Radio Station WBNY

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1561 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of Roy L. ALBERTSON , D/B/A RADIO STATION WBNY,
EMPLOYER and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST ENGINEERS AND-
TECHNICIANS , PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-515.Decided January 24, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ralph E. Ken-
nedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
.Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the.Employer.
3. For a number of years, the Intervenor herein, American Com-
munications Association, represented the Employer's radio techni-
cians, the employees involved in this case. These technicians were
members of an amalgamated local of the Intervenor, known as the
Northern Branch, which functioned locally in the Buffalo-Niagara
Falls area of New York. The membership of the Northern Branch
was drawn from 5 radio stations located in that area, and totaled, in
June 1950, approximately 85.
In October 1948,1 the Intervenor, then affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, and the Employer executed a. collective
bargaining agreement which became effective on August 22, 1948, and
which was operative until September 1, 1949. By its terms, this con-
tract was to continue in force thereafter from year to year until appro-
priate notice requesting modification or termination should be given.
The 1948 contract was automatically renewed for an additional year
I The contract states that it was "entered into this 25th day of October ," but does not
specifically show the year in which it was executed . In view of the other dates specified
in the contract , which are referred to in the text above, the execution year would appear
to have been 1948.
92 NLRB No. 235. 1561
929979-51-vol . 92-100
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commencing on September 1, 1949, and thereafter no notice to modify
or terminate was given.
Prompted by the possibility that the Intervenor might be expelled
from the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Employer's tech-
nicians held a meeting in May 1950, at which they decided to explore
the feasibility of securing another union to represent them for the
purposes of collective bargaining. As a result, they made overtures
to the Petitioner.
On June 15, 1950, the Intervenor was expelled from the Congress
of Industrial Organizations.2
On June 24, eight of the Employer's nine technicians met-at the
Employer's radio station, and unanimously agreed to sever their con-
nections with the Intervenor. This decision was communicated to
the president of the Northern Branch on June 26. Thereafter all nine
of the Employer's technicians signed cards authorizing the Petitioner
to represent them for bargaining purposes.
On July 1, 1950, the Petitioner, by telegram, informed the Employer
that it represented a majority of the Employer's technicians, and that
it would substantiate its claim by taking appropriate action to bring
the matter before this Board. The instant petition was filed with the
Board on July 21.
During the incumbency of the Intervenor, the Employer's t^chni-
cians were represented on the executive board of the Northern Branch
by one of their own number, whom they elected. This representative
also functioned as shop steward, and collected the dues which the
technicians paid to the Northern Branch. For many years it was the
practice of the Employer's technicians to meet among themselves at
irregular intervals for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to
their employment; views thus expressed and policies thus formulated
were transmitted to the executive board by the station representative.
An elected grievance committee, of which the shop steward was a
member, handled grievances on behalf of the technicians in the first
instance; matters not settled by the grievance committee were then
referred to the Northern Branch. It was also customary for a repre-
sentative of the technicians to be present when bargaining contracts
were negotiated with the Employer; twice, a bargaining contract was
negotiated by the station representative acting alone.
Since December 1949, neither the last-elected shop steward, nor the
Intervenor itself, has made an effort to collect dues from the Employ-
er's technicians; and, in fact, no dues have been paid to the Intervenor
by this group.
2 We take administrative notice of the date of the Intervenor 's expulsion which is not
set forth affirmatively in the record.
RADIO STATION WBNY 1563
The Intervenor contends that the 1948 contract was automatically
renewed in 1950 for a second time, and is a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioner maintains that the contract is not a bar.
We are of the opinion that the issue presented here is controlled by
the Board's recent decision in the Tourek case ,3 where the Board held
that despite the existence of a contract asserted as a bar a schism in the
ranks of the union asserting the bar raised an issue which could be best
resolved by a representation election. Here, as in the Tourek case,
although the Intervenor is an amalgamated local, the Employer's tech-
nicians appear to have exercised a measurable degree of autonomy
within the Northern Branch, as shown by their role in contractual
negotiations, by their practice of electing a steward, and by their
initial part in the processing of grievances.. Here, . too, as in the
Tourek case, the Intervenor's employees took formal action to effec-
tuate a disaffiliation of their segment of the Intervenor. Moreover,
the Intervenor, aside from its present claim, appears to have ceased
functioning as the bargaining representative of the Employer's tech-
nicians since December 1949. Under these circumstances, we think the
purposes of the Act can best be effectuated by the holding of an election
to resolve the conflicting claims of the Petitioner and the Intervenor.'
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All radio engineers and technicians at the Employer's Buffalo, New
York, radio station, excluding the chief engineer and other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
a J. J. Tourek Manufacturing Co., 90 NLRB 5. Cf. Telex, Inc., 90 NLRB 202.
4 In view of our determination to conduct an election herein for the reasons stated in
the text, It, Is unnecessary for us to decide whether , under applicable law, the petition
herein was timely with respect to automatic renewal , in 1950, of the 1948 contract.