KPRS Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 535 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

KPRS BROADCASTING CORP. 535
KPRS Broadcasting Corporation and Robert S.
Fousek , Attorney . Case 17-CA-3885
March 5, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
violation of the Act. Contrary to the Trial
Examiner, however, we find merit in the General
Counsel's exception to the failure of the Trial
Examiner to find that Respondent's discharge of
Wise violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent is a closely held corporation which
owns and operates radio station KPRS. Its
President, Andrew Carter and his wife, Mildred
Carter, together own 37 2/3 shares of KPRS stock.
Mrs. Pate, Respondent's secretary-treasurer at times
On October 21, 1969,' Trial Examiner Robert
Cohn issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommended that
such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and
supporting briefs. General Counsel and Respondent
subsequently filed answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as herein modified.
The Trial Examiner found and, for reasons set
forth in his Decision, we agree that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging
employee John L. Frazier for having engaged in
concerted protected activities on behalf of himself
and other announcer-disc jockeys. We also agree
with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
refusing to accept the unconditional applications for
reinstatement of Frazier, McCormick, and Peters
who along with other employees had engaged in a
walkout to protest the discharge of employees
Sharon Gamble, Laura Jonas, and Carole Wise.
Also, for reasons set forth below, we agree with the
Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint insofar
as it alleged Gamble and Jonas were discharged in
All dates, unless otherwise stated , are 1969
'Respondent has excepted to some of the credibility findings of the Trial
Examiner After careful review of the record, we conclude these credibility
findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant
evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362
(C.A 3)
relevant, owned 35 2/3 shares and the remaining
shares are held by various other minority
shareholders. Both Carters are active in the day to
day management of the station.
Sometime late in 1968, several of Respondent's
employees began to express dissatisfaction over
existing work conditions. Many of these grievances
were voiced to Mrs. Pate at employee meetings held
on some occasions at her home, and on other
occasions at the home of announcer-disc jockey
John L. Frazier. As heretofore found, Frazier was
unlawfully terminated by Respondent on February
4, after having attempted to get Respondent to
change its policy regarding the payment of talent
fees to its announcers. The meetings with Pate
continued, however. At one of the meetings, Mrs.
Pate stated that she would introduce resolutions at a
forthcoming meeting of Respondent's Board of
Directors which would change corporate policies and
rectify the employee complaints. Thereafter, as Pate
prepared her resolutions for the Board meeting, she
frequently collaborated with, and was assisted by
Gamble, Jonas, and Wise in her office at the radio
station. She also secured proxies and the
cooperation of- enough other minority shareholders
to give her control.
There is no direct evidence that the Carters knew
of these meetings between Pate and the employees.
And with the exception of Frazier, who had voiced
dissatisfaction over talent fees, no other employee
had spoken directly to the Carters about work
related complaints. Mrs. Pate, however, did mention
the employee dissatisfaction over Respondent's tax
withholding procedure to Mrs. Carter.
At the March 21 shareholders meeting, and the
Board of Directors meeting which followed
immediately thereafter, Pate introduced various
resolutions which, in addition to contemplating
personnel and policy changes at the radio station,
also called for changes in its corporate organization.3
When Pate introduced a resolution calling for the
reinstatement of John L. Frazier, the Carters
objected strenuously, contending Frazier would
cause trouble if reinstated. Additionally, they argued
Frazier was a militant and held membership in a
black militant organization. At about this time,
Carole Wise, a secretary who had accompanied Pate
'One resolution , in essence , required that President Carter acquire
approval of the Board of Directors before effectuating employment or
personnel changes.
181 NLRB No. 66
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the meeting to take minutes, spoke up and
defended Frazier, saying he was not a militant. At
this point, she was told by Andrew Carter that she
was not to speak at the meeting. Wise then told
Pate she could remain no longer and left the
meeting. Thereafter, the meeting continued and the
motion to reinstate Frazier carried. Frazier was
reinstated on March 25.
Subsequent to the March 21 meeting, the Carters
secured enough proxies to regain control of the
station, and at a special April 25 shareholders
meeting, resolutions were passed rescinding many of
the organizational changes effectuated by Mrs. Pate
in March.
Later that day, Gamble, Jonas, and Wise were
called separately into Andrew Carter's office and
discharged. At her exit interview, Wise was told by
Carter that although she was a good secretary, her
work had been failing during the last month and ". .
.that she had interfered with the management of the
station." At the hearing, Carter testified that his
reference to Wise's "interfering with the
management of the station" referred to Wise's
statement at the March 21 meeting where she
disputed Carter's contentions about John L.
Frazier's alleged militancy.
In dismissing the allegations regarding Gamble,
Jonas, and Wise, the Trial Examiner stated that
although he was willing to infer that the Carters
knew that in preparation of her resolutions Pate
frequently called various employees and particularly
Gamble, Jonas, and Wise into her office for
assistance, he found the evidence insufficient to
show the Carters knew these employees were
engaging in concerted protected activities. In
addition, the Trial Examiner reasoned that even if
knowledge of protected activities were inferred,
there is no substantial evidence to prove that the
Carters discharged the employees for reasons other
than Carter's belief that the three women were
among the most active participants with Pate in
abetting the latter to wrest control of the
corporation from the Carters, and to change its
structure and policies.
The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial
Examiner's findings regarding the discharges.
Regarding Gamble and Jonas the issue is not free
from doubt. However, we are unable to conclude
that the General Counsel has presented sufficient
evidence to support a finding that the Carters knew
Gamble and Jonas participated in the concerted
activities.
In this respect, the record does not establish that
Gamble and Jonas engaged in specific acts
constituting protected activity, and hence, the record
furnishes no basis for inferring that such activity
was the predicate for the discharge of these
employees. Accordingly, and solely on the basis of
the lack of evidence in the record concerning the
protected activity of these employees and
Respondent's knowledge thereof, we affirm the Trial
Examiner's dismissal of the complaint insofar as it
alleges Gamble and Jonas were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On the other hand, the record does establish that
Wise engaged in specific activity protected by the
Act and that this was the reason for her discharge.
Accordingly, we find merit in the General Counsel's
exception to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that
Wise was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Prior to her discharge by Carter, Wise had been
employed for almost 3 years and was admittedly a
competent secretary. At all times material, Carter
was aware of employee discontent with working
conditions, and his opposition to employee efforts to
improve them was clearly demonstrated through his
unlawful discharge of Frazier. At the March 21
stockholders meeting, Carter opposed Mrs. Pate's
proposal seeking reinstatement of Frazier and, in
doing so, accused Frazier of membership in a Black
militant organization. Carter rebuked Wise when
she spoke out in defense of Frazier by stating he
was not the militant type person Carter thought him
to be. Thereafter, when Carter regained control of
the station, he discharged Wise, telling her:
She had been a good secretary. That her work
during the last month had been failing . . . [and]
that she had interfered with the management of
the station.
Carter, in his own testimony, explained that his
reference to Wise's interference with management
had to do with her "outburst in the stockholders
meeting." Other than this incident, the Respondent
does not suggest that Wise had engaged .in any
specific misconduct or work derelictions during the
period preceding her discharge.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Wise's
statements in behalf of Frazier were a substantial
contributing factor leading to her discharge. Carter's
explanation of the reason for her discharge is itself
sufficient to support such a finding. But in any
event, since Wise, in defending Frazier, allied herself
with the latter's efforts to secure improved working
conditions, her discharge could only be viewed as an
additional step in Carter's campaign to thwart
employee efforts to improve their terms and
conditions of employment. Furthermore, since
Wise's statements in support of Frazier's
reinstatement were protected activity and as she did
not express her position either in a manner or under
conditions altering the protected nature of her
conduct, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that Respondent violated 8(a)(1) by terminating her
for these reasons.4
As the record shows the employees ceased work to protest the firings.
one of which we have found to be unlawful , we further find that the April
26 work stoppage was an unfair labor practice strike at its inception Thus
even if the strikers had been replaced at the time they unconditionally
applied for reinstatement , Respondent was still under an obligation to
allow them to return to their jobs
Chairman McCulloch does not agree with the reversal of the Trial
Examiner's finding that the discharge of employee Wise was not unlawful
KPRS BROADCASTING CORP. 537
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW discharging four employees allegedly for engaging in
1. The following is substituted for the Trial
Examiner's Conclusion of Law 2-
-2. By discharging John L. Frazier and Carole
Wise, for having engaged in concerted activities for
their mutual aid or protection, Respondent has
interfered with, coerced, and restrained its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act."
2. Add the following as Conclusion of Law 5:
"5. The work stoppage engaged in by employees
which commenced on April 26, 1969, was an unfair
labor practice strike."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, KPRS Broadcasting Corporation,
Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as herein modified:
1. Paragraph 2(a) of the Order is amended to
include the name of Carole Wise.
2. The third indented paragraph of the notice to
the Trial Examiner's Decision is amended to read as
follows:
WE WILL offer to each John L. Frazier, Vaughn
McCormick, Andrew Peters, and Carole Wise
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights or
privileges enjoyed and we will make each of them
whole for any loss either of them may have
suffered by reason of our discrimination against
them.
He perceives no adequate reason for rejecting the inference drawn by the
Trial Examiner that the "real reason" for the discharge of Wise, as well as
of employees Gamble and Jonas, was not the concerted activities of the
three women , but the Carters ' belief that the women were "among the
most active participants with Pate in abetting the latter to wrest control of
the corporation from the Carters , and to change its structure and policies "
A discharge for such a reason is not unlawful under the National Labor
Relations Act
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein the Act), was held on July 15 through
July 17, 1969,' in Kansas City, Missouri, pursuant to due
notice. The issues litigated were (1) whether KPRS
Broadcasting Corporation (herein the Respondent or
Company) violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act and
(2) whether Respondent's failure to reinstate certain
employees who participated in a concerted cessation of
work on or about April 26, violated the said section of the
Act. A related issue is whether or not the said cessation of
work itself was caused by any unfair labor practice of the
Respondent.'
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon
careful consideration of the arguments made and the
briefs submitted by counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent, I make the following-
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is admitted. The Respondent is a Missouri
corporation, engaged in the business of commercial radio
broadcasting, with its offices and studios located in
Kansas City, Missouri. The Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business, annually sells or performs services
valued in excess of $100,000. The Respondent also utilizes
national wire services and receives over $10,000 annually
for time sold to advertisers of national brand products.
I find that the Respondent is, and has been at all times
material, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
At all times material, as previously noted, Respondent
corporation owned and operated Radio Station KPRS in
Kansas City, which is a commercial radio broadcasting
station with a single metropolitan location. It had
approximately 15 full-time employees and 4 part-time
employees as of the time of the events herein The stock
of the corporation was closely held among some half
dozen persons; however, no one shareholder had a
majority Mr. Andrew R. Carter, president, and Mrs.
Eugenia L. Pate, secretary-treasurer, had a majority
between them, and they along with Carter's wife, Mildred
M. Carter, composed the board of directors of the
corporation at all times material prior to March 21. Mrs.
Carter, who was one of the minority stockholders, was
active in the day-to-day management of the station having
the positions of program director and personnel director.
All of the aforementioned persons are Negroes, and it
appears that the programs of the station are directed, in
large part, to the Negro community in Kansas City.
Late in November 1968, Mr. and Mrs. Carter informed
Mrs Pate that they, as individuals, were considering the
purchase of a radio station in Mobile, Alabama Although
the Carters assured Pate that this would not result in the
selling of their interests in radio station KPRS or their
departure from Kansas City, Mrs. Pate clearly understood
that the assumption of this new activity by the Carters
would necessarily result in her more active participation in
the responsibilities of day-to-day operation of KPRS. (See
All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1969, unless otherwise
specified
The original charge was filed April 28, and amended June 4, the
complaint and notice of hearing was issued June 10, and the Respondent's
answer was filed June 19
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G C Exh 2 )3
Accordingly , in December , Pate, assuming that she was
to have a more dominant role in the management of
KPRS , commenced a program of educating herself as to
the functions of the several departments of the station as
well as various duties and responsibilities of the
employees . In connection therewith , she discussed these
matters individually with employees in her office as well
as in other locations in the station itself . In addition, she
worked on these matters at her home at which, from time
to time, she invited the employees for discussions Pate,
who had been in the radio business for a number of years,
had ideas relative to the operation of the station which she
intended to put in the form of resolutions at the oncoming
board of directors ' meeting then scheduled for January.
(This meeting however was postponed until March 21
because of an impending audit of the corporation's
books )
The record reflects that employees of Respondent held
a number of "meetings" during the last month of 1968
and the first 4 months of 1969. However, the nature,
number , and scope of such meetings are subject to
substantial variance in the testimony of the employees at
the hearing . Thus, depending upon which witness one
chooses to believe , the number of such meetings varied
from approximately 25 down to 3 or 4 . However, this is
explainable due to the fact that the meetings were not
regularly scheduled and notice thereof was passed orally
from employee to employee while at work . In the nature
of things, it is readily understandable that many
employees simply were not notified of such "meetings "'
Most of the meetings were held either at the home of
Mrs Pate or at the home of employee John L. Frazier, an
announcer for the station who was discharged by
Respondent in February , of which more anon There was
apparently at least one meeting after work hours at the
radio station and perhaps one or two meetings at a public
lounge frequented by the employees.
Apparently , the most frequent complaints or grievances
voiced by the employees at the meetings related to the
matter of talent fees for the announcers (discussed more
fully hereinafter ), low wages, inadequate income tax
withholdings , and inadequate recordkeeping procedures.
Although the number of participants in the various
meetings varied rather widely, it appears that the
employees named in the complaint herein (who were
subsequently discharged ) took an active part therein and
attended most if not all of them From information
gleaned from the employees (as well as from her own
experience and other sources ) Mrs. Pate, at the board of
directors ' meeting held on March 21, proposed several
'Theretofore, Pate's role at the radio station had been a somewhat
passive one That is to say, while she was present on a daily basis and had
an office there, she did not take a very active role in the management of
the station Her function consisted mainly of opening the mail, making
bank deposits , signing the checks , and the like
'Indeed , the definition of what constituted a "meeting" doubtlessly
varied considerably among the employees Thus, some testified that most
of the time was taken up in discussion of business matters and only a small
part to social or recreational activities , others testified that some of the
gatherings actually consisted of nothing more than social affairs The Trial
Examiner recognizes as a matter of common knowledge and commonsense
that any group of employees of a common employer who happen to gather
at a private home or a public lounge would quite naturally spend some
time talking about their experiences and problems while at work since, of
course, that occupies most of their waking hours It may be reasonably
inferred that some of the employees here had such gatherings in mind
when they testified that they attended one or more "meetings "
resolutions relating to changes in the structure of the
corporation and to its policies However, prior to March
21, one of the principal participants in the aforesaid
employee meetings, John L Frazier, was discharged on
February 4. Since that discharge was a subject discussed
at the said March 21 meeting, we will regress a moment
for the discussion of facts and circumstances relating to
the discharge of John L. Frazier, which is alleged in the
complaint as the violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
B The Discharge of John L Frazier
Frazier (sometimes referred to in the record simply as
John L ) commenced working for the Company in April
1966 and was continuously employed as an announcer and
newscaster until his discharge on February 4 He and two
other employees, Vaughn McCormick and Chris King,
constituted the complement of announcers employed by
Respondent.
As previously set forth, Frazier was a principal
participant in some of the employees' meetings with Mrs.
Pate. His particular grievance was the refusal of the
Respondent to pay announcers a talent fee This term is
used to denote an additional fee paid by an advertiser
(usually a national advertiser) when the voice of a
particular announcer is requested to sell its product over
the air. The record shows that on February 3 Frazier
initiated a conversation with President Andrew Carter
concerning this subject in the latter's office Although
there is some variance in the testimony of the two men, it
appears that Carter took the position that talent fees were
paid only to celebrities and since Frazier had been in the
business only a matter of 2 1/2 to 3 years Carter did not
feel that Frazier had either the ability or the experience to
warrant the payment of a talent fee. Moreover, according
to Carter, most of the radio stations in Kansas City did
not pay talent fees and it was not the policy of the
Respondent to do so. Frazier left.
A short while later that day, Frazier had a conversation
with the other two announcers, McCormick and King,
concerning the matter of talent fees, and advised them of
his conversation with Carter After some discussion,
Frazier told them that he would seek a meeting with the
Carters on behalf of all of the announcers concerning the
receipt of talent fees for the announcers, to which they
agreed According to the testimony of Frazier, he
thereupon - the same day - requested of Mr and Mrs.
Carter a meeting regarding the matter of the talent fees
on behalf of the three announcers , and the Carters agreed
to a meeting However, no time or other circumstances
for such meeting were established '
The following day, February 4, Frazier was discharged
by Andrew Carter in the latter's office in a conversation
in which only the two men were present. Frazier testified
as follows respecting that conversation-
I got off work at 10:00 o'clock, and I was informed
Mr Carter wanted to see me upstairs. I went upstairs
and Mr. Carter told me that, I believe in his words,
"We no longer have any use for you at the station, you
have outgrown KPRS, and we have come to the parting
of the ways."
'The Carters denied that any such second meeting on February 3 took
place However, such denial is not credited In addition to demeanor
considerations , I note that Frazier's testimony is corroborated in this
respect by that of Chris King who stated that Frazier "told us at they
(the Carters ) had agreed to a meeting with us "
KPRS BROADCASTING CORP.
I didn 't think this was fair, and the first thing that
came to my mind was the F . C. C So I told him I was
going down to the F . C. C. and complain about it. He
asked me for my key to the station . I told him I didn't
have it on me. It was on my key chain downstairs. I
went down and got my key and returned it upstairs to
- him.
And I went downstairs to gather my belongings. He
told me it wouldn't be necessary to clear the studio out,
but just to get my own papers. And he followed me
from studio to studio , he checked through them, and I
had nothing that belonged to the studio , and he gave
me my check downstairs at the door, and I left 6
Pursuant to a resolution passed at the board of
directors ' meeting on March 21 (of which more anon),
Frazier was rehired and returned to work on or about
March 25
Analysis and Concluding Findings Respecting the
Discharge of John L. Frazier
Respondent does not question the fact that the issue of
payment of talent fees, being a form of employee
remuneration, is a legitimate concern of employees and
one properly subject to protection of employees' rights
under Section 7 of the Act, where such is the object of
employees' "concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
" Rather, the Respondent's defense is bottomed on the
contention that Respondent had a valid reason for
discharge, i.e., the failure of Frazier to perform assigned
duties Respondent also points to (1) failure to prove
Respondent's knowledge of alleged concerted activities,
and (2) failure of the proof to show a causal connection
between the concerted activity and the motivation for the
discharge.
However, I have found, based upon substantial, credible
evidence that the announcers did request a meeting with
Andrew Carter for the purpose of discussing this issue
shortly after Carter had expressed company policy against
payment of such fees to Frazier; that Andrew Carter,
upon learning that announcers intended to put up a united
front on the subject, determined to nip the campaign in
the bud and thereupon summoned Frazier to his office at
the next opportunity and summarily discharged him for
that reason Accordingly, I conclude that the discharge
was causally related to the concerted activities of the
employees and protected by Section 7; therefore, I find
that it constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, and I shall recommend an appropriate remedy '
'Carter's description of the exit interview varies substantially with that of
Frazier In essence , Carter testified that he discharged Frazier because the
latter announced that he would not do an announcement on behalf of a
particular sponsor unless he was paid a talent fee This was, according to
Carter's testimony , an announcement which had already been sold, and
I'm unable to believe that Frazier would abruptly refuse to do it in the
manner stated Accordingly , for this reason as well as demeanor
considerations , I credit Frazier
'As to Respondent 's knowledge of the employees ' concerted activities on
this issue , counsel for the General Counsel in his brief relies, in addition to
the testimony of the announcers , upon the testimony of Mrs Pate who
stated that the subject of the talent fees came up in discussions between
Mrs Pate and Mrs Carter, indicating that Mrs Carter was cognizant of
the employees ' complaint However, the record is vague as to the date of
such conference or conferences so that it is somewhat uncertain as to
whether such took place before or after February 4 In the light of such
ambiguity , I have given little weight to the testimony of Mrs Pate on this
issue and rely mainly on the testimony of the announcers
C. The March 21 Meetings
539
As previously noted, there were two significant
meetings of the Respondent corporation on March 21. a
stockholders' meeting followed immediately by a board of
directors' meeting Sometime prior to these meetings,
Mrs. Pate had secured from at least two minority
stockholders their proxies or agreement to vote in favor of
her ideas respecting future organization and operation of
the corporation as well as a willingness to serve as a
director of the corporation Thus, at the stockholders'
meeting, the board of directors was expanded from three
members (Mr. and Mrs. Carter and Mrs. Pate) to five
members (the three named directors plus Dr Dixon and
Rev Williams) A board of directors' meeting was held
immediately thereafter in which the first order of business
was the election of officers, as follows. Mrs. Pate,
chairman of the board of directors and
secretary-treasurer; Andrew R. Carter, president and
general manager; and Dr. V. L. Dixon, vice president.
Mrs. Pate then proceeded to make a rather extensive
report on the present state of the corporation with varied
suggestions as to improvements both in terms of
organization, personnel changes, and policies of the radio
station '
As particularly respects the issues in the instant case,
Mrs. Pate, in discussing the public relations policies of the
station, referred to the "recent dismissal of our top D.J.
(disc jockey) John L Frazier." It appears that his
discharge caused unfavorable reverberations in the
community, particular among some of the high school
students to whom he had made a speech. Mrs. Pate
pointed out that Frazier's efforts, most of which were
made on his own time, reflected favorably upon KPRS.
Accordingly, she felt that Frazier should be reinstated to
his position as announcer with retroactive pay from
February 20,9 and proposed a resolution to that effect
The minutes of the meeting indicate that "much
discussion ensued," and the record herein reflects that Mr.
and Mrs. Carter strenuously objected to the proposed
resolution. They argued that Frazier belonged to a black
militant organization and that if he returned to work, he
would be a source of trouble to the Company At that
point, employee Carole Wise, a secretary who was taking
notes at the meeting, spoke up and defended Frazier,
stating that he was not, in fact, the militant person which
Andrew Carter had pictured him to be. Whereupon,
Andrew Carter stated that she was not to speak at the
meetings . Wise then told Mrs. Pate that she could remain
no longer and left. The minutes of the meeting reflect that
Mrs. Pate's resolution respecting John Frazier carried
except that there was no provision for retroactive pay 10
Continuing her report, Mrs. Pate pointed out the need
for a more dynamic and aggressive sales manager (the
current sales manager was John Carter, son of Andrew
and Mildred Carter) She proposed a resolution that
Andrew Peters, who was presently on the staff as a
salesman , be promoted to the position of sales manager
effective immediately. However, the decision on that
resolution was to hold the matter in abeyance for a period
of 90 days in which time the work of Andrew Peters was
to be observed and reevaluated Mrs. Pate then proceeded
'See the minutes of the meeting (G C Exh 3)
'The date of February 20 was apparently chosen because Frazier had
received severance pay which effectively paid him at his daily rate until
such date
"Frazier returned to work at KPRS on or about March 25
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to point out that Mrs Carter had been "grossly
overworked" during the past several years by virtue of her
holding many and varied positions with the organization,
and suggested that she be relieved of some of them
particularly as respects the accounting department. Pate
offered the resolution which, in effect, placed the
accounting department under the supervision of a CPA
firm, and that employee Sharon Gamble "be appointed
chief accountant to work under the supervision of the
[CPA firm] until such time as this Board of Directors
shall decide this supervision is no longer necessary." That
resolution was adopted. An additional resolution, which
was adopted, elevated employee Haywood Smith to the
position of chief of IBM operations under the direction of
the said CPA firm. The meeting was then adjourned.
D. The April 25 Meeting and the Subsequent
Discharges of Employees
Shortly after the March 21 meetmg, Andrew and
Mildred Carter set about to secure sufficient proxies
among the minority stockholders to reverse the actions
initiated and instituted by Eugenia Pate. By April 14 they
had secured the votes of a majority of the shares, and
thereupon gave notice to the existing board of directors of
a call for a special meeting of the shareholders of the
corporation to be held on April 25.
Whereupon at 10 a.m on Friday, April 25, a special
shareholders' meeting of the corporation was held. At that
meeting , the shareholders, inter alia , passed resolutions
reducing the board of directors back to three persons, and
restored to the president the ordinary duties incidental to
his office deleting any restrictions upon his office passed
at the previous shareholders' meeting." The following
three persons were then nominated and elected as
directors: Andrew R. Carter, Mildred M Carter, and
Eugenia L. Pate. The meeting was then adjourned to be
immediately followed by a meeting of the new board of
directors.' 2
At the board of directors' meeting, the board, inter
alia, elected Andrew Carter as president; John Carter as
vice president; Donald H. Loudon (attorney for
Respondent) as secretary; and Mildred M. Carter as
treasurer and assistant secretary. It was further resolved
that since there was no such title as "chairman of the
Board of Directors" in the bylaws, "no person shall use or
claim such title";" only Andrew R. Carter, Mildred M.
Carter, or John Carter were authorized to sign checks for
the corporation; and Eugenia L Pate was employed as
consultant by the corporation at a salary of $10,000 per
annum . The meeting was then adjourned.
Later that day, Andrew Carter fired three employees of
the corporation (Carole Wise, Sharon Gamble, and Laura
Jonas), whose discharges are a subject of the instant
proceeding. The classifications and work history of each
of the three with the Respondent will be briefly set forth-
Carole Wise had been working for the Company since
June 1966 in various capacities. Most of her experience
"At the March 21 shareholders ' meeting, the duties of the president of
the corporation were severely circumscribed by the passage of an
amendment to the bylaws of the corporation which , in essence, provided
that he should have general oversight of the business of the corporation
except that " all employment of personnel, assignment of duties, and fixing
of salaries or of compensation, shall be subject to the subsequent approval
of the Board of Directors by majority vote " See Resp Exh 2
"See Resp Exh 4
"This resolution foreclosed Pate from using the title
was as a secretary to the officers of the Respondent, and
as such she had her own office adjacent to that of the
officers. There is no dispute as to her competency as a
secretary; however, according to the testimony of Mildred
Carter, Wise became quite unattentive and careless
respecting her work performance particularly following
the March 21 meeting, and that Wise did not appear to
recognize or appreciate Mildred Carter's authority as in
the past."
Wise testified that at the exit interview with President
Carter, the latter told her that she had been a very good
secretary, but that she had made the mistake of
interfering with her employer. Carter's version of the
conversation is not essentially different:
I said to Mrs. Wise that she had been a good
secretary. That her work during the last month had
been failing. I said that she had interfered with the
management of the station."
Sharon Gamble had worked for the Company since
September 1968 as a bookkeeper and accountant, having
had some prior experience in this field in Chicago. When
she first became employed with Respondent, she lived for
a short while at the home of Mr. and Mrs Carter. There
does not seem to be a dispute as to her competency or
skill as an accountant (she received a raise in wages in
November 1968), but she had a rather chronic habit of
being late for work from the beginning of her
employment. Andrew Carter testified that he had spoken
with Gamble on several occasions concerning this
dereliction, but there is no evidence that he ever
threatened discharge if she did not improve
Mildred Carter testified that approximately a week
before the discharge, she recommended to Andrew Carter
that Gamble be terminated because "primarily . she
was not doing her work, she was not staying in the office,
she was spending most of her time downstairs, she did not
come to work on time and nothing was happening. It was
like a picnic.""
Gamble testified that at the exit interview, Andrew
Carter told her that while she had been a good
accountant, she had made one mistake - she had put the
"corporation in jeopardy" and that he would have to
terminate her. Gamble replied that she wished to say only
one thing - that right "would out" and that she stood up
for what she believed in."
"It is to be recalled that Wise was involved in the incident at the March
2: board of directors ' meeting at which she disputed the contentions of
Andrew Carter respecting the militancy of John L Frazier Mrs Carter
testified that following the meeting, she advised Wise that the latter, as a
secretary , should never challenge the president of the corporation,
whereupon , Wise retorted that she still did not believe a word of what
Andrew Carter said - that it was still a lie - and walked out of the
room
"Carter testified that his reference to "interfering with the management
of the station" had to do with Wise's "outburst in the stockholders
meeting "
"KPRS was housed in a two-story budding Generally speaking, the
executive offices were located on the second floor where, in addition,
Sharon Gamble and Carole Wise had their offices On the first floor were
located the production facilities of Respondent , and the record reflects that
although there was an employee lounge, the employees customarily utilized
the production room as a kind of gathering place for informal discussions
during their break periods It was to this area that Mrs Carter had
reference when she stated that Gamble and Wise were spending too much
of their time "downstairs "
"Carter's version of the conversation did not include any reference to
placing the corporation in jeopardy He stated that his reason for firing
Gamble was because she was perpetually late for work , concerning which
he had spoken to her on several occasions. Beyond that he accused her of
KPRS BROADCASTING CORP. 541
Laura Jonas was employed by Respondent in October
1966, and worked for approximately 2 years as a
receptionist. In November 1968, she was made a traffic
clerk which job consisted of typing contracts, listening to
tapes of public service advertisements, and keeping a
production log which would reflect the time the
announcers were putting to commercial copy in the
production room. In addition, Jonas also acted as a relief
person at the receptionist desk.
Mildred Carter testified that Jonas performed her
duties satisfactorily until after March 21 when there
appeared to be a breakdown in the operation particularly
as respects material to be recorded to go on the air.
Carter felt that Jonas was covering for a dereliction by
John Frazier. Continuing, Carter testified as follows
respecting Jonas.
A. I found her to be evasive in giving me answers
about her work and the like, and I was not getting
anything from her I found her away from her desk,
too. She was frequently back in the production room
with the other girls. There was sort of a breakdown
that came about in the entire operation and it was my
feeling [had]" I made the recommendation, that she no
longer was interested in her work or in working with
me.
Q. When you made the recommendation for what9
A. For her termination.
Q. When did you make that recommendation?
A. This, too, was about a week or a week and a half
before she was terminated .. .
Jonas testified that at the exit interview on April 25,
Andrew Carter told her that she had been one of the
employees he "had high hopes for but because you saw fit
to interfere in management I am going to have to
terminate your job." Jonas replied that she had tried to do
everything anyone had ever asked her to do, and Carter
testified that she explained that she had been confused
because she had had so many bosses that she was not sure
whose orders she should obey. However, Carter told her
that he was sorry but that he still had to terminate her.
E The Employees Walk Out in Protest, and
Subsequent Events
Later in the afternoon of April 25, John Frazier learned
from Sharon Gamble what had taken place at the
shareholders' and board of directors' meetings, and was
also advised of the discharges of the three female
employees. He told Carole Wise that he intended to walk
out in protest and that he would call a meeting of
employees at his home that evening to advise them of his
intentions. Accordingly, on the evening of April 25
approximately 13 employees of the Respondent gathered
at Frazier's home and voted unanimously to walk out the
following day in protest of the firing of the three
employees. A statement to that effect was drafted at the
meeting and was presumably released to the news media
the following day. (See G. C. Exh. 2.)
The following morning, Saturday, April 26, the 13
employees assembled down the street from the radio
station, but did not report for work. However, the station
operated that day through the efforts of the Carters and
being "argumentative " Inasmuch as Carter did not deny the statement
attributed to him by Gamble, and the latter impressed me as being a
candid and honest witness, I credit her testimony.
"This is evidently a mistake in the transcript The context indicates that
the word should be "when "
the handful of remaining employees who did not
participate in the protest No picketing occurred on that
day or the following day
On Monday, April 28, the employees contacted the
Charging Party, an attorney in Kansas City, and the
charge in the instant case was filed with the Board's
Regional Office At approximately 3 o'clock Monday
afternoon, the employees returned to KPRS and sought
an audience with Mr. Andrew Carter. The latter indicated
that he would see three of them as a representative
committee Accordingly, John Frazier, Carole Wise, and
Haywood Smith presented themselves in Andrew Carter's
office. With Carter was Mildred Carter and John Carter.
Frazier read aloud the names of the following 14
employees and this was followed by a colloquy which was
recorded by Carole Wise:
Nadine Robbins Chris King
Laura Jonas Vaughn McCormick
Haywood Smith Bradley Wallace
Deloris Chism Cleo Beard
Carole Wise Julian Riding
Sharon Gamble Andy Peters
Dell Rice John L. Frazier
John L.. As of this moment, we would like to have
our jobs back As of this moment, we are asking to be
reinstated.
Mr. Carter: You walked off without any word of
justification and now you ask to be reinstated with no
more comment than that?
John L : Yes.
Mr. Carter: Three of the people whom you read off
that list I had fired. Then what you're demanding is
that these three people be reinstated.
John L.: Yes.
Mr. Carter: No, I'm not interested.
Mrs. Carter: I suggest you go to the Missouri Labor.
John L.: We asked to speak to Mr Carter.
Mr. Carter: This is my office You will be courteous
as long as you are in here.
John L.: We asked the receptionist to speak to Mr.
Andrew Carter.
Mr. Carter: You have just finished. Goodby
John L.: Thank you."
[All Exit]
The following day, Tuesday, April 29, the employees
established, for the first time, a picket line about the radio
station. They carried homemade picket signs which
reflected the following legends: "Unfair firing,"
"Inadequate tax withholding," "Mismanagement," "Not
serving the Black community," and perhaps a few others.
The picketing had not ceased as of the time of the hearing
herein.
On May 23 all of the protesting employees, except
Nadine Robbins, sent to Respondent individual telegrams
unconditionally applying for reinstatement.20 As of the
time of the hearing herein, all employees who walked out
in protest had been reinstated with the exception of
Andrew Peters, John L Frazier, and Vaughn McCormick.
"See G C. Exh 4 There is no essential disagreement among any of the
parties that the foregoing represents the events which transpired in the
office of Andrew Carter on this occasion
"Nadine Robbins sent such a telegram on June 10 and was subsequently
reinstated to employment in September following a leave of absence which
was agreed to by both parties
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 13, the Respondent, while still maintaining that
Laura Jonas was discharged for cause and had never been
"a victim of any unfair labor practice" on the part of
Respondent, made an offer to Jonas to return to work at
the Company Jonas accepted the offer, and returned to
work on June 17 as secretary to the news director at the
same rate of pay she was receiving before she was fired.
Analysis and Concluding Findings
It is the theory of the complaint that Respondent
discharged the three female employees on April 25
because they engaged in "concerted activities" for
"mutual aid or protection," which conduct is protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the action of Respondent is
said to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Respondent's defense is based on its contention that
Respondent's officers had no knowledge of any such
concerted activity, and, in any event, that there was lack
of proof that such activities were the motivation for the
discharges, i.e , that the three were discharged for cause.
After a careful consideration of all the evidence in the
record as a whole, I find and conclude that there is lack
of substantial evidence to support the position of the
General Counsel.
It is, of course, the position of the General Counsel that
the "concerted activities" engaged in by the employees
consisted of the meetings they attended from December
through April in which they discussed their grievances at
the radio station and, with Mrs. Pate, planned a course of
conduct designed to remedy at least some of them. There
can be no disagreement with the proposition that such
conduct could constitute concerted activities protected by
Section 7 from discharge. However, a necessary predicate
is, as Respondent points out: (1) Respondent's officials
must have known about such activity, and (2) it must have
been the cause of the discharge; i.e., the discharges must
have occurred because the officials did not sanction
activities engaged in by the employees for their own
"mutual aid or protection "
There is certainly no direct evidence that either Andrew
or Mildred Carter knew of the meetings Every witness
who was interrogated on the subject denied that the
Carters had been notified of any of the "meetings," nor
were they (the witnesses) aware of any manner in which
the Carters may have learned about such meetings. The
Carters, of course, denied knowledge.
In his brief, General Counsel relies mainly on the
testimony of Pate to prove knowledge. He points out that
Pate's office was in full sight of Andrew Carter's and that
she testified that in preparation for her resolutions she
frequently called in various employees (particularly
Gamble, Wise, and Jonas) for assistance. However,
assuming that Mr. and/or Mrs. Carter observed such
activities (which inference I am willing to draw under the
circumstances), such evidence is lacking in proof of
concerted activities by the employees; it proves only their
participation with Mrs. Pate in her activities, which, as
hereafter discussed, I believe to be the key on this aspect
of the case. ' In sum , I do not believe that there is
substantial evidence on this record to prove knowledge by
the Carters of concerted activities of the employees prior
to the discharges of the three women.
"Indeed, Pate testified that Mr Carter was aware that she (Pate) was
talking to the employees about their problems because they (Pate and Mrs
Carter) spent hours talking about such things However, Pate conceded
that she never told the Carters of the meetings at her home
Moreover, I am not convinced even if knowledge of
such activities be inferred through utilization of some legal
fiction such as the "small plant doctrine,"" that there is
substantial evidence to prove that the Carters discharged
the employees because the latter engaged in such activities
for their own "mutual aid or protection." Rather, I am
convinced that the "real reason"" for the discharges was
because the Carters believed the three women to be (and
they were) among the most active participants with Pate
in abetting the latter to wrest control of the corporation
from the Carters, and to change its structure and policies
In short, the discharges were clearly meted out by Andrew
Carter (when he regained power to do so) in retribution
for these activities and not because the employees may
have gotten together and grieved about some of their
conditions of employment, although such activities did, in
some measure, overlap.
That such was the actual motive behind the firings is
evidenced by the fact that it was Pate and not the
employees who initiated the "meetings" and that such
were conducted primarily for her edification rather than
the employees. But more importantly, Andrew Carter
made it abundantly clear at the exit interviews with the
three women that they were being fired because they
"interfered with management" and "placed the
corporation in jeopardy."
While the argument could be made that these phrases
meant only that the employees could endanger the
corporation by seeking higher wages or other
improvements in their working conditions, I am convinced
that Andrew Carter was not really concerned about such
matters. Rather, he was greatly troubled by the
employees' aiding and abetting Eugenia Pate in her
objectives and their resulting apathy and lack of
cooperation with and obeisance to Mildred Carter
following the March 21 meeting. The latter reasons were,
in my view, the dominate ones in motivating Carter to
discharge the employees, and I so find. Accordingly, I
shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
However, the fact that the legality of the discharges
have been upheld does not, of course, remove the
protected character of the resulting walkout of the
employees on April 26. It is well settled that such
concerted conduct is protected under Section 7 where, as
here, the protestants believed the Respondent's action to
be violative of the statute. 14 As such, it is equally plain
that the Respondent was obliged to reinstate them upon
their unconditional application therefor, assuming that
their positions had not been filled by the hiring of
permanent replacements. But the application of April 28
was clearly conditional upon Respondent's reinstatement
of the three dischargees. Accordingly, this would not have
been effective even if the discharges had been found to
have been unlawful;SS a fortiori, such would not be
efficacious here.
As previously noted, all striking employees
subsequently made unconditional applications for
reinstatement by telegram on May 23 Since that date, all
strikers have been reinstated except for Frazier,
"See, e g , Malone Knitting Company, 152 NLRB 643, enfd 358 F 2d
880 (CA 1)
"See N L R B v Brown d/b/a Brown Food Store, 380 U S 278
"See, e g , Phaostron Instrument & Electronic Company, 146 NLRB
996, 1004
"Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co , 134 NLRB 388, enfd 312 F 2d 529
(C A 3)
KPRS BROADCASTING CORP.
McCormick, and Peters 26
As respects the reasons for not recalling these three
persons, Mildred Carter testified that she felt that "to
return John L. to the staff would not be in the best
interest of the station and the personnel.... I do not feel
that he would work harmoniously with me, or with
management for that matter, from the statements he has
made to me when I attempted to talk to him " Mrs.
Carter also intimated m her testimony that the reason for
not reinstating Frazier was his involvement with black
militant groups particularly on the picket line during the
first week following the walkout However, she conceded
in a preheating affidavit taken by a Board agent on May
5 (following such alleged disturbances) that "as far as
[she] knew John L. Frazier had not engaged in any
misconduct before he was terminated or after he was
terminated." There is no record evidence that Frazier
engaged in violence or other misconduct while on the
picket line, or elsewhere.
As to employee Vaughn McCormick, Mildred Carter
testified that he was not recalled because she had been
told that during the time of the walkout several people
had been threatened and this conduct was attributed to
McCormick However, there was no actual proof
presented on this record that McCormick had, in fact,
engaged in any such misconduct, and, in the absence of
same, I find Respondent's belief insufficient to deprive
either McCormick or Frazier of the rights to which they
are entitled under Section 7 of the Act.27
There is no record evidence as to why Andrew Peters
was not reinstated following his unconditional application,
Mildred Carter testifymg that he did not come under her
jurisdiction inasmuch as he was in the sales department.
In its brief, Respondent points out that there is some
record evidence to the effect that Respondent was seeking
to secure a new staff on April 26 to operate its station,
and therefore an inference is warranted that the three
male employees were not rehired because they had been
legally replaced. However, aside from the fact that this
was not contended by the Carters at the hearing and
therefore appears to be merely an afterthought, the burden
of proof on this issue is upon the party making the
contention, i.e , the Respondent. There being no evidence
that the three strikers had been replaced at the time of
unconditional application, and lack of substantial evidence
that they had engaged in misconduct of a nature to
deprive them of their Section 7 rights, I shall recommend
that all three male employees be immediately reinstated to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, with
backpay. S8
"General Counsel makes no claim that such reinstatements were not
promptly made by Respondent Accordingly, no backpay claim is made on
behalf of any of the strikers based on lack of diligence on the part of
Respondent in making the reinstatements
nN L R B v Burnup and Sims, Inc, 379 U S 21, see also N L R B v
Industrial Cotton Mills (Division of J P Stevens Co ). 208 F 2d 87 (C A
4)
2'In its brief, Respondent relies on N L R B v Local Union No 1229,
I B E W, 346 U S 464, 476, in support of its position that Respondent
was under no duty to reinstate the strikers because they were disloyal and,
by their picket signs, held the station up to "contempt and ridicule " I
believe the cited case to be distinguishable on at least two grounds (1) The
strikers here did not disparage the quality of the station 's product but
merely sought to redirect its efforts toward more service to the black
community , and (2) the Court pointedly found the attack of the strikers
there
. related itself to no labor practice of the company it made no
reference to wages, hours or working conditions The policies attacked
were those of finance and public relations for which management, not
Ill. THE REMEDY
543
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
I have found that the Respondent discharged John L.
Frazier on February 4 but Respondent having voluntarily
reinstated him to his former position on March 25, I shall
only recommend that Respondent make Frazier whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the
Respondent's action against him with backpay computed
in the customary manner. (F. W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716)
Having found that Respondent unlawfully failed' and
refused to reinstate three of its employees who concertedly
ceased work on April 26 in lawful protest against the
discharge of the three female employees, I shall
recommend that the Respondent be required to make each
such employee whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered during the period between May 28 (which is 5
days following the date such employees made
unconditional application for reinstatement, i e , on May
23), and terminating on the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement.
Since a discharge for engaging in protected concerted
activities goes to the heart of the Act, and because
Respondent has demonstrated a hostility to its employees
availing themselves of those rights, I shall recommend an
order coextensive with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 29
On the basis of all of the foregoing and the entire
record, I hereby make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging John L Frazier, for engaging in
concerted activities for his mutual aid or protection,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to reinstate John L. Frazier,
Vaughn McCormick, and Andrew Peters to their former
positions upon their unconditional application therefor,
Respondent further interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of all the foregoing, and upon the entire
record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
technicians , must be responsible The attack asked for no public
sympathy or support It was a continuing attack , initiated while off duty,
upon the very interests which the attackers were being paid to conserve
and develop Nothing could be further from the purpose of the Act than
to require an employer to finance such activities Nothing would
contribute less to the Act's declared purpose of promoting industrial
peace and stability
Here, on the other hand , the strikers made every effort to gain public
support for their cause which strongly asserted unfair labor practices of
Respondent as well as seeking to alter other policies.
"See Baltimore Luggage Company, 171 NLRB No 191
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby ordered that KPRS Broadcasting
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees for exercising rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
(b) Refusing to reinstate employees who have engaged
in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the following employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of
their discharge and/or refusal to reinstate, in the manner
provided in the Remedy section of this Decision- John L.
Frazier, Andrew Peters, and Vaughn McCormick.
(b) Notify those employees listed above if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and` the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary and relevant for determination of the
amount of backpay due
(d) Post at its radio station in Kansas City, Missouri,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the 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 In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith 11
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed in all other respects
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against our employees for engaging in concerted
activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate employees because
they concertedly ceased work or picketed under
circumstances protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to each, John L. Frazier, Vaughn
McCormick, and Andrew Peters, immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and will make
each of them whole for any loss he may have suffered
by reason of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify the employees named above who
have not been reinstated, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces
Dated By
KPRS BROADCASTING
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181