WLAC-TV, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1971

187 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
21st Century Productions of Nashville , an Operating
Division of WLAC-TV, Inc., and International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Mov-
ing Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, Local No. 46, Petitioner. Case
26-RC-3838
January 11, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Hutton S. Brandon
of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 26, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for
decision. The Employer and the Petitioner have filed
briefs, which have been duly considered.
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.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of Employer.'
3. No question of representation exists within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act for the reasons set forth below:
The Petitioner seeks to represent all studio, stage-
handlers, carpenters, painters, and other craftsmen
used in the construction of sets and scenery for
television productions of the Employer.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that the
petition herein should be dismissed because the unit
petitioned for has not been in existence since July
1970, and the Employer has no commitments which
would enable it to resume work within the unit.
The Petitioner contends that an election should be
directed as the unit employees have a reasonable
expectancy of recall. The Petitioner also contends that
the Employer's letter of June 4, 1970, amounts to
' The Middle Tennessee District Council of Carpenters , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called Carpenters , was allowed to intervene at the hearing on the basis of
recognition of the Petitioner as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent for employees in the unit. It seeks the
election for certification purposes.
The Employer is a corporation with an office and
place of business in Nashville, Tennessee, where it is
engaged in the operation of a public television station.
21st Century Productions of Nashville is an operating
service of the Employer which serves as a production
house for the production of television programs and
commercials for use by the Employer or other parties.
Youngstreet Productions, the producer of the T.V.
show "Hee Haw," contracted with the Employer to
use the latter's facilities for the production of "Hee
Haw." As the producer did not have any prepared sets
for the show, it depended upon the Employer to have
the sets built. Initially, the Employer contracted with
M.O. Flatt, an independent contractor, who used his
own employees to build the production sets. Flatt's
employees were represented by the Carpenters. This
arrangement was in effect during November and
December 1969, but at the end of December the
Employer itself assumed the construction of the "Hee
Haw" sets, employing individuals referred to it by the
Petitioner from December 1969 to July 10, 1970, when
the job was completed and these employees were
terminated.
In obtaining the services of the Petitioner as a labor
source, the Employer agreed to pay union wages and
to pay a specified sum to the Petitioner's trust fund for
insurance purposes whenever it used individuals
referred for employment by the Petitioner.
The Employer never requested particular employees
by name, but requested individuals who could
perform specified functions. The number and com-
position of the group of employees who worked on the
set varied from day to day. These employees worked
for other employers as well as for the Employer
herein.
In June 1970, the Employer was requested by the
Petitioner, who was engaged in a dispute with the
Intervenor concerning the assignment of the work on
the "Hee Haw" sets, to write a letter in which the
various items agreed upon by the parties would be
reduced to writing. On June 4, 1970, the Employer
wrote such a letter. Said letter contained the statement
that the Employer would, from time to time , employ
members of the Petitioner on a per fob basis as its
business judgment and discretion dictated. However,
the letter also stated: "inasmuch as all employment
has been and will be on a `per job' or `per-production'
basis, it may be that persons other than members of
IATSE Local No. 46 will be used for future segments
of the `Hee Haw Series' or for any other particular
its claim that it represented employees who at one time performed the work
done by the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner
187 NLRB No. 114
21ST CENTURY PRODUCTIONS 807
related or unrelated production." The letter also
contained the agreed-upon wage scale applicable to
employees referred by the Petitioner, and set forth the
formula for payments into the Petitioner's insurance
trust fund. In these circumstances, we do not view the
Employer's letter, which merely recites the conditions
under which it agrees to employ individuals referred
to it by the Petitioner, as having accorded the
Petitioner representative status with respect to the
unit in question or as establishing any relationship of
a permanent nature. In any event, it would seem to
have no relevance to the appropriateness of conduct-
ing an election at the present time.
We find no evidence that there presently exists a
unit, such as the Petitioner seeks to represent, into
which employees have any reasonable expectancy of
recall. It is clear that, from the outset, the Employer
made it known to the Petitioner that it would employ
individuals referred by the latter to construct sets for
the "Hee Haw" show on a per job basis and only on
such occasions as the Employer saw fit. As anticipat-
ed, all unit employees were terminated when the job
was completed on July 10, 1970, and have not been
recalled. Further, the Employer asserts that it does not
know whether the "Hee Haw" series will be contin-
ued, or, if it is, whether the Employer will continue to
build production sets for that show. In this respect,
the Employer avers that it has not engaged in any
negotiations regarding future work on the "Hee Haw"
series.
Moreover, the record discloses only two other
occasions on which the Employer used individuals
represented by the Petitioner to construct sets: a 3- to
4-day period in August 1969 in connection with the
production of the "Boots Randolph" show, and I day
in 1966, preparing for an election day show.
Based on the foregoing, we find that there are no
employees presently employed in the requested unit
and that there is no likelihood that there will be any
employees employed in the requested unit in the
foreseeable future. In these circumstances, we find no
basis for directing an election in this case. According-
ly, we shall dismiss the petition filed herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.