National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 587 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 587
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., AMERICAN BROADCAST-
ING COMPANY, INC.,1 and TELEVISION WRITERS OF
AMERICA, L Petitioner
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., AMERICAN BROADCAST-
ING COMPANY, INC. and TELEVISION WRITERS OF
AMERICA, Petitioner
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., NATIONAL BROADCAST-
ING COMPANY, INC. and AUTHOR'S LEAGUE OF AMER-
ICA, 9 Petitioner
McCADDEN CORPORATION' and TELEVISION WRITERS OF
AMERICA, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 21-RC-2782, 21-RC-2791,
21-RC-2872, and 21-RC-2849. April 30, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearings
was held before Norman H. Greer, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:`
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employers. ALA intervened on behalf
of itself and the Screen Writers Guild in each of the cases
brought by TWA, and TWA intervened in the case brought by
ALA.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ALA, as Intervenor in Cases Nos. 21-RC-2782 and 21-RC-
2791, and the Employers named therein contend that there is
a validly executed contract between ALA and the Employers
of September 24, 1952, which constitutes a bar to any election
at this time in the unit covered by the contract.' However,
1 Herein referred to as NBC, CBS, and ABC, respectively, and as the Networks , collec-
tively. The name of each appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Herein referred to as TWA.
3 Herein referred to as ALA. ALA filed its petition on behalf of itself and the Screen Writers
Guild.
4 Herein called McCadden. The name appears as amended at the hearing.
`Case No . 21-RC-2847, which was heard together with the above cases, was severed from
them by the Board and was remanded for further hearing.
6 The request for oral argument by ALA, NBC, CBS, and ABC is hereby denied, as the
record and briefs of the parties adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
7 ALA took the further position that if the contract were found to be a bar , it would not
desire that an election be held pursuant to this petition in Case No. 21-RC-2872.
104 NLRB No. 72.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we find that this contract is not a bar because its purported
effective date, • October 16 , 1952 , occurred after October 10,
1952, the date of filing of the petition in Case No . 21-RC-2782
and the date of the claim to representation in Case No. 21.-
RC-2791, which was followed within 10 days thereafter by the
filing of the petition in that case.9
4. The appropriate units:
a. The Networks unit (Cases Nos . 21-RC-2782, 2791,
and 2872)
The Networks own and operate a number of television broad-
casting stations throughout the country , including three in the
Los Angeles area. All these stations broadcastprograms which
either " originate " locally," or originate elsewhere (princi-
pally in New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles ) and are
transmitted to the local station from the point of origin,
Other independent stations also broadcast some of the programs
originating on a Networks station . Some of the programs
originated by the Networks are produced by them, others are
produced by independent producers , sponsors, or advertising
agencies . The place of production of a program does not
always correspond to the place of its origin,
Programs which are carried simultaneously by the originating
station and one or more additional stations are called "net-
work programs." "Syndicated programs," which are usually
on film, although designed to be broadcast over more than one
station, are not carried simultaneously by such stations but
are broadcast by one station at a time.
In Cases Nos. 21-RC-2782 and 21-RC-2791 , TWA seeks a
unit of free - lance television writers employed by the Networks
for television programs, live or film, produced in Los Angeles
County, California , regardless of the place of origin of such
programs. ALA and the Networks contend that this unit is
inappropriate and the Networks agree with ALA that the unit
sought by ALA in Case No. 21-RC-2872 is appropriate. This
unit would include free-lance writers and composers who are
employed by the Networks or by advertising agencies princi-
pally in the writing of literary material or the composition of
original musical material for network television programs
broadcast by the Networks originating in New York , Chicago,
or Los Angeles , and for all syndicated programs regardless
of the point of origin which are broadcast by the Networks
stations. The Networks also contend , contrary to TWA, that
if a local unit is found appropriate , it should include free-lance
• Upon receipt of TWA's petition in Case No . 21-RC- 2782, the Networks advised ALA that,
in view of the filing of the petition, they would not give effect to the contract, and no effect
has been given thereto by the parties.
•See Desoto Creamery and Produce Company, 94 NLRB 1627, and Mississippi Lime
Company of Missouri , 71 NLRB 472, and cases cited therein. We find it unnecessary to con-
sider other arguments advanced by TWA in support of its position that the contract is not
a bar.
10 I.e., are initially put on the air by the local Networks station.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 589
writers for all seven television stations in Los Angeles.
Both Petitioners and the Networks would exclude from the
unit staff writers and composers and any other writers and
composers who do not fall within the agreed definition of free-
lance writers and composers.",
The following are the principal issues raised by the unit
positions of the parties:
(1) Whether a local Los Angeles unit or a nationwide unit
is appropriate in this case.
(2) Whether free-lance writers who write for all telecasts
or only those writing for network and syndicated shows should
be included in the appropriate unit.
(3) Whether the unit should be confined to employees of the
Networks or should include employees of advertising agencies
as well.
(4) Whether the unit should include writers only or writers
and composers.
All parties are agreed that in whatever way these issues
are resolved, no distinction should be made between writers
employed for live, film, or kinescope shows.
(1) ALA and the Networks contend that a nationwide, rather
than a local, unit is appropriate because the Networks'
operations are integrated, with centralized control over nation-
wide operations, including labor relations, in New York;
collective bargaining in the industry has been nationwide; the
skills, techniques, and working conditions of the employees
sought are unaffected by their geographical location; there is
considerable movement of these employees from one area to
another. On the other hand, TWA contends that a unit of the
Networks' free-lance writers who write for programs pro-
duced in Los Angeles County is appropriate because writers
must live and work in the areas where their shows are pro-
duced; there are very few temporary transfers of writers
from one geographical area to another; markets and writer-
agent relationships vary regionally; there is wide geographical
separation between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, the
principal locations from which the Networks' broadcasts orig-
inate;' collective-bargaining history for writers has been
regional ; the local stations of the Networks in Los Angeles
have local autonomy. -
There is substantial integration in the operations of the
system of each network. The record reveals that the principal
offices of each network, which are located in New York City,
exercise close control over all operations , including those
"The free-lance writers are defined by the parties as follows: "A free-lance writer is one
who is employed by the company under an express oral or written contract to render writing
services in the creation and/or preparation of material for a specific program or program
series, and as to whom the company has a contractual right to direct the performance of
personal services by said writer in making revisions , modifications or changes in such
material. As distinguished from a staff writer , the free-lance writer cannot be assigned to
any writing services not covered by his individual contract of employment ; the staff writer
may be assigned to any writing services or any program or programs , in the sole discretion
of the company." Free-lance composers , sought by ALA, are composers who render their
services in a similar fashion.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Los Angeles. Program budgets and other financial matters
require approval from New York. All music for broadcast
must be cleared with New York. Program continuity policies,
which establish standards of good taste for television pro-
grams, are determined in New York, and local stations must
conform therewith. Local labor matters may be negotiated at
the local level, but field attorneys and negotiators are bound
by policies and instructions established in New York, and all
agreements must be approved by New York. All agreements
covering free-lance employees on network programs, including
the October 1952 writers' contract, have been negotiated and
executed in New York.
Moreover, that contract, which is the only contract ever
negotiated for the employees sought in the present cases,
embraced a nationwide, multiemployer unit. A number of other
collective-bargaining agreements were introduced at the hear-
ing covering other types of free-lance employees in the
radio and television industry on a national, multiemployer
basis. Thus, free-lance television "talent" employees (which
includes actors, disc jockeys, an'iouncers , sports announcers,
and other television performers of all kinds, except musicians,
employed on all live network television programs originating
in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles) have been covered
by national, multiemployer contracts with the Networks and
others since November 1950. Such a unit was found appropriate
by the Board." Free-lance television directors employed
by the Networks on network programs originating in New
York and Los Angeles are covered by a contract extending
until March 31, 1954.
Free-lance writers in radio are covered by two multi-
employer collective-bargaining agreements , one of which
embraces in a nationwide unit such writers employed, by the
Networks and the Mutual Broadcasting System. Other national,
multiemployer contracts cover free-lance radio artists em-
ployed by the Networks on network shows and free-lance
radio directors employed on live AM radio network broad-
casts. 11
The only evidence adduced of local bargaining in the industry
related to a multiemployer agreement covering free-lance
performers employed on local live shows by the 7 Los
Angeles television stations ,, including the 3 owned by the
Networks,u and an agreement covering free-lance writers
of a group of independent television film producers operating
in the Hollywood area, which was in process of negotiation
at the time of the hearing.15 However, there was no evidence
12 American Broadcasting Company, Inc. et al ., 96 NLRB 815.
13 There are other national bargaining agreements in radio and television covering em-
ployees other than free-lance employees.
14 There was no evidence that any of the other four stations employ free - lance'writers.
15 No one seeks in these cases to represent free - lance writers employed by any independent
television film producers.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 591
of any local bargaining history for the specific unit of em-
ployees sought by TWA. 16
A number of writers were called by both Petitioners to
testify with respect to their working conditions . There was
practically unanimous agreement among them that their
techniques and skills were the same regardless of the place
where they were writing or the place of production or origin
of the program . While the presence of the writer is usually
desired at the place of production for the purpose of making
script changes and revisions found necessary by the producer
or director , the place of production may be changed temporarily,
in which case the writers may be required to accompany the
show to the new place of production . Most writers testified
that working conditions were generally the same, regardless
of where they wrote or the place of production of what they
wrote . The only substantial differences cited were in market
conditions between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles and
in the relationship between writers and agents . i' The record
shows that there has been considerable movement around the
country by the writers , which is attributable, at least in
part, to the transitory nature of the employment relationships
between free - lance writers and their employers . Typically,
many writers work for employers on an individual show
basis,"' and they may work for a number of employers in a
number of locations over a period of years. , L
In view of the integration and centralized control of the
Networks' operations , the similarity of the skills , techniques,
and duties of the writers sought , the degree of mobility of the
writers, and the extensive collective - bargaining history on a
systemwide , multiemployer basis, for other free-lance em-
ployees in the industry and for similar employees in radio,
we find that the Los Angeles unit sought by TWA is inappro-
priate because too limited in scope and that a systemwide,
multierriployer unit is appropriate.'9
(2)'AL)V' and the Networks would include in the unit only
free-lance writers employed on network and syndicated pro-
grams, while TWA would include free - lance writers employed
on local programs as well. m As already stated , network and
syndicated programs are broadcast by more than one station,
the broadcasts being simultaneous in the case of network
is TWA contends that the existence of two regional administrative councils, one covering
writers east, and the other west , of the Mississippi River, established by ALA'indicatesna
history of regional bargaining and an admission of the inappropriateness of a national Unit.
it It was suggested that the difference might be a result of local laws governing such
relationship.
i8 However , not all free-lance writers are employed on this basis . Some work under
contracts , typically of 13 weeks' duration or a multiple thereof, with options for renewal.
Contracts of this type are found generally among writers working on comedy and variety
shows involving a particular star performer or set of star performers and serial programs
involving a constant set of characters and a continuing story line.
is in view of our decision below to exclude composers from the unit, it is unnecessary to
consider them in this discussion.
m TWA'took this position with respect to the unit confined to Los Angeles which it sought.
It did not state its position with respect to this issue in the event that a systemwide unit is
found appropriate.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
programs. Local programs are broadcast only by the originating
station, and' are not relayed to or repeated by other stations.
Systemwide collective-bargaining agreements in the industry
for free-lance employees and the October 1952 "agreement"
covering free-lance writers have been limited in their coverage
to employment on network and syndicated broadcasts only. In
any event, there is no evidence in the record that any of the
Networks at the present time employ any free-lance writers
on local programs. Accordingly, we will not at this time pass
on the question of the inclusion of such writers in the unit,
but shall limit the unit to writers for network and syndicated
programs.
(3) ALA and the Networks take the position that the appro-
priate unit should include free-lance writers employed by
unnamed advertising agencies as well as those employed by
the Networks, themselves. TWA contended that the unit should
be limited to employees of the Networks but stated in its
brief, "However TWA does not hold strongly to this position
and should the Board find it appropriate to include advertising
agencies in the unit, TWA will accept that position."
ALA and the Employers contend that the circumstances in
the present proceeding are similar to those in American Broad-
casting Company, Inc., et al.,n in which the Networks, among
others, were named as parties. In that case a majority of the
Board found appropriate a unit of "all persons employed as
talent on all live network television programs originating in
New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and broadcast over the
network facilities of the Employers." As the dissent in that
case pointed out, the unit included the entire pool of free-lance
talent employed by the broadcasting networks, advertising
agencies , sponsors, and independent package producers. In
the instant case , although the unit description in the petition
of ALA would have similar broad coverage, ALA stated at the
hearing that it seeks employees only of the Networks and of
advertising agencies.
The record indicates that there is a pool of free-lance
writers who are employed by all the television networks,
advertising agencies , and independent producers for assign-
ments of varying duration. There is no collective-bargaining
history for free-lance writers in television other than the
abortive contract between ALA and the Networks urged by
them herein as a bar. tt While representatives of advertising
agencies attended the negotiating sessions culminating in this
contract, the agencies were not made parties to the contract,
but provision was made in the contract for letters of adherence
to be signed by individual agencies desiring to abide by its
terms ." It would appear therefore that free-lance writers
employed by advertising agencies for television shows have not
n 96 NLRB 815.
At the time of the hearing. an agreement was being concluded covering free-lance writers
employed by a group of independent television film producers in the Los Angeles area, not
involved in these cases.
:s There is no evidence that any agencies have as yet signed letters of adherence.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. 593
been bargained for as part of a unit including other free-lance
television writers. The absence of such bargaining history
distinguishes this case from the American Broadcasting
case."
Accordingly, we will not include free-lance writers employed
by advertising agencies in the unit. As it appears that no
party seeks the inclusion of free-lance writers employed by
sponsors and other independent package producers, we will
also exclude such writers from the unit.
(4) ALA and the Employers, contrary to TWA, would include
free-lance composers who compose original music for use on
network television broadcasts. They contend that constant
collaboration 'is required between such composers and the pro-
gram writers to insure proper integration of music and script,
which makes it imperative that the conditions of their em-
ployment be similar, and that each should have identical
residual rights in the material they compose and write. TWA
contends that there is no greater community of interest
between composers and writers than between writers and
actors, who are separately represented, and that the skills and
techniques of composers differ to a large degree from those of
writers.
Examination of prior bargaining history reveals that the
two agreements covering free-lance writers in the radio field
do not provide for inclusion of free-lance composers in the
contract units and, apart from the recent abortive agreement
between ALA and the three Networks, which includes such
composers in the same contract unit with free-lance writers,
there was no evidence of any bargaining history for composers,
either in radio or television.
In view of the dissimilarity in the training and skills of
composers and writers, and in view of the bargaining history
described above, we find that the composers lack sufficient
community of interest with the writers to warrant their
inclusion in the same unit with the writers, and we will exclude
them. As no one seeks to represent them separately, we will
not set up a separate unit of composers at this time.
Accordingly, we find that the following unit of employees of
the three Networks is appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All free-lance writers who are employed by NBC, CBS, and
ABC for the principal purpose of rendering services in the
writing of literary material for network television programs
originating in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles or for pro-
grams broadcast on a syndicated basis, excluding such writers
employed by advertising agencies , by independent television
producers, and by sponsors, writers who sell or license rights
of use or ownership of literary material without contracting to
u See Scripps-Howard Radio , Inc., 100 NLRB 293, where the Board refused to include, in a
unit of talent employed on television programs broadcast by the employer 's station, em-
ployees of sponsors or advertising agencies . In distinguishing the American Broadcasting case,
the Board majority indicated that in that case the Board had relied on a history of bargaining
in the radio and television industry for a unit comprising free-lance talent employed by
advertising agencies as well as by the Networks. There is no evidence of a comparable bargain-
ing history for free-lance writers in television or radio.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perform personal services in making revisions , modifications,
or changes in such material under the direction of the Em-
ployers, staff writers, and supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
P^-
b. McCadden unit (Case No . 21-RC-2849)
In Case No. 21 - RC-2849, TWA seeks a unit of writers2s em-
ployed by McCadden in the preparation and presentation of
television shows and programs produced by McCadden. ALA
contends that this unit is inappropriate and that a multi-
employer unit of writers employed by television film pro-
ducers is alone appropriate . MeCadden contends that any unit
found appropriate for these employees should be limited to
the Los Angeles region.
McCadden produces the Burns and Allen show and employs
writers for this purpose. It has never bargained collectively
concerning writers and has never bargained collectively with its
employees as part of any multiemployer group. Accordingly;
we find a single-employer unit appropriate.
One writer , William Burns, is Ta brother of George Burns,
star of the Burns and Allen show. He receives separate treat-
ment from the other writers by the Employer and the parties
would exclude him from the unit . Accordingly , we will exclude
him from thg unit.
We find that the following unit is appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act:
All writers employed by the Employer in the preparation
and presentation of television shows and programs produced
by the Employer , excluding William Burns and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. Eligibility questions
a. The Networks Eases
All of the pdrties were agreed that , in view of the transitory
nature of the employment relations between the Networks and
the writers, the usual eligibility period for employees voting
in a Board election should not be adopted in the instant case.
However, they did not agree as to what the appropriate eligi-
bility period should be: AL-A, NBC, CBS, and ABC contend that
all employees employed at any time from January 1, 1951,
through the date of the direction of election should be eligible
to vote. TWA contends that any writer employed during the 6-
month period preceding the direction of election should be
found eligible to vote.
The available evidence as to frequency of employment of
writers in the industry indicates that adoption of the usual
eligibility period would probably render ineligible the vast
majority of the employees in the unit which we have found
25 Not limited to free-lance writers.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY. INC. 595
appropriate. The length of the employment relationship between
writers and employers varies widely within the industry. Some
writers have been employed on a single program on a continuous
basis, particularly on comedy shows featuring a fixed star or
group of stars . Others are employed to work on a script used
only in a single broadcast. This seems to be common in
dramatic programs . Writers also may frequently write for
other media besides television, such as radio, movies,
stage , or they may write short stories and novels for publi-
cation, so that they do not rely entirely on any one medium
for their livelihood. Such writers, while falling within the
unit description in this case, may not write for television
over fairly long intervals of time while engaged in other work.
While no accurate statistics were furnished at the hearing,
ALA presented some figures from its own files in support
of the adoption of a longer eligibility period proposed by it,
which indicate that a total of 910 individual writers were
given 1 or more credits m in 1951 and 1952. Of these, 28 per-
cent received credits in 1951 only, the remaining 72 percent
receiving at least 1 credit in 1952. There was evidence that
40 to 60 percent of all writers receiving credits during the
2-year period wrote only 1 script during 1951 and 1952.
Adoption of the period urged by ALA and the Networks would
render eligible a number of writers (28 percent of the total)
who, so far as appears from the record, had not been employed
in the unit for periods varying from 12 to 24 months before the
date of the hearing on the instant petitions. We do not believe
that such writers have a sufficient interest in the selection of
a representative to warrant their participation in the elections
directed herein. On the other hand, there is insufficient basis
in the record for appraising the reasonableness of the 6-month
period proposed by TWA. The available data would indicate,
however, that the adoption of a 1-year eligibility period will
insure participation in the elections by a representative num-
ber of writers having a substantial interest in the selection of
a bargaining representative. Accordingly, all persons in the
Networks unit who were employed during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date of this Decision and Direction
of Elections will be permitted to vote in the elections directed
herein.n
b. McCadden case
ALA urges a 2-year eligibility period in the McCadden case.
TWA contends for a 4- to 6-month period. It appears from the
t$ Each "credit" represents a script of the writer used on a network broadcast during the
stated period. While the fact that a writer receives credit for a script in a given year does
not necessarily mean that he worked on the script during that year, we take these figures as
fairly indicative of employment during the years cited.
zr At the hearing. TWA proposed that if a period longer than 6 months be found appro-
priate, eligibility should be conditioned upon the writing of 2 or more scripts during such
period . As the record indicates that adoption of this proposal might well result in rendering
ineligible a majority of those in the unit, we find the writing of 1 script during the eligibility
period sufficient.
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record that the writers of the Burns and Allen show of McCadden
are employed steadily for a series of shows. There is no
evidence that McCadden draws from a general writers' pool.
Accordingly, we will adopt the normal eligibility period for the
employees of McCadden, and all persons will be eligible to
vote who were employed during the payroll period immediately
preceding the date of the direction of elections herein, including
employees who did not work because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
CARBOLOY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COM-
PANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), Petitioner and LOCAL
UNION 107, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 7-RC-2009
and 7 -RC-2016. April 30, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before
Herbert C. Kane and Emil C. Farkas, hearing officers. The
hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Emplo er within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Carboloy is a department of General Electric, a New
York corporation,, and is engaged in the manufacture of cemented
' After the hearing in Case No .7-RC- 2009, the IBEW filed its petition in Case No. 7-RC-
2016 and moved to reopen Case No. 7-RC-2009. The Board then ordered the two cases
consolidated and the proceeding remanded to the Seventh Region for further hearing. The
UAW and the Employer moved to dismiss the IBEW's petition on the grounds that they were
not served with notice of the IBEW 's request to reopen Case No. 7-RC-2009. The record
discloses that none of the parties was in any way prejudiced by the procedure or lacked
opportunity to introduce evidence bearing on all the issues raised herein . Further, it has
been determined by the Board that the IBEW had a representative showing of interest at the
time of the hearing in Case No . 7-RC-2009. Accordingly, we find without merit the conten-
tion that due process was denied , and shall deny the motion to dismiss . See Pacific Metals
Company. Ltd., 91 NLRB 696; Orkin Termite Company, Inc., et al ., 79 NLRB 935.
104 NLRB No. 75.