National Association of Broadcast Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS 1233
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS,
C. I. 0., AND ITS- CHICAGO CHAPTER and AMERICAN BROADCASTING-
PARAMOUNT THEATRES, INC. Case No. 13-CD33. December 7,1954
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides 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 deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen, ..."
On March 22, 1954, American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres,
Inc., herein called the Company, filed with the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region a charge against National Association of Broad-,
cast Engineers and Technicians, C. I. 0., and its Chicago Chapter,
herein called NABET, alleging that it had engaged in and was engag-
ing in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the
amended Act. The charge alleged, in substance, that NABET had
induced and encouraged employees of the American Broadcasting
Company, a division of American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres,
Inc., herein referred to as ABC, to engage in a strike or a concerted
refusal to work in the course of their employment with an object of
forcing or requiring ABC to assign particular work to employees who
are members of NABET rather than to employees who are members
of the Chicago Theatrical Protective Union, Local No. 2, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, A. F. L., herein called
IATSE.
Pursuant to Sections 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charge and pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties.
Thereafter, a hearing was held before John P. von Rohr, hearing
officer, on May 18, 19, June 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11, 1954. The hearing
officer permitted IATSE to intervene on the basis of its claim to juris-
diction over the work tasks involved herein and its contract with ABC.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
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.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally before the
hearing officer. All parties filed briefs with the Board.
110 NLRB No. 189.
338207-55-vol. 110-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. NABET and IATSE are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
The television station currently operated as WBKB was formerly
operated under the call letters WENR by the American Broadcasting
Company, Inc. In February 1953, American Broadcasting Company,
Inc., merged with United-Paramount Theatres, Inc., to form a new
corporation, American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., which
has has since operated the former WENR as WBKB. The American
Broadcasting Company no longer exists as a separate entity, but the
name "American Broadcasting Company" is used to designate a divi-
sion of the corporation formed by the merger. The Company owns
and operates radio and television stations throughout the United
States, in addition to WBKB, in Chicago.
In addition to the programs which originate from WBKB's main
studios, the station telecasts programs from so-called "remote" loca-
tions outside the main studios. These remote telecasts are of three
general types : Programs regularly telecast from the main studios
-which are transferred elsewhere for telecasting on a particular occa-
sion; programs regularly staged primarily for television from loca-
tions outside the main studios where permanent or semipermanent
telecasting facilities are maintained; and events occurring at various
sites throughout the area which are not produced primarily for tele-
vision, but which may be occasionally or regularly telecast by means
of mobile televising facilities.
The instant dispute involves the physical handling of portable light-
ing equipment on only those remote telecasts for which the mobile
telecasting equipment and crew are used, a type of telecast referred
to as a "field pickup." 1 Three different portable lighting devices,'
known as clip lights, spotlights, and scoop lights may be used on field
pickups or other telecasts. A clip light consists of a reflector about 1
foot in diameter which can hold a photoflood lamp varying from 150
to 500 watts. The reflector is equipped with an oblong clamp spring
with which it may be clamped to any convenient object. A spotlight
produces a beam of light which may be aimed and focused through a
lens to provide concentrated light for a small area, and is usually
3 There is no dispute as to any telecast made from a theatre or other establishment
which regularly employs IATSE personnel under contracts.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS 1235
mounted on a rigid stand. Scoop lights consist of a bulb and a para-
bolic reflector from 12 to 24 inches in diameter, which produces a uni-
formly bright light over a wide area. They are mounted singly or in
groups on stands or racks which may be rolled about or clamped to
a rigid support.
The NABET engineering crew for the mobile unit on a remote
telecast normally consists of a technical director who is in charge of
engineering operations, one or more cameramen, video operators, audio
man, a truckdriver, and a light direction engineer who is responsible
for determining the amount of light required for the program and
directing the placement of the portable lighting equipment, if used.
All engineering functions, including light direction, are under the
supervision of the head of the WBKB engineering department. Stu-
dio shows temporarily transferred to the field take along their regular
crew of stage hands and electricians to do the scenery and lighting
work. Those IATSE stage hands assigned to perform lighting
duties on field pickups, as described hereinafter, are assigned from
the WBKB production department which controls the assignment of
all stagehands.
The station began television operations and telecast its first field
pickup on September 17, 1948. From that date to March 1954, an
estimated 1,100 or 1,200 field pickups were telecast. NABET and
IATSE each introduced evidence to show that it has in the past per-
formed the majority of the supplemental lighting on these field pick-
ups? The record establishes that the lighting performed by NABET
has involved the use of clip lights only. On the great majority of
remote telecasts, clip lights plugged into the camera, or into an elec-
tric outlet near the camera, are operated by the NABET cameramen
to light test patterns used to focus the cameras before the telecast, or
to light title cards telecast during the program. There is no dispute
concerning the performance of these lighting iunctions by the camera-
men. The dispute involves the handling of clip lights, spotlights or
scoop lights to light the performers, scenery, or commercials on the
telecasts. During the period from September 17, 1948, when the sta-
tion began telecasting, to May 5, 1952, NABET personnel handled
clip lights located at the ringside to light interviews held during inter-
missions of Wednesday night boxing or wrestling shows from Chi-
cago's Rainbo Arena. These instances, however, are the only. ones
in which NABET personnel used portable lighting to light the per-
2 Both NABET and IATSE submitted exhibits listing instances in which each allegedly
performed lighting tasks on field pickup telecasts and each moved to have the other's
exhibit excluded on the ground that it is incomplete and misleading . Both exhibits are
concededly incomplete , as the Company does not maintain records of this information.
However. in view of the fact that the listings on the exhibits and the omissions there-
from are explained in detail in the record , we find that the exhibits may be appraised
without prejudice to either party,'and the motions are therefore denied.
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formers on a telecast program, as distinguished from the lighting of
test patterns and title cards. IATSE, on the other hand, has handled
all of the supplemental lighting, other than that provided for test
patterns and title cards, for all remote telecasts other than the Rainbo
Arena shows indicated. Even during the period from 1948 to May
1952, IATSE stagehands handled supplemental lighting at the Rainbo
Arena shows to light interviews or commercials on various occasions,
and on May 5, 1952, IATSE men were assigned to handle all supple-
mental lighting at Rainbo Arena, with the single exception of the clip
lights used by the cameramen. They performed this work on all
WBKB remote telecasts without protest from NABET until June
16,1953.
By letter dated June 16, 1953, NABET informed ABC in part:
We wish to advise you that we claim the handling . . . of light-
ing and lighting equipment used on field pick-ups.
In subsequent clarifying correspondence, NABET stated that it
specifically claimed the handling of field lighting equipment on the
Wednesday night wrestling shows originating at the Rainbo Arena,
but later informed WBKB that it would not press its claim to this
show, since it was realized that the Rainbo Shows would probably
be discontinued in the fall. The claim was restated as regards all
other field pickups.
ABC replied to NABET's claim by letter dated July 23,1953, signed
by the head of the engineering department, in which it stated, in part:
Since you requested ... that in all future pickups we would
give jurisdiction [of the physical handling of lighting equipment]
to NABET, I became very much concerned and reviewed this
matter once more.
In the past whenever any additional lighting other than the
normal house lights were used, the station has always supplied
an IA[TSE] man to handle the lights.
Under the circumstances a precedence [sic] has been set, .. .
that IA has been doing the job.... We feel that both IA and
NABET should straighten out this matter between themselves.
If and when this is accomplished, we will abide by the final deci-
sion. For the time being we feel that we should continue oper-
ating as in the past.
Thereafter, ABC continued to assign the lighting work in question
to IATSE, and the parties held'several meetings, but were unable
to reach any agreement concerning NABET's claim. On three occa-
sions during the fall of 1953, NABET demanded that the lighting
work on particular field pickups be assigned to NABET, and threat-
ened work stoppages to enforce its demands. In each instance, a work
stoppage was avoided by the expedient of assigning a NABET engi-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS 1237
neer to "standby" at the telecast, while IATSE handled the work as
scheduled.
The work stoppage which occasioned the filing of the instant charge
occurred on March 20, 1954, during preparations for a field telecast
of the Illinois State High School Basketball Tournament from Cham-
paign-Urbana, Illinois. About 9 a. m. the mobile telecasting truck
and crew arrived at the tournament gymnasium and began to prepare
the equipment for the telecast, which was scheduled to begin about
1: 30 p. in. A IATSE stagehand from Chicago Local No. 2, and
at least one IATSE stagehand from a Champaign, Illinois, local
had been assigned to the telecast and were engaged in arranging the
lighting equipment. About 11: 55 a. m. William Cassie, technical
director for the telecast and a NABET member, approached Charles
Buzzard, the engineer in charge of the telecast, and informed him
that NABET considered the assignment of the lighting work for the
telecast to IATSE members to be a violation of NABET's contract.
After a short discussion, Cassie directed the cameramen to cap the
lenses, and shut the cameras down. Thereupon, all of the NABET
engineering personnel left their work and assembled on the gym-
nasium steps. After about 5 minutes, Cassie again approached Buz-
zard and restated NABET's complaint. In the course of their dis-
cussion, Buzzard inquired whether the men would return to work if
the truckdriver, who was a NABET member and had no other duties
to perform in connection with the telecast, was assigned as a "standby"
lighting man. Cassie discussed this proposal with the workmen, and
advised Buzzard that, if the "standby" man was assigned, the men
would resume work rather than prevent the show from being tele-
cast as scheduled, but that they would do so under protest, and still
considered that the NABET contract was being violated. In accord
with Buzzard's proposal, the truckdriver was assigned as "standby,"
and work was resumed after a total delay of approximately 7 minutes.
The facts relating to the incident are undisputed.
B. Bargaining history
In 1944, NABET was certified by the Board as the bargaining
representative of a systemwide unit of "all technical employees,
wherever located . . . engaged in the operation of technical facili-
ties used in transmitting, converting and/or conducting audio, video,
and/or radio frequencies . . ." in the engineering departments of
the National* Broadcasting Co., Inc., and the Blue Network, prede-
cessor to the American Broadcasting Company, Inc.' NABET and
ABC had maintained successive collective-bargaining contracts since
1942,4 but the earliest contract in evidence here is the 1945 contract.
a National Broadcasting Co., Inc., and Blue Network Co., Inc., 59 NLRB 478.
' National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1289, at 1292.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS - BOARD
The current contract, effective' November 1, 1951, expires on January
1, 1955. The contract establishes an employee classification of "tele-
vision assistant," who may "assist in lighting operations in the field."
Although WBKB did not begin television operations until September
17, 1948, all of the NABET-ABC contracts since 1945 have included
these provisions.
IATSE bargained with ABC regarding the employees at station
WENR, predecessor to the instant WBKB, from about August 1, 1948,
to July 29, 1949, when a written contract was signed. They have
since maintained a continuous series of collective-bargaining contracts.
In January 1952, pursuant to an agreement for a consent election,
IATSE was certified by the Board as the representative of "All stage
electricians, stage carpenters, stage property men, and stage shop
carpenters at WENR-TV, Chicago...." All contracts, including
the current contract covering the period from November 30, 1952,
to March 31,1955, contained the following provisions :
The men shall work all rehearsals when required by the
Employer and all telecasts when sets, scenery props (except sound
effects), fly floor, switchboard, spotlights, lighting equipment and
lighting effects are used, and the men shall handle, operate and
maintain all sets, scenery, props (except sound effects), fly floor,
switchboards, spotlights, lighting equipment and lighting effects.
The Employer agrees to use members of the Union on all
remote television broadcasts originating at theatres or other
places in Chicago which regularly employ members of the Union,
and at such other locations in the jurisdiction of the Union as
may be mutually agreed to by the Employer and the Union.
In May 1950, the Board, acting on petitions filed by NABET
requesting clarification or amendment of its 1944 certification to in-
clude all employees who performed television lighting functions, issued
its decision in National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,5 finding that
lighting employees, including those engaged on remote telecasts, ap-
propriately belonged in the unit of stagehands represented by IATSE.
The Board expressly declined to decide whether the original 1944
NABET certification included the lighting employees.
C. Contentions of the parties
Although the Company filed the charge herein, it stated unequivo-
cally at the hearing that its position is one of strict .ieutrality as
regards the dispute between the two unions.
NABET contends that the work of performing supplemental light-
ing tasks on remote field pickup telecasts, using portable lighting
6 89 NLRB 1289.
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST-ENGINEERS 1239
equipment,.properly belongs to the technicians within the NABET
emit. In support of this position, NABET urges the following con-
-siderations : (1) The coverage of the NABET-ABC contract, and a
decision by the Board holding that-identical terms in a NABET-NBC
contract provide for the assignment of lighting tasks on remote tele-
,casts to NABET; (2) an alleged history of assignment of the disputed
-lighting tasks primarily to NABET technicians by ABC at WBKB;
and (3) the existence of allegedly illegal union-security provisions in
IATSE's contract, which, in NABET's view, should preclude a deter-
mination herein in favor of IATSE. - . - •
IATSE, in support of its position that the disputed lighting work
properly belongs to the stagehands in the IATSE unit at ABC-
WBKB, urges the following factors: (1) The coverage and jurisdic-
tion of the ABC-IATSE contract; (2) an alleged history of assign-
ment of the disputed lighting tasks primarily to IATSE stagehands;
and (3) Board decisions which indicate that the operation of such
equipment properly belongs within the IATSE unit of stagehands
and electricians.
D. Applicability of the statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Direc-
tor, alleges a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the
Regional Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation
that there was reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
.8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act had been committed.
The record before us establishes that there is reasonable cause to
believe that NABET induced and encouraged employees of ABC to
engage in a concerted refusal to work, in order to force or require
ABC to assign the physical handling of supplemental lighting equip-
ment on field pickup remote telecasts to members of NABET although
this work had been assigned to, and was being performed by, employees
who were members of IATSE. The Board has held that such factual
circumstances are sufficient to invoke the Board's jurisdiction to hear
and determine a dispute within the meaning of Sections 8 (b) (4) (D)
and 10 (k) of the Act.6 We find that this is a dispute within the
meaning of Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) of the Act, and prop-
erly before us for determination.
Although there is no specific contention by the parties that the dis-
pute is not properly before the Board for determination, NABET,
in its brief, after emphasizing that the work stoppage which is the
subject of the charge occurred in Champaign, Illinois, which is outside
Cook County, Illinois, where WBKB is located, states : "The issue is
whether, assuming NABET's responsibility for the work stoppage,
6 National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, CIO (National Broad-
casting Company, 103 NLRB 479, at 487-488.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NABET rightfully struck against the assignment of . . . the work
to IATSE, in Champaign, which is outside Cook County." NABET
urges that the work stoppage at Champaign was justified because
IATSE's contract specifies the jurisdiction of the local union to
include only Cook County, whereas NABET's contract contains no
such limitation. NABET expressly and unequivocally claims the
portable lighting tasks on all field pickups, whether telecast from
within Cook County or elsewhere, but in the statement quoted above
appears to contend that the Board may not, in this proceeding, deter-
mine the merits of the basic dispute arising from the overall claims
of NABET, because the work stoppage occurred outside the area of
IATSE's contractual jurisdiction. As the respective contracts of
NABET and IATSE are factors to be considered in determining
which of the two bargaining units appropriately includes the work
tasks in dispute, the jurisdictional provisions of the IATSE-ABC
contract may be material to the unit placement of the portable light-
ing work on field pickups outside Cook County. It does not follow,
however, that the determination herein must be limited to the work
to be performed outside Cook County because the work stoppage
occurred outside Cook County. As previously indicated, NABET
claims all of the work in question, wherever performed. Also, all
of NABET's evidence at the hearing relating to WBKB's past prac-
tice in the assignment of lighting work concerned work performed
within Cook County. When the basic nature of the dispute is con-
sidered in light of the fact that during the approximately 51/2-year
period involved, there were only about 10 telecasts from outside
Cook County and approximately 1,200 field pickups from within
Cook County,' there is reasonable cause to believe that the work stop-
page herein was not in furtherance of any claim which NABET, in
principle, distinguished from the basic dispute, but was actually in
furtherance of its basic overall claims.
E. The merits of the dispute
We view the dispute here presented as essentially a disagreement
between 2 unions over the question as to which of the 2 existing
bargaining units appropriately includes the work tasks of handling
the portable lighting equipment on field pickups telecast by WBKB.
In view of the decision in the National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,
lighting case,' in which the Board declined to clarify NABET's 1944
certification to include lighting employees, and held that such employ-
ees belonged in the units of ABC employees represented by IATSE,
7 An estimated 300 of these telecasts did not require supplemental lighting
8 89 NLRB 1289.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS 1241
it is clear that ABC was not failing to conform to a Board certifica-
tion in assigning the lighting work here in question to IATSE e
The Board found in the NBC-ABC lighting case that at all ABC
stations," including the former WENR-TV, Chicago, only stage-
hands and stage electricians handled lighting fixtures on telecasts,
and found that these employees appropriately belonged in the units
represented by IATSE. At NBC, both NABET engineers and
IATSE members handled lighting fixtures, but the NABET person-
nel spent only a minor portion of their time at such duties. In
finding that these engineering employees appropriately belong in
the NABET unit, the Board stated : "... we believe that the limited
time spent by these employees in the performance of this work does
not ... detract from their essential status as technical engineering
employees." 11 The NBC stagehands, who were engaged predomi-
nantly in lighting work, were held to belong appropriately in the
separate IATSE units.
Thereafter, in a supplemental decision issued August 1951,12 the
Board clarified the question of whether NBC employees only, who
spent more than 50 percent of their time in duties identical to those
in dispute in the instant case, came within the bargaining unit for
which IATSE had been certified, although designated as engineers.
In its decision, the Board stated :
... engineers or any other NBC employees, irrespective of their
job designations, who regularly spend more than 50 percent of
their time handling and placing television lights in the manner
set forth in the decision in this case are in effect stage electri-
cians and belong in the unit for which IATSE has been certified
as exclusive bargaining representative.
The Board later had occasion to resolve a dispute between NABET
and IATSE over the operation of special lighting effects at the
National Broadcasting Co., Inc." The Board found that the special
lighting effects tasks in question were essentially the same as the
handling of television lighting equipment generally and, relying on
the determinations in the prior representation cases, held that the
disputed work tasks appropriately belonged in the IATSE unit.14
NABET contends in effect, that these decisions do not require a
finding in this case that the television lighting tasks here in dispute
0 The conduct specified in Section 8 (b) (4) (D) is proscribed "unless such employer
is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargain-
ing representative for the employees performing such work . . .
10 With one exception, not here material.
11 89 NLRB 1289, at 1303.
12 95 NLRB 1334
13 National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians , CIO (National Broad-
casting Company), 103 NLRB 479.
14 Ibid., at 488-489.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-appropriately belong in the IATSE unit, in view of certain provisions
of the NABET-ABC contract and the Board' s decision in National
!Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, C. I. 0., Holly-
wood Chapter (National Broadcasting Company, Inc.), 105 NLRB
355. The NABET-NBC contract involved in that case provided, as
;does the NABET-ABC contract here involved, for a "television assist-
ant ... who may assist in lighting operations in the field." The
.Board held that the NABET-ABC contract provided for the assign-
ment of lighting work on remote telecasts to NABET "television assist-
ants." However, the Board also held that as to lighting work on cer-
tain remote telecasts, which had formerly been assigned to NABET,
,but which for about 1 year had been assigned to IATSE, NABET had
waived whatever contractual rights it had to the assignments, by
not protesting the assignment of the work to IATSE until after it
had become established practice. In this case, NABET has similarly
waived its contractual right to perform the lighting work on remote
telecasts . The history of the assignment of the disputed work shows
that when the station began television operations in September 1948,
there was in effect a NABET-ABC contract providing for the assign-
ment of television lighting work to NABET. Nevertheless, even
before the execution of its contract with IATSE in July 1949, ABC
began to assign lighting work on field pickups to IATSE. Until May
5, 1952, NABET lighted only ringside interviews on the Wednesday
night wrestling shows from Rainbo Arena, and IATSE performed the
work on all other shows. It is undisputed that since May 5, 1952,
IATSE has been assigned the supplemental lighting on all the remote
telecasts in dispute. NABET's initial protest of these assignments to
IATSE was made in June 1953, after approximately 13 months of
exclusive assignments to IATSE. Although the NABET cameramen
of the mobile telecast crew performed the function of lighting test
patterns and title cards with clip lights plugged into or mounted on
the cameras, as a function incidental to camera operation, the per-
formance of this lighting work must be distinguished from the light-
ing of the performers and scenery, etc., which is done by IATSE
members. The latter work, which is the actual subject of this dispute,
is characteristically work accomplished by stage electricians of the
stage and amusement world, as the Board has had occasion to note in
the past 15 in finding that similar work appropriately belongs in a
IATSE unit. In view of the foregoing facts, particularly the history
of assignment of the disputed tasks primarily to IATSE, we find that
NABET has waived whatever contractual basis NABET may have
had for its claim for including the disputed work tasks in its unit."'
'G See, for example , National Association of Broadcast Engsneers and Technicians, CIO
(National Broadcasting Company ), 103 NLRB 479
10 See National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technsciantis , 0. I. 0., Holly-
wood Chapter ( National Broadcasting Company, Inc ), 105 NLRB 355
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS 1243
Moreover, in view of the past practice at WBKB of assigning all dis-
puted work outside Cook County to IATSE members, we cannot agree
that any geographical limitation in the IATSE-ABC contract is con-
trolling. • Rather, in balancing all of the factors and circumstances as
reflected by the record before us, we conclude that no valid basis
exists for distinguishing between the work tasks within Cook County
and those outside that county. Accordingly, we find no reason to
depart from the previous Board determinations that work tasks of
this character belong in units of stage hands and stage electricians
of the type currently represented by IATSE at WBKB.
As previously indicated, NABET also contends, in substance, that
IATSE's contract contains illegal union-security provisions which
would adversely affect its position in the current proceeding. How-
ever, for the reasons stated in the Bechtel case,l' we find that this
issue is not properly before us here, and, in any event, is irrelevant
to the determination of the question as to which bargaining unit prop-
erly includes the tasks in question.'8 We wish to make it clear that
our determination in this proceeding is limited solely to the resolu-
tion of the latter question.
F. Determination of dispute
On'the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pusuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. The handling and placing of lights on remote field pickup tele-
casts by the Company's television station, WBKB, Chicago (except
the operation of clip lights by cameramen in connection with camera
operation), is included in the bargaining unit presently represented
by Chicago Theatrical Protective Union, Local No. 2, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, A. F. L., and not in the
bargaining unit now represented by National Association of Broad-
cast Engineers and Technicians, C. I. 0., and its Chicago Chapter.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres,
Inc., National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians,
C. I. 0., and its Chicago Chapter, and Chicago Theatrical Protective
Union, Local No. 2, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
17 Bechtel Corporation, 108 NLRB 823
18 On June 7, 1954, NABET filed an unfair labor practice charge based on these con-
tentions , alleging that IATSE had violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. On June 8,
the Regional Director denied a motion by NABET that this charge be consolidated with
the proceedings herein. We are administratively advised that later, on July 26, 1954,
the Regional Director dismissed NABET's 8 ( b) (2) charge on the ground that it was
not suppoi ted by sufficient evidence to warrant issuance of a complaint.
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, A. F. L., shall each notify the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, in writing, of the steps it has taken to comply
with the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute.
VOLNEY FELT MILLS, INC.' and PRODUCTION AND MISCELLANEOUS
WORKERS OF CHICAGO AND VICINITY, A SUBDIVISION OF CHICAGO
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS UNION OF CHICAGO AND
VICINITY, LOCAL 705, INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY and LOCAL 710, MEAT DRIVERS AND
HELPERS, HIGHWAY DRIVERS, DOCKMEN AND HELPERS, OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN OF
AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3997 and 13-RC-
4067. December 7,1954
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, separate hearings were held before
William D. Boetticher and Allen P. Haas, hearing officers 2 The
hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.3
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.
i The name of Volney Felt Mills, Inc., appears as amended at the hearing.
a For the purposes of this decision, Case No. 13-RC-3997 and Case No. 13-RC-4067
have been consolidated.
3 The hearing officers referred to the Board the Independent 's motion to add truck-
drivers to the list of categories excluded from the requested production and maintenance
unit in Case No. 13-RC-3997, and Fry's motion to make Volney a party to Case No.
13-RC-4067. These motions, for reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 4, are hereby
granted.
We do not find merit in the several motions by Fry to dismiss the petition in Case No.
13-RC-4067 in substance on the grounds : ( 1) That the issue of the unit placement of
highway truckdrivers was also raised in Case No. 13 -RC-3997; ( 2) that the Teamsters
failed to intervene in Case No. 13-RC-3997, although it was aware of the pendency of
that proceeding ; ( 3) that the unit requests of both the Independent and the Teamsters
are based on the extent of their organization ; and (4 ) that the Teamsters have made no
substantial showing of interest . These motions are denied . As to ( 1), we do not regard
the fact that the unit placement of the highway truckdrivers was in issue in the related
proceeding in Case No . 13-RC-3997 as precluding the Teamsters ' unit request; as to
(2), formal notice of the pendency of Case No . 13-RC-3997 was not given to the Team-
sters ; as to ( 3), since we have determined on the merits that the unit requests in these
cases are appropriate , the fact that the respective showings of interest herein coincide
therewith is not material; and as to (4), the Board has repeatedly held that showing of
interest is an administrative matter within the Board' s discretion.
110 NLRB No. 196.