Coast Radio Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

COAST RADIO BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ETC. 1101
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Kaiser, Progressive , and Greschner are each employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Iron Workers Local 433, International Association, of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orgaiization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, it is hereby recommended that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
Coast Radio Broadcasting Corporation -Radio Station KPOL
and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Los
Angeles Local , AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-5818. March 21t,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 3, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Decision in the above case, finding that the Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in his
attached Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Re-
spondent filed an answering brief. The General Counsel filed no
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Charging Party's exceptions, the briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as
its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is dismissed.
151 NLRB No. 117.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on March 6, 1964,1 by American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists, Los Angeles Local, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the
General Counsel 2 and the Board, through the Regional Director for Region 21 (Los
Angeles, California), issued a complaint, dated June 9, against Coast Radio Broad-
casting Corporation-Radio Station KPOL, herein called Respondent, alleging that
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon
Respondent and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon
the Union.3
Specifically, the complaint, as amended, alleged that: (1) All of Respondent's
staff announcers employed at Station KPOL constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b); (2) since on
or about May 1, 1961, a majority of Respondent's employees in the unit described
above have been members of the Union and at all times since that date the Union
has been the collective-bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in
said appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and, by virtue of
Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the
employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment;
(3) since October 1, 1963, specifically, on December 27, 1963, January 30, 1964, and
February 7, 1964, Respondent has bargained directly and individually with the
employees in the unit described above concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and (4) by the acts
described above, and by each of said acts, Respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent's
employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
On June 22 Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged. On June 26, Respondent duly filed an answer to amendment
to complaint.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Howard Myers
at Los Angeles, California, on September 3 and 4. Each party was represented by
counsel who participated in the hearing. Full and complete opportunity was afforded
the parties to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the conclusion of the taking
of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before September 25 .4 Each party has filed
a brief and each brief has been carefully considered.
Upon the record as a whole, and from his observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Respondent, a California corporation, has its principal offices and place of business
at Los Angeles, California, where it is primarily engaged in radio broadcasting.
Respondent owns and operates Radio Station KPOL in Los Angeles. Respondent
annually receives a total gross revenue in excess of $500,000 of which revenue in
excess of $50,000 is derived from advertising nationally advertised products.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, I find, in line with established Board author-
ity, that Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the asser-
tion of jurisdiction.
i Unless otherwise noted, all dates mentioned herein refer to 1964.
2 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing.
a On June 26 the General Counsel served upon the parties and upon counsel for each
of the parties an amendment to complaint.
4 At the request of counsel, the time to file briefs was extended to October 12.
COAST RADIO BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ETC. 1103
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pertinent facts
From at least February 6, 1962, the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's staff announcers.
At all times material Respondent and the Union have been parties to a collective-
bargaining contract which contains a union-security clause. The said contract is
dated February 6, 1961, but is retroactive to May 1, 1961, and expired by its terms
on April 30, 1964.
The duties of Respondent's staff announcers 6 are to report the news, including
the coverage of press conferences and personal interviews.
Respondent's staff announcers, in the fall of 1963, engaged in conversations among
themselves concerning the inadequacy of their compensation. They felt that their
compensation, under the union contract, was not adequate in light of their education
and talent. They also discussed, among themselves, whether, as professional news-
men or staff announcers, they might not be able to financially better themselves by
dealing directly with their employer. At the same time, they discussed among them-
selves the success and prosperity of Respondent, and the possibility of inducing
Respondent to permit them to participate in a profit-sharing plan.?
Some time during the fall of 1963, Edmund Haddad typed a note entitled "Some-
thing to Think About" and put it on the desk of Robertson Scott, Respondent's pro-
gram director. The title, borrowed from a public service feature which Respondent
regularly broadcasts, was suggested by Alan Harvey, another Respondent newsman.
This note was the result of the aforementioned discussions among the several news-
men. The day following the placement of the aforesaid note on Scott's desk, Scott
discovered it when he arrived for work. He had not solicited the note nor had he
prior knowledge that such a document had been prepared. The note asked manage-
ment to raise the newsmen's salary to $15,000 per year plus other detailed benefits.
In the fall of 1963 Haddad had a conversation with Scott in the latter's office
regarding additional compensation for the staff announcers.8 Haddad testified that,
at either the 1962 or the 1963 conference he had with Scott, the following took place:
Q. Did Mr. Scott, during this conversation, suggest that you do anything pur-
suant to your request?
A. I don't know how to answer that. I know-as I recall it, and I could be
wrong on this, he said, "Well, how much do you think you should get? How
much more wages do you think you should get?" And I said, "Well, I don't
r, In the light of my observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all
the persons who testified herein, and after very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all
of which has been carefully read and parts of which have been reread and rechecked
several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the
credibility problems here involved, of the fact that in many instances testimony was given
regarding events which took place many months prior to the opening of the hearing, and
of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this
case, coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to sum-
marize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein,
the following is a composite picture of all the factual issues involved and the conclusions
based thereon. The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings, and
conclusions herein, the record as a whole has been carefully considered, relevant cases
have been studied; and each contention advanced has been weighed, even though not
specifically discussed.
Staff announcers are also referred to In the record as newsmen and/or talent group.
7 These discussions were In no way instigated by Respondent.
8 Apparently, there was a discussion between Scott and Haddad about a year prior
to the fall of 1963, wherein Haddad had requested a wage increase for all newsmen.
At the hearing herein, Haddad was somewhat confused with what took place between
Scott and him in 1962 and with what took place between them in 1963. The under-
signed was favorably impressed with the sincerity and honesty of Haddad while he was a
witness on the witness stand, and hence credits his testimony. The undersigned, how-
ever, believes that much of Haddad's testimony regarding his talks with Scott refers to
those he and Scott had in 1962.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
know. I would have to-I can't speak for the staff. I would have to find out
what they think that they should get," and I don't recall if he said, "Well, let me
know what you think that they should get."
Q. Do you recall anything else that was said in the conversation?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Scott suggest to you that you submit a proposal to him?
A. Proposal for wage increases?
Q. Yes.
A. As I recall, he did. As I recall.
On cross-examination by Respondent's counsel, Haddad admitted that: he had no
recollection of what Scott had said when he asked Scott for a wage increase; he
really had no present recollection of Scott's suggesting that a proposal be submitted,
and he told a Board agent, who questioned him at a pretrial conference, that he could
not remember Scott saying, "make us a proposal." He further testified that if Scott
said anything about "make us a proposal" it might have been a year earlier than in
the fall of 1963. In fact, when asked on cross-examination by the union's counsel,
"You mean that you are now in doubt as to whether that statement, `Make me an
offer' was made in 1963 or a year before?" Haddad replied, "That is exactly right."
Scott credibly testified that: he had not solicited the proposals contained in the
"Something to Think About" note; he discovered the note on his desk one morning
without prior knowledge that it had been prepared or by whom; prior to receiving
the note he did not say anything to Haddad requesting him to submit a proposal to
him with respect to wages or other conditions of employment for the newsmen; at
the time he received the aforesaid note, Fred Custer was out of town, Fred Custer
now is, and at all times material was, Respondent's general manager, upon Custer's
return to Los Angeles, he discussed the note with Custer and they thereupon sought
advice from Respondent's counsel regarding the entire matter; he kept the note until
one of the newsmen, Ray Owen, asked for it; he gave it to Owen at a meeting which
was attended by certain newsmen of Respondent and management officials; and he
has not seen the note since.
In the summer or fall of 1963, Ray Owen, Alan Harvey, Paul McElroy, and
Haddad, all being members of the news staff of Respondent, conferred among them-
selves on the premises of Respondent. This discussion was with respect to demand-
ing from management wage increases for the newsmen.
In the latter part of January 1964 McElroy, Haddad, and two other Respondent
newsmen, Jim Brown and Tony Kent, met with Scott and Custer in Scott's office
Because of the confusion then existing in the minds of all Respondent's newsmen
they had decided to find out directly from Scott and Custer just what Respondent
could legally do with respect to giving the newsmen a wage increase
At the meeting, referred to immediately above, McElroy asked Scott if Respond-
ent would not increase the newsmen's wages. Scott replied in the negative, stating,
in effect, that the law forbade Respondent to do so. When McElroy pressed Scott
for something concrete with respect to a wage increase, Scott picked up a paper from
his desk which Scott said was a draft letter which Respondent was thinking of send-
ing to Claude McCue, the Union's executive secretary, which contained proposals
for a wage increase for Respondent's newsmen, a profit-sharing plan, and certain
fringe benefits. At this juncture, Custer said that Respondent had not definitely
decided whether or not it would send the letter to McCue. McElroy then asked
Scott whether Respondent would deal directly with the newsmen if they were suc-
cessful in having the Union decertified as their collective-bargaining representative
Scott replied that if a decertification petition was to be filed it should be filed before
the end of March because the then-existing contract would terminate soon there-
after. Either Scott or Custer then said the reason Respondent was apprehensive
about sending the aforesaid proposals to McCue was because the Union, being aware
of the proposals could tieup the matter and then the employees would have to wait
until the end of the contract term for added benefits and increased compensation.
McElroy then requested Scott if he could not be a little more specific about the
amount of money he was proposing to McCue, adding "Can't you give us any gen-
eral figure, like $20,000 or $12,000." To this request, Scott replied that the proposed
wage increase was nearer the $12,000 figure.
Not being satisfied with the information which Scott and Custer gave McElroy
and the other newsmen who attended the aforementioned meeting, Harvey, Brown,
and Clyde Cadwell, of Respondent's music announcing staff, went to the Board's
Regional Office, which is located in Los Angeles, and consulted with a Board agent.
COAST RADIO BROADCASTING CORPORATION, ETC. 1105
What transpired during this interview was credibly testified to by Harvey as follows:
We asked about two specific things. We asked how much under existing cir-
cumstances with the union contracting force. We asked how much manage-
ment could legitimately tell us about what alternative propositions might exist
to that contract, and we also asked, because there had been some talk about it
before that point, what the mechanics were if the talent group at the station
decided to take any action on a calling for decertification election.
Q. What did [the Board agent] say on that occasion?
A. Well, [the Board agent] told us that as long as-it was his belief, he said,
that as far as he was concerned or as far as his knowledge went, that as long
as the question was not initiated by management, if the question was initiated
by us, the talent group, that management would then be in a position to give
in some detail potential contract alternatives to what already had existed.
He also gave the three of us the actual petition form for the calling of a decer-
tification election and information as to what mechanically had to be done in
the event that seemed to be desirable for anybody.
After leaving the Regional Office, Harvey returned to the radio station, and shortly
thereafter proceeded to Scott's office. Upon arriving at Scott's office, Harvey noticed
that Albert Mallicoat, a Respondent radio announcer, was conferring with Scott.
When Scott saw Harvey at the doorway of his office he motioned to Harvey to come
in Harvey thereupon went into the office and told Scott, in Mallicoat's presence,
what transpired at the Board's Regional Office, in the following words.
"I remember my own immediate line of conversation, which was that we had
been told by [a Board agent] of the National Labor Relations Board that the
company was in a position as long as we initiated the question, to begin with,
the company was in a position to be legally free to tell us what kinds of con-
tractual benefits we might hope to get in the future.
Mr. Scott was as non-committal as he had been before, both at that point
and previously. All he would say was that he did not think he was-in spite
of what he heard, he did not think the company or he, as a company represen-
tative was in a position to go into any detail on this, and that he would have to
check with you, as the company counsel, at least once more, to find out whether
it was now permissible, based on our information from the National Labor Rela-
tions Board to tell us what kinds of things the company might be willing to do,
and that was where that was left, because it was impossible to-I approached-
I believe I approached the same thing from a couple of different angles, and it
did not bear fruit at all.
At some undisclosed time in the winter of 1963 or early in January 1964, Kent,
McElroy and Haddad discussed how to induce the Respondent to offer some improved
benefits, especially a wage increase. They were convinced that Respondent would
not make any offer directly to them because it was, to quote from Haddad's credited
testimony, "against the rules" so one of the three above-mentioned employees sug-
gested, to further quote Haddad's credited testimony, "Well, I wonder if we could
learn it any other way." Thereupon, Haddad left his two coworkers and went to
Scott's office, and on top of Scott's desk he discovered the McCue draft letter, referred
to above. He thereupon returned to where he had left his two coworkers, namely,
McElroy and Kent, and said to them, "There is a letter down there, and it got some
figures on it," and either McElroy or Kent, said to Haddad "Why don't you bring
it up here and see what it says?" Haddad said he would not do that, whereupon
McElroy went to Scott's office and brought the letter up to the room in which Haddad
and Kent were, and there McElroy typed a copy of the proposed McCue letter.
After the newsmen had considered and digested what was contained in the proposed
letter to McCue, the three newsmen began discussing the matter anew, and they
decided to ask Scott and Custer to discuss the question of a wage increase with a
committee of newsmen.
9 Mallicoat testified that while Scott gave Harvey "no specifics ," he recalls that Scott
made some general remark to the effect that Respondent would do as well, if not better,
by the employees than the Union on pension and welfare benefits . When questioned
regarding Mallicoat ' s testimony , referred to immediately above , Harvey testified that he
did not recall any such statement of Scott. In fact , he testified that his and Mallicoat's
efforts to get something out of Scott "did not bear fruit at all." Scott denied making
the remark Mallicoat attributed to him . Upon the entire record in the case, I do not
credit this portion of Mallicoat ' s testimony.
783-133-66-vol. 151-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A few days after Haddad had discovered the proposed letter to McCue, and
McElroy had typed a copy thereof and had shown it to other newsmen of Respond-
ent, a meeting was held between Harvey, Haddad , Owen, and Cadwell , and two other
Respondent newsmen, Bob Harris and Gary Brandt , and William Norris, Esq.,
Respondent 's counsel, Custer and Scott . What transpired at this meeting Harvey
credibly testified as follows:
In general , Mr. Norris said, in response to questions from various of us in the
talent group , either to himself or to Mr. Scott and Mr. Custer , that the company
was not in a position legally to give any specific answers to our questions, that
it was not a matter of what they wanted or did not want to do . It was a matter
of what the law forbade them to do , and so they-or they simply could not give
specific answers to anything regarding the general topic under discussion, which
was bow we might improve our contractual situation.
The record also discloses that Haddad asked Norris if it was true that management
could not make an offer to the employees directly Norris replied, to quote from
Haddad 's credited testimony , "that is true , they cannot ." Norris then explained to
those present that the law , meaning the National Labor Relations Act, prohibits
Respondent from dealing directly with its employees concerning wages and other
terms and conditions of employment as long as the employees are represented by a
duly accredited collective-bargaining representative.
The employees then made another effort at the meeting , referred to immediately
above, to get "a reaction" from management relating to possible future benefits.
A paper was then submitted to Scott , Custer, and Norris by a newsman present con-
taining a certain wage proposal . None of the three named management represen-
tatives would express any approval or disapproval of the terms of the proposed pro-
posals submitted. In fact, Harvey testified , and I find, that "the reaction " of man-
agement representatives was that they would not give the employees "any kind of
either real or implied commitment ." According to Harvey 's credited testimony, the
management representatives "were simply non-committal."
B. Concluding findings
The credible evidence , as epitomized above, clearly establishes that, at no time,
did Respondent or any of its officials deal directly with the employees regarding the
employees ' wages, hours , or their other conditions of employment . The credited
evidence further establishes that the Respondent was subjected to determined efforts
of its staff announcers to learn what wages and other benefits the employees would
receive if they voted to have the Union decertified as their collective -bargaining
representative . But Respondent would not give the employees any encouragement
along that line. The employees involved were sophisticated , intelligent newsmen who
knew what they were after and were aggressive in seeking it. Moreover, the rela-
tionships and working conditions between management and employees were very
close. Despite all this, however , the employees did not succeed Management
resisted the overtures time and time again. Respondent 's position remained stead-
fast and it refused diiect bargaining with the employees as long as the employees
were represented by the Union. Even when Harvey informed Scott of the advice
he had received at the Board 's Regional Office, Scott still refused to discuss working
conditions with Harvey or any other employee.
Upon the record as a whole, I find that the allegations of the complaint, as
amended, that Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, acts and conduct vio-
lative of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act are not supported by substantial evi-
dence. Accordingly , I recommend that the allegations of the complaint , as amended,
that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act be dismissed.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Coast Radio Broadcasting Corporation-Radio Station KPOL, Los Angeles,
California, is engaged in, and during all times material has been engaged in, com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
2 The Union is, and at all times material has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All Respondent 's staff announcers employed at Station KPOL constitute, and
at all times material constituted , a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, NO. 146 1107
4. Since May 1 , 1961, a majority of Respondent 's employees in the appropriate
unit, described immediately above, have been members of the Union , and at all times
since said date, . the Union has been the duly designated and selected representative
of a majority of the employees in said appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining , and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act , has been, and now is, the
exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to grievances , labor disputes , pay, wages , hours of
employment , and other terms and conditions of employment.
5. The allegations of the complaint , as amended , that Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) and
( 1) of the Act , have not been sustained.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended , upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions.
of law, that the complaint , as amended , be dismissed in its entirety.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 146 and Crafts-
man Construction Co., Inc. and International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America , Local No.
354, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest . Case No. 27-CD-56. March
24, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Crafts-
man Construction Co., Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging a
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 146, herein called Respondent. The charge
alleges, in substance that the Respondent induced and encouraged
employees to engage in a strike or refusal to work, and threatened,
coerced, and restrained the Employer, and others, with an object
of forcing or requiring Craftsman Construction Co., Inc., to assign
particular work to employees represented by Respondent rather
than to employees represented by International Hod Carriers, Build-
ing and Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 354,
AFL-CIO, herein called Laborers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Allison E. Nutt, on December 3, 1964.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hear-
ing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The brief filed by the Employer has been
duly considered.
151 NLRB No. 112.