Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1377 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of INTER-CI1Y ADVERTISING CO., INC. OPERATORS OF
WAYS, CHARLOTTE, N. C. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER HOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 1229. AFFILIATED WITH AMERI-
CAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. 5-C-1794
DECISION
AND
ORDER
May 23,1945
On November 29, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
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 from the unfair labor prac-
tices found and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief. Oral argument in which the respondent and the Union
participated was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on May
1, 1945.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondent, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions
noted below.
The respondent admits that on July 19, 1944, when it rejected the
Union's request to bargain, the Union represented a majority of em-
ployees in the unit theretofore found by the Board to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondent contends,
however, (1) that the Board erroneously found that a unit limited to
technical employees at the respondent's transmitter station is appro-
priate for collective bargaining, and (2) that, assuming that the unit
is appropriate, the Board should not order the respondent to bargain
with the Union because the Union no longer represents a majority
of employees in the appropriate unit and because the loss of majority
61 N. L . R. B, No. 223. _
1377
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has not been caused by any unfair labor practice. In the latter
regard, the respondent relies largely upon the testimony of two em-
ployees within the unit at the time of the hearing to the effect that
their failure to join the Union was not the result of the respondent's
refusal to bargain.
With respect to the appropriateness of the unit, no new evidence
has been offered and no new arguments have been advanced to support
the respondent's contention that transmitter technicians comprise part
of a unit of all technicians employed by the respondent rather than the
separate appropriate unit found by the Board. After full reconsid-
eration, we affirm our unit determination.'
Nor do we accept the respondent's contention that it should not be
ordered to bargain collectively with the Union. The respondent's
i efusal to bargain with the certified representative of the employees
within the appropriate unit was clearly in violation of the Act. Al-
though the Union may not presently represent a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, the respondent must be ordered to
bargain collectively with the Union .2 Especially pis this true where,
as here, the refusal to bargain has followed closely upon our certifica-
tion of the Union, which was made pursuant to statutory authority
after a fair and secret election, and which has remained in full force
and effect.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc.,
Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, North Carolina, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all
technicians employed at the respondent's transmitter, excluding em-
' At the hearing in the representation proceeding , John A Thompson , international
representative of the Union , testified that the Union customarily represents transmitter
technicians and studio technicians in separate units , except where the studio technicians
perform only control work . We credit this testimony and rely upon it, as well as the
findings made in our Decision and Direction of Election , to support our conclusion herein
See Matter of Colorado Radio Corporation , 55 N L R . B 423, and Matter of WGAL, In-
corporated, 27 N. L R B 389, for decisions in which we have recognized the appropriate-
ness of a unit of transmitter technicians
' See, in addition to cases cited in the Intermediate Report , Matter of Karp Metal
Products Co , Inc., 51 N L R . B 621, enforced by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit without opinion, October 23 , 1943, cert . denied 322 U S. 728.
3 N. L. R. B. v. Appalachian Electric Power Co , 140 F. ( 2d) 217 ( C. C. A. 4 ), enf'g as
mod 47 N. L . R. B. 821 , N L R. B . v Century Oxford M fg. Corp , 140 F. (2d) 541 (C. C A
2), enf'g 47 N . L. R. B. 835
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC. 1379
ployees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with
or restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all
technicians employed at the respondent's transmitter, excluding em-
ployees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action, in respect to rate of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post at its studio and transmitter station at Charlotte, North
Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A."
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We Will Not refuse to bargain with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor as the exclusive representative
of our employees in the bargaining unit described herein;
We Will Not engage in any like or related act or conduct
interfering with, restraining, or coercing our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion. All our employees are free to become or remain members
of this union, or any other labor organization. We will bargain
collectively upon request with the above-named union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All technicians employed at the transmitter, excluding em-
ployees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC.,
Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, N. C.
(Employer)
By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Jill Sidney J. Barban, for the Boa? d
Gnthr?e, Pierce and Blakeney, by Mr. Whiteford S Blakeney, of Charlotte, N. C.,
for the respondent.
Dfr D. M dlorr,.e, of Washington, D C, and Mr. S L Hicks, of Charlotte, N. C.,
for the Union.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC,.
STATEMENT Or 'I HE CA SE
1381
Upon a charge duly filed on July 24, 1944, by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board. herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
issued its conipl:,int dated October 21, 1944, against Inter-City Advertising Co,
Inc., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (a) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat, 449, herein called the Act A copy of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices. the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the technicians eniployed at the respondent's transmitter, excluding
employees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. (2) that the Union
has been designated and selected by a majority of all the employees in said unit
as then' exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, pur-
smnnt to an election conducted by the Board on May 3. 1944, and has at all times
since the date of the election continued to be the exclusive representative of
the employees in said unit: (3) on or about July 19, 1944, and at all times there-
after, the respondent, although duly requested, refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the said
appropriate unit; and (4) that by such refusal and by other specified acts, the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in section 7 of the Act.
The respondent entered an oral answer at the beginning of the hearing, in
which it admits the facts set forth in the complaint as to its corporate organiza-
tion and its business operations, and that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act The respondent further admits that in the Board election
on May 3, 1944, a majority of the employees eligible to vote designated the Union
as their repre,,entatiic, and that thereafter when the Union requested it to
bargain collectively, it refused the Union's request. However, the respondent
denied that this refusal to bargain constitutes an unfair labor practice or a
violation of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Charlotte, North Carolina, on Novem-
her 2, 1944, before Charles E, Persons, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by two of its officials. All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to examine, and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent moved to strike
from the complaint paragraph 9, Sections (b), (c) and (d) on the ground that
the allegations contained therein were "not supported by any charge filed with
the Board as is by law required " This motion was denied The respondent
further presented a motion asking for a bill of particulars as to certain specified
matters alleged in the complaint This motion was denied with a promise that
in case the respondent was in any sense surprised by any evidence adduced by
the Board, a reasonable continuance would be granted. The respondent there-
after did not make such a request. After the presentation of testimony, the
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board and the respondent participated in oral argument before the undersigned.
The parties were duly notified that they had the privilege of presenting briefs
for the consideration of the Trial Examiner. No briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1
Inter-City Advertising Co, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is engaged, with
permission of the Federal Communications Commission, in the operation of a
a radio station at Charlotte, North Carolina, under the call letters WAYS. The
respondent is an affiliate of the Mutual Broadcasting System and 'of the Blue
Network, national broadcasting organizations. Commercial programs of local
origin and of the two national systems, constitute about 42 percent of the total
broadcasting time; and the remaining 58 percent of the total time is devoted
to sustaining programs. The respondent's gross income for 1943, derived solely
from the sale of time on the air, was in excess of $40,000 The reception range
of WAYS extends outside the State of North Carolina. The respondent admits
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International, Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that "all technicians employed at the respondent's trans-
mitter, excluding employees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9, subsection (b) of the Act". This is the
unit found appropriate by the Board in its Decision and Direction of Election
on April 18, 1944.2
In its answer the respondent denies that the unit as defined in the complaint
is appropriate. In the representation proceeding and thereafter the respondent
contended that the appropriate unit should include the operators of its control
board. While it maintained this petition at the hearing in the instant proceed-
1 These findings are based on a stipulation of the parties incorporated in the record and
on allegations in the complaint admitted by the respondent in its answer. The statement
here piesented is substantially like that in the Board's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the representation proceeding It was stipulated in the hearing that there had
been no change in these matters during the time that had elapsed in the period since the
hearing in the representation case.
2 See Matter of Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc, Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, N C.,
and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, A F. L, 55
S. L It. B. 1415.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC . 1383
ing, no new evidence was presented in support of this contention.' The Act im-
poses on the Board the duty of deciding in each case the extent of the appropriate
unit. The undersigned, therefore, finds as did the Board, in its previous determi-
nation of the unit question, that the unit, as above defined, constitutes a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
2. The Union's majority position
Pursuant to the Board's Directioniof Election, an election by secret ballot was
held on May 3, 1944 There were 4 eligible voters, of whom 3 voted for, and one
against, the Union. On May 12, 1944, accordingly, the Board certified the Union
as the statutory representative of the employees in the appropriate unit pre-
viously determined. The respondent in its answer admits these facts. In oral
argument before the undersigned counsel for the respondent stated, "there is
no doubt the union represented a majority" in the unit determined by the Board.
The undersigned finds that on May 3, 1944, and at all times material herein,
the Union has been the statutory representative of the employees within the
appropriate unit.
3. The refusal to bargain
Subsequent to the Board's certification of the Union, John A Thompson, a
Union representative, presented to G. 0 Shepherd, general manager for the re-
spondent, a request for a conference for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
Shepherd referred Thompson to the respondent's counsel of record in this pro-
ceeding, Whiteford S. Blakeney. Under date of July 19, 1944, Blakeney sent a
letter to the Union, attention of Thompson, which reads as follows:
In accordance with your suggestion we are writing to confirm the state-
ment we have made to you in behalf of Radio Station WAYS relative to col-
lective bargaining between you and the Company.
The Company takes the position, as it has all along, that the National
Labor Relations Board has made an unreasonable definition and designation
of a bargaining unit among the Company's employees. Upon that ground at
present time the Company has instructed us to state that it respectfully
declines to engage in collective bargaining with your Union for a contract to
govern the employees designated by the Board.
3In oral argument before the undersigned the respondent contended that the appropri-
ateness of the determined unit had been brought in question through attempts by the
Union to negotiate for all its employees The only basis for ascribing such an attempt
to the Union was a proposed contract submitted to the respondent by the Union on
October 25, 1943 Respondent contends that this continued to be the Union's proposal after
the Board's determination of the appropriate unit, as it "is the only proposal that this
Company has ever had from this Union." Since the proposed agreement specifically states
"The trade jurisdiction of this agreement shall include all work in connection with the
installation, operation and maintenance of radio broadcast transmitter," the undersigned
finds the respondent's interpretation of the document as demanding representation of all
the respondent's employees, a strained and untenable one Moreover, the Union's original
proposal was made long before the Board's determination of this unit. The respondent,
as appears below, did not cooperate thereafter in determining the Union's position through
bargaining conferences. Further, this contention of the respondent was not reflected in
its correspondence set forth hereinafter either with the Union or with the Board. On the
contrary the respondent wrote the Union on July 19, 1944, stating that it "respectfully
declines to engage in collective bargaining with your Union for a contract to govern
the employees designated by the Board (Italics supplied.) After consideration of
the record the undersigned finds that this contention of the respondent was clearly an
afterthought which did not affect the respondent's attitude in its dealings either with the
Union or with the Board . He, therefore, finds no merit in this contention of the
respondent.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The position then taken by the respondent is consistent with that expressed by
it earlier in correspondence with the Board After receipt of the Board's De-
cision and Direction of Election, Respondent's counsel, Blakeney, on April 24,
1944, had written the Board stating that the Company "wishes to take exception
to your finding as to what constitute-, an appropriate bargaining unit in this
case" and inquiring if there were any "procedure of appeal from this finding of
your Board prior to the holding of an election."
Again, after receipt of the Board's order, certifying the Union, Blakeney wrote
to the Board on May 15, 1944, saying, in part:
It is my understanding' that at this stage, there is no procedure for pro-
testing this certification either before your Board or before the Circuit Court
of Appeals upon the ground that the bargaining unit set up by your Board
is not an appropriate one. It is rather my understanding that, if such point
is to be relied on, the time to raise it is upon the Union's requesting the
Company to engage in collective bargaining-if and when the Union makes
such request The Company wishes me to make it clear all along, however,
that it does not acquiesce in your Board's definition of the bargaining unit
in this case, but on the contrary, disagrees with and objects to your finding
with respect to this matter
As stated above the undersigned finds no merit in these contentions set forth
by the respondent in its correspondence with the Board
The Board contends that the respondent further evidenced its refusal to bargain
collectively with the Union by taking unilaterial action in changing working
conditions and in dealing with the employees as individuals The record dis-
closes that on July 1, 1944, General Manager Shepherd was succeeded by Walter
Goan Soon thereafter Goan rearranged the working hours of the transmitter
operators Chief Engineer John C Price took over the first shift from d a m.
to 10 a in. Price had previously devoted all his time to supervision and mainte-
nance work This change made necessary the discharge of one transmitter op-
erator. After consideration of the qualifications and seniority of the four trans-
mitter operators, Goan decided that either Hartis or Rust, both of whom were
part time operators, must be released Goan discussed the matter with Hartis
and Rust jointly Because of his full time job with another company Hartis
could not take on the hours desired in the newly arranged assignments Ac-
cordingly, he was released about July 19, 1944.
On or about September 23, 1944, after discussion with Goan, Operator Goodman
was transferred from work on the transmitter to the control room. The choice
of Goodman for this assignment, was dictated by the need for "someone at the
control room that could do active work, could handle the facilities properly,
and do maintenance work and with enough knowledge to have proper operation
W A Pritchett was hired to fill the place vacated by Goodman These changes,
as Goan freely admitted in his testimony, were made entirely without consul-
tation with the Union as the statutory representative of the employees affected
The undersigned finds that by such discussions and readjustments of hours and
other working conditions with individual employees without consulting the
Union as their statutory representative, the respondent has refused to bargain
collectively.4
Although-the respondent admits that the Union had a majority in the deter-
mined appropriate unit at the time of the Board's election it contends that it
cannot now be required to bargain with the Union since the Union has since
See Matter of U fi Automatic Corlioiation and Federal Union No 2311'n (AFL), 57
N L R B 124 and eases cited theiein Cj J I Go Re c N L R B 321 U S. 332.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC. 1385
lost its majority for reasons which do not involve the respondent in unfair labor
practices. At the time of the Board election the transmitter operators were
Goodman, Absher, Rust and Hartis Hartis was released, as discussed above,
about July 19, 1944, as a consequence of Chief Engineer Price taking over all
active shift. Since Price as a supervisory employee was excluded, this change
reduced the number in the appropriate unit to three Goodman was trans-
ferred to the control board about September 23, 1944, and replaced by Pritchett.
Of the three transmitter operators. at the time of the hearing in the. instant
proceeding, Absher and Pritchett were called as witnesses by the respondent
and testified that they were not iuembeis of the Union and did not desire the
Union to represent them. Absher has been chief operator at all tunes signifi-
cant in this proceeding. 'Re had been solicited to join the Union but had not
done so He was informed of the proceeding before the Board and testified in
effect, that lie had understood that the respondent was negotiating with the
Union Pi itchett had never been asked to join the Union. He disclaimed any
knowledge of the respondent's declining to engage in collective bargaining with
the Union Both Absher and Pritchett testified that their attitude toward the
Union was not affected by anything said or done by-the respondent. On this
statement of facts the undersigned finds that the Union's majority was main-
tained until September 23, 1944, when Goodman was transferred out of the
appropriate unit and replaced by Iyiitchett. The Board has consistently ruled
that, in the absence of special encuunstances, a ceitification of representatives
mast be honored for it reasonable period' Such rulings by the Board recently
have been sustained by the United States Supreme Court" in circumstances
closely analogous to those in the present proceeding After referring to the
Board's power to determine how the effects of prior unfair labor practice hilly
be expunged, the Court said:
That determination the Board has made in this case and in similar cases
by adopting a form of remedy which requires that an employer bargain
exclusively with the particular union which represented a majority of the
employees at the time of the wrongful refusal to bargain despite that
Union's subsequent failure to retain the majority. The Board might well
think that, were it not to adopt this type of remedy, but instead order elec-
tions upon every claim that a shift in union membership had occurred during
proceedings occasioned by an employer's wrongful refusal to bargain, recal-
citrant employers might be able by continued opposition to union member-
ship indefinitely to postpone performance of their statutory obligation. In
the Board's view, procedural delays necessary fairly to determine charges
of unfair labor practices might in this way be made the occasion for further
procedural delays in connection with repeated requests for elections, thus
providing employers a chance to profit from a stubborn refusal to abide by
the law. That the Board was within its statutory authority in adopting the
reniedy which it has adopted to foreclose the probability of such frustrations
of the Act seems too plain for anything but statement
In the light of this clear pronouncement by the highest authority this con-
tention of the respondent must be found to be without merit.
On all of the above, the undersigned finds that on July 19, 1944, through the
authorized statement of its counsel, and thereafter by its unilateral action in
,See Totor Vbide and .ilanufactuiuig Company and International Union of Automobile,
Aucraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-C10), 58 N L R B
1057. and cases theienn cited.
See Franks Bros Company v N. L. R B., 321 U. S. 702, 704.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
changing hours of work and other working conditions as well as by dealing with
individual employees, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees within the appropriate
unit and that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B Further alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
The Board's complaint further alleges that the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees: by discussing and settling grievances with
its employees without the participation of the Union; by refusing to discuss
grievances with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees
within the appropriate unit; by bargaining directly and individually with the
employees on rates of pay and wages and refusing to discuss rates of pay and
wages with the Union. No evidence was adduced to substantiate these allega-
tions of the complaint It will therefore be recommended that so much of the
complaint as specifically concerns these allegations be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an ap-
propriate unit. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent, on request, bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees within the unit herein
found to be appropriate.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. -
2. All technicians employed at the respondent's transmitter, excluding em-
ployees at the studio, the chief engineer, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, was on May 3, 1944, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in
said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 ( a) of the Act.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING CO., INC. 1387
4. By refusing on July 19, 1944, and at all times thereafter to bargain collec-
tively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
of all its employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its em-
ployees by discussing and settling grievances of employees within the appropriate
unit without the particiation of the Union ; by refusing to discuss grievances
with the Union ; or by bargaining directly with employees within the unit as
to rates of pay or wages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Inter-City Advertising Co, Inc., Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, North Carolina,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, as the exclusive representative of all technicians employed at the respond-
ent's transmitter, excluding employees at the studio, the chief engineer, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 1229, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all technicians employed at the re-
spondent's transmitter, excluding employees at the studio, the chief engineer, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Charlotte,
North Carolina, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to the employees stating:. (1) that the respond-
ent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease
and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (h) of these recommendations; and (2) that
the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a)
of these recommendations,
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also recommended that so much of the complaint as alleges that the
respondent discussed and settled grievances of its employees within the unit
without participation of the Union ; refused to discuss grievances with the Union
and bargained directly and individually with employees within the unit as to
rates of pay and wages , be dismissed
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective November 26,
1943 , any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen ( 15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington, D C , an original and font copies of a state-
ment in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to
any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all inotions
or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies
of a brief in support thereof Immediately upon the filing of such statement
of exceptions and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director As further provided in said Section 33, should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must
be made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board
CHARLES E. PERSONS,
Trail Ewamnmer
Dated November 29, 1944