Atlanta Broadcasting Co.

In- the Matter' of J. W. WOODRUFF ' D/B/A' ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS (A. F.'L.) Case No. 10-C-1940.-, Decided . September 15, -1948 - DECISION AND ORDER On June 26, 1947, Trial Examiner, Sidney Lindner issued this Inter-, mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that•,the Respondent had engaged in and was'engaging 'in certain unfair labor, practices,) and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the' Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found, that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices. ' - Thereafter, the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a'supporting brief.2 The Union requested oral argument. Be- cause the-record and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion, ade- quately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the request' for oral argument is hereby denied. ' On, September 29, 1947, the• Respondent' filed with the' Board a' Petition for Dismissal, in which it alleged that the Union and its parent organization, the American Federation of Labor, had not complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended, and contended that the Union was therefore ineligible to proceed further with the case. The Union filed an answer to the petition. As the Board has previously held, the failure of a charging union to comply with the filing provisions of the Act does 1 The provisions of Section 8 (1), (3), (4 ), and (5 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, which the complaint herein alleged were violated, are continued , without any change material to this proceeding, in Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), (4), and ( 5) of the Act, as amended. by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. 2 In its brief, the Union requests that the hearing be reopened for the purpose of receiving, further testimony by Lurie, one of the employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged . In view of the fact that Lurie was present as a Board witness at the hearing;' and could have been called on rebuttal to give the testimony which the Union now seeks to adduce, there appears to be no valid reason for reopening the bearing for this purpose. The Union's request is therefore denied. 79 N. L. R. B., No. 86. 626 ATLANTA BROADCASTING, COMPANY 627 not preclude the Board from adjudicating unfair labor practice cases- such as this,. in which complaint issued before August 22,.1947; or to issue , appropriate orders therein.3 Moreover, it appearsy thatthe Unio,n,is now in compliance.. The Respondent's petition,for dismissal is therefore denied. - The ;Board 4 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner ait' the hearing and finds that no; prejudicial error was - committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 'The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the, exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of -the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent with this Decision-and Order. -1. We: agree with- the Trial Examiner that the- evidence isi inslif- ficient.to sustain the allegation of the complaint that employeesrTheo- dore Fenster- and James Lurie wire discriminatorily, discharged: Thus,.Fenster and Lurie admitted that, at the time of their discharge, Station Manager Speight said that they were being discharged for having deliberately conspired to miss a certain scheduled,newscast. At the hearing, Speight explained that they were discharged- for "re- fusal of duty." As to Fenster, the'Union concedes in its brief that he was at fault in failing to make the newscast. It contends, however, that Fenster's misconduct was not the real reason for his discharge. As to Lurie,, it contends, that there is no credible evidence to support a finding that he was guilty of any dereliction of duty. However, the issue is not whether Fenster and Lurie were actually guilty of miscon- duct, but whether Speight believed that they were, and discharged them for that reason. In view of Speight's testimony, which the Trial Examiner credited, that he had received such reports from Fincher, the engineer on duty at the time of the missed newscast; and from Minton, the chief engineer, we cannot say that Speight did not honestly believe that Fenster and Lurie had deliberately engaged in miscon- duct, or that this belief was not the motivating cause of the discharges .5 We shall therefore dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that Fenster and Lurie were discriminatorily discharged. 2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent, by refusing to reemploy Lawrence J. Mellert because he had filed charges before the 8 Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 90. 4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Gray]'. 5 Although there is evidence that other newscasts had been missed but the announcers involved had never been discharged on that account, the record reveals no other newscast that had been deliberately missed The penalty of discharge in this case, therefore, does not appear to be so unreasonable , as to impel a finding that the discharges were discriminatory. - (628- DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL` LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD Board;. engaged in unfair labor practices' within the 3 meaning.of` Section 8" (4) ' of-'the Act'.' He' therefore recoinmelyded'that' the Re''-.' .spondent offer Me11'ert. reinstatement' and- make Min whole for any' losses suffered' by reason of'the R'espondent's' discrimination against' him. In the absence of exception by the Respondent;'we ad'opt-this' finding and recommendation, and shall issue our order accordingly. We- also find that, then'esp%Ldent;;by-his.violation of Sect interfered with, restrained, and' coerced his employees in the exercise of -the rights guaranteed in Section'T of'the Act;-and thereby- violated Section 8-(1).6- ORDER. Upon the, entire) record-. in the case; ands pursuant, to Sections 10 (c) ,of'thie.National :Laboi; RelationsJAct, as amended, the National-Labor, Relations-.Board-.hereby orders that the Respondent;- J. W. Woodruff- d/b/a. Atlantat Broadcasting., Company; Atlanta, Georgia; and'- his agents, successors; and assigns; shall : 1. Cease and. desist from discharging; refusing' to. reinstate, or reemploy;. or otherwise; discriminating • against any.-employee because lie has filed charges or given testimony-'under •the'Act, or in any.'other' manner interfering with, the right. of employees to file and..prosecute' charges'and.to give testimony•underl tEiePAct. 2:, Take: the following affirmative action; . which, the Board finds, will effectuate the policies-Of the',Act% (a) r Offer. Lawrence- J. Mellert' immediate and full reinstatement to hisrformer'or;a substantially equivalent position, withoutprejudice, to,hisseniority,andiother.rights-and:privileges; - (b), Make whole Lawrence J. Mellert' for any loss, of, pay, suffered= byi reason'of the Respondent's discrimination- against-him, by payment to shim-.of asum of)money equal,to the amount which•he n'ormailTywouldl have,earned as wages from, the date -of 'the discrimination to the date of:the Respondent's=offer of reinstatement, less-his-net-earnings during said,period ; (c) Post at his-Station WATL in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of-the notice attached to.the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A-." T Copies<of'said'notice, to be, furnish'ed,by.theRegional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being-duly signed by the Respondent or his 6 The complaint alleged that the Respondent's refusal , to reemploy, Mellert also , consti- tuted a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. we agree with.the Trial Examiner .that the evidence fails to sustain this allegation, and it will therefore be dismissed. T Said notice, however , shall be, and, it hereby is, amended •by striking from. the first para- graph thereof the words , "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER," and, substituting in lieu thereof the words , "A DECISION AND ORDER" In•the event- this ,Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there .shall be. inserted,.before'-the' words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words , "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES- CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING " ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY - 629 representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days there- after, 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; (d) Notify the,Regional Director for the Tenth Region in-writing, within ten ('10)' days from the date of this Order, what steps the , Respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby. is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, except as found above, and that he violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging or refusing to reinstate Theodore D. Fenster, M. James Lurie, and Lawrence J. Mellert. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Messrs. Clifford L. Hardy and Paul Kuelthau, for the Board. Mr. John Wesley Weekes, of Decatur, Ga., for the respondent Mr. Lester Coggeshall , of New York City, N. Y., for the Union. STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on October 15, 1946, by American Federation of Radio Artists (A. F. L ), herein called the Union' the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated October 15, 1946, against J. W. Woodruff, d/b/a Atlanta Broadcasting Company, herein called the re- spondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, together with a notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance, that the respondent : (1) from on or about December 1, 1945, to date, advised, urged, threatened, and warned its employees to refrain from becoming members of the Union ; made disparaging and derogatory remarks to its employees con- cerning the Union and other labor organizations; and maligned, vilified, threat- ened, and assaulted representatives of the Union in the presence of its employees and otherwise indicated its disapproval of and opposition to the self-organization of its employees; (2) on or about January 15, 1946, discharged Theodore D. Fenster and M. James Lurie and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate either of the said employees, because of their membership in and activity in behalf of the Union; (3) on or about April 6, 1946, discharged Lawrence J. Mellert, and on or about June 15, 1946, and thereafter refused to reemploy, rehire, or rein- state Mellert for the reason that he filed or caused to be filed charges before the Board in the instant proceeding,, and for the further reason of his membership The Union is also referred to In this report as AFRA 809095-49-vol 79-41 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and activity in behalf of the Union; ( 4) on or about December 1. 1945, and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex- clusive representative of all of the employees in an appropriate unit; (5) by the foregoing conduct engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), (4 ) and (5 ) of the Act. The respondent's answer duly filed admitted the nature of its business, but denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on January 14, 15, 16, and April 17, 1947, at Atlanta ,, Georgia, before the undersigned , the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel , and the Union by a representative . All parties participated in the- hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence relevant to the issues At the conclusion of the submission of evidence by, the Board in, support of , its case-in-chief, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion was granted with respect to the allegation of the complaint that the respondent since on or about December 1, 1945, and at all- times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively. with the Union as the repre- sentative of all the employees in an appropriate unit, but was denied in all other respects. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection. Counsel for the respondent then moved to dismiss the remaining allegations of the complaint for lack of proof Decision thereon was reserved and is dis- posed of by the recommendations hereinafter made. Oral argument was waived by all of the parties Although all parties were apprised of their right to file briefs as well as proposed findings and conclusions with the undersigned, none have been received. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT J. W. Woodruff, an individual doing business under the firm name and style of Atlanta Broadcasting Company, with its main office located in Columbus,' Georgia, operates a radio broadcasting station with call letters WATL in Atlanta, Georgia, the only establishment involved in this proceeding . In the course and conduct of its business operations at Station WATL, in addition to local programs which originate in the City of Atlanta, the respondent broadcasts programs which originate in New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and various other 'points outside the State of Georgia , and programs being transmitted over long distance lines of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and connecting lines from the point of origination outside the State of Georgia to the Atlanta station. More than 10 percent of the programs broadcast by Station WATL originate outside the State of Georgia. The respondent originates programs which are transmitted from Station WATL over wires of the American Telephone and Tele- graph Company and connecting lines to member stations of the Mutual Broad- casting Company, more than 90 percent of which stations are outside the State of Georgia. The respondent causes and has continued to cause a large quantity of radio parts , recordings, and other related products used in the operation of its Atlanta station of value in excess of $5,000 annually, to be purchased and 1 ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 631 transported from and through States of the United States other than the State of Georgia to the Atlanta station The respondent concedes and the undersigned finds that it is engaged in inter- state commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Radio Artists (A. F. L.) is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES I A. Background; alleged interference, restraint and coercion On December 8, 1943, the Union and the respondent entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering the respondent's announcing staff employed at Station WATL, effective retroactive to May 28, 1943. The agreement was for 1 year and was to continue in effect from year to year thereafter unless changed or terminated in a manner set forth therein. On April 23, 1945, the Union, by letter, submitted to the respondent several proposed changes which it desired incorporated into the contract to become effective on May 28, 1945. These included a change in the basic scale of pay, the inclusion of the "standard AFRA shop" clause,' and a provision for pay- ment of fees to announcers for the origination of broadcasts to stations in addition to Station WATL.3 ,. On or about September 1, 1945, the respondent hired Stanley "Raymond, as director of news, sports, and special events for Station WAIL. Raymond's job entailed, in addition to the broadcasting of football games for the Georgia sports network, the checking of newspapers and news leads to ascertain what special events should be covered by Station WATL and the broadcasting by Raymond of such events, and the building of a complete news department under his supervision which the respondent had planned to put into-effect when Station WATL was placed into a regional operation .4 Shortly after Raymond's arrival at the station, several announcers solicited Raymond's membership in the Union. Raymond testified that when he did not join, he was asked if he had anything against the Union and replied "abso- lutely no " Questioned along this same line at a later date he stated that "in the position [he held] watching the news coining through at the particular time, and as there always is trouble with unions, one way or the other, you 2 The "standard AFRA shop" clause provides among other things that all staff an- nouncers employed at a radio station shall be members of AFRA in good standing prior to entering upon such employment, and shall remain members throughout such employment. 'The Union and the respondent held various conferences and coriesponded with each other from May 1945 through October 1946 attempting to negotiate a new contract Since as heretofore noted, the undersigned, during the course of the hearing, granted the notion of counsel for the respondent to dismiss the complaint with respect to the allegation that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union, the details of the various bargaining conferences will not be set forth in this report except as they may be con- cerned with other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Suffice it to say at this point that one of the active participants for the Union in the bargaining conferences during the year 1945 was Theodore Fenster, chief announcer for the respondent, whose alleged discriminatory discharge will be taken up more fully hereinafter 4It is noted that at the time of the hearing this changeover had not yet been put into effect 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD cannnot be pro Union or against,the Union." Under the circumstances Raymond felt that he best remain neutral , and he therefore deemed it advisable not to, join the Union. Raymond testified further that after he had been approached by the an- nouncers to join the Union, he discussed with Walter Speight, manager of Station WATL, the question of Union affiliation. Speight 'told Raymond that the decision as to whether or not he should join the Union was entirely his, ;and'that if he decided ' to join, it would have no effect on ' his employment at Station WATL. On or about October 2, 1945, Fenster and Lester Coggeshall , national repre- sentative of the Union , talked with Raymond in a lunch room located in the same building as the respondent's broadcasting station, again attempting to recruit him as a member of the Union. Later that day Coggeshall , Fenster, and James Lurie, an announcer in the respondent's employ,' conferred with -Speight. At the outset of ,the meeting Coggeshall asked that Raymond be brought in, and Lurie went out to get him. While Lurie was ,out, Coggeshall explained to Speight that the purpose of their meeting with him was to discuss Raymond When Raymond came in Speight refused to discuss the matter in Raymond's presence . Raymond left and the -meeting continued . Coggeshall testified that he asked Speight if he would as- sure Raymond -.that he ( Raymond ) wouldinot . suffer-financially or otherwise if he joined the Union . Speight answered that he'had already 'done so. Speight, ac- cording to Coggeshall, then .saidrthat the, respondent :had plans for• Raymond in the organization as a whole , which included not only.-Station WATL , but also two other radio stations , that while Raymond might fare well- at Station WATL, the other stations owned by the respondent were non-union, and a union man' could "not make out" at those stations . Coggeshall inquired why that was so, and Speight replied that you cannot make a management man out of a union man; that .he was not the owner. ,of_the company , but only the manager of. Sta- tion WATL, and since other radio stations might become associated with the respondent, it would not "work out " either with the respondent or with the other stations . At the conclusion of the meeting which continued for about 25 minutes, Coggeshall again asked Speight to assure Raymond that be would not suffer if he joined the Union . Speight answered that he could not comply with the request. Speight, testifying regarding his conversation with Raymond on whether or not the latter should affiliate with the Union , stated that he advised Raymond in substance that as a result of his experience in the radio industry and his con- versations with industry men, in some instances , particularly in the cases of newspaper-owned radio stations where news was stressed as a regular broad- casting activity, such stations had insisted for some time "that the man who processed the news not necessarily be a member of the Union ." Further, that it was the studied opinion of such stations that a news man should not be sub- servient to either management or labor and that he should have a free mind to process the news fairly and without bias. Speight testified further that he gave' Raymond this information to use as he saw fit. He categorically denied that he at any time told Raymond that his future with the respondent might be jeop- ardized if he joined the Union and explained that it was his ambition to have Raymond manage a central news bureau in Atlanta when the respondent's other Lurie is also referred to in the record and in this report as Jimmy Loring , the name he used on the radio His alleged discriminatory discharge will be discussed more fully, uereinafter. ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 633 stations were placed into a regional operation with Station WATL Speight also testified that he told Raymond that he would have to make his own decision as to joining a Union The question here is whether the above-described conduct and statements of Speight were, as alleged in the complaint, advice to Raymond not to become a member of the Union lest he jeopardize his possibilities for promotion by the respondent.' The right of an employer to appeal individually to the employees to ignore the Union's appeal for support is recognized as proper conduct under the constitutional right to freedom of speech, so long as there is no threat or coercion, hidden or apparent in the appeals. It is uncontradicted that when Speight talked with Raymond, as above indicated, Speight was merely offering his opinion in answer to Raymond's question So that it can hardly be said that he was appealing to Raymond to ignore the invitations of his fellow announcers that he (Raymond) join the Union Furthermore. It is clear from Coggeshall's testimony that at least on one occasion Speight assured Raymond that he would not suffer financially or otherwi ise if lie joined the Union. True, Speight did not comply with Coggeshall's request that he again advise Raymond he would not suffer if he joined the Union. However, it was not incumbent upon Speight to do so, and in the opinion of the undersigned the inference that Raymond's promotional possibilities would be jeopardized, does not appear to be warranted fiom such refusal. In view of all the foregoing, it is found there is no substantial evidence to support the allegation of the complaint that the respondent advised, urged, threatened, and warned its employees to refrain from becoming members of ,the Union The complaint also alleges that the respondent made disparaging and deroga- tory remarks to its employees concerning the Union and other labor organizations in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Lawrence J. Mellert, a former announcer at Station WATL,° testified that in the fall of 1945 he was talking with Speight in the latter's office about the slipshod conditions prevalent in the studios at the time. Speight mentioned that records and copy were lying around and some "spots" were scrambled up on the schedule and asked Mellert, since he was the oldest in age on the announc- ,ing staff, to talk to the other men about being more careful, figuring they might accept Mellert''s criticism. Speight, according to Mellert, then went on to say that the reason the announcers were apt to become careless was because they were Union men. Speight told Mellert that he had had a similar experience when he was an orchestra leader, that union men "hollered" a lot and were interested only in money, but often did not consider their responsibilities to their employer sufficiently to do a good job Mellert took issue with Speight on the attitudes of union men toward their jobs and Speight said he did not have any- thing against unions but that lie had had his "fill" of them. Speight went on to 6 Fenster testifying in cross-examination admitted that during the October 2, 1945, meet- ing between Speight and the Union committee, Speight said in substance that in his opinion a director of news and special events in order to portray the news to the public in a neutral manner should 'be wholly unbiased between management and labor and should not be affiliated with one or the other. and intimated that while he did snot object to -Raymond s joining the Union, the' better policy for such a'news-caster to follow was to remain neutral*., 7 The alleged discriminatory .refusal to reemploy Mellert will 'be discussed more fully hereinafter.. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relate that because of trouble,}vith union men his band ' had lost a hotel job 8 Speight concluded the conversation by stating that "it was immaterial to him whether a man, belonged to a union or not; he could get along with them or without them." Coggeshal] testified that while he was conterring with Speight on October 3, •1945. Speight stated that his relationship with the American Federation of Musicians had not always led him to believe that a union man gave his "best"; that -the fact of union membership was taken by some people to be in, lieu of turning out a good job. Coggeshall pointed out to Speight that there was a difference between AFRA and the American Federation of Musicians. Speight admitted that he talked with Mellert and Coggeshall about the Amer- ican Federation of Musicians He stated that his conversation with both men, although at different times, was practically along the same line. Speight testi- fied that he told these men that when he was a member and director of the American Federation of Musicians, there were members of that union who were not very adept at their instruments and who were not good musicians in reading music or in their tone ; that these men seemed to be constantly striving to in- crease the pay scale, whereas other union members who had attained a high degree of musicianship considered the pay scale a floor rather than a ceiling and would band themselves together in orchestras and thus obtain salaries con- siderably higher than the union pay scale. Speight expressed the hope that AFRA members would not depend on their union solely, but would by individual practice become more skillful at their jobs of announcing and production and thus obtain for themselves higher rates of pay than the scale set in the Union agreement. Speight said Mellert made few comments, but Coggeshall indicated that it was his ambition that AFRA members would always be good announcers and practice company loyalty, and would earn good incomes as a result of salary or in talent fees. The prevailing Board and Court decisions give an employer the right to criticize and even condemn the union that is trying to organize his employees. Here, Speight, in his talks with Mellert and Coggeshall, said nothing which in the opinion of the undersigned might even be interpreted as disparaging and derogatory of AFRA. Certainly he had the right to say what he thought about the American Federation of Musicians. The undersigned finds nothing in Speight's talks with Mellert and Coggeshall that is violative of the Act. In August 1946, one of a series of conferences was held at the respondent's studio to discuss the negotiation of a new union contract. John F. MacLean, a member of the Union negotiating committee,° testified that during the conference a question arose as to whether the respondent had paid its announcers for over- time prior to the advent of the Union. A Union representative present who was a WATL staff announcer said the respondent had never paid overtime before the Union obtained a contract. J. W. Woodruff, Jr., representing management, insisted that overtime had been paid to its announcers. At this point MacLean interposed and said, "Well, again, on the admission of one of your staff, overtime was not paid." Woodruff Jr. turned to MacLean and said, "Are you calling me a liar?" MacLean answered, "Mr. Woodruff, I would have no reason to call 8 Mellert's testimony regarding this incident was rather hazy. It is not clear from the record whether the Union men were in Speight's orchestra or outside union men. ° MacLean was an announcer at Station WGST, Atlanta, Georgia , which is not under the respondent's management. MacLean was on the Union's negotiating committee and in that capacity met with the respondent 's officials on several occasions during the Union 's attempts to negotiate a new contract. ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 635 you a liar. Prior to our first meeting I have never seen you before and I have no wish to call you anything at all, but, if I were going to call you a liar believe me, I should do so." Woodruff Jr., jumped to his feet and invited MacLean outside. MacLean said he was not there to engage in a brawl and the con- ference continued. Shortly thereafter, MacLean accused the respondent of not bargaining in good faith, and repeated the fact that previous to the advent of the Union the respondent's announcers had not been paid overtime nor had they been getting regular days off. Woodruff Jr., according to MacLean, became very angry and MacLean said, "Mr. Woodruff, how old are you?" Woodruff Jr.,,answered, he was 31 years old MacLean then said, "For a man of 31 you are acting like somebody about 13." Woodruff Jr., jumped up and said, "That does it." He snatched MacLean's glasses from his face, pulled hint from his chair, and again invited him outside. One of the conferees intervened and was successful in getting Woodruff Jr. seated. MacLean asked Woodruff Jr., to replace his glasses, to which the latter replied, "The hell I will," throwing the glasses into MacLean's lap. The meeting adjourned shortly thereafter. The complaint alleged that the respondent threatened and assaulted repre- sentatives and officials of the Union in the presence of its employees in violation of the Act. While under other circumstances the Board has held that the oral abuse of a union organizer, andiassaulting him in the presence of the company's employees amounts to discouragement of self-organization,10 in the instant case it must be borne in mind that the actions of Woodruff Jr., testified to by MacLean, took place during a bargaining conference. It is common knowledge that not all collective bargaining is conducted on a level of gentility and restraint. Tempers are often aroused and frequently one or both parties engage in acrimony and cast aspersions at one another's motives. The Board does not, under such circumstances, undertake to act as a monitor or censor of the conduct of either employer or employees. Thus, for example, the Board has held that an employer's unproved accusation, during a collective bargaining conference, in the presence of employees, that the union representative was corrupt, even though "ill-advised," did not constitute an unfair labor practice because it was made "during a heated argument" in the course of collective bargaining negotiations.11 It is clear from the record that the meeting above described was vigorous. That the verbal exchanges between MacLean and Woodruff Jr., developed some heat under such circumstances is not surprising. As has been pointed out, it is not uncommon for such heated arguments to develop during bargaining negotiations, and for insulting remarks to be exchanged and as we have seen, the Board has taken cognizance of this fact, and has not applied to statements made or actions -taken during a;:bargaining discussion, the same standards it would under other circumstances. Upon this state of the record the undersigned finds that the respondent did not malign or vilify the Union and that the threat to and assault on MacLean were not violative of the Act, and it will be recommended hereinafter that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. B. The alleged discriminatory discharges of Theodore Fenster and James Lurie The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Theodore D. Fenster and M. James Lurie on or about January 15, 1946, and thereafter refused and failed 30 See Matter of Bryan Manufacturing Co., 68 N. L. R. B. 197. li See `Matter of Essex Rubber Co., Inc., 50 N. L. R. B 283. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to reinstate them because of their Union memberships and activities . The re- spondent contends that Fenster and Lurie were discharged for "refusal of duty." Fenster was employed by the respondent in September 1943 , as an announcer. His duties included the broadcasting of singing and commercial programs , giving transcription credit, the broadcasting of news programs , and during the football season, the broadcasting of color and commercials at the games . During his period of employment. Fenster was appointed chief announcer , and as such, in addition to his regular announcing duties, made up the master and detailed schedules for all announcers which were posted in the announcer 's booth. 2 Fenster was secretary of the local union and as heretofore ,found, as a member of the Union committee , participated in several negotiation conferences with the respondent. James Lurie started his employment with the respondent on August 6, 1944, as an•announcer.13 Lurie became a member of the Union soon after he bean his employment. -Lurie was not particularly 'active in Union affairs, and as a matter of fact 1the meeting of October 2, 1945, described in the previous section of this report, which Lurie attended as a member of the Union committee , was the only Union activity in which Lurie took part. Fenster testified that on January 12, 1946, he started his tour of duty at 9 a. m. From that hour until about 10: 50 a.,m., he was in different parts of the studio -performing his scheduled functions. Fenster was scheduled to broadcast a news program from 11 to .11: 05 a. in. , sponsored,by the Lane 'Drug Co., the station's largest commercial account. At. about 10:50 a. in. , Fenster went to the ,men's room,' and was on his way back to the announcer 's booth ; about 2 or 3 minutes after 11 a. 'm., when he -heard ,music being broadcast instead of the news -program which was, called for on the 'schedule . Fenster stated that he Fran back to the announcer 's booth to find out why -music was on the air, rather than the news. Fenster found Lurie and Todd Barrett, another announcer, in the booth and-Barrett was spinning records -which had been substituted for the news program . Upon . Fenster's inquiry as to what happened -to the news pro- gram, be was 'told that 'no announcer appeared to make the broadcast, and since Barrett was ,scheduled- to do a musical interlude from 11: 05 to 11: 15 a. m., he immediately put his records -on the , air in 'order that there be a continuity of sound. Fenster thought it would be possible to cut the musical interlude short at 11: 10 a. in., and put the 'Lane news program on the air from 11: 10 to 11: 15 a. ,m.; ,and mentioned 'this idea to Lurie and Barrett., Lurie said there would be a -further opportunity -at'3:00 p. m., to make 'up the Lane news program by sub- stituting it for -a 5-minute sustaining newscast which was scheduled for that hour. Fenster, thereupon, went'to.see Dan Hornsby, the station's program, director. Hornsby was 'not in,and Fenster told Betty Doolittle, a traffic clerk in Hornsby's .,office, what had. happened ' and advised her of the possibilities for making up the Lane ,news program, as noted -above. %Doolittle, according to Fenster, replied that it could be easily made ;up, that there was -nothing to worry • about, that she would handle the matter, and it would be all right. Fenster then promptly forgot the'matter , and -returned to his work completing his 'scheduled assign- ments for the day. '2'The -master schedule was a resume of, the ',hours of duty and,'assignments of each announcer, and was made up for the entire week The detailed schedule set forth the individual announcer's assignmeiits during each'tour of duty 13 Lurie's duties were the same -as 'Fenster 's, hereinabove described ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 637 Lurie testified that his shift on January 12, 1046, was from 10 a. ni., to 5 p. m. At 10 a. m., Lurie broadcast a 5-minute local news program. From 10: 15 to, 10: 30 a. m., Lurie broadcast the Guy Lombardo musical interlude. At 11 a. m. Lurie went into the announcer's booth to make a station break" followed by a spot announcement . Lurie stated that Barrett was in the booth at that time ready to spin his records for the musical interlude scheduled for 11: 05 a. m. When no other announcer appeared to make the 11 a. in. newscast, Barrett started to play the records. Lurie testified further that Fenster came into the booth about 2 to 6 minutes later and asked about the newscast. Lurie stated that both he and Barrett told Fenster that they did not know why the Lane news program was not being broadcast. Fenster left the booth after Lurie suggested the possibility of substituting the missing Lane newscast for the 3 p. in. sustaining news program. Fenster returned in a little while and told Lurie and Barrett that he had talked with Doolittle, and that she indicated that the missing newscast was not of any great importance, that she would take care of it being rescheduled and that Lane would be credited with another newscast. Fenster and Lurie were off on January 13 and 14, and returned to work on Tuesday, January 15, 1946. Fenster testified that at about 10: 30 in the morn- ing Hornsby came into the announcer's booth with some transcriptions and asked Fenster for an explanation about the missed Lane newscast. Fenster gave him a brief description of what had occurred and Hornsby mentioned that the missed newscast had become a "hot potato" with the boss 36 About an hour later, Hornsby signalled Fenster out of the announcer's booth and also requested that he have Lurie join them. The three of them went, into an adjacent studio where Hornsby gave them each a pay check, which had written across its face, "two weeks pay," and remarked that Hornsby hoped the men would understand that it was none of his doing, that he hated to dis- charge them and that this was being done on Speight's orders. Fenster and Lurie immediately proceeded to Speight's office and Fenster asked him to explain the meaning of the discharges. Speight, according to Fenster, said they were discharged for having deliberately conspired to miss the news- cast the previous Saturday Fenster and Lurie remonstrated with Speight pointing out to him among other'things that it was a ridiculous accusation; that announcers did not do "that kind of thing." Lurie further stated that he had never been reprimanded by any of the respondent's officials but was looked upon as a thoroughly reliable employee, to which Speight answered, according to Lurie, "We are not concerned with your errors." Speight told the men that he would let them know through Hornsby if he changed his mind. Within several, minutes after they left Speight's office, Hornsby told them there would be no change in the decision but if they chose they could complete the day's work. Fenster left in a few hours, and Lurie completed his shift. Neither Fenster nor Lurie have been employed by the respondent since January 15, 1946. Speight testified that on January 12, 1946, he was out of the city, and upon his return to Atlanta from Washington, D. C., on January 14, the station's book- keeper reported to. him that it had not fulfilled its contractual obligation with regard to the 11 a. in Lane newscast for January 12, 1946. Speight stated that he then investigated the matter by talking with Hornsby, Doolittle, Henry Fincher, 14 A station break'is a station identification-Station WATL, Atlanta. 1 Walter P Speight, Jr, was the respondent' s manager of Station WATL. 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the engineer on duty at the studio on January 12, 1946, and Robert Minton, the respondent's then chief engineer. Speight stated that Fincher reported to him that Fenster and Loring were in the control room' prior to 11 a in , during the period 11: 00 to 11: 05 a. m., and after 11: 05 a in. That when it became obvious to Fincher that no announcer had any news script in front of him to read during the scheduled 11 a in. newscast, he rushed into the control room where Lurie 'and, Fenster were and'asked who was going to do the newscast Fincher told Speight that Fenster shrugged his shoulders and gave no aniswer ; Lurie said, "Let the big shot news announcer do it.16 Speight testified further that Doolittle told him that Fenster notified her a-few. minutes after 11 a m , that the Lane newscast was missed He denied that she told him that she told Fenster that the matter was not important ; that she would attend to it; and that after Fenster suggested that it be substituted for the 3 p. M. sustaining newscast, that she would also attend to that. Minton, according to Speight, stated he bad heard about the missed newscast, that he was not in the studio when it happened but had talked to Fincher about it; that he had examined the schedules and that, in his opinion, it ivas a'deliberate' conspiracy on the parts of Fenster and Lurie.17 Speight also testified that it was the duty of announcers not only to follow the regular posted schedules, but also to check on each other to see that each program and each commercial announcement went on the air as scheduled. It is clear from the record that announcers substituted for one another in an emergency situation, or in cases where the original scheduled announcer knew beforehand he would not be present to make a broadcast and arranged for another announcer to make it. Fenster testified that when he left the studio to go to the men's room shortly before 11 a in. on January 12, 1946, lie was aware of the fact that no other an- nouncer was scheduled to take his place on the Lane newscast, but that he expected Raymond to make it foi the reason that it had become a common practice for Raymond to do the 11 a. in. newscast every morning during the week except Saturdays la The record reveals that from December 8, 1945, to the (late of their discharges either Fenster or Lurie made the Saturday 11 a m. Lane newscast. Although it was Fenster's usual practice to watch the ticker for an hour or more before he went on the air with a newscast, in order to separate the news 16 It is apparent from the context that the big shot news announcer" referred to a as Stan Raymond, director of news and special events. At the time of the hearing in January 1947, Fincher was very sick and according to his attending physician was unable to testify or make a deposition. In order to enable the respondent to adduce Pincher's testimony, the hearing was continued for 1 month. A second continuance was granted for another month because of Fincher 's continued serious illness By consent of all of the parties the undersigned again ordered the hearing continued until April 17, 1947. Fincher died about a week before the hearing was resumed on the latter date 14 Minton testifying regarding his version of his conversation with Speight as a rebuttal witness for the Board first stated that Speight requested him to investigate the incident after the men had been discharged By his own admission he was slightly confused as to this date and on cross-examination admitted that he was not positive of the day of the week when he made the investigation. He testified further that he reported to Speight that Fincher said that the missed newscast was inexcusable and that Pincher thought that either Fenster or Lurie could have made the newscast . He denied that he told Speight the newscast was' missed deliberately . The undersigned credits Speight 's version of his conversation with Minton. 11 Raymond was in the studio on January 12, 1946, but was in his office located a little distance from the announcer's booth Raymond did not learn of the missed Lane"newscast until January 14. ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 639 items, put them in various categories and edit them, Fenster admitted that on January 12, 1946, he did not edit any news between 10 a. in. to 11 a in. in order to prepare for the Lane newscast. It should be noted that the news ticker service gives several 5-minute news summaries during the course of a morning, so that it is possible in an emergency situation or where an announcer has not edited and news for his 5-minute broad- cast, for the announcer to take the summary from the ticker and merely read it. Undoubtedly Lurie, an experienced announcer, could have resorted to the use of a news ticker summary to enable him to make the broadcast when he saw that Fenster was not there to make it.19 In this regard, it is noted that al- though Lurie was present throughout the hearing herein, he was not called as a witness by the Board in rebuttal to deny that he told Fincher, "Let the big shot announcer do it," when the latter inquired who was to do the Lane newscast. In assessing the respondent's motive in discharging Fenster and Lurie, the undersigned has considered in context with the entire record of the case the testimony adduced by counsel for the Board that other broadcasts had been missed on occasion and that announcers involved were not usually discharged for such infractions. Such testimony does serve to cast some doubt upon the bona fides of the respondent's motive. But on the basis of all the evidence, the undersigned considers it insufficient to support a rejection of the respondent's defense that Fenster and Lurie were discharged far "refusal of duty " Upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that the Board has not sustained the burden of establishing the allegations of the complaint that Fenster and Lurie were discriminatorily discharged, C. The disc,ini,inatoy refusal to reemploy Lawrence J. Mellert Lawieiee J Mellert started his ernploynrent with the respondent in January 1944, as an announcer \Iellert's announcing duties were confined for the most part to "platter jockey" work and acting as the station's "good morning man " `° Tn the latter part of March 1946, the respondent was notified by Zenas Sears, the station's "good morning man" prior to his induction into the armed services, that he was to be released from the Army and would return to his former position At or about the same time Ray McKay, a former announcer, notified the respondent of his impending discharge from the Army and of his desire to return to his former job. Speight testified that faced with the return of Sears and McKay he inquired of his key employees which announcer should be dropped to make place for the returning veterans and was told that Mellert was the least valuable to the sta- tion. Speight then called a conference with Tom Maxwell, president of the local union, and Bob Corley, AFRA shop steward at Station WATL, and ex- 10 Barrett, who was in the announcer's booth with Lurie at 11 a m , was an announcer for only 2 months with Station WATL on the occasion of the missed Lane newscast Speight's uncontiadicted testimony which the undersigned credits, is that Barrett was still learning the announcer's job in January 1946, by observing the more experienced announcers Furthermore, on Saturday mornings Barrett worked as much as possible in the preparation and broadcasting of a scholarship contest program which was scheduled for 11 30 a. m. 20 A "platter jockey" in radio parlance is an announcer who does little else but play request records , interspersed with "chatter" and commercial spot announcements. These shows usually run during the early morning hours and for that reason the announcer is also'referred to as the "good morning man " '640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plained to them that it was the consensus of opinion among his key people that Mellert was the least valuable to the station of the three announcers who did not have returning veteran's rights and that the respondent therefore found it necessary to terminate him to make place for the returning veterans." On April 6, 1946, Speight notified Mellert that Sears was returning to the "good -morning man" spot and that Mellert's services were to be terminated as of April 26, 1946. Mellert continued his duties until the latter date.' Mellert testified that in June 1946 he obtained information from one of the respondent's employees, that a vacancy, existed in an announcer's position at the station. The following day Mellert applied to Speight for the job." Speight, according to Mellert, said that he could not rehire him. Speight stated that he had acted in good faith when the respondent found it necessary to release Mellert in April and had given him and his Union representatives the reasons therefor; that tinder the existing conditions it would be against the policy of the station to reemploy him Speight continued, "Well, you went out and hired yourself a lawyer and brought suit against me and the station with the NLRB, claiming something regarding Union activities . . . there is another case, also, in Columbus where you claim something regarding illegal remuneration," 2; and repeated that Mellert had not acted in good faith with him and he could not therefore be reemployed. Speight admitted reading Styles' letter of May 8, 1946 Although Speight testified that lie refused to .reemploy Mellert because lie was then a party to a pending suit brought against the respondent in the State Court at Columbus, Georgia, he did not specifically deny that the charge filed with, the Board in, Mellert's behalf played any part in his refusal to reemploy him. Speight testi- tying regarding his version of the conversation with Mellert, stated that he told Mellert in effect that because of the claini for compensation that had been filed against the respondent, he would not be able to perform enthusiastic work on the air and thus he would be of little or no value in making commercial announce- ments or selling goods for the station's clients It is significant that in April 1946, when Mellert was terminated to make room for returning veterans, the respondent was of the opinion that his voice was not suitable for straight an- 21Maxwell , in, this conference, made an effort to have the respondent retain all of its :announcers including the returning veterans It was pointed out to him, however, that .the station 's requirements did not call for that number of announcers and Maxwell did not press the point further. 22 Some evidence was introduced by counsel for the Board to show that Mellert was the senior employee over Walters and Barrett , who were retained by the respondent after Mellert's termination The respondent also introduced evidence to show that Melleit's voice was objectionable for straight announcing work and that he had a nervous tempera- ment which resulted in bad timing of programs and an occasional missed program. Although the undersigned has considered this evidence , it is noted that the complaint does not allege that Melleit's discharge in April 1946 was discriminatory . The undersigned is not called upon and therefore will not make a finding in this regard. 22 The record is not clear, as to the exact date in June 1946 when Mellert applied for reemployment. The complaint alleges the date as on or about June 15, 1946 24,The record indicates that Mellert instituted a civil action against the respondent in the State Courts of , Columbus, Georgia , for wages due him ; and subsequent to April 6, 1946, Mellert authorized the Union to file a charge with the Board alleging that he was discriminatorily discharged Under date of May _ 8, 1946, Paul L. Styles, Regional. Director for the Board in the tenth Region, advised the respondent by letter of the fact that, the, Union had filed a charge, with ithe Board, alleging among other things, that Mellent's'emplol'ment was terminated because of his Union membership and activities, and, chat the said, charge had been assigned to a,,Field Examiner for investigation. ATLANTA 13FtOADCAStIN0 COMPANY 641- nouncing, yet no mention of this was made by Speight when he refused to re- employ Mellert, and, the entire conversation centered around the legal actions that D'4ellert brought against the respondent. The undersigned does not credit Speight's testimony in this regard and finds that the statements attributed to Speight were made substantially as testified to by Mellert. Under the circum- stances herein found, the undersigned is convinced and finds that in its refusal to reemploy Mellert in June 1946, the respondent was motivated at least in part by the fact that Mellert caused to be filed charges of unfair labor practices by the respondent before the Board, and that the respondent thereby violated Section 8'(4) of the Act." I The complaint also alleges that in its i•efusal.to employ Mellert on or about June 15, '1946, the respondent did so because of Mellert' s membership in and activities in behalf of the Union. in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Mellert was a Union member and with the exception of the one conversation with Speight, referred to hereinabove, when Mellert defended the attitudes of union men to- ward their jobs, the record is barren of other evidence that Mellert was active- in behalf of the Union. While there is no dispute that the respondent had knowledge of Mellert's membership in the Union. the undersigned is convinced that this did not influence the respondent. but that the refusal to reemploy Mellert, as hereinabove found, was for the reason that he filed or caused to be filed charges of unfair labor practices by the respondent before the Board. Upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes and finds that the Board has not sustained the burden of estabhshins:'the allegations of the complaint that Mellert was disci'iminatorily iefuse(l einphi^nieiit because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union. 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 then) as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY It has been found that on or about June 15. 1946, the respondent discrimina- torily refused to reemploy Lawrence J Mellert because he had filed charges under the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (4) of the Act. Because of the, respondent's unlawful conduct in this respect, the undersigned is persuaded that, unless enjoined, danger of the commission by the respondent in the future of like and related unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respond- ent's, conduct in the past In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will therefore be recommended that respondent be ordered to cease and desist from discharging, refusing to reinstate or reemploy, or otherwise discriminating against any employee because he has filed chaiges or given testimony under the Act, or in any other manner interfering with,the rights of employees to file and prosecute charges and to give testimony under the Act . ^ N. L. R. B. v. Aluminium -Products Co, 120 F' (2d)'567 '(C: C,. A:" 7) enforcing as modified 7 N L R B. 1219. See also Matter of Kramer et al, 29 N L R. B. 921. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It will also be recommended that the respondent offer Mellert immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position u -without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the respondent make Mellert whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date reinstatement is offered to him, less his net earnings 2, during said period. Having found no violation of the Act with respect to the alleged independent violations of Section 8 (1) or with respect to the discharges of Theodore Fenster and James Lurie, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Further, since no violation of the Act has been found with respect to-the allegation of the complaint that Mellert was discrim- inatorily refused reemployment because of his Union membership and activities, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegation. 'Upon the basis of the above 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 (A. F. L) is a labor organisation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By refusing to reemploy Lawrence J Mellert for the reason that he filed or caused to be filed charges before the Board, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- mence, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Other than by the refusal to reinstate or reemploy Lawrence J Mellert, the respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, and has not violated Section 8 (3) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the respondent , J `V woodruff d/b/a Atlanta Broad- casting Company , his agents, successors and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from discharging , refusing to reinstate or reemploy, or otherwise discriminating against any employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act, or in any other manner interfering with the right of employees to file and prosecute charges and to give testimony under the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Lawrence J. Mellert, immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position :8 without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Lawrence J. Mellert for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the 2° In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher- ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827. - Tl See Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. It. B. 440, 497-498. 23 See footnote 26, supra. ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY 643 .respondent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 29 during such period ; (c) Post at its Station WATL in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), shall, after having been signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and shall be maintained, by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, taking reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (d) File with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (includ- ing rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file .a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203 39, 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. SIDNEY LINDNER, Trial Exammer. Dated June 26, 1947. 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 Melations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge, refuse to reinstate or reemploy, or otherwise dis- criminate against any of our employees because he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act. 29 See footnote 27, supra. 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other-manner interfere with-the right of our employees to file and prosecute charges and to give testimony under the \ational Labor Relations Act. WE WILL oFFER'to the employee named below immediate and, full reinstate- ment to •his former or substantially equivalent-position without prejudice to any seniority or other'rights and privileges previously.enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss, of pay suffered as a result of the-discrimination. Lawrence J. Mellert J. •W )WOODRUFF `D/R/A ATLANTA BROADCASTING COMPANY Employer. Dated ---------- ------------------ By ------------------------------------ (Representative ) ( Title) This notice-must remain posted:for:60.days from the date, hereof- and, must not be'altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.