Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Loc. 52

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 212 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Local 52, Interna-
tional Alliance of Theatrical-Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United
States , and Canada, AFL-CIO and American
Broadcasting Company, a Division of American
Broadcasting Companies , Inc.' Case 2-CB-6067
September 30, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On May 28, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Paul
Bisgyer issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
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.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief 2
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order as modified herein'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Mo-
tion Picture Studio Mechanics, Local 52, Interna-
tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, New York, New
York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. In paragraph 1(c) substitute the words "In any
other manner" for "In any like or related manner."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i Name as corrected at the hearing
2 The Respondent's motion requesting oral argument is denied as the
record, including the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues
and positions of the parties.
3In par 1 (c) of his recommended Order the Administrative Law Judge
uses the narrow cease-and-desist language like or related" rather than the
broad injunctive language , "in any other manner," which the Board tradi-
tionally provides in cases involving discrimination in employment , such as
found here . See N L R B v. Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C A 4,
1941). Accordingly, we shall modify the recommended Order to require
Respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon
employees' rights This change is also made in the revised notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to give evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ameri-
can Broadcasting Company, a Division of
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., to
deny Kandy Armstrong or any other employee
or job applicant employment as a soundperson
or otherwise to discriminate against her or other
employees or job applicants in violation of Sec-
tior. 8(a)(3) of the Act because of their member-
ship in another labor organization or nonmem-
bership in Respondent Local 52's organization.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ameri-
can Broadcasting Company, a Division of
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., to dis-
criminate against an employee in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act or to discriminate
against an employee with respect to whom mem-
bership in our union has been denied or termi-
nated on some ground other than his failure to
tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
or retaining membership.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify American Broadcasting Com-
pany, a Division of American Broadcasting
Companies, Inc., and Kandy Armstrong, in
writing, that we have no objection to the
Company's employing her as a soundperson,
and that we request the Company to give her
such employment.
WE WILL reimburse Kandy Armstrong for any
pay she lost, with 6-percent interest, by reason
of the discrimination which we have unlawfully
caused to be practiced against her.
MOTION PICTURE STUDIO MECHANICS, LOCAL
52, INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MA-
CHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL-CIO
226 NLRB No. 36
DECISION
MOTION PICTURE STUDIO MECHANICS LOC. 52
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BISGYER, Administrative Law Judge: This proceed-
ing, with all the parties represented, was heard on February
3, 1976, in New York City, New York, on the complaint of
the General Counsel issued on November 21, 1975,' as
amended at the hearing, and the answer of Motion Picture
Studio Mechanics, Local 52, International Alliance of The-
atrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Op-
erators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Respondent or Local 52. In issue is the question
whether the Respondent, in violation of Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed,( attempted to and did cause American Broadcasting
Company, a Division of American Broadcasting Compa-
nies, Inc.,3 herein called ABC, unlawfully to discriminate
against Kandy Armstrong 4 in employment as a "sound-
person," although membership in the Respondent was de-
nied to her for reasons other than her failure to tender
periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring membership. At the close of the
hearing, the parties summarized their positions and subse-
quently the General Counsel and the Respondent submit-
ted briefs amplifying their contentions.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
demeanor of the' witnesses, and with due consideration
being given to the arguments advanced by the parties, I
make the following:
i The complaint is based on a charge filed by American Broadcasting
Company, a Division of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc, on No-
vember 6, 1975, a copy of which was duly served on the Respondent on or
about November 7, 1975.
2 Sec. 8(b)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization or its agents:
to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of. . [Section 8](a)(3) or to discriminate against
an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization
has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to
tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership
Insofar as relevant, Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) prohibits a labor organization or its
agents "to restrain or coerce ... employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7" which, in turn, provides
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, loin, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, . . . and shall also have the right to refrain
from any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section
8(a)(3).
Sec. 8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "by discrimi-
nation in regard to hire or tenure of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization," subject to a proviso which sanc-
tions the execution and enforcement of a union-security agreement between
an employer and a labor organization under the conditions therein pre-
scribed.
3 Name appears as corrected at the hearing
4 She is also known as K. or Kay Armstrong and is referred to in the
complaint by the latter name.
,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY INVOLVED
213
ABC, a Delaware corporation with offices and a place of
business in New York City, New York, is engaged in radio
and television network and local broadcasting and various
other enterprises. Its gross revenues from its broadcasting
operations for the past year exceeded $1 million. During
the same period, its gross advertising revenues received
from firms located outside the State of New York were in
excess of $50,000. ABC also purchased during this period
goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped directly to its New York facilities from sources
outside the State.
It is conceded, and I find, that ABC is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meamng of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
There is no question that the Respondent is a labor orga-
nization within the meamng of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
This case arises out of the Respondent Local 52's oppo-
sition to ABC's employment of Kandy Armstrong, a con-
cededly qualified and capable soundperson,5 for the assert-
ed reason that the employment of Armstrong, who
happened to be a member of a sister Local 644 which rep-
resents ABC's camerapersons, constituted an encroach-
ment upon Local 52's jurisdiction over soundpersons
whom it represents pursuant to a collective-bargaining con-
tract with ABC. Although the General Counsel contends
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of
the Act by attempting to cause and causing ABC to dis-
criminate against Armstrong because she was not a mem-
ber of Local 52, a narrower question is actually presented
whether, under the special circumstances of this case, those
statutory provisions were violated because the Respon-
dent's action was prompted by Armstrong's membership in
Local 644, rather than her nonmembership in Local 52.6
B. The Evidence
The relevant facts are, as follows:
For a number of years, the Respondent Local 52 has
been the collective-bargaining representative of ABC's
"soundmen and electricians ... within Local 52's territori-
al jurisdiction,7 now and hereafter employed by . . . [ABC]
5 A soundperson records sound for film.
6 Not in issue here and therefore unnecessary to decide is the question
whether the Respondent sought to impose a discriminatory hiring policy
upon ABC with respect to the employment of soundpersons who had no
union affiliation at all.
Par 3 of the current contract, which is for a term from January 1, 1974,
Continued
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on newsreel or production work" pursuant to successive
contracts. The current contract contains a valid union-se-
curity provision which, among other things, requires, as a
condition of employment, that the soundmen and electri-
cians "be or become-members of Local 52, not later than
the thirty-first (31st) day following . . . the date of their
employment ... The contract also recognizes that
"membership in Local 52 shall not be a condition of hiring,
that . . . [ABC] shall administer its hiring practices without
discrimination by reason of membership or non-member-
ship in Local 52, and the ultimate right to accept or reject
any employee is retained by . . . [ABC]." ABC also has a
contractual relationship with Local 644, a sister organiza-
tion of Local 52 affiliated with the same International,8 for
ABC's camerapersons and assistant camerapersons whom
Local 644 represents.
In early 1974, Kandy Armstrong, an admittedly experi-
enced and competent soundperson and an Emmy award
winner, joined Local 644 when that union organized TV
Channel 13 where she was then employed in her craft 9
Previously, in August 1973, Armstrong had filed an appli-
cation for membership in Local 52. Although she passed
the written examination, she was unable to muster suffi-
cient membership support with the result that her applica-
tion was subsequently voted down by the members. In Au-
gust 1975, she filed a second application which was
similarly rejected by the membership on the following Oc-
tober 14, although several applicants received a favorable
vote and were inducted into that organization. About a
month before, Armstrong and another applicant were told
by Michael Proscia, Local 52's business manager, in an-
swer to their inquiry, that their prospects for membership
were bleak since unemployment was high among the mem-
bers.
In or about May 1975, Armstrong, anticipating a sum-
mer layoff at Channel 13 where she was employed, visited
Gideon Fiat, ABC's assistant director of news television
film production, and requested freelance work as a sound-
person. Fiat informed her that he was unable to hire her
because she was not a Local 52 member and suggested
that she secure a work permit from Local 52's business
manager, Proscia.10 Armstrong thereupon telephoned Pros-
cia who advised her that, in view of the high unemploy-
ment situation in the union, he could not give her a work
permit. On a subsequent occasion, Armstrong conveyed
this information to Fiat.
through December 31, 1976, defines the Respondent's geographical jurisdic-
tion as covering "the five (5) Boroughs of New York City and Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, and with respect to soundmen only, Washington, D C."
8 International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Pic-
ture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO
9 According to Armstrong's uncontradicted and credible testimony, she
and other soundpersons at Channel 13 had previously spoken to Bob Hyle,
who was then a Local 52 business agent , concerning Local 52's interest in
representing Channel 13 soundpersons, but Hyle indicated that Local 52's
members would not be favorably disposed to the idea
10 However, it appears that in 1973 Fiat had hired Armstrong for a 5-week
assignment as a freelance soundperson to do a documentary, "Women in
Prison," without requiring a work permit from Local 52 After this assign-
ment, Fiat also offered Armstrong a staff position which she was unable to
take because of other job commitments On this occasion, Fiat did not
indicate to Armstrong that she would need a work permit to take this job
On or about October 20, 1975, following her latest un-
successful effort to secure membership in Local 52, Arm-
strong again sought employment from Fiat. Although Fiat
reiterated his inability to hire her because she was not a
member of Local 52, he stated that he would confer with
ABC's, attorneys to see what could be done. Accordingly,
Fiat and his superior, Jack Bush, the director of news film
for the ABC television network, discussed the matter of"
Armstrong's employment with ABC's labor attorney, Ste-
phen Solomon, who advised them that they had the con-
tractual and legal right to hire her." As a consequence, the
decision was made to hire Armstrong and she was notified
to communicate with Fiat, which she did. On November 5,
Armstrong saw Fiat at his office and was told of ABC's
decision to employ her. Thereafter, she was directed by
Fiat's assistant, Avi Cohen,12 to report for work on Novem-
ber 6.
In the meantime, Armstrong's name was posted on the
assignment board along with-the names of other employees
in the department. When this came to the attention of Jerry
Slattery, Local 52's shop steward, he visited Fiat and in-
formed him that he was under instructions to report
Armstrong's employment to Local 52 so that proper action
could be taken and that probably "they" ,would have to
walk out. Fiat responded that this would not alter the
company's decision to hire her.
On the morning of November 6, Local 52's business
manager, Proscia, received a telephone call from the shop
steward that Armstrong's name appeared on the work ros-
ter. Proscia testified that, as he was aware that Armstrong
belonged to Local 644, he inferred "that ABC was en-
croaching on . . . [his] jurisdiction or [was] in collusion
with 644, whatever the case may be ...." Thereupon, he
communicated with Local 644 Business Manager William
Horgan and both of them, accompanied by Local 52 Presi-
dent Milton Moshlak and Local 644 President Manny Al-
pert, proceeded to ABC's facility. Upon their arrival, they
approached Armstrong, who was setting up her equipment
in preparation for her assignment. Proscia ordered her off
the job, declaring that she was improperly working in his
(that is, Local 52's) jurisdiction and outside of her own
(Local 644's) and that for this reason he was going to prefer
charges against her. Armstrong replied that she had no in-
tention of leaving her new job. This evoked a, similar warn-
ing from Local 644 President Alpert that she would be
brought up on charges for working outside of her jurisdic-
tion. In a later conversation, Proscia again demanded that
she leave her job and received the same negative response.
When Assistant Director Fiat about this time entered the
room where. Armstrong, Proscia, his colleagues, and em-
ployees who were awaiting their assignments were congre-
gated, Proscia announced to Fiat that he could not use
Armstrong and that, if he did, "they" would strike. Fiat,
however, answered that he intended to use her services and
that, to the best of his information, it would be illegal to do
otherwise. This stirred up emotional reactions by Proscia
Although Solomon indicated to Fiat and Bush that the company would
benefit from hiring a qualified woman, such as Armstrong was, the question
of union-caused discrimination on the basis of sex is not here involved.
i2 In his brief, the General Counsel noted-that Avi Cohen 's name incor-
rectly appears in the record as Harvey Cohen.
MOTION PICTURE STUDIO MECHANICS LOC. 52
and Local 52 members. Stating that he was going to hold a
meeting with his members downstairs in the street , Proscia
left with the employees . Fiat, however, put Proscia on no-
tice that if any members were needed to fulfill their assign-
ments they would have to return promptly.
About 10 minutes later , the crew to which Armstrong
was assigned received orders to cover a news story. This
required the services of an electrician by the name of Mar-
golin who was then in the group that was meeting in the
street with Proscia. When Margolin was summoned to join
his assigned crew and he refused to do so , Fiat went down-
stairs and directed him to go to work immediately . Margo-
lin, a member of Local 52, declined, stating that his busi-
ness agent and president , who were apparently present,
had instructed him not to go to work . Fiat answered with a
warning to Margolin that, unless he complied with his or-
ders, he would no longer be employed by ABC. On this
note , Fiat returned to his office.
A few minutes later , Proscia came to Fiat's office and
informed him that he had instructed his people to go back
to work but only for that day (November 6) and warned
that, if Armstrong 's employment as a soundperson were
continued , the employees would walk out and picket the
building with signs, which had already been prepared. Dur-
ing the course of this conversation , ABC's labor attorney,
Stephen Solomon, who had been alerted by Fiat earlier in
the morning concerning the problem at the facility and
Local 52's threatened strike, entered the office. In the pres-
ence of Local 52 President Moshlak, Local 644 President
Alpert and Business Manager Horgan, and Local 52 Shop
Steward Slattery , Solomon inquired what was happening.
Proscia replied that, in view of his good relations with Fiat,
Local 52 agreed to permit Armstrong to work that day only
(November 6) but that, if ABC persisted in using soundper-
sons who were not members of Local 52, his organization
would strike ABC and that, in fact, it had already made the
picket signs . Solomon thereupon left the office to telephone
his superior . Upon his return shortly thereafter ,'he resumed
his conversation with Proscia in which he discussed the
company's obligation to hire women and minorities and
asserted ABC's contractual right to hire Armstrong, which
it intended to exercise . In response , Proscia insisted that
soundwork belonged to Local 52 under its contract with
ABC and, by assigning it to Armstrong, a member of Local
644, ABC and Local 644 were encroaching upon Local 52's
jurisdictional preserve , which it intended to protect. Since
neither ABC nor Local 52 would recede from their inflexi-
ble positions , the meeting ended with no certainty that Lo-
cal 52's members would not walk off their jobs, if ABC
continued Armstrong's employment as a soundperson.13
Later, the same day (November 6), Solomon filed the
unfair labor practice charge in this case upon which the
complaint herein is based. This was the only day Arm-
strong worked'for ABC as a soundperson until after Janu-
ary 23, 1976, when a hearing'was held in the United States
13 Except for Proscia's denial that he made any threats to strike or walk
out, the foregoing findings are based on substantially uncontradicted testi-
mony which I credit As for the strike threats , I find, in light of all the
evidence and the absence of corroborative testimony , that Proscia's denial
was less than candid , even though the, International 's sanction might be
required to strike . Accordingly, I do not credit his denial
215
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
the Board 's application for a 10(j) injunction against the
Respondent
.
14 At the close of the 10(j) hearing , Proscia
gave District Court Judge Knapp oral assurance that Local
52 would not strike during the pendency of that proceed-
ing. On January 27, 29, and 30, 1976, Armstrong received
soundwork assignments from ABC.
At the instant-Board hearing, Proscia testified that, al-
though aware of Armstrong 's continuing interest in joining
Local 52 and the membership 's rejection of her two appli-
cations, he objected to ABC's assignment of soundwork to
her because that work belonged to Local 52's jurisdiction
and Armstrong was a member of Local 644 which had its
own contract with ABC covering camerapersons. He fur-
ther testified that, if she did not -belong to any union at all,
he would not oppose her employment by ABC because, in
such a case, there would be no invasion of Local 52's juris-
diction."
C. Concluding Findings
From my foregoing factual findings, the Respondent's
admissions and its asserted jurisdictional claims, there can
be no serious doubt that the Respondent attempted to, and
did, cause ABC to deny Armstrong, a concededly qualified
and capable soundperson , employment in her craft be-
cause of her membership in-a sister Local 644 . As, under
settled law, such denial of employment amounts to job dis-
crimination which necessarily discourages membership in
Local 644 and in a sense encourages membership in Local
52 16 within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, it
inescapably follows that the Respondent 's efforts to pre-
vent ABC from hiring Armstrong violated Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act.,
The Respondent , nevertheless, seeks to justify its action
on the ground that it was simply endeavoring to protect its
jurisdiction over soundpersons recognized by ABC in their
collective-bargaining agreement . Otherwise stated, it ar-
gues that ABC's employment of Armstrong„ who had be-
come a member of Local 644 about 2 years before , while in
the employ of another TV station, was an invasion of its
jurisdiction in breach of its bargaining agreement with
ABC and an expansion of Local 644's jurisdiction under
the latter's contract with ABC covering camerapersons. I
find this contention factually and legally insupportable.
14 Winifred D Morio, Regional Director of Region 2 of the NLRB v Motion
Picture Studio Mechanics, Local 52, Case Number 76 Civil 155
15 Consistent with this position, the Respondent on November 6, 1975,
filed an unfair labor practice charge against ABC. In it, it alleged that ABC
violated Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act by employing "a soundperson from another
local, to wit Local 644, LA T S E , to perform work covered by the jurisdic-
tion of . Local 52, LA T S E." The charge further alleged that Sec . 8(a)(3)
was also violated in that ABC discriminated against employees covered by
Local 52,s contract and that ABC's conduct additionally constituted a viola-
tion of Sec 8(a)(1) The Regional Director refused to issue a complaint
thereon and , on appeal , her action was sustained by the General Counsel
The basis for this charge is also alleged as a defense to the complaint in the
present case , which, as shown below , I, too, find woefully lacking in merit
16 This is so since it is fairly evident that the Respondent would not' have
obbected to , Armstrong's employment had she been a member of Local 52
7 The Radio Officers ' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, A FL
[Bull Steamship Co ] v N L R B, 347 U S 17 (1954)
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has held that the sanctions of Section 8(a)(3)
and Section 8(b)(2) of the Act are inapplicable to situations
where the actions of the parties are part and parcel of a
genuine jurisdictional dispute between rival unions or
groups of employees claiming the right to perform certain
jobs. ?18 Here, however, no jurisdictional dispute is involved.
There is absolutely no evidence that Armstrong was as-
signed a job which Local 644 claimed in derogation of Lo-
cal 52's asserted jurisdictional or representative rights. In-
deed, not only are there no competing claims by these
unions, but Local 644 itself threatened Armstrong to bring
charges against her if she did not quit her soundperson's
job with ABC. Moreover, it is not without significance that
Armstrong was not, averse to Local 52 representing her
and, in fact, had for several years been trying to secure
membership in that labor organization but to no avail.
In brief, Armstrong's employment by ABC did not, nor
could it possibly give rise to a jurisdictional dispute. Rath-
er, I find that the Respondent's determined effort to pre-
vent the employment of a well qualified and capable
soundperson because of her membership in another union
presents a classic case of discrimination in order to force
ABC to accord preferential employment to its own mem-
bers. Such conduct is plainly prohibited by Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act. By parity of reasoning, I also find
wholly untenable the Respondent's argument advanced as
a defense that ABC's offer of a soundperson's job to Arm-
strong was a breach of the Respondent's contractual rights
violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and discriminatory
under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act with respect to the sound-
persons covered by its contract. Not only does the parties'
contract recognize ABC's right to select its employees with-
out regard to union membership, but there is also no evi-
dence, I find, of improper motivation on the part of ABC
vis-a-vis Local 52 members in offering Armstrong employ-
ment as a soundperson.
All things being considered, I conclude that the Respon-
dent Local 52 violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act
in attempting to cause and causing ABC to discriminate
unlawfully against Kandy Armstrong because of her mem-
bership in Local 644.
ployment of Armstrong as a soundperson and that it re-
quests ABC to offer Armstrong immediate and full rein-
statement to her former soundperson fob' or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. It is
also recommended that the Respondent make Armstrong
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which . she normally would have
earned in ABC's employ from the date of the discriminato-
ry denial of employment to hereto 5 days after unequivocal
notification in writing to ABC and Armstrong that it has
no objection to Armstrong's employment by ABC, less her
net earnings during the said period. Backpay shall be com-
puted with interest on a quarterly basis in the manner pre-
scribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962). The posting of an appropriate notice is
also recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. ABC is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing ABC to deny
Kandy Armstrong employment as a'soundperson in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) 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 foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 19
IV. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is
recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent unlawfully at-
tempted to and did cause ABC discriminatorily to deny
Kandy Armstrong employment as a soundperson because
she was a member of Local 644. To remedy this unfair
labor practice, it is recommended that the Respondent no-
tify ABC, in writing, with a copy of such notification sent
to Armstrong, that it withdraws its objection to ABC's em-
18 Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Company, 198 NLRB 147 (1972); J L Allen
Co., 199 NLRB 675 (1972). In such a case, the parties are remitted to the
procedures prescribed in Secs. 10(k) and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act for a resolu-
tion of the work dispute.
The Respondent, Motion Picture Studio Mechanics, Lo-
cal 52, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employ-
ees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, New York, New York, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause American Broadcast-
ing Company, a Division of American Broadcasting Com-
panies, Inc., to deny Kandy Armstrong, or any employee
or job applicant, employment as a soundperson or other-
wise to discriminate against her or other employees or job
applicants in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act because
of her or their membership in another labor organization
19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein' shall, as provided in Sec.
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.
MOTION PICTURE STUDIO MECHANICS LOC. 52
or nonmembership in the Respondent Local 52's organiza-
tion.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause American Broad-
casting Company, a Division of American Broadcasting
Companies, Inc., to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act or to discriminate
against an employee with respect to whom membership in
the Respondent's organization has been denied or termi-
nated on some ground other than his failure to tender the
periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as
a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify American Broadcasting Company, a Division
of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and Kandy
Armstrong, in writing, that it withdraws its objections to
the employment of Kandy Armstrong, and that it requests
the said company to offer her employment as a soundper-
son, or if such job is not available, to a substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Make Kandy Armstrong whole for any loss of earn-
217
ings she may have suffered by reason of the unlawfully
caused discrimination against her in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its offices and meeting rooms copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 2, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 2 signed
copies of the Appendix for posting by American Broad-
casting Company, a Division of American Broadcasting
Companies, Inc., at its facility in New York City, New
York, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted, if the company is willing to do so.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
20 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "