WTOP, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 758 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gain jointly for, the units found appropriate has found joint petitions
proper.3 We shall deny the motion to dismiss. The names of the Pe-
titioners will appear jointly on the ballot, and, if they are successful
in the election hereinafter directed, they will be certified jointly as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate' units.
The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for
such employees as separate units.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Swift and Company, 114 NLRB 159 ; J. J. Moreau S Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999 ; Sou.oco
Products Company, 107 NLRB 82.
WTOP, Inc. and Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers & Tech-
nicians, Local No. 1215 , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, Case No. 5-RC,-1754. March 9,
1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1955, the Board issued a Decision and Order,'
finding that assistant directors who comprise a majority of the re-
quested .unit of assistant, directors and floor directors are supervisors,
and dismissing the petition. Thereafter, on December 9, 1955, the
Petitioner filed with the Board a motion for rehearing en bane. The
Employer filed a brief in opposition to the Petitioner's motion, and
the Petitioner submitted a memorandum in answer to the Employer's
opposition.
In its motion the Petitioner requests, first, that the board en bane
reconsider its determination that assistant directors are supervisors
because of the fundamental character and far-reaching consequences
of such a determination of supervisory status. The original decision
in this case was made by a quorum of the Board, with 3 of the 4 mem-
bers who then composed the Board participating. At that time the
question of the supervisory status of assistant directors was fully
examined and the matters raised by the Petitioner's first request were
thoroughly considered. No basis appears for a reconsideration of
the supervisory issue by all five present members of the Board. The
request for reconsideration en bane is denied. Similarly, a majority
of the members who participated in the original decision (Chairman
Leedom and Member Rodgers) find no basis for granting the request
for reconsideration of the merits of that decision and hereby deny it.
The Petitioner asks, alternatively, for a unit of floor directors,
should the Board adhere to its former determination that assistant
directors are supervisors. The floor directors, like the assistant di-
1114 NLRB 1236.
115 NLRB No. 117.
WTOP, INC. 759
rectors, are participants in a training program for the supervisory
position of director. The training program is described in detail in
the original decision as are the duties of the floor directors. Recruit-
ment for the program is largely of young men from colleges and uni-
versities, drama schools, and little theater groups-those who have
had some experience in visual presentation. The training period
covers 21/2 years' time. During the first 12 months the trainee bears
the title of floor director and performs duties which give him a knowl-
edge of the basic groundwork of a show and the relation of the con-
trol room to the activities on the floor. Then, the trainee, if he has
proven his adaptability to the medium of television, begins the second
stage of training under the title of assistant director. It is these
assistant directors that the Board has found to have supervisory duties
and responsibilities. After the trainee completes 6 months at this
second stage, he is either hired by the Employer as a director, or the
Employer helps him to find a like position elsewhere. He does not
continue with the Employer with less than a director's position.
It thus appears that the Employer hires floor directors with special
background experience for the purpose of training them to become
supervisors. After only 12 months' service, during which time they
are engaged exclusively in learning the duties and responsibilities of
the supervisory position of director for which they are being prepared,
the floor directors enter the second stage of their training and there-
upon become supervisors. In view of the particular facts of this case,
including the planned supervisory training program covering a defi-
nite period of time, the selectiveness exercised by the Employer in the
acceptance of applicants for this program, and the fact that trainees
do not continue with the Employer after completion of the training
program unless retained as a supervisor, we find that these floor di-
rectors have the interest of supervisors and stand in the position of
such under the Act. We therefore find that the floor directors, par-
ticipating in a training program designed to prepare them to assume
the responsibilities and duties of supervisors, are not employees within
the meaning of the Act. It follows that a unit of these floor directors
is inappropriate.' Accordingly, the Petitioner's alternative request is
denied.
[The Board denied the motion.]
MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
For the detailed reasons which I expressed in my dissent to the orig-
inal Decision in this case,' I do not believe that the assistant directors
2 Members Murdock and Bean, who did not participate in the original decision, join in
this decision only to the extent that it denies the request for an en bane reconsideration'
of the merits of the original decision and that it denies the alternative request for a sepa-
rate unit of floor directors.
3 See footnote 1, supra.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and I would, of course,
grant the Petitioner's request for Board reconsideration of this issue.
As the floor directors are merely trainees who receive instructions
with respect to their duties from the assistant directors, a fortiori, I
would not find them to be supervisors.
However, even if I accepted the view of my majority colleagues as
to the supervisory status of the assistant directors, an examination of
the nature of the duties of the floor directors and a consideration of
their rather remote possibilities of becoming directors prevents me
from agreeing with my colleagues that "floor directors have the inter-
est of supervisors and stand in the position of such under the Act."
Thus, the record clearly discloses that the floor directors perform two
principal functions both of which are strictly routine and nondiscre-
tionary in character. First, they sweep the studio floor and physically
move the sets, furniture, and property of a particular television show
to their proper places on the floor. In many television studios such
work is done by porters. Secondly, they also cue performers while a
show is on the air, which merely consists of relaying the specific in-
structions of the directors to the performers.
Moreover, excluding the 8 assistant directors and floor directors
presently employed, there have been 27 employees who have occupied
these positions and only 6 of them have been retained by the Em-
ployer (5 as directors and 1 as program director). In my opinion,
where, as here, an employee has about a 1 is 5 chance that he may be-
come a supervisor, it can hardly be said that his interests are allied
with management. It has been pointed out that an employee's pros-
pects for promotion are among the conditions of employment which
the Act is designed to protect A and I am not apprised of any persua-
sive reason for denying him present protection merely because he
could conceivably advance to a position in which lie would not be en-
titled to such protection.'
In view of the foregoing, I would at least grant the Petitioner's
alternative request for a unit of floor dire(. ,ors and would direct an
election therein.
"N. L. if. B. v. Bell Aircraft Corporation, 20611'. 2d 235, 237 (C. A. 2).
s See The Peal Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRE 827, 829.
Paul M. O'Neill International Detective Agency , Inc.' and New
Jersey Guards ' Union , Local 100, International Guards Union
of America, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-7785. March 12, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
115 NLRB No. 119.