KTTV, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1477 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

KTTV, INC. 1477
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
KTTV, INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND
TECHNICIANS, CIO, PETITIONER
KTTV, INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND
TECHNICIANS, CIO, PETITIONER
KTTV, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EM-
PLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 21-RC-1905, 21-RC-1959,
and 21-RC-1960. January 31, 1952.
Decision , Direction of Elections , and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin Zimring,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, CIO,
herein called NABET, the Petitioner in Cases Nos. 21-RC-1905 and
21-RC-1952, filed two separate petitions for representation of em-
ployees at the studio of the Employer's television station KTTV in
Los Angeles, California, and transmitter station on Mt. Wilson, Los
Angeles County, California. In the petition involved in Case No.
21-RC-1905, NABET originally sought to represent all engineering
department employees; in the one involved in Case No. 21-RC-1952,
NABET sought to represent all employees in the program depart-
1 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs, in
our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
97 NLRB No. 221.
956209-52-vol. 97-94
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment 2 At the hearing, however, NABET amended its petitions to
seek a single unit of employees of both the engineering and program
departments, taking the final position that only a single unit is appro-
priate.
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving
Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL,
herein called IATSE, the Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-1960, seeks
to represent all employees in the program department (substantially
the same unit as in NABET's original petition in Case No. 21-RC-
1952) and, in addition, certain employees described as "lighting engi-
neers." The hearing officer granted IATSE's motion to intervene in
Case No. 21-RC-1905. IATSE contends (1) that the engineering de-
partment employees, excluding the lighting engineers, is an appro-
priate unit, (2) that the program department employees, including
the lighting engineers, is an appropriate unit, and (3) that if the
lighting engineers do not belong in the program department unit, they
constitute an appropriate unit by themselves, and should in any event
be given an opportunity to vote in a self-determination election
whether they desire to be attached to the engineering department unit
or the program department unit.
Local 45, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
herein called IBEW, intervened in all three proceedings, and takes
the position that the two separate units of engineering and program
employees it. now represents in separate bargaining agreements, as
originally sought in NABET's petitions, are appropriate.
The Employer, like NABET, takes the position that only one single
unit of program and engineering employees is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in producing and transmitting television
programs at Los Angeles, California. Its operations are divided
among six departments : program, engineering, sales, sales promotion
and publicity, accounting; and legal. Only the program and engi-
neering departments are involved in this proceeding.
Pursuant to consent election agreements, IBEW was certified as
bargaining representative for the engineering department employees
on February 21, 1949, and for the program department employees on
March 20, 1950. On July 12, 1949, the Employer and IBEW executed
an agreement covering the employees in the engineering department,
and on October 27, 1950, the same parties executed, an agreement
covering the employees in the program department. Both agreements
provided that they were to remain in effect until July 11, 1951, and
2 Throughout the hearing , the terms "program department" and "production department"
were used interchangeably. The parties stipulated that the two terms described the same
department.
KTTV, INC. 1479
from year to year unless changed or terminated. However, neither
contract is urged as a bar in this case.
The engineering department is headed by a chief engineer, who is
assisted by an assistant chief engineer. Next in line is the operations
engineer, to whom the following four major engineering groups re-
port : facilities group, field group, studio group, and transmitter
group. These groups are headed by a facilities engineer, field super-
visor, studio supervisor, and transmitter supervisor, respectively.
Under the facilities supervisor are : a maintenance supervisor, main-
tenance engineers, video control engineers, and television repairmen.
Under the field supervisor are : a technical director, camera engineers,
video control engineer, sound engineer, and link transmitter engineer.
Under the studio supervisor are : a technical director, camera engi-
neer, video control engineer, sound engineer, microphone boom engi-
neer, dolly pushers, and lighting engineers. Under the transmitter
supervisor are transmitter engineers.
The program department is headed by the program director. He
has three major divisions under his supervision: (1) sports, special
events, and public service; (2) daytime programming; and (3) night-
time programming. Each division is headed by an executive director,
who supervises a director responsible for putting the program into
effect. Under these is a coordinator of production facilities, who in
turn supervises the art director and the production facilities manager.
The art director heads the graphic design department and the pro-
duction facilities manager is in charge of the stage managers and their
construction crews. Hiring and discharging of employees in the
program department is done by its head, the program director. The
work classifications of the program department include stage hands,
make-up artists, scenic artists, painters, sign painters, show-card art-
ists, carpenters, set erectors, set construction workers, property men,
prop makers, property custodians, wardrobe attendants, stage man-
agers, studio manager, art designers, art directors, and related
categories.
The record shows that the engineering and the program depart-
ments work closely together. When a program is conceived, an initial
meeting is held at which various representatives from both depart-
ments meet and discuss mutual problems. Thereafter, officials and
employees from each of the departments collaborate in coordinating
logistics, drama, settings, transmission, and other aspects of television
in order to produce the telecast. This type of cooperative activity
extends through the presentation of the show on the air. The director
who supervises the programming and transmission of a finished tele-
vision program has authority to give orders to all employees assigned
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to that program, without regard to whether they belong to the pro-
gram or engineering department. Under these circumstances, it is
clear that a single, two-department unit as sought by NABET, and
as favored by the Employer, could be an appropriate unit .3
On the other hand, although employees in both departments are
required to cooperate with each other in putting the show on the
screen- and air, there is practically no transfer of employees from one
department to another. Each department head, i. e., the program
director and chief engineer, is responsible for the hiring and discharge
of employees in his department. As in the KNTR case,4 the engineer-
ing department employees are either skilled electronics technicians
or work entirely with electronic equipment whereas the program de-
partment employees perform work usually performed by persons
holding similar jobs in legitimate theatres and in motion picture
studios. Each department thus separately forms- an identifiable
cohesive group. Moreover, there is a history of collective bargaining
on a separate, departmental basis. Under the circumstances, we be-
lieve that the engineering department employees and the program
department employees may, if they so desire, also constitute separate
appropriate units.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the lighting
engineers. As noted above, IATSE urges that the lighting engineers
belong-in the program department unit, or (2) in a separate unit by
themselves, and (3) should, in any event, be given an opportunity to
determine whether they wish to be included in the program department
or engineering department unit. The other parties would retain the
lighting engineers in the engineering department unit. There are
eight lighting engineers in the Employer's employ. They are under
the ultimate supervision of the chief engineer, as head of the engineer-
ing department, and are hired and may be discharged by him. They
work in the engineering department; specifically, as part of a crew
under a technical director. Lighting engineers drape or hang lights,
direct lights at proper angles-to illuminate the set, track down light-
ing failures if they occur, operate and maintain dimmer boards and
switchboxes, repair short circuits on portable lights, and perform other
related functions. They also normally check with video control en-
gineers as to the intensity of the light and measure such intensity by
the use of light meters. The lighting work is done in conjunction
with the work of the other employees of the engineering department.
Changes in lighting effect involve both physical changes in the posi-
tion of lights and electronic manipulation, and at any given instant a
change may be effected by either method. Under the circumstances
8 KMTR Radio Corporation (KLAC-TV), 85 NLRB 99.
4 Ibid.
KTTV, INC. 1481
of this particular case, including the fact-that they have already been
bargained for as part of the existing engineering department unit, we
believe that the interests of the lighting engineers are more closely
allied to those of the engineering employees, and shall include them in
the engineering department voting group.'
In accordance with our decision herein, we shall therefore dismiss
the separate petition filed by IATSE herein in Case No. 21-RC-1960.
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we hold that the em-
ployees of the Employer in the following voting groups, excluding
from each, all other employees, office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors,6 may constitute either a
single appropriate unit or separate appropriate units :
1. All employees in the engineering department of the Employer's
television broadcasting station in Los Angeles, California, and the
transmitter station on Mt. Wilson, including the lighting engineers.
2. All employees in the program department of the Employer's
television broadcasting station in Los Angeles, California, including
but not limited to stage hands, make-up artists, scenic artists, painters,
sign painters, show card artists, carpenters, set erectors, property men,
prop makers, set and scenic designers, set decorators, set construction
workers, stage managers, studio managers, and hair stylists, property
custodians, and wardrobe attendants.
If a majority of the employees in both voting groups select NABET,
they will be taken to have indicated their preference for a single bar-
gaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections di-
rected herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to NABET for such unit which the Board in that event finds to be
appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining. In the event a ma-
jority of the employees do not select NABET in both of the voting
groups, but do select NABET, IATSE, or IBEW in either voting
group, the employees will be taken to have indicated their preference
for separate bargaining units, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to NABET, IATSE, or
IBEW, as the case may be, for the separate unit or units in question
which the Board finds in such circumstances to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Cf National Broadcasting Company, 89 NLRB 1289, supplemental decision 95 NLRB
1534, which is distinguishable from the instant case in that , among other things, there was,
in that case, no uniform history of bargaining in which all employees performing lighting
operations had been included in the engineering unit
6 The evidence indicates that the head of the make -up department hires and discharges
other make-up artists who work with him. We shall therefore exclude him from the pro-
gram department voting group as a supervisor.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT is ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 21-RC-1960 by In-
ternational Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Pic-
ture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order.
FOLEY BROTHERS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND
SMELTER WORKERS, PETITIONER
FOLEY BROTHERS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION
No. 533, AFL, PETITIONER
FOLEY BROTHERS, INC. and BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
DEPARTMENT, AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 20-RC-1542,20-RC-
1603, and 20-RC-1621. January 31, 1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing of these consolidated cases was held before
Clement W. Miller, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 2
1. The Employer, a New York corporation with its principal offices
in Pleasantville, New York, is engaged in heavy engineering construc-
tion at various locations throughout the United States and foreign
countries. The sole operation of the Employer with which we are
here concerned is that of digging two mine shafts and constructing
i After the close of the hearing certain of the parties submitted a proposed stipulation
amending the record as to a date stated, and adding an exhibit . As the stipulation has not
been executed by all the parties we are unable to accept it. However, we note that the
date sought to be corrected is in fact corrected by the testimony in the record , and the
material covered in the proposed exhibit Is contained in other evidence which is already
in the record.
2 The motion of Mine, Mill to deny intervention to Operating Engineers is denied. Oper-
ating Engineers has a sufficient representative Interest to participate in these proceedings
as an intervenor seeking an election in the same unit as the Petitioner in Case No.
20-RC-1621. -
97 NLRB No. 219.