Eastman Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eastman Broadcasting Company , Inc. and National As-
sociation of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46. Case 7-
CA-8148
September 29, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On August 25, 1971, Trial Examiner George L.
Powell issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
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 considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and finds, in accord with certain exceptions of
Respondent, that the case should properly be deferred
to the grievance-arbitration machinery agreed to by
the parties for the resolution of contract-based dis-
putes. The Board has therefore decided to affirm only
those of the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and
conclusions which are consistent with its Decision
and Order.
As set forth more fully in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, this is a Section 8(a)(5) and (1) case in which
the complaint alleged that Respondent, owner of the
radio station, unilaterally effected certain changes in
job duties of its employees during the term of two
applicable collective-bargaining contracts' and there-
by modified applicable provisions of those contracts
without complying with the provisions of Section 8(d)
of the Act. One contract covers all announcers and
traffic and continuity employees; and the other, all
engineers and technicians. Both units are represented
by NABET, Charging Party, and each of the con-
tracts here involved was effective for an initial 3-year
term effective May 1, 1969.2
The Trial Examiner found in accord with Gener-
al Counsel's position on all points at issue.
Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's find-
ings principally on the ground that the alleged viola-
tions involve arbitrable disputes arising under the
parties' bargaining contracts, each of which contains
an identical three-step grievance mechanism culmi-
nating in binding arbitration. Referring to the princi-
i The relevant provisions of the contracts which Respondent is alleged to
have violated are set out in the Trial Examiner 's Decision.
2 Each contract contained an automatic renewal clause.
pies enunciated in our Collyer case ,3 Respondent con-
tends the Board should withhold exercise of its reme-
dial authority in deference to . the grievance-
arbitration mechanism agreed on by the parties. We
find merit in this contention.
A. The Alleged Unilateral Actions
The complaint's broad averment that Respondent
violated the good-faith bargaining duties imposed by
the Act is particularized in three counts. Each count
describes an asserted unilateral transfer of specific job
duties from one unit's members to the other's; and
each rests on the work jurisdiction definition of each
separate unit's work in the applicable contract. Two
of the three alleged unilateral work transfers are
claimed to be in breach of the work jurisdiction claus-
es contained in the engineer-unit contract; the other,
in breach of the work jurisdiction clauses contained
in the announcer-unit contract.
1. The alleged reassignment of announcer
work to engineers
This part of the complaint alleges that Respondent
assigned the- broadcast work of an announcer to an
engineer. The allegation was litigated on the basis of
events described by General Counsel' s witness, Mi-
chael Ryan .4 Ryan was a member of the engineer unit
who had, at times following the execution of the cur-
rent contracts, performed as an announcer for Re-
spondent with a program of his own.
Ryan testified on direct examination that his reg-
ular work assignments during 1970 included his ap-
pearance at certain Sunday broadcasts to do the
engineering work required; that for "more than half"
the Sundays in that year, he also performed the an-
nouncing tasks. Ryan admitted, on cross-examina-
tion, that Respondent customarily scheduled an
announcer to appear for the Sunday broadcasts, but
when the announcer failed to show up, Ryan took it
upon himself to announce; and that Respondent had
never directed or required Ryan to perform the an-
nouncing tasks on the Sunday broadcasts in issue.
The record's documentation of the grievances filed
by the Union up to the date of the hearing in this case
includes two which complained of Ryan's perfor-
mance of Sunday broadcast work. These two were
limited to the work Ryan performed between 7 a.m.
and 3 or 4 p.m. on Sunday, February 1, and on Sun-
; Collyer Insulated Wire, a Gull and Western Systems Co, 192 NLRB No.
150. That Decision issued only a few days before the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion in the instant case.
4 All of the testimony reported here was given by witnesses called by the
General Counsel Respondent called no witnesses of its own in litigating its
case . Each witness testified to events occurring in 1970, and unless otherwise
specified , all dates hereafter mentioned are for the year 1970
199 NLRB No. 58
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 435
day, March 8 .1 Both attributed to Respondent a
breach of contractual obligations allegedly imposed
on it by section 4.1 of the engineer-unit contract. This
section provides, in relevant part, that "technicians
shall not be required" to perform work other than that
specifically described in that contract.
The alleged 8(a)(5) violation, based on the same
events, describes the Respondent's asserted departure
from its contractual commitments as going not only
to section 4.1 of the engineers' contract, but also to
section 4.1 of the announcers' contract. The latter
reserves to members of the announcers' unit the work
of broadcasting program material.
Respondent denied the breach of contract attrib-
uted to it by the Union at the grievance level, and it
denied the breach of contract attributed to it by the
complaint. Its exceptions assert that it met the con-
tractual duties here placed in issue by regularly sched-
uling an announcer to perform the Sunday broadcast
work; and that it had not "required" the performance
of the absent announcer's work by Ryan, an engineer-
unit member.
2. The alleged reassignment to announcers of
engineers' hookup work at remote broadcasts
This part of the complaint alleges that, although
Respondent's engineer-unit contract requires its as-
signment of an engineer to do certain technical work
necessary for the transmission of the Company's pro-
grams over the air, Respondent unilaterally reas-
signed that technical work to an announcer.
General Counsel litigated this alleged unfair labor
practice in the context of section 4.3 of the engineers'
contract. This provides, in relevant part, "A company
technician shall be present" at the point of origin of
"commercial and sustaining programs" Respondent
may initiate at or away from its studios within a spec-
ified 50-mile radius .6
The testimony of announcer Richard Bing de-
scribes the assertedly unlawful conduct covered by
this part of the complaint. Bing testified on direct
examination that on March 20 and 21 he and Supervi-
sor Michael Gaylord, a member of the announcers'
work group, made a remote broadcast of a sports
event without an engineer being present. At that time
Bing observed Gaylord hook up the amplifier to the
transmission wires himself.
On cross-examination, Bing admitted that at all
s These and other grievances described infra were processed through the
first level of the grievance mechanism and, when denied , were deferred by
the Union to the mechanism 's second level . The second-level processing was
not completed because of intervening circumstances described below.
6 The contracts' terms specifically exempt from the operation of that clause
programs originated through or with the aid of other members of the indus-
try There is no claim that the work transfers here in issue turn on the
application of the contracts ' description of exempted programs
other remote broadcasts he had made during the peri-
ods here material, an employee member of the engi-
neers unit had customarily been assigned to do the
hookup work; that Chief Engineer Wallace had ac-
companied him on the broadcasts preceding the two
which Bing and Gaylord handled by themselves; and
that Wallace had been discharged just prior thereto in
March.
Evidence additional to that elicited through Bing
reveals that despite active recruitment efforts, Re-
spondent had not been able to obtain a replacement
for Wallace by March 21; that FCC regulations did
not require that the hookup work involved be done by
a licensed engineer; and that no grievances were filed
with respect to Gaylord's performance of the hookup
work on March 20 and 21.7
3. The alleged unilateral transfer of the master
console operation work
The complaint's remaining allegation, as litigated,
avers that Respondent unilaterally reassigned to an-
nouncers the engineers' task of operating master con-
trol consoles located at Respondent's studios. Here,
too, the alleged unfair labor practice places in issue
the extent of the Respondent's obligations to the Un-
ion under the work jurisdiction provisions contained
in section 4 of the engineer-unit contract. The relevant
contract language is that providing:
4.1 The work covered by this agreement shall
include all work in connection with the ... opera-
tion and maintenance of radio broadcast ... and
audio equipment and apparatus by means of
which electricity is applied in the transmission or
transference, production or reproduction of
voice, sound or vision with or without ethereal
aid .... Technicians shall not be required to
perform duties which are inconsistent with and
unrelated to the work of the character described
in this section.
All parties identify master control consoles as
pieces of electronic audio equipment which serve as
instrumental aids to the production of sound effects
as radio material is broadcast. The consoles contain
certain knobs which can be manipulated to control
volume of sound or to obtain certain special effects
while an announcer is airing his program. They are
sometimes referred to in the record (and are hereafter
7 The Trial Examiner 's description of the grievances filed by the Union on
March 9 with respect to remote broadcasts made on March 7 and 8 is
erroneous . The remote broadcast issue raised by the complaint (par. 17(b))
is based on announcers ' performance of engineer-unit hookup work , whereas
the March 11 grievances related to engineers' performance of announcing-
unit work According to a stipulation of the parties, the March 11 grievance
was withdrawn by the Union after first level grievance discussion , because,
as Respondent explained , the factual assertion on which that grievance was
based was erroneous.
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so referred to by us) as "broadcast" consoles to distin-
guish them from transmitter consoles.'
Prior to the events on which General Counsel rests
this part of his case, all of Respondent's broadcast
consoles were physically located in areas outside the
glass-partitioned studio rooms in which radio pro-
grams are customarily prerecorded or broadcast. As
part of a studio remodeling project on which Respon-
dent embarked in January, Respondent arranged for
the construction of new studio rooms within the space
it then occupied. It also arranged for the physical
placement of a new broadcast console and one of two
old consoles within the new studio rooms. Respon-
dent admits planning, and then making, a change in
its usual allocation of the broadcast console operation
work tasks once its remodeling project was completed
in late April. But it denies that anything in its con-
tracts with the Union forbade its making such a
change.
Respondent's customary allocation of the tasks in-
volved in operating the broadcast console and its de-
partures from the norm before and after the
completion, in late April, of its remodeling project,
are matters described in the testimony of Luther
Root. Root was employed as an announcer and, dur-
ing the relevant period of time, he was serving as
president of NABET's Local 46 and as the union job
steward.
Root testified that the broadcast console was his-
torically operated by a technician member of the engi-
neers unit in accordance with directions issued to him
by the announcer while the latter aired a program.
The announcer transmitted these directions by means
of either hand signals or buzzers and the technician
operator then complied by manipulating the console's
volume and sound controls.
On March 19 Root observed Supervisor Michael
Gaylord operating the broadcast console while Gay-
lord was announcing a radio program of his own. On
March 20 Root filed a formal grievance complaining
of Gaylord's operation of the master console on the
prior day as a violation of section 4.1 of the engineers'
contract, supra.9 That grievance, like others earlier
described in this decision, was considered at the first
level of the grievance machinery. Respondent there
denied the breach-of-contract charge and rejected the
grievance. The parties later arranged to meet on April
8 for the purpose of second-level processing of that
grievance, the Sunday broadcast grievance supra, and
8 Under FCC regulations, broadcast consoles may permissibly be operated
by announcers; but transmitter consoles or other electronic equipment used
to transmit radio signals through the air may only be operated by licensed
engineers.
Three precedent grievances dated in November 1969 complained of sim-
ilar instances of independent announcers' operation of the console These
three grievances were withdrawn by the Union following discussion with
Respondent at the first level
other unspecified grievances involving matters not in
issue here.
The April 8 meeting was attended by Robert East-
man, Respondent's president; Ray Miller, an Interna-
tional union agent heading NABET's regional office at
Chicago, Illinois; and Luther Root. At this meeting,
Eastman generated a discussion of technical problems
which, in Respondent's view, lay at the base of
Respondent's citation by the FCC on March 3 for a
number of alleged failures to comply with FCC regula-
tions in the technical operation of its radio sta-
tion. 10 Eastman represented to the union agents that, in
Respondent's judgment, the recently arising eco-
nomic problems justified a change in operational
methods; and that a "permanent solution" to these
problems could be facilitated by a renegotiation of the
two contracts' work jurisdictional provisions so . - to
sanction or authorize Respondent's establishmen, if
a "combo" operator job; i.e., one permitting
Respondent's use of a single qualified employee to do
all the work its two contracts with the Union re-
spectively defined as separate "announcer" or "engi-
neer" unit work. 11 Miller promised to give the matters
raised by Respondent prompt attention and to ar-
range for an early negotiation session. But despite
Respondent's followup efforts, Miller never met East-
man again for that purpose.
In the latter part of April, Root observed a number
of announcers operating the master consoles them-
selves. But neither Root, nor anyone else, filed any
grievance about the latter reassignment of the broad-
cast console work tasks. Root subsequently com-
plained to Ray Miller, the Union's International
representative, about the more extensive transfer of
broadcast console operation work to announcers.
Miller directed Root to file NLRB charges, and the
Union subsequently did so, some 4 months later, on
August 13.12
10 The type of violations the FCC specified form part of the factual back-
drop in another unfair labor practice case, also instituted by the Union,
which placed in issue the Respondent's motive for the discharge of Chief
Engineer Wallace on March 13. Eastman Broadcasting Company, Inc., 188
NLRB No. 13. The Board there found the complaint unsupported.
The Union had made the discharge of Wallace both the subject of a
grievance and a separate unfair labor practice charge . This grievance was one
also scheduled for discussion at the second level when the parties met on
April 8.
11 As is pointed out by Respondent 's exceptions, a "combo" job could only
be filled by an individual who was licensed by the FCC to do the technical
radio transmission work and who also possessed announcer skills.
Respondent 's agents had made the same "combo" proposal to Root in
February in the context of the remodeling then in open progress ; but Root
informed them that only Ray Miller had authority to negotiate the modifica-
tions in the contracts which could authorize the creation of a "combo" job.
On February 24, accordingly, Eastman dictated a letter to Miller requesting
a meeting for theirjoint exploration of a "permanent solution" to the "techni-
cal difficulties" Respondent faced, and posted a carbon of the same on its
bulletin board . Root delivered a copy of the carbon to Miller; but Eastman
located and then hand -delivered the original to Miller on April 8 , after Miller
said that he had not gotten the letter in the mails.
12 A letter written by Eastman to Miller on October 1 referred to the failure
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 437
The record's remaining relevant evidence goes to
the issue of the operative effect of the contracts' work-
jurisdictional clauses as envisaged by the parties dur-
ing the bargaining negotiations. During these negotia-
tions, each of the parties attempted to secure certain
changes in the similarly worded jurisdictional clauses
of the expiring contracts. The changes most insistent-
ly proposed by Respondent were aimed at securing
contractual privilege to establish "combo" jobs. Re-
spondent sought to accomplish this objective by
requesting the deletion of certain jurisdictional
language in the engineers' contract which restricted
the broad privilege which it sought. The Union resist-
ed the demand and countered with proposals for more
explicit jurisdictional definitions. Its purpose was to
maintain intact the group of work tasks each unit's
members were then performing for the duration of the
new contracts' terms. This the Union sought to ac-
complish by adding to the announcers' contract juris-
dictional language limiting that unit's members
specifically to the work tasks they were then perform-
ing.13 A strike of several weeks' duration occurred
over the parties' conflicting positions on the "combo"
issue as well as over some money differences. The
strike was ultimately settled, and new contracts con-
cluded, on the basis of Respondent's agreement to the
inclusion of the same jurisdictional language that was
part of the preceding engineers' and announcers' con-
tracts; and the Union's acceptance of less money than
was contained in its prestrike "final" demand.
Referring to the above negotiation history, the
complainants would construe Respondent's acquies-
cence to section 4.1 of the engineers' contract as forec-
losing Respondent's managerial right to transfer the
broadcast console operation, as it did, during the
contract's effective term. But as appears from its ex-
ceptions, Respondent would construe the same lan-
guage in light of the Union's ultimate withdrawal of
the proposals under which announcers' jobs would
have remained frozen to the specific tasks they were
then performing. Respondent argues from this that it
was not asked to give up its managerial right to add
to the work tasks of announcers the one additional
work task of broadcast console operation so long as
no engineer member was displaced; and it did not in
fact do so. The main thrust of Respondent's excep-
of the Union to pursue the grievances placed on joint-hold as of April 8, and
said Respondent viewed the grievances as therefore "closed."
Miller responded , on October 5, with a letter claiming that he was inquiring
into the status of the grievances in the light of the most recent NLRB
investigation into the "combo" operation . (This obviously was meant to refer
to the pending unfair labor practice charge in this case .) The letter states that
the Union would contact the Employer when it had an opportunity to investi-
gate ; but the Union never took any further action with regard to the griev-
ances This unfair labor practice complaint was issued several weeks later.
13 At one point early in the negotiations, the Union had proposed, and
almost consummated , an agreement on behalf of the announcer unit which
contained provisions granting the announcers the right to perform the broad-
tions , however , is that the Union had ample opportu-
nity to voice its views on the disputed issues at both
the grievance forum and at separate discussions with
Respondent outside of it; and that , in light of the
decision in Collyer, the Board should therefore dis-
miss the complaint 's allegations without resolving
their merits.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
The Collyer case and the later cases refining the
scope of its deferral to arbitration policies 14 establish
that the Board will apply the Collyer rule where two
basic conditions have been met: (1) the disputed is-
sues are, in fact, issues susceptible of resolution under
the operation of the grievance machinery agreed to by
the parties, and (2) there is no reason for us to believe
that use of that machinery by the parties could not or
would not resolve such issues in a manner compatible
with the purposes of the Act. We are satisfied that in
this case, like in the others cited supra, both conditions
have been met.
Each of the two contracts contains an identical
three-step grievance mechanism culminating in bind-
ing arbitration. The grievance-arbitration procedures
encompass "any complaint, dispute, or question as to
the interpretation, application or performance of the
terms of [the] agreement." As our foregoing analysis
of this complaint's litigated issues plainly shows, each
of the issues in this case revolves on matters of con-
tractual interpretation or application that come with-
in the compass of the agreed-upon grievance-
arbitration procedures. No resolution of these
issues is possible without a threshold assessment
and evaluation of the contracts' interrelated jurisdic-
tional provisions and their application to the disputed
work assignments here involved not only on the basis
of their somewhat ambiguous wording as such but
also on the basis of such relevant external considera-
tions as: the parties' past practices with respect to
work assignments; the bargaining history leading to
Respondent's contractual commitments to maintain
two separate units of employees involved; the possible
conflicts between those commitments and the over-
riding requirements imposed on its operations by the
communications laws; the midterm changes which
took place in Respondent's operations; and, if a
breach of the contractual commitments be found, the
cast console work . That agreement subsequently went by the boards appar-
ently because the engineers ' unit balked.
14 Appalachian Power Company, 198 NLRB No. 7; Coppus Engineering
Corporation, 195 NLRB No. 113, Great Coastal Express, Inc., 196 NLRB No.
129, Kansas Meat Packers, a Division of Aristo Foods, Inc., 198 NLRB No.
2; Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, 195 NLRB No. 186; Malrite of
Wisconsin, 198 NLRB No 3; Joseph T Ryerson & Sons, 198 NLRB No. 8;
B-E-C-K Christenson-Raber -Kief & Associates, Inc., 195 NLRB No. 95; Na-
tional Radio Company, Inc., 198 NLRB No 1; Peerless Pressed Metal Corpo-
ration, 198 NLRB No 5, Tulsa-Whisenhut Funeral Homes, Inc, 195 NLRB
No 20.
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remedy appropriate to cure it. These are all matters
which constitute "the very stuff of labor contract arbi-
tration.""
Indeed, our concept of the arbital nature of the
basic controversy is, we believe, one which the parties
have themselves already recognized: the Union, by
presenting two of the three clearly interrelated work
disputes particularized in the complaint through the
contract grievance mechanism, and Respondent, both
by its hospitable consideration of the grievances filed
by the Union and by its presentation to us of its
Collyer-based request.
On the evidence before us, we have no reason to
believe that an arbitrator's resolution would not lay to
rest the controversies the parties have here presented
to us. Respondent's past relationship with the Union
and its employees reveals no enmity to employee exer-
cise of protected rights. That relationship began by
Respondent's voluntary assumption of a bargaining
contract with the Union as made by the predecessor
owner of the business. Apart from the matters placed
in issue in this proceeding, the sole unfair labor prac-
tice charge made against Respondent during the peri-
od of its ownership of this business was found
unsupported by the Board.16
We, therefore, conclude that this is an appropriate
case for deferral to the machinery agreed upon by the
parties for resolutions of disputes arising under their
contracts, and we shall enter an appropriate order.
We have not accordingly considered the merits of the
alleged unfair labor practices.
ble settlement in the grievance procedure or submit-
ted promptly to arbitration, or (b) the grievance or
arbitration procedures have not been fair and regular
or have reached a result which is repugnant to the
Act. 's
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed; provided, however,
that:
Jurisdiction of this proceeding is hereby retained
for the limited purposes indicated in that portion of
our Decision and Order herein entitled "Remedy."
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in
Collyer Insulated Wire, supra, and other decisions cit-
ed in footnote 14 of the majority opinion, I would not
refuse to decide the unfair labor practice issue litigat-
ed in this case. Accordingly, I dissent.
IS See Collyer Insulated Wire, supra
16 See Eastman Broadcasting Company, Inc., supra
17 Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080
18 Collyer Insulated Wire, supra.
TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
REMEDY
Without prejudice to any party, and without decid-
ing the merits of the controversy, we shall order that
the complaint herein be dismissed, but we shall retain
jurisdiction for a limited purpose. As we noted in
Collyer, our decision represented a developmental
step in the Board's treatment of these problems, and
the controversy here arose at a time when the deci-
sions of the Board, antecedent to Collyer, may have
led the parties to conclude that the Board approved
dual litigation of these controversies before the Board
and before an arbitrator. We are also aware that the
parties herein have not resolved their disputes by the
contractual grievance and arbitration procedure, and
that, therefore, we cannot now inquire whether the
resolution of the disputes will comport with the stan-
dards set forth in Sptelberg." In order to eliminate the
risk of prejudice to any party, we shall retain jurisdic-
tion over these disputes solely for the purpose of enter-
taining appropriate and timely motions for further
consideration upon a proper showing that either (a)
the dispute has not, with reasonable promptness after
GEORGE L. POWELL, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on August 13, 1970, by National Association of Broad-
cast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its
Local 46, herein called Charging Party or Union, against
Eastman Broadcasting Company, Inc., herein called Re-
spondent, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
issued a complaint (amended at the trial) pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(b) of the Act on behalf of the General Counsel of
the Board on November 27, 1970, alleging a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent, while admitting cer-
tain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of
any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice, a trial was held before me in Flint,
Michigan, on May 13, 14, and 18, 1971, where the parties
were present, were represented by counsel, were afforded
full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and were permitted to present oral argu-
ment and file briefs. The General Counsel gave oral argu-
ment and Respondent, after receiving an extension of time,
filed a brief on June 23, 1971. On the entire record of evi-
dence, my observation of the witnesses as they•testified,'
and on due considerations of the oral argument and the
the issuance of this Decision, been resolved by amica- 1 Cf Bishop & Marco, Inc, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161.
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.
brief filed by Respondent, I find, for the reasons hereinafter
set forth, that the General Counsel has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent should cease
and desist from this conduct and take certain affirmative
actions as will be set out below in the sections entitled "The
Remedy" and "Order."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the
business of radio broadcasting under the name WTRX-
Radio at its principal place of business in Flint, Michigan.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, which period
is representive of its operations during all times material
herein, Respondent received gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 from its radio broadcasting business, and received
revenue from the sale of time for commercial advertising
and furnishing of material or services for advertisers valued
in excess of $100,000, of which revenue in excess of $50,000
was obtained from advertisers of national products. I find,
as admitted by Respondent, that it is now and has been at
all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
I also find as true the allegations in paragraph 7 of the
complaint, as admitted at the trial , that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The gravamen of the complaint is that Respondent
unilaterally modified the terms of the contract to put into
effect certain operations which he had attempted without
success to write into the collective-bargaining agreement
during the previous negotiations.
In essence , the complaint alleged that Respondent
wanted (a) announcers to operate the master control con-
sole rather than engineers; (b) to permit staff announcers to
set up remote broadcast equipment and facilities without
the aid, assistance, and presence of staff engineers; and (c)
to permit broadcast operation of the station on Sundays
with only a staff engineer acting as the engineer and the
announcer. Each of these desires of Respondent if proven,
admittedly would be contrary to the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement and their jurisdictional clauses. The
questions of fact involved are: (1) Did Respondent attempt
to secure these provisions at the bargaining and (2) never-
theless, after the contracts had been agreed upon without
them, did he put them into effect or permit them to take
place over the objections of the Union.
The Union represents both the announcers and the
engineers and each of these classes of employees is in a
separate unit with separate work jurisdiction, and in sep-
arate contracts?
2 Respondent's answer admits the contracts , the units, and the jurisdiction
but denies the majority status of the Union . In view of the admitted bargain-
The Announcer's Unit-Admitted
439
All full-time and regular part-time announcers,
and continuity and traffic department employees em-
ployed by the Employer in its Flint, Michigan, place of
business; but excluding all office clerical employees,
engineering employees, technical employees, janitorial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act and all other employees constitute a unit appropn-
ate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Announcer's Jurisdiction-Admitted
4.0 JURISDICTION
4.1 The trade jurisdiction covered by this Agreement
shall include the following classifications:
(a) All staff Announcers who shall be defined as
those regularly employed by the station.
Staff Announcers are those individuals who per-
form staff duties.
Staff duties constitute assigned announcing duties
including station breaks or any part thereof during a
daily shift period.
Excluded from the bargaining unit shall be those
persons permitted to use the facilities of the station on
a free-lance talent basis.
The definition of a free-lance Announcer is that
generally understood in the industry.
A Staff Announcer shall be on duty at the studios at
all times during regular operating hours. [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
(b) Part-time Announcers as defined in Section
15.2.
(c) All persons employed in the Traffic Depart-
ment of the Station.
(d) All persons employed in the continuity Depart-
ment of the station.
The Engineer's Unit-Admitted
All full-time and regular part-time engineering de-
partment employees employed by the Employer in its
Flint, Michigan, place of business, but excluding all
office clerical employees, announcers, continuity and
traffic department employees, janitorial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all
other employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Engineer's Jurisdiction-Admitted
4.0 JURISDICTION
4.1 The work covered by this Agreement shall include
mg history with identical work junsdichon clauses and both current contracts
running from May 1, 1969, to April 30, 1972, majority status cannot be
attacked in this proceeding . It is no real issue, and the denial in the answer
is a frivolous pleading.
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all work in connection with the installation (except new
construction work), operation and maintenance of radio
broadcast, television, facsimile and audio equipment and
apparatus by means of which electricity is applied in the
transmission or transference, production or reproduc-
tion of voice, sound or vision with or without ethereal
aid, including magnetic tape and wire recorders and rec-
ordings, the cutting and playing of transcriptions and/or
records. Technicians shall not be required to perform du-
ties which are inconsistent with and unrelated to work of
the character described in this section . [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
This jurisdiction clause is amended effective as of
January. 1, 1963, so as to permit the use, by the Staff
Announcers, of "Mini-coders" or the electronic equiv-
alent of such self-contained recording devices, for the
recording of news material.
4.2 It is recognized that the Engineering Department of
the-Company is responsible for all technical aspects of
the Company's activities and that said responsibility is
relegated, in detail, to the technicians on duty. The
judgment of the Engineering Department shall prevail
as to the type, number, placement and use of micro-
phones and other technical equipment used during any
technical assignment, broadcast, on-the-air playback,
rehearsal, audition and/or recording.
4.3 A Company technician shall be present at the origin
of Company commercial and sustaining programs orig-
inating in the field within a radius of fifty (50) miles of
the City Hall in the City of Flint, except that the provi-
sions of this paragraph shall not apply to:
(a) Programs originated in the studios of other
stations.
(b) Programs broadcast jointly with any other sta-
tion or stations.
(c) Programs originated by Network studio.
Respondent's Attempts at Bargaining
to Modify Contracts
Luther Root was the news directior of WTRX from
June 1967 until he left on April 2, 1971. During this time,
he gathered, wrote, and broadcast new material between the
hours generally of 5:30 a.m. and 10 a.m., Monday through
Friday. He was president of Local 46 and the steward of the
announcer's unit and was for a time acting steward of the
engineer's unit.
He credibly testified that he did not operate "combo"
prior to the execution of the 1969 contracts. He defined
"combo" as a combination of engineering and announcing
duties being performed by one man. As a member of the
Union's team of negotiators composed of George Maher,
chief negotiator; John Callaghan, as steward of the
.announcer's unit, he identified G.C. Exh. 7 and 8 as the
Respondent's contract proposals presented to the Union's
negotiators on February 24, 1969, the first day of negotia-
tions for the 1969 contracts, for the engineer's unit and
announcer's unit, respectively.
According to Root's testimony, the Respondent's pro-
posals, General Counsel's Exhibits 7 and 8, "were presented
in an effort to change the jurisdiction clause in the
Engineer's contract to allow for a combo form of operation
at the station." General Counsel's Exhibit 7 provides for the
elimination of the above contract sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3
substituting therefor only the following: "An engineer must
be on duty at the company during broadcasting hours."
General Counsel's Exhibit 8 proposed to expand section 4.1
(a) of the announcer's jurisdiction to read:
A staff announcer shall be on duty at the studio at all
times during regular operating hours. If the Company
decides to broadcast all night, a part-time announcer
may be employed to do the night show. It is also agreed
that, on Sunday mornings, the station may operate for
a period not to exceed eight (8) hours without an an-
nouncer on duty.
Thus, Respondent sought to eliminate, inter alia, from
the engineer's jurisdiction the operation of audio equipment
and apparatus and the playing of records thereby making
it possible for an announcer to combine these operations
with his duties. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the announcers
were concerned, the contract proposal was to permit an
engineer to combine his operations with those of an an-
nouncer on Sunday mornings. Root's conclusions, as stated
above, are substantiated. But both of these proposals were
rejected in the bargaining and the new 1969 contracts, hav-
ing the same jurisdiction clauses as the old contracts, are set
out above.
Root also credibly testified that Respondent's presi-
dent, Eastman, in his "final offer" wished "to operate in a
combo manner on weekends and in the evening hours, per-
haps the early morning hours between midnight and 5 a.m."
Also that "engineers would be eliminated from remote
broadcasts." Eastman thus wanted to combine the work
formerly done by two men, an announcer and an engineer,
and operate with one man. The parties continued to bargain
throughout a strike which lasted from March 1 until the
above contracts were executed on April 23, 1969.
Respondent's Attempts After Bargaining
to Modify Contracts
Root further testified that in October and November
1969, some 6 and 7 months after the contracts were signed,
staff announcer Clemons told him that Operations Manager
Gaylord ordered him to operate the control board
(engineer's duty) while he was an announcer and Root saw
him do these combined duties. Grievances were filed by
Root at Clemons' request concerning these assignments.
Root took up these grievances,with Eastman. Eastman
explained that there was a shortage of engineers but he was
attempting to hire additional engineers. Eastman also told
Root that there was a misunderstanding about the announc-
er operating the control board as Gaylord had no right to
tell Clemons or order him to operate the board. Upon taking
those steps, Root said, "the union withdrew the grievances
at that point because I felt the matter was being settled."
On February 4, 1970, Root filed a grievance over the
failure of Respondent to provide an announcer for duty
between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Sunday, February 1, 1960.
Another grievance was filed in March over the assignment
of Ryan, an engineer, to perform announcing duties on
Sunday, March 8, 1970, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. Another
grievance was filed when the Respondent did a remote
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.
broadcast without an announcer on Friday and Saturday,
March 6 and 7, 1970 . Another grievance was filed when
announcer Gaylord combined announcing duties with
engineer's duties of operating radio broadcast and audio
equipment on Thursday , March 19, 1970.
Root took up the grievance filed on February 4, 1970
(together with some others unidentified), with Eastman. Ac-
cording to Root:
The session as I recall I met with Mr. Eastman to
discuss the grievances in his office ... did not last very
long. Mr . Eastman appeared to me to be disturbed and
angry that the grievances were being filed . He took
them from my hand at one point and threw them across
his desk . He raised his voice to me . He indicated his
displeasure with the fact that the grievances were being
filed . I believe he said ... that he wished the Union
would go on strike so that he could get rid of the
contract ... I left ... I went to my work area ... Mr.
Eastman followed me there continuing to voice his
objections over my filing the grievances . Then he told
me that he was going to appoint operations manager
Michael Gaylord to handle labor relations for the com-
pany, and that he was going to appoint the chief engi-
neer Charles Wallace to handle labor relations for the
engineers and that he was going to appoint me to han-
dle labor relations for the company for the news de-
partment . He then left.
The record evidence follows:
Q. Did you or did you not have any conversation
with Mr. Gaylord around that time following the con-
versation with Mr. Eastman you just described?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you tell us when and what discussion
there was?
A. Yes sir, Mr . Gaylord came to my work area in
just a matter of minutes after Mr . Eastman had left. He
told me that Mr. Eastman had appointed him to handle
labor relations for the company . He said that, Mr. Gay-
lord told me, Mr . Eastman was not able to handle the
union thing any longer . We had as I recall a lengthy
discussion at which time Mr. Gaylord told me that he
would like to discuss with me and with the union the
possibility of the station going to a combo type opera-
tion. He indicated that it was his feeling that this would
be a temporary measure in that the station had recently
received a number of citations from the Federal Com-
munications Commission relative to some technical
problems at the station . He said he viewed the fact that
the station would enter into a combo situation for a
temporary period to free the engineers from the control
board to make the necessary adjustments . I told Mr.
Gaylord that I had no authority to enter into any such
agreement or waiver or negotiations with him relative
to the combo operation . However, I did suggest to him
that he contact Ray Miller who was the Regional Di-
rector of Region 4 , NABET, by letter and request that
a meeting be set up with him to discuss the situation.
Q. Did you have any further discussions at or close
to that time with Mr. Gaylord on the same?
A. Yes sir, I did.
Q. Would you tell us how long afterward that was?
441
A. It was about a week and a half after the Feb-
ruary 4 date.
Q. What was discussed.
A. It was a similar discussion that took place. Mr.
Gaylord came to me and asked if I would meet with
him to discuss the situation further and I said yes. We
met at the Pancake House near the studios and had
breakfast . Mr. Gaylord said at that point that he had
been in contact with Mr . Daniel the company attorney
and there was apparently going to be some problem
with him being appointed as labor relations , to handle
labor relations for the company , due to the fact that he
was also a member of the bargaining unit but that he
would still like to discuss with me some method
whereby the company could get into a combo type
operation and do it according to the contract in a legal
and above board manner . We discussed as I recall
some specific points . Mr. Gaylord indicated to me that
again he would like to enter into the combo operation
for perhaps a trial period of two months during which
time the technical adjustments could be made by the
engineers, and that also during these two months this
would give ample time for the union and the company
to enter into negotiations relative to the combo situ-
ation in hopes of coming up with a permanent solution.
Mr. Gaylord said he envisioned once the negotia-
tions got under way that the company would be willing
to bend in some degree relative to wages and that per-
haps a permanent solution to the combo situation
could be found. He indicated he had been in contact
with Mr. Riddleberger who is the executive vice presi-
dent of the Eastman Company and that Mr. Riddleber-
ger had indicated to him that the remodeling of the
studios which was currently underway at the time that
when the new on-the-air studio was built that that stu-
dio would be operated in accordance with the contract
whether it be combo agreed to or the way we were
doing it, which was separate with an engineer-an-
nouncer type of arrangement.
Q. Referring to the first half of February which I
believe the last several questions have been alluding to,
what was going on at the studio itself if you recall at
that time?
A. Yes sir . As I recall at about the beginning of
January of 1970 the company undertook to remodel
the broadcast area of the radio station . They remodeled
the studio area and constructed two new studios in
place of an older area.
Q. How much effect if any on the method of work-
ing, that is the work of announcers and engineers did
the course of the remodeling job itself mean, change?
A. There was no change during the remodeling.
The method we were operating in it did not disrupt the
broadcast operation in any way.
Q. Can you tell us when if ever a change did occur
in the method of operation?
A. As I recall toward the middle or end of April
there was a change in the method of operation , that's
April 1970.
Q. Had the remodeling or had it not been finished
by that time?
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Yes sir, it had.
Q. Only very recently at that time?
A. The remodeling had been completed earlier,
probably around the first of March but the wiring up
of new electronic equipment that was being installed in
the remodeling section lasted until the middle or end
of April.
Q. Would you describe the change itself which
occurred in the method of operation as you have ob-
served employees?
A. The operation that had previously been con-
ducted with the engineer operating the master control
board and playing the tapes in one room and the an-
nouncer in a separate room announcing was changed so
that the announcers operated the master control board,
announced and also played the tapes. [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
Q. How did you first discover that there was such
a change in operation occurring?
A. Part of my function as new director was to be
in the studio to give my news broadcasts. So I don't
recall the exact date but the newsroom was also
changed into the new area so then I was able to observe
this new operation.
Q. Was there or was there not any company an-
nouncement to employees predicting such a change
before it occurred?
A. None that I can recall sir.
The grievances above relating to Engineer Ryan's
working without an announcer on Sunday, March 8, 1970,
the one relating to remote broadcasts on Friday and Satur-
day, March 6 and 7, 1970, and the one relating to Gay-
lords's combining announcers' duties with engineers' duties
on Thursday, March 19, 1970, were also discussed with
Eastman by Root. According to Root's credited testimony:
Mr. Eastman did admit that he realized he was violat-
ing or operating in violation of certain Sections of the
bargaining agreeement.
Eastman "denied the grievance at the first level and [Root]
then transmitted them to Mr. Miller for his disposition at
the second level."
These grievances then were discussed "at the second
level" on April 8, 1970. Eastman apologized for not having
contacted the union first to seek a waiver of announcers
being present at some remote broadcasts and "indicated it
would not occur again ."`The Union then withdrew the re-
mote grievance.
But no agreement could be reached on the combo oper-
ation-"violations." Eastman denied he had violated the
contract but was willing to "enter into discussions with the
Union relative to resolving the combo situation." The Un-
ion and Respondent agreed to place these grievances "on
hold at the second level ... pending further talks relative
to the combo situation."
Root testified he had seen announcers Gaylord, Clem-
ons, Appolson, Arema, and Hood operate the master con-
trol board since April 1970. Bing credibly testified that staff
announcers set up and operated remote broadcasts without
staff engineers . Ryan, engineer, testified that he announced
over half of the Sundays from January 1970 to November
1970.
Supervisory Status of Gaylord
Gaylord was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. He was put in charge of labor relations and indeed bar-
gained with Root as the agent of Respondent . He had over-
all responsibility for the broadcast operations of the stations
relative to announcers and engineers . On June 5 , 1969, East-
man issued a memo to his staff announcing Gaylord's pro-
motion to operations manager stating the above
responsibility . A series of subsequent memos issued by Gay-
lord attested to the fact that he exercised this authority.
Finally, the Supplemental Decision on Challenges and Ob-
jections and Certification of Results of Election in Case
7-UD-73, involving Respondent , found Gaylord to be a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act
on substantially the same facts as were developed in this
case.
Conclusions
It is apparent then that Respondent attempted, over
the Union's complaints to operate in certain particulars as
a "combo" operation and that after the contract was execu-
ted Eastman, through Gaylord, continued to seek agree-
ment from Root to so operate. Root had no authority to so
modify the contract and refused to do so. Nonetheless Re-
spondent unilaterally put into effect certain "combo" oper-
ations which included: (a) having announcers operate the
master control console rather than an engineer; (b) permit-
ting staff announcers to set up remote broadcast equipment
and facilities without the aid, assistance, and presence of
staff engineers; and (c) permitted broadcast operations of
the station on Sundays with only a staff engineer acting as
the engineer and the announcer. This conduct, being in
derogation of Respondent's statutory obligation under Sec-
tion 8(d), violated Section 8(a)(5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act: C & S Industries, Inc., 158 NLRB 454.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent's conduct was in dero-
gation of its statutory obligation under Section 8(d) of the
Act and as such violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom.
V THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above in section
III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire rec-
ord in this case, I reach the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 443
of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Michael Gaylord is a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the following
appropriate units with respect to unilaterally placing into
effect changes in job duties of employees in the units by: (a)
having the staff announcer perform broadcasting and an-
nouncing operations from the master control board which
the announcer operated himself; (b) having the engineer act
as both announcer and engineer during the regular sched-
uled broadcast operation of the station on Sundays; and (c)
having the announcers operate and set up remote broadcast
equipment and facilities without the aid, assistance, and
presence of staff engineers, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time announcers, and
continuity and traffic department employees employed
by the Employer in its Flint, Michigan, place of busi-
ness ; but excluding all office clerical employees, engi-
neering employees, technical employees, janitorial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act and all other employees constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time engineering depart-
ment employees employed by the employer in its Flint,
Michigan, place of business; but excluding all office
clerical employees, announcers, janitorial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all
other employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective gargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices effecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
The Eastman Broadcasting Company, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with National As-
sociation of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-
CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the units set forth above under the
section entitled "Conclusions of Law."
(b) Making unilateral changes in wages, rates of pay,
or other terms and conditions of its employees in the above-
described appropriate units during the terms of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements covering said units without first
reaching agreement with National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local
No. 46, concerning such changes.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Techinicians,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, or any other labor
organization, or to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Upon request of National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local
No. 46, revoke the unilateral changes described in the sec-
tion entitled "Conclusions of Law," above.
(b) Upon request, meet and bargain collectively with
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Techni-
cians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the above-de-
scribed appropriate units with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
(c) Post at its place of business in Flint, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. "4 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec-
utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.'
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
5 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
10 days of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Na-
tional Association of Broadcast Employees and Tech-
nicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining units described below.
WE WILL NOT make unilateral changes in wages,
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates of pay, or other terms and conditions of the em-
ployees in the said bargaining unit during the terms of
the collective-bargaining agreements covering said
units without first reaching agreement with National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO-CI,C, and its Local No. 46.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, or
any other labor organization, or to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
WE WILL revoke the unilateral changes found to
have been made herein in the collective-bargaining
agreements upon request of National Association of
Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO-
CLC, and its Local No. 46.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with
National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local No. 46, as
the exclusive representative of all our employees in the
bargaining units described below with respect to rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached , embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining units are:
All full-time and regular part-time announcers,
and continuity and traffic department employees
employed by the Employer in its Flint, Michigan,
place of business ; but excluding all office clerical
employees , engineering employees , technical em-
ployees , janitorial employees , guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act and all other employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time engineering de-
partment employees employed by the employer in
its Flint, Michigan, place of business; but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees , announcers, jani-
torial employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
Dated By
EASTMAN BROADCASTING COMPANY,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit,
Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.