Money Radio, A California Ltd. Partnership

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1990

297 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

MONEY RADIO 705
Money Radio, a California Limited Partnership and
American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles Local. Cases
21-CA-26644 and 21-CA-26675
January 31, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On September 8, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge Clifford H Anderson issued the attached de-
cision The General Counsel and Respondent each
filed exceptions and supporting briefs
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order 2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Money
Radio, a California Limited Partnership, Anahiem,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order
We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the election
was improper and unconstitutional because it proceeded despite the pend-
ency of the Respondent's request for review before the Board In this
regard, the Respondent contends that It was denied an opportunity to
campaign against the Union because the Board did not issue its decision
pnor to the date of the election We note that the Respondent failed to
raise a timely objection to the conduct of the election Moreover, we
have Independently reviewed the record and find that the Respondent
was Informed well in advance of the election that the Regional Director
would proceed in accordance with the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion and that, if the Board had not rendered its decision by the election
date, the ballots would be Impounded pending the decision The Re-
spondent's decision not to participate in the campaign does not render the
election null and void or violate its constitutional rights
2 The General Counsel excepted to the judge's decision for the limited
purpose of requesting that the Order and notice be modified to include a
recital of the establmhed rule that the initial penod of certification of the
Union shall commence as of the date the Respondent begins to bargain in
good faith with the Union In support of this request, the General Coun-
sel relied on Lustrelon, Inc , 289 NLRB 378 (1988), and Glomac Plastics,
234 NLRB 1309 (1978), cases in which the employer was found to have
engaged in bad-faith bargaining during the certification year Under those
circumstances, it was appropnate to define clearly the parameters of the
certification year because of the difficulty in determining when good-
faith bargaining stopped and bad faith bargaining began In this case,
however, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union because
It challenges the Union s certification The judge's recital of the certifica-
tion year rule in his remedy is sufficient to redress this violation and is
consistent with usual Board practice Accordingly, the modifications
sought by the General Counsel are unnecessary and we deny the General
Counsel's request
Margaret Hume and Frank Wagner, Esqs , for the Gener-
al Counsel
Edward "Buz" Schwartz pro se, of Anaheim, California,
for the Respondent
Anthony Segall, Esq (Reich, Adell & Crost), of Los Ange-
les, California, for the Union
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLIFFORD H ANDERSON, Administrative Law Judge I
heard the above-captioned consolidated cases on July 27,
1989, in Los Angeles, California The matter arose as fol-
lows On February 15, 1989, the American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles
Local (the Union) filed a charge docketed as Case 21-
CA-26644 against Money Radio, a California Limited
Partnership (Respondent) Thereafter on March 7, 1989,
the Union filed a charge docketed as Case 21-CA-26675
against Respondent Thereafter, on March 30, 1989, the
Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor
Relations Board issued an order consolidating cases, con-
solidated complaint, and notice of hearing consolidating
the cases for a common hearing and decision with a third
case, Case 21-CA-26651 On September 1, 1989, I issued
an order severing cases, severing all aspects of Case 21-
CA-26651 from this proceeding
The consolidated complaint as amended by the sever-
ance alleges that Respondent has failed to recognize, bar-
gain with, or supply relevant information concerning Re-
spondent's employees in the unit descnbed, infra, to the
Union as the exclusive representative of Respondent's
employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
Respondent denies the validity of the underlying rep-
resentation proceeding and hence the Union's status as
the representative of unit employees and all other allega-
tions of wrongdoing Further, Respondent challenges the
propriety of an administrative law judge employed by
the National Labor Relations Board hearing the instant
matter Respondent's recusation ments threshold consid-
eration
Ruling on Motion to Disqualify the Administrative
Law Judge
Respondent as part of its answer, in the preheanng
conference call and at the hearing challenging the pro-
priety of an administrative law judge employed by the
National Labor Relations Board heanng the instant con-
solidated cases against it The representative of Respond-
ent made it clear that the challenge was predicated en-
tirely on the employee-employer relationship between
the designated administrative law judge and the Board
and not on any other grounds Thus, Respondent does
not contend that the particular designation of this admin-
istrative law judge, the specific identity of the judge, or
the judge's conduct in the case was other than consistent
with Board practice or constitutes an independent basis
for disqualification Rather, Respondent's challenge is to
the selection by any means of an administrative law
judge employed by the ,Board which Board also employs
the staff of the General Counsel prosecuting the case I
297 NLRB No 108
706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accepted the factual contention of Respondent—that I
was in fact an employee of the National Labor Relations
Board, but denied the motion to disqualify at the heanng
as insufficient on its face given the provisions for the
designation of and hearing of cases by administrative law
judges set forth in the Act and in the Board's Rules and
Regulations See Section 10(c) of the Act and the
Board's Rules and Regulations Section 102 34 et seq See
also Ramspeck v Trial Examiners Conference, 345 U S
128 (1953), cf Butz v Economy, 438 US 478 (1978) I
reaffirm my ruling here 1
All parties were given full opportunity to participate
at the hearing, to introduce relevant evidence, to call, ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and
to file postheanng briefs
- Upon the entire record herein, including a postheanng
brief from the General Counsel and oral argument from
Respondent, and from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT2
I JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that Re-
spondent is a California limited partnership engaged in
the business of radio broadcasting with a facility located
since on or about January 30, 1989, in Anaheim, Califor-
nia, and previously located Los Angeles, California Re-
spondent, annually in the normal course and conduct of
its business operations receives gross revenues in excess
of $100,000 and sells services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to enterprises located outside the State of Cali-
fornia Respondent subscribes to national wire services
and advertises national brand products The complaint
further alleges, the answer admits and I find that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
II LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
'Appeals from rulings on motions to disqualify administrative law
judges under Sec 102 36 of the Board's Rules and Regulations are gov-
erned by the provisions of Sec 102 26 of the Rules
2 As a result of the pleadings and the stipulations of counsel and repre-
sentatives at the trial there were few disputes of fact regarding collateral
matters Where not otherwise noted, the findings herein are based on the
pleadings, the stipulations of the parties including stipulated documents,
or other unchallenged credible evidence
3 The General Counsel also moved that I strike those portions of Re-
spondent s answer denying those contentions I denied that motion and
reaffirm my ruling here Aurora Packing Co, 295 NLRB No 129 (July
31, 1989), fn 1 at p 2 of slip op (not published in bound volume)
HI THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
•
A The Appropriateness of the Collective-Bargaining
Unit and the Union's Status as the Exclusive
Representative of Unit Employees
1 The uncontested events
On November 14, 1988, the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
Case 31-RC-6468 holding the following unit (the unit)
appropriate for collective bargaining under Section 9(b)
of the Act
All full-time and regular part-time on-air radio staff
announcers employed by Respondent at its facility,
excluding all other employees, office clencal em-
ployees, board operators, producers, researchers,
writers, salespersons, managers, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
On November 21, 1988, Respondent sought Board
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election On December 16, 1988, the Board
denied Respondent's request for review
Following an election among employees in the unit in
which a majority voted for the Union, and in the ab-
sence of timely objections to the conduct of the election,
on December 29, 1988, the Regional Director for Region
31 certified the Union as the exclusive representative of
employees in the unit for purposes of collective bargain-
ing
2 Analysis and conclusions
Respondent challenges the Regional Director's Deci-
sion and Direction of Election and the resulting certifica-
tion of the Union as exclusive representative of unit em-
ployees Given the fact that the Board denied review of
the Decision and Direction of Election, that action may
not be challenged here nor, since the time for the filing
of objections to the conduct of elections has passed, may
Respondent challenge the election itself These represen-
tation case matters do not present litigatable issues before
me Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v NLRB, 313 U S 146,
162 (1941) This being so, I find the Union was at all
times on and after December 29, 1988, the exclusive rep-
resentative of Respondent's unit employees for purposes
of collective bargaining and that the unit is an appropri-
ate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act 3
B Events Subsequent to Issuance of the Certification
1 The correspondence
On January 4, 1989, the Union sent Respondent a
letter, received on January 5, 1989, with the following
text
3 The General Counsel also moved that I strike those portions of Re-
spondent s answer denying those contentions I denied that motion and
reaffirm my ruling here Aurora Packing Co, 295 NLRB No 129 (July
31, 1989), fn 1 at p 2 of slip op (not published in bound volume)
MONEY RADIO 707
This letter constitutes a demand by AFTRA for
collective bargaining The National Labor Relations
Board has certified AFTRA the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative for your on-air staff
announcers As such, you must engage in meaning-
ful negotiations with AFTRA for a collective bar-
gaining agreement
To this end, please provide the following informa-
tion
(1) Weekly base salary of each full-time staff an-
nouncer, plus a breakdown of any additional com-
pensation they receive or may receive in the form
of fees or bonuses
(2) Salary formula for all part-time or casual staff
announcers
(3) All benefits received by staff announcers
Please submit all health, dental and other insurance
policies, pamphlets or other information relevant for
determining total health benefits received by staff
announcers, cost to station, cost to staff announcers,
and eligibility requirements
(4) All pension/retirement programs available to
staff announcers Please submit all relevant informa-
tion for determining cost to station, cost to staff an-
nouncers, and eligibility requirements
(5) Summary of individual duties and responsibil-
ities of each staff announcer including any written
job description
(6) The completion of all terms and conditions of
employment the staff announcers operate under
with all relevant written policies including
(a) Work Hours - What is your work week? What
is your lunch and coffee break policy?
(b) Overtime - When are your staff announcers el-
igible and how are they compensated?
(c) Holidays - What holidays are staff announcers
granted and how are staff announcers compensated
if they work on a holiday?
(d) Vacation - When are staff announcers eligible
for vacation pay? What period of time must they be
employed to receive how much vacation pay per
year? Is there a cap on the amount that may be ac-
cumulated?
(e) Sick Leave - How much sick leave are staff
announcers entitled? Is there a cap on the amount
that may be accumulated .
(f) Severance Pay & Notice - In the event of dis-
charge, what severance pay are staff announcers en-
titled? How much notice of termination are staff an-
nouncers provided?
(g) Expense Allowance - What allowance for
travel and accommodations are staff announcers en-
titled when requested to travel for work?
(h) Turnaround - Between staff assignments on
consecutive days what period of time for rest is al-
lowed staff announcers, and what is your compensa-
tion policy if a staff announcer is required to return
to work after a shorter period of time?
(i) Minimum Call-Backs - What is your policy if a
staff announcer is called back to work after the end
of his or her regular work day? Is the staff an-
nouncer further compensated under these circum-
stances? .
(j) Leave of Absence - Are staff announcers enti-
tled to leaves of absence without pay? If so, how
much time are they entitled?
(k) Exclusivity - May staff announcers seek em-
ployment iri the broadcast/entertainment industry
outside of thew employment with the station? What
is your policy?
(1) Pregnancy Leave Policy
(m) Jury Duty Leave Policy
(n) Bereavement Leave Policy
(7) Any formal or informal grievance-arbitration
policy for resolving disputes between the staff an-
nouncers and the station Federal Law mandates
your compliance with this information request
Please provide all information by January 20, 1989
Otherwise, we will take all necessary action to
compel your cooperation
In the meantime, I will be contacting you to
schedule our first negotiation session
On January 9, 1989, Respondent sent a letter to the
Union with the following text
As a graduate engineer with a minor in English
composition, I am constantly amazed by the lack of
communication skills evidenced by the average
American And I am truly shocked that when one
interfaces with professionals in the communications
industry these skills are even less advanced than
they are with lay people
A case in point is your use of the term "staff an-
nouncer" The definition of "staff announcer" was
the main point of dispute at the hearing It is my
considered opinion that no legally binding definition ,
of "staff announcer" has yet been given
Now to your -letter You mention that the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has certified your or-
ganization as the exclusive bargaining representative
for our on-air "staff announcers" (There is that "S".
word again) That certification was the result of an
illegal election By holding an election in which we
did not participate while a'legal, written appeal was
being adjudicated by the National Labor Relations
Board's Appeals Board, Money Radio's constitu-
tional rights were violated
I fully recognize the wide latitude that adminis-
trative hearing officers have, but to proceed with an
election in the face of an outstanding appeal is un-
heard of Why the unseemly haste? As a matter of
record, the Appeals Board decision was rendered
the same day that the election was held If the elec-
tion was postponed just one week, Money Radio
would have been able to participate fully in the
election and would have willingly abided by the- de-
cision
As far as the information you request I cannot
comply because I honestly do not know who or
what a "staff announcer" is, and regardless of defi-
nition, no announcers work for KMNY either in
Pomona or Los Angeles We do not use the term
708 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and no one in our employ has ever been hired as a
staff announcer
Please understand that Money Radio has no ob-
jection to any its employees seeking to organize
under the Federal Labor Relations Act All we ask
is that it be done legally and fairly To show our
good faith, if you will send a list of the names of
the people you claim are in the unit, I will supply
you with the information you request, understand-
ing that my submitting the information in no way
compromises my claim that the people on your list
may or may not be staff announcers employed with
KMNY, either in Pomona or Los Angeles
On January 19, 1989, the Union's counsel sent Re-
spondent a letter with the following text
This office is legal counsel to Amencan Federa-
tion of Television and Radio Artists, Los Angeles
Local I have reviewed Jay Gmsberg's January 4,
1989, request for information (the Request), and
your response by letter dated January 9, 1989 Al-
though I have doubts as to the good faith of your
position, I will attempt to clarify the ambiguities
you perceive in the Request
You profess confusion over the term "staff an-
nouncer" For purpose of the Request, you may
construe staff announcer to mean any employee of
Money Radio whose voice is broadcast on radio
station KMNY-AM, except (1) employees classified
as researchers, wnters and producers, and (2) man-
agement employees, including yourself and Steve
Kindred
You have asked us to identify specific individuals
on whose behalf information is requested While
AFTRA does not have access to a current employ-
ee roster, you may construe the request as including
but not limited to the following individuals
Mark Baker Cindy Jeter
Jennifer Bauman Alan Ross
Laura Zengals Richard Beebe
Alan Harvey Michael Shappee
Mike Bloodworth

Shelley McDonald
Jodie Adler Stan Harrell
Sparkle Stiff

B J Whitbeck
Gene Ferguson Scott Greene
Michael Ray Tom Storey
Robin Newland

Ehz Klene
Geoffrey Nathanson Robin Burcher
Any of the above individuals who are no longer
employees of Money Radio may, of course, be ex-
cluded from the Request Moreover, if you contend
that any of the above individuals, though currently
employed by Money Radio, are not properly in the
bargaining unit, please identify the individuals and
state the basis for their exclusion In any event,
please provide the requested information for all in-
dividuals you concede to be in the bargaining unit
All the requested information should be provided
to me, in writing, no later than the close of business
on January 31, 1989
Apropos of the appeal for clear communication
contained in your January 9 letter, note the follow-
ing The federal statute governing collective bar-
gaining is the National Labor Relations Act And
literary allusions notwithstanding, the regional di-
rector of Region 31 is Roger W Goubeaux
On February 6, Respondent wrote a letter to the
Union's counsel with the following text
First let me apologize for the lateness of my
reply to your letter of January 19th We moved our
facilities to Anaheim, please note our new address
and phone number, and this is the first chance I
have to reply Let me answer your letter paragraph
by paragraph
As I have mentioned many times, I am not an at-
torney, but that does not mean I am unfamiliar with
legal proceedings and negotiations With this in
mind, let me suggest that expressing doubts about
my good faith without ever having met me or con-
versed with me is not the way to start a successful
negotiation
My confusion over the term "staff announcer" is
really the crux of this entire situation, and has been
since the beginning One day I hope you will ex-
plain why your firm used it By doing so, you have
confused a very simple situation Let me give you
an example
B J Whitbeck has been with our company over a
year She was first hired as a research person, and is
now employed as a telephone producer During
that time, Ms Whitbeck expressed a desire to voice
material on the air Being reasonable employers, we
allowed her to air one or two stories Her voice is
not suitable for network production, and she no
longer is heard
On the one hand, you claim that producers are
not included in the unit, and on the other, you spe-
cifically name her as a part of the unit Then you
say if I do not agree with whom you put into the
unit, I should state my reasons Is that good faith9
And finally, if the childish behavior you exhibit-
ed in the last paragraph of your letter "made your
day," it is ok with me Some day you might even
have a "grown-up" success to write in your copy
book
On February 23, 1989, Respondent sent a Region 21
field agent investigating Case 21-CA-26644 a letter with
the following text
I attempted to call you twice to find out how
much background information on the case you had
It was originally heard in the West Los Angeles
office Unfortunately, you were out
First, let me say that I am not an attorney I am
an engineer and businessman And if I had the time,
which I don't, I would file a complaint that the at-
torneys representing AFTRA are the ones guilty of
unfair labor practices
MONEY RADIO 709
I
I say this because I feel it is unfair to ask for
something that you know does not exit [sic] The at-
torneys keep asking for information on "Staff An-
nouncers" To revive a phrase from the '50's, "I
have not now, nor have I ever had a classification
called 'Staff Announcer " There are no staff an-
nouncers working at KMNY
There is one other point that we will have to ad-
dress As far as I am concerned, the election held
by the National Labor Relations Board was illegal,
and I do not recognize AFTRA as the bargaining
agent for Money Radio
I have enclosed copies of all correspondence and
would be most happy to discuss any or all aspects
of the situation with you
2 Analysis and conclusions
The representative of Respondent contends that the
correspondence is not sufficient to constitute a refusal of
Respondent to recognize the Union, a Union request to
bargain, a refusal by Respondent to bargain, a request for
relevant information or a refusal to supply relevant infor-
mation
The Union's January 4, 1989 letter is a proper demand
for recognition and bargaining as well as a request for
relevant information Respondent's letters of January 9,
February 6 and February 23, read in the context of the
union counsel's letter of January 19 makes it clear that
Respondent does not accept the validity of the represen-
tation case certification and will not recognize, bargain,
or supply relevant information to the Union however in-
direct the wording of the correspondence on these ques-
tions
C Conclusions
I have found the Union at all times since December
29, 1988, has exclusively represented unit employees for
purposes of collective bargaining I have further found
the Union sought to bargain with Respondent and sought
information relevant to its bargaining obligation Finally,
I have found Respondent has at all times material since
January 9, 1989, failed and refused to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive representative of
unit employees and further failed to supply requested in-
formation relevant to the Union's duty to represent unit
employees Respondent has thus simply refused to recog-
nize the Union as its employees' representative or to par-
ticipate in any bargaining or provision of information to
the Union in aid of bargaining Respondent's actions and
omissions violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and I
so find Lake Holiday Associates, 295 NLRB 992 (1989),
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v NLRB, 313 U S 146, 162
(1941), National Eastern Corp, 294 NLRB No 24 (1989)
(not published in bound volume)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act
2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act
1

i
3 By virtue of the representation election on Decem-
ber 16 and 17, 1988, in Case 31-RC-6468, the Union has
at all times since that date been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the following
unit
All full time and regular part time on-air radio staff
announcers employed by Respondent at its facility,
excluding all other employees, office clerical em-
ployees, board operators, producers, researchers,
writers, salespersons, managers, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
4 The unit described above is appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act
5 By refusing, on and after January 9, 1989, to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for purposes of collective bargaining of em-
ployees within the unit and by refusing to provide rele-
vant information requested of Respondent by the Union,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act
6 The above unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom, to recognize and
bargain on request with the Union and, if an understand-
ing is reached, to embody the understanding in signed
agreement and to provide the Union the current form of
the information it requested
To ensure that the employees are accorded the serv-
ices of their selected bargaining agent for the period pro-
vided by law, the initial period of the certification shall
commence as of the date Respondent begins to bargain
in good faith with the Union Mar-Jac Poultry Co, 136
NLRB 785 (1962), Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd 328 F 2d 600 (5th Cir 1964), cert denied
379 U S 817 (1964), Burnett Construction Co, 149 NLRB
1419, 1421 (1964), enfd 365 F 2d 57 (10th Cir 1965),
Glomac Plastics, 234 NLRB 1309 (1978)
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed4
ORDER
Respondent, Money Radio, A California Limited Part-
nership, Anaheim, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize the American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
710 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the following unit
All full time and regular part time on air staff an
nouncers employed by Respondent at its facility, ex
cluding all other employees, office clerical employ
ees board operators producers, researchers, writ
ers, salespersons managers, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act
(b) Refusing to meet and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of unit employees
(c) Refusing to supply the Union with requested mfor
mation necessary for and relevant to the Union s func
tion as the exclusive bargammg representative of unit
employees
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in the unit
(b) On request, meet and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of employees in the unit and,
if an understanding is reached, embody that understand
mg in a signed agreement
(c) Furnish the Union with the current form of the in
formation requested of Respondent by the Union
(d) Post at its facility in Anaheim California copies of
the attached notice marked Appendix 5 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by Respondent s authonzed
representative shall be posted by Respondent immediate
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered defaced or covered by any other maten
al
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent
has taken to comply
5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us is to post this notice abide its terms
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with
the American Federation of Television and Radio Art
ists AFL-CIO, Los Angeles Local as the exclusive col
lective bargaining representative of our employees in the
following bargaining unit
All full time and part time on air radio staff an
nouncers employed by Money Radio at its facility
excluding all other employees office clencal em
ployees board operators producers researchers
writers, salepersons, managers, guards and supervi
sors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with re
quested information necessary for and relevant to the
Union s performance of its duties as the exclusive bar
gaming representative of our unit employees
WE WILL NOT in any hke or related manner interfere
with restrain or coerce our employees in the execise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL recognize, meet and bargain with the thon
as the exclusive representative of unit employees and will
put in writing and sign any agreement reached regarding
terms and conditions of employment of our employees in
the bargaining unit described above
WE WILL furnish the Union with the current informs
non requested by it which is necessary for and relevant
to the performance of the Union s duties as the exclusive
representative of our employees in-the bargaining unit
MONEY RADIO A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP