Trendle-Campbell Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 1240 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TRENDLE-CAMPBELL BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
EMPLOYER and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING ENGINEERS
AND TECHNICIANS, DETROIT CHAPTER, PETITIONER
Case No. 7-RC-509
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 3, 1949
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 dated July 1,
1949, an election by secret ballot was held on July 19, 1949, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found
appropriate. At the close of the election the parties were furnished
a Tally of Ballots which showed that 11 ballots were cast. Of these,
3 were for the Petitioner and 8 were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director investigated the chal-
lenges, and, on September 20, 1949, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on.Challenged Ballots. The Regional Director
recommended that the challenges by the Petitioner to five ballots 2 and
the challenges by the Employer to the other three ballots 3 be sus-
tained. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's recommendation as to the Petitioner's challenges, but no
exceptions have been filed with respect to the recommendation as to
the other three ballots.
Four of the five employees challenged by the Petitioner are regular
staff announcers, and the fifth, Robert Reynolds, is the public rela-
tions and sports director of the Employer's radio station.4 The Em-
1 Unpublished.
2 Cast by employees Robert C. King , Donald Meyer, Robert Miller , Robert Reynolds, and
Thoren W. Shreve.
3 Cast by former employees Leonard Dutton, Eugene Greenwood , and Thomas Paldan.
* Reynolds is not under the supervision of the program director as are the other
announcers ; he reports directly to the station manager . However, he occasionally relieves
regular staff announcers, and the Employer states that Reynolds can be assigned to studio
announcing when it is deemed advisable . For the purpose of determining the validity of
the Petitioner's challenges , therefore, Reynolds is in the same category as the other four
announcers.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 134.
1240
TRENDLE-CAMPBELL BROADCASTING CORPORATION 1241
ployer contends that these five employees are eligible to vote in the
election because they are "technicians" within the meaning of the unit
description in our Decision. In support of this contention, the
Employer points out that, after the hearing in this case and a few days
before our Decision issued, it changed its method of operation. This
change consisted of locating at the transmitter 5 all engineers, some
of whom had theretofore been assigned to the studio. Before this
change, the engineers at the studio had operated the turn table equip-
ment in the control room ; this work is now performed by members of
the announcing staff.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention. The employees in
question are announcers; they are not engineers, and they are not
technicians as that term was used in our appropriate unit finding.
The fact that these employees have taken over some of the studio work
formerly done by the studio engineers, work that is purely incidental
to their principal job of announcing, does not make them a part of the
engineering and technical unit. Accordingly, we sustain the Peti-
tioner's challenges to these five ballots.s
The three ballots challenged by the Employer were cast by former
engineers who were discharged before the election as a result of the
change in the Employer's method of operation. As no exceptions
have been filed to the Regional Director's recommendation that the
challenges to these ballots be sustained, we hereby adopt the recom-
mendation.
As the petitioner has secured a majority of the valid ballots cast
in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the bargaining rep-
resentative in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT Is IIEREBY CERTIFIED that National Association of Broadcasting
Engineers and Technicians, Detroit Chapter, has been designated and
selected by a majority of all radio engineers and technicians who op-
erate those facilities of the engineering department of the Employer
G The transmitter is several miles away from the studio.
IThe Petitioner 's challenges are supported by the Detroit Local of the American Federa-
tion of Radio Artists, herein referred to as AFRA, in a petition to intervene in this case.
AFRA has been certified as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
announcers . In its petition for intervention , AFRA states that doubt has arisen as to
union jurisdiction over announcers who now perform some technical duties in the studio,
and that because of this uncertainty it has been unable to bargain collectively with the
Employer. In its supporting brief, AFRA argues in support of sustaining the Petitioner's
challenges to the five ballots referred to above. As we have indicated herein, the announcers
for whom AFRA was certified are not part of the unit in this case , and we have sustained
the Petitioner' s challenges to the five ballots in question . Since, in view of this decision,
it appears that AFRA has no further interest in the present proceeding , its petition to
intervene is hereby denied.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
used in transmitting, converting and/or conducting radio, FM, video;
and/or radio frequencies for use in broadcast, rebroadcast, audition,
rehearsal, recording and/or "on the air" playback, at its radio station
WTAC, Flint, Michigan, excluding all other employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization' is the' exclusive representative of, all such
employees for the purposes .of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.