American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 654 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Broadcasting Company , A Division of
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and Na-
tional Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Cases
2-RC-16233 and 2-RC-16234
May 17, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Don T.
Carmody. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. The named Employer and the Petitioner
filed briefs.
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is an organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question concerning commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
The Employer is engaged in radio and television
broadcasting and various other related enterprises.
The Petitioner seeks to represent two separate units
of employees assigned to Broadcasting Operations
and Engineering, one of the Employer's four major
subdivisions. Broadcasting Operations and Engineer-
ing is responsible for the mechanical operation of the
Employer's network and local radio and television
facilities and employs some 1,900 employees at the
Employer's headquarters located at 1330 Avenue of
the Americas and at its 66th Street complex in New
York City.
In Case 2-RC-16233, Petitioner seeks to represent
approximately 12 employees engaged in coordinating
program and facilities information and scheduling.
This unit would include three network (or night)
operations supervisors,' three log coordinators, a
program coordinator, a supervisor of information
services, two day-of-air coordinators , and two facili-
ties schedulers. In Case 2-RC-16234, Petitioner
seeks to represent approximately nine employees
engaged in engineering manpower scheduling. This
unit would include five manpower scheduling clerks,
a remote coordinator, two video tape schedulers, and
a maintenance scheduler. Petitioner also indicated it
would accept the inclusion or exclusion of a 10th
employee, a scheduler located at the Employer's
Lodi, New Jersey, transmitter facilities. There is no
history of bargaining with respect to the individuals
sought in the instant petitions.
The Employer contends that the respective units
sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate inasmuch
as they constitute a fragmentation of the Employer's
clerical work force. Thus, the Employer asserts that
the requested units are not based on any administra-
tive or functional lines; that the 21 employees
covered by the two petitions perform clerical
functions and share a broad community of interest
with approximately 600 other clerical employees at
its New York facilities; and that neither of the two
respective groups enjoys interests so separable from
those of other clericals to warrant separation from an
overall clerical unit. We find merit in the Employer's
position.
In Case 2-RC-16233 the 12 employees sought are
among the 18 employees employed in the Employer's
TV network operations group which schedules
equipment and facilities and coordinates information
on network programs and broadcasts. The "log"
group (three log coordinators, a program information
coordinator, and a supervisor for information serv-
ices) gather information from various sources and
coordinate and incorporate this product into a daily
listing of programs, advertisements, and other in-
formation in chronological order, for each broadcast
day. These logs are used in various operational areas
outside the proposed unit; i.e., by engineers, associ-
ate directors, and others. The two facilities schedu-
lers schedule studios, film chains, and video tape
machines based on orders received from unit
managers outside the proposed unit. The remaining
five employees, night operations supervisors and
day-of-air coordinators, make last minute changes in
the various logs and facilities charts. The record
shows that technical training is not a prerequisite to
employment for these employees and that basically
they learn their duties on the job. It appears that the
employees in the proposed unit have as much or
more telephone and personal contact with their
I The reference to supervisor in this decision, unless otherwise indicated , individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
involves supervisors of activities The parties do not contend that these
210 NLRB No. 67
AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO.
various sources of information-employees outside
the proposed unit-as or than they do with each
other in performing their respective job assignments.
Case 2-RC-16234 covers nine employees engaged
in scheduling technical manpower.2 Five of these
nine employees develop and maintain a "checker-
board" which lists technical engineers and their
assignments during each 9-day period. The basic
input for these checkerboards is transmitted by unit
managers outside the proposed unit to a statutory
supervisor within the proposed unit who prepares a
weekly schedule which is turned over to the technical
manpower schedulers. In addition to developing and
maintaining the checkerboard, the technical man-
power schedulers notify the technical engineers of
numerous changes in their schedules. Such changes
are made following consultation with published lists
and through information exchanged between the
supervisor of the technical manpower schedulers and
the individual schedulers. To be hired as a scheduler,
no special education or technical training or back-
ground is necessary; the learning process is achieved
through on-the-job experience. The remaining four
employees perform similar functions in scheduling
video tape operators and television maintenance
personnel. As Petitioner acknowledges, the requested
employees are not under common supervision. Thus,
the technical manpower schedulers and remote
coordinators report to one supervisor, the video tape
operators to another, and the maintenance scheduler
to a third.
The record evidence shows that the employees in
the respective units sought by the Petitioner share no
common work area separate from other employees.
Nor do they all share common working hours. In
Case 2-RC-16233 the majority of those sought work
on the third floor, but others are located on the
fourth floor. In Case 2-RC-16234 five of the nine
employees work in a sectioned-off area, three work
elsewhere on the same floor, and one employee
works in the basement. There is even a lack of any
physical separateness among the employees in the
separately petitioned-for groups. For example, two
facilities schedulers in Case 2-RC-16233 are located
right next to two video tape schedulers in Case
2-RC-16234 on the fourth floor where they have
personal contact daily in making entries on the same
chart. Nor is there any common work schedule
among the individuals in these groupings. In Case
2-RC-16233 the night operations supervisors work
on a 5-day rotating shift basis at night to cover a 7-
2 As mentioned earlier Petitioner would accept the inclusion or exclusion
of a tenth employee In view of our decision, herein, we find it unnecessary
to determine the unit status of this individual
655
day-a-week operation and the day-of-air coordina-
tors, along with other employees, work from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. 5 days a week. In Case 2-RC-16234 the five
manpower scheduling clerks work on a 5-day
rotating 8-hour shift basis from 5:30 a.m. until
midnight to cover a 7-day-a-week operation while the
other employees in the unit work a 5-day week from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The record further shows that for all practical
purposes, the employees sought here are treated the
same as the Employer's nonexempt3 clerical employ-
ees. They are recruited and hired through a central-
ized personnel office, the same personnel policies
apply to them as do to the clericals in general, and
they all share a common wage policy and fringe
benefits. A central job-posting system encourages
transfer and promotion from within for all nonex-
empt employees, including those in that category in
the requested units. Seven of twelve employees
covered by Case 2-RC-16233 are nonexempt em-
ployees and seven of nine employees covered by
Case 2-RC-16234 are nonexempt employees. The
Employer's exempt employees, including several
covered by the respective petitions herein, do not
share in common all the policies and benefits of the
nonexempt employees.
On the basis of the record before us, we find no
evidence to support the Petitioner's assertion that the
employees sought in the respective units share a
separate community of interest from that of the other
employees. Although, during the conduct of the
hearing, Petitioner indicated a willingness to accept
alternative units which would include any additional
employees in network or other log preparation
functions, we are unable, on the basis of the existing
record, to ascertain whether any of these alternative
units it thus proposed would be appropriate. In this
regard, we would note that Petitioner has neither
specifically described what additional employees it is
willing to include in its proposed alternative unit nor
provided a rationale for the establishment of any
alternative unit or units. Thus, we conclude, in the
circumstances of this case, that the units requested in
Case 2-RC-16233 and Case 2-RC-16234 are inap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions herein be,
and they hereby are, dismissed.
3 Reference to exempt and nonexempt employees herein refers to the use
of those terms in the Fair Labor Standards Act