Central Florida Broadcasting Co.

CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY 473 conclude that the Intervenor has a sufficient interest to be permitted to intervene in this proceeding, and to be placed on the ballot .5 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] S Cf. International Harvester Company, Tractor Works, 89 NLRB 212. CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY and CONGRESS OF INDUS- TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1107. May 15, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Morgan C. Stanford, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' I No motion to dismiss the petition was made and no other motions made at the hearing were referred to the Boaid However, on January 22, 1951 , after the hearing, the Employer filed a motion with the Board requesting a rehearing , and asking that this proceeding be stayed for 30 days to allow it to file a brief, and that oral argument be held before the Board The Employer principally urges in support of its motion that its interest has been materially prejudiced because the hearing officer , at the outset of the second day of the hearing, improperly excluded Will O. Murrell, "the principal witness and representative," of the Employer . The request for oral argument and a stay of the proceedings is hereby denied , as we find that the transcript of the hearing and the Employer's motion papers adequately present the issues. Mr. Murrell , an attorney , is one of the owners of Station WORZ , the Employer's sole radio station He is also its secretary-treasurer . On the first day of the hearing, held some 6 days before the second or adjournment date of the hearing, he and Theo Hamilton, also an attorney , entered appearances on behalf of the Employer . Murrell participated on that day , both as a witness and otherwise , in the hearing The hearing officer excluded Murrell , however, from the second day of hearing because of a scuffle which had occurred in the hearing room just before the hearing opened , wherein Murrell had attempted to wrest from the possession of the Petitioner's representative a box of post cards directed to Station WORZ from listeners to its programs , which Murrell asserted were improperly in such representative 's possession . Twelve of these cards were later offered in evidence by the Petitioner. We find that the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in thus excluding Murrell from the hearing We further approve the hearing officer's ruling refusing the Employer 's request for an order directing the Petitioner 's representative to return the cards to the Employer , for the reason that the hearing officer was without authority to make such an order. Although some of these cards were thereafter admitted in evidence , the Employer as not in any manner prejudiced thereby , because the Board has found it unnecessary to consider any of these cards in determining whether or not to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. We further find no merit in the Employer's contention that by Murrell's exclusion the Employer was deprived of opportunity for producing further testimony on material issues. The only issues raised relate to the assertion of jurisdiction over the Employer and the exclusion of certain persons, alleged to be supervisors , from the unit . As to the first of these, Murrell' s testimony on the first day of hearing , apart from and without consider- ing the post cards submitted by the Petitioner, affords ample basis as hereinafter found, to justify the Board's assertion of jurisdiction . As to the second of these issues , Murrell, in testimony on the first day of hearing, stated the Employer's position as to which employees it contended were supervisors , and said specifically that he was not the only officer of the Company familiar with these matters. Despite this assertion by Murrell, Hamilton , an expeilenced counsel who was not excluded from the hearing , elected not to remain but also withdrew at the time of Murrell's exclusion In view of all the foregoing, the Employer's motion is denied. 94 NLRB No. 79. 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer operates Station WORZ , an NBC affiliate, at Or- lando, Florida, under a Federal Communications Commission license. The station operates from 5 a. m. each day to 1 a. m. the following day. In a 6-day week, an average of 433/4 hours is spent broadcasting NBC programs which originate outside the State of Florida. Twenty-five percent of the station 's total revenue during the same period was received from advertisers obtained by Weede and Company of New York City. Eight percent of the station 's gross revenue is annually paid to ASCAP in Atlanta , Georgia, as royalties. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is engaged in interstate com- merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction 2 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of announcer-technicians, announcers, continuity writers, operators and/or engineers , excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the Petitioner's view the unit description comprises eight employees classi- fied by the Employer as follows : One continuity writer, two an- nouncers, one combination announcer -operator, three full-time op- erators, and one part-time or occasional operator . The Employer would also include an additional announcer , Walter Sickles. The Petitioner contends that Sickles, although he does some announcing, is in fact program director and should be excluded as a supervisor. The Employer also contends that two of the three full-time operators, Stonitsch and Newell, are supervisors, which the Petitioner denies. The Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, AFL, agrees with the Petitioner both as to the appropriateness of the unit and the questions of supervisory status. The announcers are stationed at the studio and the operators at the transmitter which is 4 miles away. The combination announcer- operator spends 10 to 20 percent of his time at the studio announcing. The rest of the time he is stationed at the transmitter where he spends most of his time in operator's duties, although he also makes some announcements directly at the transmitter . Some of the operators 2 TVBSR, Inc , 91 NLRB 630. CENTRAL FLORIDA BROADCASTING COMPANY 475 do some maintenance work at the studio but they do not operate the studio control board. As a result every announcer must be able to, and does, operate the control board. All the announcers also make tape recordings, patch out from station to transmitter, and bring in remotes. At least two of the three operators also make weather announcements and one also makes spot announcements, station break announcements, and occasionally announces and plays records at the transmitter. It is evident that there is an interrelation of duties and a community of interest between the operators and the announcers which does not exist in larger stations where their work is more sharply differentiated. Accordingly, we find they may appropriately be represented in a single unit.3 The continuity writer, Kuhnert, whom the Petitioner wishes to include in the unit, when first employed worked as an an- nouncer. Since he has been assigned to continuity work he has con- tinued to spend some time announcing and performing the same as- sociated technical duties as the other announcers. The Employer contends he spends no more than an hour a day in these duties but a recent weekly announcer's schedule, introduced in evidence, shows several hours a day. Kuhnert himself estimates that he has averaged 25 percent of his time in announcing since his assignment to continuity writing. During the same period he has also handled a number of broadcasts from points outside the studio doing not only the broad- casting but all the technical work required for such remote broadcast- ing. Because of their employment at work in the program depart- ment, we have previously included continuity writers in announcer units,4 and as it appears that Kuhnert, like the announcers, has a community of interest with the operators we shall include him in the unit. Nils Sahlberg is a relief operator. He takes the place of any op- erator on vacation and is called in in emergencies. However, as he also works at least 3 hours every Sunday, while one of the full-time operators attends church, we find Sahlberg is a regular part-time rather than a casual employee. In accordance with our usual policy as to regular part-time employees we shall include Sahlberg in the unit. Supervisors The Employer would include in the unit Eugene Hill, the general and commercial manager of the station, who is in charge of all em- ployees. He has the authority to, and does, hire, discipline, and discharge, but only with the approval of the directors. We find that Mr. Hill is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. 'Associated Electronic Enterprises, Inc, 80 NLRB 295. Western Gateway Broadcasting Corporattion, 77 NLRB 49. 4 Ridson, Inc., Radio Station WDSM, 91 NLRB No 59. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Until a short time before the hearing, the program department, in which all the announcers and the continuity writer work, was headed by a program director. The Employer asserts that the pro- gram director never supervised the announcers and continuity writer, being in charge of the program rather than the personnel, who were, and are, supervised by the general manager. The program director did, however, instruct announcers in addition to his main responsibili- ties of assembling programs and advising management on the quality of programs. He also spent about 10 percent of his time in announcing. The Employer testified that at present there is no program director, but it plans to hire one soon. The Petitioner contends that Walter Sickles, a recently hired employee, is in fact program director. An announcer and the continuity writer both testified that Hill had informed them that Sickles was to assume all the duties of the former program director. Shortly afterwards, the announcers received a memorandum from Sickles, which they each initialed, setting out a proposed weekly schedule for announcers including Sickles himself. It is unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence. Neither the authority attributed to the former program director nor that attributed to Sickles, either by the Employer or by the Petitioner, is sufficient to establish that the program director was, or that Sickles is, a supervisor. Accordingly, we shall include Sickles in the unit. The three operators and the combination announcer-operator, all of whom are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as radio telephone operators, constitute the engineering department. Until 2 years ago this department was in charge of a chief engineer. Since the departure of the chief engineer, one operator, Stonitsch, has been responsible for the maintenance and functioning of the transmit- ter and another operator, Newell, has been responsible for the main- tenance of the technical equipment at the studio. Neither Stonitsch nor Newell is classified by the Employer as chief engineer or chief operator although the Employer asserts that both are supervisors with the right to recommend hiring or discharge. Newell works full shifts at the transmitter during which time he does not direct the work of any employee. Stonitsch, who has been the longest in the employ of WORZ, does direct the work of the other operators at the transmitter, including Newell. Stonitsch testified that his directions were couched as requests not orders. If Newell needs any help in his maintenance work at the studio he may ask any of the others, including Stonitsch, to help him and may direct their work while at the studio. The Employer asserted that it was "understood" that Stonitsch could recommend hiring or firing, but could not say that he or anyone else in authority had even told Stonitsch so. The only example given PACIFIC COAST ASSOCIATION OF PULP AND PAPER MFRS. 477 of the exercise of the asserted authority was that Stonitsch had recom- mended the dismissal of the chief engineer, who was his acknowledged supervisor. Stonitsch denied that he was a supervisor or, that he had even been told he was. He also testified that he had never hired or discharged anyone or recommended this or any other personnel action. Newell testified similarly except that he stated that he once had been asked if he could find anyone to act as relief operator when one was needed immediately. He then suggested Nils Sahlberg to Mr. Hill who hired him. We find that Stonitsch and Newell do not have the authority to initiate recommendations for personnel action and that their direction of others is merely the routine direction commonly exercised by experienced employees. Accordingly, we find they are not supervisors and shall include them in the unit.5 We find that all operators, combination announcer-operators, an- nouncers,e and continuity writers at the Employer's Radio Station WORZ, at Orlando, Florida, excluding all other employees and su- pervisors at defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] c Greater Erie Broadcasting Company, 92 NLRB No. 61. Included as announcers are Sam & Marcia Roen, whom the Petitioner and the Inter- venor would exclude. Mr. and Mrs. Roen are employed in the program department. Their main duties are preparing and putting on a program called "The Roens at Home" which is sometimes broadcast from their own home, sometimes from the studio . On this show the Roens do the announcing as well as the performing . The Roens also assist in preparing material for other programs . Their work appears to be that frequently designated in the industry as that of a special program announcer . Although they are not hourly paid as are the other announcers , it does not appear that their working interests are sufficiently differentiated from those of the other announcers to justify excluding them from the unit. PACIFIC COAST ASSOCIATION OF PULP AND PAPER MANUFACTURERS and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA , CIO5 PETITIONER. Case No. 36-RC-138. May 15, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition and amended petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton Boyd, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 94 NLRB No. 32.