Palm Beach Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 597 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PALM BLACI-i BROADCASTING CORPORATION and
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-C-1(120.Decided Augwcst 29, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 20, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port. No oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C. was
requested, and none was held. The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition :
The record shows that after July 12, 1944, the date on which the
respondent refused to bargain with the Union, substantially all the
union members in the respondent's employ withdrew their member-
ship. We find that this defection in the Union's ranks was caused by
the respondent's refusal to bargain and by its other unfair labor
practices, fully described in the Intermediate Report, and that, there-
fore, the membership withdrawals do not reflect the untrammelled
expression of the employees' will. Under the circumstances, such de-
fection does not impair the Union's previously established majority
status.'' Moreover, for the reasons expressed in our Supplemental
Decision in Matter of Karp Metal Products Co., Ine.,2 we find that the
policies of the Act will best be effectuated by requiring the respondent
to bargain collectively with the Union.
1 N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U. S. 318 ; Franks Bros . Co. v. N. L.
R. B., 321 U. S. 702.
2 51 N. L. R. B. 621.
63 N. L . R. B., No. 96.
597
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Palm Beach Broadcasting
Corporation, Palm Beach, Florida, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Communica-,
tions Association, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its
employees employed at its Palm Beach, Florida, broadcasting station,
excluding executives and all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, in re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment;
(b) Discouraging membership in American Communications Asso-
ciation, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discontinuing and terminating its practice of giving summertime
Wednesday afternoon vacations, or by discharging and refusing to
reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of its employees
or any term or condition of their employment;
(c) 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 American Communications Asso-
ciation, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 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 American Communi-
cations Association, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all the
respondent's employees at its Palm Beach, Florida, broadcasting sta-
tion, excluding executives and all supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Offer to Ruth Rasmussen immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges;
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 599
(c) Make whole Ruth Rasmussen for any loss of pay she has suf-
fered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against her, by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she
normally would have earned as wages during the period from October
6, 1944, to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less her
net earnings during said period;
(d) Make whole Virginia Fuquay Van Bullock, Juanita Mitchell,
Josephine Rectenwald, and Rut'i Rasmussen for the loss of Wednes-
day afternoon summertime vacations , as provided in that Section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy";
(e) Post at its plant at Palm"Beach , Florida, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent 's representative , be posted by
the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, 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 said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and.Order.
APPENDIX A
N. L R. B. 583
(9-1-44)
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 in any 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 American Communi-
cations Association, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent po-
sitions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment or other conditions of employment, -and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement. The bargaining unit is : all employees of the respond-
ent at its Palm Beach, Florida, broadcasting station excluding
executives and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise affect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
The employee referred to above is Ruth Rasmussen.
We will also make Virginia Fuquay Van Bullock, Juanita
Mitchell, Josephine Recteriwald, and Ruth Rasmussen whole for
the loss of Wednesday afternoon summertime vacations.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of that
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 organization.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
By --------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon- application In
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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
Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker , for the Board.
Mr., C. L McCoy, of Lake Worth , Fla., and Mr. C. D Blackwell , of West Palm
Beach, Fla ., and Mr. Andrew W. Bennett , of Washington , D. C., for the Respondent.
Mr. William E . Tanner , of West Palm Beach, Fla., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed January 8, 1945, by American Communica-
tions Association, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its
complaint dated January 8, 1945, against Palm Beach Broadcasting Corporation,
Palm Beach, Florida, 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 (1), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 601
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondent on or about August 1, 1944, discontinued its practice of
giving summer time Wednesday afternoon holidays to its clerical employees'
because of their union activities ; (2) demoted, criticized, humiliated, and har-
rassed Ruth Rasmussen, thereby forging and compelling her to resign her job
on October 6, 1944, because of her union activities; (3) that all of the respond-
ent's employees, excluding executives and supervisory employees, constitute a
union appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of the Act ; that from on or about June 8, 1944, a majority of the employees in
said unit had designated the Union as their bargaining representative and by
virtue thereof the Union, since June 8, 1944, has been the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining ;
and that, respondent from on or about June 8, 1944, has refused and failed to
bargain collectively with the Union in good faith; (4) that the respondent, since
on or about July 5, 1944, engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion ; 2
and (5) by the acts described above the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
On or about January 22, 1945, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in West Palm Beach, Florida, on various
dates from January 22 to February 3, 1945, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and a representative appeared for the
Union. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing counsel for the Board moved,
without objection, that the complaint be amended in formal matters to conform
to the proof. The motion was granted.
The parties argued orally at the conclusion of the hearing. While the parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the undersigned no briefs have
been received.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Palm Beach Broadcasting Corporation is a Florida corporation with its station
and principal office in Palm Beach, Florida, where it is engaged in operating a
radio broadcasting station. It is affiliated with the Mutual and Blue networks,
which are national broadcasting organizations. The respondent is licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission. Programs of the national networks,
which are broadcast throughout the country and transmitted locally by the re-
spondent, constitute 80 percent of its business. Approximately 80 percent of the
respondent's broadcasts is received by wire from sources outside the State of
Florida.
' Virginia Fuquay Bullock , Ruth Rasmussen , Juanita Mitchell, and Josephine Rectenwald.
2 Stated generally , these acts are alleged to consist of anti-union statements , questioning,
reprimands , threats, advice, solicitations , and bribes.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Communications Association is a labor organization affiliated with
the Cgngress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Prior to June 1944, there was no union organizational activity at the respond-
ent's station. During the spring of 1944,' following discussion of union organiza-
tion among the employees, Irving L. Heglund, employed as an engineer-announcer,
undertook to procure information concerning the organization of a union. He
contacted WilliamE Tanner, an employee of the American Telephone and Tele-
graph Company at West Palm Beach, Florida, who was director of organization
for Local 106, American Communications Association (herein sometimes called
ACA), C. I. 0., and from him learned the setup of the ACA, as it applied to em-
ployees engaging in the radio broadcasting industry. Heglund procured appli-
cation for membership cards in"the ACA and succeeded in getting signed applica-
tions from all non-supervisory employees of the respondent's station, except that
of the janitor. All applications were signed on or before June 8, except one signed
on July 5.
The cards signed in June were sent by Heglund to the Union's national office.
On June 30, as is set forth in greater detail in Section III-D below, the Union
informed the respondent that it had been chosen by a majority of its employees
as their "collective bargaining agency" and requested recognition as such agency.
On or about July 5, Greenlief, station manager, called Heglund to his office
and asked "What about this union business?" Heglund explained to Greenlief
that none of the union activities were directed against Greenlief "because he
was in a position of an interested by-stander." Heglund then explained the
structure of the ACA ; its several branches; and the "broadcast" division to
which the employees had applied for membership. During this conference Heg-
lund discussed the Union's i equest for recognition and advised Greenlief that
the respondent could recognize the Union by letter, or refuse to do so, or take
no action, in which latter events the employees could take the matter to the
National Labor Relations Board. Greenlief asked Heglund who was in the
Union Heglund replied that all the employees with the exception of Herman
Jackson, the janitor, had joined
During the discussion between Heglund and Greenlief, Davis entered the
room, whereupon Greenlief said, "Charles, we were just talking about the
Union." Davis told Heglund that he was surprised that Heglund "would stoop
to union activities" without his knowledge ; and that he understood that Heglund
"had engineered the whole thing and gotten the applications." He added that
if lie had to have a union in his station he would run the business as a "business
institution"; would install a time clock ; take away vacations with pay ; and
make employees stay at their posts Davis added, "up until now we have been
a happy family, but that's all off if we're going to have union activity." Heglund
then explained the setup of the ACA, which he had already discussed with Green-
lief, to the effect that Davis could by letter either recognize or refuse to recognize
the Union as the bargaining agency for his employees or let the "matter go
3 Unless otherwise specified all events referred to herein occurred in the year 1944.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 603
through proper procedure " Davis accused Heglund of having shown a lack
of gratitude in view of his long time employment with the respondent
Also on or about July 5, Davis called Virginia Fnquay,' Juanita Mitchell'
and Ruth Rasmussen to his private office and discussed with them the fact that
they had joined the Union In substance, he said that he did not see Why they
wanted to join the Union, that the Union was a "bunch of gangsters" or "Chicago
racketeers"; that the Union did "not care" for them and that all it wanted
"was their money." Davis further stated that Heglund was "responsible"
for the Union ; that he had passed the application "slips" ; and that he did) not
care anything for the three girls nor care what happened to them Davis added
that "only the low class of people, the garment workers and people of that type
belonged to unions "
Davis informed the three girls that by joining the Union the girls were putting
a "whip" over his head, and that he would have to put the "whip" over theirs. If
the Union came in, he said, time clocks would be installed, the girls 1vould be
"docked" when late, and there would be no more vacations He stated that the
employees had always been one "big happy family" and were free to sit on the
"front porch" when they had finished their work. Davis also told the three girls
that he did not want his "confidential secretaries" and "confidential bookkeeper"
in the Union. He advised them to think for themselves, that no one could force
them into the Union even if they had signed application slips.'
During the first part of July, Davis asked Paul McGinty, radio engineer em-
ployed by the respondent, "What do you know about the Union?" McGinty re-
plied that he did not know "too much" about it but that he had joined. Davis
responded "Why do you want to have a union?" McGinty explained that he had
read in the newspaper that Davis had sold a portion of the station, and that the
employees suspected that he was about to relinquish his remaining interest Davis
then asked what he thought were other. contributing factors which created the
union activities. McGinty replied that the fact that the management had brought
in a new and untried employee and paid him higher wages than the existing scale
at the station had caused dissatisfaction among the older employees. Davis
said that he had a right to pay whatever wages he wished McGinty agreed,
but added that he did not thnik it a wise policy because of the dissatisfaction
which resulted
Davis, on or about July 5, also sought out Benjamin Tindolph, employed as
engineer-announcer in the control room, and asked- "Are you in this [Union]?",
to which Tindolph replied in the affirmative Davis, according to the credited
testimony, reminded Tindolph ". . . how good he had been" to the employees.
Davis mentioned "Radar", and added that after the war ". . . there would be
naturally a lot of men who would be anxious to get into the radio business, . . .
It was such a fine thing because staff replacements would be that much easier . . .
' These findings are based on Heglnnd's credible testimony Greenlief corroborated much
of Heglund's testimony in this connection Davis denied the anti-onion statements credited
to him by Heglund He admitted having referred to the employees as a "happy family,"
but fixed the time at a later date . His credibility as a witness is discussed below. See
footnote No 29.
5 Fuquay married Ira Van Bullock in October She will be referred to hereinafter as
Fuquay'
I Mitchell was married in August to one, Rogers She will be referred to herein as
Mitchell.
° These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Fuquay and Rasmussen Davis
categorically dented most of the statements attributed to him above with reference to
time clocks , however, Davis testified . "I did say that it is customary , in past experiences
I have had in union plants, where we work on strictly hourly wages, that time clocks are
installed " The undersigned does not credit Davis' denials, and is convinced that he made
the statements substantially as is set forth above See also footnote No. 29 below.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Davis suggested that such men coming out of the war would have a lot of training
that Tindolph "as a third class engineer couldn't hope to get."
Ira Van Bullock was employed as a staff announcer in January 1943. He joined
the Union on June 7. He returned from a vacation on July 8 or 9. On July 10
Greenl?ef called Van Bullock to his office and told him that he was to be dropped
from the pay roll and was to have two weeks notice. Greenlief said ". . . that
because of the union situation coming in", they were going to have to make finan-
cial cutbacks ; that they had to make it somewhere and that Van Bullock was
the choice. Van Bullock reported Greenlief's statement to Heglund. Heglund
communicated with Tanner and at the latter's suggestion made an appointment
for Tanner to meet with Davis on July 12. At this meeting, Tanner requested
that Van Bullock be reinstated. Davis replied that the respondent had already
decided to reinstate him.
At this meeting, also, Davis objected to Fuquay, Mitchell, Rectenwald, and
Rasmussen being included ip the Union and in the appropriate unit. He said that
if the four girls joined the Union it "would destroy [his] trust in them"; that it
would impair their honesty ; that "they couldn't be union and be honest."
On or about July 11 the respondent posted the following :
MEMO To ALL STAFF MEMBERS OF WWPG
7-11-44.
This is to bring to your attention the fact that Donald S. Greenlief is the
active station manager of WWPG, with full jurisdiction of station manage-
ment and personnel.
(S) Chas E. Davis,
C. E. DAVIS,
President.
On or about July 12 respondent posted the following :
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
JULY 12, 1944.
Effective as of this date no one shall be allowed in transmitter room or
small studio except employees while on duty, and then only employees who
have business there in their line of duty. • Engineers will not leave their post
during working hours except when it becomes necessary in their line of
duty. Announcers will not leave their post during working hours except
when it becomes necessary in their line of duty. All doors of the station
must be kept closed and locked after 7: 00 p. m. in the evening, and no one
allowed to enter the station except employees on duty9 [Italics added.]
(S) THE MANAGEMENT.
8 These findings are based 'upon the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Van
Bullock.
The respondent contended that this notice was posted pursuant to a Federal Communi-
cations Commission directive The record discloses that such directive was first issued by
the Defense Communications Board, Washington, D C., August 21, 1941; that it applied
to aliens, and to citizens and noncitizens who have no legitimate business with wire or
radio communications industry. The respondent contended that one of the reasons that
such notice was posted as above stated, was because Dave Grubb, then an employee of the
respondent, "had a communistic attitude " Grubb, however, was retained as an employee
until September 21. Greenlief, who testified that Grubb was a "radical ," also testified
on cross-examination that "Dave Grubb had ideas As an individual he was all right,"
and one whose services Greenlief did not consider "harmful to the station in any respect."
Prior to the posting of such notice, Heglund's wife, a former employee of the respondent,
used to accompany Heglund when he worked the night shift, when they would prepare
sandwiches and make coffee. The credible evidence indicates that the, purpose of the
notice was to exclude Heglund's wife from the premises in order to punish Heglund for
his union activities, and it is so found.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 605
Subsequent to July 26 and prior to August 2 the respondent posted the fol-
- lowing :
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE OFFICE STAFF OF RADIO STATION WWPG
The office hours of this station will be from 9: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m.
Monday through Friday inclusive. And from 9:00 a. m. til 12 noon on
Saturdays.1° The Wednesday afternoon holiday is'discontinued as of to-day's
date." '
(S) S. D. GREENLIEF,
Manager.
On or about August 7 the respondent posted the following:
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF THE OFFICE STAFF OF STATION WWPG
There will be no further allowances for overtime granted unless authorized
in advance by the management.12
(S) D. S. Greenlief.
D. S. GREENLIEF.
AUGUST 7, 1944.
On August 29, the Regional Office-of the Board issued and served a Notice of
Hearing in Case No 10-R-1261 pursuant to a Petition for Certification of Repre-
sentatives filed by the Union on July 21. Respondent received notice of the
hearing on August 30. The hearing in said case was first set down for September
19 and was subsequently heard on September 22.
Davis, who bad been absent from the station and the State from on or about
July 13, returned on or about September 18. Heglund and Rasmussen were
called as Board witnesses in the hearing of the representation case.
Subsequent to such hearing, and prior to the Board's decision therein, Davis
accosted Heglund in the control room and noticed that the tube locker was
unlocked. The locker is supposed to be kept locked at all times The record
does not disclose whether Heglund or another engineer had failed to lock it.
When Davis called Heglund's attention to the matter he procured the key and
locked the locker, whereupon Davis said "that's not union coercion either because
you had orders to keep that locked long before this business started." Davis
stated further "I'm making notes on other things, too " [Italics added.] Davis
then referred to the fact that both he and Heglund were 32nd-degree Masons
and said: "I don't see how you could do this to me, getting up this union behind
my back . . . my time will come. I will show some of you goddamn smart
allecks that there are some other smart allecks that know a goddamn thing or
10 Respondent's witnesses contended that notice as to office hours was posted because the
office employees were taking long lunch periods, in some instances as much as two hours.
The record contains no credible testimony to support such contention. Insofar as Ras-
mussen is concerned, Greenlief testified that she normally ate lunch in the station. On the
record it appears such notice was posted as part of a plan, and pursuant to Davis' threat
to put "a whip over" the office force in order to discourage their membership in the Union,
and it is so found.
u That portion of this notice having to do with Wednesday afternoon holidays is dis-
cussed below
12 Greenlief testified in substance and effect that he posted this notice as a good business
practice because he wanted to know in advance whenever it was necessary for the employees
to work overtime He also testified that the work began to fall behind after the advent of
the Union The credible evidence discloses that the work did not fall behind until after
Mitchell resigned' on August 20. From the above and the record it appears that this
notice was also posted pursuant to the respondent's general plan to "put the whip over"
the heads of the employees who joined the Union, and it is so found.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two, too." Davis added : "And if you tell what I said to you I will deny that I
ever said it and swear that I never said it" During this encounter Heglund
feared that Davis might do him physical violence. Within a half an hour he so
reported to Greenlief; and stated that he did not like the idea of working a
late shift alone. Greenlief assured hint that Davis would not "stoop to physical
violence." 13
On the night of October 13 and early morning of October 14, Greenlief was
present in the station while Heglund changed a meter in the transmitter Green-
lief suggested to Heglund that Davis wanted to settle the union matter by having
employee members withdraw from the Union so that lie could grant a long promised
increase in wages. Heglund stated that inasmuch as he was chairman of the
Local he would have to go to Davis and tell him of such resignations, and if he
did so he would have his own resignation as an employee of the station with him.
It is undisputed that Greenlief recommended to Heglund that he go to Davis and
apologize and thus get back into his good graces Greenlief also advised Heglund
that the best thing for him to do was "to call the whole thing off." 14 In this
connection Greenlief testified :
Q Well, was he to apologize for having started the whole thing?
A. If he wanted to, yes.
Q. Well, was that what,you intended?
A. Yes.
Q. What led you to believe that he was not at that time in Mr. Davis' good
graces?
A. Purely because of his activities in the Union.
* * * * * * *
Q So then, what'did you have in mind when you said that if he would go
and apologize, get back in Mr Davis' good graces, make his peace with Mr.
Davis, that the radio station would be like it was when you first came to work
there?
A. Because the discussion was as to whether he should withdraw the bal-
ance of the employees and forget it.
Q What do you know about that discussion?
A. That was when-that was the night when I told him to go on in and tell
Mr. Davis that he would withdraw from it.
Q. From the Union?
A. Yes.
Following the above meeting between Heglund and Greenlief, the latter in-
formed Davis that Heglund would be in to talk to him about-the five remaining
union members. Heglund did not promptly seek an appointment with Davis and
the latter called Heglund to his office and opened the conversation by stating:
13 These findings are based on Heglund's credible testimony Davis categorically denied
most of the above statements He admitted, however, that he raised the subject of
Masonic membership, liut contended that such subject was raised when lie accused Heg-
lund of having attempted to discredit Davis by statements made to Gieenlief In view of
the fact, as shown by the record, that Davis was highly incensed as a result of Heglund
and Rasmussen having given testimony in the Representation Case on September 22, and
his increased efforts, set out below, to induce the employees to resign their union member-
ship, the undesigned does not credit Davis' denials and is convinced that he made the state-
ments and conducted himself substantially as found above
14 About a week before Greenlief made the above suggestions to Heglund, Rasmussen
was, as is found below, forced to resign her job This fact was admittedly known by Heg-
lund, and in view of the small group of employees in the station, must have been known
by all other employees.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 607
"Don [Greenlief] tells me that you said that if you had to withdraw from the
Union, you would bring your resignation to nie " Davis then informed Heglund
that he would like to have the employees still members of the Union to withdraw
so that he could grant a pay increase He further stated that he could not have
the CIO in the station as 18 ranking officers of the CIO were known as Com-
munists, a and that lie did not want to fight any more ; and "wanted to forget it
all" and be able to conduct his business without the Union Davis then requested
Heglund to get the remaining members of the Union together and ask them to
withdraw Heglund, having determined to resign from his position with the re-
spondent, agreed to discuss the proposed withdrawals with the employees still
members of the Union.
Heglund did discuss the 'proposed withdrawals with the other employees
and on October 19 Davis asked him if the employees had reached a decision, to
which Heglund replied that they were talking about it but that all of them
had not been seen On the following day, Davis again spoke to Heglund with
reference to the proposed withdrawals and stated that he was leaving Wash-
ington , D C. and wanted to give increases to the employees but could not do so as
long as the "Union was hanging fire." Davis at this tithe stated that the engineers
and announcers were the ones that were to receive raises and that Sinot, an
engineer who had recently received a raise, would receive another one. Davis
again said that 18 top flight ClO' officers, were Communists and that he could not
have a CIO union in the station."'
Heglund finally prepared his letter of resignation as an employee of the respond-
ent, effective as of November 11, 1944 He delivered his resignation to Green-
lief, who told him that "'T'his is not what we wanted." On October 23, and
again on October 24, Davis asked Heglund to reconsider his resignation from
the station. Heglund declined to do so, but (lid agree to continue working until
December 1, so that Davis could get a suitable replacement At this October
24 discussion, Heglund informed Davis that resignations from the Union were
being prepared by Tindolph. Davis then said that when he got the withdrawals
"The wages would be increased." On October 23, Tindolph, Recktenwald, and
Sinot signed a joint notice of withdrawal from the Union, and on October 25
McGinty, engineer , likewise signed it withdrawal Copies of both withdrawals
were delivered to C. L. McCoy, respondent's attorney.
is During October, Davis brought a copy of the Readers Digest for October 1944 to the
station and called the attention of a number of the employees, Heglund included, to two
anti-union articles , namely, "The New Communistic Conspiracy" and "Will the CIO Cap-
ture the Democratic Party?" He called particular attention to the language appearing
in the latter art idle reading as follows ' Of the 49 members of the CIO executive board
which created PAC, IS are reputed to be adheients to the Communist line-with variing
degree of loyalty Some he joined the Communistic Party under its new disguise as an
'educational association ' Othei s have been part,l membei s for van i ing periods." while
Davis denied stating that the CIO members were communists, he testified that he stated to
Heglund as follows "I said that the magazine reports, newspaper reports, and reports
such as that in front of him [Readers Digest], that it appeared that some of the menibers
of CIO were communists "
"These findings are based on Heglund's credible testimony Davis denied most of
Heglund 's statements above. stating in part that Heglund came to hisofhce and, "If I
recollect, now, lie told nie that there was some of the employees that had contemplated on
drawing out of the Union and asked me what I thought about it. I told him it was entirely
up to them , that I wasn't asking them to withdraw from the Union , . . . In this con-
nection , Davis turther testified "I did ask him, though, at the time, after he brought that
up, lust what his purpose was in jointing the Union" [Italics added ] On the above and
the record, the undersigned does not credit Davis' denials or accept his version of the above
described events, and is convinced that Davis made the statements substantially as is
found above.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 2, Tindolph received an increase of $10 per week, and McGinty,
Heglund, and Sinot an increase of $5. Recktenwald, the bookkeeper, received an
increase of $2.50 per week. The respondent made no effort to negotiate with the
Union with reference to these increases. -
It is evident that the respondent, by its statements, acts, and conduct generally,
as found hereinabove, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It is so found.
B. The discriminatory discontinuance of Wednesday afternoon holidays
The record shows that the respondent on or about May 17, 1944, inaugurated
the custom of granting half holidays on. Wednesday of each week during the
summer season, applicable only to the office staff, consisting of Rectenwald,
Mitchell, Fuquay, and Rasmussen . The procedure required that one of the em-
ployees remain all day while the other three took the half holiday, with the re-
sult that each girl was off duty on three out of four Wednesday afternoons.
Subsequent to Wednesday, July 26 and prior to Wednesday, August 2, Green-
lief posted the notice set forth above discontinuing further half holidays.
The complaint alleged in substance that such holidays were terminated because
of the union activities of the employees affected. The respondent's answer "alleged
"that giving summer-time Wednesday afternoon holidays is not a practice of such
respondent"; and that none of the employees affected requested such holidays.
Greenlief testified in substance that he inaugurated such holiday on his own
motion and without the prior knowledge or consent of Davis." He further tes-
tified that the notice was posted for the reason that the half holiday had been
installed by him with the express understanding that the office force would keep
the work up to date, and that with the coming of the Union the work fell be-
hind necessitating cancellation of such holidays.
The credible evidence in the record discloses that the work did not fall behind
until after August 26, at which time Mitchell resigned her position with the re-
spondent and Fuquay and Rasmussen carried on' the work formerly performed
by the three girls. The credible evidence further discloses that the notice was
posted as part of a planned campaign by the respondent to discourage union
membership and activity among its employees. From the above and the entire
record, the undersigned finds that the respondent discontinued Wednesday after-
noon summer-time holidays of itectenwald, Mitchell, Fuquay, and Rasmussen
because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union.
0. The discri=mination against Rasmussen
(a) Events leading up to the forced resignation
0
Rasmussen, 19 years of age, started to work for the respondent during the first
week of February. She was employed as a stenographer-typist and was assigned
to work under Fuquay and Mitchell, with the instructions that she should
familiarize herself with the work performed by each.
"Although Davis in his testimony attempted to corroborate Greenlief's testimony the
undersigned does not credit the testimony of either in this regard, for the reason that the
record clearly indicates that as of May 17, Davis was his own office manager and did not
delegate any "personnel" matters to Greenlief until after the advent of the Union, at which
time Davis selected Greenlief to "pinch hit" for him Davis expected to be and was absent
from the station from July 13 to September IS In view of the record in its entirety, it is
clear that Greenlief pretended to assume responsibility in this matter in an attempt to
absolve Davis from the unfair labor practice charges which grew out of the respondent's
action in discontinuing said half holidays. It is so found.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 609
After she had been with the station a few weeks , the respondent arranged for
her to conduct'a number of programs over the air , all experimental . She had
one program lasting 15 minutes which was tried out for 5 days and then dis-
continued . Subsequently she had a series of 25 programs of 5 minutes each
which continued over a period of from 3 to 4 weeks.
All programs were prepared in the main by Rasmussen herself. The stenog-
rapher-typists employed in the radio station work in two departments generally
referred to as the "traffic" department and the "continuity " department. At the
time Rasmussen was employed , Fuquay was in charge of traffic , and Mitchell
in charge of continuity . Rasmussen worked with both, and acquired consider-
able knowledge as to the duties of both Fuquay and Mitchell . In addition to
assisting the two girls , as described above, Rasmussen took dictation from Green-
lief and some dictation from Davis when the latter was present . Among her
other duties she was required to call certain customers of the station each morn-
ing and receive dictation from them having to do with the changes to be made
on the programs of such customers . She occupied an office adjacent to that of
Greenlief's.
During August , Mitchell gave notice of her resignation , and on August 26
left the station to be married . On August 25 and 26, one Gertrude Holmes, was
employed and worked under Mitchell's supervision in order to learn something
about the continuity room work that Mitchell had been performing. Holmes
was to report on Monday , August 28 , but failed to do so. Thereafter Fuquay
was assigned to the continuity room and Rasmussen was assigned to traffic, and
the two girls then attempted to do the work theretofore performed by three girls.
The work gradually got behind, and Rasmussen and Fuquay requested Greenlief
to procure additional help, which he promised but failed to provide. Rasmussen
was out of the,station for 4 days late in August due to illness During this time
Greenlief brought her check to her home and advised her mother that Rasmussen
was a very conscientious worker who need have no fear of her job. During
Rasmussen 's absence, Fuquay handled all of the work as best she could. The
back log, however, became greater.
Both Rasmussen and Fuquay frequently called Greenlief 's attention to the
situation and informed him that they could not keep up with the work without
further assistance. Greenlief told them to do the best they could and to do
the most important things first. As a result, by September 18, the date of Davis'
return to the station, a considerable amount of unfinished work was piled up on
the desks of both girls. Davis noted this, and called both girls to the office
They explained the situation to Davis, and they said that they had informed
Greenlief of the situation but had failed to procure additional aid.1' Davis
accepted the explanation of the girls at this time and stated that he would try
to get additional help.
On or about September 20, Rasmussen in Davis' car rode to the postoffice in the
City of Lake Worth. En route Davis discussed the Union with her; he said
lie still could not see where she would get any benefit by joining it, and asked
her what she hoped to gain by so doing. Rasmussen replied "We can't be fired."
is One item that Davis complained of is referred to in the record as the " Casite" corre-
spondence wherein it appears that certain "availabilities " had been requested on behalf of
the Casite people and had not been furnished After Davis had heard the explanation of
Rasmussen and Fuquay in this connection, he concluded that Greenlief had been guilty of
gross negligence in not attending to the matter personally . Greenlief was then at Charles-
town , Nest Virginia , on vacation . Davis called him by long distance telephone and repri-
manded him in connection with the Casite matter and instructed him to return at once,
which he did The foregoing finding is based on the testimony of Rasmussen and Fuquay,
and is credited by the undersigned
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Davis then stated that he could fire anyone lie wanted to, union or no union,
and that he could always find reason for "firing some one " Davis advised
Rasmussen that she, Sinot , and Heglund were on the list for it raise but that he
could not grant the raise at that time because it would look like he was, as
Rasmussen testified , "paying me oft"
The hearing in Case No 10-R-1261 , referred to above . \Nas had on September
22. The Board called Heglund and Rasmussen as Board witnesses.
The respondent had contended during such hearing that Rasmussen, Fuquay,
and Recktenwald were confidential secretaries and objected to their being included
in the appropriate unit Rasmussen 's testimony was to the general effect that
she took no confidential dictation and was not consulted on any matter of a
confidential nature.
On September 21, the day preceding the hearing in the above case, the respond-
ent hired- Maxine MacLane° At the time Davis hired MacLane he discussed
with her the fact that the Union was in the station . In this connection MacLane
testified :
Q What did he [Davis] say?
A He said it would be up to me whether I joined or didn ' t join.
Q. Don 't you recall he said he preferred you did not join'?
A. He said he would rather I didn ' t He didn ' t say "Don ' t join the Union
He had a right to say whatever he wanted ; he was hiring me. But he did
not ask me not to join
Q. Now , whit he told you in (sic) this occasion was, "you may be asked
to join a union I can 't tell you not to do it, but I would like for you not to If
there comes a vote , you can vote to suit yourself "?
A. That is right.
0
With reference to MacLane' s duties, Davis testified at the hearing on September
22 as follows :
Q. Will you describe briefly for the record, the duties of Maxine MacLane,
typist?
A She is at present time purely a typist She does not take dictation.
Q Who assigns her her duties?
A She startecl yesterday morning Yesterday I instructed Jennie [Fu-
quay] and Ruth [Rasnmssen I to show her how to do what duties she had
yesterday.
For 6 weeks prior to the September 22 hearing,"' Rasmussen had been assigned
to work in the traffic department.
Immediately after the "R" hearing. Davis' attitude toward her changed He
directed Fuquay to take over the tialfic departn:,mt and infoimed her that
Rasmussen was to work in the hack room But he gave Rasmussen no first
hand orders to this effect. Rasmussen went to the back room,-' and thereafter
Davis began and continued a course of harassing and humiliating conduct
toward her. Instead of giving her personal instructions he would in a loud
voice tell MacLane what to have her do and stated. as to Rasmussen, "She don't
do a damn bit of woi k " He constantly reprimanded her in a loud, angry, and
rough voice for numerous alleged derelictions
Moreover, while Rasmussen had worked in the traffic department for a period
of 6 weeks before her "demotion" to the continuity room Davis charged her with
'° Since her employment by the respondent MacLane has married and her name is now
Maxine MacLane Best She will be referred to herein as MacLane
20 Hereinafter referred to as the "R" case.
si Sometimes referred to in the record as the "continuity room
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 611
responsibility for ever thing that was undone in such room. During the hear-
ing, Greenlief and Davis testified to nume4ous matters such as filing of corre-
spondence, answering letters and telegrams, preparation and :,ailing of weekly
programs, covering a period of time commencing in June at the time the em-
ployees joined the Union, to October 6, for all of which they sought to hold
Rasmussen responsible.
As a result of the treatment received from Davis, Greenlief, and MacLane,
Rasni ussen became ill She ti equently fell into hysterical crying spells. She
could neither eat iior sleep well, and she lost considerable weight.
While MacLane was entirely without experience in a radio station, Ras-
mussen was required to take minute orders from her and was assigned to doing
odds and ends about the continuity room, a type of v ork usually assigned to new
and inexperienced girls
As a result of Davis' mistreatment of Rasmussen, MacLane finally determined
that she could no longer stand Davis' conduct towlri ds Rasmussen In this
connection she testified :
. . But he did come back and yell at her under (sic) different times, and
finally I felt that I couldn't stand it. We were trying to work together,
and if he were yelling at her and not at me, then I didn't know why he was.
So I went up and asked him to leave her alone, or I was going to leave. . . .
Shortly before October 6, MacLane rode home with Davis in his car Mac-
Lane told him how uncomfortable his conduct toward Rasmussen made her feel
and asked if there was any reason for it. Davis replied that there was and "It
was in regard to the work that had been piled up and this and that and other
things." Davis stated, ". . . he was really doing it for a reason." MacLane
further testified :
Q What did he (Davis) say about Ruth (Rasmussen) ?
A. He was doing it to make her angry.
MacLane further testified :
I asked Mr. Davis if it were necessary to come into the back room and act
the way he did He said I would find out that there were reasons before
my time I did not ask him, I would find out. Therefore, he said there
was a reason, which was to make here angry. Ile didn't go into explaining
why he was b ying to niche her angry [Italics added ]
On Octobr 5, MacLane I o'd Rasmussen that MacLane had worked out a "system"
by which the work in the back room would be carried on. Rasmussen greeted
this information with little, if any, enthusiasm. MacLane then tore up her
"system" and threw it in the waste basket MacLane then "buzzed" Greenlief
who carne to the continuity room, and attempted to engage both MacLane and
Rasmussen in conversation The latter was at the moment engaged in operating
a teletype machine and paid little attention to Greenlief He then left the con-
tinuity room, went to his own office, and then "buzzed" for Rasmussen to come to
his office According to Greenlief, he talked to Rasmussen about MacLane's
system, that Rasmussen contended that she had a system of her own, and that
he "gave up in disgust" and told Rasmussen to "go back in the back room."
Greenlief then repotted to Davis that he was going to put Rasmussen in the center
office and "give her a piece of paper and pencil and let her make curlicues."
On the following day, October 6, Rasmussen tendered her written resignation,
effective at once, and left the station.
22 It is noted that MacLane had only been employed in the station for 13 working days
at this time.
662514-46-vol 63-40
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After Rasmussen left the station, respondent hired Gertrude Holmes in her
stead. While Greenhef testified that4MacLane had gotten the back log of work
caught up in the continuity room after she had been there a little over a month,
or by on or about November 1, MacLane testified that she quit her job on or about
December 1 because she was unable to get out her daily work and gain on the
back log of work, too. She had requested Greenlief to furnish additional help
which he did not do, and this fact caused her to leave the respondent's employ.
(b) Contentions of the respondent and its witnesses as to the forced resignation
The respondent contends in substance, (1) that after Rasmussen joined the
Union she became defiant, and, with Heglund, had a "chip ou her shoulder" ;
(2) that after joining the Union she "began to.lay down on the job"; (3) that
the treatment she received from respondent's officials was administered in an
attempt to get her to perform her work properly and in sufficient quantities,
and not because of her union activities, or because she testified adversely to the
respondent's contentions in the "R" case; and (4) that she was not forced to
resign her position but did so of her own accord.
As to the first contention, there is no credible evidence in the record indicating
that Rasmussen ever became "defiant" in any sense, or that she had a "chip on
her shoulder." The fact that she joined the Union ; retained her membership
therein despite the efforts of Davis and Greenliet to influence her against it;
and testified in the "R" case and gave testimony contrary to the respondent's
contentions that she was a "confidential secretary" constituted all of the defiance
and "chip on her shoulder" attitude resented by the respondent. This contention
is without merit.
As to the second contention, to the effect that Rasmussen, "began to lay down
on the job" after she joined the Union, the record discloses that she was a hard
and conscientious worker ; 2' that following Mitchell's resignation on August 26,
Rasmussen and Fuquay did the work formerly done by three girls; and that
from September 1 to September 28 she voluntarily put in over 18 hours work in
overtime in an attempt to get the backlog of work caught up. This contention
is without merit.
As to the third contention, the credible evidence discloses that immediately
following Rasmussen's testimony in the "'It" case, Davis, aided and abetted by
Greenlief and MacLane, began a course of continuous and relentless persecution
against her; she was transferred from the Traffic Department to the "backroom"
where she was compelled to work under a newly employed girl, one who was
inexperienced in radio work, doing "odds and ends" usually assigned to new-
comers. Davis made it a regular practice, admittedly for the purpose of "making
her angry," to go to the back room, where in a loud and angry voice he ". . .
jumped on everything she did, whether it was right or wrong." He attempted to
hold her responsible for alleged derelictions properly chargeable, if at all, to
Fuquay and Mitchell, sand he clearly exaggerated the amount of unfinished work
in the backlog He gave Rasmussen no chance to answer any of his complaints,
and he accused her of laziness. Davis' conduct in this connection became so
unreasonable and uncalled for that MacLane,' notwithstanding she was of "the
opinion that a station of the type and size of W'IVPG shouldn't have a union,"
went to Davis and informed him that if he did not discontinue his conduct towards
Rasmussen she (MacLane) would quit her job This contention, too, is without
merit.
23 It should be noted that Greenlief so advised Rasmussen 's mother on the occasion,
during her illness in the latter part of August, when lie called at the Rasmussen home to
deliver her check
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 613
As to the fourth contention , the record clearly discloses that as a result of her
treatment above described , Rasmussen lost weight , was unable to eat and sleep
properly, all of which induced uncontrollable and hysterical crying spells, which
left her unfit to perform any work. She therefore had no choice but to tender
her resignation , and, she did so on October 6, 1944. This contention also is
without merit.
(c) Conclusions
From the above, and the record as a whole, the undersigned concludes that Davis
was determined not to have the Union organized in the respondent's station ;
that he resented the fact that Rasmussen joined and maintained her membership
therein; that he particularly resented her having testified contrary to the respond-
ent's contentions in the "R" case, and on and after September 22, adopted and
engaged in the relentless course of persecution detailed above, in order to force her
resignation as an employee of the station; and that by said acts the respondent
discharged Rasmussen on October 6, 1944, because of her membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union, and because she gave testimony under the Act
in the "R" case as above set forth.
D. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
In a prior representation proceeding, the Board issued its decision 24 in which
it found that all employees of the respondent corporation at its Palm Beach,
Florida, broadcasting station, excluding executive and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constituted an
appropriate unit. The complaint herein alleges the unit so described to be
appropriate.
The respondent offered no evidence on the subject in the present hearing. No
reason exists for departing from the prior decision concerning the appropriate
unit.
The undersigned finds that all employees of Palm Beach Broadcasting Cor-
poration, Palm Beach, Florida, excluding executives and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effectuate the
change of status of employees or effectively recommend such action constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
During the hearing, membership application cards of the Union were intro-
duced in evidence covering all but one of the employees of the respondent on its
pay roll between June 1, 1944 and August 1, 1944. The membership application
cards were dated as follows: two on June 6, three on June 7, two on June 8, and
one on July 5 All cards bore what appeared to be original signatures,25 and
their authenticity was not questioned by the respondent Thus, on June 8 the
Union had been designated by all but two of the respondent's nine employees, and
by July 5, by all but one of the employees.
24 Matter of Palm Beach Broadcasting Corporation and American Communications Asso-
ciation, CIO, Case No. 10-R-126q.
22 Six of the employees who signed membership application cards identified their signa-
tures at the hearing.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned finds that on June 8, 1044, and at all material times there-
after, the Union was and now is, the duly designated representative of a majority
of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, by virtue of Section
0 (a) of the Act, the Union at all.tinies was and now is representative of all the
respondent's employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
(a) Sequence of events
As set forth hereinbefore, Heglund was selected by the employees to take the
initiative in the organization of the station He got in touch with Tanner, pro-
cured the application for membership cards, and forwarded all those signed on
or before June 8 to the Union's national headquarters On June 30 the Union,
through Michael Mignon, its national representative, wrote the respondent as
follows :
Please be advised that the American Communications Association, C I 0 ,
has been chosen b3= a majority of all your employees as its collective bargain-
ing agency. We therefore request recognition for the purpose of negotiating
it labor agreement covering the wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other
conditions of employment A copy of this letter is being sent to the National
Labor Relations Board in your region, together with proof of representation.
An early reply will be appreciated
As set forth hereinabove, Ira Van Bullock was given notice of discharge on
July 10 On July 12, Tanner, accompanied by two members of the local telephone
union, together with Heglund and Van Bullock, met with Davis and Greenlief
at the respondent's station At this time, Davis asked Tanner to show his creden-
tials as representative of the Union herein. He was told by Tanner that his
instructions had been received from the Union by telephone and that formal
authorization would follow Davis then agreed to talk with the union group
on an informal basis. and union recognition was discussed Davis stated in
substance that he would refuse to recognize the Union because his office staff was
composed of confidential employees and that he objected to their being included
in the unit or Union Davis was then asked whether, if the four office girls whom
he contended were confidential employees were excluded from the unit, he would
then recognize the Union Davis said "No," adding, "If you get the girls out of
it; why, you come back and we'll talk it over again."
During this discussion, Davis stated that before he would recognize the Union
he had to know what their demands were Tanner replied that " . . . rec-
ognition came before the negotiations " Davis testified :
I then asked him [Tanner] what we were here for, and he told me that
they wanted to know if I would recognize the CIO. I told him that at the
time, proper time, when they had the proper credentials to show'that they
represented the employees of my station, I would then talk to them. "Now,"
I said, "So that we don't have any misunderstanding, that we are all in here
now, I will recognize, at any time, collective bargaining between my
employees."
By the time the July 12 meeting ended, it was understood by the parties that
the union representatives " . . . were to hold a meeting with the office staff
for the purpose of determining whether they would consent to be excluded from
the Union." Heglund testified:
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 615
Q. Did this take place in the discussion with Mr Davis?
A. Yes. And it was agreed between Mr. Tanner and Mr. Davis that such
a meeting would be arranged and a report made.
No meeting was held between the respondent's officials and the union repre-
sentatives pursuant to the foregoing arrangements, and no report as to whether
the office staff would consent to be excluded from the Union was ever made
On or about July 21, the Union filed its position for certification of representa-
tives with the Board's Regional Office at Atlanta, Georgia On July 25, Arthur
C Joy, a Field Examiner, sought to investigate the petition by means of long
distance telephone On that date, he discussed the union's petition with Green-
lief ; lie asked whether the Union represented a majority of the respondent's
employees. Greenhef replied:
Oh, there is no question but that they represent a majority of the em-
ployees []right
Joy advised Greenlref that since Greenhef admitted the Union had the requisite
majority, the respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union in good faith,
and he further advised Greenlief that the respondent's failure to reply to the
Union's request for recognition in its June 30 letter, was in itself a failure to
bargain.
Greerilief advised Joy that lie was without authority to act in the matter that
it was for the Board of Directors to handle, and that he would take such matter
up with the Directors.
On the same date, July 25, Joy confirmed his conversation with Greenlref by
letter, and enclosed with such letter a form of "Recognition Agreement," with
the request that the respondent execute the agreement and forward the same
to the Board's Regional Office for approval of the Regional Director
On July 28, L C. McCoy, secretary of the respondent company and its attorney,
replied to Joy's letter of July 25. With reference to the suggested execution
of the recognition agreement sent by Joy, McCoy stated :
Concerning the enclosed recognition agreement which was forwarded for
signature, this agreement has been forwarded to the President and General
Manager, who is temporarily out of the city, for his attention.
A perusal of this agreement leads the writer to conclude that it presumes
and presupposes that "all employees of the Radio Station WWPG" have
organized properly under the existing labor laws Insofar as the writer
knows, the managing officials of the employer corporation have no knowledge
of whether they are properly organized or not, or whether they come within
the purview of the labor law.
The writer concluded further that such agreement presumes and presup-
poses that the officials of the employer corporation intend to refuse to abide
by, be subject to, or governed by the provisions of the law governing the
conduct of its business with regard to its employees, either unorganized or
organized.
For these reasons, the writer is advising the officials of the employer cor-
poration to return the recognition to you without signature; whether these
officials execute the agreement or not is a matter for them to decide. How-
ever, I have no hesitancy in expressing my views in the matter to you,
though I readily appreciate that my views are of no concern to you or any
of your associates.
On August 3, 1944, Joy replied to McCoy's July 28 letter, stating in substance
that he was unable fully to interpret the letter; he expressed regret that McCoy
had seen fit to recommend to the respondent officials that they refuse to sign
V
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the recognition agreement which Joy had forwarded. Joy closed his letter of
August 3 by submitting seven questions, with the request that the respondent
answer the same.
On August 10, the respondent, over Greenlief's signature as station manager,
wrote the Union as follows :
Your letter `of June 30, 1944, has not been sooner answered for the reason
that no answer was deemed necessary ; in view of the fact that this Corpo-
ration has no evidence or assurance, save the self-serving declaration con-
tained in your communication, that your association is the properly consti-
tuted representative of the employes of Station WWPG.
. At such time as this evidence or assurance is furnished, your association
will be recognized as the representative of such employe groups ; and we
shall be glad to communicate, confer, negotiate or bargain with you, under
the existing laws, in this regard.
A copy of this communication is being forwarded to the National Labor
Relations Board, at Atlanta, Georgia.
On August 11, McCoy addressed a letter to the Board's Regional Office at
Atlanta, Georgia, in response to the questions that had been submitted by Joy'
in the latter's letter of August 3. The second paragiaplt of such letter read
as follows : -
At the outset , and to the end that there will be no misunderstanding, per-
mit me to say : That this communication expresses the views of the writer ;
and I will advise the officials of the Corporatioii in accord herewith; however,
any decision or commitment insofar as the Corporation is concerned, is the
province of the officials thereof.
Enclosed with such letter was a copy of the Greenhef letter to the Union referred
to above. The letter also purported to answer the series of questions propounded
by Joy and stated in part:
Answering paragraph eight of your communication , if you will be so kind
as to quote me the provision in the Act that requees the officials of the
Broadcasting Corporation to execute the recognition form agreement which
you forwarded , I will immediately advise them , and advise their execution
of that instrument ; but unless you can furnish me with this information,
I most certainly will maintain my former position , and for the reasons here-
tofore stated , advise them to refuse to execute that instrument
In both his letters of July 28, and August 11 , McCoy stated. in substance, that
the respondent would bargain upon a request "properly made by the employes,
and in a proper manner ... ," and that the respondent would "be governed by
the existing laws covering the relationship between employer and employee, in
every respect ; . . . In this letter of August 11, McCoy stated further and
in part :
I still maintain that neither your office, the appropriate labor union or
unions, or the employees , have ever furnished the employer corporation
with any evidence of the fact that they are organized properly , or that their
representatives are authorized to the'extent that the provision of the Wagner
Act have been invoked, or are applicable.
2e Only one union was involved herein. McCoy's letters were somewhat ambiguous and
confusing For instance, while the Union's letter of June 30 requested recognition on be-
half of all the respondent's employees, McCoy in his letter indicated that he did not know
whether the Union represented "the announcers, the engineers, or the administrative
force ; or perhaps unions of all three."
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 617
On August 15 the Union wrote the respondent as follows :
(Attention: Mr. Donald S. Greenlief.)
GENTLEMEN :
We have your letter of August 10, 1944, in answer to ours of June 30, 1944.
Please be advised that proof of representation was furnished to the National
Labor Relations Board and we so stated in our letter of June 30.
May we suggest that the Company furnish to the N L R B. at Atlanta,
Ga., a copy of its payroll in order that the Board can compare it with the
Union's proof of membership. By so doing the NLRB will be in a position
to officially notify the Company and the Union whether or not the Union
does in fact represent the employees of your Company for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
(S) Michael Mignon, -
MICHAEL MIGNON,
International Representative.
The respondent did not reply to the foregoing communication, nor did it furnish
a'copy of its pay roll in order that the Board could compare the pay roll' with
the Union's proof of membership.
The record discloses that neither McCoy nor any other official of the respondent
communicated with the Union or with the Board's Regional Office subsequent
to the August 11 letter of McCoy, which was expressly limited as "the views of
the writer."
(b) Respondent's contentions and testimony as to the refusal to bargain
The respondent contends in substance (1) that it has received no evidence
that its employees were properly organized; (2) that the Union improperly
sought to include the confidential employees in the appropriate unit; (3) that
since the meeting between the respondent's general manager and union repre-
sentatives on July 12, 1944, no request for a bargaining conference has been made
by or on behalf of its employees or the Union; and (4) that it has not refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as representative of its employees.
As to the first contention, the record discloses that the respondent received the
Union's letter of June 30, which stated that a majority of the employees had
chosen the Union as their collective bargaining agency and requested recogni-
tion as such. The record further discloses that Davis promptly made a canvass
of all employees and learned from a majority of them that they had joined the
Union. 28 On July 25, Greenlief admitted to a Field Examiner for the Board
211n his letter of August 11 addressed to the Board, McCoy furnished a pay- roll list
nearest to July 25. During the hearing herein the respondent's witnesses contended that
inasmuch as they had sent a pay-roll list to the Board's Regional Office on August 11 no-
further list was required in response to the Union's request of August 15. For reasons
stated below the undersigned finds the contention to be without merit and that no reply
was made by the respondent to the Union' s request of August 15.
In this connection Davis testified .
Q Well, you had heard verbally from all of your employees that they belonged to
the CIO, didn't you'
A. No, not all of them I didn't ask all of them
Q Which ones didn't you ask?
A. I don't recollect.
The undersigned believes that if Davis had omitted to ask any employee concerning his
union membership or activity he would have remembered it.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he knew the Union had a majority among the station employees The Act
prescribes no set ritual for employees to follow in order to become "properly or-
ganized." They may follow any method they choose for this purpose. In the
instant case, Davis canvassed the employees and learned from the lips of a ma-
jority that they had joined the Union. The first contention is without merit.
As to the second contention, the record discloses that during the July 12 meet-
ing, Davis contended that three stenographer-typists and one bookkeeper em-
ployed at the station were confidential employees, and not eligible for inclusion
in the appropriate unit. In his letters of July 28 and August 11, above referred
to, McCoy, in substance, made the same contention. Greenlief in his reply to the
Union's request for recognition under date of June 30 (which he forwarded
under the date of August 10), made no reference whatever to the respondent's con-
tention concerning the unit. It is found below that the respondent at no time
intended to bargain in good faith with the-Union. Its objection to the unit was
motivated not by doubt as to the appropriateness of the unit, but by rejection
of the collective bargaining principle. This contention is without merit.
As to the third contention, it is a fact that after the July 12 conference,
referred to above, no request was made by or on behalf of the employees or
the Union for a bargaining conference with the respondent. The record dis-
closes, however, that at this meeting Davis was asked to recognize the Union,
and replied in substance that he would not recognize it if the clerical staff was
included in the unit.- An employer acts at his peril in refusing to bargain
because of any doubt he may have as to the unit unless "in exercise of reason-
able judgment he lacks knowledge of the appropriateness of the unit." Piqua
Munising Wood Products Company v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 552 (C. C. A. 6),
Davis must have known that his claim that the three girls were employed in
positions where they had access to the personnel tiles did not coincide with the
facts. At this same conference, Davis was then asked if he would recognize
the Union as the representative of the announcers if the clerical staff was
excluded. Davis told the union representatives present to get the clerical staff
out of the Union, after which he would ". . . talk it over again." During
this same meeting Davis insisted that he would have to know what the Union's
demands were before he would recognize it. In McQuay-Norris Manufacturing
Company v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. (2d) 1009 (C. C. A. 7), the Court held that "there
could be no genuine bargaining as contemplated by the statute until complete
recognition had been granted." Davis had no right to tell the Union whom it
could or could not accept into membership. He certainly had no right to make
that demand a condition precedent to the recognition. of the Union. Following
the July 12 meeting, the respondent was next contacted by a Field Examiner for
the Board who attempted, without success, to get the respondent to execute a
recognition agreement. On August 10, Greenlief replied to the Union's June 30
request for recognition 2B McCoy then corresponded with the Field Examiner
20 Davis did not prove to be a creditable witness. On cross-examination he indicated
that he did not feel bound by. either Greenlief 's or McCoy' s communications referred to
above . With reference to Greenlief ' s letter to the Union of August 10, he testified :
Q. Examining the exhibits there in your lap this afternoon you had not seen any
exhibits answering the letter of June 30?
A. That' s right, other than Mr. Greenlief ' s letter.
Q. And do you consider yourself bound by that?
A. I do not consider myself bound by Mr . Greenlief 's letter as it states.
With reference to McCoy 's letters, referred to above, Davis testified :
Q. Did You advise him (McCoy ) in any way as to how he should answer any of
the letters that he wrote?
A. I told Mr . McCoy , when I left here, to handle my affairs , but if there were any
decisions to be made to get in touch with me and I would make the decisions.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 619
with reference to the Union's request for recognition, but expressly' limited his
statements by saying that they represented his personal views and not those of
the respondent. On August 15, the Union requested the respondent to forward
a copy of its pay roll to the Board's Atlanta, Georgia Regional Office. The
respondent did not answer the letter or comply with the request The respond-
ent should have submitted its pay roll as requested, or suggested some counter-
proposal, or asked for a conference with the Union. The respondent was "bound
to make the next move." 30 It may well be asked what result the Union might
have obtained by bringing forward proposals, when the respondent had already
on July 5, by its agent Greenlief, called Heglund to the former's office, questioned
him concerning his union activity and the number of employees who had joined
the Union Davis had, on the same day berated Heglund for "stooping" to union
activities without his [Davis'] knowledge and told him that he "had engineered
the whole thing and gotten the applications." Davis' charge that Heglund was
ungrateful because he engaged in union activities, his threats that the station
would be operated as a business institution, and his threats to Tindolph that
lie would be displaced after the war if he continued his membership in the Union,
were further indications to the Union how the respondent felt about collective
bargaining, and all indicate hostility to the Union The meeting 'at which the
Union met with the respondent for the first and last time was called because
Van Bullock was told that he was to be discharged because the advent of the
Union made it necessary for the respondent to make "financial cut backs."
Thereafter, the whole line of conduct of the respondent, culminating on November
2, 1944, when it granted wage increases to the engineers, announcers, and the
bookkeeper without consulting with the Union, constituted a continuing notice
to the Union that the respondent would not deal with it as required by law
In the light of the above, the Union would have found it an idle gesture to.
endeavor to continue negotiations with the respondent in the Ritzwoller case
(cited supra) the committee walked out after the employer had "disclosed his
hostility and showed that he had no intention to bargain," and it was there held
that such hostile conduct on the part of the employer was a provocation directly
calculated to tit in with its policy of refusing to bargain with its employees.
The third contention is without merit.
As to the fourth contention, the record discloses that, on July 12, the respondent
expressly refused to recognize the Union in advance of its submission of demands,
and the exclusion of tjie clerical staff from the appropriate unit; that on or
about August 28 it refused to execute a recognition agreement recognizing the
Union as bargaining agency for its employees; that on or about August 15 it
refused to submit a copy of its pay roll, as above found, or to make any counter-
proposal for the purpose of arriving at the Union's majority or determining the
Q. Did he get in touch with you to make any decisions'
A. He did not.
Q You don ' t consider yourself bound by any of the letters 1MIr McCoy wrote during
this period I
A I do not
On redirect examination , however , Davis reversed the position taken in the foregoing
testimony and stated in substance, that lie had misinterpreted the questions of the Board's
attorney As will appear from the questions set out above there was no reason for such
"misinterpretation " The undersigned is convinced that Davis did not misinterpret the
questions asked , but did misinterpret the effect an affirmative answer might have and
concluded such answer might prove detrimental to his cause, and thus unhesitatingly
gave the negative answer
3° See Ritrwoller Co. v. N. L R R ., 114 F ( 2d) 432 (C C. A 7), where as here, the
Union had initiated the discussions with its proposals.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit; and finally it clearly appears, as is disclosed by the commission
of the unfair labor practices found and set forth above, the respondent was de-
termined from the advent of the Union to destroy its majority and to refuse to
bargain collectively with it. The respondent's contentions as to the appropriate
unit, the lack of request for further bargaining conferences, together with the
lip service paid to the Act in its communications and at the hearing herein were
not made in good faith. The fourth contention is without merit.
From the above and the record as a whole, the undersigned concludes that
the respondent on July 12, 1944, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, of the Act
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's business described in Section I
above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
,and obstructing commerce and the free flo* of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices the undersigned will 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 on July 12, 1944, and all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit, the undersigned will recommend that
the respondent, upon request bargain collectively with the Union.
It has been found that the respondent'on and after October 2, 1944, discon-
tinued the practice of giving Wednesday afternoon summertime holidays to its
clerical staff, namely, Virginia Fuquay Van Bullock, Juanita Mitchell, Josephine
Rectenwald, and Ruth Rasmussen, in order to discourage membership in the
Union, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to compensate them
for the loss of such half holidays, it is recommended that the respondent pay
to each of them the sum of $2 for three-fourths of the Wednesday afternoons az
that were on the pay roll between August 2, 1944 and September 27, 1944, both
dates inclusive.
It has been further found that the respondent on August 6, 1944, caused the
discriminatory discharge of Ruth Rasmussen in order to discourage membership
in the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to her hire and tenure of employ-
ment. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it is recommended that
the respondent offer to Ruth Rasmussen immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her senior-
ity or other rights and privileges. It will be recommended that the respondent
make whole the said Ruth Rasmussen for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of her discriminatory discharge by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to the amount which she would normally have earned as wages from
81 Each employee remained on duty on one such afternoon out of four . The sum so
recommended to be paid in this,instance is based on the Nveekly salaries of $22 50.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 621
October 6, 1944, to the date of the order of reinstatement, less her net earnings eR
during said period. '
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Communications Association, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. All the employees of the respondent, excluding executives and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action at all times material herein constituted and they now constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The Union was at all times material herein and now is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the above stated unit the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.
5 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Vir-
ginia'Fuquay Bullock, Juanita Mitchell, Josephine Rectenwald, and Ruth Ras-
mussen, 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 (3) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to hire, tenure of employment of Ruth Ras-
mussen because she gave testimony under the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (4)
of the Act.
7. 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 (1)
of the Act.
8. 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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Palm Beach Broadcasting Corporation,
Palm Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Communications Asso-
ciation, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees engaged at its
22 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for, his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
o} Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal , State, county , municipal or other work -relief projects shall be considered as
earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
622 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Palm Beach , Florida, broadcasting station, excluding executives and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire , promote, discharge , discipline , or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such
action, in respect to rates of pay , wages , hours of employment , and other con-
ditions of employment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in American Communications Association,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees by discontinuing and
terminating its practice of giving summertime Wednesday afternoon vacations,
or by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment , and any
terms or conditions of their employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist American Communications Association, C I 0, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with American Communications Asso-
ciation, C I. 0 , as the exclusive representative of all the respondent 's employees
at its Palm Beach , Florida Broadcasting station , exclusive of the executives and
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline,
or otherwise effect changes , in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed statement ;
(b) Offer to Ruth Rasmussen immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(c) Make whole the said Ruth Rasmussen for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against her by payment
to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have
earned as wages during the period from October 6, 1944, to the date of the offer
of reinstatement , less her net earnings ; '
(d) Make whole Virginia Fuquay Van Bullock . Juanita Mitchell , Josephine
Rectenwald , and Ruth Rasmussen for the loss of and in lieu of Wednesday
afternoon summertime vacations , described above , as provided in the ,Section
entitled " The remedy" ;
(e) Post at its broadcasting station , Palm ' Beach, Florida, copies of the notice
attached hereto , marked "Appendix A". Copies of such notice to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by
the respondent 's representative , be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof , and maintained by them for sixty ( 60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in ' writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
33 See next preceding footnote.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION 623
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that they have complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944, any
party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington,
D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other party of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case to the
Board.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 20, 1945.
N. L R B 583
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NoTIOE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to 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 in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exerese of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist American Communications Association, CIO,
or any other laboi organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to enagage in Concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and ' privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
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 or other conditions
of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: all employees of
the respondent at its Palm Beach, Florida , broadcasting station excluding
executives and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge , discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action.
The employee referred to above is Ruth Rasmussen.
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
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
PALM BEACH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ,
By ------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated-----------------7----------
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1