Greater Erie Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of LEON WYSZATYCKI, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A GREATER
ERIE BROADCASTING COMPANY (RADIO STATION WWOL),1 EMPLOYER
and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECH-
NICIANS, PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-513.-Decided November 28, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. McBee, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are herby affirmed .2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer owns and operates a small, independent, federally
licensed radio broadcasting station in Buffalo, New York. Its trans-
mitter is located at West Seneca, New York, about 6 miles from the
Buffalo studio. The Employer's broadcasts can normally be heard
within a 25-mile radius of Buffalo. Within this radius lie parts of
the province of Ontario, Canada.
The Employer subscribes to the United Press News Service, a world-
wide service, at a cost of approximately $485 per month. It receives
about $100,000 per year in revenue from advertising, of which 10
percent is received from national advertisers.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. We also find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction in this case.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer. '
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 For the reasons given In paragraph 1, below, the Employer 's motion to dismiss the
petition on the ground that it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
is hereby denied.
2 WBSR, Inc., 91 NLRB 630.
92 NLRB No. 61.
270
GREATER ERIE BROADCASTING COMPANY 271
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees -of the Employer within the meaning. of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of transmitter engineers,
studio technicians, and announcer-technicians in the Employer's,trans-
mitter station and studio. The Employer contends that the unit
should be limited to its transmitter engineers.
The Employer's transmitter is located about 6 miles from the studio.
Working at the transmitter are the chief engineer and 2 transmitter
engineers. All 3 of these employees are licensed by the Federal Com-
munications Commission to perform the customary duties of radio
engineers. At the studio there are 15 employees, 64 of whom are
technicians or announcer-technicians. A technician's work consists in
operating the controls at the studio console in order to regulate the
volume of sound and the-general tonal quality of the broadcast sent
to the transmitter. The technician also operates the turntables when
recordings are broadcast. Announcer-technicians announce as well
as operate the controls. We have frequently found that, despite geo-
graphical separation, transmitter engineers and studio technicians or
announcer-technicians in small radio stations constitute a closely knit
group with common interests and conditions of employment, and that
together they may constitute a single appropriate unit.5 In this case,
also, we believe that this group at the Employer's small station should
not be divided for purposes of collective bargaining. For the fore-
going reasons, we find that the appropriate unit should include all
the Employer's transmitter engineers, studio technicians, and an-
nouncer-technicians.
The parties disagree as to the unit placement of the following
employees :
Ted Wyszatycki is the son of Leon Wyszatycki, the Employer
herein. The Employer would include Wyszatycki; the Petitioner
would exclude him. We shall, in accordance with the Board's estab-
lished policy of excluding close relatives of management from bar-
gaining units, exclude Ted Wyszatycki.6 -
The Employer would exclude Frank Saj, the chief engineer, upon
the ground that he is a supervisor. The Petitioner contends that
,despite his title, Saj is not in fact a supervisor. The Employer for=
.merly employed a chief engineer, who was admittedly a supervisor,
4 At the time the petition herein was filed there were eight. The record shows, however,
.that at the time of the hearing, two , Green and Richmond , were no longer on the Em-
ployer's payroll.
5 Radio Station WCIL, 36 NLRB 1302 ; Associated Electronic Enterprises, Inc., 80 NLRB
'295; Western Gateway Broadcasting Corporation, 77 NLRB 49.
6 Muskogee Dairy Products Co., 85 NLRB 520. -
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and three transmitter engineers of whom Saj was one. In February
1949, the then chief engineer left the service of the Employer; and
Saj was given the title. The record shows that Saj is responsible for
the maintenance of the equipment at the transmitter and studio. He
is on call at all times for necessary maintenance work. For the most
part Saj does all such work himself, although upon occasion he may
request the help of the other engineers. In addition, Saj alone handles
all remote pickup programs broadcast by the station. During the
summer months, Saj relieves each of the two transmitter engineers
1 day each week. Since August 1, 1950, he has also operated the studio
controls for a total of 20 hours a week. So far as the record shows,
Saj's predecessor did no maintenance work, nor did he relieve the
engineers.
Saj exercises little direction over the work of the transmitter en-
gineers. He is, however, responsible for the correct operation of the
transmitter according to the general regulations of the Federal Com-
munications Commission, and within the particular limits specified
in the Commission's license for the Employer's station. Accordingly,
Saj telephones each day to the engineer on duty to receive the en-
gineer's report on conditions at the transmitter. Twice a week when
he goes to the transmitter to operate it in place of the regular engineer,
he spends about 20 minutes in giving necessary instructions to the
engineer just then coming off duty. With respect to hiring and firing,
the record shows that since Saj has been chief engineer, only one en-
gineer has been hired and one discharged. In both cases the matter
was handled by Ted Wyszatycki.7 Saj has no authority to set work,
schedules or vacations for the engineers. Such matters have been de-
cided by the Employer's general manager.
Saj's work in the studio control room consists of maintenance work
and, as noted above, operating the controls. The parties agree that
a radio station chief engineer normally supervises the work of control
operators. Saj, however, has been forbidden to enter. the control room
while the technicians are working, except when maintenance work is
necessary. If Saj has any criticism of 'the technician's work, he is
expected to make it to the Employer.
Although the testimony of the various witnesses at the hearing
conflicts sharply, we believe the evidence as a whole shows that Saj
is primarily a working engineer? His responsibility is chiefly for
maintenance of the Employer's equipment, and for the proper opera-
tion of the transmitter as required by Federal Communications Com-
mission regulations. • Saj's alleged supervisory duties occupy an insub-
7 Although the employee who was hired was introduced to Wyzsatycki by Saj, Saj did
not know him ; Saj had recommended another man for the job.
GREATER ERIE BROADCASTING COMPANY 273
stantiat portion of his time, and are routine in character. For these
reasons we find that Saj is not a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit.8
The Employer would include, and the Petitioner exclude John B.
Stinson, the Employer's program manager. The Employer contends
that Stinson's title is given him only in order that he may sign. station
logs as required by the Federal Communications Commission, and
that he has no supervisory authority. Stinson testified, however, that
he supervises the studio employees, makes up the program schedule
for the station, and assigns the work for the announcers. He also
does some announcing and control work. As the record shows that
Stinson responsibly directs the work of studio employees, we find that
he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore
exclude him from the unit.
The Employer would exclude Louis Coniglio on the ground that he
is no longer an employee of the Employer. Coniglio was employed
as an announcer-technician for 2 years before August 1, 1950. He
worked regularly every Sunday morning. About August 1, 1950,
after the filing of the present petition, he was told by the Employer
that his services were no longer needed, but that if the announcer-
technicians who were to be assigned to the Sunday morning "trick"
wished to take that time off, they might employ Coniglio to work for
them; in that event Coniglio would be paid by the announcer-techni-
cian who employed him. Coniglio was permitted, however, to keep
a studio key in his possession.
The record shows that Coniglio has continued to perform his duties
each Sunday morning since August 1, 1950, that no regular schedule
has been made for other announcer-technicians to take the Sunday
morning "trick," and that Coniglio has been given his money by one
Rico, an announcer, who has never specifically asked Coniglio to work
for him on a Sunday .9 On Sunday, September 3, 1950, Coniglio re-
quested leave from program manager Stinson to take the day off and
was given it. Upon the record as a whole, we believe that Coniglio
is a regular part-time employee of the Employer. Accordingly, we
shall include him in the unit.
The Employer would include, and the Petitioner exclude, Joseph
Rico. Rico's chief duty is to assist his father who is under contract
with the Employer to produce the Employer's Italian-language pro-
gram. The Employer contends that Rico is an announcer-technician,
g Board Member Reynolds would find that Saj exercises supervisory authority over the
engineers , and accordingly would exclude him from the unit.
6 Coniglio is paid $5 for a Sunday morning's work. On or about August 1, 1950, when
Coniglio was removed from the Employer 's payroll , Rico's salary was raised by $25 per
month. Rico 's duties were not changed.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
but the record shows that Rico operates the studio controls very in-
frequently. Accordingly, we find that Joseph Rico is not a technician
or an announcer-technician. We shall therefore exclude him from the
unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its studio
in Buffalo, New York, and its transmitter in West Seneca , New York,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All engineers,10 studio technicians, and announcer-technicians,""
excluding office and clerical employees, the general manager," pro-
gram manager ,13 guards , and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
5. The Petitioner requests that eligibility to vote in the election
directed herein be determined by the payroll period next preceding
July 21, 1950, the date of filing the petition herein. As we see no
compelling reason to depart in this case from our usual procedure,
the Petitioner's request is hereby denied.
There is some question as to the eligibility of Sterling Campbell, a
studio employee, to vote in the election. Campbell has been employed
by the Employer for nearly 2 years. Before August 1, 1950, he was
an announcer-technician; since that time, he has been an announcer.
The Employer testified that after the petition herein was filed, he
found it necessary to operate his station more formally than in the
past. With this in view, he began to change the duties of the an-
nouncer-technicians in order to determine which of them would be
best as announcers and which as technicians.14 The Employer con-
tends that his ultimate object is to achieve a staff each member of
which performs one job only. However, the Employer admitted that
the plan was still in the experimental stage, and that he did not know
whether Campbell would remain an announcer, be transferred to the
technician's job, or even return to the combination job. In view of
the uncertainty of Campbell's present status, and of the fact that he
has been a combination announcer-technician during all but the last
3 months of his employment, we shall permit him to vote subject
to challenge.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 Including Frank Saj.
11 Including Louis Coniglio.
11 Ted Wyzsatyckl.
11 John B. Stinson.
14 Campbell and one Klestine were made announcers , but after 2 weeks, Klestine was
returned to his former job of technician. The Employer's son , the program manager,
and the chief engineer were assigned to part-time operation of the controls.