Northeastern Indiana Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1381 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC.
(WKJG) and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND
TECI-INICIANS
Case No. 13-CA-117.-Decided March 03,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 31, 1949, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued bib
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board's General
Counsel filed a statement in support of the Trial Examiner's Interme-
diate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, the General
Counsel's statement, and he entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the additions noted below :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a)
(5) of the Act. The record shows, and the Intermediate Report fully
sets forth that, prior to the advent of the Union, the Respondent
refused to meet with its employees to discuss their working condi-
tions, but that when the Union made its claim of majority status the
Respondent sought to bargain with the employees individually.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog
.and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
88 NLRB No. 238.
1381
1382 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent's delay in commencing negotiations with the Union
was unreasonable.2 During negotiations, the Respondent offered the
Union less than it had offered the employees individually. Through-
out the negotiations, the Respondent maintained an uncompromising
attitude with respect to wages, sick leave, and other matters, and
refused to incorporate in the Union's proposed contract benefits as
favorable as those offered to the employees individually. Finally,
the record shows that after the filing of the charges in this case, the
Respondent stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the
parties to conclude a mutually satisfactory agreement.
2. The Respondent argues that the Trial Examiner "followed the
pattern of ignoring all the evidence given by the Respondent and with
studied design gave credence to the evidence of the Union, a find-
ing that all of Respondent's witnesses were falsifiers while the wit-
nesses of the Union were truthful." The Supreme Court has recently
held 3 that even if a Trial Examiner believes every witness for a union
and disbelieves every witness for an employer, this does not mani-
fest such bias and prejudice as to invalidate an order of this Board
adopting the findings of the Trial Examiner. It is our established
principle 4 that a Trial Examiner's credibility findings are entitled
to great weight, because in resolving conflicting testimony he is in a
position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. We are reluctant
to disturb credibility findings unless they are unreasonable, and upon
our independent consideration of the record see no ground to do
so in the present instance.
3. The Respondent contends that the findings of the Trial Examiner
are not supported by substantial evidence. The courts have held s
that substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reason-
able mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." We
are satisfied from the record as a whole not only that the Trial Exam-
iner's findings in this case are supported by substantial evidence, but
that his findings are supported by the preponderance of testimony.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Northeastern
2 While the reason assigned by the Respondent for its delay might be acceptable under
other circumstances , we are satisfied , from our examination of the record as a whole, that
the delay in this case was aimed at frustrating bargaining with the Union.
S N. L. R . B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co. (June 20, 1949 ), 337 U. S. 656.
4Kentucky Utilities Co., 83 NLRB 981: Eastern Coal Corporation, 79 NLRB 1165.
5 Appalachian Electric Power Co . v. N. L. R . B., 93 F. 2d 985 , 989: N . L. R. B. v.
Thompson Products , 97 F. 2d 13, 15 ; Ballston -Stillwater Co. V. N. L. R. B ., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1383
Indiana Broadcasting Co., Inc. (WKJG), Fort Wayne, Indiana, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing upon request to bargain collectively with National
Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians as the exclusive
representative of all the engineers and technicians employed at the
Respondent's plant at Fort Wayne, Indiana, excluding supervisors
as defined in the Act;
(b) Discouraging membership in National Association of Broad-
cast Engineers and Technicians by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of employment;
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership,
activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Na-
tional Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or 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) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with National Association
of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and embody
any understanding reached in a signed agreement;
(b) Offer to the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix
A, attached, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges dismissing, if necessary, all persons
hired on or after August 12, 1948;
(c) Make whole the employees whose names are set forth in
Appendix A, attached, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she nor-
mally would have earned as wages from the date he was discrimi-
natorily deprived of his employment, to the date of the offer of. rein-
statement, less his net earnings during said period;
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its plant at Fort.Wayne, Indiana, copies of the notice.
attached hereto, marked Appendix B.1 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,,
after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
Respondent, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days.
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices.
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken.
by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,.
or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chi-
cago, Illinois), in writing within twenty (20) days from the'date of
receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX A
Charles E. Neer Robert G. Downie
Carl S. Frazier Daniel Brendiar
O. R. Yonkos Jesse Wheaton
Richard B. Mitchell
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to. a. Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to
their union activities or in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNI-
CIANS, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective baraining or other-t,
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or 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).
of the Act.
0
6 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there,
shall be inserted in the notice before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER ," the words.
"A. DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
NORTHE'AS'TERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1385
WE WILL OFFER to those employees listed below who have not
already been reinstated, reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make all
employees listed below whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination.
Charles E. Neer Richard B. Mitchell
Carl S. Frazier Robert C. Downie
0. R. Yonkos Daniel Brendiar
Jesse Wheaton
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request With the above-
named union as the exclusive representatives of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, wages, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All engineers and technicians except supervisors as defined in
Section 2, (11) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947..
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organizations.
N01ZTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC.
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof;.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Irving M. Friedman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gilmore S. Haynie, Esq., 220 Federal Building, Fort Wayne, Ind., for the
Respondent.
George Maher, Esq., 80 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Ill., for the Union..
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second supplemental charge filed on January 25, 1949, by National
Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians. herein called Nabet or
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board' by the
'The General Counsel and his representative are herein referred to as the General
Counsel ; and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), on January 28,
1949, issued a complaint against Northeastern Indiana Broadcasting Co., Inc.
(WKJG), herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Act. Copies
of the complaint, the charge, the first supplemental charge, and the second
supplemental charge upon which it was based, together with notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.2
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance :
(1) that on and after June 14,1948, the Respondent failed and refused to bargain
collectively with the Union thereby causing the employees to strike on August
12, 1948; (2) that the Respondent has prolonged the strike by reason of (a)
its failure to bargain collectively on and after June 14, 1948; (b)' bargaining in-
dividually with its employees since the strike; (c) discharging and refusing
to reinstate the strikers on January 24, 1949; (d) interrogating its employees
during April and May 1948 concerning their membership, interest, or activities
in or on behalf of the Union or other labor organizations; (e) urging, warning,
and threatening its employees and offering benefits and threats of reprisal against
assisting, obtaining, or retaining membership in the Union or engaging in con-
certed activities on behalf of the Union, during March, April, and May, 1948; (f)
bargaining or attempting to bargain individually with its employees during
March, April, and May, 1948 subsequent to its notification by the Union that the
Union had filed a representation petition.
In its answer the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held from March 22 to March 25, 1949, inclu-
sive, at the Allen County Courthouse, Fort Wayne, Indiana, before W. Gerard
Ryan, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner.
Upon the General Counsel and the Union resting their case, the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint. Decision on the motion was reserved. At the
conclusion of the entire -case, the Respondent renewed its motion to dismiss at
which time decision thereon was again reserved. I now deny the motion.
The parties participated in oral argument at the conclusion of the evidence
and were afforded an opportunity to file briefs, proposed. findings of fact, and
conclusions of law.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. The Respondent
also filed proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law.
On the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
2 At the hearing paragraph 2 of the complaint was amended to have the sentence "The
Respondent is an affiliate and an integral part of the Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc."
read as follows : "The Respondent Is an affiliate and a part of the Mutual Broadcasting
System, Inc ." Paragraph 14, subparagraph (c) of the complaint was amended to have the
sentence "On or about March 27, 1948, the Respondent was advised by the Regional
Director of the Union 's filing a representation petition . . ." reads as follows : "On
or about March 27, 1948, the Respondent was advised by the Union of the Union's filing
a representation petition . . .
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1387
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Indiana corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where it operates radio stations known as
WKJG and WKJG-FM. The Respondent concedes and I find that it has been
and is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians is a labor organ-
ization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In the latter part of February or early March 1948, Daniel E. Brendiar who
was employed as an engineer by the Respondent had a conversation with the
Respondent's Chief Engineer Copeland in the studio control room during the
supper relief period. On behalf of the engineers and technicians, Brendiar
informed Copeland that there was some dissatisfaction with respect to their
working conditions. Brendiar asked for a written statement as to company
policy as the men were considering the possibility of joining a union. Copeland
replied that he would look into the matter. A few days later, Damon Wilson,
the Respondent's transmitting supervisor, informed Brendiar that Copeland
had discussed the request with the Respondent's manager, Gates, and that no
written statement as to policy would be forthcoming. That Wilson so reported
to Brendiar is not contradicted by Wilson as Wilson was not called as a witness
at the hearing. Following that refusal, the engineers and technicians on March
2, 1948, sent a telegram to the union herein asking that its representative con-
tact them. On March 26, 1948, the Respondent received a letter from George
Maher, the union representative, stating that a majority of the engineers and
technicians employed by the Respondent had selected the Union as their bargain-
ing representative and that the Union was petitioning the Board for a repre-
sentation election. Thereafter Gates and Ritchey, who was in charge of public
relations for the Respondent and also its designated negotiator as hereinafter
shown, arranged a meeting with the engineers and technicians for April 1,
1948. Ritchey addressed the meeting, stating that he was aware of some prob-
lems that had arisen and the purpose of the meeting was to see if they could
get together and discuss the various difficulties that the men were having with
the management. Ritchey invited the men to speak up and state any trouble
or any grievances that they had. Discussion was had concerning travel pay
for remote broadcasts; holiday pay; vacations; extra remuneration for employ-
ees called back to work after their regular tours were completed for the day,
and wages.
3In making the findings herein, I have considered and weighed the entire evidence. It
would needlessly burden this report to set up all the testimony on disputed points. Such
testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following day, April 2, the Respondent issued a memorandum , which it
gave to each of the men and also posted on its bulletin board, putting into. effect
as of that date the following benefits which had not previously been enjoyed by
them, viz: Travel expenses on remote broadcasts, if travel was not done in the
employee's own car, and 8 cents per mile if done in the employee's own car ;
six holidays annually to be paid for at the'rate of time and one-half; 2 weeks'
vacation with pay for the technical personnel who complete a full year of work-
the 1948 vacation period to be prorated upon the number of months' work prior
to April 1; minimum of 2 hours' pay at the rate of time and one-half for "call-
backs" ; 4 and a minimum starting wage of $45 weekly, with provision for periodic
pay increases up to $50 weekly. Increases above $50 per week were to be given
in amount and at times justified in the judgment of the Respondent. Ritchey
admitted that at the time of the April 1 meeting he knew the employees had
engaged in some union activity because of the letter received from the Union.
On April 10, another meeting was held with Ritchey and Gates and the engineers
and technicians. The meeting was called because Ritchey wanted to know the
reaction of the men to the April 2 memorandum. It was a lengthy meeting in
which Ritchey invited discussion of the problems that he was not aware of and
inquired exactly what it was they wanted. There was no spokesman for the
men and very little activity was evinced on their part. Ritchey then recom-
mended that the men draw up a proposal to submit within 24 hours. Accord-
ingly, the entire group of technicians and engineers submitted a written proposal
following which another meeting was held on or about April 216 Vacations,
sick leave, and wages were discussed. Ritchey stated that vacations would be
as stated in the April 2 memorandum ; that sick leave was too indefinite a liability
to adopt a policy on, and that as far as wages was concerned the demands of
the men were too high, but offered to each technician a weekly increase of $10.
The group then asked to be left alone for a caucus so Ritchey and Gates left
the studio while the men considered the offer. After a closed vote it was decided
to reject the wage increase as insufficient. Ritchey and Gates returned to the
meeting about 30 minutes later. Ritchey inquired, "What don't we agree upon?"
and was informed that the wage increase was insufficient and that the men
would like to have the election conducted. Ritchey replied that if the election
was conducted and they wanted the Union, then everything they h'td agreed upon
was out and they would have to start all over again from scratch. At one of
the April meetings, Ritchey stated to the engineers and technicians that in his
opinion, discussing the pros and cons of unionization, entrance into a union
tended to put a ceiling on their compensation whereas individuals operating as
individuals were free to obtain quickly any benefits that might accrue from their
zeal and efforts and- ability. Ritchey also stated on more than one occasion that
the Respondent as a matter of policy had no objection to the men joining a
union ; that was a decision that must be arrived at by the men.
I find that the proof adduced by the Respondent is insufficient to establish that
:a meeting earlier than that of April 1 was held on or about March 24 or at any
time prior to April 1 and that such meeting was in response to the earlier request
of the employees for a meeting with management. The Respondent did not pro-
-duce Wilson to contradict the testimony of Brendiar that Wilson relayed the
message from Copeland and Gates that the Respondent would not meet with the
group and that no written statement of company policy would be forthcoming-
4 "Call-backs" are employees called back to work after their regular work has been
completed for the day.
The written proposal is dated April 21, 1948.
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1389
.Following that refusal, the engineers and 'technicians sought the aid of the
Union. It is clear to me on those facts that the Respondent, after receiving notice
on March 26, 1948, that the Union represented the:group, quickly changed its
decision not to meet with the employees and thereafter the meetings were ar-
ranged, not in response to the request of the men which had been refused, but at
the instance of the Respondent, in order to bargain with the group in derogation
of the Union. The memorandum of April 2 setting forth improved working
-conditions including the basis for increased wages, together with the statement
of Ritchey which could only mean that the men could advance more rapidly
if they did not join the Union, was an allurement held out to the employees
of benefits to be obtained if they did not join the Union' I find such conduct
to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, coining as it did in the initial
stages of organizational activity among the employees thereby amounting to
interference and coercion in the exercise of their statutory rights for organiza-
tion.'
During the end of March or the beginning of April 1948, Gates visited em-
ployee Mitchell while Mitchell was at the Respondent's transmitter plant. Gates
asked Mitchell whether he wanted an election. Mitchell replied, "Do you mean
am I for the union?" Gates did not answer, whereupon Mitchell added that that
would be up to the collective group to state such a fact. Gates replied that he
was "going to find out who was for the union and was going to be tough." Around
the same date, Gates summoned employee Neer to his office and asked Neer if he
wanted an election. Neer said that he did. Gates further inquired from Neer
if there were any employees who were particularly active in seeking an election
:specifically inquiring as to Brendiar and Mitchell. Neer informed Gates that it
was the entire group that sought the election. Such interrogation set forth
in this paragraph was, and I so find, a direct violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act and is not protected as free speech by Section 8 (c) of the Act'
B. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
On May 3,1948, the Respondent and the Union agreed to a consent election which
resulted in an unanimous vote for the Union. On June 4, 1948, the Union was
duly certified by the Board as the collective bargaining agent of the employees
in the unit, to wit :
All engineers and technicians of the Respondent, except for supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
No claim is made by the Respondent that at any time since the certification
has there been any loss or diminution of the Union's majority and all of the
acts in connection with the alleged refusal to bargain occurred within the year
following said certification. The presumption of the validity of a certification
for a period of at least 1 year is not contested.
I therefore find that all engineers and technicians of the Respondent, except for
supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
fcr the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
c Ritchey's statement is not protected free speech under the Act in view of its inherent
promise of benefit if the men did not join the Union. I do not consider its effect neutralized
by his other remarks that the men were free to join or not to'join and that the Respondent as
a matter of policy was not concerned with their decision.
° Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1435; Macon Textile Mills, Inc., 80 NLRB 1528.
e Standard - Coosa -Thatcher Company (and cases cited ), 85 NLRB,1358.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Act ; and that on and at all times after June 4, 1948, the Union has been
the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of the employees
in the aforesaid unit and that , pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act , the Union
was on June 4, 1948 , and at all times thereafter has been and now is the ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
2. The Respondent 's lack of good faith
The General Counsel does not contend that there was any refusal to bargain
prior to June 4. 1948.
On June 14 , 1948, George Maher , the Union 's representative , wrote to Gates
for an appointment on June 17 to deliver copies of a proposed contract , stating
that the presentation of the proposal should not be construed as an effort to enter
into a formal negotiating session on June 17; that he just wanted to present the
contract in advance of any formal negotiating session so that the Respondent.
could avail itself of the opportunity to go over the provisions of the contract
and thereby draw up their counterproposals . Gates replied by telegram to
Maher the next day requesting Maher to telephone to him on arrival. Maher
did so and on June 17 delivered to Gates several copies of the Union 's proposed
contract and requested Gates to notify him as soon as possible of a date to
commence negotiations , which Gates agreed to do. Gates pointed out to Maher
that Ritchey , who would be in charge of the negotiations for the Respondent,
was then engaged in bargaining with the International Typographical Union on
behalf of another company. Ritchey, however, did not meet with the ITU be-
tween June 9 and July 1, although he maintained that he remained ready so as
to meet with the ITU on 1 day 's notice. Hearing nothing further from the
Respondent since Jpne 17, Maher wrote to Gates on June 29 , protesting the
Respondent 's inaction and requesting a bargaining conference for July 7. Gates
replied by letter dated June 30, that Ritchey was resuming negotiations with
the ITU on July 1 and it would be impossible to meet with the Union on July 7
unless negotiations with the ITU were completed before that date. The letter
concluded with an offer to "let you know the moment Mr. Ritchey is free to
turn his attention toward negotiations in behalf of your organization and the
engineers here at WKJG." Ritchey met with the ITU on July 1 , 2, and 8. There
was no meeting on July 7, nevertheless the Respondent made no effort to notify
Maher that it would meet with him on July 7. The Respondent offers the de-
fense for not meeting with Maher that it would be difficult to carry on two
negotiations at the same time and the sessions with the ITU occupied the entire
thinking time of the negotiators and that there was no time to bargain with the
Union. On July 12, Gates wired Maher that Ritchey was still engaged in nego-
tiations with the ITU and that Ritchey would leave that night for Florida but
promised to notify Maher upon his return . On July 16, Maher wired the Respond-
ent that it would file unfair labor practice charges unless advised by 3 p in.
that day of its willingness to fix a definite date for a meeting. Shortly after its
receipt, Ritchey telephoned to Maher that he could not set a date but promised
to call Maher on July 20 at which time he would be prepared to set a specific
date and requested Maher to withhold filing unfair labor charges. Thereafter
Ritchey did telephone to Maher on July 20 and a date for the. first negotiating
meeting was set for July 22, 1948 . Thus a delay of 5 weeks occurred before
July 22 after the Respondent was requested by the Union to be advised when it
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1391
could meet. The Respondent corporation had a duty to meet promptly with the
Union. It could not avail itself of the excuse that its negotiator was unavailable.
While it might be a valid excuse for an individual employer to plead that he was
personally engaged in bargaining sessions with another union, it can be no de-
fense for a corporation to delay negotiations for the reason that another com-
pany is bargaining with another union and cannot meet until that other com-
pany's negotiator is available. Delay for such reason is unjustified and is some
evidence of lack of good faith in that bargaining sessions, since they could not be
dispensed with, at least were forestalled as long as possible. Further proof of
the Respondent's lack of good faith is that it made no effort to schedule a meeting
until the Union threatened to file unfair labor practice charges. In a recent case s
the Board has held that "In labor relations, a delay in commencing collective
bargaining entails more than mere postponement of an ordinary business trans-
action, for the passage of time itself, while employees grow disaffected and
impatient at their designated collective bargaining agents' failure to report
progress, weakens the unity and economic power of the group, and impairs the
union's ability to secure a beneficial contract. The Act, which was designated to
equalize bargaining power between employers and employees, does not permit
an employer to secure, even unintentionally, a dominant position at the bargain-
ing table by means of unreasonable delay."
Meetings were held on July 22, 23, 27, and August 12. The delay between July
27 and August 12 was requested by the Union.
At the meeting of July 22, the Union proposed a 2-week annual vacation, similar
to the vacation provision contained in the Respondent's memorandum of April
2 hereinabove referred to. Ritchey, on behalf of the Respondent, offered 1 day
of vacation for every 26 days worked during the year. Brendiar, who was on
the union committee with Maher, objected to Ritchey's proposal pointing out
that the announcers who had been hired by the Respondent at about the same
time as the engineers and technicians were at that time having 2 weeks' vacation
with pay, whereas under Ritchey's proposal the engineers and technicians would
get only a few days' vacation that summer. Ritchey replied that what the
announcers were getting was of no concern here, inasmuch as they had bargained
individually with the Respondent. Maher objected that this was dicriminatory
and penalized' the members for joining the Union, to which Ritchey did not reply.
Ultimately, Ritchey's proposal was accepted, although it was an offer of less than
had been granted to the employees in the memorandum of April 2 which resulted
from individual bargaining between the Respondent and its employees.
In negotiating the subject of "call-backs," the Respondent offered, and held out
until its offer was accepted, less than was granted the employees in the April
2 memorandum, vi,N: "call-back" pay at the rate of $2 premium plus the prevailing
rate of pay for time worked instead of pay on the basis of a minimum of 2 hours
at time and one-half rates.
Although the April 2 memorandum provided for six paid holidays per year,
Ritchey rejected the Union's proposal for holiday compensation and made no
counteroffer. Neither did the Respondent make any counteroffer when it rejected
the Union's proposals regarding minimum pay for work done on a regularly
scheduled day off and extra pay for work done on Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Respondent refused to negotiate on the subject of sick leave stating that
it was too indefinite a liability to undertake.
9 Burgie Vinegar Co., 71 NLRB 829, 830.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent rejected the Union proposal of a clause in the contract guaran-
teeing to the employees that no benefits previously acquired by them would be.
waived or eliminated by any part of the contract being negotiated. In rejecting:
the proposal, Ritchey said he had no intention of carrying over into the contract
any benefits established by the Respondent prior to the negotiations. While
Ritchey denied such a statement, his denial is unconvincing and not credited,
for the net results of the items in this respect accepted by the Union show that
substantially such a plan was accomplished. Ritchey pointed out that previous
to the negotiations the Respondent had unilaterally granted sick leave to one
of the employees in the unit, and, as stated, rejected any proposal for sick leave,
in the proposed contract.
On the subject of wages which was reached on July 27, the Respondent refused
to negotiate in any way. It took the position that it was financially unable to
grant any increase. Ritchey stated that the station was operating at a loss and
"could not entertain any ideas about a wage increase at that time." The Union
argued that the wages then being paid were substandard to which the Respondent
countered that if the employees were dissatisfied with their pay they could go
elsewhere to find employment-that they were not starving. The Union after
advancing arguments which were rejected by the Respondent then offered to
continue in the proposed contract the existing wage scale with a 30-day wage
reopening clause. That also was rejected by the Respondent. The Union then
proposed a reopening clause of 3 months which was rejected. Likewise a
proposed wage reopening clause of 6 months was rejected by the Respondent.
On July 27, the results of the negotiations were communicated to the em-
ployees by the union committee and a strike vote was had. The members voted
to strike and such action was approved by the union executive board.
On August 12, bargaining sessions were again resumed from, 2: 30 p. m. to
4: 45 p. m. The Union renewed its demands for increased wages but the Re-
spondent's position was adamant. The Union then proposed a contract contain-
ing a wage reopening clause in 9 months, meanwhile accepting present wage
scales. The Respondent refused to consider any wage reopening clause. The
meeting was thereupon adjourned until 7: 4:5 p. m. Maher then informed Ritchey
that the employees felt the Respondent had no intention of endeavoring to reach
.an agreement and within a few minutes thereafter all of the employees in the
unit went out on strike, and continued on strike until January 17, 1949, when
the Union made an unconditional offer for the men to return to work. On
August 13, 1948, the Union filed its charge of unfair labor practices against the
Respondent.
On August 23, the Union obtained another meeting with the Respondent.
Ritchey inquired what was the purpose of the meeting. When Maher replied it
was to reestablish negotiations, Ritchey remarked that when he was kicked
he was a hard man to get along with and that he considered he had been kicked.
In reply to Maher's inquiry if there was any possibility of settling the strike,
Ritchey replied that in view of the fhet that unfair labor practice charges had
been filed, he was not going to answer for fear he would incriminate himself.
The Union then asked Ritchey again if he would consider the present wage scale
with a wage reopening clause. Ritchey replied that he would not, because it
was not in writing. This was the first time that Ritchey requested that it be in
writing. Maher then went to a drug store and wrote out the proposal in long
hand providing for the existing wage scale, including the following clause :
(d) It is further agreed that the company will meet with the union on
January 15, 1949, with the view toward negotiating an upward revision
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1393
. of the foregoing wage scales. No further notice by either party shall be
necessary to effectuate this paragraph.
When Maher handed the proposal to Ritchey, Ritchey said he would convey
the proposal for approval to the stockholders of the Respondent. This is the
first indication in the record that ltitchey's authority to negotiate for the Re-
spondent was limited. At that point, Maher inquired of Ritchey whether he
would sign a contract on the basis of agreements then reached, if the stock-
holders approved the reopening clause. Ritchey replied that he would not,
because there were sections in the contract as to which agreement had been
reached that were subject to revision. The next day, August 24, Ritchey tele-
phoned to Maher that the proposal was being returned with the final paragraph
deleted and then also informed Maher that he found it difficult if not impossible
to endeavor to negotiate with the Union as long as the unfair labor practice
charges were on file with the Board and that he did not know when he could
meet with the Union again. Ritchey did not deny that conversation and testified
that the proposal was rejected by the stockholders because by its terms it
required an upward revision of wages upon reopening the contract. The Re-
spondent offered no counterproposal of a more acceptably phrased clause. No
further bargaining sessions were thereafter held.
Immediately after the strike started, the Respondent hired replacements who
were paid in excess of what the strikers were paid. In addition to that, Super-
visors Copeland and Wilson since the strike began have been doing the work
that some of the strikers had been doing. Two of the replacements who were
paid more than the strikers had had no previous experience and another had to
be trained. Each replacement was informed when he was hired that he was
being permanently hired.
On August 27, the Union informed the Respondent that the pickets were being
withdrawn in order to find temporary employment during the strike without
abandoning either the strike or their rights to their jobs, and that the matter
of the Respondent's refusal to bargain was being left in the hands of the Board.
On January 17, 1949, the strikers unconditionally applied to the Respondent
to return to work. On January 24, 1.949,. the Respondent rejected the uncon-
ditional application of the employees and refused to rehire any of the strikers
stating that it had no vacancies.
The Respondent's Defense
The Respondent, in addition to its denial of the allegations of the complaint,
maintains that there is no evidence to support the complaint; that the proof
satisfactorily explains the delay in the start of bargaining sessions; that
bargaining was carried on for 4 days until an impasse was reached on wages,
whereupon the Union broke off negotiations and engaged in an economic strike,
as a result of which the Respondent hired permanent replacements. I do not
consider that the Respondent has maintained its defense.
Even if the strike had as its purpose both the achievement of an economic
goal and the dissipation of the Respondent's unfair labor practice, it is a well-
established principle that a strike caused in part by an unfair labor practice
does not lose its character as an unfair labor practice strike because economic
reasons may also have brought it about.10
10 Julian Freirich Co., Case No. 2-CA-303, 86 NLRB 542; N. L. R. B. V. Remington Rand,
Inc., 94 F. 2d 862, 871-872 (C. A. 2), cert. denied 304 U. S. 605 ; Republic Steel Corporation
v. N. L. R. B., 107 F. 2d 472, 478 (C. A. 3), modified as to other provisions, 311 U. S. 7;
Brown Radio Service and Laboratory, 70 NLRB 476.
882191-50-vol. 88-S8
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Viewing the entire record I find that the Respondent 's pattern of conduct was
designed to interfere with, restrain , and coerce its employees in order to dis-
courage them in their collective activities , culminating in refusing to bargain
in good faith and illegally discharging the strikers . The Respondent in late
February or early March 1948 refused the request of the employees to meet
and discuss their problems and refused to make any written statement concern-
ing wages or working conditions . However, . after learning that the Union had
entered the picture the Respondent quickly arranged for and held meetings
with the employees in which wages and working conditions were discussed,
thereby attempting to and bargaining individually with the employees to the
exclusion of the Union . The Respondent thereupon announced in its April 2
memorandum certain benefits and policies with respect to wages and working
conditions and refused to carry over some of those benefits in the proposed
contract with the Union . After delaying the opening of the bargaining sessions
I find that the Respondent entered upon the negotiations in an uncompromising
attitude as far as sick leave, annual vacation , "call backs," paid holidays dur-
ing the year, minimum pay for work done on regularly scheduled days off,
and wages are concerned . If proof is needed that the Respondent intended
that the benefits to be incorporated in the proposed contract were to be less
favorable than the memorandum of April 2, the bargaining sessions prove it.
After 3 days of such fruitless effort on behalf of the Union , during which the
Respondent on such major issues bargained on a "take it or leave it " basis,
it is easy to understand the frustration and sense of futility which the Union
must have experienced on July 27 when it realized that the results to that
date on the important topics of negotiation amounted to nothing . The un-
compromising attitude of the Respondent soon brought the Union to a realiza-
tion that if any terms were to be arrived at the Union must accept the Re-
spondent 's terms or none at all . In such an atmosphere , the Union took a
strike vote and obtained approval to strike . The Union , however, was not
quick to exercise such authority . It tried during the afternoon session of
August 12 to avoid an impasse on wages. When the Respondent adamantly
refused even to concede the inclusion of a future 9-month wage reopening
clause the Union undoubtedly believed that it had exhausted its attempts
short of complete surrender to the Respondent ' s position.
On the day immediately following the strike , the Union filed a charge of refusal
to bargain.
There was no change in the attitude of the Respondent on August 23, at the last
bargaining session, except to enhance its uncompromising attitude ( 1) by stating
it found it difficult, if not impossible , to bargain in view of the unfair labor charges
filed and did not know when it could meet again ; and (2 ) by stating that it would
refuse to sign a contract if offered on the basis of present agreed terms since there
were sections in the proposed contract as to which agreement had been reached
which were subject to revision and again rejecting without counterproposal the
wage reopening clause. I am convinced that the record shows that the Union in
its negotiations tried its best to obtain a contract ; it accepted at times, when it
had to, the terms on which the Respondent stood adamant even though it realized
that in so doing it was accepting less than the Respondent had offered on an
individual bargaining basis ; it made every attempt during the negotiations and
after the strike to conclude some kind of a contract with the Respondent , all to no
avail. The strike which followed was caused and prolonged by the Respondent's
refusal to bargain in good faith . I therefore find that on June 14, 1948, and at
all times thereafter , the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING co., INC. 1395
as -the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and by
such conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of- the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby causing and-prolonging
the strike.
C. The discharge of the strikers
As referred to above, the strikers on January 17, 1949, in a letter addressed
to the Respondent unconditionally applied to the Respondent to return to work,
thereby ending the strike. On January 24, 1949, the Respondent by letter rejected
that unconditional offer and refused to rehire any of the strikers, stating it had
no vacancies. Since I have found that the strike was caused and prolonged by
the Respondent's unfair labor practice of refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union, the refusal to reinstate the strikers upon request, constituted per se dis-
crimination in hire and tenure of employment and a discriminatory discharge in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act" I shall therefore recommend that the
strikers be. reinstated to their former positions, dismissing, if necessary, all per-
sons hired on or after August 12, 1948."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in interrogation of employees
concerning the Union, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced them
in derogation of their rights secured by Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in'an appropriate unit,
I shall recommend that upon request Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of
this report, I shall therefore recommended that the Respondent offer immediate
and full reinstatement to the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A,
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned from the date of the 'discriminatory termination of his
11 See Julian Freirich Co., 86 NLRB 542; Ford Brothers, 73 NLRB 49, 7Q; Athens Man-
ufacturing Company, 69 NLRB 605, 608; Brashear Freight Lines, Incorporated, 13 NLRB
191, 193; Rockwood Stove Works, 63 NLRB 1297.
12 Julian Freirich Co., supra.
8 8 21 91-5 1-8 9
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings I$
of each during the said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following : 14
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians is a labor or-,
ganization within the meaning of the Act.
2. All engineers and technicians of the Respondent, except for supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute and at all times material herein,
have constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians was on June
4, 1948, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid unit, for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on June 14, 1948, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians, as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this report, and thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact arid. conclusions of law, I
recommend that the Respondent, Northeastern Indiana Broadcasting Co., Inc.
(WKJG), its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively with National Associations
of. Broadcast Engineers and Technicians as the exclusive representative of all
the engineers and technicians employed by the Respondent, except supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act;
(b) Discouraging membership in National Association of Broadcast Engineers
and Technicians by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment ;
11 Crossett Lumber Co ., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498.
14 The Respondent 's proposed findings of fact are granted except that IV, V, VI, VIII,
X, XI, XII, and XIII are denied . The Respondent ' s proposed conclusions of law ara all
denied.
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC. 1397
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership , activities, or
sympathies , or in any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , to joint or assist National Association of Broadcast Engineers and
Technicians , or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or 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 con=
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. '
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with National Association of Broadcast
Engineers and Technicians , as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the unit herein found to be appropriate , and embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement ;
(b) Offer to the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of this
report, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions ," without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, dismissing , if necessary , all persons hired on or after August 12, 1948;
(c) Make whole the employees whose names are set forth in Appendix A of
this report, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against them , by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned as wages from
the date he was discriminatorily deprived of his employment , to the date of the
offer of reinstatement ,. less his net earnings " during said period;
(d) Post at its plant at Fort Wayne, Indiana, copies of the . notice attached
hereto, marked Appendix B. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall , after being signed by the
Respondent 's representative , be posted by Respondent , and maintained by it for
sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees customarily are posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director forthe Thirteenth Region ( Chicago, Illinois),
in writing within twenty ( 20) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate
Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ,
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty ( 20) days from the
date of receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply-with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may , within twenty ( 20) days from -the'date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section
203.45 of, said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of
the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as
15 See The Chase National Bank of the City o f New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827 . Also, Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1525.
16 See footnote 13, above.
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he relies upon, together with the original and six copies. of a brief in support
thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six
copies of a brief in, support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof, upon each of the other parties.
Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por-
tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed,
and if mimeographed, shall be double spaced, Proof of service on the. other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by
Section 203.85. As further, provided in said Section 203.46, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service
of the order transferring, the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said 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.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 31st day of October 1949.
W. GERARD RYAN,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
Charles E. Neer Robert G. Downie
Carl S. Frazier Daniel Brendiar
O. R. Yonkos Jesse Wheaton
Richard B. Mitchell
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to their union
activities or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGI-
NEERS AND TECHNICIANS, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or 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 author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to those employees listed below who have not already
been reinstated, reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and will make all employees listed below whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO., INC . 1399
Charles E. Neer Richard B. Mitchell
Carl S . Frazier Robert G. Downie
0. R. Yonkos Daniel Brendiar
Jesse Wheaton
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, wages,
and other terms and conditions of employment , and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargain-
ing unit Is :
All engineers and technicians except supervisors as defined in Section
2 (11) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
NORTHEASTERN INDIANA BROADCASTING CO.,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------------------
Dated ------------ --------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
O