KFDA-TV Channel 10

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

667
308 NLRB No. 92
KFDA-TV CHANNEL 10
1 We find it unnecessary to rule on the Employer’s motion to the
hearing officer summarily to sustain its challenges to the seven re-
porters and reporter/anchors as that motion has not been renewed on
exceptions.
2 The Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer’s
credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule
a hearing officer’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find no basis
for reversing the findings.
3 Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that 5 of the 12 chal-
lenged ballots should be sustained.
4 Reporter Brice Sheets testified that he does nearly all the photog-
raphy for his stories because there are not enough photographers
scheduled during the week and none on weekends.
5 The Employer has not argued that the reporters and reporter/-an-
chors at issue are ‘‘professional employees’’ as defined in the Act;
thus, we find it unnecessary to rely on Binghamton Press Co., 226
NLRB 808 (1976).
Panhandle Telecasting Company d/b/a KFDA-TV
Channel 10 and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local Union 577, AFL–CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 16–RC–9435
August 31, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered determinative challenges
in an election held October 17, 1991, and the hearing
officer’s report recommending disposition of them. The
election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Elec-
tion Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 14 for and
9 against the Petitioner, with 12 challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and brief and has adopted the hearing offi-
cer’s rulings,1 findings2 and recommendations,3 and
overrules the challenges to the ballots of seven hourly
news department employees classified as reporters and
reporter/anchors.
The parties stipulated to the following unit:
INCLUDED: All regular full-time and part-time
production employees, to include video tape oper-
ators, switchers and control operators, character
generator operators, audio operators, studio cam-
era operators, commercial copy writers and pro-
ducers, engineers, traffic employees, and photog-
raphers employed by the Employer at the Ama-
rillo, Texas, facility located at Broadway and
Cherry.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, to include all
salaried employees, all sales employees, contract
janitors and guards, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Although the Employer’s administrative structure in-
cludes a ‘‘production department,’’ it is clear from the
record, and no one argues otherwise, that the phrase
‘‘production employees’’ as used in the stipulation is
not confined to employees from that department. All
parties agree that included in the unit are hourly em-
ployees from the engineering department, and the pho-
tographers and producers in the news department. The
parties do not agree, however, as to the placement of
the reporters and reporter/anchors at issue.
The Petitioner argues that the news reporters and
reporter/anchors qualify as production employees and
should be included in the unit. The Employer contends
that the challenged employees are functionally separate
from the employees in the unit and do not share a
community of interest with them. The hearing officer,
noting, inter alia, that the news reporters and
reporter/anchors often work side by side with unit em-
ployees and receive comparable pay and the same ben-
efits, found that they share ‘‘a sufficient functional re-
lationship’’ (and by implication a community of inter-
est) with the employees in the unit. Accordingly, she
recommended that the challenges to their ballots be
overruled.
We agree with the hearing officer that the reporters
and reporter/anchors at issue share a close functional
relationship, and community of interest, with the em-
ployees stipulated to be in the unit, and are thus prop-
erly included in the unit. For example, the reporters
and reporter/-anchors regularly photograph their own
news stories.4 The record also discloses that the report-
ers and reporter/anchors regularly act as news produc-
ers on the weekends, regularly run the video tape dur-
ing newscasts, and regularly operate the teleprompter.
News photographers, news producers, and videotape
operators are all included in the stipulated unit. These
facts, which show that reporters and reporter/anchors
regularly perform work performed by unit employees,
demonstrate (along with those cited by the hearing of-
ficer) that the employees at issue are appropriately in-
cluded in the unit.
The Employer points out that the major distinction
between the unit employees and the reporters and
reporter/anchors is that the stipulated employees all
work ‘‘behind-the-scenes,’’ whereas the reporters and
reporter/anchors appear on-air. As on-air employees,
according to the Employer, they are held to a higher
standard of professionalism5 than the other employees.
Although these factors could support a conclusion that
a separate unit limited to the reporters and
reporter/anchors is also appropriate, the appropriateness
of such a unit is not before us. The differences cited
by the Employer are insufficient, under the facts pre-
sented here, to compel a finding that the inclusion of
the reporters and reporter/anchors in the requested unit
is inappropriate.
668 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 Pulitzer Publishing Co., 203 NLRB 639, 641 (1973); KPOJ, Inc.,
129 NLRB 727, 729 (1960); Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corp.,
100 NLRB 238, 239 (1952); Norfolk Broadcasting Corp., 100 NLRB
244, 245 (1952); WTAR Radio Corp., 100 NLRB 250, 251 (1952).
Neither Perry Broadcasting, 300 NLRB 1140
(1990), nor any of the cases cited by the Employer6
are an impediment to our decision to include these re-
porters and reporter/anchors in the petitioned-for unit.
The fact that the Board has found separate units of on-
air employees appropriate in the past is not determina-
tive here. Nothing in the case law says that it is inap-
propriate to include on-air employees in a broader unit
where, as here, they share a community of interest
with the other employees. Simply put, while the cases
cited by the Employer permit separate units, they do
not prohibit inclusion of on-air and other employees in
one unit when other community-of-interest criteria are
met.
Accordingly, we find that the seven hourly reporters
and reporter/anchors in dispute are properly included
in the unit and overrule the challenges to their ballots.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the challenges to the ballots of
Brice Sheets, John Hagerty, Chris Hernandez, Kirk
Welch, Tonya Haywood, Kari King, and Matt Wursler
be overruled and that their ballots be opened and
counted, and that based on the revised tally the appro-
priate certification be issued.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded
to the Regional Director for further action consistent
with this Decision and Order.