television station WBBM-TV. Locals 666 and 110 op-
pose this proposed unit. They contend that television camera-
men and telecine projectionists are entitled to separate repre-
sentation on the basis of craft status and separate bargaining
histories and move that the petition should therefore be dis-
missed. In the alternative, Locals 666 and 110 contend that
separate elections for television camermen and telecine pro-
jectionists should be conducted to determine whether these
employees desire to be included in an overall technicians unit.
The Employer contends that all technicians, including tele-
vision cameramen and telecine projectionists, at its Chicago
station are included in a nationwide unit of technicians estab-
lished by the Board in Case No. 13-RC-1888, and moves that
this certification be clarified so as to indicate that fact without
an election. The Employer opposes the Intervenors' claim to
representation of the television cameramen and telecine pro-
jectionists in separate units and the holding\of self-determi-
nation elections for these employees. The IBEW supports the
Employer's motion for clarification and is willing to represent
the Chicago technicians within the framework of the nationwide
unit for which it was certified as bargaining representative by
2 Bath Iron Works Corporation, 102 NLRB 1263; National Aniline Division, Allied Chemical
and Dye Corporation, 102 NLRB 129.
Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers would hold this contract not to constitute a bar
without regard to any possible evidence of industry practice as to contracts longer than 2
years. See their dissenting opinion in Republic Aviation Corp., 109 NLRB 569.
3Eicor, Incorporated, 46 NLRB 1035; Alpert & Alpert, 92 NLRB 806, 807.
4Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 97 NLRB 566.
147 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board . The Intervenors urge that the Employer's motion be
denied.
The Employer's Operations
The Employer , a New York corporation , is engaged in radio
and television network broadcasting . It owns and operates tele-
vision stations in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Nation-
ally broadcast shows originate in any 1 of the 3 stations and
are simultaneously disseminated by the other company trans-
mitters and by stations affiliated with the Employer. Some
shows may originate partly in 1 station and be switched for
another part to 1 of the other 3 stations. Each part, however,
is transmitted over the whole network. At frequent intervals,
station breaks are taken for station identification and for local
commercials. This countrywide operation therefore requires
close coordination. Accordingly, nationwide broadcasts are
centrally directed by the Employer's technical operations
division in New York, to which the technical operations de-
partments at the 3 stations report for direction. All major
policies affecting the Employer ' s 3 stations as a whole are
determined in the Employer's national headquarters at New
York. Labor policies are also determined there. Collective-
bargaining agreements are negotiated jointly by representa-
tives of the central operating department , the labor relations
department and the local stations concerned . However, as the
3 Employer - owned stations are separated geographically by
thousands of miles, they each retain a certain measure of
autonomy. Each station is under the immediate direction of a
station manager or vice president and maintains departments,
such as the program department , technical operations de-
partment, and others which correspond to similar departments
at the New York headquarters. Each local department head
reports both to the station manager and to the corresponding
New York department chief. The stations have substantially
different areas of labor supply and there is virtually no inter-
change or transfer of employees between the stations.
The Employer' s Motion for Clarification
On December 17, 1951, in Case No. 13-RC-1888, the Board
found appropriate a nationwide unit of all technical employees
of the Employer's radio and television stations, with certain
exclusions not material herein . This unit included television
cameramen and telecine projectionists . After a Board-con-
ducted election on January 31, 1952, the IBEW was certified on
February 14, 1952, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in that nationwide unit.
On February 9, 1953, the Employer acquired ownership of
station WBBM-T V in Chicago which is involved herein. Although
the nationwide certification antedates the acquisition of the
Chicago station, the Employer argues that this station is mere-
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 147 1
ly an accretion to its nationwide operations Ahdthat, therefore,
its technical employees in Chicago are embraced in the certi-
fied nationwide unit and cannot by themselves constitute a
separate unit or units.
We cannot agree with this contention . While some factors in
the Employer' s operations , as related above, indicate the
appropriateness of a single nationwide unit, they are not so
compelling as to require our holding that no other unit is appro-
priate. The Board normally permits employees of newly ac-
quired plants of an employer to have a voice in the determi-
nation as to whether they shall be included in a broader existing
unit or be separately represented.5 Although the IBEW would
be satisfied to have this case disposed of by a unit finding
pursuant to the Employer's motion for clarification, the Inter-
venors oppose the incorporation of television cameramen and
telecine projectionists in the certified nationwide unit. Under
these circumstances, we believe that all the technical employees
should be given an opportunity to voice their position on the
question of accession to the nationwide unit . Accordingly, we
shall deny the Employer's motion for clarification in Case No.
13-RC-1888.
The Alleged Craft Status of Television Cameramen and
Telecine Projectionists
Television cameramen: These employees operate the tele-
vision camera (isonoscope) which is an electronic device by
which live images are translated into electrical impulses which
in turn are carried to a studio control booth for transmission
over the air. Their duties involve framing, selection of lenses,
taking closeups, synchronizing their movements with the action
of the show, and working out special effects. They also main-
tain the nonelectronic parts of the camera. In the projection of
a typical television show, the cameramen work as part of an
integrated crew under the supervision and direction of a pro-
gram director. Such crew includes the floor director, mike-
boom man, audio man, shader, and technicians. The techni-
cians, who are not required to hold a license of the Federal
Communications Commission, "warm up" and align an average
of two or three television cameras either in the station or on
remote location, prior to the show. The cameramen take over
from there and operate the cameras during the show. The
electrical impulses carried from the camera to the studio con-
trol booth are controlled by a video man and the sound by an
audio man, who are classified as technicians.
Matters of camera movement, timing, and type of shot are
pre-planned during the rehearsal which precedes each live
show. During the show the program director is in constant
communication with the cameraman through an intercommuni-
5 The Hertner Electric Company, 99 NLRB 567, 569; Sprague Electric Company, 98 NLRB
533, 538 ; Western Electric Company, Inc., 108 NLRB 396.
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cations system. Although the cameramen have to exercise a
certain degree of discretion in their work, such discretion is
limited by preplanning and by close direction of the program
director during the show. It takes several years of experience
to attain the status of a first-class all-around television
cameraman. However, the Employer maintains no formal or
informal apprenticeship training for cameramen, nor does the
record show that any such apprenticeship training is required
anywhere in the television industry. The cameramen are under
the immediate supervision of a head cameraman who in turn is
responsible to the chief engineer. The record shows that the
duties of the cameramen at station WBBM-TV are of the same
nature as those of television cameramen working at the Em-
ployer's New York and Los Angeles stations, where camera-
men are interchangeable with technicians and are part of the
technicians unit.
Telecine projectionists: These employees operate movie
film projecting machines by means of which they project films
and slides into electronic television cameras. Five of the seven
projectionists work in the same studio as do the technicians,
the other two work in a projection room which is removed a
short distance from the actual studio. The latter employees
spend most of their time mounting, screening , and splicing
news film for later televising over the air.
The telecine projectionists do not directly participate in any
of the live television shows, their task being to make spot pro-
jections of various slide commercials and announcements for
local station breaks. For this purpose, they are provided with
a time schedule for the projection of particular slide material.
This schedule, however, may be superseded by instructions
from the program director who maintains constant contact
with the projectionists via the studio intercommunication sys-
tem. The projectionists are under the supervision of the chief
engineer who also supervises the technicians. The projection-
ists are licensed by the city of Chicago. They need no know-
ledge of electronics. The Employer does not maintain any type
of apprenticeship program for the training of projectionists.
There has been no showing made that either the television
cameramen or the telecine projectionists, although skilled, are
members of a craft. There is, for example, no evidence of
apprenticeship training for either of these classifications. In
the considerable number of cases in which the question of the
unit placement of television cameramen and telecine projec-
tionists has arisen, the Board has included them in units to-
gether with either technicians or program department per-
sonnel, depending on the organizational set up of the particular
station involved.6 In no case has the Board established such
6 Empire Coil Co., Inc., 106 NLRB 1069; The Pulitzer Publishing Company. (Radio Station
KSD, KSD-TV), 101 NLRB 1005; Don Lee Broadcasting System, 98 NLRB 453; American
Broadcasting Company, (KGO-TV). 94 NLRB 100; American Broadcasting Co , Inc., 92
NLRB 995; Greensboro News Company, Station WFMY-FM and WFMY-TV, 92 NLRB 245;
National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1289.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 1473
employees in separate units. Nor has any evidence been pre-
sented that separate bargaining units for cameramen and pro-
jectionists are prevalent in the television industry. In these
circumstances, the only possible justification for separate
units is the bargaining history discussed hereinafter.
History of Collective Bargaining
The Employer purchased station WBBM-TV, previously
called WBKB-TV, in February 1953 from Balaban and Katz
Corporation. Balaban and Katz then was, and still is, engaged
primarily in the business of operating motion picture theatres
in the Chicago area. Balaban and Katz's operation of the then
station WBKB-TV was in the nature of a sideline business and
to a considerable degree was subordinated to its motion picture
theatre interests.
The station first went on the air for commercial broad-
casting in 1946. On June 27, 1946, Balaban and Katz entered
into its first collective-bargaining agreement with Local 666
for its television cameramen. During the same year Balaban
and Katz also reached an oral understanding with Local 110
which provided for recognition of that union as bargaining
representative for the television station's telecine projection-
ists. In 1949, the IBEW executed a collective-bargaining con-
tract with Balaban and Katz for all the station technicians.
The bargaining pattern continued undisturbed until 1951. It
fitted the special circumstances in which Balaban and Katz
found itself, being primarily a movie theatre chain which had
most of its collective-bargaining dealings for its movie theatre
employees with Locals of IATSE. Accordingly, Balaban and
Katz renewed its contract with Local 666 at 2-year intervals
and also, in 1948, reached a further oral understanding with
Local 110 providing that the terms of a 5-year multiemployer
contract of the Motion Picture Exhibitors Association in Chicago
covering motion picture projectionists employed in movie
theatres in the Chicago area, should apply to the telecine pro-
jectionists at the Chicago television station.
In 1951 Balaban and Katz's parent organization, United Para-
mount Theatres, Inc., initiated steps to merge with the American
Broadcasting Company. Under the rules and regulations of the
Federal Communications Commission, Balaban and Katz had to
divest itself of ownership of station WBKB-TV because the
American Broadcasting Company already owned and operated
another television station in the Chicago area. On May 23, 1951,
Balaban and-Katz entered into a contract with the Employer for
the sale of the station, contingent on approval by the Federal
Communications Commission of the merger and the sale.
Apparently in view of the impending severance of the tele-
vision station from the movie theatre interests of Balaban and
Katz, the IBEW in 1951 commenced to assert jurisdictional
claims over the station's television cameramen. On May 1,
1951, Balaban and Katz entered into a collective-bargaining
339676 0 - 55 - 94
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement with the IBEW, which by its broad terms entailed
recognition of that union as bargaining representative of the
cameramen. However, by a "supplemental agreement" of
December 31, 1951, Balaban and Katz, the IBEW and Local 666
reached an understanding that notwithstanding the terms of that
contract the IBEW would not assert jurisdiction over camera-
men unless and until the International presidents of IATSE and
IBEW agreed that jurisdiction should go to the IBEW. No such
agreement of the presidents was forthcoming and on June 9,
1952, Balaban and Katz signed a new collective -bargaining con-
tract with Local 666, which is presently in effect, recognizing
Local 666 as the bargaining representative of the cameramen.
On January 28, 1953, Balaban and Katz again executed a con-
tract with IBEW, 'effective from September 1, 1952, to April
30, 1954, for all technicians, which was construed to include
cameramen and projectionists. Again, attached to that agree-
ment was a supplemental agreement making the exercise of
the IBEW's jurisdiction over the cameramen dependent on a
jurisdictional agreement of the International presidents of
IATSE and IBEW. Also attached to the IBEW's contract was a
second supplement which split the jurisdiction pertaining to
work on motion picture projectors between the IBEW and Local
110. Up to the present time, the International presidents of
IBEW and IATSE have not reached a jurisdictional agreement.
On February 9, 1953, the Federal Communications Com-
mission approved the sale of the station. On that day the sales
agreement went into effect and the station call sign was
changed to WBBM-TV. Pursuant to an annex to the sales
agreement, the Employer assumed the collective -bargaining
agreements of Balaban and Katz with the IBEW and Local 666.
No mentionwas made of the transfer of any contractual arrange-
ments with Local 110.
On these facts, and the record as a whole, we are not per-
suaded that the bargaining histories of Locals 666 and 110 war-
rant the establishment of separate units for the cameramen and
projectionists, respectively. We have reached this conclusion
on the following grounds: Since 1951 the bargaining relations
of Balaban and Katz with the three unions here involved have
been hazy and conflicting. Television cameramen and telecine
projectionists have since 1951 been covered simultaneously by
contracts with the IBEW on the one hand and the two IATSE
locals on the other. The arrangements between the Employer
and its predecessor and the unions involved were designed to
establish a makeshift modus vivendi to prevent or at least to
postpone the jurisdictional conflicts between the unions by
recognizing for the time being the extent of organization of these
unions. Under these circumstances we find that this bargaining
has been inconclusive and insufficient to constitute a decisive
bargaining history.
Moreover, bargaining with Locals 666 and 110 for television
cameramen and telecine projectionists was an historical acci-
dent which had its origin in the fact that Balaban and Katz was a
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 1475
large scale operator of motion picture theatres and that it
simply transferred to the television field the bargaining
patterns which it had maintained with IATSE locals for its
motion picture theatre employees. It is significant that the
only television cameramen represented by Local 666 are at
the former Balaban and Katz television station. The present
operator of this station, CBS, is engaged entirely in the radio
and television business; and it has integrated the operations
of the newly acquired Chicago station with its other television
stations and with its television network. We do not believe
that an historical accident should control the appropriate unit
finding, especially where, as here, the factors responsible
for the separate bargaining were temporary and no longer
exists .' Accordingly, we find that separate units or separate
voting groups of television cameramen andtelecine projection-
ists are not appropriate . We shall include them in the same
unit with other technical employees.e
We shall direct an election in the following voting group:
All technicians employed at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois,
television station WBBM-TV, including television cameramen
and telecine projectionists, but excluding the headcameraman 9
and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
Both the Employer and the IBEW desire to include the em-
ployees in the above voting group in the nationwide unit for
which the IBEW is now the bargaining representative. We
believe that such inclusion is proper provided the employees
so desire . Accordingly, if the employees vote for the IBEW
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be part of
the nationwide unit and the Regional Director is authorized and
instructed to issue a certification of results to that effect. On
the other hand, if the employees vote for Local 110,10 they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a
separate bargaining unit, which the Board under such cir-
cumstances finds to be appropriate, and the Regional Director
is authorized to issue a certification of representatives to that
effect.
[The Board denied the motion.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 The Mennen Company, 108 NLRB 348; American Broadcasting Company, 108 NLRB
167.
8In view of the above finding, the motions of Locals 666 and 110 to dismiss the petition
are hereby denied.
9The head cameraman responsibly directs other cameramen and has the authority to hire
and discharge. We exclude him as a supervisor.
10 Local 666 has stated that it does not wish to participate in an election in a unit of techni-
cians.