National Association of Broadcast Employees, etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of America, and its agents, are not and have not been entitled, by means
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require Sidel
Truck Leasing Corporation to assign the work of driving Sidel's
trucks to be used in the hauling of goods and merchandise from Ward's
fashion pool operation to its members rather than to Sidel's own
employees.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Local No. 816 shall notify the Regional Director for the
Second Region in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Sidel by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the
Act, to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to em-
ployees of Sidel.
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO, CLC and National Association of Broadcast Em-
ployees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local No. 54 and
Gordon Broadcasting of San Diego, Inc., d /b/a Radio Station
KSDO . Case No. 21-CD-69. June 10, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, which provides that:
Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4(D) of section
8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen,.. .
On January 28, 1960, Gordon Broadcasting of San Diego, Inc.,
d/b/a Radio Station KSDO, herein called Gordon, filed with the
Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region a charge alleging that
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AF11 -
CIO, CLC, and National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local No. 54, herein collectively called
NABET, had engaged in and were engaging in certain activities
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act. It was
charged, in substance, that NABET had engaged in conduct pro-
scribed by the aforementioned provisions for the purpose of forcing
or requiring Gordon to assign particular work to members of NABET.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations (Series 8,
1959), the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hearing
was held before Harvey Letter, hearing officer, on March 1 and 2,
127 NLRB No. 137.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES, ETC. 1071
1960. Gordon, NABET, and Los Angeles Local, American Federa-
tion of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO, herein called
AFTRA, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Gordon and NABET filed briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Company
Gordon Broadcasting of San Diego, Inc., d/b/a Radio Station
KSDO, a successor to San Diego Broadcasting Company, is engaged
at San Diego, California, in the business of radio broadcasting and
in the operation of Radio Station KSDO. During the past year, the
gross revenue received from the operation of Radio Station KSDO
was in excess of $350,000, of which more than $100,000 represents
gross income received by Gordon after August 17, 1959, when Gordon
acquired said radio station. In the first 6 months of its operation,
Gordon received revenue in excess of $50,000 from national advertisers
and sponsors who are engaged in interstate commerce.
We find that Gordon is engaged in commerce and that it will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. The labor organizations involved
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO, CLC, and its Local No. 54, and Los Angeles Local, Ameri-
can Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. The alleged dispute
a. The facts
In 1951, NABET was certified by the Board as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the engineers and technicians of Radio
Station KSDO, herein referred to as technicians. NABET has since
been the contractual bargaining agent of these employees. Its most
recent contract covering such employees contained a December 31,
1959, expiration date and a 60-day automatic renewal clause. For
several years, AFTRA has represented the announcers at Station
KSDO. Its latest bargaining contract is effective from February 1,
1958, until January 31, 1961. When Gordon purchased Radio Station
'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 [C h^airman Leedom and
Members Bean and Jenkins].
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IKSDO from San Diego Broadcasting Company, it adopted and there-
after continued in effect the terms of the existing contracts with
NABET and AFTRA.
On October 12, 1959, NABET wrote Gordon requesting meetings
to negotiate changes in the contract, which was to expire on Decem-
ber 31, 1959. On October 30, 1959, Gordon notified NABET of its
intention to terminate the agreement and suggested that a meeting
be arranged to discuss the matter. A series of meetings were there-
after held, beginning on November 24, 1959. On that date, Gordon
advised NABET that their contract would be terminated on Decem-
ber 31 and that, in the interest of economy and efficiency, the jobs of
its four technicians were to be terminated and their duties assigned
to announcers, effective January 1, 1960, thereby creating a classifica-
tion known as announcer-technician. NABET protested this proposed
action and threatened to resist it with every means at its disposal.
Gordon, however, proceeded to notify the technicians that their jobs
were terminated, as of December 31, 1959. Thereafter, Gordon as-
signed the technicians' work to the announcers, who have since been
functioning as announcer-technicians.
On January 1, 1960, NABET established picket lines at Gordon's
radio studio and its transmitter. Until February 25, NABET pick-
eted with signs reading : "NABET AFL-CIO CLC Local 54
LOCKED OUT BY RADIO STATION KSDO." When a picket
was asked what the pickets hoped to accomplish by their picketing, he
replied that they were seeking to get their jobs back.
On February 25, 1960, in a Section 10(1) injunction proceeding
before the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, the court approved a stipulation executed by the parties
involved which provided for the discontinuance of NABET's picket-
ing pending the disposition of the instant proceeding by the Board.
b. Contentions of the parties
Gordon contends that by the above conduct NABET violated
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act. NABET denies that its conduct
falls within the proscription of that section of the Act.
c. Nature of the dispute; applicability of the statute
Whether this is a dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k)
depends on whether the conduct complained of is violative of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D), which provides that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-" (4) (i) to en-
gage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any
person . . . to engage in, a strike . . . ; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or
restrain any person . . . , where in either case an object thereof is:
(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to
MIAMI VALLEY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 1073
employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade,
craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization
or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing
to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the
bargaining representative for employees performing such work."
We find that this case does not involve a dispute within the mean-
ing of Section 10(k) of the Act. Such dispute as exists herein is not
the traditional jurisdictional dispute between two unions wherein each
union wishes to have certain duties assigned to its members rather
than . to the members of its rival union. Nor is it. a dispute between
Gordon and NABET over Gordon's assignment of work to one group
of employees rather than to another group comprised of members of
NABET. Instead, as the facts set forth above plainly establish, the
dispute concerns only Gordon's discharge of technicians whom
NABET represents and NABET's efforts to obtain the reemployment
of these employees. As was recently held,2 Congress did not intend
to proscribe such union activity by Section 8(b) (4) (D).
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the dispute in this
case is not over the assignment of work within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (D). It is, therefore, not a dispute within the meaning of
Section 10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
a International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 29.2, AFL-CIO (Franklin
Broadcasting Company ( Radio Station WMIN) ), 126 NLRB 1212.
Miami Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and James
McDonald and Bowling Supply and Service, Inc., H . W. Miller
Construction Company, and B . T. Boyd , doing business as
Boyd Construction Company. Case No. 9-CB-513. June 10,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 15, 1960, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
his Intermediate Report 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel and Respondent 1 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
briefs in support thereof.
I The motion to remand and request for oral argument by Respondent Miami Valley
Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
127 NLRB No. 13,6.
560940-61-vo1. 127-69