Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases which I find necessary to
remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Respondent's breach of the settlement agreement and the
continuation of its unlawful conduct to defeat the employees in their right freely
to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing
demonstrate the necessity for a broad cease and desist order, which I shall
recommend.
Upon the basis of the above finding of facts, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operation of Respondent's business as set forth in section I , above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States, and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a) (3) and (4) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292,
AFL-CIO and Franklin Broadcasting Company (Radio Sta-
tion WMIN ). Case No. 18-CD-21. March. 22, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act which provides that:
Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4(D) of section
8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen ....
On August 5, 1959, Franklin Broadcasting Company (Radio Sta-
tion WMIN), herein called Franklin or the Employer, filed with the
Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region a charge alleging that
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292, AFL-
CIO, herein called Local 292, had engaged in and was engaging in
certain activities proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. It
was charged, in substance, that Local 292 has induced and encouraged
employees of Franklin to cease performing services with an object
of forcing or requiring Franklin to assign particular work to employ-
ees who are members of Local 292.
126 NLRB No. 15'0.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 292 1213
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.79 and 102.80 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , the Regional
Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hearing was held before
Charles J. Frisch, hearing officer, on October 7, 1959. Franklin and
Local 292 appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Franklin and Local 292 filed briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. Franklin operates a radio broadcasting station in St. Paul, Min-
nesota, which can be heard in Minnesota and Wisconsin. During the
fiscal year ending November 1958 its sales exceeded $180,000 of which
over $7,000 were to customers located outside the State of Minnesota.
We find that Franklin is engaged in commerce and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The alleged dispute :
a. The facts
Franklin employs announcers who are members of American Fed-
eration of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), and technicians
who are members of Local 292. For over 20 years Local 292 has had
contracts with Franklin covering the technicians. These contracts
have contained clauses providing that only technicians could perform
the work of maintenance and repair of equipment as well as "the cut-
ting and/or playing of records or transcriptions, disks, film, wire,
tape . . .."
The most recent contract contained a May 31, 1959, expiration date.
In March 1959, Local 292 gave notice of its desire to negotiate changes
and the Employer notified Local 292 of its desire to terminate. About
the middle of May, Franklin gave all technicians notice that they
would be terminated May 31, for economic reasons, and their duties
assigned to the announcers. The latter had never previously per-
formed these duties and had no desire then to perform them. About
the same time, Local 292 mailed to Franklin a copy of a proposed new
collective-bargaining agreement. Franklin did not respond to several
telephone calls from Local 292 or to its proposed draft. Local 292
then requested a meeting with the State labor conciliator which was
held on May 29, at which time Local 292 asked Franklin to sign its
proposal. Franklin responded initially that it would not sign a
contract with Local 292 because it intended to assign all work being
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
done by its members to the announcers . Later in the meeting, how-
ever, Franklin indicated that it would permit maintenance and repair
work to be performed by one technician on condition that the work of
cutting and playing of recordings be transferred to the announcers
and that Local 292 eliminate from its proposed contract the clause
giving it jurisdiction over cutting and playing of recordings. Local
292 refused to accede to this proposal and no agreement was reached.
On May 31 , Franklin advised one technician , Lark, to report to
work on June 1 as usual. In fact, all technicians reported on June 1
in accordance with the instructions of Local 292 but all, except Lark,
were turned away. That afternoon these technicians began to picket
the Franklin Broadcasting Station with banners reading "Lockout."
Meanwhile, when Lark reported that morning, he put the station on
the air and converted the control board so announcers could spin their
own records and then was given no other work to do the rest of the day.
The announcers played the recordings and transcriptions . Lark did
not return to work after June 1 because there was nothing for him to
do. He got a job elsewhere and, thereafter upon occasion, voluntarily
walked the picket line. The announcers, whose AFTRA contract with
Franklin had expired April 30, struck on June 3 and 4 and began
picketing on June 24, their banner reading "Strike on here. Please
stay away." The announcers have all been replaced . For a brief
period AF'TRA and Local 292 picketed on alternate weeks but
AFTRA has apparently withdrawn its pickets, while the picketing by
Local 292 continues . There is no Board order or certification out-
standing . Although served with notice AFTRA did not intervene or
appear at the hearing herein.
b. Contentions of the parties
Franklin contends that by the above conduct Local 292 violated
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Local 292 denies that its conduct
falls within the proscription of Section 8(b) (4) (D).
c. The nature of the dispute; applicability of the statute
Whether this is a dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) de-
pends on whether the conduct complained of is violative of Section
8(b) (4) (D). Section 8(b) (4) (D) provided, at the time of the filing
of the charges, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization or its agents-
(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees
of any employer to engage in, a strike . . . where an object
thereof is: . . . (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assigli
particular work to employees in a particular labor organization
FI{tCHAU LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 1215
or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees
in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or
class... .
This dispute is clearly not the traditional jurisdictional dispute
between two unions, each of which wishes to have certain duties as-
signed to its members rather than to the members of its rival union.
Nor is this a dispute between the Employer and Local 292 over the
Employer's assignment of work to one group of employees rather than
to another group composed of members of Local 292. Instead, as
the facts set forth hereinabove establish, the dispute concerns only
the Employer's discharge of the technicians whom Local 292 repre-
sents, and the Employer's refusal to accede to the demand of Local
292 that it sign a new contract. The sole objectives of Local 292 are,
therefore, to obtain reemployment of the technicians whom the Em-
ployer discharged and to persuade the Employer to sign the contract
proposed by Local 292, objectives which the Congress, in enacting
Section 8(b) (4) (D), did not intend to proscribe.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the dispute in
this case is not over the assignment of work within the meaning of
Section 8(b) (4) (D). It is, therefore, not a dispute within the mean-
ing of Section 10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of
hearing.'
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
1 Member Fanning agrees with his colleagues in the majority that the notice of hearing
issued in this case should be quashed. In his opinion, it is clear that the Union's strike
was in protest of the Employer's unilateral action abolishing the jobs of the technicians
and was not for the unlawful purpose of compelling a particular assignment of the work
in question.
Firchau Logging Company , Inc. and Lumber and Sawmill
Workers, Local 2608, United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-1652. March
23, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 12, 1959, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennet issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
126 NLRB No. 149.