KOWB Radio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 530 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Curt Gowdy Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOWB Radio issuance date of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior
and American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, Denver Local, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
27-RC-5078
January 22, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On August_7, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 27 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding, the relevant por-
tions of which are attached as an appendix, in which
he found, inter alia, that the bookkeeper was not a
confidential employee, and that the news director
was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
He also denied the Employer's motion to dismiss the
petition because of alleged supervisory taint in secur-
ing the showing of interest. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a request for review of the Regional Director's
decision on the ground that the Regional Director in
making his finding with respect to supervisory status
of the news director departed from officially reported
precedent, and thereby erroneously denied the
Employer's motion to dismiss the petition herein.
The Employer also contends the Regional Director
erred in not finding that the secretary to the general
manager-bookkeeper is a confidential employee.
By telegraphic order dated October 14, 1975, the
Board granted the request for review with respect to
the supervisory status of the news director and relat-
ed issues. It also reserved ruling as to the eligibility of
the secretary to the general manager-bookkeeper.
The election was stayed pending decision on review.
The request for review was denied in all other re-
spects. No briefs on review were filed by the parties
herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Having considered the entire record in this pro-
ceeding with respect to the issues under review, the
Board is satisfied that the record supports the Re-
gional Director's findings and conclusions.' There-
fore, the Regional Director's Decision and Direction
of Election is hereby affirmed.
Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Election, except that the payroll period for determin-
ing eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the
footnote omitted from publication].
i Having carefully examined the record in the instant case , we conclude
that the news director 's supervisory authority , if any , is limited to "string-
ers" and "interns ." The "stringers" and "interns" work essentially without
compensation in order to obtain experience in a newscasting field, and we
find that they are not employees of the Employer within the meaning of the
Act Accordingly, the news director does not attain supervisory status by
virtue of any authority he may exercise over them We find it unnecessary to
reach or pass upon the applicability of Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
163 NLRB 723, 727 (1967), and Adelphi University, 195 NLRB 639 (1975),
cases relied on, in part , by the Regional Director . Furthermore , as we have
found the news director, Swain , is not a supervisor, the Regional Director's
denial of the Employer's motion to dismiss was warranted
The Regional Director 's inclusion of the secretary to the general manag-
er-bookkeeper is affirmed as it does not appear that she is performing as a
confidential employee at this time
APPENDIX
With respect to the positions of traffic clerk and
bookkeeper, it is the position of the Employer that
they do not share a community of interest with other
employees properly includable within the unit. In
support of its position, the Employer points out that
these employees work different hours and are paid
less than announcers. In addition, the Employer
points to the limited contact with announcers and
substantially fewer employment prerequisites than
announcers.
The traffic clerk is responsible for programming
that material which is to go over the air. In addition,
she routinely assists the news director in the gather-
ing of local news by calling weather stations, funeral
homes, etc., has done some commercials and is regu-
larly heard over the air by virtue of a tape she has
recorded announcing disc jockeys.
The bookkeeper testified that she spent I week per
month at her bookkeeping functions and the remain-
der of the time assisting the traffic clerk with her
duties in preparing logs and gathering local news.
Having found an overall unit appropriate in the
instant case, I hereby find that the traffic clerk and
bookkeeper are appropriately within the unit.
The Employer further asserted that the bookkeep-
er must be excluded on the grounds that she is a
confidential employee. The record reflects that she
has access to the Employer's personnel and financial
records. Among her duties as bookkeeper is to com-
pile this data and forward it to the Employer's head-
quarters in Massachusetts. There is insufficient evi-
dence, however, to show that she is directly involved
in labor relations for the Employer. An Employee's
access to personnel records and financial records is
insufficient to qualify an employee as confidential.
RCA Communications, Inc., 154 NLRB 34, 37 (1965);
Dinkier-St. Charles Hotel, Inc., 134 NLRB 1302
222 NLRB No. 83
KOWB RADIO
(19,59). Further, employees who may at some future
time function as confidential employees but who are
not doing so at the time the determination is made
do not belong to this excluded category. American
Radiator and Standard Sanitary Company, Pacific Or-
der Handling Division, 119 NLRB 1715 (1958). Thus,
I find the bookkeeper is .not a confidential employee
within the meaning of the Act and find that she is
properly includable in -the unit. -
With respect to the news director, it is the conten-
tion of the Employer that he is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act and thus should be excluded.
The evidence reveals that he is responsible for select-
ing, editing, and presenting news. He has main au-
thority over the gathering and broadcasting of local
news and takes material from- the Associated Press
wireservice and puts it on the air. There is, however,
insufficient evidence that he exercises supervisory
authority over a regular employee of the Employer.
That is, there is evidence to show that he has sporad-
ically directed the activities of "stringers" or "in-
terns." An intern is a student who works with a sta-
531
tion for the purposes of gaining experience. The stu-
dent obtains credit at his school for the, work but
receives little or no compensation. A stringer simi-
larly works for the experience and receives either no
or only token compensation. A stringer is not neces-
sarily a student. However, the evidence shows that
this direction has been of a routine and intermittent
nature. Further, the direction has been of persons not
regularly employed by the Employer. The Board has
addressed the issue of supervision over temporary
workers who are wholly'outside the scope of the unit
sought and concluded that employees who spend
50% or more of their working time performing non-
supervisory duties should not be denied the advan-
tages of collective bargaining. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 163 NLRB 723 (1967). See also Adelphi
University 195 NLRB 639 (1972). Accordingly, I shall
include the news director in the unit.
Having found the news director not to be a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act, I deny the
Employer's motion that the petition be dismissed due
to supervisory taint.