National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

National Broadcasting .Company, Inc. and Motion Picture Film
Editors, Local No..776, of the International Alliance of The-
atrical Stage . Employees and Moving Picture Machine Oper-
ators of the United States and Canada , AFL, Petitioner. Case
No. 21-RC-3856. August V, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under- Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman H. Greer,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from- prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The motion to
dismiss by the Intervenor, National Association of Broadcast Em-
ployees and Technicians, CIO, which was reserved for ruling by the
Board is denied because of the findings hereafter made.
The Employer, although not appearing at the hearing, on March
31, 1955, subsequent to the hearing, moved the Board to reopen the
hearing so that it might appear and be heard on vital issues of unit
appropriateness and, eligibility of employees. The motion is resisted
by the Petitioner. In support of its motion, the Employer stated that
it originally advised the hearing officer, that it could not be available
between March 25 and April 11, but reluctantly accepted the hearing
date of March 28, despite the likelihood,of serious business prevent-
ing its appearance. On March 9, notice of hearing on March 28 issued.
On March 17, the Employer made inquiry whether the date could be
advanced or postponed. March 25 was proposed as a date but was
rejected by the Intervenor which had previously been granted a post-
ponement due to the unavailability of its counsel from March 9 to
March 25. Formal notice of inability to attend the hearing on March
28 because of unspecified "compelling business reasons" and request
for postponement was made by the Employer on March 25. In these
circumstances, the Board finds that the Employer had adequate op-
portunity to prepare for representation at the hearing, and that re-
fusal of the Employer's request for postponement was not an abuse
of discretion. The Board denies the Employer's motion to reopen.
The record presented at the hearing is adequate, in the Board's opin-
ion, for determination of the issues in the case.
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
114 NLRB No. 1. 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Petitioner seeks a unit -of all film editors, their assistants,
and associated employees of the Employer in the Los Angeles area.
The Intervenor moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
unit' is 'inappropriate and' that the group sought by the Petitioner is
an integral part of a nationwide unit- with a nationwide bargaining
history.
The Intervenor has had bargaining relations with the Employer re-
lating to television. employees since 1941. In-1951, the Board,•follow-
ing a consent election,, certified the Intervenor as the exclusive
representative of "all motion picture film and kinescope recording as-
semblers, unassemblers, splicers, and timers now or hereafter employed
by the Company in Hollywood, California." The attorney for the
Intervenor testified that it was agreed in 1951 that the bargaining
contract covering the above certified group would become a part of
the master agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor, and
bargaining for the group thereafter would be on a nationwide basis.
He further testified there has been no individual bargaining, as such,
for this group, except as they were bargained for in conjunction with
all other groups under the master agreement. Negotiations concern-
ing all groups have occurred between the company heads and the In-
tervenor's International officers on two occasions since 1951,,once in
Atlantic City, New Jersey, and once in Santa Barbara, California.
. The most recent master agreement between the Employer and the
Intervenor consists of two parts entitled "General Sections" and "In-
dividual Sections." The general sections, covering about 28 pages of
the master agreement, provide for matters generally included in col-
lective-bargaining agreements such as union shop, vacations, holi-
days, seniority, and grievances. The provisions of the general sec-
tions apply to all employees included under the master agreement
wherever located. Sixteen individual sections contain descriptions
of 16 different groups, wage provisions for employees in those groups,
and any necessary specific provisions applicable to the particular
group involved (such as provisions. concerning meal periods and ap-
prenticeship).-
The master agreement states the purpose of the parties in the fol-
lowing language :
This document for the purpose of convenience ' incorporates in
,the Master. Agreement dated the 1st day of 'November 1951, be-
tween the NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.,
or its successor (hereinafter called the "Company") and the NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING EMPLOY;
' NATIONAL ' BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 3
• LEES AND TECHNICIANS, or its successor (hereinafter called
the "Union") the changes made to and including July 1, 1953.
It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto to set forth
herein the basic collective bargaining agreements between the
parties in two (2) parts: (I) GENERAL. SECTIONS covering
those subjects which are uniformly applicable to substantially all
of the basic relationships, hours of work and general conditions
of employment, including a procedure for prompt, equitable ad-
justment of grievances to the end that there shall be no work
stoppages or other interferences with operations during the life
of these Agreements; and (II) INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS
which will contain the description of each bargaining unit, which
shall not be affected hereby, the rates of pay and any unusual
working conditions which have no general application. In the
event of any conflict between the General and Individual Sec-
tions, the Individual Section will prevail. [Emphasis supplied.]
The recognition clause reads as follows :
RECOGNITION AND WARRANTY
(a) The Union represents and warrants, and it is of the essence
hereof, that it represents for collective bargaining purposes all
of the employees of the Company as defined in the applicable
SCOPE OF UNIT clause, and the Company recognizes the
Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all such employees
of the Company.
Seniority provisions of the general sections refer to 4 types of sen-
iority, 1 being "unit seniority" which is described as follows :
(c) Unit Seniority is measured by the length of service accu-
mulated in all occupations presently covered by the unit in which
the employee is employed except time spent as an apprentice and
controls preference of vacation. For employees in groups other
than 4, 5 and 6, it shall also control layoffs and rehiring as pro-
vided in this SECTION.
The grievance procedure established by the general sections states
its applicability "In the event any grievance shall arise under these
Agreements in any of the offices of the Company. .." [Emphasis
supplied.]
Throughout the general sections of the master agreement, individ-
ual groups are referred to as units. For example, reference is made
to the engineering unit, the traffic unit, and the sound effects setup
units. -
•E.ich of the 16 individual' sections is labeled.as a ",contract" for the
particular group covered and contains a "Scope of Unit" provision.
387644- 56-vol 114-2
4 DECISIONS OF.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For example, the individual section applicable to the -employees in-
volved in this proceeding appears as follows :
10.' Film Service Group Contract-Los Angeles.
SCOPE OF UNIT
The term "employee" as used in this Agreement applies to all
motion picture film and kinescope recording assemblers, unas-
semblers, splicers and timers now or hereafter employed by the
Company in Hollywood, who are engaged in the assembling, un-
assembling, splicing or timing of motion picture film or kinescope
recordings produced by employees of the Company in Hollywood
,or who are engaged in such work on motion picture film or kine-
scope recordings which, prior to delivery to the employee for
such work thereon, were substantially in form for exhibition;
excluding all supervisors.
The individual section then sets forth classification and wage scales
for film cutters and film editors.
A separate individual section, apparently dealing with somewhat
similar classifications of employees in Chicago, is labelled "6. FILM
EDITORS CONTRACT-CHICAGO." This individual section con-
tains, in addition to the scope of the unit and wage provisions, provi-
sions titled "Changes in Work Schedule" and "Duties."
A careful study of the master agreement between the Employer and
the Intervenor, which we have described above in some detail, con-
vinces the Board that the Los Angeles film service employees, sought
by the Petitioner as a separate bargaining unit, have not been merged
with a larger unit of employees as urged by the Intervenor. The par-
ties to the master agreement have, as testified by counsel for the Inter-
venor, bargained for the Los Angeles group in negotiating sessions
dealing with other groups of employees represented by the Intervenor,
and have included the agreement reached as to the Los Angeles group
in the master agreement with agreements reached as to the other
-employees. Provisions as to many fundamental bargaining issues are
common to all employees. The terms of the master agreement, how-
,ever, clearly preserve the separate identity of the various groups bar-
gained for. We note particularly in this connection the language of
the master agreement setting forth the purpose and intent of the par-
ties. On all the facts, the Board concludes that inclusion of the Los
Angeles film group in the master agreement between the Employer
and the Intervenor did not make that group part of a nationwide unit
represented by the Intervenor.' On the contrary, the facts in this case
establish that since certification as an appropriate unit in 1951, the
Los Angeles film group now sought by the Petitioner has existed as a
1 Cf. American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284 ; American Broadcaating Company, Inc.,
114 NLRB 7.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 5
separate bargaining unit. In view of ;this history, we find that the
Los Angeles film. group constitutes an appropriate unit.. There re-
mains for consideration the specific composition of, the unit.
The employees who the Petitioner contends should be included in the
appropriate unit are located in several-departments, The film service
department is under the supervision of the production manager for
local television shows and the director of the network film division for
network shows. There are 2 editors and 4 assistant editors in this de-
partment, located in an annex contiguous to the projection room.
Their primary function is to edit TV films by tying in or cutting out
certain parts of the film. They then take the film into the projection
room where it is placed in racks for temporary storage. Occasionally
kinescope technicians come into the department to do some kinescope
editing they have forgotten to do at an earlier stage. All the employees
of this department are under the "Film Service Group Contract-Los
Angeles" section of the master contract.
Kathleen De Hart is senior editor in this department. Although the,
Intervenor suggested at the hearing the possibility of her exercising
supervisory authority, the record does not show that she possesses such
authority. Her title relates only to length of service, she exercises no
direction of the employees, and the editors and assistant editors per-
form substantially the same work. We find that Kathleen De Hart
is not a supervisor and include her in the unit hereinafter found appro-
priate.
The newsreel department is located on the second floor of the main
building across the parking lot from the film service department.
There are three newsreel editors under the supervision of the west coast
news director, as are the news writers. The latter are responsible for
the content of the news program, actually the producers of the shows,
and work very closely with the newsreel editors who edit film so as to
depict the story outline set up by the writers, selecting from the ap-
proximately 20,000 feet of 16 mm. film that comes from the laboratory
each month as well as film they receive from the United States Armed
Services, North American Industries, and NBC cameramen. The news-
reel editors may request kinescope material from which they take news
clips that can be utilized. The newsreel editors maintain their own
library by doing all cataloging of the film, some of which they ship to
the New York library. When a particular kinescope recording is de-
sired, an editor goes to the adjacent film exchange to get it; they also
loan and borrow equipment from the exchange. The editors in this
section are covered by the "Film Service Group Contract-Los
Angeles" section of the master contract.
The film exchange department is under the supervision of a depart-
ment manager who reports to the director of the network film division,
and includes an editor, an assistant editor, a shipping clerk, a mes-
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
senger, a shipping, receiving, 'and storage clerk, a ilibrarian, and a
laboratory contact man. The editor and the assistant editor are en-
gaged in the editing of film, cutting commercials in or out of film,
splicing film, and rewinding reels. The other employees pack, ship,
receive, catalogue, transmit, or pick up films. Although all the em
ployees of this'department handle film, only the editor and the assistant
editor are covered by a bargaining contract, and they are covered by
the "Film Service Group Contract-Los Angeles" section of the master
contract.
The kinescope recording section is a part of the engineering depart-
ment, under the supervision of the kinescope recording supervisor
who reports to the supervising engineer and the networks fihn division
director. There are 18 video recording device engineers (group 2),
2 recording engineers (group 5), and 1 recording engineer (group 6):
The witness who testified concerning this section stated that he and'
another, who are in group 5, were responsible to the person in group 6,
and that they, in turn, directed the activities of those employees in
group 2, that group 5 "is sort of a pyramid of authority."
Persons in all three groups are interchangeable between kinescope
recording and kinescope editing. The kinescope recording takes place
in a room across the hall and the kinescope editing in 21/2 rooms.
Of the employees in group 2, 6 or 8 spend most of their time in
the editing room. All of these were formerly members of the engineer-
ing department in one capacity or another before transferring into,
the kinescope section; two had had some film editing experience before
coming with the Employer. In addition to these engineers, there are
a secretary and a messenger in this section, and neither has been'
included in any bargaining contract. All the others in this section
are covered by the engineering contract section of the master contract,
The Petitioner would include in the unit the editors and assistants'
in the film service department, the newsreel department, and the film
exchange department. In addition, it would include the 6 or 8 record-
ing device engineers (group 2) who spend the majority of their time
in the editing room of the kinescope department. As an alternative;
the Petitioner suggests that the 6 or 8 recording device engineers
(group 2), who spend most of their time in the kinescope editing room,
be granted a self-determination election. All the employees requested
by the Petitioner are engaged in associated work. Inasmuch as the
6 or 8 recording device engineers (group 2) which the Petitioner
seeks to represent are under the immediate supervision of a recording
engineer, are interchangeable with kinescope recording employees not
sought by the Petitioner, and have a different bargaining history from
the film editors in the fihn service, newsreel, and film exchange depart-
ments, we shall not provide for their inclusion in the unit found
appropriate. - i -
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY 7
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of -collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All editors and assistant editors of the Employer in Los Angeles
County, California, including the editors and, assistant editors in the
film service department, the newsreel editors in the newsreel depart-
ment, and the editor and assistant editor 'in the film exchange depart-
ment, but excluding all other, employees, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act:
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
American Broadcasting Company, a Division of American Broad'-
casting-Paramount Theatres , Inc. and International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine
Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-7421. August 31, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton Pravitz, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, National Association of -Broadcast Employees
and Technicians,' CIO, asserts that on March 28, 1955, prior to the
filing of the petition herein and Petitioner's demand for recognition,
both occurring on the same day, March 30, 1955, the Intervenor and
the Employer executed a contract which it now alleges to be a bar to
the instant proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not
a bar on the ground that by its terms ratification by the Intervenor's
membership was a condition precedent to the consummation of a bind-
ing, legal, contract, and the contract was not ratified until after the
petition was filed.
The record shows that on or about November 1, 1951, an agreement,
hereinafter referred to as the "master contract," was entered into be-
tween the Intervenor and the Employer, and was from time-to-time
modified and extended, the last extension expiring on January 31,
1955. On January 31, 1955, a stipulation (known as the, Santa Barbara
114 NLRB No. 2.