Local 84, Intl. Alliance of Theatrical Employees

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 1312 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 84, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees and CBS , Inc. and Local 1212, Interna-
tional lrotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-443
June 30, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following the filing of a charge on February 28, 1975,
by CBS, Inc., the Employer (hereafter CBS), alleging
that Local 84, International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees (hereafter Local 84), has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, by engaging in certain
proscribed activities with the object of forcing or
requiring CBS to assign disputed work to members of
Local 84 rather than to employees of the Employer
who are represented by Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) AFL-
CIO (hereafter Local 1212).
Pursuant to a notice of hearing and an order
rescheduling hearing, a hearing was conducted
before Hearing Officer Robert C. Rosemere on April
29, 1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were afforded a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence bearing on the issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case,
including the brief of the Employer, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
CBS is a New York corporation with its principal
office in Nev York City. It is engaged in interstate
communication by radio and television, as well as
other enterprises, and derives an annual gross
income therefrom exceeding $1 million. It receives in
New York State from points outside New York State
materials having an annual value exceeding $50,000.
The parties stipulated to these facts and, on the basis
thereof, we find that CBS is an employer engaged in
I For this telecast , the mobile units consisted of two main vans, one
containing the control room facilities and one carrying cameras, cables, and
218 NLRB No. 199
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
All parties stipulated , and we find, that Local 84
and Local 1212 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
Ill. EVIDENCE
A. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the unloading of
equipment from CBS trucks, the positioning of
equipment at the site of the television transmission,
and the installing of temporary cable to such
equipment at the Civic Center in Hartford, Connecti-
cut.
B. Background
In preparation for the telecast of a National
Basketball Association (NBA) game in Hartford,
Connecticut, on March 2, 1975, over the CBS
Television Network, Martin J. Murphy, the Employ-
er's, field operations engineer, met with Charles
Miller, operations manager for the Hartford Civic
Center, on February 26, 1975. They discussed
available locations for the placement of cameras and
CBS mobile broadcast units.' At that time, Miller
suggested that Murphy meet Michael Sullivan,
business agent for Local 84, because the Civic Center
had entered into a contract giving Local 84jurisdic-
tion over unloading trucks and installing cables. At
this meeting, Murphy told Sullivan that CBS, which
uses its own technical employees who are members
of Local 1212 for such work, had to honor the
collective-bargaining agreement giving Local 1212
jurisdiction over the disputed work. During the
course of this conversation, Sullivan demanded that
six members of Local 84 assist the CBS employees in
unloading the trucks and installing cables.
The following morning, on February 27, Murphy
spoke with Mr. Sivo, secretary-treasurer of Local 84,
who reiterated Local 84's demands for work. Sivo
also pointed out that Local 84 people were responsi-
ble for hooking up the main power lines and added
that he hoped CBS would hire the six Local 84
people to assist in the disputed work. Murphy, who
received strict orders from his superiors to honor the
CBS collective-bargaining agreement with Local
1212, asked Sivo if CBS trucks would still get power
if Local 84 people were not hired. Sivo said "there
other transmission equipment There was also a third truck for slow-motion
equipment; and a fourth truck containing primarily video tape machines.
LOCAL 84, INTL. ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL EMPLOYEES 1313
might be a chance of no power." Later that day,
Sullivan confirmed that there was a possibility CBS
would not receive its power. On Friday morning,
February 28, CBS filed charges against Local 84.
When Sullivan was informed of this, he allowed CBS
technicians who had been waiting to unload the
trucks since 10 a.m. to proceed with this work. No
further difficulties occurred until Saturday morning,
March 1, when CBS was informed that Local 84
would not assist the Civic Center in laying down the
basketball floor for the game unless CBS used six to
eight Local 84 people.2 After several calls to Miller
from CBS management officials, who stressed the
potential liability of the Civic Center if CBS could
not telecast the event, the preparation for the telecast
proceeded without further delay.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends, with Local 1212 in
agreement,3 that Local 84 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act because it threatened to refuse to hook up
CBS mobile broadcast units with the main power
source and to withhold necessary services from the
Hartford Civic Center unless CBS hired six people
from Local 84 to assist in the disputed work. In view
of the collective-bargaining agreement with Local
1212, employer and industry past practice, the
specialized nature of the equipment, and the func-
tional interchangeability of the CBS crew, the
Employer asserts that the disputed work should be
awarded to the members of Local 1212.
Local 84 took the position at the hearing in this
proceeding that the disputed work should be award-
ed to its members on the basis of its contract with the
Hartford Civic Center, past practice at the Civic
Center,4 and because the work should be given to
local Hartford technicians rather than to "outsiders."
All parties stipulated that there was no agreed-
upon method for resolving this dispute.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
The uncontradicted and undisputed testimony
discloses that on February 26 and 27 Local 84
threatened to refuse to link up the CBS mobile
broadcast trucks with the main source of power
unless CBS agreed to hire at least six people from
2 Apparently , the arena had to be prepared for the basketball game in a
short time because a hockey game was to be played earlier in the day The
Civic Center used Local 84 people to assist in the changeover
3 Neither Local 1212 nor Local 84 filed briefs However, Vincent
Bartilucci, business manager of Local 1212, testified at the hearing that the
Local 84. On March 1, Local 84 furthered its
demands that CBS hire Local 84 crewmembers by
threatening to withhold services from the Hartford
Civic Center which were essential to the telecasting
of the event. Accordingly, since Local 84 claimed the
work for its members and threatened CBS and the
Hartford Civic Center with a denial of services to
force an assignment of the disputed work to members
of Local 84, we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4XD) has been violated and
that the dispute is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to various relevant factors.
As the Board has stated, the determination in a
jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment
based on commonsense and experience in weighing
these factors. We find the following factors are
relevant in making a determination of the dispute
before us.
1. The collective-bargaining agreements
Local 1212 has been the certified representative of
the CBS employees involved herein since February
14; 1952. CBS has a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 1212 in effect which specifically gives
jurisdiction of the disputed work to Local 1212
technicians, both in terms of the type of work to be
performed and the territorial reach of Local 1212's
jurisdiction which is a 200-mile radius from a main
5ttidio. (Hartford, Connecticut is well within 200
miles of the originating CBS studio in this case,
which is located in New York City.) .
On the other hand, Local 84 claims that its written
memorandum of understanding with the city of
Hartford, which administers the Civic Center, con-
trols the assignment of work. The clause relied upon
by Local 84 states that the, agreement covers
"theatrical type events." Local 84 contends that an
oral agreement expands the scope, of work covered
by the memorandum to include television broad-
casts.
From the record evidence, it is clear that CBS was
the employer in control over the manner and means
by which the telecast was to be made and CBS'
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1212
clearly establishes the latter's jurisdiction over the
members of Local 1212 want to perform the work and have the requisite
skills
4 We note that Local 84 asserts that it has performed the disputed work
at the Center for two previous telecasts . However , the record indicates that
those telecasts were directed to local audiences and the television stations
involved had collective-bargaining agreements with a different union.
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work, whereas Local 84 has no such contract and
arrangement with CBS. In my view of the explicit
language in the collective-bargaining agreement
between CBS and Local 1212, we find this factor
favors an award of work to the employees of the
Employer.
2. Employer and industry practice
The record discloses that the Employer's award of
the disputed work to employees of Local 1212 has a
long tradition which predates Board certification of
Local 1212 as the bargaining representative of the
CBS employees involved herein. Industry practice
also indicates that all television networks use their
own technical employees to perform the work in
dispute, except where the collective-bargaining
agreement between the network and the in-house
employees may specifically state otherwise. We find
that employer past practice as well as industry
practice favors an award of work to the employees of
the Employer.
3. Skills and efficiency of operations
The record establishes that a major concern of CBS
is the proper care and use of its highly specialized
and costly broadcast equipment. To that end, it
utilizes crews composed of approximately 23 techni-
cians, all of whom are Local 1212 members, who
perform interchangeable functions. Undisputed testi-
mony indicates that the Local 1212 technicians are
highly skilled in both maintaining and repairing the
equipment involved. We find therefore that the
employees of the Employer possess the necessary
skills . Although there is no contention that Local 84
members are any less skilled to do the work, in view
of the specialized equipment involved and the
demonstrated skills and training of CBS employees
to do the work, this factor favors an award of the
disputed work to the employees of the Employer.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the employees of the Employer
represented by Local 1212, but not that Union or its
members, are entitled to perform the disputed work.
In reaching this conclusion, we have relied upon the
Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its
own employees, the fact that this assignment is
consistent with the Employer's past practice and
industry practice, the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Employer and Local 1212, and the
skill, experience, and efficiency of the Employer's
crewmembers in the handling, maintenance, and
repair of the pertinent equipment.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of CBS, Inc., represented by Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers '(IBEW) AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the
work of unloading equipment from CBS trucks,
positioning equipment on site , and installing tempo-
rary cable to such equipment incident to a television
transmission at the Civic Center in Hartford,
Connecticut.
2. Local 84, International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees, is not entitled by means proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require
the assignment of the above work, or any part
thereof, to its members or to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Local 84, Interna-
tional Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, the assignment of the disputed work in a
manner inconsistent with this determination.