The Valley Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY and PITTs-
BURGH LOCAL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS (AFL)
Case No. 8-CA-111.-Decided December 16,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 4, 1949, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Interme-
diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and qualifications:
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union on October 5, 1948, and at all times
thereafter. In addition to the bargaining request made by Union Rep-
resentative Hirsch in a telephone conversation with Assistant Man-
ager Troesch on October 5, 1948,1 we find that a second specific request
I Chairman Herzog and Member Gray do not rely upon Hirsch 's October request in
finding a refusal to bargain, believing with Member Murdock that it was no request at all.
Unlike their three colleagues , Members Houston and Reynolds do not consider the
character of Hirsch 's request to have been affected by his further statement that he
proposed to file a representation petition with the Board if his bargaining demand were
refused . As they construe this statement , it was made as a part of Hirsch 's effort to
instruct Troesch, in view of his seeming unfamiliarity, in the procedure and significance
of representation cases before the Board. Respondent does not claim that Hirsch's
remarks regarding a Board election had any bearing on its refusal of the bargaining
request . Indeed , Troesch 's testimony of his conversation with Hirsch contains no
reference to these remarks. Under all the circumstances, they conclude and find that
Hirsch confronted Respondent with a clear and unequivocal bargaining demand on the
occasion of his telephone call.
87 NLRB No. 157.
1144
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1145
and refusal to bargain occurred during the meeting of the announcers
called by Troesch between October 5 and 15, 1948, to discuss individual
contracts, as detailed in the Intermediate Report. At this meeting
Announcer Matthew Teolis, in the presence and hearing of the other
announcers, told Troesch in effect that the announcers had signed up
with the Union and requested and urged him to deal with their collec-
tive bargaining representative rather than discuss individual con-
tracts with them. Troesch then and there ascertained through per-
sonal inquiry that all the announcers, except one, were still interested
in the Union. Despite the fact that all the announcers acquiesced, by
their silence and demonstration of continued interest in the Union, in
Teolis' requests, Troesch replied that he did not want to deal with an
"outsider" because of his belief that there are "Communists" and
"un-American elements" in every union and "we can get along with-
out it." In the context and circumstances in which the conversation
took place, Ave find that, through Teolis as their spokesman, the an-
nouncers requested Troesch to bargain collectively with the Union as
their duly designated representative 2 and that Troesch refused.
2. We also find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was at times moti-
vated by a rejection of the collective bargaining principle, rather than
by a good faith doubt of the Union's majority. In reaching this con-
clusion, we rely on the following conduct of the Employer: (1) The
refusal to bargain with the Union upon request of the announcers
despite their demonstration to Troesch, upon his personal inquiry,
that all announcers except one were still interested in the Union,
(2) the grant of wage increases without notice to or consultation
with the Union; 3 (3) the unilateral changes effected by carrying
out the terms of the individual contracts, and (4) the activities
in connection with the letter the employees signed withdrawing
from the Union. We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this
conduct constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2 Section 8 (a) (5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse to
bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees . . We perceive noth-
ing in this section or elsewhere in the statute which requires that the request to bargain
with the representative must be made only by such representative in order to be honored
by the employer. Where, as here, the representative has previously demonstrated to the
employer a willingness to represent the employees in the unit, there is no legal or other
basis for holding that the employer is not required to bargain with such representative
merely because the request to bargain with that representative is made by its constituents
in the unit. Moreover, in filing a charge, alleging a refusal to bargain on and at all times
after October 5, 1948, the Union ratified and adopted as its own the employees' request to
bargain with it.
In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the wage increases constituted an
independent violation of Section 8 (a) (5).
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
We have found that the Respondent has refused to bargain in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act and has en-
gaged in other acts in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended
Act. We shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from en-
gaging in such conduct. The Respondent's conduct in our opinion dis-
closes a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and its objectives.
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying pur-
pose we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are per-
suasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act and that danger of their commission in the future is to be antici-.
pated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The
preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our Order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to present a recurrence of un-
fair labor practices, and to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the amended Act, we
will order that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the amended Act.
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, The Valley Broad-
casting Company, Steubenville, Ohio, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Pittsburgh Local, Ameri-
can Federation of Radio Artists (AFL) as the exclusive representative
of all the employees at the Respondent's Radio Station WSTV who ap-
pear before the microphone and announce, deliver news, speak, recite
or perform sound effects, including employees who play transcriptions
and records, but excluding instrumental musicians, and all super-
visors as defined by the Act;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, or to join or assist Pittsburgh Local, American
Federation of Radio Artists (AFL) or any other labor organization,
to bargain 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 and to refrain from any
and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1147
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Pittsburgh Local,
American Federation of Radio Artists (AFL), as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees at the Respondent's Radio
Station WSTV who appear before the microphone and announce, de-
liver news, speak, recite or perform sound effects including employees
who play transcriptions and records, but excluding instrumental musi-
cians, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its Radio Station WSTV in Steubenville, Ohio, copies
of the notice attached hereto, marked Appendix A 4 Copies of such
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for a period of at least 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 ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
sponderit has taken to comply herewith.
MEMnER MURDOCK, dissenting in part:
While joining my colleagues in finding 'a violation of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act, I cannot concur in their finding that the Respond-
ent refused to bargain with the Union within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act. This disagreement stems from my view that
the Respondent was never presented with a clear and unequivocal bar-
gaining demand and hence it was not under an obligation to recognize
and deal with the Union.
Under the Trial Examiner's theory of the case, which was similar
to the position taken by the Union at the hearing, Union Representa-
tive Hirsch made an appropriate bargaining request on October 5,
1948. While my colleagues are divided in their opinion as to the
propriety of this view, they are agreed that a second bargaining request
* In the event that this Order is enforced by 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."
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
occurred between October 5 and 15 and this is the request on which
the majority opinion relies for its 8 ( a) (5) finding. An appraisal of
the record does not convince me that either request was of the sort
which imposes upon an employer the duty to bargain.
The credible evidence dealing with this aspect of the case is as
follows : The bargaining request of Hirsch was made in a telephone
conversation to Assistant Manager Troesch. When Troesch's reply
indicated that he did not comprehend the situation , Hirsch , according
to his own testimony , then undertook the following explanation :
I said to Mr . Troesch, "If you do not recognize us, we will file a
petition for certification with the National Labor Relations Board,
which will result in a closed ballot election , at which the men
themselves will vote, and that will determine whether or not we
have the right to bargain for them. This is not an unusual pro-
ceeding. It happens in nearly every case of new organization.
There is no reflection on the station . And I am required , before
I file this position , to ask you whether or not you will recognize
us, and if you do not the union will have no ill feeling, and we
will proceed with such an election , as we usually do." [Emphasis
supplied.]
Following these remarks , Hirsch again asked Troesch if he would
recognize the Union and this time Troesch answered in the negative.
I do not believe that this telephone call constitutes an unqualified
request to bargain. Considered in their entirety , Hirsch 's statements,
in my opinion , conveyed the idea that his request for recognition was
merely a prerequisite he must comply with before he could file a
petition for an election which he would proceed to do-and later
did-and that such procedure was "no reflection on the station."
The second bargaining request referred to in the Decision of my
colleagues occurred sometime between October 5 and 15, at a meet-
ing of the announcers which was called by Troesch , for the purpose
of offering the announcers individual contracts . Questioned as to the
reaction of the announcers to this offer , Matthew Teolis , a staff an-
nouncer, testified on direct examination as follows :
Q. Did the men , the staff announcers present there say any-
thing or ask anything at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you ask or say?
A. I asked Mr . Troesch if he knew that we signed application
blanks.
Q. For what?
A. For the American Federation of Radio Artists. Arid I
don't remember Mr. Troesch 's answer, but I told him, I said,
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1149
"Why are we going through looking at any other kind of a con-
tract when we have signed these A. F. R. A. application blanks
and all those who were present had signed, and we were interested
in becoming members of the organization?"
I cannot subscribe to the reasoning of my colleagues by which they
arrive at the conclusion that Teolis' remarks had the effect of a specific
bargaining request. Teolis not only made no specific request to bar-
gain but there is no warrant for inferring that he intended his remarks
to constitute a bargaining request. What is more, I cannot see how
Troesch could have been expected to construe Teolis' questioning of
him as a bargaining request, particularly in view of his earlier conver-
sation with Hirsch who, as the authorized spokesman of the Union,
stated to Troesch that he intended to file a petition for an election.
The further finding of my colleagues that the Union, by filing a
charge alleging a refusal to bargain ratified and adopted Teolis' re-
quest as its own, is to my mind a thoroughly unjustifiable inference;
unwarranted by the facts in the case. It seems clear from the position
taken by the Union at the hearing that the bargaining demand upon
which it relied to build up its case against the Respondent was Hirsch's
request of October 5. Furthermore, its first act after the announcers'
meeting was to file the petition for certification which Hirsch had
originally told Troesch the Union would file, thereby indicating its
continued intent to establish its majority in an election. The Board's
records show that the petition was filed on October 15. It was not
until November 19 that the Union instituted the proceedings in this
case by the filing of a charge.
Under all the circumstances, I do not believe that Respondent's good
faith was ever put to the test by the Union. I would not hold that
the Respondent refused to do that which it was never asked to do.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the allegation of a refusal to bargain in
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) in the complaint.
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, as ,amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
1. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Pittsburgh
Local, American Federation of Radio Artists (AFL) as the ex-
clusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit
described below.
0
0
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Pittsburgh Local,
American Federation of Radio Artists (AFL) or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
All our employees are free to become and remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union
or any other labor organization except to the extent that the right
to refrain may be affected by a lawful agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with Pittsburgh
Local, American Federation of Radio Artists (AFL) as the ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, and
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All employees at Radio Station WSTV who appear before the
microphone and announce, deliver news, speak, read, recite, or
perform sound effects, including those who play transcriptions and
records, but excluding instrumental musicians, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY,
Employer.
By ------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Morris A. Solomon and Phillip Fusco , for the General Counsel,
Messrs. Carl Weinman and Allen H. Berkman , for the Respondent.
Messrs. Donald B. Hirsch and A. Frank Reel, for AFRA.
0
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1151
Upon a charge duly filed on November 10, 1948, by Pittsburgh Local, American
Federation of Radio Artists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called AFRA, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called, respectively, the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional
Director of the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint, dated Feb-
ruary 16, 1949, alleging that The Valley Broadcasting Company, Steubenville,
Ohio, herein called the Respondent, had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and
.(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charge, together
with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and upon
AFRA.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, in substance, alleged.
that the Respondent: (1) on or about October 4, 1948, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with AFRA as the exclusive representative of its
employees in a certain appropriate unit, although AFRA had been selected and
designated as their representative by a majority of such employees; (2) on or
about October 5, 1948, and thereafter, bargained directly and individually with
its employees in the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment,. and granted wage increases
to the said employees; and (3) by means of certain stated acts interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On March 10, 1949, the Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint with respect to its corporation existence, the nature
and extent of the business transacted by it, but denying the commission of any
of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was duly held on March 22 and 23, 1949, before
Howard Myers; the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel, the Respondent, and AFRA were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence per-
'tinent to the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondent's coun-
sel moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied. At the conclusion
of the taking of evidence, the General Counsel's motion to conform the pleadings
to, the proof, with respect to minor variances, was granted without objection.
The Respondent's counsel then renewed his motion to dismiss the complaint.
Decision thereon was reserved. The motion is herewith denied. Oral argument
was then had, in which counsel for all parties participated. The parties were
,then advised that they might file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law with the undersigned on or before April 7, 1949.1 Briefs have
been received from the Respondent and AFRA and have been duly considered by
the undersigned. .
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
1 At th . request of the Respondent, the time to file briefs was extended to April 18, •1949.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS Or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Valley Broadcasting Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
operation of a radio station, at Steubenville, Ohio, known as Station WSTV. The
Respondent operates under a license from the Federal Communications Commis-
sion, operating on a frequency of 1340 kilocycles. The Respondent is affiliated
with the Mutual Broadcasting System network, a national broadcasting network.
The Respondent, in the operation of the Radio Station WSTV, serves portions
of the States of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, its signal being heard
within a radius of 25 miles. For the year ending March 22, 1949, the Respond-
ent's gross business amounted to in excess of $75,000, approximately 32 percent
of which constituted the transmission of programs originating with the Mutual
Broadcasting System network.
The undersigned finds that the Respondent, during all times material herein,
has been, and now is, engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Pittsburgh Local, American Federation of Radio Artists, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNF_\IR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent's refusal to bargain, collectively with AFRA
1. The appropriate unit and AFRA's majority status therein
The complaint alleged that all the Respondent's employees who announce,
deliver news, speak, read, recite, or performO sound effects, incliiiling those who
play transcriptions and records, but excluding instrumental musicians and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. The Respondent admitted in its answer the appropriate-
ness of the alleged unit. At the hearing no evidence was introduced with respect
to that issue . Donald P. Hirsch, a national representative of AFRA, testified,
and the undersigned finds, that the employees within the above classification are
eligible for membership in AFRA.
The undersigned therefore finds, upon the state of the record, that the Re-
spondent's employees who appear before the microphone of Station WSTV
and announce, deliver news, speak, read, recite, or perform sound effects, includ-
ing those who play transcriptions and records, but excluding instrumental
musicians , and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
On October 4, 1948, the Respondent employed seven persons within the unit
herein found to be appropriate. On or prior to said date, each of the said seven
persons had signed membership application cards designating AFRA as their
collective bargaining representative. At a hearing, the Respondent contended,
in effect, that the seven persons here involved who signed membership applica-
tion cards had not been accepted by AFRA as full-fledged members and therefore
the cards which were received in evidence could not operate to show AFRA's
majority status at the time it made a demand upon the Respondent for recogni-
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1153
tion as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
found appropriate. The Respondent also points to the fact that the said seven
employees testified that they (lid not consider themselves members of AFRA.
But the cards themselves expressly designated AFRA as the bargaining repre-
sentative. It is well settled, moreover, that applications for membership in a
labor union are sufficient designations. It is thus clear that on October 4, 1948,
AFRA was the duly designated collective bargaining representative of a majority
of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
The undersigned accordingly finds that on October 4, 1948, and at all times
thereafter, AFRA was, and still is, the duly designated representative of the
majority of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, by virtue
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, AFRA was at all times material herein, and still is,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
In July 1948, Donald B. Hirsch, a national representative of AFRA, received
a letter from the national headquarters of AFRA informing him that the
Respondent's announcers desired to join AFRA. Shortly thereafter Hirsch
received a letter to the same effect from one of the Respondent's announcers.
Pursuant to the requests contained in the aforesaid letters, Hirsch, in the
latter part of July, met with about five of the seven announcers then in the
Respondent's employ and explained to them the benefits to be derived from
membership in AFRA. The meeting concluded with Hirsch's suggestion that
the announcers, to quote Hirsch's credible testimony, "should think it over, and
if they presented us with a group that was united and agreed upon union repre-
sentation, I would return and AFRA would represent them in collective bar-
,gaining." The announcers then selected Announcer Harry Cochran to com-
municate the decision to Hirsch.
On October 4, pursuant to arrangements, Hirsch again met with about five
of the announcers. At this meeting, Hirsch was handed membership application
cards signed by the seven announcers and he was then instructed to immediately
communicate with the Respondent for the purpose of bargaining collectively
with it.'
The following day, October 5, Hirsch telephoned the Respondent' s general
manager, John Laux, and upon being informed that he was out of town, Hirsch
spoke to Assistant General Manager Joseph Troesch, and told him that all
the Respondent's announcers had signed cards authorizing AFRA to represent
them and requested that the Respondent recognize AFRA as the bargaining
representative and negotiate a contract. When Troesch replied, according to
Hirsch's credible testimony which is not in variance to any great extent to
Troesch's version of what transpired during that telephone conversation, that
he did not understand the nature of Hirsch's demand, the following conversation
then ensued:
2 N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318; N. L. R. B. v. Service Wood Heel
Co. Inc., 124 F. 2d 470 (C. A. 1) : N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. 2c1 753
(C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Somerset Shoe Co., 111 F. 2d 681 (C. A. 1) ; Lancaster Garment
Co., 78 NLRB 935.
3Three cards bore date of July 22, 1948; three are dated July 23, 1948; and one October
4, 1948.
877359-50-vol. 87-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If you do not recognize us, we will file a petition for certification with the
National Labor Relations Board, which will result in a closed ballot elec-
tion, at which the men themselves will vote, and that will determine whether
or not we have the right to bargain for them. This is not an unusual pro-
ceeding. It happens in nearly every case of new organization. There is
no reflection on the station. And I am required, before I file this petition,
to ask you whether or not you will recognize us, and if you do not, the union
will have no ill feeling, and we will proceed with such an election, as we
usually do.
And I said, "Do you"-I asked him categorically-"will you recognize us?"
And he answered me that he would not.
I then entered into a discussion with him as to Mr. Laux, telling him
that I was very anxious, regardless of what we did on the petition, to talk
with him and Mr. Laux, and did lie know when Mr. Laux would be back.
"No," was his answer. .
I asked him whether or not Mr. Laux-I asked him how often Mr. Laux
came to Pittsburgh to his station at WPIT.
He said, "frequently."
And I said, "Well, I suggest that Mr. Laux give me a call on his next trip
to Pittsburgh so that we can discuss this."
The following day, October 6, Troesch went to Station WPIT in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, %vliere Laux was and told Laux about the conversation he had
with Hirsch the previous day and also told Laux that Hirsch, whose offices were
in Pittsburgh, would call upon them during the day. Evidently there was some
misunderstanding about Hirsch's intended visit because Hirsch did not call at
Station WPIT that day. Hirsch testified that he did not arrange to meet Laux
and Troesch while the latter said he did. It is immaterial whether or not Hirsch
agreed to meet with Laux and Troesch on October 6, because, as will be shown
below, the Respondent immediately embarked upon a course of conduct plainly
designed to destroy APRA's majority among the Respondent's employees.
Several days after Hirsch's October 5 telephone conversation with Troesch,
the contents of which.were communicated to Laux on October 6, the Respondent,
without advising or consulting with AFRA, unilaterally raised the wages of its
announcers. Each announcer was notified by a written memorandum which was
admittedly drafted and dictated by Laux and each notice was dated October 1.
Although so dated, the record is manifestly clear that the notices were handed to
the announcers sometime after October 5. The record is silent as to when or
-where the notices were dictated by Laux. Although he was called as a Respond-
ent's witness Laux was not questioned regarding the time when or the place
where he dictated the notices. As far as the record reveals, this was the first
time all the announcers' salaries were increased simultaneously. Moreover, in
the past, as far as the record shows, it was not the Respondent's policy to notify
the announcers in writing of a proposed wage increase.
Some of the raises were made effective as of November 1, some as of October 16,
and some were made retroactive to October 1.
Charles T. Donley testified, and the undersigned finds, that he did -not receive
his increase until about November 1., although the notice handed to him about
that time was dated October 1. Donley's notice reads in part as follows:
In keeping with past policies, your rate has been increased to $1.30 per
hour . . . This is about six months from your last increase.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1155
Clyde Higgins testified , and the undersigned finds, that he received his notice,
dated October 1, about October 16. The Higgins' notice reads in part as follows :
In keeping with past policies, your hourly rate will be increased to $1.30 per
hour beginning October 16. . . .
You started as a regular announcer on April 16 , 1947, and this is the third
six month period. This is your third increase since April 16, 1947.
Tom Arim testified , and the undersigned finds , that several days after October 5,
he received his notice of a wage increase . His notice reads in part as follows :
In keeping with past policies , your rate has been increased to $1.30 per
hour effective October 1 , 1948.... This is about six months from your last
increase.
The other four announcers , although their notices of wage increases were
not introduced in evidence , testified , and the undersigned finds, that they
received their respective notices sometime after October 5. '
The salary records of each announcer , except Anderson ' s, are as follows :
CHARLES T. DONLEY
Per hour
9-15-47--------------------- $1.00
11-16-47--------------------- 1.05
2- 1-48--------------------- 1.10
.3-16-48--------------------- 1.20
10- 1-49--------------------- 1.30
1- 1-49--------------------- 1.35
CLYDE E. HIGGINS
Per hour
2- 1-47---- ----------------- $0.88
4-16-47--------------------- 1.00
7- 1-47--------------------- 1.10
6-16-48- -------------------- 1.20
10-16-48--------------------- 1.30
1- 1-49--------------------- 1.35
THOMAS ARIM
Per hour
11- 1-46--------------------- $0.86
1- 1-47--------------------- .96
2-16-47--------------------- 1.00
5- 1-47--------------------- 1.10
4- 1-48--------------------- 1.20
10- 1-48--------------------- 1.30
1- 1-49--------------------- 1.35
HARRY M. COCHRAN
Per month
4-1-45----------------------- $260
8-1-47----------------------- 280
9-1-48----------------------- 305
MATTHEW F. TEOLIS
Per hour
5-2-48---------------------- $1.15
9-1-48---------------------- 1.20
11-1-48---------------------- 1.30
1-1-49---------------------- 1.35
ROBERT E. SANDERS
Per hour
6-16-47--------------------- $ 1.00
8-16-47--------------------- 1.05
12- 1-47--------------------- 1.10
3- 1-48--------------------- 1.25
10- 1-48--------------------- 1.35
1- 1-49--------------------- 1.40
The Respondent seeks to insulate its conduct in granting the wage increases
from the sanctions of the Act on the ground that the increases were simply
a regular 6-month increase in accordance with its past policy. Whatever may be
said of that argument, the fact remains that the salary records of the an-
nouncers, as set out above, show the complete absence of any such policy.
Thus, for example, Teolis got one increase after 4 months' employment, another
after another 2 months, and a third after another 2 months. Sanders had in-
creases after 2 months, after another 31/n months, after another 4 months, after
another 7 months, and after another. 3 months. Donley had raises after 2
1156 DECISIONS OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
months, after another 21/2 months, after another 11/2 months, after another 61/2
months, and after another 3 months. Higgins after 2 months' employment, after
another 21/2 months, after another 111/2 months, after another 4 months, and
after another 3 months. Arim, the oldest man in years of service with the
Respondent, had a total of 14 raises, some of which he received at 1-month
intervals, 2 of which he got at 10-month intervals, one after 11-months wait,
and another after waiting 1 year. Cochran had 2 raises, one of which he
received after 28 months of employment, the other after another 13 months.
Besides the above raises, each announcer received a further increase on
January 1, 1949.
It is thus clear, contrary to the Respondent's contention, that the Respondent
never had any regular 6-month wage increase policy for its announcers. Actually,
the record is clear that the Respondent had always operated without any regular
policy with respect to granting its announcers periodical wage increases. In
fact, Matthew, Teolis, a former announcer of the Respondent, testified credibly
that the increase he was given, effective November 1, was the first one granted
to him without having to ask for it.
Sometime between October 5 and 15, Troesch assembled all the announcers
and opened the meeting with the statement that he was aware of the fact that
the announcers were affiliating with AFRA ; he then submitted a copy of the
contract which the Respondent had with each of its engineers ; he then explained
that it was an "individual" and not a "collective" contract ; he then said that
the engineers' contracts were good contracts and that the engineers liked them ;
he further added that if the announcers would accept such a contract, he would
have similar contracts prepared for the announcers to execute individually.
According to the credible testimony of Matthew Teolis, the following ensued :
Q. Did the men, the staff announcers present there say anything or ask
anything at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you ask or say?
A. I asked Mr. Troesch if he knew that we signed application blanks.
Q. For what?
A. For the American Federation of Radio Artists. And I don't re-
member 1Ir. Troesch's answer, but I told him, I said, "Why are we going
through, looking at any other kind of a contract when we have signed
these A. F. R. A. application blanks and all those who were present had
signed, and we were interested in becoming members of the organization?"
Q. What did Mr. Troesch say to that?
A. Well, Mr. Troesch said, in substance, why should we call in an out-
sider. He said we are one small family and we can handle our own problems
without calling in someone else.
Q. Was anything else said at that meeting?
A. Well, I asked Mr. Troesch why he didn't want A. F. R. A. in the organi-
zation, and Mr. Troesch told me that there are Communist elements in every
union, and un-American elements, and he said eventually, if unions do be-
come stronger, or words to that effect, that there may come a day when
radio stations and businesses are told what to do.
Q. Was anything else said by the men as to that?
A: I asked Mr. Troesch again to think of the prestige of a national or-
ganization such as A. F. R. A. over our front door, and Mr. Troesch said that
we could.get along without it.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1157
He asked how many of us were actually really interested in A. F. R. A. and
he asked us individually if we had made up our mind, and everyone either
nodded or said, "Yes," except Thomas Arim.
Teolis further credibly testified that during this meeting, Troesch stated that the
announcers would, to quote Teolis' credible testimony, "realize benefits from [the
individual] contracts sooner then [the announcers] would under" an AFRA
contract, that the Respondent "would agree to any kind of an agreement except
an AFRA agreement," and that "if anyone is so interested [in AFRA], he would
be glad to give [him] a recommendation to that gentleman to take to an AFRA
station...."
On or about October 18, Troesch again met with all but two of the announcers.
There, Troesch submitted the following contract which, if acceptable, was to
be signed by the announcers individually :
OCTOBER 16, 1948.
AGREEMENT
Effective as of the above date, The Valley Broadcasting Company, owners
and operators of Station WSTV and WSTV-FM in Steubenville, Ohio, agrees
to employ the undersigned on the station staff for a period ending December
31, 1951.
The Valley Broadcasting Company further agrees to pay each of the
undersigned for his services in accordance with the following :
ANNOUNCERS PAY SCHEDULE (44 HOUR WEEK)
Staff announcers: Hour Week Month
Jan. 1, 1949--------------------------------- $1.35 $62.10 $269.10
July 1, 1949--------------------------------- 1.40 64.40 279.06
Jan. 1., 1950--------------------------------- 1.45 66.70 289.03
Jan. 1, 1951--------------------------------- 1.55 71.30 308.96
Chief announcer :
Jan. 1, 1949--------------------------------- $1.40 $64.40 $279.06
July 1, 1949--------------------------------- 1.45 66.70 289.03
Jan. l,'1950 --------------------------------- 1. 50 69.00 299. 00
Jan. 1, 1951--------------------------------- 1.60 73.60 318.93
The above is based upon 40 hours weekly at regular rate and 4 hours
weekly at overtime rate of time and one-half the regular rate.
This agreement may be continued beyond December 31, 1951, by mutual
agreement. Their individual participation in this agreement may be can-
celled, at any time, by any one of the undersigned upon giving Station
WSTV thirty days written notice. Station WSTV may waive this notice if
requested to do so.
The Valley Broadcasting Company may cancel any one of the undersigned's
participation in this agreement only upon showing that the individual is
rendering unsatisfactory service to Station WSTV and/or Station WSTV-
FM, with WSTV's Chief Announcer and WSTV's Personnel Director being
the deciding factors as to the service rendered.
Talent fees received by WSTV or WSTV-FM from sponsors for announcers
services, will be paid to the announcer or announcers working the program
or programs concerned. This announcers talent fee will be the full amount
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of announcers talent fee paid by the sponsor, less 10% to cover necessary
payroll expenses involved.
Station WSTV agrees to pay an annual bonus to each of the undersigned,
and the amount to be paid is to be determined solely at the discretion of the
station.
Each of the undersigned is entitled to one week's vacation annually, with
pay, after one year of service with WSTV, and two weeks' annual vacation,
with pay, after two years' service. Length of service will be the determining
factor in the choice of vacation periods.
A committee composed of one Staff Announcer, the Chief Announcer, and
WSTV's Personnel Director will meet, upon request of any one of the under-
signed to discuss any problems arising under this agreement.
Each of the undersigned agrees to devote his best efforts to his duties at
WSTV and WSTV-FM to the end that the station might be operated with
the utmost efficiency.
Witnesses :
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY,
B3-----------------------------------------
Assistant General Manager
According to the credible testimony of Teolis, at this second meeting Troesch
stated that he wanted the announcers to study the proposed contracts; that
in his estimation they were advantageous contracts for the announcers; that he
did not want, the contracts executed "until this union business blows over" ;
that, in fact, the contracts did not have to be signed because the Respondent
had determined that the terms thereof "would go into, effect the first of the
year" irrespective of their execution by the announcers.
Announcer Charles T. Donley testified credibly that at the second meeting
he told Troesch that he considered Troesch to be a "personal friend" of his and
that he would accept Troesch's "verbal terms and trust him" and therefore as
far as he was concerned the terms of the contract did not have to be reduced
to writing and that Troesch replied :
. . . that a verbal agreement-or that the second paragraph, including
the wage scale, would be posted on the bulletin board where it would be
out in the open, where everyone could see it, and let the rest of it ride
without signatures, and the Company would acknowledge that and accept
it, that he believed this contract was good. . . .
Donley testified without contradiction, and the undersigned finds, that some-
time between the first and second meeting which Troesch held with the an-
nouncers, he had a conversation with Troesch in which the following ensued:
And he (Troesch) asked me my own individual opinion of an individual
contract such as the one he had once told me about, and it concerned the
engineers.
And he went on to explain again that such a contract would call for quick
negotiation, and that he himself was very anxious to get the problem
settled, knowing at that particular time that most of us needed the new
wage scale, and as a friend, he wanted to see us get it.
As a representative of the company, he wanted to do his job by seeing
that such a thing was put into effect.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY . 1159
Again he gave the opinion in the conversation that he hoped for the
success of his venture, because by its success we could prove that our own
problems could be settled within our own family, rather than having to go
to the outside negotiator, or perhaps to go through a period of bitterness
and bickering to negotiate a contract.
And he hoped. that such a thing would come to pass as it had in former
years before I came there, that there would be a fine, genuine, free feeling
among everyone present at the station, and a feeling that could be sub-
stantiated by the fact that the men were on secure ground, knowing that they
had organization to take care of their problems, do it quickly, and he stated
that such a thing could come to pass if we all considered the contract that
he had proposed, or if we, as I had once suggested, forgot that and let it go
as a verbal contract.
On October 26, Harry Cochran, an announcer and the contact man between
AFRA and the announcers, wrote Hirsch as follows :
I have waited to write you until I was sure of the situation here, and now
I am. The boys have decided against A. F. It. A.
After you notified the company here there was a series of meetings between
the management and the men, individual and group conferences. This went
on for quite a while.
Mr. Laux, general manager, discussed the subject with only two men-
Myself and Rev. Anderson. We both told him we'd signed APRA applica-
tions and were not going to withdraw them. Meetings continued, and the
upshot was that Arim, Sanders, Higgins, Donnelly and Alban signed indi-
vidual contracts with the company.' I have signed no contract, nor do I
intend to.
The announcers get a substantial raise each 6 months for one and a half
years, vacation pay and bonus.
I don't believe any of these gains would have been made, had it not been
for threat of the union.
I do not feel that the boys have been fair with you or AFRA.
Regarding the conversations he had with Cochran and Announcer A. Robert
Anderson, referred to in the above-quoted letter, Laux first denied that he had
such a conference after the demand of AFRA, but later admitted such a conver-
sation with Cochran, adding that Anderson was not present. Laux was very
vague as to what transpired during the conversation, stating, "We simply dis-
cussed the AFRA agreement in general" adding "when I say AFRA agreement;
the broad term implies that we discussed the general union activity that appar-
ently was in progress at the moment." Under the circumstances, the under-
signed finds the statements contained in Cochran's letter to Hirsch to be substan-
tially in accord with the facts.
Regarding the effect that Troesch's statements had upon the announcers,
Donley testified credibly that the men :
. tried to take a long range look and, frankly, the majority of them
needed the money in the worst way, and I guess just like a'man would grab
at a straw when he saw himself going under, they decided to grab the straw;
taking a quick negotiation, and even if it meant separation from the former
idea of having a union, and they dropped the idea of the union, or intended
° The record clearly shows that no announcer signed any contract. This statement of
Cochran was admittedly an erro- on his part.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to drop the idea of the union because of the fear that if such a thing were
continued, it might be taken as an antagonistic move, and as it was, the
majority expressed the view that they would rather, knowing Mr. Troesch
and certainly respecting his integrity as being the finest and the best, they
would take his word for it that the negotiation would be quick and clean,
and that they would accept the money, and that perhaps in the over-all
picture they were better off.
Q. Was this conveyed to Mr. Troesch?
A. This was conveyed to Mr. Troesch.
Under date of November 17, all the announcers, except Teolis, signed and
forwarded to the Eighth Region of the Board a letter reading in part as follows :
We have read the complaint received by Mr. Joseph M. Troesch, Assistant
General Manager of Radio Station WSTV, in which charges of unfair labor
practices are made against The Valley Broadcasting Company and the
management.
In all fairness to everyone concerned, Ave do not see how these charges
can be borne out in fact.
In the first place, WSTV employees have never affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Radio Artists. Seven staff members did sign application
blanks of AFRA. We were told that in due time an election by secret
ballot would be ordered to determine whether a majority of eligible persons
would vote for or against the union affiliation.
At no time to our knowledge were there any threats made by the man-
agement. There were no efforts made to intimidate anyone.
We feel sure that if an election were conducted today, by secret ballot,
an overwhelming majority of WSTV employees eligible for AFRA member-
ship, would vote against it, not that we have any quarrel with AFRA,
but because that is our free and uninfluenced opinion.
Trusting that this will shed additional light on this matter, and will
clarify certain points of apparent misunderstanding, we are,
Sincerely,
The above letter was written and circulated by Cochran under the following
circumstances : Shortly after the receipt by the Respondent of the copy of the
charge filed by AFRA with the Board, Troesch showed the announcers the
charge, adding that "something" had to be done about it; thereupon Cochran, in
whose office Troesch had exhibited the charge to the announcers, stated that he
would write a letter to the Board advising it that the announcers were no longer
interested in AFRA ; that Troesch approved the suggestion, despite Teolis'
statement that he would not sign any such letter ; and that before any signa-
tures were obtained to it, Cochran submitted the letter to Troesch for and
received his approval.
While it is true that Cochran composed, wrote, and circulated the letter to
the Board, it is equally true that the idea of writing such a letter would not
have occurred to Cochran had it not been for Troesch's statement that "some-
thing" had to be done with respect to disposing of the charge filed by AFRA
with the Board. Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the re-
sponsibility for the letter is the Respondent's and the Respondent violated
the Act. This finding is buttressed by the fact that only about a month prior
to the date of the letter to the Board, Cochran wrote Hirsch complaining, in
effect, that the Respondent had so undermined the announcers that they were
forsaking AFRA in order to retain their jobs.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1161
B. Concluding Findings
It is evident from a mere recital of the facts in this case; as epitomized above,
that the Respondent by granti-ng the wage increase in. October and. November
1948, and on January 1, 1949, violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act
because theRespondent, at the time the increases were put into effect, was under
a duty in the circumstances of the instant case to refrain from any action which
would influence the employees to abandon the Union.
The law is well settled that an employer in ignoring a labor organization which
has been designated by a majority of his employees and dealing instead with in-
dividual employees respecting a usual subject of collective, bargaining. such as
wages, violates Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. As the Supreme Court said in Na-
tional Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, at
page' 44, the obligation imposed on an employer to treat with the designated rep=
resentative, being exclusive, "imposed the negative duty to treat with no other."
The Respondent failed to comply with this duty. Instead, it bargained with
the seven announcers individually. Obviously, the Respondent's conduct in
bargaining with others than AFRA denied the latter its status as the exclu-
sive representative of the unit for purposes of collective bargaining. "Clearly
to bargain directly with one's employees is not to bargain with their designated
exclusive representative. . .." '
The record clearly indicates, and the undersigned finds, that the granting of
the wage increases in October and November 1948, and the submission of the
individual contracts and putting into effect the terms thereof, even though the
announcers did not execute the contracts, interfered with the self-organizational
rights of the employees here involved. To permit an employer thus to influ-
ence employees as to self-organization is plainly repugnant, to the policies and
purposes of the Act. It is well settled that the employer is not! permitted to
participate in any way in the employees' organizational activities for collective
bargaining; such matters are left for decision to the employees alone and the
employer is required to exert no influence over his employees, directly or in-
directly, in their effort, to organize for purposes. of collective bargaining.' The
grant of a wage increase for the purpose of interference with self-organization
of employees, is a familiar device.`
Nor does the fact that the seven announcers here involved were not accepted
into AFRA as members detract from AFRA's status as the dull designated col-
lective bargaining representative of the employees in its appropriate unit. It is
well established that the signed applications for membership support the finding
that AFRA was the duly designated bargaining representative of these employ-
ees, particularly where, as here, there is an affirmative declaration to that
effect on the face of the signed applications, "I hereby designate the American
Federation of Radio Artists as my exclusive agent for collective bargaining
purposes. . .
The Respondent argues that at the time the January 1, 1949, wage increases
went into effect, a sufficient number of employees had allegedly withdrawn
from AFRA their authorizations so that AFRA was not then the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and hence
5 N. L. R. B. v. Highland Shoe, Inc., 119 F. 2d 218, 221 (C. A. 1).. See also N. L. R. B.
v. Acme Air Appliance Co. Inc., 117 F. 2d 417 (C. A. 2).
s N. L. R. B. v. Cleveland-Clixjs Iron Co., 133 F. 2d 295 (C. A. 6).
N. L. R. B. v. Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453; N. L. R. B. v. Fitzpatrick h Weller, Inc., 138
'F. 2d 697 (C. A. 2).
1162 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent did not violate the Act by the grant of such increases. The
alleged defections from AFRA on which the Respondent relies were induced by
the Respondent's actions in dealing directly with the employees and granting
them wage increases in October and November 1948. This action, as found
above, constituted an unfair labor practice. It is well settled that defections
from a union which have been induced by the employer's unlawful practices
"are not effective either to change the bargaining representative previously
chosen or to excuse [employers] from their duty to bargain in good faith with
that representative." 8 Therefore, the Respondent's action may not be excused
by reliance upon the Respondent's direct dealing with the employees here in-
volved on January 1, 1949, and a clear violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5)
of the Act is presented independently of the consideration previously discussed.
The above findings of fact, with nothing more, clearly indicate that the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with AFRA and has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced the employees here involved in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a)
(1) and (5) of the Act. However, on October 5, 1948, AFRA, having been freely
selected by a majority of the Respondent's announcers as their bargaining
agent, called upon the Respondent to carry out the function with which it was
charged. In a proper and orderly fashion, it requested the Respondent to bar-
gain collectively. The Respondent failed and refused to carry out its obliga-
tion under the Act. Instead the Respondent embarked upon a course of conduct
plainly designed to destroy AFRA's majority status by dealing directly with
the announcers. The Respondent's conduct thus clearly sprang from hostility
to AFRA and a rejection of the collective bargaining principle; the Respondent's
actions were wholly inconsistent with any willing to meet with or to recognize
AFRA in a spirit of amity and cooperation which is the very essence of col-
lective bargaining.
The fact that the Respondent's proposed individual contracts were not signed
by the announcers does not relieve the Respondent from the sanctions of the
Act because, instead of dealing with AFRA, the then designated exclusive repre-
sentative of the persons who were to sign the contracts, the Respondent put
into effect, and adhered to, the provisions of the proposed contracts and the
Respondent and the employees considered the terms of the contracts in effect.
The Respondent maintained at the hearing and in its brief that the contracts
simply restated existing conditions. Even if this were true, which it is not,
it would be irrelevant. Moreover, some of the employees while on the witness
stand referred to the contracts as "concrete insurance," "something that we
hadn't had before." Actually the contracts did a good deal more than put into
writing "simply existing conditions." The Respondent's records show that
the Respondent had no past program of periodic wage increase such as called
for by the contracts. Furthermore, the contracts give each announcer employ-
ment rights until December 31, 1951. The contracts also provide that all talent
fees received from the sponsors for an announcer's services will be paid to
the announcer less a certain commission paid to the station.. This provision
cleared up certain grievances that always existed between the Respondent and
its announcers.
8N. L: R. B. v. Dixie Motor Coach Corp., 128 F. 2d 201, 202 (C. A. 5) ; N. L. B. B. v.
Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318; International Assn. of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 310
U. S. 72. S
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1163
Regarding the main purpose of the proposed contracts, Troesch; in effect, ad-
mitted that they were to grant the employees certain benefits in order to induce
them to abandon AFRA. The following excerpt from Troesch's testimony on
direct examination by the Respondent's counsel clearly supports this finding:
Q. Did you promise any of your employees any benefits in order to forestall-
their union activity or any union activity at the radio station?
A. Other than the plan which we wanted to put into effect here, of putting
in writing conditions of employment that I wanted in there as part of my
policy of operation.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that on October 5,
1948, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively
with AFRA as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment, and by such refusal interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a). (1) and (5) thereof. The action of AFRA
in filing a representation petition did not absolve the Respondent from its
initial unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain with AFRA s
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce.
among the several States, and such of them as has been found to be unfair labor
practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices vio-
lative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, 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 has refused to bargain collectively with
AFRA as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit,
the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain col-
lectively with AFRA as the representative of such employees, and if an agree-
ment is reached to embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The scope-of the Respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat
self-organization among its employees. The conduct engaged in by the Re-
spondent, which is specifically violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5.) of the Act,
reflects a determination generally to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and presents a ready and effective
means of destroying self-organization among its employees. Because of the
Yespondent's unlawful conduct and since there appears to be an underlying
.. D Franks Bros. Company v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 702; N. L. R. B. v. Harris-Woodson Co.,
Inc., 162 F. 2d 97 (C. A. 4).
1164 DEC'IS'IONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attitude of opposition on the part of the Respondent to the purposes of the Act
to protect the rights of employees generally, the undersigned is convinced that
if the Respondent is not restrained from committing such conduct, the danger of
their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's
conduct in the' past, and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order,
therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the
Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist from engaging in any like or related conduct from which it is herein
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist.
On 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. American Federation of Radio Artists, affiliated with American Federation
of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All persons employed at the Respondent's Radio Station WSTV who appear
before the microphone and announce, deliver news, speak, read, recite, or per-
form sound effects, including those who play transcriptions and records, but ex-
cluding instrumental musicians, and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
3. American Federation of Radio Artists, affiliated with American Federa-
tion of Labor, was on October 4, 1948, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Act.
4. By refusing on October 5, 1948, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with AFRA as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 ,of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1).
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends The Valley Broad-
casting Company, Steubenville, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with AFRA as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all persons employed at the Respondent's Radio Station WSTV
who appear before the microphone and announce, deliver news, speak, recite,
or,'perform sound effects, including those who play transcriptions and records,
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY 1165
but excluding instrumental musicians, and all other supervisory employees with
,authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action; and
(b) Engaging in like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, or to join or assist AFRA, 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 bargain-
ing 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 AFRA as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and if an
agreement is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post at its Radio Station WSTV, in Steubenville, Ohio, copies of the
notice attached to this Intermediate Report marked Appendix •A. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall,
after being signed-by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respond-
ent, and maintained :by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous 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;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recoumended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this ,Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
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,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file ,with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a state-
ment in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or
to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all mo-
tions 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.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por-
tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed,
and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required
by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recoin-
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 4th day of May 1949.
HOWARD MYERS,
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, 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 FEDERATION OF RADio ARTISTS, affil-
iated with American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization,
to bargain 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. All our employees are free to become or
remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
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 understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All persons employed by us at Radio Station \VSTV who appear before
the microphone and announce, deliver news, speak, read, recite, or perform
sound effects, including those who play transcriptions and records; but
excluding instrumental musicians, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
THE VALLEY BROADCASTING COMPANY,
Employer.
By--------------------------------- ------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.