Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD perience is required of these three groups than that of the average production employee in this particular plant. Furthermore there is nothing in the record to show that their inspection duties involve any greater discretion or responsibility than that of the usual production inspector whom the Board normally includes in production and main- tenance bargaining units. We thus find no merit either in the Pe- titioner's contention that only group (a) employees should be included in the unit, nor in the Employer's contention that all of research and engineering employees should be excluded. We shall include em- ployees in groups (a), (b), and (c) in the unit.' We find that all production and maintenance employees employed at the Bristol plant of the Employer, including the employees of the engineering and research department who perform "quality control" duties, electrical testing and final testing of radio sets, but excluding all other employees of the research and engineering department, office and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, work- ing foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within. the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.8 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Although the unit as certified in 1947 excluded all research and engineering employees, that unit , as noted above , was based on a consent election and is not determinative. 8 At the hearing the Petitioner stated that they were desirous of representing any addi- tional employees of the research and engineering department found to be properly included within the unit . The Petitioner's showing is sufficient for the broader unit , herein found appropriate. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., AND COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., OF CALIFORNIA 1 and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROAD- CAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, CIO, PETITIONER 2 COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. and MOTION PICTURE FILM EDITORS, LOCAL 776 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-RC-1888 and 21-RC-1983. December 17,,-951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearings were held in Case No. 13-RC-1888 before I. M. Lieberman, hearing officer, at Chicago, Illi- i The Columbia Broadcasting System , Inc., of California is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. For purposes of this decision , we shall treat the two corporations as one employer. 2 The name of the Petitioner in Case No . 13-RC-1888 appears as amended at the hearing. 97 NLRB No. 81. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 567 nois, and Irving M. Friedman, hearing officer, at New York City, and in Case No. 12-RC-1983 before Jerome A. Reiner, hearing officer, at Los Angeles, California. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hear- ings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 3 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer .4 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation 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 or units : In Case No. 13-RC-1888, NABET seeks representation of an Em- ployer-wide unit composed of employees engaged in the design, con- struction, maintenance, and operation of the Employer's technical facilities for radio and television broadcasting and recording, includ- ing film cutters and editors, motion picture cameramen, employees engaged in "front and rear" projection, the lighting director in the Los Angeles television station, engineers in the general engineering and the engineering research and development departments, drafts- men, and machinists. It would exclude sound effects men employed in the Chicago operations presently represented by AFRA; platter turners and turntable operators in the Chicago and St. Louis opera- tions, presently represented by AFM; 8 and lighting and special visual 8 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., the Employer in Case No 21 -RC-1983, and National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians , CIO, herein called NABET, the Intervenor in that case , moved to dismiss the petition in Case No . 21-RC-1983, on the ground that the employees involved had been included within the scope of the unit requested by NABET's petition in Case No . 13-RC-1888 , and that the issues concerning them had been fully litigated in that case. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. As the petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-1983 , herein called Local 776, was not a party to the proceedings in Case No . 13-RC-1888-although the international organization with which Local 776 is affiliated was such a party, and participated fully in that case-we shall deny the motion to dismiss. Moreover, as the record developed in Case No . 21-RC-1983 supple- ments and amplifies the record in Case No 13-RC-1888 in respect to the film cutters and editors in Los Angeles , the two cases are hereby consolidated for purposes of this decision. 4 The following labor organizations were permitted to intervene in Case No . 13-RC-1888 upon a showing of contractual or other representative interest : International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called IBEW ; International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL, herein called IATSE ; Local No. 1, IATSE , herein called Local No. 1; American Federation of Musicians, AFL, herein called AFM ; and American Federation of Radio Artists, herein called APRA. The following labor organizations were permitted to intervene in Case No. 21-RC-1983 upon the basis of their interest established in Case No. 13-RC-1888: NABET , the Petitioner in Case No. 13-RC-1888 ; and IBEW Local 45. 6 The only interest of AFRA and AFM in these proceedings was by virtue of representation of these employees whom NABET, the Petitioner in Case No 13-RC-1888, agreed to exclude. Having been satisfied as to their exclusion , AFRA and AFM withdrew from further participation in the proceedings. 568 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effects employees in the New York City operations, presently repre- sented by IATSE Local 16 - IBEW, the present contractual representative of a unit of the Em- ployer's technical employees, agrees with NABET's position, and desires to,participate in an election in the unit asserted by NABET to be appropriate. IATSE takes no position as to NABET's (and IBEW's) request for inclusion of the engineering employees, drafts- men, and machinists, but contends that the employees described as film cutters and editors, cameramen, employees engaged in "front and rear" projection, and the lighting director in the Los Angeles televi- sion operation, should be excluded. The Employer would exclude these same employees, and would also exclude the engineering em- ployees, the draftsmen, and machinists. The Employer further urges that the unit found to be appropriate by the Board should be described according to the functions of its various employees, rather than according to their classifications or job titles. In Case No. 21-RC-1983, IATSE Local 776 seeks to represent a unit composed of film and magnetic tape cutters and editors employed by the Employer at two Los Angeles locations, excluding all other em- ployees. Local 776, however, limits its request for inclusion of mag- netic tape editors and cutters to those who cut and edit magnetic tape that is used for the purpose of synchronization with motion picture film or as a substitute therefor. It would not include employees whose work on magnetic tape pertains solely to audio recording or presentation. NABET and IBEW Local 45 contend that the separate unit requested is inappropriate, and that these employees properly are part of the Employer-wide technicians' unit. The Employer agrees with the request for a separate unit of Los Angeles film cutters and editors, but contends that all magnetic tape cutting and editing em- ployees appropriately belong in the unit with its other technical employees. Apart from artists and announcers, the Employer's television broad- casting operations employees may be roughly divided into two groups : those who make use of technical skills,' and those engaged in the tra- ditional stage crafts, such as stage electricians, stage carpenters, and 6 IATSE Local 1 intervened solely to assert its interest in the lighting and special visual effects employees in New York City. 7 These employees have experience in working with electronic equipment . For job title purposes some of the technicians are classified as "supervisors" and "assistant super- visors." These supervisors and assistant supervisors have no power to hire, discharge, or to effect any change in the status of any of the Employer 's employees , or effectively to recommend any such action. All parties have agreed that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Others are classified as technicians and assistant technicians, master control video-shaddrs , and audio men. Working with them are employees whose function is to push cameras mounted on wheeled pedestals and microphone booms, and men who move cables, drive equipment trucks , and mechanics who do the maintenance work on such trucks. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 569 stage property men.8 There is in general no dispute as to the alloca- tion of these two groups of employees. Thus IATSE, which has tra- ditionally represented employees in the stage crafts, does not in gen- eral claim to represent the technical employees. Likewise, neither IBEW nor NABET desires to represent any of the traditional stage crafts. Between these two roughly defined groups, there are certain classifications claimed by NABET and IBEW, on the one hand, and by IATSE, on the other; they are "fringe" categories not fitting clearly into either the technical or stage craft patterns. The follow- ing are the classifications in dispute in this proceeding : Motion picture cameramen and film cutters and editors: These em- ployees are sought to be included by NABET and IBEW on the basis of bargaining history. At the Employer's New York operations, these employees have been represented by IBEW as part of the unit of tech- nical employees since approximately 1946. Their interests do not appear to be so divergent from those of the other employees in the technical unit as to require that we now exclude them. Moreover, no labor organization here seeks to represent them on any other basis. We find no merit in the contention of the Employer and IATSE that such employees should be excluded from the unit, and shall include the New York cameramen, film cutters, and editors in the unit of technical employees. The film cutters and editors at the Employer's Los Angeles opera- tions,' however, have been expressly excluded from the IBEW's most recent Nation-wide contract for the technical employees, executed on • June 30, 1950, for a 1-year period. Before this, the Los Angeles film cutters and editors had been included in the technical unit. These are the employees whom Local 776 seeks to represent as a separate unit by its petition filed in Case No. 21-RC-1983. The Los Angeles film cutters and editors work at two locations-a film editor and two assistant editors at Station KTSL, and two film editors and four assistants at the CBS studio, both in Hollywood. The editor and his assistants at KTSL are engaged solely in preparing, for use on television broadcasts, motion picture film on which is im- pressed a sound track as an integral part of the film. The employees at the CBS studio perform a similar task, but also cut and edit mag- netic tape which carries sound to accompany the motion picture film. The Employer opposes the inclusion of magnetic tape cutters and edi- tors in the proposed unit of Los Angeles film cutters and editors, on the ground that those working on magnetic tape were not excluded from IBEW's recent contract, and that they appropriately belong in the 8In the latter group are included various kinds of stage hands, and wardrobe and makeup men. 9 There are no cameramen employed by the Employer at Los Angeles. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit of technical employees. Local 776 concedes, however, that it does not seek to represent employees who work on magnetic tape for purposes other than for use with film, such as for recording the audio portion of a radio program. It limits its request to those editing magnetic tape used either "for purposes of synchronization in conjunc- tion with the editing of motion picture film or as a substitute for mo- tion picture film." The unit sought thus is limited to employees whose primary function is that of cutting and editing motion picture film, and does not include employees editing magnetic tape as their primary duty. The bargaining history before June 30, 1950, involving the Los Angeles film cutters and editors and the inclusion of similar employees at New York City, indicates that film editors and cutters may appro- priately bargain in a unit with technical employees. On the other hand, as these employees in Los Angeles are now excluded from the Nation-wide technical unit, and as IATSE Local 776, the Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-1983, is seeking to represent them separately, we believe that these employees should not be joined in the broader unit without first being given the opportunity to express their desires as to unit placement in an election. We shall, therefore, direct that a separate election be held in a voting group consisting of the Employer's film cutters and editors in Los Angeles. The lighting director in Los Angeles: There is only one individual in this category at the Employer's Los Angeles operations. In New -York City the lighting directors are included in a separate unit of employees engaged in television lighting and special visual effects, for which IATSE Local 1 was recently certified as the representative pur- suant to a consent election. The Los Angeles lighting director, like his New York counterparts, possesses training and knowledge in the art of dramatic lighting and background. Like them, he prepares lighting plans for television presentations, which are carried into effect by the stage hands and stage electricians. His contacts appear to be more with the programming and stage craft employees than with the technicians. We believe that he does not possess sufficient interests in common with the technical employees to justify his inclusion in the technical unit io - Employees engaged in front and rear projections: This process consists of the projection of moving or still pictures on a screen to serve as scenic background for a television presentation." The rec- 10 At the hearing, the Employer contended that the Los Angeles lighting director should be excluded as a supervisor for the reason that he may in the future supervise other employees who are later to -be employed. As we have excluded him for other reasons, we need not pass upon this contention. 11 This is distinguished from "telecine ," wherein the picture is projected directly into the face of the television camera . All parties agree that telecine operators are appro- priately within the unit of technical employees. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 571 ord is clear that this is basically a part-time assignment, performed sometimes by the Employer's technicians, and at other times by stage hands. The Employer has no employees who perform this as a principal function. Those who perform it are paid no special rate, brit continue to be paid at the rate they earn in their principal em- ployment. It is clear that those who perform this function on a minor part-time basis retain their status either as technicians and thus are within the unit, or as stage hands and thus are without the unit. Because there are no employees who now perform this disputed func- tion a sufficient portion of their time to be denominated : "front and rear projectionists," we shall make no present determination as to the inclusion of front and rear projectionist in the unit 12 Engineers in the General Engineering and Engineering Research and Development Departments: These employees design and develop equipment and plant installations, engage in research, and perform other services for which they are qualified by reason of their advanced training and engineering experience. The parties agree, and the record establishes, that they are professional employees within the meaning of the Act. The parties further recognize that, as pro- fessional employees, they may not be included within the technical unit unless the Board accords them a separate self-determination election 13 The Employer contends that they cannot in any event be .included in the same unit with the technicians because of their different super- vision, functions, education, and training, and the fact that there has been no bargaining history covering them as there has been in the case of the other employees in the unit. The Board, however, has frequently found that employees possessing the advanced qualifica- tions and performing the functions of professional employees, such as those involved in this case, may, if they so desire, be joined in a unit with technical employees. Indeed, the provisions of the Act, which provide for an expression of choice as to unit by professional employees, indicate that professional employees need not necessarily be represented in a separate unit. As we perceive no sufficient reason here to depart from established Board practice, we shall direct that a separate election be held among the professional employees to determine whether or not they desire to be included in the unit with the technical employees. '8 Were there such employees , the record supports a finding that their interests would be aligned with those of the stage hands rather than the technicians . No special knowl- edge of electronics is required , such as, In general, is characteristic of the technical employees. The work pertains to the providing of scenic background , which , like stage light- Ing; is traditionally the function of members of stage hands groups. Cf. National Broad- casting Company, Inc. (supplemental decision ), 95 NLRB 736. 28 Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act provides, in substance, that the Board shall - not find appropriate a unit including both professional and nonprofessional employees unless a majority of the professional employees vote for such Inclusion. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Draftsmen: These employees are part of the engineering research and development department and work under the supervision of the design engineer. They are engaged in preparing drawings and tracings of equipment planned 'by the professional engineers. Since 1947, they have been represented by IBEW in a separate unit. The Board has frequently held that the interests of draftsmen are such that they may be included in the unit with technical employees 14 We perceive no sufficient reason why, in the present case, the draftsmen may not appropriately be included in the technical unit, and as the only labor organizations here seeking to represent the draftsmen are seeking them as part of the broader technical unit, we shall include them 15 Machinists: The machinists, who are also employed in the engineer- ing and research development department, construct and assemble electronic mechanisms from blueprints prepared by the draftsmen, in accordance with standard machine shop practice. Like the draftsmen, they have been represented since 1946 by IBEW in a separate unit. The Employer asserts, in effect, that both the bargaining history and the fact of their employment as skilled craftsmen in the machinists trade, demonstrates the possession of such divergent interests that they should not be joined for purposes of collective bargaining with the employees in the technicians' unit. However, their possible pos- session of craft status--which we need not here determine-is not in itself sufficient reason for excluding them from participation in bar- gaining on a broader basis. The record indicates that the unit of technicians of which the IBEW has been contractual representative, and which the parties have agreed in general to be appropriate in this case, is a broad grouping containing not only those technicians whose functions are dependent primarily upon their knowledge and training in electronics or skill in utilizing electronic equipment, but also in- cludes other categories who may not possess equivalent training or skill but who work in a close relationship with the others in the tech- nical unit.' In these circumstances, we do not believe that the inter- ests of the machinists,- whose work is the construction of electronic equipment, is so divergent, from those in the technical unit as to pre- clude their inclusion. As no labor organization seeks to represent the machinists on a separate basis, we shall include them. We shall direct elections among the following voting groups : (a) All technicians employed in the Employer's technical opera- tions departments and the engineering research and development de- 14 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666. el The Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76; Metz Bakang Company, 92 NLRB 108. 16 Among such employees are those whose duty is to push television camera dollies , those whose principal duty it is to drive trucks containing technical television or radio equip- ment, and the repairmen engaged in the maintenance of such trucks. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. 573 partment, in New York City and throughout the United States, including technicians employed in the laboratory in the general en- gineering department, draftsmen and machinists in the engineering research and development department, and motion picture cameramen and film editors and cutters in New York City, but excluding film editors and cutters at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, estab- lishments, sound effects employees employed at Chicago, Illinois, turn- table operators employed at Chicago, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri, lighting directors and special visual effects employees in New York City and the lighting director in Los Angeles, California, engineers in the general engineering and engineering research and development departments, stage hands, manual or mechanical cueing and titling em- - ployees,-guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act'7 (b) All film editors and cutters employed at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, establishments, including those who cut and edit magnetic tape used in conjunction with or as a substitute for motion picture film, but excluding magnetic tape editors and cutters, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) All the Employer's engineers employed at its New York gen- eral engineering and engineering research and development depart- ments, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority voting in group (b) vote for IATSE Local 776, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to IATSE Local 776 for the unit described in subparagraph (b) of paragraph numbered 4, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The employees in the professional voting group (c) will be asked two questions on their ballot : (1) Do you wish the professional em- ployees to be included with the unit of the Employer's technical employees?, (2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes of col- lective bargaining by National Association of Broadcast Engineer and Technicians, CIO, or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, or by International Alliance of Theatrical Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL, or by none? If a majority of the professional em- 17 Although the Employer contended at the hearing that the unit found appropriate by the Board should be described according to the functions of its various employees rather than according to their classifications or job titles, in its brief it offered an alternative unit description , which, with some modifications to conform to this decision, is that set forth above. We find it infeasible to describe the employees who appropriately should be included in this unit according to their functions. •574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees vote "yes" to the first question, indicating their wish to be included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will be so included. Their votes on the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide their representative for the Employer-wide unit described in group (a), and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue, a certification of representatives to the labor organization for whom a majority of the employees voting cast their ballots. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees voting in group (c) vote against inclusion, they will not be included with the nonprofessional employees, and their votes on the second question will then be counted to decide whether and which labor organization they want to represent them in a separate professional unit'$ [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] is Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683. . WOOD, WIRE AND METAL LATHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 234, AFL and AcousTl ENGINEERING COMPANY WOOD, WIRE AND METAL LATHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 234, AFL and LATHING AND PLASTERING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION or ATLANTA. Cases Nos. 10-CC-24 and 10-CC-25. December 18, 1951 Decision and Order On September 14, 1951, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at 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 1 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 Murdock]. 97 NLRB No. 84.