General Telephone and Electronics Communications, Inc.

1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Telephone and Electronics Communications, Inc. and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-6635. September 22, 1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Scott P. Watson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The parties filed timely briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs, the National Labor Relations Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in the maintenance of a community television antenna (CATV) system in Athens, Georgia, by which it transmits television signals solely by cable from a master antenna to its customers. The Employer commenced operations in October 1965. Although its revenue at the time of the hearing was only about $8,000, its projected annual income, based upon the monthly service charges for customers who have contracted for the service, is in excess of $53,000. While the Employer's operations alone do not meet any jurisdic- tional standard the Board has heretofore applied to CATV opera- tions,) the record indcates that the Employer is one of six commonly managed and interrelated CATV concerns.2 As noted, one of these, Georgia TV, owns 85 percent of the Employer's stock and has an annual volume of business in excess of $128,000. It has a long-term agreement with Westinghouse Electric Corporation under which it uses the latter's microwave transmission system near McRae, Georgia, to tap signals originating in Atlanta and subsequently distribute them to its customers.3 Georgia TV shares some directors and officers with the Employer, including A. J. McDonald. McDonald is presi- dent of both Georgia TV and the Employer. His father is vice presi- dent of one, and his brother of the other, and an officer of Boston 'Warren Television Corporation, 128 NLRB 1; Perfect T.V., Inc., 134 NLRB 575. 2 The six concerns service areas in Georgia roughly located in an are extending north- east, east, and southeast of Atlanta . Seventy-five percent of the stock of both Georgia TV Cable, Inc , hereinafter called Georgia TV, and Toombs 'County Cable TV, Inc., is owned by the Boston Capital Corporation, a management investment company headquartered in Massachusetts . The remaining '25 percent of the stock of each is owned in equal parts by members of the McDonald family Georgia TV in turn owns 85 percent of the stock of the Employer and of Toccoa TV 'Cable, Inc . The Boston Company has no financial interest in either of the other two concerns , Cable Vue of Baxley , Inc., and Rentavision of Elberton, Inc, but A. J . McDonald, who testified he "started" the six concerns and "suffered with them through every step," owns one-third of the stock of the former , one-half the stock of the latter. Neither Cable Vue nor Rentavision had commenced operations at the time of the hearing. 3In return , Westinghouse uses Georgia TV's antenna tower. 160 NLRB No. 95. GENERAL TELEPHONE & ELECTRONICS COMMUNICATIONS 1193, Capital Corporation is the secretary of both. McDonald is in overall charge of these two companies, and immediately supervises the other four. According to this testimony, he divides his time among the six concerns; maintains an office at each; reads their weekly reports; has and exercises control over their purchasing, bookkeeping, advertis- ing, and personnel policies; and signs almost all the checks. The Employer's office personnel prepare the payroll for the employees of all four concerns now in operation, with all such checks being drawn, on a single payroll account maintained in the name of Georgia TV. The four concerns make loans to one another; their employee benefits are identical; and there are occasional temporary transfers from one concern to another. The Employer's system receives signals broadcast by television sta- tions in Georgia, South and North Carolina, while Georgia TV receives signals from Georgia and Florida. Half the signals distrib- uted are composed of network programing. We find, upon the entire record, that the Employer and Georgia TV constitute a single employer under the Act,4 and that their com- bined volume of business satisfies the $100,000 communications sys- tem standard we find to be applicable herein.5 We hold, accordingly, 4 See Radio it Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264, IBEW v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, and cases cited therein, including Perfect T V, Inc., supra. 6 Georgia TV's use of a microwave transmission system in the conduct of its business makes applicable the jurisdictional precedents set out in Perfect TV, Inc , supra, rather than those set forth in the Board's opinion in Warren Television Corporation, supra In, the latter case, the Board's determination that CATV operations like those of the Employer herein were to be tested, for purposes of asserting our jurisdiction, under the retail industry, rather than the communications system standard, was based, in part, upon the fact that the Federal Communications Commission did not then exercise regulative authority over such operations. The FCC has recently reconsidered its former position and has now concluded that community television antennas must realistically be viewed' as "communication by wire, which is interstate in nature . . . (which) physically inter- cepts and extends television signals . . . (and which) forms a connecting link in the chain of communications between . . . the transmitting station and reception by the view- ing public." See 31 Fed. Reg 4540 (1966), et seq, and especially at 4561, 4,341, 4543, 4567. Deeming its prior distinction between microwave and nonmicrowave systems "unwar- ranted," the FCC asserted jurisdiction over all community antenna systems except for apartment house master antennas and systems servicing less than 50 customers. Our independent evaluation of the economic facts underlying the FCC's recent decision leads us to the same conclusion. Our conclusion is buttressed by facts developed in the instant case We note, among other things, that the capital investments involved herein and the expenditures for wire and equipment are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Half the signals are composed of network programing. The signals, received from trans- mitters as much as 150 miles distant, are amplified at frequent intervals by electronic amplifiers. The connection to the customer's television set effectively prevents most, if not all, off-the-air reception These factors, we find, established the community antenna as an essential part of the communication system itself rather than an adjunct of the receiving set. Accordingly, we shall no longer follow the majority decision in Warren, but shall hereafter apply the communications system jurisdictional standard to all com- munity 'antenna television systems without regard to whether or not they use a micro- wave transmission system in the conduct of their operations. In so doing, the basic standard as announced in Raritan Valley Broadcasting Company, Inc, 122 NLRB 90, is amended to encompass not only the operation of radio and television broadcasting sta- tions but also essential links to such an operation, including, as here, community antenna television systems which do a gross volume of business of at least $100,000 per annum. 1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert our jurisdiction over its operations. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Acts All installers and technicians employed by the Employer at its Athens, Georgia, place of business, including the lineman but exclud- ing salesmen, office clerical employees, and sales manager, the senior installer, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 7 6 The parties were in general agreement upon the unit and stipulated as to the classifica- tions to be included and excluded , but were unable to agree on the status of senior installer Ernest Smith The record indicates that Smith interviews and screens applicants , eliminat- ing some from further consideration , trains employees , and was consulted about the recent discharge of two employees He is paid about 60 percent more than the installers. His authority in hiring and discharging is sufficient to meet the statutory standard of effec- tive recommendation Accordingly he is found to be a supervisor and is excluded 7 Ani election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. Alliance Manufacturing Company and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 5- CA-3311. September 22, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On June 8, 1966, Trial Examiner John G. Gregg issued his Deci- sion 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 160 NLRB No. 92.