Tennessee Valley Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 895 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY and
RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS, LOCAL UNION 1564, OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (A. F. L.)
Case No. 10-C-2294.-Decided May 27, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 29, 1948, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Mur-
dock].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following excep-
tions, additions, and modifications:
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act and
Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ,l
in: (1) Roser's questioning of Matus concerning his own and the
other employees' union membership, (2) Blizzard's attempts to bar-
'References hereinafter made to sections of the amended Act refer also , where appro-
priate, to equivalent sections of the Act prior to amendment unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 134.
895
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gain individually with Duncan and Dunnavant after the prehear-
ing election at which the Union's majority was established, and (3)
Blizzard 's statement to Duncan and Dunnavant that he could improve
their working conditions and obtain raises in salary for them if they
'would forget the Union. We also agree with the Trial Examiner
in finding a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) in Blizzard 's statement
to Dunnavant of the reasons for hiring Bill Cooper to replace Asa
Duncan at $45 a week while Dunnavant's salary remained at $32.50.
Blizzard said this was because Cooper was not a union man and was
not likely to become one, and also said that any new announcers hired
thereafter would be paid $45. We believe these statements clearly
imply a promise of benefit to employees in return for renouncing
the possibility of concerted activity and collective bargaining.
The Trial Examiner also found that Roser's casual reference to
union organizer Thompson, in conversation with Dunnavant, as "your
boy," and his remark that Dunnavant was "silly," "stupid" and
`'unwise" to remain in the Union were violations of Section 8 (a) (1).
We do not agree. The reference to Thompson, if not respectful, was
innocuous , and the other remark is clearly an expression of opinion
protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act. We do, however, agree that
Roser's offer of a selling job to Dunnavant, if he would quit the
union, made in the same conversation , constituted unlawful interfer-
ence, restraint , and coercion.
2. -The Trial Examiner found that Matus and Duncan were dis-
charged for union activity in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. We agree with the findings of the Trial Examiner that the
reasons given by the Respondent for the discharge of Duncan are
unconvincing and that his discharge was actually for his union
activity.
As to Matus, however, the evidence shows that he was 7 minutes
late the day before he was discharged, as a result of which the station
was unable to begin broadcasting until 11 minutes later than its sched-
uled opening hour. The reason given him upon his discharge was
-that he did not sleep enough at night. Respondent also attempted to
prove that Matus had been found sleeping on his job some 2 or 3 weeks
prior to his discharge. The Trial Examiner, however, credited Matus'
,version of this incident, which was that he had not been sleeping but
.had been found by Roser sitting with his head resting in his hands
because he had been feeling sick. While we are not entirely persuaded
that the reasons given by Respondent were the actual reasons for the
discharge of Matus, we find that the evidence does not establish that
the true cause for the discharge was his union activity. We shall
accordingly dismiss the complaint as to him.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 897
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the cancellation • of
Dunnavant's "free lance" radio programs constituted discrimination
against him in violation of Section 8 (a) (3). There is sufficient
evidence in the record to justify a finding that the Respondent's action
was motivated by a discriminatory intent unless the contrary were
shown. This the Respondent failed to do. It adduced no evidence
at the hearing to substantiate its contention that the financial arrange-
ments with Dunnavant with respect to these programs were unprofit-
able, but instead sought to prove that Dunnavant was an incompetent
announcer. This fact, if true, might have been proper grounds for
discharging him or for transferring him to another type of work;
but does not tend to prove the Respondent's defense. Accordingly,
we find that the' cancellation of Dunnavant's radio program consti-
tuted illegal discrimination against him because of his union activity.
4. The Union secured a unanimous vote in the prehearing election
conducted by the Board on March 20, 1947. The Respondent was
aware of the results of this election. On the same day the Union,
through Thompson, requested recognition and a bargaining confer-
ence on the basis of the election results. Without giving any specific
reasons, the Respondent refused the Union's request and insisted on
a hearing-declaring its intention not to be present at such hearing-
and- certification by the Board. The Union evidently acquiesced in
this : it did not repeat its request for bargaining until after the issu-
ance of the Board's certification on June 6, 1947.1 On June 16,
Thompson wrote to the Respondent requesting a conference and
enclosing copies of proposed contracts 4 The Respondent did not
answer this letter. On or about July 14, Thompson visited the radio
station and repeated his request for a conference.5 Roser then took
him to the office of the Respondent's attorney, who informed him that
it would serve no useful purpose to discuss the proposed contracts,
as the Respondent was appealing the Board certification e
We think it is clear from the record that the Respondent, from
the date of the election at which the Union established its majority,
2 The Respondent offered Dunnavant a job as a time salesman, but the question of
transfer was dropped when Dunnavant said he would accept the transfer provided the
Union approved it.
3 73 N. L. R. B. 1509.
* It is not denied that this letter was received . Furthermore , Roser , in his testimony,
admitted having the proposed contracts in his possession when Thompson visited the radio
station on or about July 14, and he took them with him when he went with Thompson to
the office of the Respondent ' s attorney.
' Thompson had visited the station about a week earlier to request the reinstatement
of Matus and Duncan , but did not then make a request for a bargaining conference.
The appeal was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Rifth Circuit on
July 24 , 1947, and was dismissed without opinion October 13, 1947.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in a series of dilatory and evasive measures designed to,
put off, and if possible to avoid entirely, the performance of its statu-
tory duty to bargain collectively with the duly designated represent-
ative of its employees. An employer may, ordinarily, withhold
recognition and refuse to bargain with a union until it is certified by
the Board if it in good faith doubts the union's right to recognition
on any tenable ground. We are convinced, however, on the basis of
the record, that no such bona fide doubt existed on the Respondent's
part.? Accordingly, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that
the Respondent's refusal to bargain took place on July 14, 1947, but
find instead that on March 20, 1947 (the day of the election) and at
all times thereafter the Respondent refused to bargain collectively
with, the Union as the duly designated representative of a majority
of its employees.8
In any event it is abundantly clear that the Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5), from
and after the issuance of the Board's certification on June 6, 1947.
If there were any doubt as to the significance of the Respondent's
failure to answer the- Union's. request for bargaining in its letter on
June 16, enclosing copies of proposed contracts, the doubt is resolved
by Respondent's flat refusal to discuss the proposed contracts with
Thompson on or about July 14, on the untenable ground that it was
appealing the Board certification.' -
THE REMEDY
The Respondent in its exceptions challenges our power to issue an
order in this proceeding, and the propriety of issuing such an order,
on the ground that Local Union 1564 has gone out of existence io
The non-existence of the Union has no bearing upon the remedy which
may be ordered in cases of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a)
(3). Like the Trial Examiner, we find that it will effectuate the
* Respondent's determination not to bargain with the Union is further evidenced by
the fact that on April 7 , ignoring the Union , it reduced the hours of its technicians
without affecting their wages. We find that this action by the Respondent is per se a
violation of Section 8 (a) (5), as well as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1). See Matter of
L. B. Hartz Stores , 71 N. L . R. B. 848 ; Matter of Tower Hosiery Mills, 81 N. L. R. B.
658; cf. May Department Stores Co . V. N. L. It. B., 326 U. S. 376 ; Matter of Hudson
Hosiery Co., 72 N. L. it. B. 1434.
e See Matter of D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd., 81 N. L. R. B. 753; Matter of .ldora Mills,.
79 N. L. it. B. 1; Matter of L. B . Hartz Stores , supra. The fact that the Union acquiesced
in the Respondent's dilatory tactics is immaterial . See Matter of D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd.,
supra.
Y We agree with the Trial Examiner that it is immaterial whether the appeal had
actually been filed or was merely planned on this date.
11 The evidence indicates, and we find , that the Union went out of existence on or about
June 10, 1948 . It was, however , represented at the hearing.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 899
policies of the Act to order the Respondent to cease , and desist from
discouraging membership in Local Union 1564 or -any other labor
organization of its employees by discriminating against them, to
cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, to offer reinstatement to Asa Duncan and
to make Duncan and Robert Dunnavant whole for the losses they have
suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them.
Inasmuch as we have found, however, that the record does not sustain
the allegations of discrimination against Matus, we shall order the
complaint dismissed as to him.
Nor is the fact that the Union has ceased to exist any impediment
io the issuance of an order requiring the Respondent to bargain with
the Union on request. Under the circumstances of this cake, the dis-
integration of the Union must be attributed to the Respondent's own
unfair labor practices, especially to its persistent refusal to recognize
the Union's existence or to bargain with it. It would not effectuate
the policies of the Act to permit the'respondent to take advantage of
its own illegal acts.'1 We shall therefore follow the recommendation
of the Trial Examiner and order the Respondent upon request to bar-
gain collectively with Local 1564. However, as the Union is not in
compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) we shall condition the
order to bargain upon the Union's achieving compliance with these
provisions. In order to afford the Union adequate opportunity to
reorganize for this purpose and to renew its compliance, we shall
permit the union to comply with the filing requirements within 90
days from the date the Respondent, by posting the required notice,
signifies its intention to comply with our Order.12
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Tennessee
Valley Broadcasting Company, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Radio Broadcast Tech-
nicians, Local Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of Elec-
11 See N . L. R. B. v. Blanton Co., 121 F . ( 2d) 564 ( C. A. 8) ; see also Franks Bros. Co. v.
N. L. R. B ., 321 U . S. 702 ; N. L. R. B. Y. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U . S. 512 ; N. L R. B. v.
Bradford Dyeing Ass'n., 310 U. S 318.
12 Cf . Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company , 75 N. L R. B. 90.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trical Workers (A. F. L.) if and when said labor organization shall
have complied, within ninety (90) days from the date the Respondent
posts the notice ordered herein, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the
Act, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following
appropriate units: (1) All regular staff announcers , and (2) all radio
technicians of the Respondent's Radio Station WMSL at Decatur,
Alabama, excluding professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act ;13
(b), Discouraging membership in Radio Broadcast Technicians,
Local Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (A. F. L.), or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of its employees or terms or conditions of employment;
(c)• In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its-employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Radio Broadcast Technicians,
Local Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers (A. F. L.), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which'the Board findd will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, and upon compliance by the Union with the filing
requirements of the Act, as amended, in the manner set forth above,
bargain collectively with Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union
1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F.
L.), as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the units
herein found appropriate, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and if under-
standings are reached, embody such understandings in signed agree-
ments;
(b) Offer to Asa Duncan immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position,14• without prejudice to
18 Verbal changes have been made in the description of the unit found appropriate by the
Trial Examiner and by the Board in the earlier representation proceeding (see footnote 2,
supra ) to conform with the amended Act.
14 In accordance with the Board' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position when-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan,
Puerto Rico , Branch, 65 N L R B. 827, 829
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 901
his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to- that which he normally would have earned as wages from
the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 15 during such period;
(c) Make whole Robert Dunnavant for any loss of pay that he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
normally would have earned by said programs from the date of the
discrimination to the date of his resignation;
(d) Post at its station in Decatur, Alabama, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 16 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and shall be maintained
by it for ninety (90) consecutive days thereafter and also for an
additional thirty (30) consecutive days in the event that the Union
is reestablished and comes into compliance with the filing require-
ments of the Act as amended, 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;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,-and again within
ten (10) days from the future date, if any, on which the Respondent
Js officially notified that the Union has met the condition hereinabove
set forth, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discharged Manuel
Matus in violation of Section 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended.
• u 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, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discrimination and the
consequent necessity of his seeking work elsewhere. Matter of 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 . Republic Steel
Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7
is In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
844340-50-vol. 83-58
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
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 BARGAIN collectively upon request with RADIO BROAD-
CAST TECHNICIANS, LOCAL UNION 1564, OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (A. F. L.) as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the employees in the bar-
gaining units described herein, with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment and other conditions of employment, and, if under-
standings are reached, embody such understandings in- signed.
agreements; provided said labor organization complies, within
ninety (90) days from the date this Notice is posted, with Sec-
tion 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. The bargaining units are :
(a) All regular staff announcers, and (b) all radio technicians
employed at Tennessee Valley. Broadcasting Company's radio'
station WMSL, Decatur, Alabama, excluding professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise *of -their rights to self-organization;
to form labor organizations, to join or assist RADIO BROADCAST
TECHNICIANS, LOCAL UNION 1564, OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (A. F. L.), or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of '
their own choosing, and to engage in collective bargaining or
other mutual aid-or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
WE WILL offer to Asa Duncan immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Asa Duncan. and Robert Dunnavant for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming members of the above-named union or any other labor organ-
ization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
' TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 903
We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment because of membership in
,or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING} COMPANY
RADIO STATION WMSL,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Gilbert Cohen, 'for the General Counsel.
Mr. S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, Ala., for the Respondent.
Mr. John A. Thompson, of Montgomery, Ala., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union 1564
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel
and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
issued his amended complaint, dated August 31, 1948,' against Tennessee Valley
Broadcasting Company, herein called the Respondent, which alleged that the
Respondent did engage in and has continued to engage in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the amended
Act. Copies of the amended complaint, the charge and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleges in
substance: (1) that the Respondent discharged M. J. Matus on or about June 23,
1947, and Asa Duncan on or about June 26, 1947, and has at all times since
refused and failed to reinstate them; (2) that the Respondent on or about March
20, 1947, canceled and revoked the rights and privileges of Robert V. Dunnavant
to present his own programs on broadcasting time purchased from the Respond-
ent; 2 (3) that the Respondent discharged said Matus and Duncan, and has since
failed and refused to reinstate them, and canceled and failed and refused to
reinstate said programs of Dunnavant, because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection; (4) that the Respondent on or about February 18, 1947, and
at all times thereafter, has refused to, bargain collectively with the Union,
although the Union was the representative of majorities of employees in appro-
priate units ; and (5) that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
the same section of the amended Act by (a) statements and conversations dis-
3 The original complaint was issued on August 10, 1948 -
2 Dunnavant is not named in the chafge filed by the Union with the Board.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
couraging concerted activities on the part of Respondent's employees, (b) inquir-
ing, questioning and interrogating its employees about their union desires, sym-
pathies, membership, and activities, (c) making derogatory, disparaging, and
derisive remarks and statements concerning the Union, and (d) promising mone-
tary rewards to employees on the condition that they renounce the Union. In
its answer, duly filed, the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations of
the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Decatur, Alabama, on September 8
and 9, 1948, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and
the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representative.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties.
The General Counsel argued orally before the undersigned at the close of the
hearing. The parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs or proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. The General Counsel and
Respondent have filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
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
The Respondent is an Alabama corporation and maintains its principal office
and place of business at Decatur, Alabama, where it operates a radio station
using the call letters WMSL.
In the,courw and conduct ofits,busines^, for the period of 12 months preceding
the date of the complaint, and at all times material herein, the Respondent
operated said station under license of the Federal Communications Commission.
It is affiliated with the Mutual Broadcasting Company, which is a national broad-
casting organization. Programs of this national network, which are broadcast
throughout the country and transmitted locally by the Respondent, constitute a
substantial part of its business . Press releases are supplied to the Respondent
by the Associated Press, a national organization which gathers world-wide news,
and the Respondent's broadcast of said releases constitute a substantial portion
of its broadcasting time. During the same period of time, the Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business, broadcasted programs which were received
outside the State of Alabama.
At the hearing, the Respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and the amended Act.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union 1564, of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.),, is a labor organization which admits to
membership employees of the Respondent .3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events; interference, restraint, and coercion
About December of 1946, or January of 1947, John A. Thompson, an interna-
tional representative of the Union, commenced organization of the Respondent's
3 The evidence discloses that Local Union 1564 was disbanded at some time prior to the
hearing.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 905
employees. By about January 18, 1947, Thompson had secured cards designat-
ing the Union as the collective bargaining agency from two announcers and two
,technicians. Except for supervisors, these four employees were the only an-
nouncers and technicians in the Respondent's employ at the times material herein.
At some time in February, the Union filed with the Board a petition for an
election. Shortly thereafter, Thompson sent a letter to the Respondent in which
he informed Respondent that the Union represented a majority of employees and
.that a petition for an election had been filed with the Board. The Respondent
ignored the Union's letter. Sometime during March 1947, a Field Examiner of
the Board conferred with Thompson and Melvin Hutson, president of Respondent.
During this conference, Thompson requested that the Respondent recognize the
Union on a showing of designation cards. Hutson refused to recognize the Union
on a showing of cards and also refused to enter into a consent election agreement;
he demanded a hearing and an election.
Shortly after the Board's Notice of Election was posted at the Respondent's
establishment,' Lewis Blizzard, Respondent's program director and supervisor
-of the announcers, told Announcer Robert Dunnavant that he was to be trans-
ferred to the job of salesman. Dunnavant replied that the transfer was accept-
able to him provided that it was approved by the Union and that Blizzard accord-
ingly would first have to speak about it with Thompson. Blizzard stated that in
view of Dunnavant's answer he would have to discuss the matter with Hutson.
Later that same day, Blizzard came back to the studio and told Dunnavant and
Announcer Asa Duncan that thereafter "the place would be run like a radio
station" and that a list of rules would be put into effect the following day. After
making this announcement, Blizzard spoke privately to Dunnavant and urged
him to transfer to the selling position. Dunnavant refused. Some, few days
after this conversation with Blizzard, the Respondent canceled Dunnavant's "free
lance" programs, which meant a loss of earnings to Dunnavant.
At some time shortly after the posting of the election notice, Jeremiah Van
Roser, Respondent's chief engineer and supervisor of the technicians, asked
Technician Manuel J. Matus if he was a member of the Union. Matus replied
in the affirmative and Roser then asked the names of the employees who belonged
to the Union. Matus refused to disclose the requested information. The under-
signed finds that by such interrogation, the Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees.
On or about March 20, 1947, the Board conducted elections for both the an-
nouncers and the technicians. The two eligible voters in each of the two units
cast their ballots for the Union.
Shortly after the election, Blizzard spoke to both Dunnavant and Duncan. He
told them that he had authority to bargain with them individually, and that he
could improve working conditions and obtain raises in salary for them if they
would forget the Union. About 1 week later Blizzard again spoke to Dunnavant
and asked him to bargain individually. Dunnavant refused. The undersigned
finds that by the above remarks of Blizzard, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees.
On or about April 7, 1947, the Respondent reduced the technicians' hours of
work from 48 to 39i hours per week, but did not change or reduce their weekly
salaries. This action was taken by the Respondent without consulting the
Union.
In a Decision dated June 6, 1947, the Board certified the Union as the repre-
sentative of the announcers and the technicians.
4 The election was held on March 20, 1947.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent discharged Matus on or about June' 23, 1947,- and Duncan
on or about June 26. An announcer named Bill Cooper replaced Duncan at a
salary of $45 per week. Dunnavant, who received a salary of $32.50 per week,
inquired of Blizzard concerning this discrepancy. Blizzard replied that Cooper
was not a member of the Union and that as far as he knew Cooper would not
become a member. Blizzard also stated that any new announcer who started
work for the Respondent would receive $45 per week. Dunnavant received the
same salary until he resigned from his position on September 26, 1947. The
undersigned finds that by the above remarks of Blizzard, the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees.
At some time after the election, Roser asked Dunnavant how the employees
were getting along with the Union and when Dunnavant's "boy" would be back.
When questioned by Dunnavant as to whom he was referring by "my boy," Roser
said be meant Thompson. Later, Roser offered Dunnavant a job at "selling"
if he would quit the Union. He told Dunnavant that he was "silly or stupid"
and "unwise" to adhere to the Union. The undersigned finds that by the above
actions and statements of Roser, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees.
B. Discharge of Mates
Matus was employed by the Respondent on or about December 15, 1946. He
worked as a technician under the supervision of Roser. On January 18, 1947,
Matus joined the Union and thereafter became its treasurer. As found above,
shortly after the posting of the notice of election Roser asked him if he was
a member of the Union ; and Matus told Roser that he was a member but refused
to disclose the names of other employees who had joined the Union.
On June 22, Matus reported about 7 minutes late for work. As a consequence,
the station did not go on the air until about 7: 11 a. in., whereas it was scheduled
to go on the air at 7 a. in. When Matus reported for work the following morn-
ing, June 23, Roser told him that his services were no longer needed. Upon being
asked by Matus the reason for his discharge, Roser replied, "You don't sleep
enough at night." Matus then asked Roser if he was being discharged by reason
of the fact that he was late for work the preceding day. Roser replied, "I don't
know anything about that ... You are lucky you are getting your money." At
Matus' request, Roser then filled out the license issued by the Federal Communi-
cations Commission to Matus. On the license in the space provided, Roser noted
that Matus' employment with Respondent had been "satisfactory."
About 2 weeks after Matus' discharge, he returned to the Respondent's estab-
lishment, accompanied by Thompson. Thompson requested Roser to reinstate
Matus. Roser replied that he might have been "a little hasty" in discharging
Mates and that he would like to think the matter over. Roser also stated that
Matus had been discharged for being late and for "sleeping." Thompson spoke
to Roser again about 1 week later, and Roser refused to reinstate Matus.
The Respondent contends that Matus was discharged for sleeping on the job
and for being late. Concerning the alleged sleeping on the job, Roser testified
that about 3 or 4 weeks before June 23, he went into the transmitter room at
about 8 or 9 a. m.; that Matus appeared to be asleep at the time ; that he shook
Mates and said, "What's the matter, can't you get enough sleep at night?"; and
that later that same day when he returned to the transmitter room, Matus raised
.up as though he had been awakened when Roser stepped through the door.
Mates testified that about March 1947, he was resting his head on his arm as
he was not feeling well ; that Roser walked into the room slowly and looked at
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 907
the log; and that after exchanging a few words, Roser left the room. The
undersigned ',credith Matus', version of the incident. Roser was not a reliable
or credible witness. He was evasive in his answers and there are contradictions
in his testimony.
The record discloses that in addition to June 22, Matus was late on Decem-
ber 26, 1946. On the first occasion when he was late, Matus was requested to
try not to be late any more ; otherwise, he was not warned that he would be
penalized or discharged for lateness.
From the above facts, the undersigned is convinced and finds that Matus was
not discharged for cause by the Respondent, but because of his adherence to the
Union. It is undisputed that Roser knew that Matus was a member of the
Union. At the-time of discharge, Roser told Matus that he did not sleep enough
at night, when pressed by Matus for a reason. Apparently, Roser was referring
to the incident in March when he found Matus resting his head on his arm.
It is significant that Roser did not mention Matus' lateness on June 22 as a
reason for the discharge. In fact, when asked by Matus if that was the reason
for his discharge, Roser replied that he did not know about it. The remoteness
of the alleged sleeping incident and the fact that Roser first mentioned Matus'
lateness some 2 weeks after his discharge, convince the undersigned that the
Respondent was merely looking for an excuse to discharge Matus and that the
real reason for discharge was his membership and activities on behalf of the
Union.
C. Discharge of Duncan
Duncan was employed by the Respondent about August 19, 1946. He worked
as an announcer under the supervision of Blizzard. He joined the Union on
January 18, 1947, and became its financial secretary.
On June 26, 1947, Duncan reported for work at about 6:45 a. in., or about
one-half hour late.` When Duncan entered the station, Blizzard was acting as
the announcer. Duncan asked Blizzard if he wanted him to take the second
shift at 11: 30 a. m., which was normally Blizzard's shift. Blizzard thereupon
discharged Duncan, without stating any reason ; and Duncan did not inquire
as to the reason. Some few minutes later, Duncan's wife called Blizzard by
telephone. Upon learning of Duncan's discharge, she told Blizzard that Duncan
was late by reason of the fact that she had had an attack of appendicitis and
that he had been up most of the night attending to her.'
About 2 weeks after his discharge, Duncan and Thompson requested Blizzard
that he reinstate Duncan. Blizzard stated that he would consider the matter.
About a week later, Blizzard refused to reinstate Duncan. The Respondent con-
tends that Duncan was discharged because of his lateness. The record reveals
that during his course of employment, Duncan was late 2 minutes on September 3,
1946, 2 minutes on October 6, 1946, and 17 minutes on March 7, 1947 . Duncan
was never warned that he would be discharged for lateness. However, he received
a deduction in wages as a penalty for his lateness on March 7.'
Duncan testified that he was late due to the fact that he had been up most of the
preceding night due to the illness of his wife.
6 Virginia Duncan, wife of Asa Duncan, testified credibly to the above conversation with
Blizzard. Blizzard admitted that he had a telephone conversation with Virginia Duncan
on the morning of the discharge, but denied that she had told him of her illness. The
undersigned does not believe that Blizzard was a reliable or credible witness. There are a
number of contradictions in his testimony . For example , on cross-examination , he first
testified that Cooper , Duncan 's successor, received "exactly" $3 more per week than Duncan,
and later testified that Cooper received $ 10 more. The evidence discloses that Cooper
received $ 12.50 per week more than did Duncan.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned is convinced and finds that Duncan was discharged because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Blizzard admitted
that Duncan was an "excellent" announcer and that he knew at the time of dis-
charge that Duncan was an adherent of the Union. The record, discloses -that
when the Respondent's employees were late before Respondent was aware of the
organizational efforts of the Union, very little if any punitive action was taken
against them. In fact, the only conclusive evidence in the case of such action
prior to the discharge of Matus was the deduction in wages that Duncan received
as a penalty for his lateness on March 7. The Respondent was a small organiza-
tion and it appears that all of its employees, including supervisors, worked on a
very friendly basis. For example, it appears that if an announcer was late for
work, it was the custom for another announcer to substitute for him. - The
announcer who was late would then take over the substitute's shift or make up
the lost time later in the day. Duncan made such an offer to Blizzard when he
arrived late for work on the morning of June 26. Blizzard, however, without
inquiring or offering Duncan an opportunity to explain his lateness, promptly
discharged him. Considering Blizzard's undisputed friendship with Duncan and
his wife and past custom of the employees, I do not believe that he would have
discharged Duncan under the circumstances; absent Duncan's adherence to the
Union.
Further, it has been found above that some few minutes after the discharge of
Duncan his wife told Blizzard the reason for Duncan's lateness. Having denied
that he was so informed by Virginia Duncan, Blizzard admitted in his testimony
that if he had known the reason why Duncan was late, he would not have dis-
charged him. In my opinion this is significant. He did know the reason some
few minutes after the actual time of the discharge, and yet he did nothing to
remedy the matter. He could have reinstated Duncan at once since it definitely
appears that no new announcer had been hired to replace him, but Blizzard pre-
ferred to have matters remain as they were.
Blizzard testified that rules were posted in the broadcasting room about Novem-
ber of 1946.° An undated copy of these alleged rules was introduced in evidence.
The rules state in part, "The Station will not tolerate getting on the Air late."
However, the undersigned believes that the rules were posted shortly before
March 20, 1947, rather than in November 1946. During a conversation with Dun-
can and Dunnavant shortly after the posting of the Board's Notice of Election,
Blizzard told them that rules would be put into effect the following day, as related
and found above.' Nevertheless, if the rules were posted in November 1946, it
does not appear that the rule concerning lateness was enforced strictly or to any
appreciable extent until the Union's organizational efforts were known to Respond-
ent. Accordingly, the Respondent's contention in this connection is rejected.
D. Cancelation of Dunnavant's programs
Before September 1946, Dunnavant worked for the Respondent as a time
salesman. After that date he became an announcer. In accordance with an
oral agreement with the Respondent at the time, he continued to receive revenue
° Mottle Davis, Respondent's bookkeeper, testified in substance that she started work
for the Respondent in November 1946, and that at some time later she typed the rules
at the request of Blizzard.
8 From the statements of Blizzard made at the time it is apparent that the rules were
put into effect for the reason that Dunnavant refused to transfer to the position of sales.
man. In this connection , it is noteworthy that the rules provide in part, "No Announcer
will be allowed to dell Commercial time" ; and that Dunnavant 's programs were taken from
him on or about March 20.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 909
from several of his "free lance" programs which were broadcast by the Respond-
ent. Unddr tliih agreement, Dunnavant billed the -sponsors of the' programs
and turned the proceeds over to the Respondent, retaining a commission for
himself. These commissions amounted to approximately $3.50 per week, and
supplemented Dunnavant 's salary of $32 .50 per week as an announcer. This
arrangement with the respondent continued until shortly after the posting
of the notice of election some few days before March 20, 1947, at which time
the Respondent canceled Dunnavant's programs. The Respondent thereafter
continued Dunnavant's programs under other financial arrangements, but Dun-
navant no longer received any commission. Before the cancelation of Dunna-
vant's programs, Blizzard had requested him to transfer to the job of salesman,
and Dunnavant, in effect, refused the request. As has been found above, Dun-
navant told Blizzard at the time that he would accept a transfer, provided that
it was approved by the Union.
The Respondent contends that it canceled Dunnavant's programs because they
were not profitable. It is undisputed that the programs were continued under
other arrangements and that Dunnavant suffered a loss of earnings by reason
of the cancelations. No conclusive proof was offered by the Respondent to
substantiate its claim that Dunnavant's programs were unprofitable. Duncan
testified credibly and without contradiction concerning the financial arrangements
with the sponsors of the program and his commissions. The record does not reveal
the financial arrangements under which the programs were continued by the
Respondent after they were taken from Dunnavant.
The undersigned is convinced and finds from the above facts that the Respond-
ent canceled Dunnavant's programs because of his adherence to the Union
and because he refused to accept a transfer to the position of salesman unless
such transfer was approved by the Union. From the evidence concerning the
attempted transfer, it conclusively appears that Blizzard knew that Dunna-
vant was an adherent of the Union. Blizzard testified that he sought to trans-
fer Dunnavant by reason of the fact that he had received complaints from
sponsors concerning Dunnavant's work as an announcer. If true, nevertheless
such complaints would not justify the Respondent's action in penalizing Dunna-
vant. Further, it appears that Dunnavant continued as an announcer until
he resigned his position on about September 27, 1947.
E. The refusal to bargain
The amended complaint alleges that (1) all regular staff announcers, and (2)
all radio technicians of the Respondent's Radio Station WMSL, Decatur, Ala-
bama, excluding all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute two separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and the same section
of the amended Act. In its decision, dated June 6, 1947, the Board found that:
(1) all regular staff announcers and (2) all radio technicians of the employer's
Radio Station- WMSL, at Decatur, Alabama, excluding all supervisory employ-
ees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, consti-
tute two separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. In its answer, the Respondent
neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the amended complaint concerning
the alleged appropriate units, and the Respondent did not adduce any evidence
at the hearing on this issue.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
-. Accordingly, the' undersigned finds that (1) all regular staff announcers, and
,(2) all radio technicians of the Respondent's Radio Station WMS'L, at Decatur,
Alabama, excluding all guards, professional employees, and all supervisory em-
ployees -with the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action,
at all times material herein constituted and do now constitute appropriate units
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and the same section of the
'amended Act ; he finds that said units will insure to the employees of the Re-
spondent the full benefits of their rights to self-organization and collective bar-
gaining, and otherwise effectuate the purposes of'the amended Act:
The evidence discloses that on January 18, 1947, all employees' of the Respond=
ent in the above-described units designated the Union as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The evidence further discloses that on
March 20, 1947, said employees again designated the Union as their representa-
tive by secret ballot in elections conducted by the Board. On June 6, 1947, the
'Union was formally certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the above-described units. In its answer, the Respondent neither
admitted nor denied that the Union at the times material herein represented
a majority of the employees in each of said units. The evidence in the case dis-
closes that during the times when the Union attempted to obtain recognition
and negotiate contracts, the Respondent at no time questioned the Union's ma-
jorities. Accordingly, I find that on and at all times after January 18, 1947, the
Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of the
employees in each of the aforesaid appropriate units and that, pursuant to the
provision of Section 9 (a) of the Act and the same section of the amended Act,
the Union on January 18, 1947, and at all times since has been, and is now, the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid units for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
As related above, Thompson first requested Hutson to recognize the Union as
the bargaining agent upon a showing of designation cards during a conference
between them and a Field Examiner of the Board at some time prior to March
20, 1947. Hutson refused to recognize the Union and demanded a hearing and
an election. On March 20, the day of the election, and after the election had been
held, Thompson requested Hutson to sign a recognition agreement. Hutson re-
fused, stating that he still wanted a hearing.
The Board formally certified the Union in its decision-dated June 6, 1947. On
June 16, the Union wrote to the Respondent and enclosed proposed contracts for
each of the two units. About 2 or 3 weeks after Duncan's discharge, Thompson
.called at the Respondent's station and requested Hutson to negotiate contracts."
.Hutson told him that Blizzard and Roser were in charge of negotiations. Thomp-
son thereupon met Roser and told him of his conversation with Hutson. Roser
took Thompson to the office of S. A. Lynne, Respondent's attorney. Thompson,
who was accompanied by Garlan Sandlin, president of the Local Union, told
Lynne that they wished to negotiate contracts covering announcers and tech-
nicians. Lynne stated that the Respondent had not accepted the Board's certifi-
cation ; that the Respondent was filing an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals ;
and that under the circumstances it would serve no useful purpose to negotiate
" It appears that Thompson made two visits to the station, accompanied by Duncan and
Matus. On the first visit he merely requested reinstatement of these employees, and on
the second he attempted to enter into negotiations.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 911
at that time. The Union hereafter and on about July 15, 1947, filed an unfair
labor practice charge against the Respondent with the Board, and made no
further attempts to bargain with the Respondent.
The Respondent apparently contends that it was not -under a duty to bargain
by reason of the fact that it was appealing the Board's certification to the
Circuit Court of Appeals. This contention is rejected. The Union represented
a majority of the employees in each unit at the time that it made its request
to bargain. Accordingly, the Respondent was under a duty to bargain with the
Union, particularly after the Board's certification on June 6, 1947. Further,
while I do not consider the question material, the record shows that the
Respondent did not petition the Circuit Court of Appeals until July 24, 1947.
While the exact date of the conference between Thompson and Lynne is not
disclosed by the record, it conclusively appears that the conference took place
before July 24.
Therefore, I find that, on or about July 14, 1947, and at all times thereafter,
the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (5) of the amended Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with
operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act and the amended Act. It has been found that
the Respondent has discriminated against its employees because of their mem-
bership in and activities on behalf of the Union by discharging and refusing to
reinstate Asa Duncan and Manuel Matus, and by canceling certain programs of
Robert Dunnavant. It will, therefore, be recommended that the Respondent offer
Duncan and Matus immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substanti-
ally equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.'0 It will further be recommended that the Respondent make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to them of sums of money equal to the
amounts they would have earned as wages from the dates of the discriminatory
discharges to the dates of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net
earnings 11 during said periods. In the case of Dunnavant, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discriminatory cancelation of his pro-
grams by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally
would have earned by said programs from the date or dates of cancelation to the
date of his resignation.
"In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
!'former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible , but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R B. 827.
11 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-498.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has also been found that the Respondent has failed and. refused, to bargain
with the Union as the representative of all its employees. in' the appropriate
units. It will, therefore, be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and that, upon request, the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union 1564 of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and the same section of the amended Act.
2. (a) All regular staff announcers, and (b) all radio technicians of the
Respondent's Radio Station WMSL, at Decatur, Alabama, excluding all guards,
professional employees and supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively to recommend such action, constitute two separate units appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act and the same section of the amended Act.
3. Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union 1564 of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), was on January 18, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act and the same section of the amended Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local
Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), as
exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the aforesaid units, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (5) of the amended Act.
5. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Asa Duncan and Manuel Matus, and by the discriminatory cancelation of the
programs of Robert Dunnavant, thereby discouraging membership in Radio
Broadcast Technicians, Local Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), the Respondent has engaged in and is engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and Section
8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
6. By said acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the
same section of the amended Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section
8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and the same
section of the amended Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the
Respondent , Tennessee Valley Broadcasting Company, its officers , agents , succes-
sors, and assigns , shall:
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 913
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local
Union 1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.),
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the units hereinabove found
to be appropriate, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in Radio Broadcast Technicians, Local Union
1564 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), or in
any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees , or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment or term or condition of employment ; and
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist Radio Broadcasting Technicians, Local Union 1564 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A. F. L.), or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the same
section of the amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Radio Broadcast Technicians,
Local Union 1564, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(A. F. L.), as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate units with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if understandings are reached, embody such
understandings in signed agreements ;
(b) Offer to Asa Duncan and Manuel Matus immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(c) Make whole Asa Duncan, Manuel Matus, and Robert Dunnavant for any
loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them by payment to them of sums of money equal to the amounts deter-
mined in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above ;
(d) Post at its station in Decatur, Alabama, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, having been signed by the Re-
spondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained for sixty (60) 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 ; and
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within ten (10)
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify said Re-
gional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring
the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any
party may,. within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of excep-
tions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied
upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall
be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with
the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further
provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and rec-
ommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 29th day of December 1948.
JOHN H. EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with RADIO BROADCAST TECH-
NICIANS, LOCAL UNION 1564 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRI-
CAL WORKERS (A. F. L.), as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the bargaining units described herein, with respect to
rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employment,
and if understandings are reached, embody such understandings in signed
agreements. The bargaining units are :
(a) All regular staff announcers, and (b) all radio technicians employed
at Tennessee Valley Broadcasting Company's Radio Station WMSL, Decatur,
Alabama, excluding all guards, professional employees and supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization; to form labor
organizations , to join or assist RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANs, LOCAL UNION
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 915
1564 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (A. F.
L.), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the following-named individuals immediate and full
employment at the,same or substantially equivalent positions at which they
would be employed, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges they would have enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them :
Asa Duncan Manuel Matus
WE WILL MAKE whole Robert Dunnavant for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
TENNESSEE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY
RADIO STATION WMSL,
Employer.
Dated--------------- By -----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)