Fetzer Television, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 660 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pears that otherwise there is no substantial difference in their interests.
Both groups of employees enjoy the same general working conditions
and fringe benefits; both are under the overall supervision of the
plant superintendent. No union seeks to represent the printshop
employees separately. As the printshop employees are engaged di-
rectly in the production of printed material, we find they are produc-
tion employees. As we also find that they have sufficient interests in
common with other employees in the unit, we shall include them.13
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Mill-
ville, Pennsylvania, operations, including the scheduling clerk, pro-
duction control clerk, inventory control clerks, production clerk,
traffic department clerk, and other plant clericals; the factory serv-
ice representative; printshop employees; truckdrivers; janitors; and
working group leaders; 14 but excluding all other employees; drafts-
men; the receptionist-switchboard operator, accountant-factory pay-
roll clerk, and other office clerical employees; professional employees;
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
13Kentueky Rural Electric Cooperative Corp., 127 NLRB 887 (print shop) ; Litton
Industries of Maryland, Inc., 125 NLRB 722 (publications section).
14 The Employer would include certain working group leaders. At the bearing, the
Petitioner did not clearly indicate its position with respect to these employees ; they are
not specifically contested in the Petitioner's brief. In any event, the record indicates that
the working group leaders are merely more experienced employees performing regular pro-
duction and maintenance work; they possess none of the statutory indicia of supervisory
authority. We include them in the unit.
Fetzer Television , Inc. and National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO)
Fetzer Television , Inc. and National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO). Cases Nos. 7-CA-
2567 and 7-CA-2567(1). November 16, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1960, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. These
findings, conclusions, and recommendations are more fully set forth
129 NLRB No. 76.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 661
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Charging Party and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in these cases, including the Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Fetzer Tele-
vision, Inc., Cadillac, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns,'shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO),
or any other labor organization, by relieving its employees of any of
their duties or in any other manner discriminating against them in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if
they join or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other
labor organization, or select such labor organization as their bargain-
ing representative.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modi-
fied by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Revoke its interoffice memo addressed to Gordon Stone, dated
October 30, 1959, insofar as it relieves him of maintenance duties
theretofore performed by him.
(b) Offer to Gordon Stone immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent maintenance duties, and make him
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the Intermediate
Report.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its offices in Cadillac, Michigan, and its transmitter
site in Tustin Township, Osceola County, Michigan, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent illegally inter-
rogated its employees, discriminated against Gordon Stone on October
23, 1960, or discriminated against George Labbe on November 30, 1959.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, you are notified that :
WE WILL N OT discourage membership in or activities on behalf
of National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
(AFL-CIO), or any other union, by relieving our employees of
any of their duties, or in any other manner discriminating against
them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they join or assist any union, or select any union as
their bargaining representative.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 663
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any union, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a union as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL revoke our interoffice memo addressed to Gordon
Stone, dated October 30, 1959, insofar as it relieves him of main-
tenance duties theretofore performed by him.
WE WILL offer to Gordon Stone immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent maintenance duties,
and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- 13y-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CONSOLIDATED INTERMEDIATE REPORT
These cases involve allegations that Fetzer Television , Inc., herein called the
Respondent , has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in certain
specified respects since on or about May 19, 1959; that it discharged employee
George Labbe i on or about November 30, 1959, and has since failed and refused
to reinstate him, because he was a member of the bargaining committee of National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO), herein called
the Union, and joined and/or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted
activities ; and that it changed and shortened the hours of employment and changed
other working conditions of employee Gordon Stone , on or about October 26, 1959,
and has since refused to restore him to his former conditions of employment, because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and/or because he en-
gaged in other concerted activities. It is alleged that this conduct violated Section
8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136),
herein called the Act. The two cases were consolidated for hearing . After the
issuance of a consolidated complaint by the General Counsel2 and the filing of an
answer by the Respondent , a consolidated hearing was held before the duly designated
Trial Examiner at Cadillac, Michigan , on March 2 and 3, 1960 . All parties were
represented and participated in the hearing . After the close of the hearing, the
Union and the Respondent filed briefs , which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in these cases ,3 and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
i Referred to in the pleadings as George Labbee.
2 The term "General Counsel" refers to the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board and his representative at the hearing.
3 On June 6 , 1960, the transcript was corrected in certain specific respects.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
There is no dispute , the Board has found ,4 and it is now found , that the Respondent
is, and at all material times has been , engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, that its operations meet the Board 's jurisdictional standards ,5 and that
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO) is, and
at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
A. Sequence of events
In 1958 television station WWTV in Cadillac , Michigan, was owned by Sparton
Broadcasting Company, herein called Sparton. The Union filed a representation
petition with the Board (Case No. 7-RC-3697) and an election was directed among
the technical and production employees of the station, with certain inclusions and
exclusions not here material.6 The Union lost the election which ensued.? On
October 1, 1958, the Respondent purchased station WWTV from Sparton. Most of
Sparton's former personnel, both managerial and rank-and-file, continued to work
for WWTV without interruption after the sale of the station.
On July 20, 1959, the Union sent a letter to the Respondent claiming to represent
a majority of the employees in the Respondent's engineering and production depart-
ments. This was received by the Respondent on July 22 8 Meanwhile, on July 21,
the Union had filed with the Board a representation petition (Case No. 7-RC-4176)
seeking an election. A Board-directed election 9 was conducted on October 23
among the technical and production employees at Station WWTV with certain
inclusions and exclusions. The Union won and was certified on November 2.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Threats and interrogation
a. Contentions of the parties
The complaint alleges that since on or about May 19, 1959, the Respondent has
engaged in a continuous course of interference, restraint, and coercion of its em-
ployees. The following "particular acts in furtherance" of this course of conduct
are alleged: (a) by threats of reprisal and promises of benefit, urging, persuading,
and warning its employees to refrain from supporting the Union; and (b) interrogat-
ing employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, and activities. This
conduct is alleged to have been accomplished by the Respondent's officers, agents,
and representatives, including Cleetis Eugene Ellerman, Ronald M. Baker, and
Richard Dwight Wheeler. The answer denies that any threats of reprisal, promises
of benefit, or interrogation took place, and further states that "any such interrogation,
if such did in fact occur, was within the limits permitted by law."
Let us take up seriatim the conduct of each of the Respondent's supervisors.
b. Cleetis Eugene Ellerman
Ellerman was vice president and general manager of station WWTV under
Sparton, and continued in those capacities after the station was sold to the Re-
4 Television, Inc, Case No. 7-RC-4176, Decision and Direction of Election
issued September 30, 1959, not published in NLRB volumes
5 The Respondent Is a Michigan corporation with its principal office in Cadillac,
Michigan, where it operates a television station (WWTV) by virtue of licenses from the
Federal Communications Commission. The Respondent performs services valued in excess
of $100,000 annually for enterprises, each of which produces and ships outside the State
In which they are produced, products valued in excess of $50,000 annually The Respond-
ent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fetzer Broadcasting Co, a Michigan corporation,
which also owns and operates a radio and television station at Kalamazoo, Michigan
(WKZO and WKZO-TV) Respondent and/or Fetzer Broadcasting Company transmit
radio and/or television signals outside the State of Michigan and receive revenues in
excess of $25,000 annually for services from enterprises located outside the State of
Michigan
6 Sparton Broadcasting Company (WWTV), Decision and Direction of Election Issued
June 25, 1958, not published in NLRB volumes.
7 Spartan Broadcasting Company (WWTV), 122 NLRB 1191.
8 All dates herein refer to the year 1959, unless otherwise noted
8 Fetzer Television, Inc, Decision and Direction of Election Issued September 30, 1959,
not published in NLRB volumes.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 665
spondent. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that, at all material
times, he was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Shortly before the election in October, Ellerman asked John Charles Jacobson,
an announcer in the Respondent's employ,10 how he thought the election would go.
Jacobson replied that he did not know. Ellerman then said: "If the Union comes
in . . . it's going to make it bad on a few fellows because we're not going to be
able to pay the wages that the Union demands and we're not going to be able to
continue with our strong local programmings. So this will probably mean the ter-
mination of employment of some of the fellows that work on the production staff;
and maybe even announcers." 11
Under the circumstances here present, the casual questioning of Jacobson as to
how he thought ,the election would come out was the harmless fruit of curiosity and
lacked any reasonable tendency to interfere with the rights of employees.12 So far
as the statement which followed it is concerned, I do not consider this a threat that
if the Union should come in, the Respondent would use its economic power to
retaliate against the employees. Rather I find it constitutes no more than a prediction
of what might be expected to happen if the Union should be successful.13 It follows,
and I find, that Ellerman's conduct was not violative of the Act.
c. Ronald M. Baker 14
Baker became chief engineer of station WWTV on July 1, 1959. As such he has
general supervision of all engineering work and is also responsible for maintenance
of the studio building. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that at
all times since July 1, 1959, Baker has been a supervisor within the meamng of the
Act.
Gordon Stone, then a janitor, maintenance man, and part-time cameraman em-
ployed by the Respondent, testified that on approximately July 21 Baker asked him
and Carl Edberg, an engineer, into his office and stated that he had just received a
telephone call from Ellerman that the Union was seeking an election. According to
Stone, Baker then asked, "What do you boys know about it?"; Edberg replied that he
did not believe it; Stone answered that he had been "approached by a union repre-
sentative a number of times"; Baker rejoined that it was "a very poor time to talk
about unions because Gene [Ellerman] is just starting to soften up" and Edberg re-
marked that if an election was held, he hoped it would not come while he was on
vacation "because I came clear back from across the Straits last year to vote " Stone
further testified that on August 13 Baker said to Stone and Edberg: "There's some-
thing you fellows want to think over, that if the Union gets in, cameramen and
possibly T.D.'s 15 will have to have first class licenses 16 and therefore [cameramen]
Arthur Runyon and George Labbe and possibly you will be looking for new jobs."
According to Stone, Stone replied, "Well, Ron, the Union doesn't require cameramen
to have licenses"; Baker responded that "the company won't feel like paying-or
won't be able to pay-the wages that the Union will demand for cameramen to a
man that doesn't have a first class license. Therefore, they will want engineers,"
and Edberg left before the conversation ended.
Edberg testified that it was George Wilson,17 rather than Baker, who told Stone
and Edberg that he had received a telephone call from Ellerman that the Union was
10 In its 1959 Decision and Direction of Election, the Board excluded announcers from
the bargaining unit. However, this fact does not deprive announcers of the protection of
the Act. Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., 127 NLRB 736.
"The findings of fact with regard to this conversation are based upon a synthesis of
the testimony of Jacobson and Ellerman.
12 Blue Flash Express , Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 592-595
13 Crosby Chemicals , Inc., 121 NLRB 412, 415, enforcement denied 274 F. 2d 72
(C A 5).
14 Referred to in the complaint as Ronald W. Baker.
"The technical director (or switcher-director) on a live television show selects, by
means of switches , which video and audio signals go out over the air at any given
moment
16 This refers to a Federal Communications Commission license required to operate cer-
tain transmitting equipment No Federal Communications Commission regulation has
come to my attention which requires the operators of television cameras to be licensed.
17 Wilson was Baker's predecessor as chief engineer of WWTV. Although Baker took
over this lob on July 1, Wilson remained at the station for several weeks thereafter
Wilson is not named in the complaint, nor does the General Counsel contend that any
conduct of Wilson violated the Act.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seeking an election. Edberg further denied that he had ever heard Baker, in Stone's
presence, state that cameramen would have to be licensed. Ellerman testified that on
July 22, after receiving the Union's letter of July 20, he communicated with Wilson
rather than Baker. Baker flatly denied that he had any conversation with Edberg
,and Stone following a telephone conversation concerning the Union's request for
recognition. He further denied asking Stone what he knew about the Union. Fin-
ally, he denied having any conversation with Edberg and Stone on August 13 to the
effect that if the Union came in cameramen would have to be licensed. In view of
the testimony of Ellerman, Edberg, and Baker Lam convinced that Stone was con-
fused with regard to the incident on July 21. Furthermore, I credit Baker's denial,
as partly corroborated by Edberg, respecting the incident of August 13. Accord-
ingly, I will base no findings on Stone's testimony as to either of these events.
In October, about 2 weeks before the election, Baker told Norman Bradshaw, an
engineer employed Eby the Respondent, that "if the Union does get in here . the
cameramen are going to be required to have first class phone tickets [Federal Com-
munications Commissions licenses]." Bradshaw responded: "If you're referring to
.,the union that is trying to get in here, you're mistaken, because nothing in their
union requirements say that anyone has to have a license. . . . you must be re-
ferring to I B E.W. which does require their cameramen in most stations . . . to
have first phone licenses." 18 It is clear from the context of this conversation that
Baker made no threat of reprisal by the Respondent. On the contrary, the subject
under discussion was speculation upon the prediction of what demands the Union,
if successful, would make regarding the licensing of cameramen. Viewed in this
light Baker's remark had no coercive effect.
d. Richard Dwight Wheeler 19
Wheeler was operations manager for station WWTV under Sparton. As such he
headed the production department and supervised such activities as programing,
film traffic, art, photography, and live studio arrangements. He continued in this
capacity after the Respondent acquired station WWTV from Sparton. The complaint
,alleges, the answer admits, and it is found, that at all material times Wheeler was
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
On May 12, 1959, Wheeler told Arthur Runyon, ,a cameraman then employed by
the Respondent, that he understood there was a "Union man" in town and asked if
Runyon had been contacted by him, or by any engineer in the Respondent's employ,
regarding union activities. Runyon replied that he had not. Wheeler then stated
that there was "one rat" who had invited the Union's representative to organize the
Respondent's employees and threatened: "We'll find out who this troublemaker is
and we'll get rid of him in time." After Wheeler commented on reasons why
"the Union would be 'a bad thing," Runyon revealed that, before joining the Re-
spondent's staff, he had been a member of the Union at his former place of
employment.20
The earliest charge in these cases, that in Case No. 7-CA-2567, was served on
the Respondent on November 19, 1959. The incident described above took place
on May 12, 1959, more than 6 months prior to the service of the earliest charge.
Hence the matter is barred by the 6 months' limitation contained in Section 10(b)
of the Act. Accordingly, no unfair labor practice findings may be based on this
incident.
On July 1, Wheeler asked Dawn Kennedy,21 then an employee of the Respondent,
if she had been contacted by the Union. Kennedy answered that she had been con-
tacted by the Union in 1958, but not in 1959. Wheeler then stated that "they had
an inkling that the Union was coming in" and had estimated the number of union
supporters in each department and that there was "an extra person in our depart-
ment they couldn't account for."
On August 14, Wheeler returned from the representation hearing in Case No.
7-RC-4176, which was held that day, and was asked by Kennedy "What was all the
Is The findings of fact regarding this conversation are based upon Bradshaw 's undenied
testimony.
19 Referred to in the complaint as Dwight Wheeler.
20 The findings of fact with regard to this conversation are based on Runyon' s uncon-
tradicted testimony. Runyon further testified that after this revelation, Wheeler re-
sponded • "If I had known that quite likely we wouldn't have bad you come up here"
Wheeler denied making such a statement. I deem it unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
ii At that time Kennedy was unmarried and her maiden name was Dawn Peckham.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 667
trouble about?" Wheeler replied that "it was mostly caused by Quintan Daily" 22
whom he described as a "troublemaker .. . always trying to get the Union in" and
added that "if he [Daily] wasn't such a good engineer . . . he would have been
discharged long ago." 23
With regard to the conversation of July 1, I find nothing in Wheeler's questioning
of Kennedy which was violative of the Act. NOT did his subsequent remark in that
conversation (that there was an extra person in the department that they could
not account for) tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employees. The con-
versation of August 14, however, stands on a different footing. In the context of a
recital of Daily's alleged attempts to bring the Union into station WWTV, Wheeler's
remark that Daily "would have been discharged long ago" if he had not been such
a good engineer 24 constituted a threat of economic reprisal by the Respondent against
employees who engaged in concerted activities.
e. Paul Hill
Hill was station WWTV's chief announcer. His name does not appear in the
complaint. During the hearing the parties stipulated, and I find, that at all times
since October 5, 1959, Hill has been a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
About 2 weeks before the election held on October 23, Hill had a conversation
with Jack Arrington, the Respondent's film editor, about the Union. During this
conversation, Hill told Arrington that Ellerman "wasn't going to stand for-that he
wouldn't monkey around with the guys this time like he did a year ago; that . . .
chop-chop, we'd be going down the old country road." 25 It is found that this con-
stituted a threat of reprisal for union activities.
Within a month after the election held on October 23, Hill told Jacobson that,
with the Union in, the Respondent wanted to be prepared in case of a strike, and
added: "There's going to be a lot of dead flies swept away." 26 As the General
Counsel stated at the hearing that this evidence was adduced solely to support the
8(a)(3) portions of the complaint, and for no other reason, no finding of an
independent violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act will be based thereon.
2. Wage increases
a. Facts
(1) In general
In January 1959, Wheeler posted a notice directed generally to the studio staff,
which stated, in part: "Several raises have been given and more will be forthcoming
to deserving personnel."
At oral argument, the General Counsel contended that the Respondent had estab-
lished "normal wage increases which were set up to come every six months or so."
The record does not support this contention by any clear and convincing proof. It is
true that Arrington, a witness for the General Counsel, testified in answer to a leading
question that according to some vague "Company schedule" he was due for a wage
increase on January 1, 1960, or "thereabouts." On the other hand Stone, another
witness for the General Counsel, testified clearly and without contradiction that he
"had had only about one raise in two years."
(2) Gordon Stone
During the morning of July 22 27 Stone complained to Baker that he was "very
dissatisfied" with the wages he was being paid. Baker replied that he would see what
ra The transcript in Case No. 7-RC-4176 indicates that the Union's only witness
therein was Quenton S Daly, then an engineer employed by the Respondent.
as The findings of fact regarding these two conversations between Wheeler and Kennedy
are based upon Kennedy's undenled testimony. Wheeler admitted that he asked Kennedy
if, she had been contacted by the Union.
21 As will appear in more detail hereafter, station WWTV was in need of engineers at
that time.
ze The findings regarding this conversation are based upon Arrington's undenied
testimony
26 The findings regarding this conversation are based upon Jacobson's undenied
testimony.
aT Stone placed this conversation as occurring "approximately July 21st." From sur-
rounding circumstances and from Ellerman 's testimony I find that it took place on
July 22.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he could do about it. That afternoon Baker recommended to Ellerman that Stone's
wages be increased and Ellerman approved. Baker then informed Stone that he had
been granted a wage increase of 25 cents per hour, effective August 1.28
(3) George Labbe
In 1958 Labbe asked Wheeler for a raise in pay. The request was refused at that
time. At the end of July 1959, Wheeler summoned Labbe to his office and told him
that he would receive a wage increase based on a 44-hour week. This became effec-
tive August 1.29
(4) Norman Bradshaw
Early in October Bradshaw asked Baker for a wage increase. The request was not
granted 30
(5) Jack Arrington
In November Arrington told John North, the Respondent's studio supervisor, "it
seems like I ought to be worth more money." North replied that "All wages have
been frozen since the Union has come in." 31 Arrington did not receive any increase
in pay. The parties stipulated that North was, at all material times, a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act.
b. Contentions of the patties
The General Counsel asserts that the Respondent's according wage increases to
Stone and Labbe on August 1, accomplished "with the knowledge of the union's com-
ing in there," constituted promises of benefits for refraining from union activity and
interference with the employees' rights. The Union agrees. The General Counsel
further contends that the Respondent's refusal to grant a pay raise to Bradshaw
when requested by him in October 1959, and its failure to accord a wage increase to
Arrington, although it was due him on January 1, 1960, constitute further violations.
Finally, the General Counsel maintains that North's statement to Arrington in No-
vember that all wage raises had been "frozen" since the Union's advent constituted
still another violation of the Act. The Respondent, conversely, argues that none of
this conduct transgressed the law.
c. Conclusions
In American Freightways Co., Inc., the Board set forth a test for determining
whether an employer's granting of economic benefits to his employees violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. It there stated:
the test . does not turn on the employer's motive or whether the coercion
succeeded or failed. The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct which,
it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee
right under the Act.32
Let us apply that test to the facts of the instant cases. The picture presented is that,
during the Union's organizing campaign, the Respondent granted wage increases to
Stone and Labbe but denied Bradshaw's request for a pay raise.33 In none of these
discussions was the subject of the Union mentioned. In evaluating this conduct, it
cannot be fragmentized; it must be considered as a whole. It seems reasonable to
consider that whatever coercive tendency the wage raises to Stone and Labbe might
have had were completely offset by the Respondent's refusal to increase Bradshaw's
pay. No consistent pattern was established from which a tendency to coerce could
emerge, even though all three employees involved (Stone, Labbe, and Bradshaw)
The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon a synthesis of the testi-
mony of Stone and Ellerman.
29The findings of fact regarding this event are based upon Labbe's undenied testimony
80 The findings of fact regarding this incident are based upon Bradshaw's undenied
testimony.
"'The findings of fact with respect to this conversation are based upon Arrington's
undenied testimony.
82 124 NLRB 146. In True Temper Corporation, 127 NLRB 839, this test was further
discussed. In my opinion, nothing said in True Temper altered or modified the test laid
down in American Freightways.
"I find no credible evidence to support the General Counsel's contention that a raise
in pay was due Arrington on or about January 1, 1960
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 669
were active supporters of the Union. I conclude that, without regard to the Respond-
ent's motives, the General Counsel has failed to prove that the conduct in question,
under the circumstances here present, reasonably tended to interfere with the free
exercise of the employees ' rights.
There remains the remark of North to Arrington in November that all wages had
been "frozen" since the Union "came in." This remark was made in response to
what could reasonably have been interpreted as an individual employee's attempt to
bargain about his own wages. The Union was then the statutory bargaining agent of
all employees in the unit, hence such individual bargaining was proscribed by the
Act.34 In view of that fact, North's reply to Arrington may reasonably be regarded as
a refusal to deal with an individual employee with respect to his pay. Thus it in-
volved no violation of the Act.
3. Conclusions
On September 10, 1959, the Union filed charges against the Respondent in Case
No. 7-CA-2511 alleging, inter alia, illegal interrogation of employees , discrimina-
torily granting economic benefits to discourage union activity, and other violations of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Union withdrew this charge on November 5, 1959.
The Respondent urges that these facts prevent findings herein that the Respondent
committed violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prior to November 5, 1959.
I do not agree. In my opinion, the Union's withdrawal of the charge in Case No.
7-CA-2511 neither estopped the Union from filing the later charges in the instant
cases, nor prevented the General Counsel from proceeding in the instant cases.
I conclude that at all times since August 14, 1959, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act. This conclusion is based only upon Wheeler's undenied re-
mark to Kennedy on August 14, in a discussion of Daily's support of the Union, that
if Daily had not been such a good engineer he would have been discharged "long
ago"; and Hill's undenied statement to Arrington early in October in the context of
a discussion concerning the Union that Ellerman "wouldn't monkey around with the
guys" and that "chop-chop, we'd be going down the old country road."
The General Counsel asserts that the record facts demonstrates the Respondent's
antipathy toward the Union. The Respondent contends in its brief that it "displayed
no hostility or animus toward the Union ." The nature of the two violations of
Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act found above convinces me that the General Counsel is
correct in this respect . 35 This conclusion is bolstered by consideration of Wheeler's
remarks to Runyon on May 12, 1959, regarding the "one rat" who invited the
Union in, coupled with a threat to discover his identity and "get rid of him in time," 36
and Hill's statement to Jacobson within a month after the election that "there's going
to be a lot of dead flies swept away ." Based upon these four incidents it is found
that, at least since May 12, 1959, the Respondent's attitude toward the Union has
been one of animosity 37
C. Changes in working conditions of Gordon Stone
1. Facts
Stone was hired in April 1957 by Sparton as janitor and building maintenance
man for station WWTV. A condition of his hire was that he operate a television
camera. He did so immediately, and combined the duties of cameramen with those
of janitor and maintenance man, performing "any building repair that needed being
done." When the Respondent purchased the station, Stone continued at WWTV
without interruption in the same capacities . He was paid on an hourly basis and
his hours varied from week to week. He spent an average of about 10 hours per
week on camera work and about 35 hours per week on janitorial and maintenance
work. Prior to June 1959, he was one of two cameramen on a live evening telecast.
In June he was taken off this evening show and assigned instead to a live afternoon
^ Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N L R R, 321 U.S. 678
3e The Respondent , of course , has a legal right to resent the Union See NLRB. v
T. A McGahey, Sr, et al, d/b/a Columbus Marble Works, 233 F. 2d 406, 409 (CA. 5).
Therefore the finding of union animus is made as a simple statement of existing fact, and
not in a critical sense. But , as pointed out in McGahey, this animus may not legally
give rise to conduct violative of the Act
° Although this event occurred outside the statutory 6-month period it can nevertheless
be considered as evidence of union animus.
37 In reaching this conclusion I have not relied upon evidence introduced by the General
Counsel other than the four specific incidents recited above
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
show known as "Party Line" as the only cameraman . This telecast required approx-
imately 2 hours per day of Stone's time. As mentioned above, Stone received a
wage increase to $1.87/ per hour effective August 1.
Stone has been president of the Union 's local at station WWTV at least since early
in December . He acted as the Union 's official observer at the Board election on
the morning of October 23. That afternoon he received an interoffice memo from
Wheeler which read as follows:
Subject: Camera Operation.
Since you have expressed the opinion that the camera operation on "Party
Line" is in conflict with the hours which you would normally work on your
other duties as maintenance man, we would like to release you from your
obligation to run camera on this show . Effective Monday, October 26, 1959,
you will no longer be expected to operate camera.
Accordingly, October 23 was the last day on which Stone operated a camera.
During the following week, October 26 through 30, Stone worked a total of 40
hours, even without camera work. This was because he completed the installation
(begun the previous week ) of a doorway through a cement-block wall. On October
30, Stone received two interoffice memos from Baker, his immediate superior. The
first one read:
Subject: Job and schedule changes.
GORDIE, As we are making some changes in the Engineering Department
which primarily effect the Staff Engineers , I am also making several changes
effective November 1st next, that will effect [sic] you. As of the aforemen-
tioned date, I will be placing you on the early A.M. shift (starting at 6 a.m.) to
be responsible only for the proper cleanup, waxing ect. [sic] of the transmitter
building in its entirety. Your hours will probably vary from week to week,
depending on the workload that will be required of you.
The second one read:
Subject: Hourly wages.
Supplemental to my memo of October 30th , I am advising the Accounting
Department that effective November 2nd, your working hours per week will
be of an indefinite number, and that they are to pay you on the basis of $1.87
per hour.
Upon receiving these, Stone telephoned to Baker and requested that his starting
hour be changed from 6 a.m. to any time after 4 p.m. Baker replied that he would
see what he could do. On the next day Stone received another memo from Baker
which read:
Subject: Re your call to me Oct. 30.
GORDIE, I have been trying to justify your request to have your new assigned
hours ( 6 a.m.) changed to some other time. I have to, in the Company interest
maintain them as assigned . The hours that I have assigned you will get the
best job done as far as cleaning ect. [sic ] just before the broadcast day has
begun. Hoping that you will be able to make the necessary adjustments at home
to adjust to this schedule.
On November 2, Stone replied to Baker as follows:
In reply to your memo of Oct . 31 I wish to express that I have no objection
to the new assigned hours of starting my shift ( 6 a.m.). I wish to inform you
that I am available for the duties which I have been performing since my hiring
date of April, 1957. Also that I did not express the opinion as per. Mr. Dwight
Wheeler's memo of Oct. 23, 1959 that camera operation on "Party Line" is in
conflict with my other duties.
After November 1, Stone worked on a shift beginning at 6 a.m. He averaged
from 25 to 30 hours work per week. He had previously commenced some painting
and had put on a primer coat, but after November 1 did nothing further toward
completion of this project. Since November 1 Stone performed maintenance work
in only two instances : On about January 1, 1960, on Baker's orders, he knocked a
hole in a wall for ventilation; and on January 13, 1960, patched a roof. The re-
mainder of his time has been devoted to janitorial work. Other maintenance
projects still remain to be done on November 1 at .the time of the hearing.
On January 13, 1960, while working on the roof, Stone was injured. He had not
yet returned to work at the time of the hearing and was carried on the Respondent's
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 671
payroll in sick leave status. A temporary replacement, who performs only janitorial
services, has been hired to fill in for Stone until he is able to resume working.
2. The General Counsel's case
The General Counsel and the Union contend that Stone was relieved of camera
work on October 23 because of his known union activities. In support of this con-
tention they point to: (1) the hostility of the Respondent to the Union; (2) the
timing of the order of October 23 within hours after the Responden became aware
that Stone was a supporter of the Union; (3) the Respondent's need for Stone as a
cameraman, demonstrated by the fact that, during the week following October 23,
Labbe was required to work 10 hours overtime in order to take over Stone's camera
assignment on "Party Line."
The General Counsel also appears to maintain that on October 30 the Respondent
discriminatorily changed Stone's starting time to 6 a.m. because of his known union
adherence. In this connection, the record shows that after receiving the memo of
October 30 Stone notified Baker that he preferred a different starting hour, but
despite this fact Baker refused to rescind the change; and after Stone was injured,
his replacement was put on a shift beginning at midnight-hours which Stone
preferred, but which Baker had denied him.
Finally, the General Counsel urges that the memo of October 30 discriminatorily
deprived Stone of some of his former maintenance duties, because of his known
union activities. In support of his contention, the General Counsel points to the
fact that the memo of October 30 caused Stone to abandon an unfinished painting
job, and that there then were, and still are, a number of maintenance projects for
which Stone is needed.
3. The Respondent 's defense
The answer alleges as a defense:
that effective on or about October 26, 1959, Respondent undertook con-
solidation of its camera activities with the view to ultimate replacement of
cameramen and the transfer of the duties thereof to engineers ; that in con-
sequence thereof and in consequence of the desire of the said Gordon Stone to
be relieved of camera duties, he was relieved of all such duties effective Monday,
October 26, 1959.
There is no contention that the quality of Stone's work in any of his three capacities
(cameraman, janitor, and maintenance man) was unsatisfactory.
With regard to the transfer of camera duties to engineers, the credible testimony
of the Respondent's witnesses establishes the following facts: When the Respondent
took over station WWTV the men operating cameras were not engineers. Ellerman
and other administrative personnel visited WKZO, the Fetzer station at Kalamazoo,
Michigan. Among other things, Ellerman found that at WKZO the men running
the cameras were engineers. Shortly after January 1, 1959, he discussed with Carl
Lee, executive vice president of Fetzer Broadcasting Company, the feasibility of
of having engineers operate cameras at WWTV. The situation at WWTV, in Eller-
man's words, was: "We were short of engineers at the time. We were searching
desperately for qualified engineers . We had advertised for engineers; we were
interviewing engineers. . . . And we had some difficulty in finding qualified people."
In June, Lee, Ellerman, and other executives of Fetzer held a managers' meeting at
which the subject was discussed further. This strengthened Ellerman's "belief that
we should have engineers perform our camera operation." 38 When Baker became
chief engineer of WWTV in July he was immediately informed of this objective, pre-
sumably by Wilson "who had always been a firm advocate of having engineers
on camera " The Respondent's attempts to secure more engineers-begun as early
as January 1959, but temporarily dropped-were revived in the summer of 1959.
Baker suggested hiring junior engineers (men with licenses but little actual experi-
ence) and "we commenced looking for junior engineers [and] . contacted
several people." As a result in August or September a junior engineer, Dean Bass,
was hired to fill a vacancy on the engineering staff. In October arrangements were
made to hire another junior engineer , Scolton, who was due to start work on
'8The advantages of this system, as explained by Ellerman, are (1) an engineer run-
ning a camera speaks the same language and works more closely with his fellow engineer
in the control booth ; (2) in case a camera breaks down during operation, a visual observa-
tion to locate the trouble by an engineer is more meaningful than one by a nonengineer ;
and (3) in case of trouble with the transmitter, there are two engineers present to make
repairs instead of only one
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 26.39 In the middle of the week ending October 23, Ellerman instructed
Wheeler to take Stone off camera work at the end of that week. On Friday after-
noon, October 23, Ellerman learned that Stone had acted as the Union's observer at
the election that morning, and that Scolton would not report for work for a week
after the originally anticipated date of October 26. In the light of this knowledge,
Ellerman and Wheeler discussed the advisability of going ahead with the plan to
remove Stone from camera work. Wheeler assured Ellerman that he could "cover
the camera shows" without Stone until Scolton reported. Ellerman decided: "since
NABET is a charging union they're going to [file] an unfair labor [practice] charge
anyway so let's go ahead with our plans . we might as well just go ahead with
our policies and not let this enter our thinking at all . . . we were still running a
television station; we were still adhering to our policies. . . . I was not of the opinion
that we should interrupt [a] change in policy just because there had been an elec-
tion. . I felt this was not important enough to change our . . . carrying out of
the plan " In addition, Ellerman knew that Stone was constructing a door at the
time, which "we wanted to get . cleaned up just as quickly as possible . the
engineering department [wanted] to get the dust nand dirt out of the place because
. . . dust and dirt [are] rather expensive to a transmitter"; keeping Stone on camera
operation an additional week "would have just [dragged] out the job [on the door]
that much more." Accordingly, Stone was taken off camera work on October 23.
He completed work on the door by October 30. Labbe took over Stone's camera
assignment on "Party Line" that week, requiring 10 hours of overtime by Labbe.
Scolton reported for work November 2 and was assigned to camera work. Later in
November, Runyon, a nonengineer cameraman, resigned and Bass, the engineer
hired in August or September, was assigned to camera work.
4. Conclusions
I am convinced, and find, that the Respondent adopted a policy of using engineers
to operate cameras entirely aside from the union activities of its employees, for
reasons of efficiency, and in line with the policy of other Fetzer stations. The delay
in effectuating this policy was due, in major part, to the difficulty of finding qualified
engineers. At the time Scolton's services were arranged for, and the decision was
made to relieve Stone of camera work, the Respondent did not know of Stone's
union activities. When such knowledge was obtained, Ellerman decided nevertheless
to go ahead with the already formulated plan to replace Stone with Scolton. He
did so, despite the delay in Scolton's reporting, because of the desirability of having
Stone complete work on the door as rapidly as possible. 40 In view of these facts,
although the matter is not entirely free from doubt,41 I conclude that the General
Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent removed Stone from camera work
on October 23 for discriminatory Teasons.
Nor do I perceive any discriminatory motive in Baker's memo to Stone of
October 30, insofar as it changed Stone's starting hour to 6 a.m. During the entire
summer and until October 16, Stone had worked from 7 a.m. to noon, -and from 1
to 4 p m 42 Thus, the early morning starting hour was not unknown to him. More-
over, in his letter to Baker of November 2, Stone made it clear that he had "no ob-
jection to the new assigned hours of starting my shift (6 a.m.)." And Baker had
ample reason to prefer that janitorial work be done in the morning rather than at
night,43 and was not required to place Stone's personal convenience above the in-
terests of the Respondent in efficient operation. Finally, as Stone was no longer
needed on the camera for "Party Line" in midafternoon, this was a logical time to
change his starting hour. I therefore conclude that the General Counsel has failed
se The Respondent had considered hiring a third specific junior engineer but decided
"at the last moment" not to do so "for personal reasons."
111 find no evidence in the record to support the Respondent's alternative defense that
Stone was relieved of camera work in accordance with his own desire
41 It is true that the timing of the October 23 memo plus the Respondent's union animus
creates some suspicion of illegal motive, but in my opinion they are insufficient to over-
come the evidence indicating the Respondent had a legitimate motive for relieving Stone
of camera work on October 23
42 Beginning October 18, and through October 30, he worked from 2 to 10 p.m
48 According to Baker, it is preferable to have cleanup work done at the beginning of
the day "so that the station will look at its best throughout . . the remainder of the
day"• moreover, supervisors are present during the day, but not after the station signs
off at 1 •30 am
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 673
to prove that Baker's decision to have Stone start work at 6 a.m. beginning No-
vember 1 was discriminatorily motivated.44
There remains the issue of whether, on October 30, Stone was discriminatorily
taken off his former maintenance duties. This presents two questions: Were Stone's
duties regarding maintenance actually changed after October 30, and if so was the
change discrirninatonly motivated? Ellerman testified categorically that, so far as he
knows, Stone has never been relieved of any maintenance duties and that he per-
forms "everything else that he had done outside of camerawork." Ellerman also
testified that there are projects "still waiting to be completed . and . Mr.
Stone will do those jobs" when he is well enough to resume work. The fact that
Stone actually was assigned to two maintenance tasks in January 1960, lends some
support to this view. However, in the light of the wording of the memo of October
30, and the testimony of Baker, discussed below, it appears likely that Ellerman may
not have been fully informed on the matter. Baker, who authored the memo, testi-
fied that it was intended to confine Stone to "any normal maintenance" which he de-
fined as including cleaning, waxing, and "routine preventative building maintenance"
such as touching up the paint on trim around a doorway or replacing a washer in a
leaky faucet, but excluding projects "of major proportions," for example knocking a
hole through a wall, putting in a new window, or painting the transmitter or the
studio Stone's own interpretation of the memo is indicated by his ceasing work on
the painting job he had commenced before receiving it-and in the light of the
memo's wording, such an interpretation was not unreasonable. In this connection it
is significant that although Stone left the painting job partially completed from No-
vember 1 to the time of his injury more than 2 months later, he was never criticized
for this or told to finish this project. Finally, if the phrase "to be responsible only
for the proper cleanup, waxing etc., of the transmitter building" [emphasis supplied]
was not intended to place a limit on his previous maintenance functions, there
would appear to be no logical reason for its inclusion in the memo. Accordingly,
I am convinced, and find, that Baker's memo to Stone on October 30 was intended
to limit and change Stone's former duties. In any event, even had it not been so
intended, it had that effect, for Stone never completed the painting job and thereby
lost work.
Let us turn now to the question of the motive behind this change. Baker, who
made the decision, offered no reason for it. In the complete absence of any ex-
planation , and in view of its timing and the Respondent's hostility to the Union, plus
the Respondent's knowledge of Stone's adherence to the Union, I conclude that this
change was discriminatorily motivated.
D. The discharge of George Labbe
1. Facts
Labbe was hired by Sparton in November 1957, to work in the film department
of station WWTV and as part-time cameraman and messenger. He also did shipping
and receiving of films. In mid-1959 he was put on camera work full time. He
remained at WWTV without any break in employment when the Respondent took
over the station. In addition to his duties as cameraman , there were periods when
he performed other functions. Thus he was a "vacation fill-in" on film editing and
also acted as a technical director (switcher) full time for approximately a month.
As mentioned previously, Labbe received a raise in pay effective August 1 1959.
Prior to the election held in October, Labbe signed a card authorizing the Union to
represent him in collective bargaining. After the election he became the Union's
production steward at station WWTV. This entitled him to a place on the Local's
negotiating committee , the other members of which were Stone and Bradshaw. As
such, he attended the first negotiating meeting between representatives of the Re-
spondent and representatives of the Union which was held around November 23
or 24.45
Labbe worked as usual on Friday, November 27. On Monday, November 30, a
regular payday, he went to the studio to pick up his paycheck. The head of the Re-
44 The fact that Stone's temporary replacement at that time began working at midnight
does not alter this conclusion, for because of the presence of the tower repair crew,
morning janitorial work was not feasible
4 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether or not, on this occasion, Labbe
was introduced to the Respondent's representatives specifically as the Union's steward.
I deem it unnecessary to resolve this conflict, as in any event all witnesses agree that he
attended the session as one of the Union's representatives.
586439-61-vol. 129-44
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent's accounting department handed him his regular paycheck , an additional
check, and an interoffice memo signed by Ellerman which read:
We are cutting down on the number of production employees at WWTV. Effec-
tive immediately your services will be terminated . Enclosed you will find a
check covering your earned vacation plus two weeks termination pay.
Labbe went to Ellerman 's office and said to Ellerman : "Thanks a lot, Gene." Eller-
man replied : "That's all right, George." Labbe then left and has not worked for
the Respondent since that time.
After his discharge , Labbe applied for unemployment compensation . His claim
was not opposed by the Respondent . At Labbe's request, Wheeler furnished him with
a letter of recommendation which read , in part:
The reason for his ultimate release was a reduction in camera use, and the
transference of the basic responsibility for camera operation to the engineering
department.
At the time of Labbe's discharge , the only other people who operated cameras at
WWTV were Bass and Scolton , both engineers . For about a month after Labbe's
discharge , there was some occasions when cameras were run by nonengineers. How-
ever, since January 1 , 1960, the only people who have operated cameras at WWTV
have been licensed engineers.
2. Contentions of the parties
The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel and the Union maintain, that
Labbe was discharged on November 30 because of his union activities . In support of
this contention they point to the Respondent 's union animus, the timing of the dis-
charge shortly after Labbe's connection with the Union became known , and the fact
that nonengineers operated cameras after Labbe was dismissed . The answer admits
that Labbe was discharged on November 30, but alleges that this was because "busi-
ness reasons dictated the discontinuance of the cameraman classification and the
transfer of the duties thereof . . . to the engineering department ." There is no
contention that the Respondent was dissatisfied with Labbe's work performance in
any capacity except for his switching work, as appears below.
3. Conclusions
As described previously , the Respondent decided to have its camera work per-
formed by licensed engineers . As the initial step in this program it hired Bass and
Scolton , then took Stone off camera operation and replaced him with Scolton. When
Runyon later quit , and was replaced on the camera by Bass, this left Labbe as the
only cameraman who was not an engineer. During the last week of Labbe's employ-
ment Ellerman conferred with Wheeler about the matter . On Wheeler 's recommen-
dation, Ellerman decided to complete the plan to have engineers run cameras by
relieving Labbe of camera work. They discussed the possibility of transferring
Labbe to other work. Labbe had been a messenger , but WWTV no longer employed
such a classification . He had also been a film editor , but the Respondent already
had a full -time film editor. The only other possibility for Labbe as a nonengineer
was technical director (switcher). Wheeler informed Ellerman that Labbe had
tried this before but "hadn't proved too satisfactory, and I really didn 't consider him
capable and qualified for the position ." Accordingly , Ellerman decided to discharge
Labbe. After January 1 , 1960, the completed plan was put into full effect, and
thereafter cameras were operated only by engineers.46
For the foregoing reasons I am convinced , and find , that the General Counsel has
failed to prove that the discharge of Labbe on November 30 was violative of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It has been found that the Respondent threatened its employees with discharge or
other reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union or selected the Union as their
bargaining representative. It has also been found that the Respondent, on October
30, 1959, discriminatorily relieved employee Gordon Stone of certain maintenance
se While it is true that for a month after Labbe's discharge there were still instances
of nonengineers operating cameras , it is not altogether clear on the record that this was
done pursuant to any specific instructions from , or with the knowledge or consent of,
any supervisory personnel . Moreover, such functional changes sometimes take a little
while to inure.
NORTH ELECTRIC COMPANY 675
duties theretofore performed by him. These unfair labor practices indicate a basic
opposition to the purposes of the Act, and therefore danger exists that the Respondent
may in the future commit other unrelated unfair labor practices. Accordingly, it will
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist not only from committing the
unfair labor practices found, but also from in any other manner violating the rights
guaranteed its employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Affirmatively, it will be recommended that the Respondent rescind its memo to
Gordon Stone dated October 30, 1959, insofar as it relieves Stone of maintenance
duties theretofore performed by him. It will further be recommended that the Re-
spondent offer to Stone immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent maintenance duties, as they existed prior to October 30, 1959, and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him by the payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned in the performance of maintenance duties from October
30, 1959, to the date on which the Respondent restores him to the maintenance duties
performed by him prior to October 30, 1959.
It will further be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to
the Board or its agents all records needed to determine the amount of backpay due
hereunder, and post the usual notices. Finally it will be recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent illegally interrogated its
employees, discriminated against Gordon Stone on October 23, 1959, or discrimi-
nated against George Labbe on November 30, 1959.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in these
cases, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (AFL-CIO) is,
and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By relieving Gordon Stone on October 30, 1959, of certain maintenance duties
theretofore performed by him thus discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organiza-
tion, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above-described conduct, and by threatening its employees with discharge
or other reprisals if they join or assist the above-named labor organization or select
it as their bargaining representative, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The above-described unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the Re-
spondent's operations, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof, and constitute unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent illegally interro-
gated its employees, discriminated against Gordon Stone on October 23, 1959, or dis-
criminated against George Labbe on November 30, 1959.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
North Electric Company and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-1975. November 16, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 27, 1960, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices but recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as
129 NLRB No. 78.