Empire Coil Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

EMPIRE COIL CO., INC 1069
In the present case, the Regional Director and the General
Counsel found that, in compliance with the court decree, the
Employer bargained in good faith to an impasse . We hold
that the Employer' s obligation under the decree was thereby
discharged. Accordingly, there was no obstacle thereafter to
the raising of a valid question concerning representation,
even though this occurred within a year of the court decree.I
As set forth above, the Union also moved to dismiss the
petition because of the pendency of unfair labor practice
charges against the Employer and because of the alleged
assistance rendered by the Employer to the Petitioner. The
unfair labor practice charges have been dismissed. One of
these charges alleged that the Employer had assisted the
Petitioner in connection with this proceeding . The Regional
Director and the General Counsel found this allegation to be
without merit and dismissed it. Under the holding in the
Times Square Stores case ," this disposition is binding upon
the Board. Accordingly, the Union' s motion to dismiss is
hereby denied.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. All employees' of the Employer at its Chicago , Illinois,
plant, engaged in the photoengraving process, excluding office
and clerical employees , guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Member Styles, who dissented in the Squirrel Brand case , joins in this decision because
he considers himself bound by the decision of the majority in that case.
6 Times Square Stores Corporation , 79 NLRB 361.
7 This includes Frank Balon , Stanley Burce, John Gorski , Granville Plummer, and Joseph
Ruppert who, we find, contrary to the contention of the Union , are not supervisors as defined
in the Act. None of these employees has the statutory indicia of supervisory authority and
all were permitted to vote without objection in the 1950 election Their duties have not
been changed since 1950.
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE
MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE U. S. & CANADA, AFL,
Petitioner
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BROADCAST ENGINEERS & TECHNICIANS, CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 8-RC-1939 and 8-RC-1950. August 28, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
106 NLRB No. 172.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nora M. Friel, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. 1
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer 2 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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-1950, herein called
NABET, seeks a single unit of all engineers , studio crewmen,
and projectionists at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, tele-
vision station WXEL. The Employer and the Petitioner in
Case No. 8-RC-1939, herein called IATSE , seek , in accordance
with the Employer' s departmental setup, separate units of
engineering and program employees. In the event twounits are
found appropriate, NABET would include the projectionists
with the engineers . There is no history of collective bargaining.
The Board has previously held either an overall unit or
separate units of engineering and program employees to be
appropriate in the television industry.3 However, NABET con-
tends that separate departmental units would not be appropriate
here because the studio crewmen4 and projectionists, who
constitute the bulk of the program department , should be in-
cluded in the same unit with the engineers . We must therefore
first determine the unit placement of the projectionists and the
studio crewmen who serve as cameramen and boom operators.
The Employer' s engineering department, under a chief
engineer , is staffed with FCC-licensed engineers who maintain
the television equipment and operate the control rooms and
transmitter . Its program services department, under a director,
is divided into three subdepartments , herein called the program
division , film division, and news division . The studio crewmen,
the art director, discussed below, and the supervising directors
and "talent" employees , 5 not sought herein, comprise the
program division . The projectionists , who also serve as film
editors, comprise the film division . Only one person, the news-
reel cameraman who takes motion pictures of news events out-
side the studio, is sought in the news division.6
1NABET was permitted to intervene in Case No . 8-RC-1939, and IATSE in Case No.
8-RC- 1950.
2 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
3KMTR Radio Corporation (KLAC-TV), 85 NLRB 99; and KTTV, Inc., 97 NLRB 1477
4 As indicated hereinafter, the studio crewmen's duties include the operation of the cameras
and microphone booms.
5 These employees perform as actors or serve as announcers.
6 We agree with the parties that the two other persons in the news division , the supervising
news director and his assistant who, as an announcer, is a "talent " employee , should be
excluded.
EMPIRE COIL CO, INC. 1071
Cameramen and microphone boom operators : The Employer
originally employed engineers to operate the cameras and
microphone booms . During 1951, in a period of rapid expan-
sion, the Employer began using program employees , without
,engineering training or experience , to operate them. There
were three reasons for the change: (1) Engineers were not
available ; ( 2) persons interested in the artistic aspects of
television were considered better qualified for the work; and
(3) the time of the operators could be utilized better if they
were members of the studio crews . For over a year, the
Employer has used studio crewmen to operate the cameras
and booms, the members of the crews spending more than
half of their time at such work. Thus, the same crewmen who
operate the cameras and microphone booms at other times
perform such duties as rigging lights, constructing scenery
sets, striking (dismantling ) the sets, cuing the actors , operat-
ing rear screen projectors , and performing a wide variety
of other stagecraft duties during preparation , rehearsal, and
performance of television shows . As cameramen , they direct
the cameras at the action on the stage, seeking to secure the
best picture composition . They focus the lens and, when
required during the broadcast, change the camera alignment.
The cameras are aligned beforehand by the engineers, who
also maintain and repair them. The operation of the micro-
phone booms involves turning the wheels on the boom in such
a way that the microphone head will be in the proper position
for receiving the sounds for broadcasting.
Projectionists : Under the direction of the program depart-
ment director , these employees spend a large part of their
time as film editors, inspecting , editing, timing, and splicing
film. They operate both film and slide projectors . During
broadcasts, the pictures are projected directly into stationary
cameras which are located in the projection roombut operated
by remote control by the engineers in the control room. The
projectionists' work consists of loading film, focusing the
picture, and operating the projection machines . The projec-
tionists do not repair the projectors but do oil and clean
them, and replace burned -out lamps . Like the studio crewmen,
the projectionists are not required to have training or expe-
rience in electronics , nor FCC licenses, as are the engineers.
There is no interchange between the program and engineer-
ing employees . The average pay of the engineers is 16 percent
higher than that of the program employees.
Although the Board has heretofore included cameramen
and boom operators ' and projectionists 8 with engineers as
7 The KMTR case, supr; W.C A.U., Incorporated, 88 NLRB 68; The Fort Industry Company,
88 NLRB 527; National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1289; American Broadcasting
Co., Inc. (KGO-TV), 94 NLRB 100; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 97 NLRB 566;
Don Lee Broadcasting System, 98 NLRB 453; and The Pulitzer Publishing Company (Radio
Station KSD, KSD-TV), 101 NLRB 1005.
8 The KMTR case, supra the Fort Industry case, supra; Greensboro News Company,
Station WFMY-FM and WFMY-TV, 92 NLRB 245; American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 92 NLRB
995; and the Pulitzer Publishing case, supra
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"technical" employees, the Employer and IATSE contend
that the circumstances of this case require a different result.
They cite the fact that studio crewmen operate the cameras
and microphone booms and that studio crewmen and projec-
tionists are under the sole direction and supervision of the
program director. They also cite the testimony that there is
a trend among independent and smaller television stations to
utilize the personnel as the Employer has done, and that this
trend is away from the practice in the network stations of
using engineering department personnel as cameramen, boom
operators , and projectionists.
In an earlier case 9 the Board, in determining whether
certain employees should be included in the program or
engineering department, placed much reliance upon the em-
ployer's operational methods. Here, it is clear that the
Employer no longer uses engineers to operate the cameras
and microphone booms. Instead of being under the chief
engineer , the projectionists as well as the studio crewmen
are under the sole direction and supervision of the program
director. Furthermore, the program employees are not re-
quired to possess a basic knowledge of electronics as are the
engineers , they are not as highly paid, and they do not inter-
change with the engineers . On all these and the other facts
in the record, we are convinced that the studio crewmen and
projectionists , with the other program employees mentioned
below, constitute a homogeneous departmental group which
may, if the employees so desire , be represented apart from
the engineers . We shall therefore direct separate elections
of engineering and program employees to determine whether
they prefer separate or joint representation.
There remains for consideration the question of the unit
placement of personnel employed in the following classifica-
tions:
Supervising engineers : The parties agree that Supervising
Engineers Anderson an Hull are supervisors , but disagree as
to Blechschmid, Hulme, Millin, Shultz, Washeim, and Yambor,
NABET contending that they are not supervisors. As the
record reveals that twice each year they meet with the chief
engineer and the stationmaster , and effectively recommend
wage increases for the engineers , we find, apart from other
considerations , that the role of making such recommendations
renders them supervisors within the meaning of the Act. 10
We therefore agree with IATSE and the Employer that they
should be excluded.
We note, however, that film editors (whose functions these projectionists also perform)
were included in a program unit in two cases. WCAU, Inc., 93 NLRB 1003; and the American
Broadcasting KGO- TV case, supra.
9 The Don Lee Broadcasting case, supra.
10 General Telephone Company of California, 106 NLRB No. 77.
EMPIRE COIL CO., INC. 1073
Producer-director: Although other persons in this classifi-
cation are stipulated to be properly excluded from the program
unit, the Employer contends that Huber spends only a minor
part of this time as a producer-director, and is chiefly a
studio crewman. As he regularly directs several shows each
week, we agree with the Petitioner that he should be excluded
as a supervisor.11
Scenic designer, art director, and newsreel cameraman:
The scenic designer, whose job of designing and building sets
is of an artistic nature, also works as a member of the studio
crews. The art director executes freehand drawings, does
lettering of cards, makes slides, and does other graphic art
work, primarily for the program division for use on television
shows. The newsreel cameraman spends most of the time
outside the stuido, but part of the time processing and editing
the news films. NABET seeks to exclude these employees
from an overall "technical" unit. As they are an essential
part of the program department, we shall include them with
the other program employees.
Chief projectionist: NABET would exclude this employee
as a supervisor. He spends 1 or Z hours a week making out
work schedules and does the general scheduling of the films
for the film programs. He also assists the program director
in selecting films to be ordered. However, only the program
director has supervisory authority over the other projec-
tionists. Furthermore, the chief projectionist performs the
same duties as the other projectionists except thathe operates
the projection equipment only for screening. The record
indicates that the making of the work schedules is merely
routine. We find that he is not a supervisor, and also that his
duties in selecting and scheduling films are insufficient to
make him a managerial employee. We therefore agree with
the Employer and IATSE that he should be included.
We find that employees in the following voting groups may
together constitute either a single appropriate unit or separate
appropriate units:
1. All program employees at the Employer's Cleveland,
Ohio, television station WXEL, including studio crewmen,
projectionists, art director, scenic designer, and newsreel
cameraman, but excluding "talent" employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
2. All engineers at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, tele-
vision station WXEL, excluding supervising engineers and
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in both voting groups select
NABET, they will be taken to have indicated their preference
for a single bargaining unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of
11 The WCAU, Inc., case, supra.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives to NABET for such unit which the Board in
that event finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining . In the event a majority of the employees do not
select NABET in both of the voting groups, but do select
NABET or IATSE in either voting group , the employees will
be taken to have indicated their preference for separate bar-
gaining units , and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to NABET and/or IATSE,
as the case may be, for the separate unit or units which the
Board finds in such circumstances to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
(Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in
this volume.]
Members Murdock and Rodgers took no part in the considera-
tion of the above Decision and Direction of Elections.
CLEVELAND WELDING COMPANY d/b/a A. M. & F. PROD-
UCTS and UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
(UAW-AFL). Case No. 21-RC-3155. August 28, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo Fischer,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free froth prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
'At the hearing the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct
name of the Employer.
2 The hearing officer, while permitting the International Association of Machinists, herein
called the IAM, to participate fully in the hearing, referred to the Board the IAM's motion
to intervene. The IAM has a contract covering the production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant. The employees sought in this proceeding work at
the Employer's plant in Pomona, California. As the contract with the Employer was executed
before the Employer purchased the plant in Pomona, it cannot bar the instant petition. The
Hertner Electric Company, 99 NLRB 567; American Can Company, 98 NLRB 1190. As the
IAM's contract with the Employer does not cover any of the employees in the requested unit,
and as it has made no other showing of interest among these employees, the IAM's motion
to intervene is hereby denied. Cf. The Wilson H. Lee Company, 97 NLRB 1023; Bethlehem
Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, 97 NLRB 1072.
106 NLRB No. 170.