International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada and Metromedia, Inc. and National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 31-CD- 161 July 30, 1976 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by Metromedia, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Can- ada, herein called IATSE, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain con- duct with an object of forcing or requiring the Em- ployer to assign particular work to employees repre- sented by IATSE rather than to employees represented by National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called NABET. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Lucien M. Chipley on March 8, 15, and 23, April 7, and May 4, 1976. All parties ap- peared at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to present evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, all parties filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in this case and hereby makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the op- eration of 6 television stations and 12 radio stations in the States of New York, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, and Ohio, and in the District of Columbia. The 785 Employer's principal place of business is located in New York, New York. The Employer's annual gross revenues derived from operating said television and radio stations is in excess of $500,000. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act; it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act; and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, and National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, CLC, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer owns and operates television station KTTV in Los Angeles, California. KTTV broadcasts the news on a daily basis, with a half hour program at 11 a.m. and 11:30 p.m., an hour broadcast at 10 p.m., and several 2- or 3-minute broadcasts during the day. The Employer's operations are divided into several departments, including the news department and the engineering department. Since acquiring station KTTV, the Employer has assigned film cameramen represented by IATSE to the news department. These cameramen perform the function of news gathering, using portable hand-held 16 mm film cameras. KTTV employs four film crews, each consisting of a two-man operation which uses a film camera and sound equipment. The film crews receive their assignments from the news editor, and proceed to the location to capture the story. On most occasions, the crew is accompanied by a reporter, who gives it some general instructions as to what events must be captured on film. The crews work without a reporter approximately 25 percent of the time, and the members of the crew, in those instan- ces, are required to exercise their own independent judgment in filming the particular story. Film editors represented by IATSE are responsible for editing the news film. The Employer has assigned the camerawork for programs taped in the studio to engineers repre- sented by NABET. The engineers operate large, im- mobile, electronic cameras mounted on pedestals. For most in-studio programs, which are recorded on 225 NLRB No. 103 786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD videotape, the Employer utilizes a multiple-camera operation which allows it to record shots from differ- ent angles. Thus, no single cameraman is responsible for capturing an entire program. The engineers function as part of a production crew consisting of a director or producer, audio engi- neer, lighting director, technical director, and video controller. The director tells each of the cameramen what shots he wants them to get, and then he coordi- nates all the cameras for a single program. On occasion, the electronic camera production crew has been dispatched to various remote locations outside the studio to cover such prescheduled events as sporting events or election returns, or to cover on- going news stories such as natural disasters or an air- plane hijacking. The method of operation at remote locations is similar to that in the studio, with several cameras placed in various stationary positions. The camerawork is supervised by the same people com- prising the studio production team. On a very infrequent basis in the past, the engi- neers have operated portable hand-held electronic cameras in the field, either with or without supervi- sion. These cameras were the products of the same technological innovations which resulted in the min- iature electronic camera which is the subject of the present dispute. NABET engineers are also responsi- ble for editing the videotape. The Employer had been considering the use of miniature electronic cameras since 1972. The so- called "minicam" is a hand-held portable electronic camera with accompanying videotape recorder, weighing approximately 22 pounds, and is basically a miniaturized version of the electronic pedestal cam- era. In the fall of 1975, the Employer commenced tests with the Akai camera to determine its suitability for broadcasting. In October 1975, the Employer de- termined that it would purchase two minicams and make limited use thereof for news-gathering purpos- es. After the minicam was tested and purchased, the Employer assigned its operation in the news-gather- ing context to cameramen represented by IATSE. NABET engineers were to continue to edit video- tape, and the engineers were further assigned the work of making any repairs on the camera that could not be done in the field by the cameraman. The Em- ployer determined that any crew sent out with the minicam would also have a film camera available to be used interchangeably with the minicam and as a backup therefor. Prior to making its assignment, the Employer met with each Union to discuss the im- pending introduction of the camera, and to learn from each Union the reasons why the operation of the camera should be assigned to its members. Each Union claimed jurisdiction over operation of the camera. On November 14, 1975, the Employer as- signed operation of the camera to members of IATSE. NABET thereupon filed a grievance protest- ing the assignment, and IATSE responded with a let- ter threatening economic action should the assign- ment be changed to favor NABET. That letter gave rise to the present proceeding. B. Work in Dispute The notice of hearing states that the dispute con- cerns "the operation of a portable hand-held elec- tronic videotape camera and related equipment for news, sports for news and news special events gather- ing purposes." The equipment involved is the Akai miniature electronic camera and accompanying vi- deotape recorder. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer assigned the disputed work to film cameramen represented by IATSE, claiming that the assignment is supported by their collective-bargain- ing agreement. The Employer further emphasizes their traditional functions as news gatherers, their skills as photojournalists, and the fact that the back- up camera will be a film camera traditionally oper- ated by IATSE members, thus making the assign- ment more efficient and economical. IATSE agrees with the assignment, also citing its members' superior skills as photojournalists. IATSE claims that the ba- sic functions of a film or electronic camera are the same , and that, although its members have never op- erated an electronic camera, they can be trained very quickly to do so. IATSE argues that the technical operation alone is not nearly as important as the ability to do so in a news-gathering context, claiming that a news cameraman must have special creative abilities to function as a photojournalist, not merely as a technician. IATSE claims that even though NABET members have operated an electronic cam- era they have not done so in a news-gathering con- text. NABET claims that its engineers are entitled to perform the disputed work, citing its collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Employer, its members' skills in operating an electronic camera, and the fact that engineers have jurisdiction over the minicam at the major networks. NABET has moved to quash the notice of hearing in the present case, claiming that there is no evidence of 8(b)(4)(D) activity, and fur- ther claiming that the parties have agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES D. Applicability of the Statute Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D) charge has arisen. However, before the Board pro- ceeds with a determination of the dispute, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that there is no agreed-upon method, binding on all the parties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. At the hearing, counsel for NABET moved to quash the notice of hearing, claiming that no jurisdic- tional dispute exists for the following reasons: (1) there is no evidence of 8(b)(4)(D) activity, as the let- ter sent to the Employer by IATSE is insufficient to establish that the Employer was threatened or coerced by IATSE; and (2) there are several agreed- upon methods for settling the dispute.' Following its determination to utilize the electron- ic camera, the Employer requested a joint meeting with IATSE and NABET officials to discuss the proper assignment of various types of work arising from the use of the new camera. NABET declined such a point meeting. Thereafter, the Employer met separately with each Union. Both Unions advanced reasons why the work should be assigned to its mem- bers. On November 14, 1975, the Employer notified both Unions, by letter, of its intention to assign the operation of the camera to news cameramen em- ployed under the KTTV-IATSE news department agreement. The editing of the videotape and the maintenance of the camera were assigned to NABET engineers. Shortly thereafter, NABET filed a grievance pro- testing the assignment, and informed the Employer that the grievance was being certified to arbitration. Subsequently, counsel for IATSE sent a letter to the Employer informing it that IATSE would not be a party of any arbitration between NABET and the Employer. The letter continued as follows: In the event KTTV changes the assignment of the operation of the camera to any employees other than employees represented by the IATSE, then the IATSE will consider such ac- tion by the Employer as a violation of the cur- rent collective bargaining agreement. In the event there is such a change of assignment either by the Employer's direction or by virtue of an arbitration award with NABET, then the IATSE will take legal and economic action against Met- romedia and KTTV regarding any change of as- signment of the operation of the electronic i In view of our findings herein, NABET's motion to dismiss and quash the 10(k) proceeding is hereby denied 787 camera . In such a case, the IATSE will withdraw its members from service of KTTV and will en- gage in economic action including picketing, and handbilling, in order to enforce the terms and conditions of the KTTV-IATSE Agree- ment. Thereupon, on January 6, 1976, the Employer filed an unfair labor practice charge under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. NABET claims that IATSE made no real threat to engage in economic action if the Employer changed its original assignment of the work, as IATSE mem- bers had already been assigned to perform the work. However, we have found an 8(b)(4)(D) charge was supported under similar circumstances, where a union official informed an employer that the union would take economic action if the employer reas- signed the work pursuant to a rival union's claim.' Based on IATSE's letter and the record as a whole, we find that an object of IATSE's action was to force the Employer to continue to assign the disputed work to individuals represented by IATSE. We are satis- fied that there is reasonable cause to believe that IATSE has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D). NABET further contends that the parties have agreed upon several methods for the voluntary ad- justment of the dispute, first citing an award made by an impartial umpire pursuant to the AFL-CIO constitution. Article XX of the constitution, entitled "Settlement of Internal Disputes Plan," requires af- filiates of AFL-CIO to respect the established work relationship of every other affiliate, and provides the means by which any dispute concerning a work rela- tionship may be settled. In early December 1975, NABET invoked the settlement provisions of article XX, claiming that IATSE, by seeking the operation of the minicam, had failed to respect the established work relationship of NABET at KTTV. On March 8, 1976, the impartial umpire issued his determination of the dispute, finding that IATSE was in violation of article XX, and that the facts supported NABET's position that its members have customarily per- formed the work of operating the only minicamera owned by the Employer prior to the acquisition of the Akai camera, thus showing an established work relationship. NABET argues that this award is binding on IATSE and thus precludes IATSE's members from performing the disputed work. However, we note that the Employer did not participate in that pro- ceeding. Furthermore, the Employer did not agree to 2International Photographers Local 659, affiliated with International Alli- ance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States & Canada, AFL-CIO (King Broadcasting Company), 216 NLRB 860 (1975) 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be bound by that award, which is a necessary prereq- uisite to any finding by this Board that there exists a voluntary method of adjustment binding on all the parties.3 Additionally, the impartial umpire's award was not decided on the criteria which we rely upon in 10(k) proceedings.4 We therefore find that the award of the impartial umpire, not binding on all the par- ties, cannot be considered as an adjustment of the dispute. NABET further claims that a tripartite arbitration proceeding ordered by the United States district court constitutes a voluntary method of adjustment binding on all the parties. On January 23, 1976, NABET filed an action in the state court to compel arbitration between it and the Employer of its griev- ance with the Employer. The action was removed to the United States district court, which ordered the requested arbitration. The Employer has taken an appeal to this decision. Subsequently, the Employer filed an action against both Unions to compel a con- solidated arbitration of the work assignment dispute under the Employer's respective contracts with each Union. The district court ordered the tripartite arbi- tration and stayed the bipartite proceeding previous- ly ordered. IATSE has appealed this latter decision. NABET argues that the tripartite arbitration pro- ceeding, to be held in October 1976, will bind all the parties to a resolution of the dispute. However, we are of the opinion that the court-ordered arbitration is less than a voluntary method of settling the dispute, as IATSE has opposed the order, and its appeal of that order clearly shows its lack of consent to be in- volved in or bound by that arbitration proceeding. Obviously, at least one of the parties will not volun- tarily submit to arbitration. Therefore, we find no merit in this contention. Furthermore, neither of the collective-bargaining agreements which the Employer has with IATSE and NABET provides for tripartite arbitration. And nei- ther Union is bound by the other's arbitration provi- sion in their respective contracts.5 It is clear from the foregoing, and we find, that at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-upon or approved method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all the parties to the dispute were bound. After considering the contentions of the parties and the evidence with respect thereto, we find that J N L R B v Plasterers Local Union No 79, Operative Plasterers' & Ce- ment Masons' International Association, AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile & Ter- razzo Company], 404 U S 116 (1971) 4 International Alliance of Threatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators, Local No 659 (Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc), 222 NLRB 1004 (1976) 5 Providence Stereotypers Union No 53 (The Providence Journal Company), 216 NLRB 535 (1975) the Board is not precluded from making its determi- nation in this proceeding, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute as described above is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute 1. Collective-bargaining contracts and certifications There are no orders or certifications of the Board awarding jurisdiction of the work in dispute to mem- bers of either of the Unions involved in the present proceeding. In 1952, IATSE was certified as the rep- resentative of employees in the newsreel department, including motion picutre cameramen and newsreel cameramen. Also in 1952, NABET was certified as the representative of employees in the engineering department. Since both certifications long predate the use of portable electronic cameras, we find that the certifications are of little value in determining the merits of the dispute. Both Unions presently have collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer. Section 1.07 of IATSE's contract provides: "The jurisdiction of the Employees covered hereunder shall be all news and news documentary work produced by and for the KTTV News Department . . . ." The agree- ment in effect from 1968 to 1973 was entitled "News- reel Department-KTTV Agreement." This was changed in the current contract to "News Department-KTTV Agreement." The Employer and IATSE claim that any changes made in their present contract were to clarify IATSE's jurisdiction over all news-gathering work regardless of the type of equipment involved, and were made in contempla- tion of new equipment, such as the minicam, being used by the Employer. Section 6.02 of NABET's contract provides that engineers shall operate all technical equipment on all programs produced by the station. The operation of videotape equipment by the engineers is included in a section of its contract dealing with screening and editing videotape, but the contract does not directly state that engineers shall operate the electronic cam- era. In section 6.02c(ii) of the contract dealing with exceptions to jurisdiction, it is provided that persons other than Engineers, as well as Engi- neers, may perform . . . the operation of video- tape recording equipment, in other than areas of the Station where such equipment is normally operated by Engineers, for any purpose other than the recording of program material, which material is to be broadcast by any station ... . INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES The record revealed that, during the negotiations leading to the new contract dated January 1976, both the Employer and NABET made specific proposals in order to clarify jurisdiction over the minicam. NABET retained the language of section 6.02c(ii), referred to above. NABET further submitted a staff- ing requirement which specifically referred to those occasions when "Engineers are assigned to field as- signments using electronic cameras capable of being hand-held and associated equipment." The Employ- er countered with a proposal to be included in sec- tion 6.02c, which would have allowed persons other than engineers to perform the installation, operation, removal, mainte- nance and repair of electronic news gathering equipment when used for news, special events, sports or documentary purposes, including with- out limiting the foregoing, electronic cameras and equipment used for editing and duplicating of videotape produced by electronic news gath- ering equipment, for any purpose including broadcast. NABET objected to the Employer's proposal. Thereupon, both parties withdrew their respective proposals and the new NABET contract remained unchanged. We are of the opinion that the respective contracts of both IATSE and NABET are, at best, ambiguous, and we find that they are of little value in determin- ing this dispute. 2. Area, craft, and industry practice The electronic minicam is not yet in widespread use in the broadcasting industry, and many stations are still experimenting with its use. The three nation- al networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) are utilizing the mini- cam for news-gathering purposes. At the network- owned stations in the Los Angeles area, the opera- tion of the minicam has been assigned to an engineering unit, while IATSE members at those sta- tions continue to operate film cameras. NABET members also operate the minicam at an indepen- dent station in Los Angeles, at the NBC-owned sta- tion in San Diego, and at the ABC-owned station in San Francisco. However, the practice of the major networks is offset by the practice of nine indepen- dent stations on the West Coast, where IATSE mem- bers operate the minicam. Thus, it appears that no clear practice has emerged with respect to the assign- ment of the minicam, and we find that this factor is of little help in this proceeding. 789 3. Job impact With the current assignment of the disputed work to IATSE members, there has been no loss of jobs for members of either IATSE or NABET. In fact, the work of the NABET engineers has increased in the areas of tape editing and equipment repair and main- tenance. Should the Employer increase the number of cameras utilized for news gathering, instead of only the two cameras in active operation now, and maintain the current assignment, there still would be no loss of jobs for members of either Union. At the present time, if NABET engineers were assigned to the minicam, there would be no loss of jobs for the IATSE cameramen, as the Employer has decided to use the electronic camera interchangeably with its current complement of film cameras. The Employer has no present plans to cut back on the number of film cameras or the frequency of their use. However, as the Employer expands the use and number of the minicams, and as such cameras replace the film cam- eras entirely, an assignment of the disputed work to NABET engineers will result in a loss of jobs for the IATSE cameramen, who number eight at the present. We find that this factor favors an award of the work to IATSE. It should be noted that, as the use of vi- deotape increases, the number of film editors repre- sented by IATSE will decrease, but this result follows regardless of which employees operate the camera. 4. Economy and efficiency The Employer argues that it will be much more efficient and economical to assign the work to IATSE members, as their contract provides the flexi- bility necessary to the efficient performance of the news-gathering function. Both the Employer and IATSE contend that the IATSE contract was specifi- cally designed to cover news gathering, which is of an unscheduled and unrestricted nature and which must be performed without restrictions of any kind. Ac- cording to the Employer, the NABET contract does not give its members the freedom to gather news in an efficient and economical manner, as it contains clauses providing for monetary penalties if its mem- bers do not receive the designated meal and rest peri- ods, the required hours of work, and the specified shift differential. However, the Employer's claim in this regard is negated by NABET's expressed willing- ness to negotiate a contract, should its members be assigned the disputed work, which would provide the freedom and flexibility required by the Employer. The Employer further contends that an assignment of the work to NABET engineers would be uneco- nomical and inefficient for another reason. As the 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD electronic camera is, for all practical purposes , still in an experimental stage, the Employer intends to send its camera crews out to gather news with two camer- as-the electronic minicam and a film camera. The film camera is to be used interchangeably with the electronic camera. Most importantly , the film camera is to be available as a backup should the minicam break down in the field, a likelihood not beyond the realm of possibility because of its inherently untested and untried nature . Minor repairs such as the re- placement of a battery could, as the Employer ad- mits, be performed by the cameraman on the spot. However, any major repairs would have to be done back at the studio. Without the availability of a film camera in the event of a breakdown of the minicam, the news story , because it is such a fleeting event, would be lost . The Employer, to remain in a competi- tive market position , cannot afford to let a news sto- ry slip through its grasp. The fact that the operation of the film camera is within the jurisdiction of IATSE makes the above- described arrangement more feasible ; for, if a NABET engineer is sent out to operate the minicam, an IATSE cameraman must accompany him to oper- ate the film camera . This practice would be uneco- nomical for the Employer and would defeat the en- tire purpose of utilizing the minicam, which has been praised for its efficiency in the use of a one-man crew . Assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by IATSE allows the Employer to send out one cameraman to operate either camera. Additionally , the record indicates that it is much less difficult and time-consuming to train a film cam- eraman in the use of an electronic camera than it is to train an electronic cameraman to operate a film camera. The Employer presently has available to him the skills of film cameramen who could easily be trained to operate the minicam . Moreover, if the en- gineers were awarded the operation of the minicam on location outside the studio, the Employer would be forced to hire additional engineers to cover the electronic camerawork done in the studio , while at the same time laying off idle IATSE film camera- men. We find that the factors of economy and effi- ciency favor an award of the disputed work to em- ployees represented by IATSE. 5. Skills NABET contends that its members possess superi- or ability in the operation of an electronic camera, citing their long experience in operating the electron- ic pedestal camera . NABET argues that the only dif- ference between the pedestal camera and the mini- cam is the size of the minicam . In this regard, NABET points to the fact that its members have in- deed operated electronic cameras capable of one- man operation . These cameras , which appeared be- fore the present minicam and weighed from 50 to 60 pounds, were part of the technological chain of events which finally resulted in the minicam , weigh- ing only about 22 pounds. We do not quarrel with NABET's assertion that its members possess the necessary technological skills to operate the minicam . However, the record reveals that the minicam is not difficult to learn to operate. In fact, very little training appears to be required, particularly for a film cameraman . The Akai manufacturer's representative gave no actual training regarding its operation to the IATSE cameramen, but only basic instructions as to the capabilities of the camera. In any event, we do not perceive the dispute to be the actual technical operation of the camera, as we are duly convinced by the record that it takes little time to acquire and master those operational skills, which is not to belittle the necessity for those skills. In our opinion, the dispute herein concerns the func- tion of news gathering rather than the operation of a particular type of equipment . The parties themselves placed great emphasis on the mastery of the skills of a photojournalist. A photojournalist must possess special skills apart from those of a cameraman . He must be able to judge whether an event is newsworthy and who the principals and participants are. The photojournalist must be aware of all the qualities involved in captur- ing an event on tape or film. He must have aesthetic, artistic, and creative skills to be able to judge light- ing, picture quality, and picture composition. Since news events are fleeting in nature , the story must be captured quickly and accurately , and with an acute awareness of how the story, if taped for delayed broadcast as is the Employer's intention, will finally be edited . In this regard, the cameraman must have the ability to "edit in camera," that is, to record the story in such a manner that the theme and sequence will not be distorted in the editing process. On many occasions, although the cameraman may be accom- panied by a reporter who gives general instructions about the story and what must be recorded , the cam- eraman must be able to function independently. Of- ten he will become separated from the reporter, or an event will occur which may be more important or newsworthy than what the reporter expected. Under these circumstances, the cameraman must use his own judgment. It is clear that the news -gathering abilities of IATSE members are superior to those of NABET engineers . While engineers have performed news INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES gathering, albeit of a different nature than the fast- breaking news events for which the Employer plans to utilize the minicam, they have done so, in the ma- jority of cases, only under highly controlled circum- stances where the use of independent judgment and discretion was severely curtailed. Thus, the engineers, whether in the studio or on remote location,6 func- tion under the direction of an entire production crew under close-to-ideal circumstances. Furthermore, the Employer utilizes a multiple-camera operation, so that one cameraman is not responsible for the entire event. Particularly in the studio, where the engineers tape prescheduled events, there is the opportunity to correct mistakes by reshooting a particular segment of the show. IATSE members, on the other hand, have per- formed the function of gathering fast-breaking news events for the Employer for many years. Although working with a reporter, the film cameramen have exercised the use of independent judgment and dis- cretion not available to those with a production crew. They do not work under controlled or ideal condi- tions, nor do they work under conditions which allow room for mistakes. In short, IATSE cameramen have demonstrated their acquisition and mastery of all the skills of a photojournalist in their long daily experi- ence of gathering news on film, which skills are read- ily transferable to working with tape. We therefore conclude that the skills possessed by employees rep- resented by IATSE favor an award of the work in dispute to them. 6. Employer preference After a consideration of all the relevant factors, the Employer assigned the work of operating the 6 Even though the engineers claim that they have derived their experience in news gathering from their remote broadcasting , the number of remotes which the Employer has broadcast has dwindled in the past few years, so that the engineers may be sent to a remote location only once or twice a year 791 Akai camera for news-gathering purposes to employ- ees represented by IATSE. The record indicates that the Employer is satisfied with the results of the as- signment and maintains a preference for an assign- ment of the work to IATSE members. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full consid- eration of all the relevant factors involved, we con- clude that employees represented by IATSE are enti- tled to the disputed work and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. Where IATSE members have traditionally performed the function of news gather- ing; where skills, economy, and efficiency favor an assignment of the work to IATSE members; and where the Employer is satisfied with and continues to prefer the assignment, we must conclude that an as- signment of the work to employees represented by IATSE is warranted. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to employees employed by the Em- ployer and represented by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Ma- chine Operators of the United States and Canada, but not to that Union or its members. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Metromedia, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, who are currently represented by Interna- tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada are entitled to perform the work of news gathering by use of the Akai electronic cam- era.