International Broadcasting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fore, that she was entitled to vote in the election,'-' and shall adopt the
hearing officer's recommendations that the challenge to Wagner's
ballot be overruled and her ballot opened and counted.
As previously noted, the Employer, in its exceptions, also requested
a ruling on an objection, raised for the first time at the hearing, that
the Petitioner interfered with the election by transporting Trisoline
to the plant on election day for the purpose of voting. This objection
is untimely.12 Moreover, the conduct in question did not constitute
interference with the election.'3 Accordingly, the objection is over-
ruled.
Direction
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Reidbord Bros. Co., Blairton,
Pennsylvania, it is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
the Sixth Region shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and
count the challenged ballot of Dorothy Wagner, and shall thereafter
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a second supplemental
tally of ballots, including therein the count of this challenged ballot.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Second Supplemental Decision and Direction.
"Contrary to the implication of the Employer, the record, in our opinion, fails to
establish that Wagner perpetrated any "fraud" on the Board's processes.
12 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 72 NLRB 497; cf. J. I. Case Company,
85 NLRB 576.
to Hoague-Sprague Corporation , 80 NLRB 1699 ; Harry Manaater & Bro., 61 NLRB 1373.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No.
15-CA-3192. May 16, 1952
Decision and Order
On August 15, 1951, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and
requested oral argument.
All parties participated in oral argument before the Board on April
8, 1952.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
99 NLRB No. 25.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION ( KWKH) 131
that no prejudicial error' was committed.' i The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, the contentions advanced at oral argument, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
exceptions , additions , and modifications : 2
I The Respondent contended in its brief and at oral argument that it was denied due
process of law for the following reasons :
1. That the Board's Rules and Regulations, while requiring the Respondent to answer
the complaint within 10 days after service thereof upon the Respondent, do not expressly
provide adequate opportunity for the filing prior to answer of a motion to attack the
sufficiency or definiteness of the complaint However, nothing in the Board's Rules preclude
the filing or granting of such a motion In fact, Section 102 24 thereof (National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 6) expressly authorizes the filing of pretrial
motions. Had such a motion been filed in advance of the answer coupled with a request
to the Regional Director for an extension of time to answer until after the disposition of
the motion, the Regional Director would have been authorized under the Rules to grant
the extension requested. See Section 102 22 of the Rules.
The gravamen of Respondent's contention is, however, that to satisfy due process the
Board's Rules must not only permit, but must require, that time to answer be extended
until after the disposition of a motion. attacking the sufficiency or definiteness of a com-
plaint. Respondent cites no authority for this specific contention. However, assuming,
arguendo , that this contention is sound, it does not appear that the Respondent was prej-
udiced by the alleged deficiency in the Rules. Respondent filed an answer within the 10-day
period allowed, denying that it had committed the unfair labor practices set forth in the
complaint. Respondent at no time before filing the answer, or indeed prior to the hearing,
filed any motions attacking the complaint or requested any extension of time to answer.
At the hearing, Respondent filed a motion attacking the definiteness of one paragraph
of the complaint (paragraph XII). This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.
Respondent does not contend, nor may we assume, that the Trial Examiner's denial of this
particular motion was based on anything other than the Trial Examiner's view that the
complaint was, in fact, sufficiently definite. Accordingly, if Respondent has been prej-
adicedMby the Examiner's ruling, such prejudice is not attributable to any alleged defect in
the Rules but solely to the action of the Trial Examiner in denying Respondent's motion
on the merits.
We find, moreover, that the Examiner's ruling, itself, was not prejudicial error, as there
was no showing by the Respondent that the denial of its motion for a more definite state-
ment of the allegations in paragraph XII of the complaint hindered it in' presenting testi-
mony in its defense, or in availing itself of its right to cross-examine witnesses. The
ruling is therefore affirmed.
2. That the Respondent was further handicapped in preparing its defense by the Trial
Examiner's denial of its request for a 10 or 15 days' continuance, after the close of the Gen-
eral Counsel's case. However, here again Respondent fails to show specifically in what
respect it was prejudiced. Before denying the Respondents request for a continuance,
the Trial Examiner inquired whether Respondent intended to call any witnesses other than
four representatives of management who had been present rthroughout the presentation of
the'General Counsel's case. Respondent's counsel stated' that-he had no present intention
to call any other witnesses and no others were in fact called. Absent any other showing
on this point, we find that Respondent suffered no prejudice from the Examiner's denial of
any extended postponement of the hearing, and his ruling is hereby affirmed.
The Respondent contended further that the Trial Examiner was biased. A review of the
record convinces us that this contention is without merit, and it is hereby rejected.
2 We note, and correct, the following minor inaccuracies in the Trial Examiner's findings,
which do not affect the validity of his ultimate conclusions, nor our concurrence therein :
(1) The Union's request to withdraw its representation petition was granted by the Board
on August 18, and not on April 18, as stated in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "Background" ; (2) the interrogation of Sorkin occurred immediately after he was
hired, and not, as found by the Examiner in section 111 A, 2, d, while his employment
was under consideration ; (3) in, resolving the date of the occurrence of the newscast inci-
dent in connection with the discharge of Crawford, the reference in the Intermediate
Report to "Cudabac and Marshall" should read "Cudabac and Crawford" ; (4) the record
does not support the Examiner's finding that Assistant Station Manager Robertson asked
Marshall for a written rather than an oral statement renouncing the Union.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Union
on March 23, 1950, represented three of the Respondent's five an-
nouncers and both of its two control board operators; that on that
date the Union advised the Respondent by letter that it had been desig-
nated by the majority of the announcers and control board operators as
their representative, and requested recognition as the representative of
that unit and a bargaining conference; that, at the same time, the
Union filed a representation petition with the Board covering the same
unit as was set forth in the above letter; that the Respondent, on March
30, 1950, refused to recognize the Union until it was determined that
the Union "represents a majority of the employees in all appropriate
unit." 3
However, beginning around March 15, 1950, even before receipt
of the Union's letter, the Respondent, as found by the Trial Examiner,
launched a campaign of unlawful interrogation and threats of reprisal,
which was calculated to restrain, coerce, and discourage its employees,
particularly the announcers, from joining,4 or remaining members of,
the Union. This campaign culminated in the discriminatory discharge
in September and November of Crawford and Marshall, who were
then the sole remaining union adherents in the appropriate unit. The
Union, having in the meantime withdrawn its representation petition,
filed the instant charges, alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3)
and (5) of the Act.
Like the Trial Examiner, the Board unanimously finds that by its
campaign of interrogation, threats of reprisal, and other acts of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion, detailed in the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and that the
discharges of Crawford and Marshall were discriminatory, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
2. We find, also, that it would effectuate the policies of the Act
to issue an order directing the Respondent to bargain with the Union,
upon request, as the representative of the announcers 5 We reach this
conclusion , even though a majority of the Board (Chairman Herzog,
Member Murdock and Member Peterson) does not find that the Re-
8 In the representation case , the Board on August 8, 1950, found that the combined unit
of announcers and control board operators sought by the Union was not appropriate, but
that the only appropriate unit was one limited to announcers. An election was directed
in that unit, but the petition was later withdrawn . 90 NLRB No 218.
* Thus, when Sorkin was hired as a replacement for Cudabac , a member of the Union,
he was interrogated as to his union sympathies and admonished not to get "mixed up in
any union activities."
5 Chairman Herzog would not issue a bargaining order in this case , in view of the
majority holding on the merits that there was no violation of Section 8 (a) (5). The
Chairman dissents to that extent from his colleagues ' Decision and Order , beiieying on
precedent that the remedy directed , however befitting in fact, is inappropriate in law.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 133
spondent's refusal to recognize the Union on March 30 violated Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.6
While the Board's bargaining orders have generally been predicated
an a finding that a Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain,
the Act does not preclude the Board from issuing such an order to
remedy unfair labor practices other than those proscribed by Section
8 (a) (5).' Section 10 (c) of the Act empowers the Board to prescribe
such affirmative action as will "effectuate the policies of the Act."
Whether or not the Respondent was entitled to question the appro-
priateness of the unit proposed by the Union on March 23 and to seek
a resolution of that question by the Board, it clearly was not privileged
to utilize the delay necessarily incident to a Board proceeding to
engage in coercive conduct, such as threats of reprisals and inter-
rogation calculated to deter its nonunion announcers from joining the
Union, and its union announcers from remaining members thereof. It
was the duty of the Respondent to refrain from disturbing the status
quo by coercive conduct pending the resolution of the representation
question, and to permit the Union to have a free opportunity to increase
and retain its membership by legitimate organizational activity and
to participate in a free and uncoerced election, which would determine
whether or not it was the statutory representative of the announcers.
This the Respondent failed to do. By its coercive conduct found here-
in and detailed in the Intermediate Report, Respondent nullified the
organizational efforts of the Union during the preelection period,
thereby preventing the holding of a free election and depriving the
Union of any prospect of success in the balloting. Moreover, within
a few months after the petition had been withdrawn, Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged the only remaining union announcers, Mar-
shall and Crawford, thereby forestalling any possible resurgence of
union activity among the announcers.
As a result of this unlawful conduct, the Union, which on March
23 represented a majority of the employees in the unit which the
Board subsequently found appropriate, found itself in November
6 Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock find that there was no such violation because,
in view of the Board 's finding of the inappropriateness of the combined unit of announcers
and control operators embraced in the Union 's own request for bargaining, the Respondent
was under no statutory duty to honor that request.
Member Peterson, while believing that the Respondent would have been under a duty
to honor this request by the Union in the absence of a good faith doubt as to the appro-
priateness of the unit , finds that the Respondent did in fact entertain such a doubt, and
lawfully declined to bargain for that reason.
v See D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd , Y. N. L. R. B ., 179 P . 2d 876 ( C A 5, 1950 ), enfg. as mod
81 NLRB 753 . There, although reversing the Board 's finding that the respondent had
violated Section 8 ( 5) of the Act , the court affirmed the Board's bargaining order as a
means of remedying the respondent ' s violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See
further discussion of this case in the text below.
215233-53-10
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without a single adherent among the announcers, and without any
immediate prospect of achieving certification as the representative of
the announcers.
In a strikingly similarly case 8 the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, found, as does the majority of the Board here, that the
respondent's refusal to bargain was not unlawful. It nevertheless
held in effect, that, as the Union's subsequent loss of majority was
attributable to the Respondent's unlawful preelection campaign of
threats of reprisal and promises of benefit, a provision requiring the
Respondent to bargain with the Union, upon request, was directed to
the situation calling for redress and was therefore an appropriate
remedy to eradicate the effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices
and to effectuate the policies of the Act. The result reached in the
Holmes case is consistent with the principle enunciated by the Supreme
Court in the Franks Bros. case," that an employer should not be per-
mitted to profit by his own wrong, when he pleads, as a bar to a bar-
gaining order, a loss of the Union's majority which resulted from his
own illegal acts.
In the instant case , as in the Holmes case, the Respondent's unlawful
preelection campaign precluded any possibility of the Union's achiev-
ing certification through the exercise by the employees of a free and
untrammeled choice. We find therefore that an order requiring the
Respondent to bargain with the Union, upon request, as the represent-
ative of the announcers is necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act. As in the Holmes case, such an order will serve merely to
restore the Union to the status of the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the announcers, a status which it occupied on March 30, 1950,
before the Respondent intensified its unlawful antiunion activity.
The Respondent will thereby be prevented from profiting by its own
wrongful conduct in precluding a free election and certification of
the Union.
2. Members Houston and Styles are in full agreement with Mem-
bers Murdock and Peterson in issuing a bargaining order for the
reasons already given. However, in addition and independently of
the foregoing basis, Members Houston and Styles would also predicate
the bargaining order on Respondent's refusal to recognize, or bargain
with, the Union on March 30, 1950. Because the Union at that time
represented a majority both in the actual appropriate unit (of an-
nouncers), and in the requested unit (of announcers and control op-
erators), they would find that the Union's letter of March 23 con-
D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. N. L. R. B., supra.
Franks Bros . Company v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 702, 704.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWBH) 135
stituted a proper request for bargaining.1° They would find, further,
in view of the antiunion campaign conducted by the Respondent co-
incidentally with the Union's organizational activity, involving as it
did unlawful interrogation and threats of reprisal, and culminating in
the discriminatory discharge ,of the two remaining members of the
Union in the announcer's unit, that the Respondent's refusal to bar-
gain was not in fact motivated by any good faith doubt as to the
Union's majority status or the appropriateness of the unit sought, but
rather by a rejection of the collective bargaining principle and by a
desire to gain time in which to undermine the Union."'
Members Houston and Styles would find, therefore, that the Re-
spondent violated both Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) by its refusal to
aceede'to the Union's request of March 23 for a bargaining conference.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that International Broadcasting Corporation,
Shreveport , Louisiana , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of their
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their sentiments towards
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL, or any other
labor organization of its employees or threatening its employees with
reprisals for joining any labor organization.
(c) Requesting statements in writing of its employees setting forth
their sympathies and intentions concerning International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL, or any other labor organization
of its employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self -organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist International Brotherhood
io See Barlow-Haney Laboratories, Inc., 65 NLRB 928, where Members Houston and
Styles believe that the majority opinion indicated that a request for bargaining even in an
inappropriate unit would be valid where , as in the instant case, the union represented a
majority both in the requested unit and in the lesser, appropriate unit.
uEverett Van Klecck d Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 785, enfd . 189 F. 2d 516 ( C. A. 2) ;
Joy Silk Mills, 85 NLRB 1263, enfd . 185 F . 2d 732 (C. A. D. C. ) ; Dismuke Tire and Rubber
Company, Inc., 93 NLRB 479; N. L. R. B. v. Clarksburg Publishing Co., 120 F. 2d 976;
N. L. R. B. v. Boles-Coleman Lumber Co, 98 F. 2d 18, 22.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Electrical Workers, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Paul Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole Paul Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against them, in accordance with the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining agent
of all its announcers, excluding supervisors, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(d) Post at its main control room in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Upon request, make available to the Board for examination, and
copying all payroll and other records necessary to determine the
amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a)
(5) of the Act.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 137
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE, WILL NOT by interrogation, threats of reprisal, or in any
other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any and all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other labor organ-
ization of our employees, by discriminating in any manner with
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to Paul Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Paul Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall
for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimina-
tion practiced against them.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All announcers at Station KWKH, excluding all other em-
ployers and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming, members of the above-named union or any other labor organ-
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zation except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed and served upon Respondent on September 25, 1950, by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the Union
and the IBEW, and upon an amended charge filed and served on November 21,
1950, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), on April 11, 1951, issued his complaint against
International Broadcasting Corporation (KWKH), herein called Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in-and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), 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 and notice of hearing
were duly served upon the parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that at all times since on or about March 28, 1950, Respondent has failed to
recognize and bargain collectively with the Union; that Respondent discharged
Paul E. Crawford on or about September 21, 1950, and Vendee F. Marshall on
or about November 14, 1950, because of their union activities and has failed
and refused since those dates to reinstate them ; and that since on or about
March 28, 1950, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees by interrogating employees, by encouraging employees to write and
sign letters expressing their loyalty to Respondent and hostility to the Union, by
advising employees that it knew the names of the parties responsible for
bringing the Union into Respondent's radio station, by advising employees that
if they remained loyal to Respondent they would be retained in Respondent's
employ after those responsible for the union campaign were terminated, and
by asking new applicants for employment whether or not they were members
of a union and advising them not to get mixed up with the Union.
In its answer filed April 23, 1951, Respondent admitted the commerce facts
alleged in the complaint, admitted the discharge of Crawford and Marshall on
the dates stated in the complaint and the refusal to reinstate them, but denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices. The answer averred further, in effect,
that the General Counsel was without authority to issue the complaint herein
and the Board is without authority to decide this case because on August 8, 1950,'
the Board ordered an election among all announcers at KWKH and because on
August 18, 1950, the Board granted the request for permission 'to withdraw the
petition filed August 16, 1950, by the Petitioner, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL, the charging party herein.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Shreveport, Louisiana , from May 15 to
May 18, 1951, before Alba B. Martin, the undersigned Trial Examiner. The
General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the charg-
ing Union was represented by an international representative. All parties par-
1 Case No . 15-RC-367.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 139
ticipated In the hearing and were afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertaining to the issues.
Throughout the hearing Respondent contended that it was unable to obtain due
process in this ' proceeding because yin effect the Board's-Rules Pand Regulations
and the notice of hearing, by requiring the filing of an answer within 10 days from
the service of the complaint, foreclosed Respondent from making certain pre-
liminary motions such as a motion for a bill of particulars, a motion of vagueness,
or a motion to make more definite and certain, before filing its answer. The fact
that the Rules and Regulations do not make specific provision for the filing of
such preliminary motions prior to the filing of the answer does not mean that
they foreclose the filing of such motions. Respondent could have filed such pre-
liminary motions during the specified 10-day period or it could have requested
an extension of time for filing its answer under Section 102.22 of the Rules and
Regulations for the purpose of first making certain preliminary motions. This
it did not do. Any prejudice to it resulted therefore from its own failure rather
than from the Board's Rules and Regulations. The General Counsel's motion
to amend his complaint so as to allege March 25, 1950, rather than March
28, 1950, as the date since when Respondent has failed to recognize and bargain
with the Union, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees,
was granted. The General Counsel's motion to conform the pleadings to the
proof was granted in part and denied in part. Decision was reserved upon Re-
spondent's motions to dismiss made at the conclusion of all testimony. These
motions are hereby disposed of in accordance with the conclusions and recom-
mendations below. No brief was received from any party.
Upon the entire record in the case and from observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
International Broadcasting Corporation, a Louisiana corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Shreveport, Louisiana, operates in Shreveport
radio station KWKH under license from the Federal Communications Commis-
sion . KWKH operates on 50,000-watt power day and night, unlimited hours, on
a 1 (b) clear channel frequency. Station KWKH is affiliated with the Columbia
Broadcasting System and approximately 44 percent of the broadcasting time
of Station KWKH is consumed in broadcasting Columbia network programs,
commercial and sustaining, piped into the principal control board of the station
in Shreveport from outside the State of Louisiana. The primary coverage of the
station is north Louisiana, west Louisiana, east Texas, and south Arkansas. It is
held that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International'Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the,Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Background
During the first 3 months of 1950 the charging Union, through its intetna-
tional representative, 0. L. Johnson, undertook to organize certain of the em-
ployees of three radio stations in Shreveport, Louisiana, KRMB, KENT, and
a Section 102.20.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
KTBS, none of which is directly involved herein. During those months lie was
in and out of Shreveport, usually being in Shreveport for about 3 days at a time.
His headquarters were in Birmingham, Alabama.
On March 23, 1950, five employees of radio station KWKH, including three
announcers (Paul Crawford, Vendex F. Marshall, William Cudabac) and two
control room operators, called on Johnson at his hotel, discussed the Union,
and signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them for collective bar-
gaining purposes. On that day or the next Johnson wrote Henry B. Clay,
general manager of station KWKH, claiming a majority of his announcers and
control board operators, and requesting recognition and a date for a conference.
Clay testified that for "several months" before lie received Johnson's letter he
had known of the Union's efforts to organize the other stations in Shreveport.
March 30, 1950, Clay wrote Johnson refusing recognition "until it has been
determined that the Union named represents a majority of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit."
Upon a petition filed by the Union March 24, 1950, in Case No. 15-RC-367, the
Board conducted a hearing May 4, 1950, and on August 8, 1950, directed that an
election be held within 30 days from that date. April 18 the Board granted the
Union's request, filed August 16, to withdraw its petition, and closed the case.
Elections were held at the other radio stations in Shreveport during August,
with what result the record does not reveal
About the middle of March 1950, according to Vendee F. Marshall, a credible
witness, he was called into General Manager Clay's office. Clay told Marshall
that he had heard rumors that the employees were trying to organize the sta-
tion, and asked Marshall what he knew about it and how he felt about it.
Marshall replied that there had been discussions about forming a union, that
the Union involved was the IBEW ; that he didn't know much about the IBEW
and that he wasn't for it. Clay stated that he had a good idea who was behind
the Union, naming Crawford and Cudabac, and asked Marshall if that were
true. Marshall replied he did not know. Clay told Marshall he liked his work,
and "asked me to stick with him and I'd always have a good job there."
2. The facts
a. Late in April 1950, Clay again called Marshall into his office. According
to Marshall's testimony, which is credited, after discussing the forthcoming
representation case hearing, Clay asked Marshall if he still felt the same way
he did the last time they talked together. Marshall replied that he would
rather not say. Clay replied that he thought Marshall was "on his side." Clay
added that he still thought Cudabac and Crawford were the ones who were try-
ing to organize the station ; that "it was going to be a better place to work
after it was all settled."
In June 1950, according to the credited testimony of Marshall, Clay for a
third time called Marshall into his office, and
questioned me about my feelings toward the union, if I still felt the same
way as I did the first time I talked with him, had I changed, just whose
side I was on ; said he knew that Cudabac and Crawford had instigated
the organization, and went on to tell me what a good place it was going to be
after he had gotten rid of them, how nice it was going to be to work around
there.
Clay testified that during the period of about a month after his receipt of
Johnson's letter to him dated March 23, 1950, he sought out and talked in-
dividually with-in his office or the control room-each employee represented
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWxn) 141
by the Union according to the letter, namely, each announcer and control board
operator. He " . . explained to them what the situation was." According
to Clay's testimony, he told them about NLRB procedure, "what the IBEW was,"
that. a secret election would be held with neither him nor the Union knowing
how they voted ; that he himself did not favor the Union, did not think it would
help them ; that his door was always open, "that I didn't believe that they would
be as happy having a union represent then," that unionism might have a place
in large organizations but in a small one "I felt that they could best present
and argue their points individually with me, and that they would be better off
in the long run." He told them also that announcers were professionals with
separate talents, that their success depended on individual initiative, and that
"it was an individual proposition, and I felt they would be much better off the
way they were now than by having the union represent them."
On direct examination Clay denied that he had ever told Marshall that he knew
who the union leaders were or named them. On cross-examination, after first
denying that he told any employee, including Marshall, that he thought he knew
what announcers were in favor of the Union, Clay was confronted with a prior
affidavit executed by him in which he said that "I told Marshall that I thought
I knew the announcers who were in favor of the union . . . ." Clay at-
tempted to explain away this self-contradiction by suggesting that he did not
understand the original questions to which he gave negative answers. At the
time the questions were asked and answered, before the affidavit was shown him,
however, there was no indication that the witness misunderstood the questions.
Later he admitted that the affidavit was correct.
Marshall impressed me as a straightforward, honest witness whose memory
was good concerning the conversations and events he was relating. This conclu-
sion is based upon his demeanor while testifying, the immediacy and directness
of his answers on direct and cross-examination, and his ability and willingness
to distinguish what he remembered from what he did not remember. His version
of the above conversations with Clay is credited.
It is held that in one conversation, during June 1950, Clay told Marshall he
knew who had instigated the organization, meaning the Union, that they were
Cudabac and Crawford, that after he had gotten rid of them it would be a good
place to work By these words, by coupling together the thoughts that he was
going to get rid of Cudabac and Crawford and that it would be a good place to
work thereafter, Clay was attempting to bring home to Marshall and through him
to the other employees that they would join or assist the Union at the risk of their
jobs. These words were, therefore, a threat not only to the jobs of Cudabac and
Crawford, but to the jobs of Marshall and all other employees who joined or
assisted the Union.
It is found that in questioning Marshall as to his feelings towards the Union
during April and June 1950 and in threatening in June 1950 the jobs of those who
instigated, joined, and assisted the Union, Clay overstepped the bounds of per-
missible conduct and that by such interrogations and such threat Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section,7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.'
b. One Sunday morning in August 1950, prior to the withdrawal of the repre-
sentation petition, B. G. Robertson, the assistant station manager of station
KWKH, went to the radio station and spent 2 hours with the announcer on duty,
8 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358; Empire'Pencil Company, Division
of Hassenfeld Bros., Inc., 86 NLRB 1187
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paul Crawford. They discussed many subjects relating to the station and the
Union, including salaries, working conditions, radio stations that were organized
and those that were not, improvements which could be made at KWKH, Craw-
ford's desire for more recognition of his value, the forthcoming NLRB election
and how Vendex F. Marshall was going to vote in it, Crawford's loyalty to
KWKH and his desire to continue working there. Towards the conclusion of
the conversation Robertson suggested that Crawford write him a letter or memo-
randum setting forth some of the statements he had just made to him. Craw-
ford testified that the suggestion was made as they were discussing Crawford's
loyalty to the station ; according to Robertson's testimony it came when they
were discussing Crawford's suggestions for improvements of the station. Their
testimony agreed, in any case, that Robertson suggested that in the letter Craw-
ford include a statement that he was loyal to the station and wanted to continue
working there, and that in the event of an election he would vote against the
Union. Robertson told Crawford that he wanted the letter to show to Clay and
Mr. Ewing, president of Respondent, in order to "let them know that they had
at least one loyal employee of the station." During this conversation Robertson
knew that Crawford was in favor of the Union and Robertson told Crawford
very definitely that he, Robertson, was not in favor of the Union at KWKH.
Asked on cross-examination for the reason why he suggested the inclusion in
the letter of the fact that Crawford would vote against the Union, Robertson
offered "no particular reason" other than that it was "just a chronological order
of events that happened" during the conversation.
The following Wednesday Robertson called Crawford into his office and re-
minded him that Crawford was going to give him a letter. Crawford replied
that he had consulted a lawyer and had decided not to write it because it might
embarrass him in the future in his relations with the Union or some other union.
Robertson did not press him to furnish it and let the matter drop.
Robertson testified on cross-examination that he wanted Crawford's assertion
of loyalty in the letter in order to buttress his own statements on Crawford's
behalf to other members of management who had been threatening to discharge
Crawford. He wanted to show them that Crawford "was at least a little loyal to
the station .... "
It thus appears that on Sunday morning when he himself was not at work
Robertson went to the radio station and engaged Crawford in conversation, that
during the conversation Robertson asked Crawford to give him a statement in
writing professing his loyalty to the station, his desire to continue working there
and his intent to vote against the Union. Robertson told Crawford he wanted the
statement to give to his superiors to "let them know that they had a least one
loyal employee of the station." During the same conversation Robertson told
Crawford that he was not in favor of the Union at KWKH. Robertson thus
made it clear to Crawford that he and his superiors considered it Impossible for
an employee to be loyal towards both the station and the Union, that they con-
sidered those who were in favor of the Union to be disloyal to Respondent, that
they desired evidence in writing that employees were not in favor of the Union.
Respondent thus brought home to Crawford that it was concerned with his
union affiliation or activity and that this affiliation or activity would act to his
and the other employees' detriment.
• By coupling together the requests concerning Crawford's voting intentions-and
his desire to continue his job, Robertson let Crawford know that the two were
interwoven and that the one depended upon the other. The requests were an
implied threat not only that Crawford's job depended upon his "loyalty" to the
station and his voting against the Union, but an implied threat that the jobs of
other employees hung in the same balance. This threat was given emphasis 3
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING 'CORPORATION (KWKH) 143
days later when Robertson called Crawford into his office and behind closed
doors again asked him for the statement. It is held that Robertson's request
of Crawford for a written statement asserting Crawford's loyalty to KWKH, his
desire to continue working for KWKH, and his intention of voting against the
Union, so that Robertson could give it to Ewing and Clay to "let them know
that they had at least one loyal employee of the station," was interference with,
restraint upon, and coercion upon Respondent's employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and that by such acts Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
c. During September 1950 , according to Marshall's testimony , which is credited,
B. G. Robertson called Marshall into his office and
... told me that he had heard rumors that I changed my attitude about
the union, wanted me to clarify it, wanted to know if I had or hadn't, and
I didn 't tell him either way, I told him I 'd rather not say anything about it.
He said that he thought that I was still on the side of management, but
he would just like to make sure, and . . . he asked me if I would be willing
to make a statement to the effect that I would not take part in any union
activities.
... He said he like me and he hoped I would stay on with him, and I
could stay on a long time after the guys that had tried to push it down his
throat were gone, and praised my ability as an announcer....
Robertson admitted that he had had a number of conversations with Marshall-
in Robertson 's office, in the studio , and over the telephone when Robertson was at
his home. He denied that in any of them he ever asked Marshall to make a
statement, either written or oral, that he would take no part in union activities.
He did not deny, however, questioning Marshall as to his sentiments towards the
Union, and he did not deny uttering the implied threat to get rid of the union
leaders and the implied promise of benefit that if Marshall stayed on the side
of management his tenure would be lengthened. It is held that by Robertson's
Interrogating Marshall as to his sentiments towards the Union and requesting
a written statement that Marshall would take no part in union activities while
threatening the jobs of the union leaders, Respondent interfered with , restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights quaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and that by such acts Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
d. Dan Sorkin began working for Respondent as an announcer on August 7,
1950. He was employed to replace Bill Cudabac, who was about to go to the
Marines. During discussions with Clay and Logan on about August 1, 1950,
when they were considering him for the job, Clay asked Sorkin if he was a
member of "the union." Sorkin replied, "No." Insofar as the record shows, the
IBEW was the only union then interested in radio announcers in Shreveport.
Clay knew that is was trying to organize other stations in Shreveport as well
as KWKH and he learned during the same conversation with Sorkin that Sorkin
had just completed 7 weeks of work at station KTBS in Shreveport. It is held
that Clay was referring to the IBEW , which is what Sorkin testified he under-
stood.
During the same discussions , according to Sorkin , Logan told him that he
could advance himself , "both my salary point of view and another point of
view . . . ," "without help from any union activity ," "without having some-
one else bargain for me ." Logan also "just advised me, he asked me to take it
for what it was worth , not to get mixed up in any union activities."
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Logan's, version differed somewhat : According to him he explained to Sorkin
that efforts to organize the station had "caused a great deal of friction and
argument among the announcers and among the control operators, and as a
result many of the men's work was not as good as it should be. There was
constant bickering, bitching, complaining, and I suggested that he not become
involved in that bickering and complaining to the detriment of his work." Logan
also told Sorkin that his beginning salary would be $65 a week, that he would
receive a $5 increase at the end of 3 months, and an additional $5 at the end of
6 months. Sorkin was hired at a lower salary than the other announcers were
receiving "because he didn't have very much experience and we did not know
whether he could handle the job or not." The effect of the two pay increases
was to put him on a par "with the other announcers." Logan told Sorkin "that
he did not need anybody to get those raises for him. They would automatically
be given to him if he would tell me the date on which the first interval ended, then
the second interval, I would see to it that the raise was automatically in his
pay check the following week." "I told him (that) after the third increase he
could make more money depending on his ability and programs and ideas and
audiences he was able to develop due to his ability." Logan testified that the
automatic increase arrangement was made "upon the advice of Mr. Clay" ; and
insofar as the record discloses, this was the first instance in which such an
arrangement was made in the employing of any announcer by the station.
As held above with respect to Crawford and Marshall, asking Sorkin if he was
a member of the only union then interested in radio announcers in Shreveport,
was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Making special arrangements
for automatic increases and pointing out that Sorkin did not need "anybody"-
meaning the Union-to get those raises for him and that therafter his financial
improvement depended solely upon his work-meaning not upon any bargaining
by the Union, was an effort to keep Sorkin from joining or assisting the Union,
and Indicated an intention by Clay and Logan to deal directly with Respondent's
employees and not to bargain collectively with the Union. By such acts Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
B. The discharges
Paul Crawford was employed by Respondent as an announcer from September
1948 until his discharge on September 20, 1950. During those years he was 21
and 22 years old. Prior to that, when he was about 15, he was employed as an
announcer by Respondent for 2 weeks during a summer of a school year.
Crawford was one of the three announcers who made the initial move towards
organizing Respondent's employees, and one of the two at first suspected and
later known by Clay to be the prime movers, according to Clay's statements to
Marshall, credited above. According to John Robert Shipley, KWKH's news
director, Crawford echoed the sentiments of Cudabac "he was out and above
board and very pro-union in his talk." Crawford was one of the two-Cudabac
being the other-who testified on behalf of the Union at the representation case
hearing in May 1950, after which-in June-Clay told Marshall that he knew
Crawford and Cudabac were the ones who had instigated the organization, and
that it would be a good place to work after he had gotten rid of them. This shows
as early as June, Clay's intent to be rid of Crawford and that the reason behind
his intent was that Crawford was one of those who instigated the Union at
Respondent's radio station. These two facts are confirmed by (1) Clay's own
testimony and (2) his treatment of Crawford'at the time Crawford allegedly
refused to read a newscast over the air.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 145
1. Clay testified that he "started to fire" Crawford over the newscasting
incident, but was dissuaded by his attorney from doing it during the "union
crusade" on the ground that if Clay fired "one of them" he would have two strikes
against him. Instead he made a definite decision to discharge Crawford and
to do it "when this election and all blew over, the union activity blew over, and I
wasefnae to operate my station in a normal operation . . ." Meantime he began
to line up a replacement, Richard Tuck, who ultimately replaced Crawford in
September.
Shipley placed the newscast incident in April 1950, "shortly after the union
activities began at KWKH." Crawford placed it at a few weeks after the May 4
representation case hearing. Beyond dispute is the fact that it occurred during
the period of the "union crusade" and well before Crawford's discharge in Sep-
tember. Crawford's (late is accepted, as it is likely that Clay made the decision
to discharge Crawford at about the same time that he told Marshall it would be a
good.pi4ee to work after he had gotten rid of Cudabac and Marshall, which was
in June. At that time Shipley normally read over the air the 7 and 8 o'clock
morning newscasts. The newscasts were prepared by the news department. On
a number of occasions the two morning announcers, Cudabac and Crawford, had
been called upon to do it in his place. On the morning in question they were
asked to do it again by Mrs. Gauthier, one of Shipley's assistants in the news
department, who had received a telephone call from Shipley that he could not be
there. Crawford testified that he replied to Mrs. Gauthier that he would read
the 7 o'clock newscast and that he did so ; that Cudabac replied he would read
the 8 o'clock newscast but under protest. Although Crawford allowed he may
have left the impression with Mrs. Gauthier that he did not relish doing Shipley's
assignment again for him, he testified positively that he did not tell her he would
read it under protest. Shipley testified that Mrs. Gauthier told him the an-
nouncers would read, the 7 o'clock newscast under protest but would not read
,the 8 o'clock newscast at all. Mrs. Gauthier did not testify and no explanation
for the failure to produce her was offered. Thus Crawford's testimony as to
the conversation with Mrs. Gauthier is the only probative evidence free from the
taint of hearsay. Furthermore Crawford impressed me as a credible witness.
His testimony is credited. It is found that he read the 7 o'clock newscast and
that he did not do so under protest.
2. Clay testified that when he was considering discharging Crawford over the
newscasting incident, he told his attorney "that I had, seemed to me, ample
reason to fire a man for failing to do a newscast he was supposed to do." (Italics
supplied .) This indicated that Clay assumed Crawford had failed to make the
broadcast, which was contrary to the fact. Clay obtained his information from
Shipley, who testified that although he arrived in time to do the 8 o'clock news-
cast himself he did not discuss with Cudabac or Crawford what they had allegedly
said to Mrs. Gauthier earlier that morning. Instead he reported the matter to
Logan and Clay. Insofar as the record shows neither Logan nor Clay discussed
the matter with Cudabac and Crawford before Clay decided to discharge Craw-
ford' over this incident and before he spoke to Crawford about it.
According to the undenied and credited testimony of Crawford, on this occasion
Clay "ushered" Crawford into the record room
in a very brisk manner and proceeded to bawl me out in words of a very
ungentlemanly fashion and he told me that I hadn't been doing a good job,
that I had been causing trouble, and told me that I was making a horse's
' Whether he concurrently decided to discharge Cudabac does not appear , Cudabac having
gone to the Marines prior to the hearing.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ass out of myself , and all this and that and the other , that he had brought
me from a small station in Arkansas and given me a chance , and I didn't
seem to appreciate it, if I made one more mistake that was going to be it,
more or less shoved me back into the studio and said, get in there and if you
make one more mistake I'm going to kick your ass out of here.
It was during this conversation that Clay told Crawford that Crawford had re-
fused to read a newscast : Crawford replied that he had not refused . Insofar
as the record shows, Clay did not then talk over the incident with Crawford.
The record indicates that Clay had before then already made up his mind to dis-
pose of Crawford . His failure to reconsider this point when Crawford denied
the accusation-Crawford's truthfulness not theretofore having been doubted by
Clay, insofar as the record discloses-indicates that Clay did not care to learn
the facts and indicates further that Clay was interested in finding a pretext for
discharging Crawford and in laying a foundation that would support the pretext.
Clay's earlier language to his attorney that he had "ample reason to fire a man
for failing to do a newscast " supports this pretext theory.
Clay spoke to Crawford concerning the newscasting incident , as related
above, not the day it happened but about 4 days to a week later . During the
intervening week be conferred with his attorney and made his decision. So
when he spoke to Crawford any anger and harsh attitude he displayed-as sug-
gested by Crawford 's uncontradicted and accepted version above-was not anger
and attitude of the moment , but that of a man ' who wanted to be rid of an
employee and was curbing his own desires upon advice of counsel . Showing
any anger or harshness towards Crawford was uncustomary conduct on the part
of any officials of station KWKH. The testimony of Logan and Shipley indi-
cates that when Crawford made errors in his work they tried to correct them
by suggestions rather than by criticism , because Crawford reacted with pain and
moodiness to criticism . This was due partly to his youth and partly to the fact
that he is a sensitive youth-facts which Respondent knew all the time he
worked for it. Clay must have known this , but he disregarded it- and treated
Crawford harshly while warning him because he had decided Crawford would
not much longer be with him and he no longer cared to try to improve Craw-
ford 's work.
On September 19, 1950 , a strike began at radio station KRMD in Shreveport.
Pursuant to Shipley 's request for any news concerning the strike, during his
own time that evening Crawford obtained a news release from O . E. Johnson,
the International representative of the Union , and took it to Shipley . Later the
same evening , as Crawford was walking with the pickets up and down the
picket line in front of KRMD , B. G. Robertson came out of that station and they
greeted each other.
Towards the end of Crawford 's shift the next day Clay called him into his
office and discharged him. According to Crawford,
He told me that he was just going to have to make it rather blunt and ..
just to tell me that he was going to have to let me go because ' the morning
mail had been down, he said that I just wasn 't what they needed , that he
was going to have to let me go and get someone who had more experience
along the type of work that they wanted.
According to Clay's testimony , Clay told Crawford that he was going to have to
let him go ; that his work had deteriorated considerably in the last several
months ; that it wasn't good for the station. Clay testifiell,. "I didn't want to go
into any more than I had to with him." Then Crawford demanded that Clay
put his reason or reasons for discharging Crawford in writing, which Clay re-
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 147
fused to do . At the end of the interview both Clay and Crawford displayed
anger. Clay's desire not to be open with Crawford and his refusal to put his
reasons in writing indicate that Clay knew he was discharging Crawford for
other than good cause. Had he been taking the action for good cause he could
have had no convincing reason for refusing to put his reasons in writing.
The purport of Respondent 's evidence is that Crawford was discharged for
a number of reasons , none of which nor the aggregate is persuasive to me.
Shipley, who admittedly was opposed to the employees of KWKH being organ-
ized, stated at first that his dissatisfaction with Crawford 's work began with the
labor movement at the station , and on cross -examination changed it to August
or September 1950. Clay found Crawford ' s work improving all the time until
the Korean war began in late June, which is inconsistent with Shipley's dates,
whichever one is considered . Logan stated that Crawford was nervous after
the outbreak of the Korean war . Crawford denied that he was any different
after the Korean war than before. During the early part of the Korean war
Crawford asked Logan to excuse him one day because he had not slept well the
night before . Logan did so graciously and acted towards Crawford as though
he thought nothing of it. Then Logan told Clay about it and recommended that
Crawford be discharged . That Logan should tell Clay about this incident at all
indicates that Logan knew Clay was seeking one or more pretexts for dis-
charging Crawford . That Logan should recommend discharge under these
circumstances indicates the length he was willing to go to assist in finding a
pretext. Logan had let others off from time to time, including Marshall and
Cudabac, and had not recommended discharge as a result . Up to the time of
this incident Logan had never told Crawford he was thinking of discharging
him or recommending his discharge . It was testified that Crawford 's fan mail
had fallen off. Crawford's credited testimony was that no member of manage-
ment ever told him that his fan mail was down ; that his only conversation on
the subject was when he asked Logan how his, Crawford 's mail compared with
Logan 's when Logan had the same morning program-and Logan replied Craw-
ford 's was as much except when Logan was offering something free on the
program. Crawford testified that to his knowledge no sponsor ever requested
that Crawford be removed from his program or from selling his product, and
insofar as the record shows, no sponsor ever did.
If any of the alleged reasons had been the real reasons for Crawford's dis-
charge, I believe Clay would have had confidence that his cause was just and
would have discharged Crawford at the time of the incident or incidents and
told Crawford exactly why. His delay in doing so indicates he knew he never
had just cause.
In August 1950 , as found above, after the Korean war had been in progress
for some 5 or 6 weeks ( and when , if the accounts of Shipley , Logan , and Clay
are believed , Crawford 's work was deteriorating ) Robertson went out of his
way twice to obtain a statement in writing from Crawford professing Craw-
ford 's loyalty to the station , his desire to continue working there , and his intent
to vote against the Union . Robertson was the second high man in the organ-
ization and there is every indication in the record that Clay, Robertson , Logan,
and Shipley kept each other informed concerning the organizational activities of
their employees . Robertson knew that the score against Crawford was chiefly
his union affiliation and activity , and that if he could convince his fellow-
members : of management of Crawford 's turnabout on the Union , he could re-
trieve and secure Crawford 's waning job . Had the real reason for Crawford's
approaching discharge been that his work was deteriorating , it is impossible to
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
understand how Robertson thought he could aid Crawford with a written state-
ment of loyalty. Asked about this on cross-examination Robertson testified that
he felt showing the written statement from Crawford would overcome some of
the reasons why Robertson felt the Respondent was going to discharge him.
The entire record of the case and my observation of the witnesses convinces
me, and it is so held, that the real reason for Crawford's discharge was that
he had instigated the Union and was one of its leaders at station KWKH. In
discharging Crawford in September Clay was merely carrying out his intent
expressed to Marshall in June to get rid of those who instigated the organiza-
tion, and his decision reached at about the same time to discharge Crawford
when the election and the Union activity had blown over and he was again free
"to operate my station in a normal operation . . . ." By September the repre-
sentation case had been dismissed, the elections at the other stations in Shreve-
port had been held, the focal point of union activity had moved for the moment
to a strike at another station, and Clay decided his moment had come. It is
held that by discharging Crawford on September 20, 1950, Respondent unlaw-
fully restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section S (a) (1), and
discriminated against Crawford in regard to his hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
Vender F. Marshall was employed by Respondent as an announcer from about
October 31, 1949, until his discharge by Clay on November 14, 1950. At the time
of the hearing he was station manager of radio station KCIJ in Shreveport.
At the time of the hearing Marshall was 24 years old.
As is indicated above, for a time after he authorized the Union to represent
him on March 23, 1950, Marshall was not certain whether, in the antiunion
climate established by Clay, Logan, Shipley, and Robertson, he wished to pro-
ceed with the Union. During this period, which extended from March until he
was called to service with the Air Corps in late August 1950, Shipley's under-
standing was that Marshall had no sympathy towards the Union, and Robertson
understood Marshall was against the Union and was intending to vote against
it. During this period, as found above, Clay questioned Marshall as to his
union sympathies and expressed the thought that Marshall was on Clay's side.
During this period there was every indication that Respondent wished to retain
Marshall in its employ. During August Robertson learned from Shipley that
Marshall was considering resigning and accepting an opening which had, been
offered hi'in at another station in Shreveport. Robertson called Marshall into
his office and used all of his persuasion in an effort to hold Marshall, including
the statement that he had a much better job in mind for Marshall later on, with
the result that Marshall decided not to accept the other offer. When Clay learned
Marshall had been summoned to the Air Force as a reservist, Clay extended
himself considerably to hold him. It being thought that Marshall would not
pass the medical tests because of a leg injury, Clay tried to save Marshall the
expense and time of going to Biloxi, Mississippi, by arranging for the physical
examination to be taken at a nearby airfield . This failing , Clay came upon an
Air Force regulation permitting the deferment of radio station personnel,
phoned Marshall from his home that he had found it, and the next day wrote
a letter to the commanding officer of the Fourteenth Air Force requesting
Marshall 's deferment and stating in part :
His position is that of announcer which includes valuable assistance in
production and programming. The loss of this employee at the present time
would result in hardship for this radio station and it would be extremely
difficult to replace him.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 149
Marshall had to serve a few days at Biloxi, nevertheless, and upon his return
to KWKH word began to seep around that his attitude towards the Union had
changed. It was then, in September, as found above, that Robertson called
Marshall into his office, told him the rumor was that he had changed his attitude
about the Union, asked Marshall what about it, asked him for a written state-
ment that Marshall would not take part in union activities.
Not long later, and a few days after the beginning of the strike at Station
KRMD and a day or so after the discharge of Paul Crawford for union activi-
ties as found above, Robertson learned of Marshall's new attitude with certainty,
and Logan warned Marshall against associating with the pickets. On that occa-
sion they discussed Robertson's having gone through the picket line and having
helped his friend, the owner of KRMD, by announcing for him. Marshall told
him that he himself would not have crossed the picket line, that the difference
between them was that Marshall's friends were on the picket line and that if
Marshall went over to help them, "I would probably get fired, and he informed
me that that was a different situation." In his testimony Robertson admitted
that lie got mad at Marshall because Marshall failed to understand that Robert-
son had helped out at KRMD on the basis of friendship. A few days later Logan
told Marshall that he had been seen associating with the men on the picket line
at KRMD and told him that if this information "got to the right parties" it might
be bad for Marshall.
The information as to Marshall's change in attitude towards the Union and
his assistance to-the pickets must have reached Clay'ss ears, because when, on
about September 25, Marshall again told Clay he had been summoned to report
to the Air Force, Clay's attitude was entirely different towards Marshall than it
had been before. On this occasion Clay had only a curt remark for Marshall,
namely that he could do nothing about it. Marshall asked Clay if he would have
his job back when he was released by the Air Force and Clay replied, in effect,
that he didn't know, that he might be away 3 years and that then Clay might
be pleased with his staff. Marshall reminded Clay of the law on the subject and
Clay replied he might be forced to take Marshall back but he certainly would not
be forced to keep him.
Upon Marshall's return to the station, about November 1, some 8 days after
he left this time, he again having been excused from service, he was reinstated
to the morning shift, which he had succeeded to on August 12 when Cudabac
left. When he reported to Clay upon his return Clay did not get up from his
desk , did not shake hands with Marshall.
On November 6, 1950, a few days after his second return from the Air Force,
Marshall was transferred from the morning shift to a split shift working from
noon to 5: 30 and 9: 30 to 11: 30 p. in. A few days later Logan and Page,
the chief announcer, called Marshall in and told him they did not like his
attitude towards working on the nightshift, that they didn't want any "bitching"
or complaining about it. Marshall denied that he had done any and said that
be wouldn't. Logan told him to cease his "bitching" and complaining or he would
"fire his ass." Logan testified that he called Marshall in on that occasion because
he had heard rumors that Marshall was complaining about having been "done
dirty." Marshall testified that although he may have made a statement to one
of the other announcers that he didn't like the new shift, he had not gone around
the station "bitching all the time." Marshall's testimony is credited. Marshall
impressed me as an intelligent man, and from the very beginning of the organi-
zational efforts at KWKH he had learned from the lips of Clay himself that
station KWKH was not going to be a healthy place for union employees to work.
Since then Cudabac had gone and Crawford had been discharged under cir-
cumstances known to Marshall. Knowing as he did that he was the only one
215233-53-11
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
left of the original three who had made the original contact with the Union's
international representative, and the only union mail left in the appropriate
unit found by the Board, Marshall impressed me as too intelligent a nian not
to have known that the executives of the station would seize upon any pretext-
for getting rid of him too. Their changed attitude towards him since his change,
of position towards the Union upon his return from Biloxi had been made evident
to him through the several incidents set forth above. Under these circumstances
it is probable that Marshall was conducting himself with care, and-it is so
found.
On November 13, over coffee in a restaurant, occurred the conversation with-
Shipley which led directly to Marshall's discharge by Clay the following day.
Marshall's version, which is credited, was that Shipley asked Marshall if he
had not just returned from a union meeting and what his sentiments were
towards the Union. (Shipley testified that up until then he had always under-
stood from Marshall that he was unsympathetic towards the Union.) Marshall
replied that he was for the Union, that he was "in it." Marshall added that he
knew Shipley would tell Clay that and that he expected to be fired that very
night. Shipley assured him that he would not say anything about it, that he
had not asked Marshall for the purpose of passing it on to Clay.
Shipley's version was that Marshall expressed much complaint to -Shipley
about the treatment he had received from KWKH and Clay, and stated that
he was going to do everything in his power to get even with Clay and to hurt
KWKH. This version is not credited. Shipley's testimony shows that from
the very beginning of the union movement he set out-to procure the di'scliarge,
of those who were active in it, and that he -would seize upon any pretext for
achieving that end.
The next day Shipley arranged a meeting with Logan and Page, relayed the
conversation with Marshall of the night before, and the three of them decided
to recommend Marshall's discharge to Clay. Logan carried the recommendation
to Clay and Clay stated he would do so. Before doing so he checked what Logan
had said with Shipley, but he did not ask Marshall for his version of the con-
versation the evening before with Shipley.
At about 5: 30 that afternoon Clay sent for Marshall and told him he was
letting him go. According to Marshall's credited testimony, Clay told him he
didn't like his attitude ; that he was a "darned good announcer" and he wished
Marshall could stay' on with them. Marshall said that Clay would hear further
from this ; that he would have an unfair labor practice charge filed against him.
Clay replied that that did not scare him; that he was not afraid of Marshall,
the "God-damned union or the Labor Board."
Clay's version agreed that during this exit interview Marshall claimed that he
was being discharged because of his union activities and that Clay would hear
further from it.
Clay did not deny the alleged reference to the Union and the Labor Board.
According to Clay's version he told Marshall,
The reason I am letting you go is because apparently you are dissatisfied
with the station and that you cannot only do the best job you are capable
of doing, but you are interfering with the people who work with you and
getting them all upset and they can't do their best job because of it and
you are mad with the station and apparently can't do your best job and I
think it's time we just parted.
Clay's version stated that when Marshall said he was being fired for his union
activities Clay replied, "That is very much of a surprise to me. I had no idea
that you were interested in the Union . . . . .
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 151
Both versions indicate that at the end of the interview both parties to it were
angry and talked as angry men talk. Clay threatened to call the police to have
Marshall thrown out, but didn't.
Respondent's evidence suggested even other reasons than those given to
Crawford by Clay according to the latter's version. None of the added versions
are persuasive as the cause for Marshall's discharge, individually or in the
aggregate. Sometime during the summer of 1950 Marshall and a newscaster
named Ed Smith engaged in some horseplay, after which Marshall was repri-
manded It is undenied in the record that a certain amount of horseplay was
common practice and that announcers were not discharged for it. Shipley
complained to Logan that Marshall did not correctly introduce Shipley as "Ark-
La-Tex's No. 1 newscaster." This Marshall denied, Marshall impressed me as
a much more reliable and credible witness than Shipley. Marshall's denial is
credited At one time towards the end of his tenure Marshall allegedly said to
Shipley, "Isn't this a stinke^ place to work?" Marshall's denial is credited. One
day towards the end of his tenure Marshall read a fan letter over the air, accord-
ing to Logan. In it the writer stated that Marshall sounded bored. After
reading it, according to Logan, Marshall commented, "Who wouldn't be bored
running this sort of stuff?" Marshall denied making this comment. I do not
believe that one as intelligent as Marshall would make such a comment.
Marshall's denial is credited.
Respondent adduced evidence intended to suggest that it had discharged
Crawford and Marshall for the purpose of replacing them with more talented
announcers so as to improve KWKH's Hooper rating so as to get back a number
of valuable accounts it had lost to station KTBS. KTBS took the accounts
during the- period October 1949 to April 1950, so that it was after that period`
that Respondent was attempting to win them back. During this period the
summer and fall of 1950, Clay extended himself to keep Marshall from the Air
Force and Robertson talked Marshall out of resigning and going elsewhere.
Sorkin was hired about August 1, not having had much experience as an an-
nouncer and Respondent not knowing "whether he could handle the Job or not,"
according to Logan's testimony. It follows from these facts that there was no
connection between the discharges of Crawford and Marshall and Respondent's
efforts to improve its Hooper rating.
The entire record of the case and my observation of the witnesses convinces
me that Marshall was discharged in order to rid KWKH of its only remaining
union announcer so that Clay could be free again "to operate my station in a
normal operation" Only Marshall stood between Clay and complete freedom
from the union menace The record contains specific proof, cited above, that
Robertson, Logan, and Shipley each had knowledge of Marshall's allegiance to
the Union after his return from Biloxi, and it is inconceivable on this record to
believe that Clay did not know it also. If he had not known it before he certainly
learned it from Shipley after Shipley learned it from Marshall on November 13.
However, Clay's attitude towards Marshall when he left the second time for the
Air Corps and his treatment of him upon his return indicate that Clay then knew
of Marshall's turnabout. Thereafter Clay was seeking a pretext to be rid of
Marshall, and when on November 14 he received the report and recommendation
from three of his subordinates he decided he had found it.
The entire record in the case bears out the conclusion that Marshall was a
good announcer and that he wished to continue working at KWKH, the largest
station in its section of the country Any change in his attitude towards the
station was a direct result of the ch:'inged attitude towards him of the executives
of the station after his final decision to regard himself as a union man. He was
working in a hostile atmosphere and knew that his days were numbered. Had
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there not been hostility towards Marshall, Clay would have inquired of Marshall
what he had said to Shipley the night before. His failure to make the inquiry
shows that he was not interested in finding the facts and that he was no longer
interested in keeping Marshall in his employ, even though he knew Marshall
was a good announcer . His main interest in Marshall at that point was to find
a pretext to be rid of him, and discovering what actually was said by Marshall
to Shipley the night before might have upset the pretext.
It is held that by discharging Marshall on November 14, 1950, Respondent
unlawfully restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1),
and discriminated against Marshall in regard to his hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8
( a) (3) of the Act.
C. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the Union's representation of a majority therein
The complaint alleged that all announcers employed by Respondent, excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropri-
ate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the
Act. This allegation corresponded with the Board's appropriate unit finding
in its Decision and Direction of Election of August 8, 1950, in Case No. 15-RC-
367. No evidence concerning this subject was introduced by either party at the
hearing in the current case. In view of the Board's earlier finding, the fact that
the unit as alleged appears to be an appropriate one, and the, absence of any
evidence to the contrary, I find that the unit as alleged and set forth above
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
At the time of the request and refusal to bargain, considered below, Respondent
employed at station KWKH five announcers of when one was the chief announcer
and of whom three, Cudabac, Crawford, and Marshall, had authorized the
Union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes. Beyond dispute is
the fact that at the time of the request and refusal the Union represented a
majority in the appropriate unit and was therefore the duly designated repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
2. The refusal
On March 23 or 24, 1950, the Union's international representative, O. E.
Johnson, wrote Clay that a majority of KWKH's announcers and control board
operators had designated the Union as their collective bargaining representa-
tive, and requested that KWKH recognize the Union as the collective bargaining
representative for such employees, and grant the Union a conference.
On March 30, 1950, Clay wrote Johnson acknowledging receipt of Johnson's
letter and stating
We'are not in a position to extend such recognition until it has been deter-
mined that the union named represents a majority of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit.
The events of the next few months afford conclusive proof that this refusal
of recognition was based not upon any good faith doubts but upon a complete
repudiation of the collective bargaining principle . As the entire record in the
case shows, from the very beginning of the organizational efforts of its employees
Respondent 's executives started upon a campaign of interrogation , interfer-
ence , and coercion of its employees and finally illegally discharged two of the
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (KWKH) 153
Union's three known members. Within a month after his receipt of Johnson's
letter, as Clay testified, Clay sought out and talked individually with each em-
ployee in the alleged appropriate unit, and advised them to bargain individually
with him and they would be better off in the long run, that their success de-
pended upon their own individual initiative rather than upon collective bargain-
ing-thus indicating not only his preference for but his intent to continue in-
dividual bargaining and to repudiate collective bargaining. Confirmatory proof
is the language used by Clay during his testimony when he said he made a deci-
sion (in late May or early June 1950) to discharge Crawford "when this election
and all blew over, the union activity blew over, and I was free to operate my
station in a normal operation. .. .
Within this context the words, "normal operation" means operation without
any bargaining with the Union as to wages, hours, and working conditions of the
-station's employees-the Union having blown past as a gust of wind leaving
nothing in its wake but freedom for the executives of KWKH to operate the
station exactly as before. During the period in question Respondent not only
intended to continue to bargain individually with its employees and advised its
employees that that would be best for them, but in employing Sorkin it actually
made special arrangements for automatic increases, as found above, and advised
Sorkin, in effect, that he would not need the Union to get those or other future
raises for him. It is little wonder that when the Board ordered an election and
the Union considered the campaign of interference, coercion, and repudiation of
the collective bargaining principle in toto, it decided that the atmosphere would
not permit a fair election and requested withdrawal of the petition.
The entire record in the case demands a finding, which is hereby made, that
in refusing to recognize the Union and to set a date for bargaining conferences,
in its letter of March 30, 1950, Respondent refused to bargain collectively with
the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection
with Respondent's operations described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set
forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discharged Paul Crawford and Vendee F. Marshall because
of their union and concerted activities, I recommend that Respondent offer to
each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position 6 without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge, the date of the discrimination against him, to the
date when, pursuant to the recommendations herein contained, Respondent
6 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Jpan, Puerto Rico , Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
154 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
shall offer them reinstatement , less the net earnings of each during said period °
Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which
these employees would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof,
their net earnings , if any, in other employment during that period . Earnings
in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any
other quarter ., The quarterly periods described herein shall begin with the
first day of January , April , July, and October .' It is recommended further' that
Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records,
in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.8
It having been found that Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in an appropriate unit,
I recommend that Respondent upon request bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of such employees with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours , and other terms and conditions of employment.'
Because of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and
tendency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related
to other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent ' s conduct in
the past.10 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order
is coextensive with the threat . In order, therefore , to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac-
tices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce , and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Broadcasting Corporation is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
-3. At all times material herein, the following employees of International
Broadcasting Corporation at its radio station KWKH have constituted and now
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining: All
announcers, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. On March 30, 1950, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
was the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
5. By refusing on March 30, 1950, and at all times thereafter to bargain col-
lectively with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. During April and June 1950, by interrogating Vendex F. Marshall as to
his sentiments towards the Union and by threatening the jobs of those who
instigated, joined, and assisted the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained,
6 Crossett Lumber . Co, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8 ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7
7 F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
6 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
9 N. L. R. B. v. Franks Bothers Co., 321 U. S 702.
°° N. L R. B v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 155
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. During August 1950, by requesting of Paul Crawford a written statement
asserting his loyalty to KWKH, his desire to continue working for KWKH, and
his intention of voting against the Union, so that Robertson could give it to
Respondent's president and general manager, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
8. During September 1950, by interrogating Vendex F. Marshall as to his
sentiments towards the Union and by requesting of him a written statement that
Marshall would take no part in union activities, while threatening the jobs
of the union leaders, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and there-
by has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. During August 1950, by interrogating Dan Sorkin as to his union mem-
bership, and by arranging for automatic wage increases for him and assuring
him that he did not need the Union to obtain those or other increases, Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
10. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Paul
Crawford and Vendex F. Marshall, thereby discouraging membership in Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (TIFFIN PLANT OF THE FRACTIONAL
HORSEPOWER MOTOR DEPARTMENT), and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ( NILEs GLASS WORKS, LAMP DIVISION),
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 8-RC-1524 and 8-RC-1533.
May 16,1959
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Philip Fusco,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
" 1 The-petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer
99 NLRB No. 35.