Mullins Broadcasting Co.

MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 119 Mullins Broadcasting Company and American Federa- tion of Television and Radio Artists, Denver Local, AFL-CIO. Cases 27-CA-3248 and 27-CA-3307 November 7, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On April 27, 1972, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions' and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Mullins Broadcasting Compa- ny, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The exceptions pose successorship and backpay issues which may be raised at the compliance stage of this proceeding. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAURICE M. MILLER, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and amended charge in Case 27-CA-3248, filed and duly served on May 7 and 24, 1971, respectively, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board caused a complaint and notice of hearing to be issued and served on Mullins Broadcasting Company, designated as Respondent within this decision. The complaint was issued and served July 15, 1971. Thereafter, upon a charge filed July 22 in Case 27-CA-3307, the General Counsel's representative prepared and served an order consolidating cases, amend- ed consolidated complaint, and notice of consolidated hearing. The consolidated complaint issued August 16, 1971; therein, Respondent was charged with unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519. Within Respondent's duly filed answer, certain factual statements in General Counsel's consolidated complaint were conceded; Respondent, however, has denied the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter was held in Denver, Colorado, on October 5 and 6, 1971, before me. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel. When the hearing began, General Counsel's representative moved three substantive amend- ments with respect to the consolidated complaint; his motion was granted. Thereafter, each party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Since the hearing's close, briefs have been received from General Counsel's representative and Respondent's coun- sel. These briefs have been duly considered. Upon the entire testimonial record, documentary evi- dence received, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent raises no question with respect to General Counsel's jurisdictional claim. Upon the consolidated complaint's relevant factual declarations-which are con- ceded to be correct-the following determinations are found warranted: That Respondent is a Colorado corpora- tion which maintains its principal office and place of business in Denver, within that State; that Respondent, throughout the period with which this case is concerned, was engaged and is engaged in the operation of Radio Station KBTR and Television Station KBTV, both affiliated with the American Broadcasting Company; and that Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derives a gross income which exceeds $200,000 annually, with more than $30,000 annually derived from national advertising accounts. I find that Respondent was, throughout the period with which this case is concerned, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business activities which affect commerce : •ithin the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. Further, with due regard for presently applicable jurisdictional standards, I find asser- tion of the Board's jurisdiction in this case warranted and necessary to effectuate statutory objectives. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Denver Local, AFL-CIO, designated complainant Union within this Decision, is, and at all material time herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended, which admits certain of Respondent's employees to membership. In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues This consolidated case presents several distinct, but nevertheless, related questions. First: General Counsel contends that Respondent's radio station management 200 NLRB No. 30 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD changed Richard Way's job duties, discriminatorily, because of testimony which he had given previously during a Board representation case hearing. Respondent suggests, contrariwise, that Way's several duties were "consolidated" for reasons "personal to [him]" and for the betterment of Respondent's business. Second: General Counsel seeks a determination that Respondent 's management discrimina- torily sought to reduce Carl Stone's radio station working hours and thereafter declared that his services were terminated, violating Section 8(a)(3) of the statute thereby. Respondent contends, however, that Stone was terminated pursuant to his personal request. Third: General Counsel charges Respondent's television station management with a subsequent discriminatory refusal to hire Stone for television work. Respondent suggests, contrariwise, that its television facility, then, had no position available for a person with Stone's qualifications. Fourth: General Coun- sel contends that certain management representatives -specifically, News Director Scott of Respondent's radio station and News Manager James Reiman of Respondent's television facility-made various statements , during the period with which this case is concerned, reasonably calculated to interfere with, restrain, and coerce Respon- dent's radio station workers with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed. Responding to these charges, Respondent herein notes a general denial. B. Facts 1. Respondent's business Respondent corporation, throughout the period with which this case is concerned, maintained two Denver broadcasting facilities, Radio Station KBTR and Televi- sion Station KBTV, respectively. KBTR's general manag- er, during the period in question,was William MacCrys- tall; Robert Scott was, then, the station's news director. Scott was MacCrystall's departmental subordinate, respon- sible for KBTR's programs; throughout the period with which this case is concerned, the station maintained a 24- hour radio broadcasting service devoted to news reports exclusively. Respondent's television facility, KBTV, maintains a separate studio within contiguous quarters. Throughout the period with which this case is concerned, the station's news director, Carl Akers, was technically in charge of KBTV's newsroom; his responsibilities were, however, shared to some degree by James Reiman, KBTV's news manager. Reiman and Akers worked slightly different shifts; during morning hours, when Akers was not present, Respondent's news manager, so Akers testified, ran the television station's newsroom. (The record suggests-though it does not clearly show-that Reiman may no longer be with KBTV; Roger Ogden, according to Akers, is currently designated the station's news manager.) During April 1971, KBTV's chief news photographer, Tom Baer, headed a staff which, with him, compassed five news photographers. Two, Jacoby and O'Donnell, were, together with Baer himself, fully qualified news cameramen. The station's staff, however, likewise included two cameramen trainees, Villanueva and Hamilton, specifically. 2. Richard Way's reassignment a. The representation case Pursuant to a petition previously filed by complainant Union herein (Case 27-RC-3998) with respect to certain Radio Station KBTR workers, the Regional Director for Region 27 scheduled a February 22, 1971 , representation case hearing. Complainant Union, through its petition, was seeking certification within a bargaining unit defined to compass all regular full-time and part-time production employees. Respondent contended, however, that repre- sentation within separate units should be directed for the Radio Station's 12 on-the-air announcers and 4 off-the-air controllers ; further, Respondent contended that KBTR's production coordinator did not share a sufficient commu- nity of interest with either the station 's announcers or controllers to warrant his inclusion within a bargaining unit which comprised members of either group. During the scheduled February 22 hearing, Richard Way, then a member of Respondent's radio station "talent" staff, testified with respect to his various job duties. Substantially, he declared that , within his work- week, he broadcast "traffic advisory" reports, cut local and national tapes, and served a regular stint on KBTR's control board. (The present record provides some testimo- nial definitions with regard to these various job functions. For present purposes, however, they need not be described within this decision, save in certain respects which I propose to discuss hereinafter.) Responding to a question presented by Petitioner Union's counsel, Way stated that his scheduled periods of control board service involved "job functions" similar to those performed by Respon- dent's regular off-the-air controller technicians. Further, he characterized himself, generally, as being a reporter and part of a team. When requested, thereafter, to define his "team" concept, Way declared: Just by gathering some of the speech here today, it seems like we are trying to be segregated, but every man is an integral part of the sound of the product we put out. That's what I mean by part of a team. Every hand washes the other during the course of the day, and our final product is not one man who says, "Do this and do that," or pushes a button. It's an overall picture. MacCrystall, KBTR's general manager, attended the representation case hearing. News Director Scott was not present; the present record warrants a determination, however, that MacCrystall subsequently provided him with a summary of Way's testimony. b. Way's job functions While a witness herein, Way provided some further testimony regarding his job duties. Specifically, he declared that-for slightly more than a month before his February 22 testimony-he had likewise been drafting "special" information reports for broadcast delivery. These have been described as short (2-1/2- to 3-1/2-minute) radio documentaries, prepared to provide further detail with respect to regular news stories. Regarding Way's so-called "local tape" work, which he MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 121 did not detail, News Director Scott, while a witness, provided a brief description. Local tape men, so I find, solicit and procure direct statements-"actualities"-from locally newsworthy persons; record their statements; transfer such recorded statements to tape cartridges for broadcast purposes ; and prepare "lead-in" copy, which the radio station's on-duty newscasters will then read before playing the particular local tape cartridge. We have, within the present record , capsule descriptions regarding the work which station personnel are required to perform on national tape and traffic report broadcasts, and while serving on KBTR's control board. For present purposes, however, no detailed exposition regarding these particular job functions seems required. c. The change in Way's job duties On February 23, shortly after Way reported for work, Respondent's news director summoned him. With respect to their conversation, the former's testimony, which I credit, shows: Scott declared himself sorry to hear that he (Way) was "not happy" with his work. Way, somewhat surprised, replied promptly that he was "very" happy. Scott, however, persisted; he declared that General Manager MacCrystall had reported Way's unhappiness, bottomed upon his previous day's testimony that Respon- dent was requiring him to perform five different job functions . Way disclaimed any prior testimonial reference whatsoever to purported unhappiness ; he summarized his previous day's witness chair recitals, and reiterated his testimonial contention that his various duties were "part of a composite package" which contributed to their station's ultimate sound. Despite Way's repeated protestations, with regard to Scott's willful misinterpretation of his previous testimony's significance, the latter declared that Respon- dent's president, Alvin Flanagan, MacCrystall, and he considered Way unhappy; he reported that they had spent some time the previous evening determining how to make him (Way) happy with his work. Respondent's news director thereupon handed Way a memorandum letter notifying him that he was being relieved from performing two of his five functions ; he would no longer be required to do local tape work, or prepare special information reports. When Way asked why these particular functions were being canceled, Scott replied that they were the only two functions which he could "effectively eliminate from [Way's ] responsibilities," thereby relieving his workload, without affecting KBTR's overall performance. (While a witness, herein, Way described the two functions canceled as those which were "more attractive" because they required more initiative , carried more responsibility, and presented a greater challenge . Respon- dent's news director, likewise, conceded, while a witness, that the preparation of national tape cartridges for broadcasting required "less thinking" and "less effort" than local tape work, from station personnel. The rele- vance of these judgments will be discussed further within this decision.) Ironically, Scott's memorandum-which detailed his purported "understanding" that Way was not happy with what he considered to be five separate job functions-not- ed the news director's personal belief that all KBTR personnel performed "one job" putting their radio station on the air. Way protested that the memorandum's so-called ,.one job" message paralleled, precisely, the point which he (Way) had been trying to make through his representation case testimony. He reiterated his declaration that nothing within that testimony had been calculated to suggest "unhappiness" with his five assigned station functions. However, Respondent's news director-so far as the record shows-made no reply; upon this note , their conversation terminated. My factual determinations herein-specifically with respect to Way's reassignment-derive directly from his testimony. However, Respondent's news director, who had initially professed nothing more than some "vague" recollection with regard to their conversation , finally corroborated his former subordinate's recital, substantially. Way has, therefore, been credited. With respect to Scott's purported motivation for Way's reassignment, however, General Counsel has proffered further testimony. Susan O'Brien Hautzinger, then and now a radio station reporter, recalled, inter aliq that sometime fairly early during the morning which followed the representation case hearing Scott had voluntarily mentioned the subject of Way 's testimony therein: He said that Rich had made management extremely unhappy with his testimony . . . . He understood that Rich had testified to doing five or six different jobs. Bob said that he understood Rich's point was [that] the controllers were in similar situations [,] and that is what the hearing was about; that he understood what Rich had meant, but that he had orders to respond to Rich's complaint, and so he was therefore rescheduling Rich. ... Bob said that Rich would not be happy with the reassignment because it was-he used a phrase-the least interesting portions of what Rich had done before. He concluded that conversation just by saying that Rich was getting-I think this is a direct quote-what he had asked for. Respondent's news director, so I have noted, had testified previously; he was not, however, recalled to challenge, contradict, or qualify Hautzinger's proffered recollection. While a witness, he had characterized Hautzinger as his "confidante" during his period of service in Respondent's hire, upon whom he regularly "unloaded" when beset with problems and frustrations. With due regard for these circumstances, I find Hautzinger's testimony relative to Respondent's motive for Way's reassignment, herein quoted, credible. The record, however, warrants a further detern ina- tion-which I make-that, despite his purportedly "consol- idated" duties, Way suffered no change with respect to his salary or total weekly working hours. 3. Carl Stone's discharge a. Stone's work history Carl Stone had begun work with Respondent during December 1967 ; he first served as a copy boy (general factotum) with the firm's television station. Shortly following his hire, however, when the station confronted an emergency situation, Stone was given a news cameraman's 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assignment. And thereafter-so his credible, substantially uncontradicted, testimony shows-he was "used on vari- ous occasions" to shoot news film. Stone had sought station work, initially, because he then lacked sufficient funds to continue his previously com- menced college studies. With full-time work, however, his financial situation improved; Carl Akers, KBTV's news director-who had taken a personal interest with respect to his prospects-thereupon suggested that he resume his college work. This Stone did; he matriculated at Denver's Metropolitan State College during that school's 1968 summer session. Throughout this period, so his credible testimony shows, Stone nevertheless continued to work a regular "40 hour minimum" week. On two or three occasions during final examination period, however, he did, concededly, request temporarily reduced hours, so that he would have extra time for study; these requests were granted. (Stone testified-credibly and without contradiction-that each of these occasions merely involved a limited reduction of working hours, spread over short periods running from 3 days to 1 week. I so find.) Sometime during January 1970, Stone began work for Respondent's radio station, serving as a traffic reporter. He was transferred to KBTR's payroll, formally, some 3 months later. Nevertheless, so his credible testimony shows, he continued to shoot silent news film, intermittently, for Respondent's television station; some of it, according to Stone's testimony, was used. For most of his first KBTR year, 1970, Stone worked a full-time split shift-4 morning hours and 4 nighttime hours-during which, among other functions, he did the station's morning and evening traffic reports. With the fall of the year, however, Stone transferred his college enrollment to the University of Colorado in nearby Boulder; he then requested Akers' help in rearranging his work schedule. Thereafter, I find, he worked a 40-hour schedule of 6 morning hours, 5 days per week, plus a 10- hour Saturday shift. With respect thereto, Stone testified -credibly and without significant contradiction-as fol- lows: There was some confusion as to where I was to work, for television or for radio . . . . I was taking directions from several different bosses, and at one time I would be under the direction of the television news staff, and at another time I would be under the direction of the radio news staff . . . . I really never concerned myself as to whether I was working for the radio station or the television station. I was employed by Mullins Broad- casting. I had, of course, to answer to a superior. When I worked for television payroll, I worked for television; when I worked for the radio station, I worked for radio. b. The request for a split shift When 1971 began, Stone was working a regular 40-hour week. During January of that year-following a radio station work schedule which Scott , Respondent's newly hired news director, had prepared-he was working 8 hours daily, Saturday through Wednesday, with Thursdays and Fridays free. Of his 40 hours, 6 were devoted to traffic reports, (2 afternoon hours daily, Monday through Wednesday), with 24 hours spent preparing "national" tape for radio broadcasts, 6 hours of radio "air shift" time, and 4 hours of editorial desk duty. By March,. his work schedule had been revised . Details with respect to his reworked schedule have not been proffered for this record ; seemingly, however, he was then working a schedule which included a Thursday shift. Early during the month designated, he requested permission to work a split shift on that day, so that he could attend a college class ; specifically, he requested permission to leave work at noon Thursdays, and return at 3 o'clock. During the first of several conversations with News Director Scott regarding his problem, Stone had, pursuant to Scott's request, suggested several arrangements through which his college class schedule and work schedule could be reconciled . Respondent's news director-so Stone's credi- ble testimony shows-had commented, however, that "things" change; that there was a union "coming up"; that he had to "play by the books"; that Stone's request contravened company policy ; and that he would not be able to comply. Finally, however, Scott declared-during a March 16 conversation-that, if Stone would prepare a memorandum for his file "so that he would be protected," the requested split shift would be authorized. This Stone did. (Respondent's news director, who was questioned herein before Stone took the witness stand , had recalled their March 16 conversation in terms which Stone's later recital-herein summarized-substantially paralleled. Scott's previously proffered recollections, however, had contained no reference to comments that a union was "coming up" for KBTR's personnel, or that he would "play by the books" thereafter. While a witness, Respon- dent's news director had been frequently evasive; with respect to certain significant conversations he had conced- ed vagueness of recollection . Within my view, therefore, Stone's subsequent testimony-regarding the matter now in question-merits credence.) During their conversation, Stone further recalled, Scott had made some reference to the fact that he (Stone) might thereafter be limited to part- time work. Stone had demurred, contending that he could not work part time since he would then be required to forego certain company insurance benefits which were not available for part-time personnel. Respondent's news director, so far as the record shows, had vouchsafed no reply. c. Stone's removal as Respondent's radio traffic reporter Respondent's radio station, consistently with regular industry practice, retains a so-called national sales repre- sentative-Blair Radio-for the purpose of selling "time" to national business organizations, headquartered outside the Denver area, for advertising purposes . Inter alia, however, Blair provides a further service for radio station clients ; the national sales representative's radio "experts" regularly listen to station programs, and provide annual critiques designed to promote "improvements" with respect to various aspects of station performance. During February 1971, specifically, Blair's radio expert visited Denver, monitored KBTR's programs, conferred briefly with the station's management, and subsequently prepared a detailed report and critique based on notes. This so- MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 123 called "Blair Report" seems to have reached Respondent's radio station on or about April 2; the record, preponder- antly, so shows. Therein, various KBTR program features were criticized. Among other things, Stone's traffic control reports were characterized as poor, when compared with those provided by locally competitive` stations, due largely to his purportedly "unforceful" delivery. KBTR's station management was told that some "voice of authority" for these reports would add dimension. Promptly after receiving Blair Radio's report, General Manager MacCrystall, within a dated April 2 memoran- dum directed to Respondent's news director, noted the report's "repudiation of [Stone's ] air worthiness." Scott was directed to assign a more "forceful" replacement. Pursuant to MacCrystall's directive, Stone was notified that very day that he was being relieved of responsibility for KBTR's traffic reports. (Within a file memorandum, supposedly contemporaneously prepared, Scott noted Stone had been "warned" that both the Blair Report and Respondent's management were "highly critical" with respect to his work, and that his dismissal had been recommended. The memorandum concluded with a further notation that Stone was told he would be given a nonair work schedule, should KBTR's "need" and available money permit. While a witness, however, Scott was not requested to provide testimonial confirmation that Stone was, really, given the warnings noted. The latter recalled no such statements. Since the record considered in totality -within my view--clearly reveals Scott's disposition to prepare self-serving memorandums, no factual determina- tions consistent with his file memorandum's substance seem warranted. Stone's testimony with regard to their April 2 conversation, rather, merits credence. I so find.) Following April 2, therefore-so credible testimony shows -Stone was no longer required to perform "on-the-air" functions. He merely prepared national and local tape cartridges for broadcast, and worked on Respondent radio station's control board. Disappointed with this seeming "demotion" which suggested, he thought, that his prospects for personal progress in Respondent's hire were poor, Stone sought a conference with KBTV's news manager, Reiman; the latter was asked whether Respondent's television station had a job opening for Stone as a news cameraman. Reiman promptly promised that he would discuss the matter with Akers; he then asked, however, whether Stone was "unhappy" with his situation on Respondent's radio side. When Stone responded affirmatively, Reiman asked whether this was because complainant Union was seeking representative status. Stone, replied negatively; he charged KBTR's management with responsibility for his disgruntle- ment. Further, he declared his readiness to vote for complainant Union should he still be employed when the representation vote would be conducted. (These factual determinations derive from Stone's testimony, entirely. Reiman never testified. The documentary and testimonial record does suggest a possibility that his service with KBTV may have ceased some time before this case was heard. Inter alia, his name and telephone number were listed, for the information of KBTR's staff, within a posted April 27 memorandum; they do not, however, appear within a comparable September 29 memorandum list. Respondent's counsel, however, has proffered no sugges- tion, herein, that Reiman was unavailable when this case was heard, or that he could not be produced. Since Stone's generally credible testimony detailing their conversation was proffered straightforwardly-without contradiction-I have found it sufficient to sustain the factual determina- tions noted.) Reiman, once more, reassured Stone that he would discuss the situation with Akers; he promised to see whether they could "work something out" for Stone's benefit. d. Scott's termination decision On April 13, the Regional Director for Region 27 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in Case 27-RC-3998; therein, he directed a representation vote within a bargaining unit defined to compass all regular full-time and part-time production employees of Respon- dent's radio station, including all those employees who regularly and frequently voiced "on-the-air" radio materi- al, newsmen, outside reporters, and controllers. By April 16, thereafter, KBTR's newsroom was "awash with rumors" that Respondent' s management planned some kind of schedule or staff cutback. Hautzinger-so her credible testimony shows-saw Respondent's news direc- tor preparing a new work schedule. When she queried him with regard thereto, Hautzinger recalled: Bob [Scott] said that management was extremely concerned about a declining profit margin. And he went on to say that he had again therefore been ordered to reduce staff spending by ten percent, and he said that he'd been asked to do this because manage- ment anticipated the union's coming in and was trying to figure that that would drive wages up ten percent and was trying to make room now for them to come back up to the present level with union wage increases. [Emphasis supplied.] Replying, Hautzinger suggested this might constitute an unfair labor practice; Scott, however, rejected the sugges- tion, contending that he was "free to make this kind of change" before some specified future date. Hautzinger, then, questioned the validity of Respondent's "assump- tion" that complainant Union's success in winning repre- sentative status would necessarily presage significantly higher wage costs. Her comment-so I find-concluded the conversation. (Scott, while a witness, substantially denied making any forthright statement that he had been directed to reduce staff spending by 10 percent, specifically to "make room" for prospective company concurrence with a comparable wage increase demand which complain- ant Union would, most likely, present following certifica- tion. Respondent's news director did concede a conversa- tion with Hautzinger; with respect thereto, he did concede telling her that General Manager MacCrystall had directed him to cut payroll costs by 10 percent because of KBTR's financial condition. He contended, however, that his further comments had been phrased to reflect his personal speculation, merely, with respect to MacCrystall's motive. Previously, within this decision, I have noted the conceded "vagueness" which frequently marked Scott's proffered recollections, coupled with his disposition to provide self- 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD serving testimony . Hautzinger, by way of contrast, struck me as knowledgeable, completely self-possessed, definitive- ly straightforward, and prepared to testify consistently with her best recollection. Her proffered version with respect to this April 16 conversation-within my view-merits credence.) Shortly thereafter, sometime during the morn- ing, Stone was summoned to Scott's office. Respondent's news director declared that General Manager MacCrystall had directed him to "cut back" the station's staff, and to "economize by eliminating" Stone particularly. Scott claimed that he was , nevertheless, trying to save Stone's job; he mentioned a possible reduction in hours. When Stone, thereupon, solicited his proposal , Respon- dent's news director declared he was planning a reduction of Stone's work schedule to 16 hours per week , confined to weekend service ; he noted that there might "possibly" be further work available, from time to time, during midweek periods, but stated that he could not, then , make definite commitments with respect thereto . Replying, Stone com- mented that, should his hours be reduced , he would "probably" have to file Board charges, since a reduction of working hours for full-time workers, below the subsistence level, constituted an unfair labor practice . His testimony, then, regarding the balance of their conversation-which substantially parallels Scott's previously proffered version -reads as follows: About this point he became irate . He told me that I was being very ungrateful to not accept his offer and that he really could not understand what I was saying. This was a very serious thing, and he was very upset about it. I told him it was not economically feasible for me to work 16 hours a week, that I would not be able to make my [credit ] payments. . . . This was all based on full- time salary. The conversation at that particular time became heated, and I told him the only difference between my being fired and being reduced to 16 hours a week [was] that I would be receiving welfare if I was fired . . . . What I was indicating, he was reducing me to the poverty level which was the way I felt at that time. . . . As soon as I said the word "welfare," he flared and said, "Consider this two-weeks' notice." With this, Stone, considerably shaken, left Scott's office. Shortly thereafter, Hautzinger entered . She found KBTR's news director "extremely" angry . He declared that-de- spite his effort to keep Stone on Respondent's staff, disregarding management order to "get rid" of him-the latter had been ungrateful. He related their prior conversa- tion, declaring that Stone had reacted by saying it would be "just as good" for him to be fired, and on welfare, as reduced to part-time work. Scott conceded, to Hautzinger, that-because of his anger when confronted with the quoted statement-Stone had been discharged. Meanwhile, however, several of Stone's fellow workers had suggested that he would be well-advised to proffer an apology, while notifying Respondent's news director that he would accept part-time work. This-so the record preponderantly shows-Stone did. Scott, however, de- clared that, "What is done is done." Stone was told that his plea for reconsideration had come too late. (While a witness, testifying before Stone, Scott could not recall this conversation. For reasons previously noted, Stone's prof- fered recollections with respect thereto-within my view-merit credence.) Respondent's news director de- clared, further, that General Manager MacCrystall had been notified, by memorandum, regarding his discharge decision. With this, their conversation terminated. e. Subsequent developments Directly following his two April 16 conversations with Scott, Stone called upon Carl Akers, KBTV's news director. He reported his discharge; Akers, further, was asked whether he had "anything" which Stone could do on Respondent's television side. According to Stone, their conversation proceeded as follows : Akers asked whether he could shoot news film; Stone said he could, commenting that he had contributed some camera work in connection with a previous KBTV award-winning broadcast. Akers then declared that he would be hired subject to a 90-day probation period, with a stated salary, scheduled to begin directly following his final 2 weeks with Respondent's radio station . Before Stone left-so his testimony shows-KBTV's news director allegedly commented that their conversation marked "about as short a time as anybody has ever been out of a job." While a witness, Akers could not, initially, recall whether Stone had specifically requested work. However, he did concede, shortly thereafter, that: I told Carl, to the best of my memory, that I thought we could use him in television. I also [seem ] to remember calling in Roger Ogden, the assignment director, and telling Roger that we might be able to use Carl in television as a cameraman. According to Akers, Ogden merely shrugged, making no specific reply. KBTV's news director declared, while a witness, that he did not consider their conversational exchange a commitment with respect to Stone's hire; no details with respect to salary, or starting date, were-so he claimed-discussed. Upon this record, General Counsel suggests that Stone's circumstantially detailed testimony, based on definite recollection, should be credited, with Akers' generally vague recital-wherever divergent-disbelieved. Simplistic credibility resolutions, however, sometimes straitjacket a trier of fact's search for logical, reasonable dispositions in connection with testimonial conflict; factual determina- tions bottomed upon synthesis and reconciliation frequent- ly provide the most reasonable, likely approximation with respect to whatever may have taken place. Such a middle- of-the-road disposition, within my view, seems warranted herein. With due regard for Akers' position in KBTV's managerial hierarchy, I consider it less than likely that he would have given Stone a firm hiring commitment-par- ticularly in regard to news cameraman work-before consulting with those television station staff members whose work would be most directly affected thereby; those who would, therefore, be most directly concerned. Never- theless-with due regard for the friendly relationship which concededly prevailed between them-I doubt that KBTV's news director would have simply fobbed Stone off with a noncommittal statement that he "thought" some place "might" be found for him. Within their conversa- MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 125 tion's total context, I find, Stone was given substantial reason to believe that he was being promised a news cameraman position. Within a day or two, however, Stone had a brief conversation with Reiman, KBTV's news manager. The latter declared that Stone might have done something which he should not have done; he asked, "What is this I hear about your filing charges?" Reiman stated-so Stone testified-that he had learned of Stone's declared inten- tion, with respect to filing NLRB charges, through Scott's memorandum detailing their April 16 conversation, which had been circulated to Respondent's department heads. (Scott had prepared such a memorandum nominally directed to MacCrystall; therein Stone's brief reference to possible NLRB charges, which Scott characterized as a threat, had been mentioned.) When Stone conceded that he had, indeed, mentioned such a possibility, Reiman commented that filing charges would be "very stupid" since Alvin Flanagan, Respondent's president, could overrule Akers, thereby depriving Stone of possible employment whether or not KBTV' s news director wished to hire him. Stone declared, however, that he "didn't bite the hand that fed" him; he stated that possible Board charges had merely been mentioned once, before his April 16 discharge. (These factual findings rest upon Stone's uncontroverted testimony, which I find no reason to discredit in this connection. As previously noted, Reiman was never called to testify herein; Respondent's counsel have proffered no rationale for their failure to summon him.) In conclusion, Stone reported that-since he was being "hired across the hall" for television work-no Board unfair labor practice charges would be filed. Directly following this conversation, however, Stone called upon Scott; he complained that KBTV's news director had disseminated false information regarding his (Stone's) purported plan to file NLRB charges. Scott, replying, declared that he had a duty to report "all such things" directly to Respondent's management. Stone, so his testimony shows, thereupon asked whether Scott consid- ered him "stupid enough" to file charges challenging a firm which proposed to hire him for television work; when Scott replied negatively, Stone reiterated his protest regarding the latter's memorandum report. Respondent's news director, so I find, thereupon noted that he could now report their renewed conversation, thereby "seeing" to it that Stone got no position with Respondent's television station. While a witness, Scott had not been questioned, specifically, with respect to this conversation. His testimo- ny-completed before Stone took the witness stand-thus reflects nothing more than a bare, ipse dixit denial, tangential in this context, that Stone had been threatened with regard to his employment, should he persist in carrying on union activities. Stone's proffered recollection relative to their April 17 or 18 talk-within my view-mer- its credence. 4. Respondent's refusal to hire Stone for television work On or about April 20, Akers telephoned Stone at home during Stone's day off; he reported that "due to internal television pressure" he would be unable to hire Stone for KBTV's newsroom staff. Stone asked whether such internal pressure had come from Scott; Akers denied this, however, declaring that he had been referring to Tom Baer, KBTV's chief photographer, who had stated he wanted a fully qualified cameraman, not someone whom he would have to train. Stone recalled nothing further regarding this conversa- tion. However, KBTV's news director-whose testimony substantially corroborated Stone's recital-reported fur- ther that he had summarized, for the latter's information, the representations which Baer, together with Roger Ogden, had made to him: ... and I explained fully, I thought, to him the problems that we have in requiring trained cameramen. Carl was not a trained cameraman in using sound gear and all the things that a cameraman is required to do. I told him on the phone that I was extremely sorry because he and I had worked together about three years and we had a personal friendship, and I was indeed sincerely sorry that I couldn't use him, but I had no openings for him. When summoned in Respondent's behalf, both Ogden and Baer testified that they had participated in Akers' decision, convincing him that Stone's hire-despite his conceded competence in certain respects-would "put [KBTV's news camera crew] in a bind" since the station merely had three fully qualified cameramen and would then have three trainees. While a witness, further, Baer declared-purport- edly recapitulating the representations which he had previously made to KBTV's news director-that Stone's hire as a trainee would have "unbalanced" his camera crew; he contended that this would have impaired the crew's efficiency, making it more difficult for them to produce a quality "product" for television broadcasts. 5. Subsequent developments On Stone's last day of work-designated as April 28 within the present record-Scott entered KBTR's control room while Stone was cleaning out his "box" there. A conversation ensued; some rather disjointed, testy, and calculatedly abrasive remarks were exchanged. Scott particularly-so I find-became angered. When Stone was about to leave, with his possessions, the radio station's news director leveled a parting shot, "And don't ever say you worked at KBTR, and don't use Mullins Broadcasting as a reference." (These factual findings derive from Stone's testimony. Scott, though he purportedly remembered their final conversation, could not remember the substance of their talk; he merely recalled that "the atmosphere" had been cool.) With matters in this posture, Stone left, after first visiting Reiman's office to say goodbye. So far as the record shows, he has not-since then-revisited Respon- dent's premises. On May 5, the representation election previously directed was held. Complainant Union received a majority of the votes cast. Thereafter, on May 11, so Hautzinger's credible testimo- ny shows, Scott had occasion to engage her in conversa- tion. He asked whether she had heard that Hal Davis was soon to become KBTR's new general manager. Hautzinger 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD responded affirmatively. (The record shows that Respon- dent's radio station did terminate General Manager MacCrystall's services, for reasons not herein material, and that his tenure ceased May 14. His successor, Hal Davis, did serve from that date until sometime in July, thereafter.) Scott reported, then, that he had spoken with Davis; that Davis had said he would do his best-should the "shop" drop union representation-to see that KBTR continued its then current all-news broadcast format. When Haut- zinger protested that this seemed to place some "unfair pressure" upon Respondent's employees, Scott voiced his personal conviction that, should complainant Union persist, the station's management would have to switch to a music format (which would necessarily reduce the number of staff positions for "on-the-air" reporters). The news director declared, however, that, with Davis as general manager, unionization would not be necessary. (Scott's testimony-proffered before Hautzinger took the stand -contains nothing properly cognizable as contradictory with regard to Hautzinger's recollection of this particular conversation. Her testimony, with respect thereto, has been credited.) Nothing further was said. On May 13, 1971, complainant Union was certified as the exclusive repre- sentative of KBTR's employees, within the bargaining unit which the Regional Director had previously found appro- priate for collective-bargaining purposes. C. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The change in Way's job duties General Counsel suggests, herein, that Respondent violated both Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the statute, when Richard Way's previously performed job duties and functions were diminished directly following his testimony given during a Board representation case hearing. These contentions, within my view, have been sustained. The representation case record, proffered and received herein pursuant to stipulation, reveals that Way was summoned as complainant Union's witness; when request- ed to describe his various job functions, he proffered a factual description which-reasonably construed-did tend to undercut Respondent's contention, therein, that separate bargaining units should be found proper for KBTR's 12 "on-the-air" announcers and 4 "off-the-air" controllers. The next morning, however, Way's various work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities were promptly redefined; KBTR's news director declared that he would be, thereafter, restricted to three designated functions, and would no longer be required to perform two particular functions which, concededly, required greater initiative, and presented greater challenges. The present record, considered in totality, warrants a determina- tion-which I make-that Respondent' s management, thereby, discriminated against Way because of dissatisfac- tion with his representation case participation in complain- ant Union's behalf. Within his brief, Respondent's counsel-purportedly countering General Counsel's presentation-points out that this Board's Regional Director, before the present consolidated complaint issued, twice refused to issue a complaint specifically challenging the propriety of Respon- dent's course of conduct with respect to Way's terms and working conditions. Counsel's factual resume, however, fails to delineate, precisely, whatever significance these prior refusals may carry, for present purposes. Well- established decisional doctrine dictates a conclusion that-since they did not rest upon a formal proceeding, within which relevant factual and legal questions were litigated-they provide no basis for a possible resjudicata determination herein; likewise, clearly, they create no present "equitable estoppel" calculated to bar General Counsel's prosecution. They cannot-so I find-preclude a Board determination, bottomed upon a formal record, calculated to resolve the factual and legal questions herein presented. Respondent, however, specifically challenges General Counsel's contention that Way's duties were changed discriminatorily. Within his brief, counsel suggests, rather, that the latter's duties were consolidated "because station personnel genuinely felt [presumably because of his representation case testimony solely] that [he] was unhap- py" with five different functions. Upon this record, however, such a contention-within my view-smacks of stultification. Way's prior testimony, save for his rather prideful "team" reference, had been completely factual; nothing whatsoever, therein, had suggested discontent. Clearly, therefore, Scott's "next day" comment-purport- edly recapitulating a judgment which General Manager MacCrystall claimed to have reached following the station employee's testimony-merits characterization as com- pletely gratuitous. Nevertheless, despite Way's patent surprise and repeated protestation that MacCrystall's purported judgment was mistaken, KBTR's news director persisted. Respondent's management representatives, so Scott declared, considered him discontented. They had, Scott reported, spent 2 hours the previous evening trying to "figure out" how to make him "happy" with his work. And they concluded-so the record shows-that their purpose could be accomplished by restricting Way's work-related functions to the "least interesting portions" compassed within his then current schedule. Such strangely aberrant paternalism-within my view-reflects "needling" reason- ably calculated to discombobulate him, rather than genuine helpfulness. Further, Scott's several declarations -during his subsequent conversation with Hautzinger directly following Way's reassignment-clearly warrant a present determination that Respondent's management was really "unhappy" because of the latter's representation case testimony; that it was their unhappiness which motivated his reassignment; and, finally, that KBTR's news director, himself, considered Way's revised work schedule a form of reprisal. Respondent's contrary sugges- tions carry no persuasive power. Lastly, Respondent contends that Way's reassignment should not be considered "discrimination or punishment" since neither his salary nor his work hours was changed. This suggestion, however, likewise lacks merit. Statutorily proscribed Section 8(a)(3) and (4) discrimination "in regard to . . . any term or condition of employment" may be found, whenever a forbidden cause or motive therefor has been proven, even though a particularly disadvantaged worker's current wage scale and working hours may not MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 127 have been directly affected thereby. Kendall Company, 188 NLRB No. 118 (TDX) (warning notice issued for pretextu- al reasons); Nathan's Famous of Yonkers, Inc., 186 NLRB No. 19 (transfer to a less desirable place of work); Capital Electric Power Association, 171 NLRB No. 42 (TXD) (exclusion from a preferential work list); Block-Southland Sportwear, Inc., 170 NLRB 936, 974-977 (transfer to less desirable work, warning notice issued for work absentee- ism required by Board subpena); Kinter Bros., Inc., 167 NLRB 57, 58 (transfer to less desirable work); Macy's Missouri-Kansas Division, 162 NLRB 754, 760-763 (trans- fer to better paid work within a different department); Sheboygan Sausage Company, Inc., 156 NLRB 1490, 1503-1516 (transfer to less desirable work). Previously, within this decision, I have found that Way's job duties, functions, and responsibilities were modified because of his representation case testimony-proffered therein pursuant to complainant Union's request-and, more particularly, because Respondent's management was concerned about that testimony's possible weight and significance. For people like Way herein-considered "talent" employees -personal, nontangible, factors frequently contribute significantly to work satisfaction. Work schedule changes calculated to withdraw from such employees job duties and functions which require more initiative, carry greater responsibility, and present a greater challenge necessarily render their work less desirable; such changes may, therefore, reasonably be considered punitive. The present record-within my view-fully warrants a determination, consistent with the decisions herein cited, that Richard Way was discriminatorily deprived of desirable job duties, functions, and responsibilities, for reasons statutorily proscribed. 2. Respondent's decision to reduce Stone's working hours followed by his termination Previously, within this Decision, determination has been made that Respondent's management-speaking through its radio station's news director-publicly stated its purpose to reduce "staff spending" by 10 percent, through revised work schedules, because complainant Union's eventual success in winning representative status was foreseen; Scott declared, so I have found, that Respon- dent's management expected complainant Union, when recognized, would present wage increase demands, but proposed to "make room . . . for them" beforehand, so that, when granted, they would merely serve to restore the station's overall salary costs to their current level. General Counsel contends, herein, that Stone's working hours were slated for a prospective reduction pursuant to this cost-cutting program. Further, General Counsel suggests, within his brief, that Respondent's proposal to reduce Stone's working hours, for the purpose noted, should be considered "in and of" itself, without any further proof of union animus, discrimination with regard to his working terms and conditions, for a statutorily proscribed reason. These contentions, within my view, merit Board concurrence. Preliminarily, some basic principles should be noted. The Supreme Court has held that the tendency of challenged employer conduct to "weaken or destroy" statutorily protected rights constitutes the controlling standard for determining 8(axl) violations. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21, 23-24. The Court has declared further that-under certain circumstances-this Board's determi- nations in regard to statutorily proscribed interference, restraint, and coercion reasonably calculated to deprive workers of their Section 7 rights need not, necessarily, depend upon record proof with respect to demonstrated antiumon bias. Likewise, with particular reference to claimed 8(a)(3) violations, Supreme Court decisions have defined two situations wherein apodictic proof with regard to purportedly improper motives may not be necessary. N.L.RB. v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26; N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Company, 389 U.S. 375. In Great Dane Trailers, Chief Justice Warren noted that, when challenged employer conduct may reasonably be considered "inher- ently destructive" with respect to important employee rights, no proof of antiunion motivation is needed; this Board, under such circumstances, can find an unfair labor practice even should the concerned employer produce evidence that his conduct was motivated by business considerations . Secondarily, however, should a determina- tion be considered warranted, merely, that "the adverse effect of the discriminatory conduct on employee rights" was comparatively slight, the presence of some antiunion motivation must be proved, but only if the concerned employer has proffered "evidence" calculated to establish some legitimate and substantial business justification for challenged conduct. 388 U.S. 26 at 34; 389 U.S. 375 at 380. Should the respondent employer fail to show "legitimate and substantial business justifications" challenged conduct may properly be considered statutorily proscribed, despite any possible lack of proof regarding a specific antiunion motivation therefor. The present record, within my view, fully warrants a determination, at the very least, that Respondent manage- ment's decision to reduce KBTR's staff salary costs-for the specific purpose previously noted-was reasonably calculated to affect protected employee rights adversely, to some extent. When General Manager MacCrystall directed Scott to reduce the radio station's total salary costs, so that some concessions to complainant Union could be made during negotiations thereafter without raising Respondent 's over- all salary expenditures above their current levels, the immediately prospective earnings of station personnel were placed in jeopardy, precisely and solely because of their scheduled participation in statutorily sanctioned proceed- ings. Since the Regional Director's recently published Decision and Direction of Election had generated Mac- Crystall's decision, KBTR's staff would necessarily be persuaded, thereby, to "think twice" before proceeding to designate a collective-bargaining representative. In short, Respondent's projected cost-cutting program-considered with due regard for its timing particularly-burdened the statutorily protected right of KBTR's employees to engage in a representation proceeding. To the extent that Respon- dent's plan, when effectuated, would have caused some earnings loss for particular employees, which they would not otherwise have been required to bear, the plan's effectuation would inevitably had tended to alienate them 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the labor organization seeking designation as their collective-bargaining representative, complainant Union herein. Likewise, Respondent's course of conduct-proceeding to fruition-would necessarily have "undercut" the collec- tive-bargaining process which Respondent's management considered reasonably in prospect; thereby, Respondent's program would necessarily have discouraged the station staff's acquisition or retention of membership with their newly designated exclusive bargaining representative. These results, however, would have been derivative from Respondent's basic underlying offense, the financial toll which KBTR's management proposed to levy upon concerned station personnel, because of their participation in statutorily sanctioned representation proceedings. Com- pare Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 173 NLRB 133, 136-139, enfd. 429 F.2d 1223, 1227-1232, (C.A. 3), in this connec- tion. (The present record may not, conceivably, warrant a determination' that Respondent's cost-cutting program, when effectuated, would have been "inherently destruc- tive" of statutorily protected employee rights. There can be no doubt, however, that Respondent's projected imposition of various salary cutbacks, whether effectuated through reduced work schedules, layoffs, or some other means, shortly before a vote calculated to resolve complainant Union's representation claim was scheduled, could have "adversely affected employee rights" to some extent. See N. L. R. B. v. Great Dane Trailers, supra, N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., supra. Compare United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 180 NLRB 325, 327-328; this Board, therein, concurred with a Trial Examiner's determination that a concerned employer's temporary withdrawal of various employee benefits during collective-bargaining negotia- tions, calculated to force a contractual settlement upon terms which the respondent firm considered less burden- some, visited a hardship upon particular workers affected thereby because of their union adherence; the respondent firm's tactic -was found to constitute proscribed interfer- ence with statutorily guaranteed rights, as well as discrimi- nation for having engaged in union activity.) With matters in this posture, then, we must consider, whether Respon- dent has come forward with evidence sufficient to show some "legitimate and substantial business justification" for MacCrystall's cost-cutting directive. The present record, considered in totality, provides no basis-within my view-for a factual determination that Scott's projected work schedule revisions, concededly undertaken pursuant to "orders from Mr. MacCrystall to cut the payroll by ten percent," were really economically motivated. While a witness, Scott did attribute MacCrystall's directive to Respondent radio station's financial condition. Further, within this decision, I have previously found that-during his April 16 conversation with Hautzinger particularlyhe did mention management's concern re- garding a purportedly declining profit margin. Respon- dent's defensive presentation herein, however, reflects no evidentiaryproffers calculated to provide reliable, substan- tial, and probative support for a conclusion that KBTR's financial condition was, really, less than healthy. True, Stone did concede that KBTR's news director-during their crucial April 16 conversation-had cited the station's Frontier Airlines commercial account as lost, and had described "the condition of the economy in general" as not favorable. Clearly, however, Scott had proffered no support for these bare ipse dixit pronouncements, during the several conversations in question ; Respondent's defen- sive presentation herein, likewise, reflects no evidentiary showing, whatsoever, in these respects. To the contrary, Scott's testimony, finally, reflects a concession that--de- spite MacCrystall's directive-the radio station's staff was never really reduced. He testified that: I think when I got to the station there were 22 full-time and two part-time employees, I believe. When I left the station in August, there were 22 full time and two part time for the same total of 24. It was always very near that figure. For the record, further, General Counsel has proffered several previously posted rosters listing station personnel; these were presumably produced to support a determina- tion, herein, that KBTR's staff suffered no permanent reduction, either during the period with which this case is directly concerned or thereafter; Respondent's presenta- tion reflects no effort, whatsoever, to explain these rosters or to counter whatever relevant inferences this Board might derive therefrom. Further-even assuming, arguendo, some contention herein that the anticipation of increased labor costs due to unionization should be considered a realistic factor sufficient to justify Respondent's projected cost-cutting program-the present record provides no persuasive support for a conclusion that such cost increases could reasonably have been anticipated. A representation vote, though directed, had not yet been scheduled; complainant Union's right to demand recognition and collective bargaining had not yet been determined; no salary demands had yet been presented. Under these circum- stances, so I find, Respondent's belief-proclaimed through Scott particularly-that some "room" had to be made, immediately, for salary concessions which might eventually be demanded during prospective collective- bargaining negotiations, derived from a remote and tenuous possibility which was "not commensurate with" and which, therefore, could not justify the station's cost reduction program, and the overwhelming probability that it would, when effectuated, adversely affect statutorily guaranteed employee rights. N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., supra. See, likewise, N.L.R.B. v. George J. Roberts & Son, Inc., 451 F.2d 941 (C.A. 2), enfg. 188 NLRB No. 51, in this connection. Respondent's proposed cost reduction program was not calculated to meet a current economic exigency but one predicated, as previously noted, upon the possible outcome of negotiations which, conceivably, would later take place. Respondent was assuming the culmination of a sequence that had not yet even begun; this on no other basis than MacCrystall's belief that complainant Union's prospective success in winning representative status would eventually prompt it to confront Respondent with a ten percent salary increase demand. The present record realistically viewed, in short, clearly warrants a determination that Respondent's manage- MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 129 ment-through its projected cost reduction program-was seeking, beforehand, to build a lower "floor" from which, to bargain upward, later, with respect to staff salaries. Had Respondent determined to effectuate some comparable salary cost reductions following a bargaining representa- tive's selection, but before any negotiations had yet taken place, such reductions would clearly have violated Section 8(a)(5), not charged herein. A representation vote preced- ent to a collective-bargaining representatives designation was, however, in the offing; Respondent's projected cost reduction program, therefore, contemplated the creation of a situation which would necessarily affect, significantly, one subject matter of future negotiations . Such a purpose, looking toward future possibilities, provides no valid justification, within my view, for management conduct which, when undertaken, invaded the protected right of KBTR's staff personnel to participate in a representation proceeding without suffering reprisal or threats of reprisal. My conclusion with respect to Respondent's basic violation here derives from a determination that Scott's projected cost-cutting program-because of its timing and purpose-constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, directed against the protected right of radio station personnel to determine and freely choose a bargaining representative. And since the program was, further, purposed to restrict and confine the bargaining process, Scott's undertaking with respect to its effectuation, likewise, constituted an act of discrimination, reasonably calculated-so I find to discourage union membership and support. Respondent herein-as previously noted -has proffered no reliable, substantial, or probative evidence tending to demonstrate "substantial business justifications" for the program; determination is found warranted, therefore, that Respondent's course of conduct, now under consideration, transgressed the statute's Section 8(a)(1) and (3) strictures, without regard to whether Respondent's management was subjectively motivated, precisely, to bring about the statutorily proscribed interfer- ence and discouragement which flowed therefrom. Upon this record, however, Carl Stone seems to have been the first-and, so far as can now be told , only-pro- jected victim of Respondent's unlawfully motivated sched- ule revisions. Since he was, concededly, selected for a reduction to part-time work, pursuant to a program which I have herein found subject to statutory interdiction, no further evidentiary showing that he was discriminatorily chosen, for some particularized reason, need be made. Compare J. M. Lassing, et al. d/b/a Consumer's Gasoline Station, 126 NLRB 1041, 1049-1051, in this connection. I find it unnecessary, therefore, to determine whether-con- sistently with General Counsel's further contention-the radio station's news director selected Stone for discrimina- tory treatment, particularly, because of his known union sympathies. (Within his brief, General Counsel suggests -with considerable record justification-that Stone's freely declared and clearly displayed support for complain- ant Union herein was really known to Respondent's radio station management. Were a determination with regard to Respondent's presumptive "knowledge" with respect there- to required, herein, I would probably so hold. However, the present record-within my view-provides nothing more than some basis for suspicion that Stone's union sympa- thies were considered by KBTR's news director-or that they constituted a moving factor-when his working hours were initially scheduled for reduction. Nothing herein warrants a determination that KBTV's news manager, though a recipient of Stone's freely proffered declaration that he would vote for complainant Union herein, mentioned it during any discussion with KBTR's manage- ment representatives. And Scott, certainly, said nothing calculated to reveal a previously hidden antiunion animus, directed toward Stone particularly, during their April 16 conversation's early stages . Respondent's management, so far as the record shows, had mounted no sustained campaign to counter complainant Union's certification drive. Nor had Stone's previously manifested support for complainant Union herein-so far as the record shows -generated management resentments centered upon him particularly. According to Scott's recollection, KBTR's general manager-the station's eminence grise so far as this case is concernedhad advised him to consider complain- ant Union's designation and selection a foregone conclu- sion, and to refrain from worrying about it. With matters in this posture, the present record-even without regard for Scott's last-mentioned self-serving protestation--can hard- ly be said to provide a reliable, substantial, or probative basis for concluding that Stone was deliberately selected for a retaliatory working hours reduction, because of his union sympathies.) Whether or not Stone was, himself, discriminatorily selected, his scheduled reduction in working hours-pursuant to a projected cost-cutting program set up for statutorily proscribed reasons--consti- tuted discrimination violative of law. I so find. Respondent does--of course-contend that Stone was designated to work a reduced schedule for several business reasons-which General Counsel would, contrariwise, have me characterize as pretextual. Within his brief, company counsel notes that Stone had previously been removed from "traffic report" duty because of manage- ment's dissatisfaction with his on-the -air delivery ; that his concurrent pursuit of college studies had previously required management to arrange some occasional split shifts for him which had complicated the radio station's work schedules ; that Scott had developed something less than a high regard for his overall job performance; and that KBTR's news director, for reasons never convincingly explicated herein, had previously considered him a part- time worker. Upon this record, however, I would consider Scott's testimonially professed subjective judgment with regard to Stone's job performance, together with his presently declared conclusionary determination that Stone was a part-time worker, both unsubstantiated and unper- suasive. Respondent's further suggestions-that he (Stone) had been selected for a cutback in hours because of management's previously-articulated 'judgment that he lacked certain desirable qualifications for on-the-air duty, and because Scott believed his continued full-time employ- ment, coordinated with college study, might generate future work scheduling problems-could conceivably be persuasive under other circumstances . Since he was, however, concededly designated for a prospective reduc- tion in working hours to effectuate MacCrystall's cutback 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD directive which I have found unlawfully motivated, the fact that his selection could, conceivably, have been justified, had Scott been trying to formulate a cost reduction program adopted for "legitimate and substantial" business reasons, provides Respondent with no exculpation herein. Stone's discharge must now be considered. When confronted with Scott's notice that he would thereafter be required to work a significantly restricted part-time schedule, he declared that he would "probably" have to file N.L.R.B. charges; Scott concededly became "hot under the collar" when this remark was made. (Stone's testimonial declarations herein-detailing his basis for believing that Respondent's conduct would be found statutorily pro- scribed-reflect a layman's misconception regarding the statute's precise thrust. Realistically, however, he was quite close to the mark. And Scott's possible consciousness that his course of conduct when dispassionately viewed -might well be considered deficient in fairness may conceivably have contributed to his angry reaction noted; his testimony that he was merely trying to dissuade Stone from pursuing a course which might upset prospective or potential employers smacks of post hoc rationalization.) When Stone, nevertheless, persisted in voicing his resent- ment and distress over Scott's proposed reduction of his working hours, because it would severely restrict his earnings, he was given "two weeks notice" that he was being terminated. Within his brief, Respondent's counsel suggests that -since Stone had rejected the "new schedule" which Scott was preparing for him-the latter, with good reason, terminated him. This contention, however, merits rejection. Had Scott's proposal-with regard to Stone's newly revised working schedule-been derived from a so-called "cut- back" program bottomed upon legitimate and substantial business justifications, the latter's refusal to accept such a justified part-time schedule could, conceivably, provide some basis for a Board determination that his subsequent dismissal flouted no statutory mandate. Compare Currin- Greene Shoe Manufacturing Company, Inc., 190 NLRB No. 120 (TXD), in this connection. The present record, however, will warrant a conclusion-within my view-that Stone's discharge constituted a spur-of-the-moment escala- tion with respect to Respondent's unlawfully motivated cost-cutting program, reasonably calculated to promote that program's proclaimed purpose. (I find support for this determination in Scott's refusal to reconsider his discharge decision; this, despite Stone's apology, which he coupled with a declaration of willingness to take part-time work. Had KBTR's news director really been concerned to dissuade Stone from doing something foolish, his discharge decision could have been readily reversed.) Since Stone's termination, thus, carried to'fruition a cost-cutting pro- gram, which I have found discriminatorily motivated, that termination-separately considered-may likewise be con- sidered violative of law. I so find. 3. Respondent's refusal to hire Stone for television work General Counsel herein contends that, directly following Stone's receipt of Scott's 2-week termination notice, Carl Akers hired him for a news cameraman position, not knowing or being informed of his union sympathies or his tentative "threat" with respect to filing unfair labor practice charges; that KBTV's news director learned of Stone's union adherence and possible NLRB charges shortly thereafter, either through conversations with News Manager Reiman or through a perusal of Scott's memoran- dum with regard to Stone's April 16 termination, which had purportedly been circulated to Respondent's depart- ment heads; and that Akers' subsequent April 20 with- drawal of his previously proffered hiring commitment reflected a decision not to hire Stone because of his union activities and/or because he had threatened to charge Respondent with unfair labor practices. Confronted, then, with Respondent's rejoinder-that Stone was really denied a cameraman's position solely because he lacked certain skills which a competent, "fully qualified" news camera- man should possess, and because the television station's news camera crew could not, then, conveniently take on a third "trainee" without compromising its productive efficiency and product quality-General Counsel suggests, first, that neither of Respondent's witnesses who so testified, Chief Photographer Baer and Roger Ogden, merit credence. Secondarily, his representative contends that-should their challenged testimony be credited-the negative representations which they purportedly made were calculated, merely, to provide KBTV's news director with a pretextual reason for discriminatorily denying Stone news cameraman work. The present record, considered in totality, does not. -within my view-sustain General Counsel's theory, with respect to this particular facet of his complete case. For several reasons, I have concluded that Respondent's counter-presentation--detailing the circumstances which prompted KBTV's rejection of Stone's request for news cameraman work-merits Board concurrence. First: The mere fact that Respondent's television station supervisors-Akers and Reiman-may have become knowledgeable with regard to Stone's previously manifest- ed union sympathies and/or his purported threats to charge Respondent's radio station management with unfair labor practices cannot, without more, sustain a factual determination that their subsequent refusal to hire Stone was motivated thereby. (My subsidiary conclusion herein-consistently with General Counsel's contention-that these management representatives, shared "knowledge" with regard to Stone's prounion views and/or his April 16 remark relative to filing Board charges, derives from a record showing which Respondent has not controverted. KBTV's news manager clearly had, sometime previously, received Stone's freely proffered comment that he intended to vote for complain- ant Union herein; further, Stone's credible, undenied testimony regarding their April 17-18 conversation clearly reveals Reiman's knowledge with respect to his [Stone's) purported charge threat. With due regard for relevant Board precedents, Akers' concurrent knowledge, with respect thereto, whether actual or merely constructive, may be presumed.) Some evidentiary showing with respect to their claimed union animus must, normally, be present before inferences can be considered warranted that some relevant "knowl- MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 131 edge" with regard to his union proclivities motivated their disposition of Stone's job request. Nothing of that sort, however, can be found within the present record. Reiman's disposition toward Stone, throughout, was clearly friendly; his comment regarding Stone's purported "threat" to file NLRB charges reflected avuncular concern, within my view, rather than resentment or criticism. Akers' final posture with respect to Stone's job request, likewise, reflected a tacitly expressed hope that their personal relationship would continue friendly; General Counsel's presentation, herein, provides n direct support, whatsoev- er, for a conclusion that KBTV's news director was dissembling. This being the situation, then, General Counsel's present contention-that Respondent's refusal to hire Stone for news cameraman work derived from statutorily proscribed motives-must, necessarily, rest upon further, circumstantial proof, sufficient to warrant a determination that Akers' professed motives were really pretextual. Second: Respondent's proffered reasons for denying Stone's request cannot, however, be so readily dismissed as pretexts. Testifying in Respondent's behalf, Chief Photog- rapher Baer and Roger Ogden reported their participation in discussions with regard to Stone's possible hire; they claim to have persuaded KBTV's news director that his engagement would burden the television station's news camera crew with a supernumerary member, whose "trainee" needs would create strains for his "fully quali- fied" fellow cameraman, thus impairing their capacity to produce a "quality" product for broadcast purposes. This line of testimony has not-despite General Counsel's contrary suggestionbeen directly controverted. Further, both Baer and Ogden testified straightforwardly; their testimony, within its record context, certainly cannot be considered "inherently" beyond credence. I believe that both were reporting judgments honestly held. General Counsel suggests, contrariwise, that Baer and Ogden were really providing KBTV's news director-together with Reiman presumably-with a pretextual rationale, calculat- ed to justify Respondent's refusal to hire Stone for news cameraman work; he cites concessions-proffered by Respondent's several witnesses-that Stone was "excel- lent" with respect to shooting still photography, and sufficiently competent to produce "above average" work when shooting silent movie film. However, General Counsel's record showing with respect to Stone's previous "on-the-job" camera experience will not, reasonably, support a conclusion that he could "handle any assign- ment, anywhere, any time" and produce film of profession- al quality. Though Stone's testimony-which stands without controversion in this respect-reveals that he had, during his previous period of KBTV service, done some sound photography work, General Counsel's presentation, within my view, cannot be considered a persuasive rebuttal of Chief Photographer Baer's contention that he lacked well rounded "sound-on-film" experience, that he lacked editing experience, and that he possessed basic knowledge, merely. Third: I find General Counsel's final suggestion-that KBTV's news director must have been discriminatorily motivated because, otherwise, their concededly friendly relationship would have induced him to find "something" for Stone to do within Respondent's television station -singularly unpersuasive. Within his brief, General Counsel puts the matter thus: In conclusion, it is hard to imagine that Akers would not have found something for Stone to do with the TV station inasmuch as he was a friend of Stone, had encouraged Stone to go back to school, had sent him over to the radio station for experience, etc., if Akers was not discriminatorily refusing to hire Stone. This rationale suggests a further, obverse contention that Akers, having given Stone substantial reason to believe he would be given a news cameraman position, could not have been persuaded to "renege" with respect thereto for legitimate business reasons, presented subsequently by professional colleagues. Previously, within this decision, however, I have found that persuasive business reasons -reasonably calculated to justify Akers' withdrawal of his presumptive job commitment-were, really, presented for his consideration; that these persuasive considerations have not been proven pretextual; and that they were specifically cited and relied upon when KBTV's news director notified Stone, regretfully, that his work request could not be satisfied. Further, I have found that General Counsel's presentation-calculated to suggest two statuto- rily proscribed motives for Akers' conduct-provides a less-than-sufficient factual premise for his proffered conclusion. The rationale necessarily suggested in General Counsel's declared position-that Akers' statutorily pro- scribed "discriminatory" motives must have overcome his previously demonstrated friendly concern for Stone's welfare-merits rejection. 4. Interference, restraint, and coercion For reasons which I have previously detailed, within my discussion relative to Stone's designation for part-time work and subsequent termination, I find Scott's prior conversational declaration to Hautzinger-that he was going to cut wages by 10 percent in anticipation of complainant Union's certification and subsequent request for negotiations-reasonably calculated to interfere with, restrain, or coerce KBTR's concerned personnel, with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed. Likewise, Reiman's April 17-18 comments that Stone's presumptive "threat" to file Board charges should not have been made, and that a followthrough with respect thereto would be "very stupid" since it would jeopardize his chances for work on Respondent's television side-clearly carried a suggestion, though proffered as friendly counsel, that employees might find their positions or job possibili- ties in jeopardy, should they choose to exercise statutorily guaranteed rights. Thereby, I find, Respondent further flouted a statutory mandate. The record, previously summarized, reveals that Stone, following his conversation with KBTV's news manager, challenged the propriety and fairness of Scott's circulated memorandum report that he (Stone) intended to charge Respondent's management, then and there, with unfair labor practices. KBTR's news director-so I have found -testily replied that he could further publicize Stone's protest, thereby prejudicing his chances for procuring work 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on Respondent's television side. Substantially, this was a threat that Stone's possible hire for news camera work might be stalled or foreclosed because of his previous declaration that he might "possibly" find himself con- strained to exercise a statutorily guaranteed right. Scott's comment, therefore, must be considered violative of law. On May 11, so I have found, Scott suggested to Hautzinger that-should KBTR's staff members drop their newly designated union representative-the station's newly hired general manager would undertake to preserve its current "all-news" broadcast format; further, Scott prof- fered his personal view that, should complainant Union press its representative status, KBTR's management would be forced to switch to music broadcasting, which would necessarily reduce the number of staff reporters needed. These comments, patently, compassed both a threat of reprisal and promise of benefit, conditioned upon the station employees' choice, in futuro, with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaranteed. Such threats and promises, clearly, merit Board proscription. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's course of conduct described in section III, above, since it occurred in connection with Respondent's business operations described in section I, above, had, and continues to have, a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States; absent correction such conduct would tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since I have found that Respondent engaged, and continues to engage, in certain unfair labor practices which affect commerce, I shall recommend that it be directed to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action, including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended. Specifically, since I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (4) of the statute, through a discriminatory redefinition and restriction of Richard Way's work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities, specifically because of his prior testimony given in connection with a Board representation proceeding, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to remove any restrictive limitations currently in force regarding the scope of his work duties and responsibilities, and to offer him, promptly, reinstatement to a position embodying the full range of work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities which he had previously performed. (These recommenda- tions, however, should not be deemed restrictive of Respondent's right, hereafter, to revise radio station work schedules-within its sound discretion-for business rea- sons, so long as such schedule revisions are not bottomed upon considerations which the National Labor Relations Act would proscribe.) Likewise, since I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the statute through Carl Stone's termination under the circumstances detailed herein, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former radio station position, with a full-time work schedule--should Stone so request-which provides shift arrangements, comparable to those which prevailed before his termination, calculated to permit his continued school attendance. Should such a position no longer exist, Stone should be reinstated to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. It will be recommended, further, that Respondent be required to make Stone whole for any pay losses which he may have suffered because of the discrimination practiced against him, by paying him a sum of money equal to the amount which he would have earned as wages , for full-time work, between the date of his discharge and the date of his reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period. Stone's backpay should be computed by calendar quarters, pursuant to the formula which the Board now uses. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest thereon should likewise be paid, computed at 6 percent per year. See Isis Plumbing & Heating, 138 NLRB 716, in this connection. In the light of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Mullins Broadcasting Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business activities which affect commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. 2. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Denver Local, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended, which admits certain employees of Mullins Broadcasting Company to membership. 3. Respondent-when it discriminatorily redefined and restricted Richard L. Way's work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities because of his activities on behalf of complainant Union herein, and because he had previously given testimony in connection with a Board representation proceeding-discriminated against Way in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as amended. 4. Respondent-when it discharged Carl Stone because of his declared resentment and protest following notice that he was being rescheduled for part-time work pursuant to a purportedly general revision of staff working schedules undertaken for statutorily proscribed reasons-discrimi- nated against Stone in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as amended. 5. Respondent-through various statements to employ- ees by management representatives that (a) their radio station employer's salary costs were being reduced through revised work schedules in anticipation of complainant Union's certification, (b) station personnel might find their continued employment or chances for reemployment jeopardized should they pursue previously declared pur- poses to charge Respondent with unfair labor practices, MULLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY 133 and (c) station reporters could forestall a staff reduction, consequent upon possible changes in their employer's program policy, should they forswear union representa- tion-interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees with respect to their exercise of rights statutorily guaran- teed, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as amended. 6. Respondent, by its course of conduct set forth above, has engaged in, and continues to engage in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' Respondent, Mullins Broadcasting Company, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Redefining and restricting the work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities of employees because such employees have been active on behalf of unions, or because such employees have given testimony in connec- tion with a National Labor Relations Board proceeding. (b) Proposing to reduce or reducing hours of work for particular employees, pursuant to revised work schedules which have been prepared to prejudice or restrict-pro- spectively-their designated collective-bargaining repre- sentative's future negotiations with regard to their wages, hours, and terms or conditions of work. (c) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees who declare their resentment or protest when notified with regard to their prospectively reduced work schedules, prepared under statutorily proscribed circum- stances. (d) Interfering with, restraining, and/or coercing em- ployees-in any other like or related manner-with respect to their exercise of rights which Section 7 of the statute guarantees. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended: (a) Offer Richard L. Way immediate and full reinstate- ment to a position with the full range of work-related duties, functions, and responsibilities which he had previously performed. (b) Offer Carl Stone immediate and full reinstatement to his former radio station position-subject to the conditions and qualifications set forth within "The Remedy" section of this Decision-or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. (c) Make Carl Stone whole for any pay losses which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him, consistently with the requirements set forth within "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (d) Notify Carl Stone, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstate- ment under this Recommended Order, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records relevant and necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Board order. (f) Post at its place of business in Denver, Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall be posted immediately upon receipt, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives. When posted, they shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) File with the Regional Director for Region 27, as the Board's agent, within 20 days from the date of service of this Trial Examiner's Decision, a written statement setting forth the manner and form in which it has complied with these recommendations .3 1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec, 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 2 In the event that the Board's order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply " herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing, during which all parties were given an opportunity to present evidence and argument, it has been determined that we violated the law by committing certain unfair labor practices. In order to remedy such conduct, we are being required to post this notice. We intend to comply with this requirement, and to abide by the following commitments. WE WILL NOT redefine or restrict the work-related duties, functions, or responsibilities of employees because such employees have been active on behalf of a union, or because such employees have given testimony in connection with a National Labor Relations Board proceeding. WE WILL NOT propose to reduce hours of work, for particular employees, nor will we reduce them, pur- suant to revised work schedules which have been prepared to prejudice or restrict-prospectively-their designated collective-bargaining representative's future 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD negotiations with regard to their wages, hours, and terms or conditions of work. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees who declare their resentment or protest when notified of prospectively reduced work schedules prepared under circumstances which the National Labor Relations Act proscribes. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through a bargaining agent which they have chosen, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. WE WILL offer Richard L. Way immediate and full reinstatement to a position with the full range of work- related duties, functions, and responsibilities which he had previously performed. WE WILL offer Carl Stone immediate and full reinstatement to his former radio station position, or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and we will make him whole for any pay losses which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him. WE WILL notify Carl Stone, if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon application, after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended. Dated By MuLLINS BROADCASTING COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material . Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, US Custom House, Room 260, 721 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202,Telephone 837-3551.