Fetzer Television, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 557 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 557
bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed
agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
the efforts of International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, to bargain on behalf of such
employees.
The appropriate unit consists of the following employees at
our Camden plants :
All compositors, linotype operators, lockup men, letterpress
pressmen, their assistants and apprentices, offset preliminary
workers, including artists, pasteup, strippers, copy checkers,
cameramen, platemakers, and preparers of copy, offset press-
men, their assistants and apprentices, web pressmen, web
press trainees, inserter operators, shipping clerks, labeling
machine operators, mailers, strippers, platemakers, material
handlers, packers, bindery workers, janitors and plant cleri-
cal employees, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen,
guards, temporary employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
THE HURLEY COMPANY, INC., AND
HURLEY PRESS, INC.
Employer.
-Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 714 Falls Building, 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee,
Telephone Number, Jackson 7-5451, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Fetzer Television , Inc. and National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-3189.
March 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 28, 1961, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
1136 NLRB No. 51.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel,
and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate 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
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Rodgers 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 this case, including the Intermediate Report and the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted
below.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, 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) Refusing to bargain collectively with National Association of
Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all its employees in the certified bar-
gaining unit, including refusing to furnish wage data and other in-
formation as to such personnel, and instituting unilateral changes in
wages, hours, and working conditions in derogation of the duty to
bargain with the aforesaid Union.
(b) In any manner interfering with or obstructing the efforts of
the aforesaid Union to bargain collectively with it.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, as
i The General Counsel and the Charging Party except to the omission from the order
and notice of provisions ordering Respondent to supply wage information and to cease
making unilateral changes in wages, hours , or other conditions of employment with respect
to employees in the bargaining unit We find merit in these exceptions and accordingly
amend the order and notice We also find merit in the Charging Party's exception as to
the omission by the Trial Examiner of Mike Jones from the findings as an employee for
whom the Respondent was required to furnish wage data The vast majority of Jones'
work appears , from the evidence in the record , to have been included in the bargaining
unit and only sporadically did he perform "on-the -air" work , an excluded classification
Accordingly , he appropriately belonged in the unit and the refusal to furnish his wage
data or similar data for the employee now performing the duties of Jones, to the extent
those duties belong in the unit, is violative of the Act . Cf. Denver- Colorado Springa-
Pueblo Motor Way, 129 NLRB 1184.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 559
the exclusive representative of all employees in the certified bargain-
ing unit, and, specifically, furnish requested wage and other pertinent
information as to the employees in the certified bargaining unit.
(b) Revoke the unilateral changes instituted on January 1, 1961,
with respect to the method of salary payment, and revert to the semi-
monthly salary payment existing prior to January 1, 1961, if National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, so
requests.
(c) Post at its television station and downtown offices at Cadillac,
Michigan, and vicinity, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 2 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our technical
and production employees in the certified bargaining unit, and,
specifically, will furnish all requested wage and other pertinent
information as to the employees in the certified bargaining unit.
WE WILL revoke the unilateral changes instituted on January 1,
1961, with respect to the method of salary payment and revert
to the semimonthly salary payment existing prior to January 1,
1961, if National Association of Broadcast Employees and Tech-
nicians, AFL-CIO, so requests.
AVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with or obstruct the
efforts of National Association of Broadcast Employees and Tech-
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nicians, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively with Fetzer Tele-
vision, Inc.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Regional Office,
Industrial Building, 232 W. Grand River, Detroit 26, Michigan, Tele-
phone Number, Woodward 2-3830, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S. Code, Section 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), was heard
before Lee J. Best, the duly designated Trial Examiner, at Cadillac, Michigan, on
October 18 and 19, 1961, pursuant to notice and with all parties represented. The
principal issue litigated was whether the Respondent, Fetzer Television, Inc., on and
after November 22, 1960, in violation of Section 8(a) (l) and (5) of the Act, refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union, National Association of Broadcast Employ-
ees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, as the duly certified bargaining representative of
employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Fetzer Television , Inc, is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by Fetzer
Broadcasting Company, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michi-
gan, having its principal office and operating station , WWTV, at Cadillac , Michigan,
which is the only station involved in this case . Respondent is licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission , does a gross annual business in excess of $100,000,
and receives annual revenues exceeding $25,000 for services to enterprises outside
said State . I find , therefore , that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole
or in part for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
conditions of work.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Historical background
The Trial Examiner herein has been requested to take judicial notice of the findings
and orders in prior cases before the Board, to wit: Case No. 7-RC-4176 (not pub-
lished in NLRB volumes) in which the Union was on November 2, 1959, duly certi-
fied as the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, of all employees of the Respondent in a unit consisting of "All technical and
production employees at the Employer's Cadillac, Michigan, television station, includ-
ing the continuity director, the switcher-technical director, and regularly employed
part-time employees, but excluding on-the-air personnel, the program director,
traffic department personnel, office clerical employees, salesmen, watchmen, guards,
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 561
and supervisors as defined in the Act." 1 With respect to this unit judicial notice is
also taken of the Board findings and orders in Case No. 7-RC-3697 (not published
in NLRB volumes), Sparton Broadcasting Company (WWTV), predecessor owner
and employer of the Respondent.
In Case No. 7-CA-2567 (129 NLRB 660) heard before Trial Examiner Sydney
S. Asher, Jr, on March 2 and 3, 1960, the Board adopted findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the effect that immediately following the
representation hearing in Case No. 7-RC-4176 on August 14, 1959, Supervisor
Richard Dwight Wheeler (operations manager) told Dawn Kennedy (employee)
that most of the trouble had been caused by Quinton Daily trying to get the Union
in, and "if he wasn't such a good engineer, he would have been discharged long
ago"-that about 2 weeks before the election held on October 23, 1959, Chief
Announcer Paul Hill (supervisor) told Jack Arrington (employee) that Vice Presi-
dent Cletus E. Ellerman (general manager) "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"-that within a month after the
election held on October 23, 1959, Supervisor Paul Hill told Jacobson (employee)
that 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." The Board further found therein that
the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Gor-
don Stone on October 30, 1959, to discourage membership in the Union, by relieving
him of certain maintenance duties theretofore performed by him at station WWTV.
Petition of the Board for enforcement of its order in that case was granted by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 12, 1961.
In Case No. 7-CA-2736 (431 NLRB 821),2 heard before Trial Examiner Owsley
Vose on August 1 and 2, 1960, the Board adopted findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner to the effect that the Respondent on and after
November 24, 1959, refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the certified unit in violation of Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the Act. In that case the Trial Examiner and the Board found inter
alia that interpretation of the unit description as stated in the Board's certification
was in dispute, and apparently sustained a contention of the Respondent that em-
ployees performing building maintenance and janitorial work (exclusively) were not
included in the appropriate unit.3 The Respondent also contended that Edberg,
Bradshaw, and McDuffie (engineers) had been removed from the unit by promotion
to supervisory classifications, but the Trial Examiner and the Board found that the
Respondent's attempt to exclude Bradshaw and McDuffie from this comparatively
small unit (about 13 employees) constituted an effort to "water down" or weaken
the Union's representation in the unit, and that it further reflects the Respondent's
bad faith in the negotiations. It was further found that during the negotiations on
February 12, 1960, Ellerman explained at this meeting that he was not making any
stipulations on any particular subject because he was opposed to negotiating piece-
meal, and would reserve agreement until the whole contract could be agreed upon;
and that at the meeting on April 1, 1960, Ellerman announced his philosophy, as
follows:
By the philosophy I have always used in any of these negotiations is the fact
that if a demand was made then I felt there should be a concession given It
couldn't just all be demands. I didn't feel I had to concede anything just
because there was a series of demands given. Every time there was a request
made I asked for something back.
In the foregoing Case No. 7-CA-2736, the Trial Examiner and the Board found
that "While the Union throughout the negotiations was seeking some form of union
security, seniority in layoffs, and arbitration of undisposed of grievances, the negoti-
ations never reached the stage of resolving the disagreement on these issues because
of the Respondent's general approach to the negotiations"-"that the Respondent did
not approach the negotiations as a whole with the attitude of settlement through
give and take which the Act requires."
'By footnote 2 to its Decision and Direction of Election issued on September 20 1959,
the Board explained that on-the-air personnel and the program director regulaily appear
before the TV cameras and were excluded as talent employees without a determination of
supervisory status-and that traffic personnel and office clericals were excluded because
they worked in the station office approximately 9 miles from the transmitter station
Z
Now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on peti-
tion of Respondent to review
3 See footnote 6 of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Refusal to bargain since November 22, 1960
Complaint issued by the General Counsel in the instant case on August 25, 1961,
alleged in paragraph No. 10 thereof that on or about November 22, 1960, Respond-
ent refused, and at all times since, continuing to the date hereof, has refused and
is now refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as the representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described in paragraph No. 6 above. Particular
acts by the Respondent which constitute such refusal to bargain in good faith include
the following:
(a) Commencing on or about November 22, 1960, and at all times thereafter,
Respondent did refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit de-
scribed above in paragraph No. 6, in that the Respondent has conducted negotia-
tions with a fixed intention of not entering into any final or binding collective-
bargaining agreement.
(b) On or about March 26, 1961, and at all time since, the Union has requested
the Respondent to furnish to the Union data relating to changes in unit personnel.
The Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to furnish to the Union data
relating to changes in unit personnel.
(c) On or about January 1, 1961, the Respondent unilaterally changed the exist-
ing wages, hours, and other conditions of employment by changing unit employees
from a salary to an hourly basis and by paying said employees every 2 weeks when
the former payment method had been the 1st and 15th of every month.
(d) On or about March 22, 1961, the Respondent, without a good-faith doubt as
to the majority status of the Union, refused to meet and/or bargain with the
Union.
Following the hearing in Case No. 7-CA-2736 before Trial Examiner Vose on
August 1 and 2, 1960, a total of 10 meetings of the negotiating parties were held
in the station office in Cadillac, Michigan-on August 24, 1960, for 2 sessions;
August 25 for the morning; September 7 for 2 sessions; September 8 for the
morning; September 19 for 2 sessions; September 20 for the morning; October 27
for 2 sessions; October 28 for the morning; January 13, 1961, for 2 sessions; and on
August 1, 1961.
1. Meeting of August 24, 1960
At this and all subsequent meetings the chief negotiators were Kevin C. Efroym-
son, attorney for the Union, and Cletus E. Ellerman, vice president and general
manager, for the Respondent. Initially both parties agreed that the five basic con-
tract subjects in issue were (1) binding arbitration of grievances, (2) seniority pro-
visions, (3) probation period for engineers, (4) union-security provisions, and
(5) wages and hours. Written proposals previously submitted by the Union and the
Respondent afforded a basis for discussions that followed. The Union requested
Respondent to furnish it with a list of all employees and current wage rates.
Ellerman refused to furnish information in the presence of Norman Bradshaw (al-
leged supervisor), but subsequently did furnish such information as to all employees
except some alleged not to be included in the bargaining unt. The Union again
proposed some form of binding arbitration with respect to resolving grievances, but
Ellerman said he would not agree to any form of binding arbitration unless paid for
by the Union by giving up some other of its demands in return therefor-that he did
not want an outsider running his business, and did not feel that there was a com-
petent arbitrator in the television field-that he did not object to a permanent
arbitrator, but would not agree to have one from the American Arbitration Associ-
ation, as suggested by the Union-and that he objected to the proposed discharge
clause in the union proposal because it would refer any grievance on discharges to
arbitration. The Respondent made it clear at this meeting as in previous and sub-
sequent negotiations that it was opposed to the principle of binding arbitration.
The next subject discussed was seniority provisions in which the Union was seek-
ing to measure severance pay, length of vacations, starting pay in wage rate classifi-
cations, regular advancements in the wage scale, vacation relief employment, inter-
ruptions in employment by promotions to supervisory positions, absences due to
illness or vacations, etc., in terms of continuous service with the Respondent. As to
some of these provisions the Respondent would agree on conditions that any
grievance procedure involved would not culminate in binding arbitration; that no
severance pay be given to employees on voluntary termination of employment; and
that monthly sick leave of 1 day not be cumulative.
At the afternoon session , the Union again proposed a probation period for
engineers of 90 days from date of hiring instead of the current practice of 6 months
for engineers and only 90 days for all other production employees. Ellerman would
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 563
not agree to that, but proposed a 90-day probation period for all employees, pro-
vided all present employees regardless of past length of service now be subjected
to such a probation period. At the end of this meeting the Union requested the
Respondent to promptly furnish information by mail of any changes made affecting
wages, rates, or the membership of the bargaining unit.
2. Meeting of August 25, 1960
At this meeting the Union proposed a union-shop clause, but the Respondent at
first refused to consider it-then the Union proposed a checkoff of union dues.
Ellerman objected, but said he would agree to accept a checkoff provision if the
Union would waive or drop its demands for binding arbitration, but the Union
would not agree to do so. Ellerman then proposed to accept a union-shop agree-
ment coupled with an overall reduction of $5 in the wage scale proposed by it (not
by the Union). This proposal was rejected by the Union. The Union then pro-
posed an agency shop provision, whereby nonmember employees would con-
tribute dues to the organization if they refrained from becoming members thereof.
Ellerman voiced opposition to requiring employees to join the Union, but would not
try to block or stop an agency shop.
The next subject discussed was the probation period for engineers. Ellerman re-
fused to accept the union proposal of a 90-day period, but said he would accept that
proposal if the Union would give up its demands for binding arbitration, seniority
provisions, union-security provisions, and accept the wage scale proposed by the
Respondent. The Union then proposed to accept a 6-month probation for engineers
if Respondent would agree to its proposals for a union shop, seniority provisions,
the union wage scale, and binding arbitration as to grievances, but Ellerman rejected
such counterproposals.
The next subject discussed was wages The Union proposed a wage scale based
upon that paid at an affiliated station of Respondent at Kalamazoo, Michigan, and the
cost of living, but Respondent insisted on adopting a wage scale paid by other in-
dustries in the local area, citing as an example a scale compiled by the local Bell
Telephone Company for electricians, carpenters, general maintenance mechanics,
etc., in the Cadillac, Michigan, area.
3. Meeting of September 7, 1960
Having on several previous occasions made both oral and written requests for
wage information and changes in the composition of the bargaining unit, the Union
renewed such inquiries at a meeting of the negotiating parties on September 7, 1960.
Ellerman reported that a Miss Pat Phinney had been hired to replace Karin Carlson
(artist) at a wage rate of $50 per week, and that Leonard Blondey had been hired
at $85 per week to replace Patino as the switcher-technical director included in the
unit. By reason of Respondent's practice of hiring employees on a combination
hourly and weekly basis, and thereafter paying them semimonthly on the 1st and
15th of each month, a disagreement arose with respect to wages paid to certain
employees. Respondent proposed to recapture alleged overpayments made to em-
ployees Bass and Ellenbaas. The Union objected to this being done, and requested
Respondent to furnish a schedule of semimonthly rates at which all employees had
been paid. The Respondent furnished the current semimonthly rates paid to all
employees except Mike Jones (newsman), and alleged supervisors, Norman Brad-
shaw, Lovel Shore, Carl Edberg, and Roy McDuffie. It also refused to furnish wage
information concerning announcers, North, Creed, and Hartnett on the ground that
they were ",on-the-air personnel." Respondent contends that none of these employees
are members of the bargaining unit, and had previously taken the same position with
respect to Bradshaw and McDuffie in Case No. 7-CA-2736. The Respondent now
proposed to change its method of paying employees from the semimonthly method
straight salary to an hourly basis with pay periods at the end of each 2 weeks, thereby
having 26 pay periods per year instead of 24 pay periods. The Union raised vigorous
-objections to this being done, unless Respondent would guarantee an 8-hour day
and a 40-hour week, which would eliminate a possible reduction in pay.
At this meeting the Union again proposed binding arbitration for the determina-
tion of disputes arising under the contract if not resolved under a grievance procedure,
a 90-day probation period for engineers, seniority provisions, and union-security
provisions in a written contract. Ellerman again refused to consider binding arbitra-
tion because it would curtail management prerogatives; proposed to eliminate any
probation period whatsoever by placing all employees under a merit system, which
would in effect create continuous probation for all employees; refused to consider
641795-63-vo1 136-37
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority unless subject to his proposed merit system administered by Respondent's
supervisors ; proposed to condition all wage increases on the merit system ; and said
that he would agree to a union shop in exchange for a reduction of $5 per week
in his wage proposals. The Union offered to accept a no-strike clause proposed by
the Respondent in exchange for arbitration, but Ellerman would not agree to that;
but said he would waive the no-strike clause if the Union would give up its proposals
for a union shop. Thereupon, the Union requested Ellerman to outline his company
policies with respect to the subjects under negotiation.
With respect to seniority, Ellerman said that employees had no rights apart from
the merit system-that length of service was ,a prerequisite for wage increases subject
to examination by supervisors under the merit system as to qualification for wage
increases-that if all things were equal, the Respondent would lay off employees
according to seniority, but would not recognize seniority in the choice of vacation
periods. With respect to wages, it was company policy to pay employees on an
hourly basis, and grant wage increases based upon length of service plus qualification
under the merit system, but never to reduce the wages of a particular employee-
that a probation period of 6 months was established for engineers, and a period of
3 months for all other production employees, including the continuity writer; and
that engineers were required to perform camera work. With respect to such benefits,
the Company granted 1 day noncumulative sick leave each month. After 6 months'
employment, employees receive 1-week severance pay and after 1-year employment
receive 2 weeks' severance pay upon involuntary termination, but receive nothing
upon voluntary terminations. With respect to rest periods and "turn around" work,
the Respondent has no established policy. Ellerman further stated that it was com-
pany policy to discharge employees for reduction in force, incompetence, inability
to perform required duties, changes in operations or techniques , stealing, drinking,
or any other just cause .4
4. Meeting of September 8, 1960
At this meeting discussion was renewed with respect to including an arbitration
clause in the contract. Ellerman proposed that the Union give up its demands for
a union shop in exchange for provisions to first exhaust a grievance procedure to settle
disputes arising under the contract, and then proceed to arbitration through the
American Arbitration Association, provided, however, that each party reserve the
right to notify the other party upon selection of an arbitrator whether it would
accept his decision as binding upon the parties. The Union inquired whether Re-
spondent would agree to enter into such an arrangement apart from the contract
on condition that, if the Union later took the position that such arrangement was
not working out satisfactorily, the parties would submit an issue as to whether
such arrangement was either working out or being properly used to binding arbitra-
tion. In reply to this counterproposal, Ellerman said he would take it under ad-
visement, but that in any event the proposal must include a waiver by the Union of
its demand for the union -shop agreement . Thereupon , the meeting terminated in no
agreement.
5. Meeting of September 19, 1960
At this meeting the Respondent renewed its proposal to accept arbitration with each
party reserving the right to notify the other whether it would be bound by the de-
cision of the arbitrator. The Union again agreed to accept this proposal with a
stipulation that either party could later question the effectiveness of this arrange-
ment as to reasonableness of use, and submit the issue to binding arbitration. No
agreement was reached. Further discussion ensued with respect to Respondent's
efforts to recapture alleged overpayment of wages to Bass and Ellenbaas, as to which
the Union had raised objections. Ellerman proposed to change the pay periods from
semimonthly to semiweekly and compute their pay on an hourly basis, but the Union
insisted that the semimonthly payments continue. Efroymson also requested Re-
spondent in futuro to inform employees what the semimonthly rate of pay would be
instead of quoting them a weekly rate as it had done in the case of Bass and Ellenbaas,
thereby causing the confusion and misunderstanding that had arisen . The meeting
closed with a statement from Ellerman that he would seek legal counsel.
6. Meeting of September 20, 1960
At this meeting General Manager Ellerman announced to the union representative
that Respondent had decided to change its method of payment to an hourly rate rather
4 At the close of this meeting , Efroymson again requested Respondent to keep the Union
informed by mail of any changes in the identity of the bargaining unit and wage rates.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 565
than semimonthly. The Union again objected and insisted that such change would
have a discriminatory effect in that a fixed amount of pay would no longer be guaran-
teed and employees would not be entitled to holiday pay under Michigan law.
Without further notice or negotiation with the Union, the Respondent on Septem-
ber 30, 1960, unilaterally published a written memorandum to employees, as follows:5
Effective January 1, 1961, all employees, non-exempt under the wage-hour
law will be paid on strictly an hourly basis every two weeks.
This change in pay method will eliminate any misunderstanding concerning
employees' total pay, and how the total pay is figured.
The hourly rate pay method will also relieve the accounting department of a
greater number of possible errors that come from miscalculations of the present
semi-monthly figures and their combination with overtime, days off and holiday
pay.
The effective starting date is convenient because it eliminates the difficulty of
having to adjust long and short months when going from a semi-monthly to an
hourly pay method.
We feel this change is needed to strengthen our accounting procedures and
to reflect the highest quality of clarification to our employees.
7. Meeting of October 27, 1960
At this meeting the Union raised objections to Respondent 's memorandum of
September 30, 1960, but Ellerman insisted that his change in pay method would go
into effect on January 1, 1961, as announced . With respect to arbitration, the
Union proposed that the parties give it a trial for a limited period of time by sub-
mitting the first three disputes arising under the contract to binding arbitration, and
then reopen the issue and allow either party to withdraw from such agreement at its
option, but Respondent flatly rejected that proposal. With respect to a union shop,
the Union proposed to give the Respondent in exchange a no-strike clause in the
contract , but Ellerman insisted that the Union also agree to a cut in wages. The
Union then proposed to reduce its wage demands by $5 per week if the Respondent
would agree to binding arbitration , a union shop, and seniority provisions as set
forth in written proposals of the Union. Ellerman asserted that he would sell each
of those clauses to the Union for a $5 reduction in his own wage proposals, which
would reduce present wages approximately $20 per week less than the starting salaries
of technicians , engineers , film editors , projectionists , and photographers already in
effect-that if the employees wanted such clauses in the contract they would have to
pay for them with a wage reduction of $5 for each clause; but that he would put his
own wage scale proposals into effect immediately if the Union would give up its
demands. The Union proposed to reduce its own wage scale proposals by $5 ner
week in exchange for each of these clauses, but the Respondent would not agree
that. The union wage proposals included fixed weekly salaries based unon a guaran-
tee of 40 hours per week plus overtime ; whereas, the Respondent was proposing an
hourly wage for actual time worked without any guaranteed number of hours. The
Union was proposing a built-in scale of wage increases based entirely upon seniority;
whereas, the Respondent would condition any wage increases upon approval by
supervisors under a merit system. Thereupon , Ellerman announced that he would
stand firm on his own proposals , and would not agree to any contract containing
provisions for arbitration , union shop , agency shop , seniority provisions , probation
periods, checkoff, 8 -hour day with overtime over 8 hours , 2 consecutive days off
each week , a 10-hour turn around on work shifts , or the wage scale proposed by
the Union ; and that he would not agree for his own proposed merit system to be
subject to any grievance procedure or binding arbitration . Thereupon , the meeting
adjourned.
8. Meeting of October 28, 1960
At this meeting the question of wages was resumed . The Union requested Re-
spondent to furnish a profit-and-loss statement or show his book records to the
Union . Ellerman refused to do so, and asserted that the Respondent would never
negotiate wages on his balance sheet . He again refused to accept any proposals made
by the Union with respect to the five areas in dispute such as (1) arbitration,
(2) union shop , ( 3) seniority , (4) probation for engineers , and (5) wages. There-
upon , Ellerman asserted that an impasse had been reached , that he was discontin-
uing negotiations until some future date , but would not agree on a date to resume.
B No copy of this memorandum was sent to the Union.
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter , the Respondent on November 1, 1960, posted a letter (with final
contract offer enclosed ) to the Union, as follows:
It is apparent , after many collective bargaining meetings between WWTV and
NABET, that we have reached an impasse
The areas of Union shop , binding arbitration , seniority , probationary periods
and wages , have constituted a great separation in our respective positions.
Notwithstanding this impasse , the company is making a final offer in the hope
that a settlement can be reached.
Enclosed you will find four copies of WWTV's final contract offer.
The so-called anal contract offer of the Respondent provides , as follows:
This Agreement made and entered into this ------ day of ----------
1960, by and between Fetzer Television , Inc., owner and operator of Television
Station WWTV, Cadillac , Michigan , hereinafter called the "Employer," its
lessees, successors , or assigns during the term of this Agreement , and the
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians , AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called the "Union," exclusive bargaining representative of all Tech-
nicians and Production employees up to the rank of supervisor.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
The Employer and the Union recognize their common interests in the business
of broadcasting as a responsibility which carries a mutually inherent obligation
of serving in the public interest . The exercise of this responsibility to the public
will be safeguarded by harmonious relationships which will be keyed by the
bulwark of rational , commonsense methods in adjusting differences of opinion
between all parties concerned.
WHEREFORE , to these ends and in consideration of the mutual promises and
agreements herein contained , the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
Bargaining Unit-Recognition-Scope of Work-Duty Assignments
SECTION I. This Agreement will cover all Technical and Production Employ-
ees at WWTV, Cadillac, Michigan, including the Continuity Director, the
Switcher-Technical Director and regularly employed part-time employees, but
excluding on-the-air personnel , the Program Director , traffic department per-
sonnel, office clerical employees , salesmen, watchmen , guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
RECOGNITION
SEC. II . The Employer agrees to recognize NABET as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all classifications of employees herein designated , hereafter called
the "bargaining unit" and will bargain collectively with the Union with respect
to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment
The Employer and the Union will not interfere with , restrain or coerce the
employees covered by this Agreement because of membership or lack of mem-
bership in the Union or activity on behalf of the Employer or the Union. The
Employer or the Union will not discriminate in respect to hiring , tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment against any employee covered
by this Agreement because of activity on behalf of the Union or the Employer.
SCOPE OF WORK
SEC. III . (A) While performing the duties of technician , it shall include all
work in connection with the installation (except new construction and new
installation work covered by a contract between installer and the Company),
operation and maintenance of all television broadcast equipment by means of
which electricity is applied in the transmitter or transference of audio or video.
(B) While performing the duties of the switcher -director or director-producer,
it shall include: audio and video switching, audio operation , program coordina-
tion and continuity writing.
(C) While performing the duties of the film and art department, it shall
include: processing , editing, filing , cleaning, securing, routing , maintaining,
shipping and receiving film; projection operation , art work and photography.
The above shall not preclude the operation of equipment by other personnel
consistent with good operating procedures. Nothing herein shall preclude the
Company from hiring independent contractors.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 567
DUTY ASSIGNMENTS
SEC. IV. Job duties assignment will be the sole responsibility and prerogative
of the Company.
ARTICLE II
Probationary Period-Work Week-Days Off-Vacations and
Holidays-Method of Pay
PROBATIONARY PERIOD
SECTION I. During the first 180 days of employment for Engineers, and
during the first 90 days of employment for all other employees in the Bargaining
Unit hereunder, all employees shall receive the benefits of working conditions
and minimum scale of wages as herein provided but employment may be ter-
minated without notice by the Company or Employee . After such period of
probation, employment shall be deemed to be subject to all provisions of this
Agreement . Probation for new employees starts with date of employment.
Accumulative credit shall be given any part-time employee or vacation relief
employee toward completing the probationary obligation . In the case of part-
time and vacation relief employees , full time employment does not necessarily
follow even though satisfactory completion of the probationary period has been
attained. The department head has the discretion of waiving any part of the
probationary period when making periodic evaluations of an employee's ex-
perience and progress, but in no case less than 90 days.
WORK WEEK
SEC IT . (A) The work week shall be five days within seven consecutive
calendar days. The work week will begin at 6:00 a.m. Sunday and end the
following Sunday at 6:00 a.m. The work week shall be forty hours wherever
possible.
(B) A schedule showing time in and time out will be posted three ( 3) days
in advance of the beginning of each work week and if changes in such schedule
are required thereafter , any Employee affected shall be personally notified when
such change is known but in no event later than the completion of his last work
assignment.
DAYS OFF
SEC. III . For each work week the Company shall schedule each Employee for
two days off . Days off shall be consecutive wherever possible, consistent with
good operating practice.
VACATIONS AND HOLIDAYS
SEC. IV . (A) All employees who have been in the employ of the Company
six (6 ) months but less than twelve ( 12) months shall receive one (1 ) week's
vacation with pay. All employees who have been in the employ of the Com-
pany more than twelve ( 12) months shall receive two (2 ) week's vacation with
pay.
( B) The vacation period shall extend from June 1 to August 21.
(C) Employees , upon request , shall receive their vacation pay on the pay
day just preceeding their vacation.
(D) The Company may require an employee to work on any holiday. All
employees shall receive time and a half for holiday time worked; Christmas,
New Year's Day, Thanksgiving, July 4th, Memorial Day and Labor Day.
METHOD OF PAY
SEC. V. All employees , non-exempt under the wage-hour law will be paid
on an hourly basis every two weeks.
ARTICLE III
Termination-Grievance Procedure
TERMINATION
SECTION I. (A) The Company may terminate the employment of any em-
ployee for just cause and for reduction of staff.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(B) In the event an employee is discharged and believes he has been dis-
charged without just cause , he or the Union shall have the right to have his
case considered through the regular grievance procedure provided he requests
a review within five (5 ) days after such dismissal , except in the case of drunken-
ness while on duty, having in possession , or drinking intoxicants on the premises,
or for deliberate and aggravated misconduct.
(C) Any employee released from the Company's employ for reduction of
staff shall be paid severance pay as follows:
(1) If employed over six months but less than one year-one week's
basic salary.
(2) If employed one year or more-two week 's basic salary.
If the employee is re-employed , any subsequent severance pay will be com-
puted from the date of such re-employment.
(D) Normally, in the case of layoffs, they will be made in the inverse order
of seniority, unless good operating procedure and efficiency cannot be maintained.
(E) If employment is terminated by either party, the accrued vacation credits
if any, shall be payable from August 31.
(F) Any employee may be granted leave of absence for good cause, pro-
vided such leave of absence shall be approved by mutual consent of the Com-
pany and the Union . At such time as the employee returns to regular employ-
ment with the Company, he shall resume his previous position with such rights
and privileges as existed at the beginning of his leave of absence.
(G) An employee will be granted a leave of absence for the purposes of
attending encampment of or for training in the Armed Forces, National Guard
or United States Reserves.
(H) Any employee not on probation compelled to absent himself from work
due to illness or disability, shall receive a normal week's pay for a period of
two (2) weeks of such absence. The Employer may, at its discretion , request
a physician 's certificate of such an illness or disability. Nothing herein shall
constitute a waiver of any employee's rights under any Workmen's Compensa-
tion Laws.
(I) Employees may be required to accept training programs beneficial to the
Company under reasonable circumstances and such training periods shall not
be construed as an interruption of continuous service . Reasonable expenses
of the employee while engaged in such training program shall be paid by the
Company.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
SEC. II . The Employer agrees to meet and confer with representatives of the
Union at reasonable times after the Union submits written request detailing the
reason for and the subject matter of the desired meeting. Should any Employee,
acting in an official capacity as a representative of the Union, at request of
management confer with the Employer during his regular working hours, he
may do so without loss of time or pay.
The Union reserves the right to discipline its members for violation of its
laws and rules not contrary to the provisions of this Agreement providing there
is no Employer expense incurred in the action . The Employer has the right
to discipline any Employee for breaking Company rules and policies. There
shall be no stoppage of operations either by strike or lockout during the term
of this agreement because of any dispute over matters relating to the provisions
herein.
ARTICLE N
WAGES AND JOB CLASSIFICATION
SECTION I . (A) Technicians-Cameramen ,
Producers, Continuity Writers:
Switcher-Directors , Director-
Per week
0 to 6 months ------------------------------------------- $80 00
6 to 12 months ------------------------------------------ 85.00
12 to 18 months ----------------------------------------- 90.00
18 to 24 months ---------------------------------------- 95.00
24 to 30 months ----------------------------------------- 100.00
30 to 36 months ----------------------------------------- 105 00
Thereafter --------------------------------------------- 110.00
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 569
(B) Film Editor-Projectionist , Photographer-Processor, Clerk-Artist:
Per week
0 to 6 months -------------------------------------------- $55.00
6 to 12 months ------------------------------------------- 60.00
12 to 18 months ------------------------------------------ 65.00
18 to 24 months --- --------------------------------------- 70.00
24 to 36 months ------------------------------------------ 75.00
Thereafter ---------------------------------------------- 80.00
Part-time employees in the above classifications will be paid in direct pro-
portion to the above scales based on an accumulation of time worked.
Notwithstanding the pay schedule set forth, the Company will once each year
analyze the status of each employee with respect to ability, conduct, and general
efficiency. If in the opinion of the employee's immediate supervisor his service
has been satisfactory, a rate increase will be granted as scheduled. However, if
the employee's work is unsatisfactory, a rate increase may be withheld until
satisfactory status is attained. If satisfactory status is not attained within reas-
onable time, it shall be construed as cause for dismissal.
(C) An employee working in more than one classification or who moves to
another classification will be paid the applicable rate during the period within
the classification.
This Agreement shall become effective as of the ------ day of -----------
1960, and shall continue in full force for three (3) years from this date, and
from year to year thereafter unless written notice shall be sent by either party
to the other party at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of this
Agreement or the end of such year.
Whenever such notice is given by either party of proposed changes, the exact
nature of the changes desired must be stated in the notice, including proposed
form of the clauses to be changed, and the parties will promptly enter into
negotiations thereof.
In any event, any modifications or supplemental understandings to this Agree-
ment shall be reduced to writing, signed by both parties hereto and approved by
the International Office of the Union, the same as this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement
the day and year first above written.
FETZER TELEVISION, INC.
By --------------------------------
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST
EMPLOYEES AND TECHNICIANS, AFL-
CIO LOCAL No. 410 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL,
By --------------------------------
By --------------------------------
9. Meeting of January 13, 1961
At the next meeting on January 13, 1961, the parties discussed the so-called final
contract offer of the Respondent, supra. The Union first inquired whether there had
been any changes in the bargaining unit. Ellerman stated that Respondent's methods
of pay had been changed, effective January 1, 1961, and new employees (Donald
Rupert and Glen Adams) had been hired on January 2 and 8, 1961, respectively.
Bookkeeper Carrie was present, and explained that in the future employees would
be paid for holidays if approved by department heads; that 5 days' pay would be held
back to avoid difficulties in procedure; that the hourly rate would be the same as if
their semimonthly rate had been reduced to an hourly rate by multiplying the semi-
monthly rate by 24 divided by 52 and then dividing again by 40 to determine the
hourly rate; and that wages would be paid on Fridays at the end of each 2-week
period. The Union again objected to this change in method of pay.
The so-called final contract proposal, supra, was further discussed, and the Union
pointed out that it contained no material changes from Respondent's prior proposals
during negotiations, and no reference whatever to the five disputed areas of nego-
tiation-that it merely spelled out recognition of the union certification, added pro-
visions permitting the Respondent to hire independent contractors and part-time
employees, deleted a top scale bracket, and reduced the term from 5 to 3 years. Eller-
man said he would reinstate the top wage bracket, but was going to stand firm on this
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
final proposal-that he considered all proposals and counterproposals of the Union
reasonable-that he was discontinuing any further negotiations, and would not put
any wage into effect until the contract was signed. The Union indicated that it would
sign the contract if Respondent would include binding arbitration, seniority, and
union-security provisions of some kind, and negotiate further on wages. The Re-
spondent refused to make any concessions.
Thereafter on March 20, 1961, the Union posted a letter to Respondent, as follows:
DEAR MR. ELLERMAN: In accordance with the order of Mr. Owsley Vose,
Trial Examiner, in Case No. 7-CA-2736, we hereby request that you meet with
the Union negotiating Committee to bargain in good faith for a contract. We
propose March 28th and 29th as meeting dates. We, of course, hope you will
respect Mr. Vose's ruling and will reflect this respect with a change of attitude
in negotiations.
In accord with Mr. Vose's ruling on the non-supervisory status of engineer
Norman Bradshaw we now advise you that he shall participate as a permanent
member of the Union's negotiating committee.
We have heard rumors that since our last meeting in January, there have
been changes in the operations of the station and changes in the employee
roster. As you know and as we have advised you numerous times you have an
obligation under the law to advise us of such changes. We now formally re-
quest information on all employees who have left employment with the
Company since our last meeting, on all employees employed since our last
meeting with their starting wages and on all changes now in your operation.
We have also heard that the Company is presently circulating a petition for
decertification and securing signatures on the promise of an immediate wage
increase and on the threat to Bradshaw and McDuffie that they would lose their
last increase. We're sure you realize this is an unfair labor practice and if this
is true, we demand it cease at once.
You are well aware that it is lawful for the Company to put into effect a
uniform non-discriminatory wage increase for the employees and that in this
respect the wages of these employees are not frozen. You have been so
advised by the Union in the past but have refused to give such a wage increase
to the employees. We now again request that you put the wage scale into
effect immediately.
The Respondent replied on March 22, 19'61, as follows: 6
DEAR MR. EFROYMSON: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 1961
which was received by me on March 22, 1961. You refer to the intermediate
report in case number 7-CA-2736. We disagree with the findings of Mr.
Vose, the trial examiner, and exceptions are being filed.
You refer to a petition circulated by the company. Let me assure you that
the company is not, or has not circulated any petition, and has not made, or
will not make any promises to employees of wage increases if they will de-
certify. The company has not made, or will not make any threats of wage
decreases if the employees -do not decertify.
The company has been advised that some kind of a petition has been signed
by more than a majority of the employees in the unit. Therefore, there is a
serious question on our part as to whether NABET really represents a majority
of the employees.
The company will postpone answering your questions concerning wages and
other information requested until a determination is made as to whether or not
you now represent a majority of the employees.
10. Meeting of August 1, 1961
The final meeting of the negotiating parties was held on August 1, 1961, in
Respondent's office at Cadillac, Michigan. At this meeting Ellerman refused to
furnish information concerning Lovel Shore (technician) who had assumed the
duties formerly performed by Norman Bradshaw. Respondent continued his re-
fusal to recognize that Bradshaw, Edberg, and McDuffie were included in the
bargaining unit. Practically the entire meeting was consumed with bickering as to
changes in the unit and contentions by the Respondent that newsmen, maintenance
men, and others were not definitely included in the bargaining unit; hence the
6 Thereafter on April 3. 1961. a decertification petition signed by certain employees of
the Respondent in Case No 7-RD-371 was filed with the Board and was later dismissed;
and the Union filed a charge in the instant case on May 17, 1961
FETZER TELEVISION, INC. 571
Respondent would not furnish any wage information as to such personnel. Eller-
man said he would not change his position in that respect pending review by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the two preceding
unfair labor practice cases hereinbefore mentioned. The meeting ended with no
progress in negotiations and no agreement reached.
Concluding Findings
In Case No. 7-CA-2567 heard before Trial Examiner Sidney S. Asher, Jr., the
Board adopted all findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
pertaining in part to discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
of Gordon Stone (janitor, maintenance man, and part-time cameraman), who had
been president of the Union's local since December 1959. Nevertheless, in Case No.
7-CA-2736 the Board adopted a conclusion of Trial Examiner Owsley Vose that
Stone was not included in the bargaining unit because he performed janitor work
and had been relieved of all camera or production work. The Trial Examiner and
the Board further found, however, that the Respondent had refused to bargain in
good faith with the Union by attempting to exclude Norman Bradshaw and Roy
McDuffie (engineers ) from the bargaining unit by promoting them to illusory super-
visory positions in an effort to "water down" or weaken the Union's representation
in the unit. The undisputed evidence in the instant case shows that the Respondent
has in all its negotiations with the Union since that time continually refused to furnish
wage data with respect to these employees, including Lovel Shore, who was later
hired to replace Bradshaw. The Respondent also refused to furnish wage data as
to Mike Jones (news editor and newscaster), John North, Creed, and Hartnett (an-
nouncers), but they may reasonably be excluded from the unit as on-the-air per-
sonnel. I find, therefore, that Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union by refusing to furnish wage data only as to Norman Bradshaw, Roy McDuffie,
and Lovel Shore.
Respondent admits that on or about January 1, 1961, over protest of the Union,
it unilaterally changed its method of pay to employees from a semimonthly salary
to a combined hourly and semiweekly basis. Regardless of the reason for such
action, it was a matter concerning wages about which the Respondent was required
to bargain with the Union as the certified exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in the appropriate unit. Without further clarification, it would be im-
possible to determine the full import and effect of such action by the Respondent.
I find, therefore, that with respect to wages, the Respondent refused to bargain in
good faith with the Union.
Section 8(d) of the Act defines good-faith collective bargaining, as follows:
(d) For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the perform-
ance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the
employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotia-
tion of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of
a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either
party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal
or require the making of a concession ... .
In Case No. 7-CA-2736 the Board found that the Respondent did not approach
the negotiations as a whole with the attitude of settlement through give and take,
which the Act requires; that Ellerman (general manager) was willing to reach an
agreement only on his own terms, and without interfering in any way with his com-
plete flexibility of operations; and left to the Union the making of all moves to nar-
row the areas of disagreement. In that case the Respondent announced and adopted
the philosophy of demanding for the Union a counterbalancing concession in return
for any agreement whatever from the Respondent. Figuratively speaking, this is an
equivalent of the pagan doctrine: "An eye for an eye; and a tooth for a tooth." The
Respondent has consistently followed this doctrine to the present stage of negotiations.
Following a hearing in the foregoing case in August 1960, five areas of disagreement
between the parties were outlined, and negotiations were resumed on August 24,
1960. The Respondent refused to bargain piecemeal and indicated that it would
insist upon agreement on a complete contract before entering into any binding com-
mitment on any of the areas in dispute. Whenever the Union requested wage in-
formation it was grudgingly furnished in part, but denied as to personnel that the
Respondent unilaterally determined were supervisors or performing work not clearly
defined in the appropriate unit, despite certain findings of the Board to the contrary.
It refused to bargain as to which employees were properly included or excluded from
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the bargaining unit. No regard was given to a choice by the interested employees
themselves, as to whether they desired or elected representation by the Union. When
the Union objected to Respondent changing its pay methods purportedly to clear
up confusion of its own making, the Respondent arbitrarily and unilaterally changed
its methods without bargaining with the Union concerning its effect upon the wage
scale, other benefits, and conditions of work. When the Union requested a probation
period of 90 days for engineers commensurate with the period already afforded
production employees, the Respondent proposed to place all employees on permanent
probation by a merit system to be administered solely by the Respondent through its
own supervisors. When the Union proposed seniority provisions for layoffs and
wage increases, the Respondent insisted that such provisions must be tempered or
controlled by its own merit system. The Respondent was adamant in demanding that
wage rates conform to those paid by local industries, and insisted upon a no-strike
clause in the contract, but when the Union proposed some form of union-security
provisions such as a union shop, agency shop, and checkoff of union dues, the Re-
spondent demanded in exchange a waiver of the right to strike in any event. When-
ever the Union proposed some form of binding arbitration to settle disputes arising
under the contract or grievances that could not be disposed of by a grievance pro-
cedure, the Respondent expressed hostility to the entire idea, but proposed nonbinding
arbitration if the Union would give up all demands for union security and a union
shop. On at least one occasion the Respondent raised a bad-faith doubt that the
Union had lost its majority status when it heard than an abortive petition was being
circulated among employees at its television station to decertify the Union, and at-
tempted to break off negotiations before any such petition was actually filed with
the Board. Finally on or about November 1, 1960, the Respondent submitted its
final contract offer in written form, omitting all reference to the five areas in dispute
concerning which many fruitless days and weeks had been devoted by the Union
in trying to reach a satisfactory agreement with the Respondent.
The foregoing findings and conclusions represent only a partial summary of the
highlights of negotiations between the parties; and needless to say, the record is devoid
of any proposals or concessions by the Respondent that any self-respecting bargaining
agent for employees could in good conscience accept, or that afford a basis for further
negotiations. Further negotiations will be futile unless and until the Respondent
reverses its hostility to the principles of collective bargaining which the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, was designed to foster and promote.
I find, therefore, that the Respondent by refusing to furnish wage data and other
information to the Union relating to changes in unit personnel, by unilaterally chang-
ing its method of paying wages to employees without negotiating with the Union, and
by conducting negotiations with a fixed intention of not reaching an agreement or
entering into any final or binding collectivebargaining agreement, the Respondent
has at all times since November 22, 1960, as alleged in the complaint, refused to
bargain collectively in good faith with National Association of Broadcast Employees
and Technicians, AFL-CIO, as the exclusively certified representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit found above.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and has been
at all times material to this case the exclusive bargaining representative of all em-
ployees in the certified unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, consisting of:
All technical and production employees at the Employer's Cadillac, Michigan,
television station, including the continuity director, the switcher-technical direc-
tor, and regularly employed part-time employees, but excluding on-the-air
personnel, the program director, traffic department personnel, office clerical
employees, salesmen, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the certified unit on and after November 22, 1960,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]