Inter-City Advertising Co. of Greensboro, N.C., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 4, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1103 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of INTER-CrrY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO,
N. C., INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of INTER-CrrY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF CHARLOTTE,
N. C., INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRCAL
WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. 34-CA-106 and 34-CA-108.-Decided May 4, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 31, 1949, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson 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 therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Intermediate' Report. The Respondent re-
quested oral argument. This request is hereby denied because the
record, exceptions, and brief, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties.
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 brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, except insofar as they are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, and Order set forth below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that, by threatening its em-
ployees with loss of employment, questioning them regarding union
membership and activities, threatening them with the closing of their
station to prevent unionization, and subjecting them to having their
activities spied upon and reported to General Manager Goan, the
89 NLRB No. 127.
1103
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in.
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In so finding, we have considered the Respondent's contention that
the Trial Examiner arbitrarily credited the testimony of witnesses
against the Respondent and discredited that of witnesses for the
Respondent. On the record as a whole, however, the Trial Examiner's,
credibility findings do not appear to be clearly erroneous. In accord-
ance with our usual practice, we therefore adopt them?
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by discharging
employees James Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., and Haskell Carson,
and transferring and demoting employee Kenneth Higbee, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent excepts to this finding. on the ground that it is
based merely on inference, and that the evidence shows, in each case,
good cause for the Respondent's action. The record shows, however,
that as soon as the Respondent learned, on or about February 11, 1949,
of the union activities of its employees, it entered upon a course of
coercive conduct clearly designed to interfere with the exercise of
their rights under the Act. Thereafter, on February 12, Higbee was
transferred from Station WAYS to Station WCOG; on February 14,
Raiford was discharged; on February 15, Carson and Boyer were
discharged; and on February 26, Higbee was transferred back to,
WAYS, where he was assigned to irregular and less desirable work.
In each case, the Respondent knew or suspected that the employee
involved was sympathetic to the Union.
Like the Trial Examiner, we believe that the timing of these events,
together with the haste and evident lack of planning with which the
Respondent acted, raises a reasonable inference that the discharges
and transfers were discriminatory.2 This inference gains further
support from the statements made by General Manager Goan showing
the Respondent's unyielding opposition to the unionization of its
employees. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the reasons
given by the Respondent for its conduct, which are discussed in detail
in the Intermediate Report, fail to rebut this inference.
The Respondent contends, however, that the Trial Examiner, in
making his findings, arbitrarily failed to draw any inference favorable
to the Respondent from the following circumstances : (1) The evidence
that four other employees, three at Station WKIK and one at WAYS,
' Gulfport Transport, Co., 84 NLRB 613; Lancaster Foundry Corporation , 75 NLRB 255.
2E. Anthony & Sons, Inc . v. N. L. R. B., 163 F. 2d 22 , cert. denied , 332 U. S. 773;
N. L. R. B. v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co., 85 F. 2d 990 (C. A. 4),
affirmed 301 U. S. 142; The American National Bank of St. Paul v. N. L. It. B., 144 F.
2d 268 (C. A. 8) ; N. L. It. B. V. Century Projector Corporation, 141 F. 2d 488 (C. A. 2).
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1105
were laid off because of the Respondent's economy program, the reason
advanced by the Respondent for the discharges of Halford and Boyer;
(2) the absence of any contention that the Respondent discriminated
against employees Arnold Edwards, Henry Poole, B. C. Stewart,
and J. T. Burgess, although they were also active in the Union; (3)
the fact that Higbee, despite his activity in the Union, was kept on
at WAYS and was, as the Respondent asserts, "given every avail-
able opportunity"; and (4) the fact that Boyer was laid off before he
joined the Union, and was not named in the original charge filed by
the Union. In our opinion, these circumstances lend no substantial
support to the Respondent's position; nor do we find any indication
that the Trial Examiner failed to consider them in making his.
findings.
With respect to the Respondent's first point, there is uncontradicteci
testimony in the record that, before the union activities began, the,
Respondent had adopted an economy program, as part of which it
proposed to eliminate part-time employees and to use combination
men instead of control board operators. As the Respondent contends,,
too, it appears that, pursuant to this program, it discharged some
employees.3 However, in view of the precipitate manner in which it
discharged Halford (a control board operator) and Boyer (a part-
time employee), we are convinced that in their cases the economy pro-
gram was not the true reason for the Respondent's action. This con-
viction is strengthened by the fact that, as the Trial Examiner points,
out, the Respondent retained in its employ two part-time employees
(Rust and Higbee), and two technicians (Care and Cooke) who,
worked principally, if not entirely, at the control board, aild that,,
except for Higbee, none of these employees had attended either of the
union meetings.
• As to the Respondent's second point, in our opinion the fact that,
the Respondent did not discriminate against all the employees who
took part in the union activities fails to lend any substantial support.
to the Respondent's contention that it did not discriminate against.
those named in the complaint.,
In the case of Higbee, we disagree with the Respondent's assertion
that he was given every available opportunity after his return to
WAYS ; nor are we convinced, as the Respondent implies, that the
change in his duties resulted from the Respondent's economy program.
3 Carl Rust , the employee who was discharged at WAYS, was reemployed a short time
thereafter.
4 Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al ., 1 NLRB 1, enfd . 303 U. S . 261; The
American National Bank of St. Paul, 52 NLRB 905, enfd. 144 F. 2d 268 (C. A. 8).
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although no new transmitter operator was hired to take his place,
Chief Engineer Chaney, who had previously operated the transmitter
only 7 hours a week, took over a regular 391/2 hour shift. In view of
,Chaney's other duties, which extend to WCOG as well as WAYS, it
seems doubtful that this change was more than a temporary expedient,
adopted as an excuse for dispensing with Higbee's services at the
transmitter.
Finally, as the Respondent asserts, Boyer was discharged before
he joined the Union. However, Goan had previously learned from
Resident Chief Engineer Peeler that Boyer might be a member of
-another union; the Respondent therefore had reason to believe and,
we find, did believe that he would be sympathetic to the Union. And
:although Boyer's name was not included in the original charge, filed
on February 16, 1949, the Union added it by amendment on March
7, 1949. We do not regard this short delay as in any way significant.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by discharging Darrell
D. Peeler, resident chief engineer at Station WCOG, on February
14, 1949, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We
also agree with and adopt, the Trial Examiner's recommendation that
the Respondent reinstate Peeler with back pay.
As the Trial Examiner found, the reason'for Peeler's discharge was
his failure to report to the Respondent the union activities of the non-
supervisory employees under his direction.° We believe it reason-
able to infer that the Respondent's reason for requiring such reports
was to assist it in its campaign against the Union. As we held, with
Judicial approval, in the Vail case,6 the discharge of supervisors for
refusing to aid in such a campaign unlawfully interferes with, re-
-strains, and coerces the nonsupervisory employees involved. Al-
though the Vail case was decided before the amendment of the Act, in
our opinion the amendments have made no change in the law in this
respect.
Our dissenting colleague argues, however, that in this case the evi-
dence fails to show that the Respondent made any demand on Peeler
that he engage in any antiunion activity proscribed by the Act. We
do not agree. The record shows, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report, that on the day before Peeler's discharge, General Manager
6 For the reasons set forth in the intermediate Report , we reject the explanations
advanced by the Respondent for Peeler's discharge. We note, too, that although Goan
told Peeler on February 13 that he , as a supervisor , could not engage in union discus-
sions, the Respondent does not contend that it discharged him for having failed to
-preserve a neutral attitude.
°N. L. R. B. v. Vail Mfg. Co., 158 F. 2d 664 (C. A. 7), cert. denied, 331 U. S. 835,
rehearing denied 332 U. S. 826 , motion to amend and modify decree denied February 10,
1948 ( C. A. 5), cert. denied 334 U. S. 345.
INTER'-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INc.1107
Goan questioned him regarding the union activities at the station and
severely criticized him for not having reported them to the Respondent.
From this, together with the other circumstances in the case, we infer,
as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent considered it a part
of Peeler's duties as a supervisor to discover as well as to report such
matters to enable the Respondent to combat union activity. In any
event, however, we cannot agree with our colleague's assumption that
an employer may rightfully require its supervisors to reveal all in-
formation they may have regarding union activities, no matter how
such information has been obtained. In this case, Goan knew from
Peeler's own admission that he had participated in the union activities
at the station. Clearly, therefore, Goan's inquiry as to the identity of
the employees involved was designed to elicit information obtained by
Peeler in the course of his activities as a prospective union member,
rather than in the normal course of his duties as a supervisor. We do
not believe that the framers of the Act intended to permit employers
to require their supervisors to reveal such information.
Nor do we, under the circumstances here present, find any merit
in the contention urged by the Respondent in its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report that the reinstatement and back pay order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner is improper because Peeler, as a super-
visor, is not within the coverage of the amended Act. It is true that
the amended Act changed the definition of the term "employee" to
exclude, among others, "any individual employed as a supervisor."
The legislative history 7 makes it clear, however, that in considering
this amendment, Congress was concerned only with the relative ad-
visability of barring or continuing the statutory protection formerly
accorded to supervisors who wished to join unions and bargain collec-
tively. By its enactment, Congress did no more than effectuate its
decision to remove any compulsion upon employers to bargain collec-
tively with unions of supervisors or to respect the right of supervisors
to organize. Thus, the Senate Labor Committee, in reporting upon
the bill which later became the amended Act, said: 8
It should be noted that all that the bill does is to leave foremen
in the same position in which they were until the Labor Board
reversed the position it had originally taken in 1943 in the Mary-
land Drydock case (49 NLRB 733) [finding a bargaining unit
consisting of foremen to be inappropriate for purposes of collec-
7 H. Rep. No. 245, on H. R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 15; S. Rep. No. 105, on S.
1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 3-5 ; 93 Cong. Rec. 3423 (Hartley), 3836 (Taft),. 5014
(Ball), 4136-4137 (Ellender), 3443 (Gwinn), 6501 (Murray), 4985 (Pepper), 3446.
(Klein).
s S. Rep. No. 105 on S. 1126, 80th Cong ., let,Sess., p. 5.
889227-51-vol. 89-71
1108 - 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive bargaining under the Act]. In other words, the bill does not
prevent anyone from organizing nor does it prohibit any employer
from recognizing a union of foremen. It merely relieves em-
ployers who are subject to the national act free from any compul-
sion by this National Board or any local agency to accord to the
front line of management the anomalous status. of employees.
In this case, Peeler was not discharged for engaging in union activ-
ities in behalf of supervisors. It is therefore immaterial that such
activities by a supervisor are no longer within the protection of
the Act.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the amended Act that changes
the rights of nonsupervisory employees in any respect here relevant.
Nor is there anything in the legislative history to indicate that Con-
gress intended to make any change in the law heretofore applied in
situations such as this, where the discharge of a supervisor constitutes
an invasion of the rights guaranted to nonsupervisory employees. We
are therefore convinced that in such cases the Board continues to have
power under the amended Act, as it clearly had before its enactment,9
to require the reinstatement with back pay of a supervisor discharged
for refusing to assist in the commission of unfair labor practices.
In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the fact that
Section 10 (c) of the Act, which in this respect remains unchanged by
the amendments, provides that after the Board has found that a person
has engaged in an unfair labor practice, it "shall issue ... an order
requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor prac-
tice, and to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of
employees with or without back pay as will effectuate the policies of
the Act." [Emphasis supplied.] However, in the Phelps Dodge case,-
the Supreme Court, addressing itself to a related problem, held that
the phrase "including reinstatement of employees" was not intended
to narrow the broad power conferred by the authorization "to take
such affirmative action . . . as will effectuate the policies of the Act."
The Court said : ". . . the Board's power to order an opportunity for
employment does not derive from the phrase `including reinstatement
of employees with or without back pay,' and is not limited by it."
In this case, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Peeler's rein-
statement with back pay is necessary in order to restore to the Respond-
ent's nonsupervisory employees their full freedom to exercise the' rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act. '
ON. L. R. B. v. Vail Mfg. Co., supra.
10 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R; B., 313 U. S. 177.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1109
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that on and after
February 15 and April 6, 1949, at Station WAYS, and on and after
February 17, 1949, at Station WCOG, the Respondent refused to bar-
gain with the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of
the Act.'1
a. The appropriate units
We find, as the Trial Examiner did, that all technicians employed
by the Respondent at (1) its studio and transmitter at Station WAYS
at Charlotte, North Carolina, and (2) its studio and transmitter at
Station WCOG at Greensboro, North Carolina, constitute separate
appropriate bargaining units.
As the Respondent asserts, these units differ in scope from the unit
found appropriate by the Board in a representation proceeding de-
cided in 1944,12 and a complaint proceeding decided in 1945,13 both
involving Station WAYS 14 In those cases we found, in accordance
with our usual practice at that time, that transmitter operators alone
constituted an appropriate unit. More recently, however, we have
adopted the practice of including transmitter technicians and studio
technicians in the same unit.15 As there has been no history of bar-
gaining on the basis of our former unit finding, we are not precluded
from now finding, and there is no persuasive reason why we should not
find, that a broader unit is appropriate."
Although at the time of the earlier proceedings the Respondent
contended that a unit of transmitter and studio technicians was ap-
propriate-as found herein-it now contends that all employees
except supervisors at its three stations 17 should be in a single unit.
However, it has offered no evidence to support its' contention that
employees other than technicians should be included; nor are we per-
suaded, in view of the physical separation of the three stations, and the
11 In his Conclusions of Law, the Trial Examiner included February 12, 1949, as one
of the dates of the Respondent' s refusal to bargain at WAYS. As he did not find, and
the record does not show, that the Union requested bargaining until February 15, the
reference to the earlier date is clearly an inadvertent error, which is hereby corrected.
11 Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc., Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, N. C., 55 NLRB 1415.
'Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc., Operators of WAYS, Charlotte, N. C., 61 NLRB 1377,
set aside, 154 F. 2d 244 (C. A. 4).
14 At the time of these decisions , WAYS was the Respondent's only station . There has
been no prior Board case involving Station WCOG.
15 Wodaam Corporation ( Radio Station WOV), 83 NLRB 335, and 84 NLRB 480 ; Sun-
shine Broadcasting Company, 83 NLRB 1244; Mike Benton, d/b/a General Broadcasting
Company, 81 NLRB 422; Great Trails Broadcasting Company, 73 NLRB 396 ; Atlanta
Jornal Company, d/b/a Radio Station WSB, 70 NLRB 1168.
" Mascot Stove Co., 75 NLRB 427.
17 Including Station WKIX at Columbia, South Carolina, which is not involved in this
proceeding.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
absence of any history of bargaining on an over-all basis, that a single
unit would be appropriate. We therefore reject this contention.
The Respondent also contends that the Trial Examiner was in error
in undertaking, in a complaint case, to define and declare the appro-
priate unit without calling for or hearing evidence as to all the factors,
elements, and circumstances pertinent to this issue. But the record
shows that the complaint described the units alleged as appropriate,
that the General Counsel introduced evidence in support thereof, and
that the Respondent had full opportunity to present evidence with re-
spect to its contentions. The Respondent cannot validly maintain
that its own failure to avail itself of this opportunity constituted error
on the part of the Trial Examiner.
b. The Union's majority
The record shows, as the Trial Examiner found, that one of the six
employees in the unit at WAYS 18 was already a member of the Union
on February 11, 1949; the other five signed union membership applica-
tion cards at the meeting on that day; and three of the four employees
in the unit at WCOG signed application cards at the meeting on Feb-
ruary 15, 1949. Thereafter, before the Union requested bargaining,
the Respondent discharged three of the union adherents and trans-
ferred one from WAYS to WCOG. As found above, however, these
changes were discriminatory; they could not, therefore, affect the
Union's representative status. Accordingly, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that on and after February 11, 1949, at Station WAYS, and
on and after February 15, 1949, at Station WCOG, the Union was the
duly designated representative of the employees in the appropriate
units.
c. The refusal to bargain
The record shows, as set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report,
that on February 12, 1949, the Union notified the Respondent that it
had-been designated as the bargaining representative of the technical
employees at WAYS and had filed a petition for. a Board election; on
February 15, by a personal telephone call from one of its representa-
tives, and on April 6, by letter, it requested bargaining conferences on
behalf of these employees; and on February 17, by letter, it notified
the Respondent that it had been designated as the bargaining repre-
1e In discussing the Union 's majority , the Intermediate Report incorrectly states that
there were five technicians at the transmitter and one at the studios at WAYS. The
record shows that there were four ( Stewart, Rust , Edwards, and Higbee ) at the trans-
mitter and two (Halford and Poole ) at the studio.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC. 1111
sentative of the technical employees at WCOG, and requested a bar-
gaining conference on their behalf. The Respondent refused to see the
union representative on February 15, and made no reply to the Union's
letters.
In justification of its conduct, the Respondent contends, in part, that
it reasonably believed it could await certification of the Union before
bargaining." We find no merit in this contention. As we have previ-
ously held, an employer may insist on a Board election as proof of a
union's majority if it is motivated by a bona fide doubt of that ma-
jority "° In this case, however, the Respondent, after learning that the
Union had filed a representation petition, engaged in unfair labor
practices, including the discriminatory discharge of union adherents,
clearly designed to make a free election impossible. We are convinced,
therefore, that the Respondent's failure to reply to the Union's requests
for bargaining ,was not motivated by any bona fide doubt as to its ma-
jority, but by a desire to gain further time in which to undermine its
support. Under these circumstances, the fact that a petition had been
filed furnishes no defense to the refusal to bargain 21
ORDER
Upon the entire record iti 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
Company of Charlotte, N. C., Inc., and Inter-City Advertising Com-
pany of Greensboro, N. C., Inc., and each of them, and the officers,
agents, successors, and assigns of each of them, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F. of L., as the ex-
clusive representative of their employees in the units herein found
appropriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A.-F. of L., or in any other
"The Respondent also contends that the Union , in making its requests for bargaining,
did not clearly define the unit sought. In our opinion , the notice given by the Union that
it had been designated as the bargaining representative of the Respondent's technical
employees at WAYS and WCOG, respectively, was sufficient in this respect. In any event,
,the Respondent did not ask the Union to clarify its position. The Respondent's further
contention that the proposed unit was not appropriate has been discussed in Section 4 (a),
above.
10 The Cufman Lumber Company, Inc., 82 NLRB 296; Artcraft Hosiery Company, 78
NLRB 333, and cases cited therein.
21 N. L. R. B. v. National Seal Corporation , 127 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 2).
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organization of their employees, by discharging or transferring
any of their employees , or discriminating in any other manner in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment , or any term or condition
of their employment;
(c) Questioning their employees concerning their membership in,
and activities on behalf of, the Union ; threatening their employees
with loss of employment should they assist, become , or remain mem-
bers of the Union or engage in concerted activity; threatening to close
their operations in order to discourage membership in the Union ; or
requesting or requiring their supervisors to spy upon , or inquire into,
the employees ' union activities;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229 ,.A. F. of L., or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the . Act, and to refrain from , any or all
of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
.condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to James Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., Haskell Carson,
and Kenneth Higbee immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them , by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the Respondent 's discrimination against him to
the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his net earn-
ings, if any , during the same period;
(b) Offer to Darrell D . Peeler immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position as resident chief engineer at Radio Station WCOG,
or to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discharge, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his dis-
charge to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his
net earnings , if any, during the same period;
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., nvc.1113
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F. of L., as the ex-
clusive representative of all their employees in the units found appro-
priate, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, of employment, or
other terms or conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement;
(d) Post at their studios and transmitters at Radio Station
WAYS at Charlotte, North Carolina, and at Radio Station WCOG at
Greensboro, - North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked Appendix A.22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) 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.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, concurring and dissenting in part:
It is my opinion that the facts in this case will not support the
conclusion of the majority of my colleagues that Peeler's discharge
was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In the testimony
credited by the Trial Examiner I find no demand upon Peeler by higher
management to engage in any unfair labor practices. That testi-
mony consisted of an inquiry of Peeler as to "What is this business
.about the Union?" Goan further inquired as to why Peeler had
not told him of any dissatisfaction or trouble and which operators
were members of the Union and severely criticized him for not
relaying what information he possessed to higher management.
Nowhere in this reported and credited testimony do I find a de-
mand, express or implied, that Peeler engage in surveillance of
the union activities of the employees in the station or to engage in
any other proscribed antiunion activity.23 The information which
Peeler had obtained was, so far as the record shows, obtained law-
fully. We have never held that an employer has no right to know
that organizational activities were taking place in his plant or
23 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted , before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words : "A DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
23 For the foregoing reasons, I do not believe the decision in the Vail case, footnote 9,
supra, germane to the issue here present.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
which of his employees were promoting such activities. Our sole
proscription has been against obtaining this knowledge in such
a manner as to hinder the employees in their right to engage in
union activities free from duress by their employer. No such con-
ditions pertain here.' Certainly' it was not the intention of the
framers of this Act to circumscribe the rights of the members of
management to discuss among themselves any and all matters per-
taining to the unionization of their employees. I therefore am
of the opinion that Goan's inquiries of Peeler were lawful and
A hat his discharge was not in violation of the Act. I otherwise
'concur in the unfair labor practice findings made herein.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the aboie
.Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their member-
ship in, and activities on behalf of, the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment
if they become or remain members of the Union or engage in con-
certed activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our. operations in order to dis-
courage membership in the, Union.
WE WILL NOT request or require our. supervisors to spy upon, on
inquire into, our. employees' union activities ;
WE WILL NOT.iIf any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229,
A. F. OF L., or.any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
of such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ-
24 Cf. Standard -Coost Thatcher, 85 NLRB 1358 ; Goodall Company, 86 NLRB 814; D. A.
Laboratories, Inc., 86 NLRB 711.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GRE ENSBORO, N . C., INC.1115
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8
(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the individuals named below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct.
James Halford Haskell Carson
John T. Boyer, Jr. Kenneth Higbee
Darrell D. Peeler
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. OF.
L., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargain-
ing units described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining units are :
Unit at 117AYS : All technicians employed by the Respondent
at its studio and transmitter in the operation of Radio Station
WAYS in Charlotte, North Carolina, excluding all other employ-
ees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
Unit at WCOG : All technicians employed by the Respondent
at its studio and transmitter in the operation of Radio Station
WCOG in Greensboro, North Carolina, excluding all other em
ployees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment, against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No.
1229, A. F. OF L., or any other labor organization.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF CHARLOTTE, N. C.,
Employer.
By - -------------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C.,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------------------- ----------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ---------=--------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
qLi d must not be altered, defaced$ or covered by any other material.: ,
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Sidney J. Barban , Esq., for the General Counsel.
Whiteford S. Blakeney , Esq., of Pierce & Blakeney, of Charlotte , N. C., for the
Respondents.
Messrs. Sterling L. Hicks, of Charlotte , N. C., and John A. Thompson, of
Washington , D. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed on February 16, February 21,
March 7, and March 31, 1940, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 1229, A. F. of L., hereinafter called the Union, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General
Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore,
Maryland), issued his complaint dated June 6, 1.949, alleging that Inter-City
Advertising Company of Greensboro, N.'C., Inc., and Inter-City Advertising Com-
pany of Charlotte, N. C., Inc., hereinafter referred to as either the Respondents
or individually as WAYS or WCOG, had engaged, and were engaging, in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1),
(3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies of the complaint and
charges, together with a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondents
and the Union.'
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged that: (1)
about February 1, 1949, and continuously thereafter, the Respondents, and each
of them, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by various enumerated activities
committed by the Respondents' officers, agents, and supervisors ; (2) on or about
February 14, 1949, Respondent WCOG discharged Darrell D. Peeler for having
failed to report on the union activities of the employees and otherwise refusing
to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the Respondents' employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; (3) on February 15, 1949,
Respondent WCOG discharged John T. Boyer, Jr., and Haskell E. Carson in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act; (4) that on or about February 14, 1949,
Respondent WAYS discharged James H. Halford and on or about February 13,
1949, transferred Kenneth Higbee in violation of Section 8 (a.) (3) of the Act;
and (5) on or about-February 17, 1949, and February 18, 1949, and thereafter,
the Respondents, and each of them, have refused and, at all times thereafter,
have continued to refuse, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of its employees in the respective appropriate units consisting of all the
technical employees at each of said stations.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from June 21 to June 29, 1949, at Char-
lotte, North Carolina, and on July 11, 1949, at Greensboro, North Carolina, before
the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel, the Respondents, and the Union were represented at the
hearing. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues. At the commencement of the hearing, a motion
1 By order dated June 6, 1949, it was ordered that the above cases be consolidated for
hearing.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1117
to sever the cases for trial made by the Respondents was denied . Thereafter
the Respondents moved that the complaint be made more definite and certain.
This motion was granted in part and denied in part with which ruling the General
Counsel complied orally. Thereafter the Respondents made oral answer to the
complaint , admitting various factual allegations contained therein but denying
the commission of any unfair labor practices ? At the conclusion of the hearing
the parties waived oral argument . Subsequently , a brief has been received from
the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
At all times material herein until May 1, 1949, Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc.,
a North Carolina corporation, owned and operated, under license from the Federal
Communications Commission, Radio Stations WAYS at Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, WCOG at Greensboro, North Carolina, and WKIX at Columbia, South
Carolina.
On May 1, 1949, with the permission of the Federal Communications Commis-
sion, Inter-City Advertising Co., Inc., transferred all the assets and liabilities
of Radio Station WAYS to Inter-City Advertising Company of Charlotte, N. C.,
Inc., a North Carolina corporation, and all the assets and liabilities of Radio
Station WCOG to Inter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro, N. C., Inc., a
North Carolina corporation,
All of the shares of stock of the two new corporations were transferred to
the same four individuals, who had been the sole owners of stock in the
original corporation, in the same proportion as their stock ownership therein.
The successor corporations continued to have the same general manager and
chief engineer and continued the same operations as previously. The Respond-
ents stipulated that with respect to each of the stations, the predecessor com-
pany and the successor companies may be considered as one and the same.
The Respondents, in the course and conduct of their operations and in the
operation of Radio Stations WAYS and WCOG, receive news, intelligence, com-
mercial programs, and sustaining programs originating outside of the State of
North Carolina, which programs and information together with programs of
local origin are then broadcast and transmitted from said radio stations located
in North Carolina to points and places in the State of North Carolina and to
points and places in States of the United States other than the State of North
Carolina.
Respondent WAYS broadcasts programs of the American Broadcasting Com-
pany and of the Mutual Broadcasting Company, national broadcasting systems, as
well as programs originating locally. Approximately two-thirds of the programs
broadcast by Station WAYS originate outside of the State of North Carolina.
The annual gross revenue of Respondent WAYS from its operations is in excess
of $50,000 a year.
Respondent WCOG broadcasts programs of the American Broadcasting Com-
pany, a national broadcasting system, as well as programs originating locally.
2 Subsequent to the close of the hearing, at the Examiner's request, the Respondents have
filed an answer in writing. It is hereby ordered that said answer be, and the sfine is,
hereby made a part of the record in these cases.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Approximately two-thirds of the programs broadcast by Station WCOG originate
outside of the State of North Carolina. The annual gross revenue of Respondent
WCOG from its operations is in excess of $25,000 a year.
The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondents and each of them.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The present case involves the second ;attempt of the Union to organize the
Respondent's employees at Radio Station WAYS. In 1944, upon the Union's
petition for certification at WAYS, the board found that a unit of technical
employees at Station WAYS excluding the control board operators was the
appropriate unit. After the Union had been certified, the Respondent refused
to bargain with the Union on the ground that the Board's ruling excluding the
control board operators from the appropriate unit made the unit inappropriate.
Thereafter the Board issued its Decision and Order requiring the Respondent to
bargain with the Union, even though at the time of the Board's Order the Union's
majority status in the appropriate unit had been dissipated by means of transfers
and layoffs of employees, which the Board specifically found were not dis-
criminatory. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit re-
fused to enforce the Board's Order because of the nondiscriminatory dissipation
of the Union's majority.
B. The discharges; interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Chronology
The Respondent , as its general manager testified , is a "small , close organiza-
tion." On February 11, 1949, Respondent WAYS employed a total staff of 30
persons exclusive of General Manager Goan and Chief Engineer Chaney, while
Respondent WCOG had even less personnel, employing only 16 persons exclusive
of Station Manager Anderson. The operations at WAYS are conducted in 2
different locations ; 1 in downtown Charlotte, where the business offices and
studios- are located and the other, the transmitter station, located outside of
Charlotte. This same physical setup exists at Greensboro at WCOG. Only.
radio technicians work at the transmitter stations while control-board operators
are the only technicians employed at the studios.
At all times material herein, Walter H. Goan has been the general manager and
A. Lon Chaney the chief engineer of both Radio Stations WAYS and WCOG.
Goan's authority extends over all the employees at both stations, while that of
Chaney extends only to the transmitter operators and the control-board oper-
ators at both stations. Harry Barfield has been the program director at WAYS
while Gordon Anderson has been the general manager at WCOG. All these indi-
viduals are admittedly supervisors. -
Shortly before the first of February 1949, the technical employees a at WAYS
3 The transmitter operators at WAYS were B. C. Stewart, Carl Rust , Arnold Edwards,
and Kenneth Higbee and the control-board operators were lames Halford and Henry Poole.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1119
began discussing the desirability of joining the Union. On or about February 1,
1949, operator Edwards arranged a meeting for February 11 with Sterling L.
Hicks, business agent at Local 1229, so that the WAYS technicians could join
the Union. All of the WAYS technicians including the control-board operators
were advised of the meeting date. On the afternoon of Friday, February 11, Hal-
ford was talking about the meeting that evening over the telephone in the control
room of the studio. His conversation was overheard by Announcer Alonzo
Squires, who had overheard several other remarks during the previous 2 days,
and convinced him that the technicians were organizing into a union. That same
afternoon Squires reported to Goan that the technicians were attending a union
meeting that night.
The radio technicians at WCOG ` including Resident Chief Engineer Peeler,
on the other hand, had been discussing the advisability of joining a union for
several months. It had even been discussed with two of the women employees
at the studio. One of their number had spoken about the operators' desire to
join the Union to the I. B. E. W. business agent in Greensboro, who advised that
they should see Sterling Hicks, business agent of the radio section of the
I. B. E. W. for North Carolina, who notified Hicks that the WCOG operators
were interested in organizing. Prior to February 15, the operators themselves
had not been in direct contact with Hicks.
During most of the morning of February 11, Goan was at the Respondent's
Columbia, South Carolina, station, WKIX. While there, Goan testified that he
decided upon the discharge of, and ordered his Charlotte office to draw final
salary checks for, James Halford, control-board operator at WAYS, and Darrell
Peeler, at WCOO. Goan left Columbia in the utter part of the morning, bring-
ing with him that station's chief engineer, Wade Hampton, for an overnight visit
in Charlotte.
Upon his arrival in Charlotte, Goan called Poole, a control-board operator at
the studio, to his office and, with Miss Byrd, his secretary, present, at Goan's
request asked Poole if he had heard any of the boys talking about joining the
Union, if he knew anything about the meeting the boys had scheduled that
evening, and if he knew anything about unions. Poole answered in the nega-
tive. Goan continued by stating that he knew about the meeting, that the
Company had beaten a previous attempt by the Union to organize at the station
although it had cost the Company about $1,000 and that they were not going
to have a union at the station now. Goan concluded by saying that he was
certainly sorry for Poole.`
' The transmitter operators were Darrell Peeler, resident chief engineer, Jolrn T. Boyer,
Jr., Haskell E. Carson, and J. T. Burgess. The control-board operator was Glenn Cooke.
5 Goan and Miss Byrd both denied this conversation in its entirety. Their version of
the conversation was that Goan told Poole that he had heard "numerous complaints" that
Poole was "ill and uncooperative and just generally griping" and inquired if there was
anything wrong or anything that Goan could do.
As Goan did not testify that he had heard complaints about Poole prior to the conver-
sation of February 11 but did testify to having heard a complaint about Poole after
February 11 from Announcer Squires, the undersigned believes Goan and Miss Byrd were
testifying about a conversation with Poole which took place after February 11 and not
about the conversation of February 11.
Poole appeared to be a straightforward and forthright witness who was able to recall
the bad as well as the good. Miss Byrd's memory about the conversation to which she
testified was excellent but her memory about anything relating to the Union appeared
to be a void until confronted with written documents on cross -examination . Goan's
credibility will be discussed hereinafter.
In view of the above , the undersigned accepts the version of the conversation as testified
to by Poole as found above.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 4 p. m. that same afternoon, Goan telephoned to operator Higbee at
the transmitter where Higbee was on duty, and asked. Higbee to report at the
studio after his shift ended at 6 p. m. as he had a job which he wished Higbee
to do for him. At first, Higbee agreed to meet Goan as requested but later,
deciding to attend the union meeting that evening, Higbee called Goan back
and told him that something more important had come up which would prevent
his coming to the studio.
Goan had another important conversation sometime that same afternoon.
b n this occasion, Announcer Squires came to Goan's office and reported that
he had overheard Halford's telephone conversation and that the technicians
were having a union meeting that night. Squires acknowledged at the hearing
'that for the previous 2 days he had been overhearing other conversations between
,other employees at the studio which led him to the same conclusion
On the evening of February 11, as scheduled, Business Agent Hicks met with
the WAYS operators at which time Higbee, Poole, Halford, Stewart, and Edwards
all signed union membership application cards and paid part or all of their
initiation fees.
When Higbee returned to his home at midnight from this.meeting, he found
a note requesting him to telephone Goan. During this call, Goan ordered Higbee
not to open up the station that morning as Higbee had been scheduled to do,
but, instead, to report to Goan at the studio at 9 a. m. Upon reporting at the
studio as requested, Goan asked Higbee if the Company had ever done anything
to cause Higbee to lose faith in it. After Higbee answered "no," Goan stated
that, if Higbee had trouble with his family, he would not go to the neighbors
L On direct examination Goan testified regarding this report as follows :
Q. Did he [Squires] say what kind of a meeting?
A. Yes, sir ; I believe he did. I believe he said a union meeting.
Q. Was that the first you had ever known or heard of any union at any of the
Company's stations?
A. That is the first anyone had said anything to me.
Q. Is it the first you had known of it by any means?
A. It is the first I had known of it by any means.
It Is impossible to believe that Goan remained in ignorance of this organizational effort
until February 11 with as much talk about it in the studio as Squires described. Goan
himself described the phenomena very graphically when ascribing the reason which caused
him to give a talk to the staff in march 1945: ". . . For the last few days I had noticed a
.little anxiety and unrest, which Is very noticeable in a small, close organization like ours,
and I was sorry it happened. I think the reason for it was the rumors among the staff,
which I felt all of them had heard, to the effect we had a union or were going to have a
union...
The Board itself has given cognizance to this phenomena in Firestone Tire and Rubber
Co., 62 NLRB 1316 at 1325 where it said : "Experience, evidenced by the Board's considera-
tion of hundreds of similar situations over the past several years, and a realistic view of
the matter, make it evident that in small shops such as this, union activities become gen-
erally known, at least where no attempt is made to keep then secret, and often even then."
The undersigned, therefore, is unable to credit Goan's testimony on this point and
finds that Goan and the Respondent had information regarding the union activity among
the technicians prior to February 11.
Nor is the undersigned able to credit the testimony of Goan and Squires that Squires
made his report as late as 5: 30 p. in. on February 11. Squires appears to have been one
of Goan's better sources of information regarding his employees (a report by Squires to
Goan on a purported remark made by Poole being an example of this), and hardly the
type to postpone reporting such important information as union activities to Goan. As
Squires overheard this conversation of Halford's during the afternoon, the undersigned
finds that he reported the same promptly thereafter and prior to Goan's conversations
with Poole and Higbee.
INTER-CIT'Y ADVERT'IS'ING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1121
to have them settle the dispute so "why take your troubles to the Union and
have them do your fighting for you?" Goan then stated that he would not
have a union in the station as the Company was so small that a union was
not necessary. Then Goan inquired if Higbee would help him by relieving a
"sick" operator at another station. Higbee agreed to do this if the transfer
would not be permanent. Goan made arrangements to pick Higbee up to drive
him to this new assignment and then sent Higbee home.' Higbee did not stand
his regular shifts at the transmitter on Saturday or Sunday.
Later on the morning of February 12, Goan walked into the control room
and asked Poole if be had attended the union meeting the night before. Al-
though Poole had attended that meeting, he denied the fact to Goan. Poole re-
mained on his job.
At about 12: 15 p. in. that day when Edwards reported for his regular shift
at the transmitter, he was met by Chaney who ordered him to remove his
Federal Communications Commission license from the station' and report to
Goan at the studio. When Edwards reached the studio, Goan told him that
the Company was going to make a "lot of changes," that Edwards should take
a few days off "to think things over" and then to report back to him on Monday.
Edwards stood none of his scheduled shifts at the transmitter on Saturday
or Sunday.
About the same time that Saturday, Chaney telephoned control-board operator
Halford at the studio and asked him if the boys had joined the Union the night
before. Halford acknowledged that they had! About an hour and a half
later that afternoon, Program Director Barfield took Halford into his office and
told him that the Company was going to try "something different" in the control
room for a few days so that Halford should take a few days off and return to see
Barfield on Monday. Although Halford had several shifts scheduled for Satur-
day and Sunday, he stood none of them.
On the morning of Saturday, February 12, WAYS was opened by Wade Hamp-
ton who had come to Charlotte with Goan the day before on an overnight visit io
Goan made the decision that Hampton was to open the station instead of Higbee
during the evening of February 11." Chief Engineer Chaney apparently relieved
Hampton that day about noon and stood watch for the rest of the day. None of
the regular operators at the transmitter worked Saturday as Hampton and
Chaney operated the transmitter alone. The first knowledge that Chaney had
of these shifts in the operator's schedule under his supervision came when he
arrived at the transmitter that Saturday and found Hampton on watch. Hamp-
ton and Chaney continued to stand extra watches at the transmitter of WAYS
for the following several days in order to keep the station on the air.
On Sunday, February 13, Goan drove Higbee to the studio of Station WCOG
in Greensboro," where he introduced Higbee to Manager Anderson as a "fine
Goan admitted the interview but denied that he did more than request Higbee to help
him out at another station for a couple of weeks.
The law requires that the operator's license should be posted at the station at all times.
Chaney denied, this conversation. The undersigned accepts the credible testimony of
Halford as found above. Chaney's testimony will be commented upon hereinafter.
10 Hampton continued to open up the station for 4 days.
"This would indicate that Goan's 4 p. in. telephone call to Higbee did not relate to a
transfer to Greensboro.
" Originally Goan had planned to drive Higbee to Greensboro on February 12, Saturday,
but, according to his own testimony , he became too busy on Saturday to make the trip
and therefore postponed It until Sunday.
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
young man," who had been "a little misled by the older fellows" but should do
well at WCOG. In Anderson's presence, Goan asked Higbee if he carried a union
card which Higbee denied. Thereupon Goan stated that he would not have a
union.man in the station's Later, the men drove to the transmitter where Goan,
in a private conversation with Higbee, inquired if Higbee had changed his mind
about the Union to which Higbee answered that he was sticking "to the fellows
at Charlotte even if he lost his job." Goan then exacted a promise from Higbee
that he would not talk about the Union to the operators at WCOG nor would
he telephone to the operators at Charlotte. Goan added that be would fight the
-Union to the Company's last penny and that if Chaney had "told him about this
sooner he would have broken it up before it got this far." 14
In the afternoon, Resident Chief Engineer Peeler appeared at the trans-
mitter in response to a summons from Goan." Goan and Anderson then took
Peeler for a routine inspection to No. 2 transmitter tower located about 100
feet from the transmitter where they could converse without being overheard.
After a few words of desultory general conversation, Goan suddenly inquired:
"What is this business about the Union?" Peeler explained that "we," the
operators at WCOG, had been discussing the advisability of joining the
Union and investigating as to what the Union could do for them. Goan said :
"Mr. Peeler, if there has been anything wrong out here or any dissatisfaction
.or trouble, why haven't you told me or Mr. Anderson? We don't want things
.like that, going on." Peeler answered. that he did not think that that was a
part of his duties. Goan then criticized Peeler severely for not having re-
ported the union activity to Anderson or himself. Goan inquired who Peeler
had referred to as "we" and who the operators were who had been discussing
11 Both Goan and Anderson deny this transpired. '. .. .
14 On direct examination Goan's denial of this is illuminating :
Q. Now he [Higbee] says the next morning or the next day, whenever you got to
Greensboro, that in the presence of Anderson you asked if he held a union.card.
Did you make any such statement?
A. Not in that manner; no, Sir.
Q. In what kind of manner did you make it?
A. As I recall, the only conversation I had with Mr. Higbee up there was "How
do you like this station? How would you like to stay here?" And I asked him to
consider that, and I think there were some general remarks made in the way of a
jest that the boys here had been riding him about his car. He had a wreck with
his car. They were just gibing him. I don't see anything that would have precisely
mislead.
Q. Did you ask him if he had a union card?
A. I did not.
s s a s a a a
Q. He says also before you left you talked to him again and asked him had he
changed his mind about the Union, and asked him to promise he would not talk union
and would not call back to Charlotte, that he would forget everything and he told
you he would.
A. I asked him how he liked the station, what he thought about it, that It was
possibly a permanent job and could be arranged there. I told him we would talk
about it at a later date, but to my surprise he replied, and said, "No," or words to
this effect "I am going back to Charlotte and stay with the boys, even if I lose my job."
# t 4 C i - t 9
Goan then denied making the last two statements found. Chaney testified that he
knew nothing about the Union until the second week of June 1949 when Goan told him
about it which is probably the most inherently improbable testimony produced at the
'hearing.
"February 13 was Peeler's day off. He received the summons while visiting his family
110 miles from Greensboro.
INTER-CITY ADVE'RT'ISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1123,
the Union. Peeler answered that he, himself, had been in on the discussions.
-Whereupon Goan informed Peeler that he could not do that as he was a super-
visor but appreciated the fact that Peeler was "man enough" to admit his
own participation. Peeler answered that he could see nothing "shameful"
about it. Peeler was then asked if Boyer were a member of the Union..
Peeler suggested that Boyer, who worked part time for a newspaper, might
be a member of the newspaper union. Goan stated that he "had heard" about
these things and had tried to give Peeler a chalice but was not "too very
well pleased" with Peeler's services . Although Goan testified that he had
Peeler's final pay check in his pocket at the time, he excused Peeler without
mentioning one word about discharging him.11
That evening over the telephone Anderson requested Peeler to report at
Anderson's office in the morning. At this morning session Anderson handed
Peeler his final check saying that he hoped there would be nothing personal
about, it. Peeler inquired as to why he was being discharged. Anderson
volunteered that it was "not for union activities" and that he thought that
Goan had covered the subject pretty thoroughly the day before. Before
Peeler left the station, Anderson admonished him "not to talk to the other
fellows under any conditions" and "don't mention the union end of it." 17
About 6: 30 p. in. in a conference 18 at the WCOG studio, Goan and Ander-
son offered the position of resident chief engineer to Haskell Carson who
objected that he did not want to replace his very good friend Peeler and,
in addition, did not feel qualified to fill the position. At the insistence of
Goan and Anderson, Carson agreed to fill in temporarily after Goan had
informed him that Peeler was to be replaced whether Carson accepted the
position or not and after Goan had promised that, if for any reason Carson
later decided not to take the position permanently, Carson could return to
his regular j'ob as operator. After Goan had told him to say nothing about
the promotion to the other operators as Anderson would convey the informa-
tion to them, Carson left the studio.
16 The above findings are made on the credible testimony of Peeler whose testimony was
corroborated by both Goan and Anderson in almost all essential details. The main dis-
agreement between the witnesses as to this conversation was that Goan and Anderson
testified that, upon reaching the No. 2 Tower, Goan asked Peeler : "well, how is everything
everyone ?" and that thereupon Peeler "volunteered" the information about the Union.
The undersigned finds it impossible to believe that Goan summoned Peeler a distance of
110 miles on his day off to ask him such an inconsequential question.
Furthermore , the undersigned believes , and therefore finds, that the object of Goan's
visit to Greensboro on February 1.3 was to con$rm what lie had already heard about
"this union business " among the WCOG operators and consequently that he asked the
question as testified to by Peeler. On the other hand, the undersigned is unable to credit
Goan's explanation that this trip was made for the purpose of discharging Peeler. If
such had indeed been the purpose of the trip, Goan would have discharged Peeler instead
of talking to him about the Union. Goan made no attempt to explain why he failed to
discharge Peeler when he supposedly had Peeler's check in his pocket.
Anderson proved to be a shifting, evasive witness whose testimony was subject to
change without notice. Anderson's testimony regarding the date upon which it was
determined that Peeler should be dismissed on February 1.4 was revealing. He originally
testified positively that the date of the determination was February 14, the very day on
which Peeler was actually discharged . In answer to subsequent questions be variously
set this date as in January and as February 11.
17 Peeler's testimony about this conversation stands undenied on the record.
18 This appointment was' made after the conversation with Peeler at No. 2 Tower for
Respondent had made no efforts to secure a replacement for Peeler prior to that con-
versation.
889227-51-vol. 89-72
1 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While Carson was on watch Monday morning, February 14, Anderson in-
quired about Carson's decision about accepting the position permanently.
;Carson agreed to take the position 'for a 2 weeks' period to determine if he
could handle it.
That same afternoon Anderson reappeared at the transmitter and walked
(Carson out to No. 2 Tower where he inquired if Carson had decided to take the
job permanently yet. Carson told Anderson that he had learned that Peeler had
been discharged because Goan thought he was a "go-between" between the Union
at Charlotte and the operators at Greensboro, that the Company was trying to use
Carson as a "union-breaker," and that he did not want the position of resident
.chief operator under these conditions and asked to be relieved of the duties of
resident chief engineer as quickly as possible. During the, ensuing conversation
about the Union, Carson stated that he would join the Union if it came to
Greensboro.
Anderson promptly reported his conversation with Carson to Goan who there-
,upon decided to discharge Carson thereby repudiating his promise to Carson.
On Tuesday, February 15, at about 3 p. in., Sterling Hicks, business agent of
Local 1229, telephoned the WCOG transmitter station where he talked with
Boyer and arranged to meet with the operators at WCOG that same afternoon 1°
Boyer notified the operators to gather at the station for the meeting with Hicks.
Carson, Burgess, Peeler, Boyer, and Higbee, all the transmitter operators then
at WCOG, met at the transmitter station and, at Hicks' suggestion, all of them
except Boyer who was on duty adjourned to Carson's house which was located a
very short'distance from, and within view of, the station. All the men except
Higbee signed union application cards and paid the initiation fee to the Union.
While this meeting was in progress at the Carson home, Anderson and Chaney
arrived at. the transmitter station from which they sent word that they wanted
to see Carson. Carson, Anderson, and Chaney then walked out to No. 2 Tower
where Chaney told Carson that they would not be needing him any more after
that date. Carson inquired if he was to stand his regular watch and was told,
"no." After Anderson had paid him off in cash, Carson returned to the meeting
and announced that he had been dismissed.
At approximately the same time as the Carson discharge, and while still at
the station, Chaney told Boyer that the Respondent was not going to use part-
time operators any more and so it would not need him any longer. After
Anderson paid him off, Boyer went over to the Carson home where he announced
to the meeting which was still in progress that lie, too, had been discharged.
Boyer also signed a union application card.
For the next 2 weeks' period, Chaney, Higbee, and Burgess operated the
transmitter at WCOG while Goan at WAYS was wiring and telegraphing for
other operators to relieve the station which was then short handed.
Goan himself was in Charlotte on Monday, February 14. That day, when
Halford reported, Goan told Halford that he was going to have to cut down on
expenses and was, therefore, going to have to let Halford go. Halford was
thereupon paid off and given 2 weeks' separation pay.
When Edwards reported back on Monday morning, as ordered, Goan asked
him if he would like the job of assistant chief engineer at `WOG or WKIX.
19 Carson had previously talked with Edwards at WAYS and had been told that Hicks
would be in Greensboro that week so that the WCOG operators were expecting him at any
time.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1125
Edwards refused the proposed transfers because he was settled in Charlotte and
,did not want to move. Goan told him to talk it over with his wife and see which
place she would prefer to go. However, Edwards returned to his old position
at WAYS and has been there ever since.
On February 19, however, Goan saw Edwards at the transmitter station again
and inquired of him what he had expected to gain from the Union. Edwards
told him.
Also on that same day, February 19, Goan saw Stewart, who was the acting
chief engineer at WAYS on the occasions when Chaney was absent from the
:station, and asked Stewart why lie had not reported "this union business" to
him while it was going on. Stewart answered that he did not think that it was
any of his business to report such matters. Goan replied, "Well, you area super-
visory employee, you should report such things to me." 20
On the evening of February 19, Higbee, who was visiting in Charlotte, and
Poole went out to the transmitter to see Edwards. Goan calve in and invited
them into his apartment which adjoins the transmitter. When the operators
were in the apartment, Goan told them that he did not want them bothering
the operator on duty, that, in fact, he did not want them in the transmitter at
any time and then inquired what they expected to get. out of the Union. After
both had expressed what they each desired, Goan told Poole that he was not
even qualified to vote 21 and that he had a dozen, good reasons to discharge him.
Goan was asked why he had discharged the other men. Goan stated that Peeler
was let go because he was not a satisfactory supervisor, was radical and hot-
headed, and beiause he spent the Company's money foolishly ; that Boyer was
terminated because of the decision to eliminate part-time men ; that Carson had
been offered a better job but had refused to accept it full time; 22 and that Halford
had been discharged because he was reducing expenses. Poole inquired why
Goan was taking such a "dog-eat-dog attitude," to which Goan answered that lie
had built the Company up from nothing and that he was not going to sit by and
allow the Company to be pulled down by outside parties and that he would shut
the station down before they would have a union. He also stated, "I don't care
what you boys do in your Union. I have got this Union licked now anyway." 28
20 Goan denied this conversation testifying that on this occasion he asked if everything
was all right and "Is there anything I can do for you." The undersigned accepts Stewart's
testimony as found above.
21 Obviously a reference to the possible Board election.
22 Goan testified that he told the employees that Carson quit.
23 Goan- and Mrs. Goan testified in regard to this incident that as soon as the operators
had gotten into the Goan apartment, Mrs. Goan asked them if they would have a Coca
Cola, then went into the kitchen to fix the drinks, that the men had some conversa-
tion while she was in the kitchen but that, when the men asked why the operators had been
fired tit WCOG and WAYS, Goan calve into the kitchen and told his wife to listen to the
remainder of the conversation that it "might be used against him" ; that they then served
the Coca Colas together and firs. Goan went into the bedroom where she listened in on the
conversation surreptitiously. Both of them recalled distinctly the reasons which Goan
gave for the discharge of the employees but both deny the conversation about the Union.
Goan and his wife testified that the operators thanked Goan for his explanation of the
discharges stating that they had been "all mixed up." Strangely enough, even this
remark apparently did not pique Airs. Goan's curiosity for she testified that, after the
men had left, she and Goan had no further conversation about the meeting nor about the
reason for her husband's ordering her to eavesdrop. Like Miss Byrd, Mrs. Goan testified
that she knew nothing about a union, either before or after this incident, nor did she know
why her husband had requested her to listen in on the conversation. A large portion of
this conversation could have taken place prior to the time Mrs. Goan began to listen
in on it . It is strange to find two women in the same case so lacking in feminine curiosity
as. Miss Byrd ,and Mrs. ,Goan.
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 26, the Respondents suddenly transferred Higbee back to WAYS
without any further request therefor from Higbee. During the period of his
service at WCOG, it was customary for General Manager Anderson to telephone
to Higbee and ask him if he had heard any of the boys talking about the Union u
On these occasions, Higbee would deny having heard any such conversations.
But the fact was that Higbee himself was talking about the Union to the WCOG
operators in contravention of his "promise" to Goan. Since his return to WAYS,
where he was still employed at the date of hearing, Higbee has been employed
part time monitoring a rival station, doing menial labor around the station or
doing nothing. Although no new operators had been hired, he was not returned
to his regular shift. His work has been irregular. He has been paid his regular
rate of pay for the hours he has actually worked.
Sometime during the last of March, Goan called a staff meeting of the em-
ployees. Goan called this meeting because as he testified, he "had noticed a,
little anxiety and unrest , which is very noticeable in a small, close organization
like ours, and I was sorry it has happened. I think the reason for it was the
rumors among the staff which I felt sure all of them had heard, to the effect we
had a union or were going to have a union . . ." At the meeting, Goan apolo-
gized to the staff members present for the unrest caused among them by the
attempt of the technical department to organize. He told the employees that
there was no union at WAYS at that time, that he did not believe the employees
needed one and hoped that they would never need one and "to my knowledge,
there never will be a union at WAYS." 25
In June of this year; Goan held a staff conference for the transmitter operators
and Poole, who was invited to attend at the special request of Goan, at which
Goan spoke about the improvements the Company had planned for television and
for the new transmitter station. In addition, Goan read the employees' letter
from the National Labor Relations Board stating that the petition for certification
had been withdrawn. Then Goan added that this letter did not necessarily mean
the end of the union activity at the station? He continued by saying that, even
if it were ended completely, "Nobody is going to be persecuted because of any
activity that they have had in it" and stressed the fact that the only reason he
had ever discharged a man was for failure to do his job.
2. Conclusions
a. Discrimination as to Halford, Boyer, Carson, and Higbee
In answer to the complaint of the General Counsel the Respondents filed a
general denial. After the Board had presented its evidence, the Respondents
produced testimony which, with a few significant admissions, contradicted the
evidence produced by the General Counsel. With these few notable exceptions,
24 Anderson denied making any such inquiries . Anderson was not a convincing witness.
25 This finding is made upon the credible testimony of Poole, Warfield , and Squires. On
the other hand, Goan recalls his statement as follows : "Personally , S don ' t think we need
a union at WAYS. We have always managed to get along and prosper . We have never
had one. I don 't think we need one . I don ' t think we need one now and I don ' t think we
will ever need one." Miss Byrd's testimony . corroborated that of Goan . She further
testified that she had heard no rumors so she had not been bothered by the attempt to
organize by the technical department . She also testified that she was surprised by Goan's
comments at the meeting.
26 Operator Stewart testified that , in describing the Union at this conference , Goan had
used picturesque and profane terms. As there was no corroboration of this , the undersigned
will not •find that Goan applied such language - to the Union.
INTER'-CITY -ADVE RTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1127
the testimony is in direct conflict on practically every issue. These conflicts have
been resolved in the preceding section of this Report.
However, a warp and woof of undisputed facts appear from the welter of
contradictions. The undersigned believes that a review of this skeleton of
admitted facts will assist in the determination of the basic question here : Did
the Respondent discharge these individuals because of their union activities
and in order to discourage membership in the Union?
In compiling this basic framework of admitted facts, the undersigned had
consciously eliminated, for the present, disputed statements and acts as those
unfortunately can often be misinterpreted and thus to mislead.
The essential facts here upon which both parties base their cases, follow:
1. About February 1, 1949, the technicians at WAYS began discussing the
advisability of joining the Union and arranged a meeting for that purpose for
February 11. The operators at WCOG had been discussing the same subject for
a longer period of time but had arranged no meeting.
2. During the afternoon of February 11, Squires overheard Halford talking on
a studio telephone, learned that the technicians were holding a union meeting
that night and reported that fact to Goan. Goan also deduced that Higbee
intended to attend that meeting.
3. The meeting was held and the operators joined the Union on the evening
of February 11.
4. On February 12 Goan relieved Higbee suddenly and without warning of
his regular duties at WAYS and requested him to transfer; Halford and Edwards
were also relieved of their duties suddenly and without warning.
5. On the afternoon of February 13 Goan learned from Peeler that Peeler and
the operators at WCOG had been considering the necessity of joining the Union
and that Peeler had failed to report that fact to Goan. About 6: 30 p. in. Goan
urged Carson to accept Peeler's position as resident chief engineer.
6. On February 14 Halford and Peeler were discharged, both of them receiv-
ing final checks dated February 11. Carson refused the promotion to Peeler's
position and informed the Respondent that he would not be a "union breaker"
but would join the Union if it came to Greensboro.
7. On February 15 the WCOG operators met with the Union and joined it. At
the same time the Respondent discharged Carson and Boyer.
This chronology of basic proven facts proves that within 24 hours of learning of
an employee's interest in joining the Union, the Respondent would suspend,
transfer, or discharge the individual employee:' The inescapable inference to be
drawn from these facts is that the individuals were discharged because of their
known interest in the Union. ' The General Counsel has thus made out prima facie
case from this'admitted time table of events without more especially as, with the
exception of Peeler whose case will be considered separately, the Respondent
further acknowledged that the individuals discharged were at least satisfactory
employees.
In order to rebut this inference the Respondent produced evidence through Goan
and his executive assistants that the stockholders had ordered them orally to
effect economies in the operations at WAYS and WCOG as early as December
1948 and by letter dated January 10, 1949, -had suggested the elimination of
,control board and part-time employees, that the executives thereupon deter-
27 Boyer ' s case is no exception to this except that in his case, the evidence of Goan's
knowledge is not uncontradicted.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mined upon the individuals to be eliminated but that the execution of these
plans was delayed because of the long and careful planning required to effectuate
them and because the economies were first introduced at Station WKIX, that on
February 11, prior to the receipt of knowledge of any union activities at WAYS
or WCOG, Goan determined to discharge Halford as part of this economy pro-
gram and Peeler because he was an unsatisfactory supervisor and had their final
checks drawn, and that Peeler, Halford, and Boyer were thereafter discharged
pursuant to those plans.
If true, this evidence would certainly rebut the inference above mentioned.
It therefore must be analyzed.
Admitted facts prove that just 5 hours before he was scheduled to open the
WAYS transmitter at 5 a. in. on February 12, Goan ordered Higbee not to open
the station as scheduled, that the station was in fact opened up by Wade Hamp-
ton, the chief engineer at WKIX, who had never before operated at WAYS and
who was an overnight visitor in Charlotte and supposed to return to WKIX
on the afternoon of February 12 but who remained in Charlotte for a period of
4 days helping to keep that station on the air, that, although he had lunched
with Goan and Hampton on February 11 and although he was the supervisor in
charge of the transmitter, Chief Engineer Chaney was not apprised of the
changes in the operating schedule at WAYS transmitter until he walked into the
transmitter that afternoon and discovered Hampton on duty in lieu of Higbee,
that Goan made the decision that Hampton would open up the transmitter on
the night of February 11 prior to calling Higbee, and that the sudden suspension
of Edwards and Halford on February 1.2 required Chaney to operate at the
transmitter until sent to Greensboro on February 15.
The undisputed facts at WCOG show that Chaney, the direct supervisor of
Peeler, had not recommended the discharge of Peeler, was not consulted about
it and did not even know that Peeler was to be discharged, that the first he knew
of the intended discharges of Boyer and Carson was on February 1.5 when he
was sent to Greensboro by Goan to effectuate those discharges, that the first
time that Anderson, the station manager at WCOG, knew of the intention to
discharge Boyer was on the morning of his discharge, that, because of these dis-
charges, WCOG was so shorthanded that Chaney had to remain at that trans-
mitter for a period of 2 weeks until replacements could be located and arrive
at WCOG, that Goan began seeking the necessary replacements on February 14
and offered to fly one replacement from Kansas City in ordef to get -him to
WCOG as quickly as possible despite the stockholders' plea for economy.
The facts, therefore, refute Goan's claim that the changes made had been
long and carefully planned. The dismissals were obviously sudden and im-
promptu, as the Respondent had to improvise the means by which both stations
were able to remain on the air.
Further, Goan claimed that Halford and Boyer were discharged because of
the economy program and because of the Company's policy of eliminating con-
trol-board operators and part-time employees. The facts show that, despite this
alleged policy, the Respondent retained in its employ control-board operators
Glenn Cooke at WCOG and Houston Care, who subsequently was transferred
from WKIX to replace Halford at WAYS. Furthermore, the facts show that
the Respondent also retained in its employ both Carl Rust and Higbee as part-
time employees. In addition the facts show that neither Cooke, Care, nor Rust
had attended the union meetings . Rust was a long-time member of the Union,
a fact which the Respondent did not know. Goan testified that the only reason
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC. 1129
he knew of for the retention of Higbee was "this pending action here," referring
to the present hearing. The facts, therefore, clearly refute Goan's claim that
the Respondent's policy requiring the elimination of control-board operators and
part-time employees resulted in the discharges of Halford and of Boyer.
One other defense needs to be analyzed. Goan testified that he determined to
dismiss Halford and Peeler while at Columbia, South Carolina, on February 11
prior to receipt of any knowledge of union activities and ordered their final salary
checks to be made that day. In Peeler's case, Goan testified that this determina-
tion resulted from a telephone call from Anderson informing him that Peeler
had lost his temper and threatened to quit the Company "cold." However, An-
derson's testimony showed that this episode occurred on Christmas Eve in 1948
over a 10 dollar bonus check. As indicated earlier Anderson's testimony orig-
inally was that the date upon which Peeler was to be dismissed was determined
upon the very day Peeler was discharged but subsequently Anderson changed his
testimony by picking out two other dates upon which this decision was made.
The fact that the Respondent had made no effort to find a replacement for Peeler
prior to the date of his discharge indicates, that Anderson's original testimony
was correct. At the hearing the Respondent produced in evidence the checks
given to Halford and Peeler which were dated February 11, 1949, as corroboration
for Goan's testimony. The facts show that Halford was "suspended" on February
12, not discharged, and not given this check dated February 11, although Goan
allegedly had the check available ; and that Goan went to Greensboro on February
13, according to his own testimony, to discharge Peeler with the check dated
February 11 in his pocket, talked with Peeler about the Union, but failed to main-
tain the discharge or to give Peeler the check. Furthermore, Goan failed to
explain why if he was effectuating the economy program at WCOG and had
determined upon the elimination of Boyer, no check was made for Boyer on
February 11.
The facts clearly refute Goan's testimony in this regard also.
Thus, without considering more than the warp and woof of the undisputed
facts as set forth above and after analyzing the claims made by the Respondent
intended to rebut the fair inference arising from these undisputed facts, the in-
ference remains unrebutted on the record.
To this inference must be added the disputed facts which have largely been
resolved against the Respondent because of the unsatisfactory character of the
evidence presented; the unreliability of the witnesses. presenting the. same and
the inherent improbability of much of that evidence as has been found in the
preceding section. Much of this evidence, such as the statements by Goan that
he would not stand for a union in the Company, that he had broken it up before
and would do so again, that he had this union "licked now, anyhow" and his
assurance to the studio staff that to his knowledge, there would never be a union
in the station 26 merely corroborate the inference already drawn from the
admitted facts and constitute admissions by Goan of the accuracy of that infer-
ence.
The evidence conclusively shows that immediately upon learning of the
organizational efforts of its employees, the Respondent, largely through the
personal efforts of Goan, began a campaign designed by intimidation, fear, and
coercion to "break up" the Union, as Goan admitted orally to several employees
28 Recalling the dismissals , transfers , and layoffs preceding this remark, the threat
contained in this statement by Goan must have been obvious to all of Goan ' s listeners.
1130. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and at the staff meeting. In this campaign the employees were threatened with
loss of employment, were questioned regarding their own membership and
activities in the Union and that of the other employees of the Respondent, were
threatened with the closing of the station in order to prevent unionization, were
subjected to having their activities spied upon and reported to Goan, all of
which the Respondent engaged in in order to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
the employees from exercising their rights to engage in concerted activities and
to form, join, or assist labor organizations as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned therefore finds that by the acts above found the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
.. The discharge•of Carson following so immediately upon the discovery of the
Respondent of Carson's refusal to be utilized as a "union breaker" and of his de-
termination to join the Union can only be explained by the determination of.
the Respondent to discharge all employees who adhered to the Union and
who admittedly engaged in union and concerted activities. Without an im-
pelling motive such as that, an employer does not importune an employee.
on one day to accept a promotion and on the following day discharge him.
Goan's attempted explanation that he had already employed Thill, a totally
inexperienced operator, and therefore had no place for Carson as an operator
at WCOG, which at that time was desperately shorthanded, does not ring
true, especially in view of the fact that Carson was induced to even consider
the promotion by Goan's promise that he could revert to the position of operator
if he so desired. Respondent's antiunion animus and determination to eliminate
all union adherents from its employ is too nakedly visible in this episode to
:admit of any doubt.
The transfer of, Higbee on February. 13, 1949, and subsequent transfers and
his subsequent part-time and menial employment also obviously stem from the
.Respondent's antiunion animus and its desire to discourage membership in
the Union. This is clear from the timing of his transfers and from the state-
ments and admissions made to him by Goan, as well as Goan's admission at the
hearing that Higbee was being retained on a part-time basis only because of the
pendency of the present hearing.
, The undersigned, finds, therefore, that the Respondent has discriminated in
regard to tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment in
order to discourage membership in the Union by discharging James Halford,
John T. Boyer, Jr., and Haskell Carson, and by transferring and demoting
Kenneth Higbee, because of their membership in, activities on behalf of, and
adherence to the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), and that by such actions
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of .the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8.(a) (1).
b. The discharge of Darrell Peeler
Peeler had been promoted from the position of transmitter operator at WAYS
to the position of resident.chief engineer at WCOG when that station first went
,on the air in flay 1948. He was stilt occupying that supervisory position at the
time of his discharge on February 14, 1949.
As found heretofore, the Respondent discharged Peeler on February 14, 1949,
the day after- Goan had interrogated him at length and in detail about "this.
,union business" at WCOG. Goan determined from Peeler that the "union busi-
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C.,- INC.1131
ness" about which he, Goan, "had heard" was in fact true and that Peeler and
the transmitter operators had been considering the necessity for unionization.
Following this Goan severely criticized Peeler for not having reported this ac-
tivity or "trouble" to him and Anderson.
The fact that Goan severely criticised Peeler for failing to report this activity
of the nonsupervisory employees under his supervision is conclusive that the
Respondent considered it to be a part of Peeler's duties as a supervisor to dis-
cover and to report to the Respondent any attempt by such rank-and-file em-
ployees to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Act to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, and to engage in concerted activities.29 Goan himself
expressed the purpose of such a requirement upon the supervisors when he told
Higbee that "if Chaney had told him (Goan) about this (organizational at-
tempt) sooner, he (Goan) could have broken it up sooner." The Respondent's
activities in the succeeding few days confirmed the truth of this statement. The
fact that supervisors are required to, and do, in fact, spy out and report to
management any and all attempts by nonsupervisory employees to exercise their
rights must necessarily interfere with and restrain the rank-and-file employees
in the free exercise of the right to join unions of their own choosing, for the
knowledge that the supervisory force is acting under such instructions will, of
necessity, restrain an employee whose livelihood depends upon the Respondent
and the supervisor from exercising his right to join a union freely or at all.
It is a fair inference from the fact that Goan congratulated Peeler on being
"man enough" to reveal to the Respondent his own personal interest in unioniza-
tion that Goan was convinced that Peeler would not so demean himself in the
future by discovering and reporting such activities among the employees as to
become a tool or instrument through which the Respondent could carry on its
illegal campaign designed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its nonsupervi-
sory employees from exercising their rights and, therefore, discharged Peeler
because he had not in the past and would not in the future fit into the Respondent's
campaign to restrain the nonsupervisory employees from joining the Union.
Tile courts and the Board have long and consistently held it to'be a violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and of the identical Section S (1) of the Wagner.
Act for to employer to require, as part of a supervisor's duties, -that. he spy out
the union activities of the employees under him and report them to the employer
necessarily deprives those nonsupervisory employees of the very rights the Act
is designed to protect and is, therefore, an invasion of the rights guaranteed to^
nonsupervisory employees under the Act.90
The Respondent denied that Peeler's discharge was ca-used by the above and.
cited a multitude of reasons which allegedly resulted in their determination to
discharge him. These reasons were as easily disproved as they were stated.
The Respondent admitted that feeler was an efficient engineer but -contended
that it discharged him on the ground that he was not a good supervisor. As
proof of this fact Anderson cited in his testimony the following:
(1) Peeler referred to the operators under his supervision-as "the boys" or
"fellows." This is too silly to require an answer.
(2) On numerous occasions Peeler requested wage increases for the operators.
This also hardly requires an answer.
(3) On December 24, 1948, Peeler complained'bitterly about the Respondent's-
lack- of appreciation and generosity in giving him and the other employees a
29 This is confirmed by Goan's statement of similar import to Stewart on February 19.
10 See cases cited under the remedy section.
'1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bonus check for only $10 and announced that he was "through" with the Com-
pany. On this occasion Anderson implored Peeler to remain with the Company,
which Peeler finally did.
(4) Peeler was hard to reach by telephone having failed to have his telephone
numbers posted as required, so that Andoerson had trouble locating him. On
cross-examination it was developed that Peeler's telephone numbers were posted
where and as required but that, when Anderson tried to telephone Peeler from
Anderson's home, Anderson experienced difficulty because Anderson, himself,
had lost his own copy of the list of the telephone numbers which included Peeler's.
(5) Peeler requested too much new equipment for such a new and struggling
station as WCOG. However, Chaney agreed that the equipment was largely
necessary. This is the usual quarrel between the operating and financial de-
partments of any organization.
(6) Peeler (lid not-keep sufficient tower bulbs on hand. 'The facts showed -that
these bulbs were hard to find and that Peeler had requested some from Chaney.
These last two criticisms, if true, appear so contradictory that, in Respondent's
eyes, Peeler could do no right.
(7) Occasionally "women" visited Peeler at the transmitter. The facts showed
-that Peeler's fiance had, on several occasions, visited him at the transmitter but,
until after the organizational attempt began, it appears to have been customary
for the operator on duty at both WAYS and WCOG to have visitors during his
tour of duty without objection from the Respondent. In fact one operator was
permitted, with the .Company's knowledge, to mind his baby while on duty.
(8) Peeler did everything for the convenience of his "boys" instead of directing
them from a "business standpoint." Anderson gave, as an example, the fact
that the operators were allowed to trade shifts. The facts showed that this had
long been customary practice both at WAYS and WCOG.
(9) Peeler employed a new operator at a higher rate of pay than was being
paid to an old operator. This example was also cited by Goan. The facts
showed that, although this arrangement had been going on for some weeks,
the Respondent made no objection to it or did not discover it until after it had
discharged Peeler, so that it could have played no part in his discharge.
In addition to reiterating the criticisms made by Anderson, Goan added the
following reasons of his own for the discharge :
(1) Peeler.had had no supervisory experience. But Goan knew this to be
the fact when lie promoted Peeler to the job as resident chief engineer at WCOG.
Peeler was adding experience every day that he worked at WCOG.
(2) Peeler forwarded a WCOG transmitter log to Charlotte containing one or
two errors. However, Chaney acknowledged that this was a common occurrence
at radio transmitter stations.
(3) Peeler was hard to get in touch with over the telephone . On cross-ex-
amination it developed that Goan knew nothing about this personally and was
-only repeating Anderson's complaint which was explained above.
(4) On one occasion WCOG went off the air for a period of 4 or 5 hours
because Peeler was unable to locate the difficulty and had to send for Chaney
who located the. difficulty within 15 or 20 minutes of his arrival. However,
Chaney himself testified that it is largely a matter of luck as to how long it
takes to discover what is wrong when a transmitter fails to operate properly.
He himself had not criticized Peeler for this failure.
(5) Peeler was hot-headed and on one occasion had quit his job without giving
the Company notice. According to Goan this occurred immediately before Feb-
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1133
ruary 11 and directly led to Peeler 's discharge . However, it developed that
this was the same occasion of December 24, 1948, when Peeler objected to the
Company ' s lack of generosity in limiting the bonus payments to $10 discussed
also under Anderson 's complaints.
The short and final answer to all these numerous criticisms of Peeler is to
be found in the fact that Chaney, who was Peeler 's immediate superior , had not
recommended the discharge of Peeler and did not know the reason for it.
Thus the criticisms of Peeler testified to at the hearing prove to be unimport-
ant, exaggerated , untrue , inaccurate , and never voiced prior to the hearing. In
fact, they appear to be pretexts conceived by the Respondent for the purpose of
attempting to justify the discharge and to cover up the actual cause for the
discharge.
The undersigned , therefore , finds that the Respondent discharged Darrell D.
Peeler, a supervisor , because he failed to report to the Respondent the fact that
the nonsupervisory employees under his direction were engaging in activities
guaranteed to them by the Act and thus failed to assist the Respondent in its
attempt to defeat self -organization by its nonsupervisory employees through
an illegal campaign of coercion and intimidation to prevent such nonsupervisory
employees from exercising such rights and because , from the attitude towards
organization expressed by Peeler on February 13, the Respondent was convinced
that Peeler would not in the future become a tool or instrument by which the
Respondent could coerce and intimidate its rank-and-file employees from exer-
cising their rights, and further that ,. by the discharge of Peeler , the Respondent
interfered with, restrained , and coerced its nonsupervisory employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act by serving notice upon the em-
ployees that the activities of the nonsupervisory employees would henceforth
be spied upon and reported to management as an integral part of Respondent's
campaign to interfere with, restrain , and coerce its employees in the exercise
of their rights under the Act. Thus the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its nonsupervisory employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
0. The refusals to bargain at WAYS and WCOG
1. The appropriate units
The Respondents ' operations at WAYS and WCOG are typical of the general
run of radio stations . The sound from both the programs originating in the local
station and from programs originating outside the studio arrives by wire at the
control board in the control room of the studio. The control board is managed
by a control-board operator who has the duty of switching programs in and out
of the control board in accordance with the transmission schedule and in keeping
the modulation of the program sound within the limits prescribed by the Federal
Communications Commission . From the control board , the sound goes by wire
to the transmitter station located outside the city and some distance from the
studio. The program is then broadcast at the transmitter which, under the law,
must be operated by radio technicians ' holding first clzss licenses issued by the
Federal Communications Commission . These transmitter operators are responsi-
ble for the transmitter , its operation within the rules prescribed by Federal
Communications Commission , its technical maintenance , and for recording in a
log the operations of the transmitter . In order to coordinate the operations at
the station and at the studio upon opening and closing the station and also upon
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - -
occasions throughout the day, it is necessary for the transmitter operator- and
the control-board operator to be in communication with each other by. telephone.
Federal regulations require that the transmitter operators be licensed by Fed-
eral Communications Commission, but no such regulations apply. to the control-
board operators. Both the transmitter operators and the control-board operators
are under the direction and control of the station's chief engineer. The control
board is maintained in large measure by the technicians from the transmitter
station although minor repairs can be made by control board operators them-
selves. .
Respondents also employ combination men at the studio, i. e. individuals able
both to operate control boards and to announce. These individuals are under the
direction of the program director who also supervises the work of the announcers
and artists at the studio.
The Respondent has recognized the distinction between these different types of
employees when it listed as "technical employees" the transmitter operators and
control-board operators ; as -"announcer-operators," -the' combination, men ; and as
"all other employees," the remainder of its staff. - ' •
In the previous representation case 'involving =WAYS,' the Board determined
that a unit of transmitter operators was appropriate, The' Respondent objected
that the omission of the control-board operators from the appropriate unit made
'this unit inappropriate. In the present case, the General Counsel has alleged that
all technicians employed by the Respondent 'at its studio and transmitter in the
,operation of Radio Station WAYS in Charlotte, North Carolina, excluding all
other employees and all supervisors as defined'by the Act, constitutes a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining. The General Counsel also alleges that the
same unit is the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining at the
Respondent WCOG in Greensboro, North Carolina. - .
At the present hearing, Respondent again objects that-these units are inappro-
priate, suggesting now that the control-board' operators .should be excluded from
the unit and that the only really appropriate bargaining unit would consist of
all the employees excluding the supervisory force at all three stations,. WAYS,
WCOG, and 'WKIX. After being reminded of the fact that the Respondent has
found it convenient for business purposes to create three separate corporations in
order to transact its business more efficiently, Goan, in effect, withdrew this
latter suggestion. His objections, however, constitute some evidence of the bona
fides of the Respondent in this case.
As-the combination men are under the supervision of the program director and
not of the chief engineer, who supervises, the work of the transmitter operators
-and the control-board operators, and as the ,interest of the combination men
seem more closely akin to those, of the studio employees, the undersigned will
exclude them from the appropriate unit at both WAYS and WCOG.
The undersigned finds that all technicians employed by the Respondent WAYS
at its studio and transmitter in the operation of Radio Station WAYS in Char-
lotte, North Carolina, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined
by the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9, subsection (b) of the Act.
The undersigned finds that all technicians employed by the Respondent WCOG
at its studio and transmitter in the operation of radio Station WCOG in Greens-
boro, North Carolina, excluding all other employees,and all supervisors as defined
31 55 NLEB 1415.
INTER-C'ITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO , N. C., INC. 1135
by the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9, subsection (b) of the Act.
2. The majority
. During the period from February 5 to February 18, 1949 , Respondent WAYS
employed five technicians at the transmitter and one at the studio.
Included among the technical employees at the transmitter was B . C. Stewart
who acted in the absence of Chaney as the assistant chief engineer at WAYS. He
is not excluded from the unit as a supervisor for the reason that he has not been
allowed to exercise his so-called supervisory powers since the return of Chaney
from Station WCOG in May of 1948.
Henry Poole was the technician listed as from the studio . He is included in the
appropriate unit for the reason that his testimony shows that , at that time, his
duties consisted almost exclusively of operating the control board.
Ansel Adkins is excluded from the unit as the evidence shows him to be a
caretaker doing odd jobs about the transmitter and not a technician.
Of the six employees included in the unit, Carl Rust had been a union member
for a long time and B . C. Stewart , James Halford , Arnold Edwards , Kenneth
Higbee, and Henry Poole became members of the Union on February 11, 1949,
thereby authorizing the Union to bargain for them as their bargaining
representative.
The undersigned , therefore finds that , pursuant to the provisions of Section 9
(a) of the Act , the Union was on February 11, 1949, and at all times thereafter
has been and now is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit at WAYS for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.
During the period from February 11 to February 23, 1949, the Respondent
WCOG employed three technicians at the transmitter and one control-board
operator at the studio.
Of the employees so employed at WCOG, Boyer , Carson, and Burgess became
members of the Union on February 15, 1949, thereby authorizing the Union to
represent them as their collective bargaining agent in collective bargaining with
the Respondent WCOG. The undersigned finds that on and after February 15,
1949, the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority
of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit at WCOG and that, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act , the Union was on February 15, 1949,
and at all times thereafter has been and is now the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment 3'
3. The refusal to bargain
By letter dated February 12, 1949, the Union advised Respondent WAYS that
the technical employees at WAYS had designated the Union as their collective
bargaining representative and that they had petitioned the National Labor Rela-
32 It is well established court and Board law that a freely established majority in favor
of the Union as the bargaining representative. of the employees cannot be dissipated by the
unfair labor practices of the employer. -
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lions - Board to conduct an election for certification of this unit . The Union
further requested that Respondent make no changes in the status of these men
as to their wages, hours , and working conditions prior to certification . despond-
ent WAYS did not answer this letter.
On February 15, 1949, the Union sent Clifford T. Lee, an international repre-
sentative , to Charlotte to see Respondent WAYS. Lee telegraphed Goan prior
to his arrival in Charlotte as follows : "Arriving Charlotte this morning by air
re IBEW engineers employed at WAYS. Will call yon -on.a.rrival." Upon arrival,
Lee telephoned to Goan, introduced himself as the representative of the Union
selected as the bargaining agent by his technicians at WAYS , and requested a
conference . Goan answered that he was too busy to see Lee but, after Lee said
that the matter could be cleared up in 20 or 30 minutes , requested that Lee call
him again about 2 o'clock that afternoon . At 2 o'clock , Lee called Goan as
requested but was informed that Goan was out. From that time until approxi-
mately 4 o'clock that afternoon , Lee called Goan at half hour intervals but on
each occasion was told that Goan was not available. Goan was in the studio all
afternoon but was not accepting telephone calls.
By registered letter dated April 6, 1949, the Union again notified Respondent
WAYS that the Union represented a majority of the technical employees and
requested "an early collective bargaining conference." The Respondent did not
answer this request.
By a letter dated February 17, 1949, the Union advised Respondent WCOG
that the technical employees of Station WCOG had designated the Union as
their collective bargaining representative and requested an early date for the
purpose of discussing an agreement covering wages , hours, and working condi-
tions of these men. The Respondent failed to answer this letter.
It is obvious that the Respondent never intended to bargain with the Union.
It refused to answer letters. It refused to see the international representative
when he was sent to Charlotte . The Respondent was busy both at WAYS and
at WCOG in doing everything in its power to defeat the Union by transferring
employees , by discriminatorily discharging employees and by a regular cam-
paign of interference , restraint , and coercion to prevent the employees from
joining the Union and to force the employees to resign from the Union.
At the hearing Goan testified that he did not answer the Union 's letter
because he "did not know" who the technical employees referred to by the
Union were . The facts show that he made no attempt to find out. At the hear-
ing Goan further testified that he was not sure that the Union did represent a
majority . He made no attempt to find out. There were several legitimate ways
in which Goan could have discovered the truth of this contention but he pursued
none of them . On the contrary Goan attempted to dissipate this majority
by the commission of the unfair labor practices as found above . Goan 's actions
show that he never intended to bargain with the Union which combined with the
unfair practices committed for the same purpose prove that the contentions
are not put forth in good faith here.
Under all the circumstances above found the undersigned finds that on Feb-
ruary 15 and April 6, 1949, at WAYS and on February 17,.1949, at WCOG, and
at all times thereafter , the Respondents have refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforefound
appropriate units, and in each of them, and has thereby interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
INTER'-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1137
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with its operations 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
practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom,
and that it take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated against James
Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., Haskell Carson, and Kenneth Higbee by discharging
the first three named and by transferring and changing the conditions and tenure
of employment of the last named. He will therefore recommend that the Respond-
ent offer James Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., and Haskell Carson immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the (late of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period.33 With respect to Kenneth Higbee it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent immediately reinstate him to the position at WAYS
he occupied prior to the date of the discrimination against him, February 13,
1949, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his transfer
to the date of his reinstatement less the amount of money he earned in the posi-
tion to which the Respondent transferred him.
The undersigned has also found that by discharging Darrell D. Peeler, a super-
visor, for his failure and refusal to spy upon and to report to the Respondent
the union activities of the nonsupervisory employees and thereby become a tool
or instrument assisting the Respondent to commit unfair labor practices against
its nonsupervisory employees, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its nonsupervisory employees in their right to self organization, to form,
join, and assist labor organizations, and to engage in concerted activities, as the
discharge of Peeler necessarily restricted organizational freedom of the non-
supervisory employees by causing fear of reprisals and of discharges among such
33 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by the employee in connection. with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondent, which world not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Crossett
Lumber Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and
Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2590, 8 NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed
on Federal,, State, County, Municipal, or other work relief projects shall be considered as
earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,,311 U. S. 7.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nonsupervisory employees if they should engage in such activities. Numerous
cases have so held tinder the Act prior to its amendment in 1947.31 The amend-
ments of 1947 to the Act do not change the power of the Board to remedy the
unfair labor practices against nonsupervisory employees, even though that rem-
edy requires the reinstatement of a . supervisor. While the amendment of 1947
to the Act eliminated supervisors from the definition of the word "employees,"
the legislative history of that amendment shows that the intention of such
amendment was to relieve the employer of the duty of bargaining with a union
composed of supervisory personnel and to deprive those supervisors of the pro-
tection of the Act should they organize and attempt to bargain. That legislative
history 'shows nothing of an intention to limit the power of the Board to remedy
unfair labor practices in any other regard. In the instant case the unfair labor
practice practiced by the Respondent was against the rights of the rank-and-file
employees by attempting to restrict unlawfully their freedom of organization by
the use of supervisors. In order to restore to the nonsupervisory employees their
full freedom of action as guaranteed by the Act, it is necessary to restore the
status quo which, in turn, requires the reinstatement of Peeler even though he
happens to be a supervisor. Accordingly, in order to restore to the nonsuper-
visory employees their full freedom of organizational action, the undersigned
will recommend that the Respondent offer to Darrell D. Peeler immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.35
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 No. 1229, A. F.
of L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James
Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., Haskell Carson, and Kenneth Higbee, thereby dis-
couraging membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
No. 1229, A. F. of L., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)^ of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and by discharging Darrell D.
Peeler for his refusal to become a tool in the Respondent's campaign of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion against its employees, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. All technicians employed by the Respondent at its studio and transmitter
in the operation of Radio Station WAYS in Charlotte, North Carolina, excluding
3' N. L. R. B. v. Richter's Bakery, 140 F. 2d 870, 872-873 (C. A. 5), cert. denied, 322 U. S.
754; Eagle-Picher Mining and Smelting Co. v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. 2d 903, 912-913 (C. A. 8) ;
Ron-Rico Corp., 53 NLRB 1137, 1169 ; Reliance Mfg. Co., 60 NLRB 946, 950-952, 963-964 ;
Vail Mfg. Co., 61 NLRB 181 and N. L. R. B. v. Vail Mfg. Co., 158 F. 2d 664, 665, 666
(C. A. 7), cert. denied, 334 U. S. 845.
31 See footnote 33.
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1139
all other employees and all supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
5. All technicians employed by the Respondent at its studio and transmitter
in the operation of Radio Station WCOG in Greensboro, North Carolina, exclud-
ing all other employees and all supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
6. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F.
of L., was on February 11, 1949, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the above-found appropriate unit at
Station WAYS within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F.
of L., was on February 15, 1949, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the above-found appropriate unit at
Station WCOG, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
8. By refusing on February 12, 1949, February 15, 1949, and April 6, 1949, and
at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative
of all of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit at Radio Station WAYS,
the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
9. By refusing on February 17, 1949, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
1229, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit at Radio Station WCOG, the Respondent has en-
gaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the
Respondent , Inter- City Advertising Company of Charlotte , N. C., Inc. and
Inter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro , N. C., Inc ., and each of them,
and the officers , agents, successors , and assigns of each of them shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F . of L. as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in the units heretofore found appropriate
with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment or other conditions
of employment at its respective radio station and studio :
(b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F . of L., or any other labor organization of its
employees , by discharging , transferring , or discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to the hire , tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment of any of the employees ;
(c) Urging, persuading , and warning its employees by threats of reprisals
or force or promise of benefit to refrain from assisting , becoming or remain-
ing members of the Union , or engaging in concerted activities ; questioning its
employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union ; threatening its employees with loss of employment should they assist,
889227-51-vol. 89-73
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
become or remain members of the Union, or engage in concerted activity;
threatening to close its operations in order to discourage membership in the
Union ; requesting or requiring its supervisors to engage in spying out,
inquiring into or engaging in surveillance of and reporting upon the em-
ployees' union sympathies, membership, and activities ; transferring and
making changes in the hire, tenure, terms, and conditions of employment of its
employees in order to discourage their employees in becoming and remaining
members of the Union; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to join or assist International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F. of L., or any other labor organ-
ization, 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to James Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., Haskell Carson, and Kenneth
Higbee immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make each of them whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered as
the result of the discrimination against hint' by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against him, to the
date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such
period ; 3U
(b) Offer to Darrell D. Peeler immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position as resident chief engineer at Radio Station
WW'COG, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of pay which be may have suffered as the result of
his discharge by payment of a sum of money to him equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period. from the date of his
discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period ; 3'
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 1229, A. F. of L. as the exclusive representative of
all its employees in the aforesaid respective appropriate units at Radio Station
WAYS and Radio Station WCOG, with respect to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody the agreement in a signed agree-
ment ;
(d) Post at its studios and at its transmitter stations at Radio Station WAYS
at Charlotte, North Carolina, and at Radio Station WCOG at Greensboro, 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 executed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of
at least sixty (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 such notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material ; and
1 See section entitled The remedy."
34 See section entitled "The remedy."
INTER-CITY ADVERTISING COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, N. C., INC.1141
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that the National Labor Relations Board issue an
order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid, unless the Re-
spondent notifies said Regional Director in writing, on or before twenty (20)
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, that it will comply
with the foregoing recommendations.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to
any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions
or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of
a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an
original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and
Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or briefs, the parties filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by
precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed
or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made
as required by Section 203.85. As further provides' in said Section 203.46 should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom.
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 31st day 'of August 1949.
THOMAS S. WILSON,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOcAL No. 1229, A. F. OF L., by discharging, trans-
ferring, suspending, or by threats thereof or in any other manner dis-
criminating in'regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of our employees.
WE WILL NOT urge, persuade, or warn the employees by threats of reprisal
or force or promise of benefit or any other means to refrain from assisting,
becoming or remaining members of the Union, or engaging or continuing to
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their union affiliation or
activities or the identity of the employees engaged in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten the employees with loss of employment if they be-
come or remain members of and active on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the operations in order to discour-
age membership in the Union.
WE WILL NOT seek to induce or require our employees or the supervisors
to inquire into and report upon the union sympathies, membership, and
activities of the employees.
WE WILL-NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. OF L., 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 protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed-,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
James Halford, John T. Boyer, Jr., Haskell Carson, Darrell Peeler, Ken-
neth Higbee
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. or L., as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with
respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining units are :
Unit at WAYS : All technicians employed by the Respondent at its studio
and transmitter in the operation of Radio Station WAYS in Charlotte, North
Carolina, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined by
the Act.
Unit at WCOG: All technicians employed by the Respondent at its studio
and transmitter in the operation of Radio Station WCOG in Greensboro,
North Carolina, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined
by the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1229, A. F. OF L., or any other
labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee be-
cause of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
(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.