Out West Broadcasting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 1367 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 113,
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-2001.-Decided May 14, 1942
Jurisdiction : radio broadcasting industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; unilaterally deal-
ing with employees ; attempt to cause disaffection among union members.
Collective Bargaining: charges of, dismissed where negotiations terminated as
result of impasse on union's closed-shop demands.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices.
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, for the Board.
Yeaman, Grove & Huffman by Mr. Kenaz Huffman and Mr.
Frank J. Trelease, Jr., of Denver, Colo., and Mr. Herbert M. Peck,
of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the respondent.
Mr. L. B. Morrell, of Denver, Colo., for the Union.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges 1 duly filed by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 113, affiliated with the A. F. of L.,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second
Region (Denver, Colorado), issued its complaint dated July 25, 1941,
against Out West Broadcasting Company, Colorado Springs, Colo-
rado, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449 herein
'The original charge was filed on December 14, 1940; amended charge on January 13,
1941; and-a further amended charge, upon which the complaint issued, on July 25, 1941.
40 N. L. R. B., No. 245.
1367
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of
hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that on or about November 7, 1940, and at all times
thereafter the respondent refused upon request to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees within
an appropriate unit and that by the foregoing refusals and by urging,
persuading, warning and offering inducements to its employees to
refrain from joining the Union or to withdraw their membership
therein and by threatening its employees with discharge ifthey joined
or assisted the Union, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On August 5, 1941, the respondent filed its 'answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint. The respondent also affirm-
atively averred that it had bargained with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of certain employes until an impasse was
reached on the Union's demands for wage increases and a closed
shop; that thereafter the Union broke off bargaining negotiations;
and that the respondent is willing to resume bargaining negotiations.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 18, 19, and 20,
1941, at Colorado Springs, Colorado, before P. H. McNally, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union
by a representative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to ilitroduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the open-
ing of the hearing the respondent made a motion for "more specific
statement" as to certain allegations of the complaint. The Trial
Examiner granted in part this motion.2 At the close of the Board's
case and at the close of the respondent's defense, the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint in its 'entirety as well as specified allega-
tions thereof. The motions were denied by the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number
of rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Exam
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On November 7, 1941, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37
and 37 (c), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, the Board ordered that proposed findings
of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order be issued
S At the hearing counsel for the Board complied with the ruling of the Trial Examiner
by providing the respondent with certain additional information
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY 1369,
in this proceeding, and that the parties should have the right, within
30 days from the date thereof, to file exceptions and a supporting
brief and, within 20 days from said date, to request oral argument
before the Board.
On March 10, 1942, the Board issued Proposed Findings of. Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order in this proceed-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. None of
the parties has filed exceptions to said Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order.
Upon the entire! record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGs OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Out West Broadcasting Company is a Colorado corporation having
its office and principal place of business at Colorado Springs, Colo-
rado, where it owns and operates, under a license from the Federal
Communications Commission, a radio station known by the call
letters KVOR. The station receives by wire programs given by the
Columbia Broadcasting System, substantially all of whose programs
originate ' outside Colorado. Approximately 75 percent of the sta-
tions' operating time is devoted to rebroadcasting of programs given
by Columbia. On occasion, programs originating in Colorado are
relayed by this station to Columbia for national rebroadcast over its
network.
The respondent concedes the Board's jurisdiction in this proceeding.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 113, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation. of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion -
On October 18, 1940, L. B. Morrell, a representative of the Union,
met with the respondent's technicians,' at their request, to discuss
union organization. -During the discussion the employees voiced_a
desire to have an expression on the subject from Strang,,the re-
spondent's chief engineer. Strang was then called in to meet with
the group and after some discussion he stated that although he would
The technicians operate and maintain the transmitting equipment.
I
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not join the Union because of his supervisory status,4 he had no
objection to the other technicians so doing. At that time all the
respondent's technicians, but not Strang, signed union authorization
cards. On the next day the Union notified the respondent that it
represented a majority of the technicians and requested the respondent
to arrange for bargaining negotiations.
About 2 weeks later, on a Sunday afternoon, Strang went to the
home of Buchanan, one of the respondent's technicians who had
signed an authorization on October 18, for the purpose of conveying
certain information concerning the respondent. According to Bu-
chanan, Strang stated in substance (1) that since he had spoken to
the technicians on October 18 about the Union, Tichenor, the respond-
ent's station manager, had shown him the respondent's books and
explained that it was losing money; (2) that if he had known* of
that fact at the time he spoke to the technicians, he would not
have "advised [them] in any way, shape, or form to go into the
union"; (3) that Buchanan should convey this information to Dru-
meller, another of the respondent's technicians who had signed an
authorization card; (4) that both of them could inspect the re-
spondent's books, and "see that the station was losing money and
that we had no fight"; and (5) that the technicians could easily
withdraw from the Union and that if they did, the respondent would
give them a. $2.50 raise. Concerning this conversation, Strang testi-
fied that for some time prior thereto there had been much dissatis-
faction among the technicians because of the respondent's denial
of their requests for wage increases and that in order to convince
them that-the respondent was losing money he obtained permission
for the technicians to inspect the books; that he told Buchanan that
they had that privilege, and that thereafter he and Buchanan dis-
cussed a number of grievances mentioned by the latter. Strang de-
nied in substance all other remarks attributed to him by Buchanan.
Buchanan's testimony is consistent with all the surrounding cir-
cumstances and we accept it as substantially correct. The action
of the respondent, shortly after the Union's request for bargaining,
in initiating through Strang the practice of permitting employees
to inspect its books and attempting thereby to convince Buchanan
as well as the other technicians of the futility of seeking a wage
increase indicates, 'and we find, that the respondent thereby repudi-
ated the neutral attitude expressed by Strang at the first organiza-
tional meeting and sought to wean the technicians away from the
Union.
4 Strang, as chief engineer , works a regular shift and is in charge of the equipment
and the other technicians . He makes recommendations as to hire , discharge, and wage
increases . We find that he is a supervisory employee for whose activities the respondent
is chargeable.
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY - • 1371
We find that by Strang's remarks to Buchanan the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The respondent and the Union stipulated that all technicians
employed by the respondent, including the chief engineer, constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit. The respondent employs 4 tech-
nicians over whom Strang serves as chief engineer. We have found 5
that Strang is a supervisory employee and that the respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices through Strang. Under the cir-
cumstances we are of the opinion that the chief engineer should be
excluded from the unit.6
We find that the technician employed by the respondent, excluding
the chief engineer, at all times material herein constituted, and that
they now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that this unit insures to employees of the respondent
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Designation of the Union by a majority in the appropriate unit
On November 8, 1940, the respondent employed four employees
within the appropriate unit. On that date the Union submitted
to the respondent authorization cards signed by all of these employees
and was recognized by the respondent as the statutory representative
of the technicians. At the time of the hearing the respondent em-
ployed three persons within the appropriate unit. The Union intro-
duced in evidence duly authenticated authorization cards signed by
all of said employees.
We accordingly find that on November 8, 1940, and at all times
thereafter, the Union has been designated and selected by a majority
of the respondent's technicians (excluding the chief engineer), as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that, pursuant,to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was on that date, and at
all times thereafter has been, the exclusive- representative of all em-
ployees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with
the respondent in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
Section A, supra
See Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No: 325, 23 N. L. R. B. 342.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The course of negotiations
By letter dated October 19, 1940, to Tichenor, the respondent's
station manager, the Union claimed to represent a majority of the
technicians and requested a conference to negotiate an agreement.
On the same day Tichenor replied by letter, stating that Bell,
general manager for the respondent,' would be in Colorado Springs
on November 7 or 8 to begin negotiations. Upon the receipt of the
letter the union representative, Morrell, asked Tichenor if it was
possible prior to Bell's arrival to have apay-roll check to verify the
Union's majority representation, and Tichenor replied that this matter
would be handled when Bell arrived.
On November 7 a scheduled meeting was held at Colorado Springs
between Morrell and Bell and two of the respondent's attorney's,
Huffman and Peck. Bell requested proof of the Union's claim to
represent a majority of the technicians, and the meeting was ad-
journed to enable Morrell to obtain such proof from his office. The
next day the parties again met and Morrell submitted four signed
cards. After the signatures were compared Bell admitted that the
Union represented a majority of the technicians and that the re-
spondent would have to recognize the Union, as the "bargaining
agency." As the conference concluded, Bell stated that he was ready
to bargain and requested Morrell to submit a contract to Attorney
Huffman.
On November 18, Morrell sent Huffman the Union's proposed agree-
ment. By letter dated November 19 Trelease, an attorney associated
with Huffman, acknowledged receipt of the contract and stated that
during Hufman's temporary absence Trelease would consult with
the respondent and inform Morrell when a conference could be held.
On November 25 Trelease informed Morrell by, letter that he had
communicated with Bell about the contract; that Bell as well as him-
self desired to consult with Huffman before arranging a conference;
that Huffman was not available because he had recently undergone
an emergency operation; and that Morrell would be notified of the
earliest possible date for a conference. By letter dated November
28 sent to Huff man's office, Morrell charged that the respondent
was "stalling" in the bargaining negotiations and insisted that in the
event of further delays Bell should agree in writing that the "nego-
tiations will be retroactive as of this date." On November 29 Trelease
wrote stating that because of Hnffman's recent operation he could
not be consulted until the following week; that Bell was expected to
return to Oklahoma City from New York the following- week; and
'Bell who lives in Oklahoma City is also general manager for two other allied
corporations which operate stations in Denver and Oklahoma City.,
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY 1373
that as soon as Huffman and Bell had an opportunity to go over the
proposed contract a conference would be scheduled.
Sometime after receipt of the above letter Morrell spoke with
Trelease and insisted that negotiations be started. Tielease replied
that Huffman was still hospitalized and that as soon as he was re-
leased a conference would be arranged.' By letter dated December
20 Trelease informed Morrell that Bell, Peck, another of the re-
spondent's attorneys, and Huffman could confer with him in Denver
during the first week in January 1941, and requested Morrell to set
a definite date. Morrell replied that any date would be satisfactory.
By letter dated January 2, 1941, Huffman informed Morrell that
Bell was ill in Chicago and would not be in Denver in the near future,
but that Bell had authorized Huffman to have a preliminary dis-
cussion on the proposed contract with Morrell.
Accordingly, on January 11 Huffman and Trelease met with
Morrell and other representatives of the Union. The parties dis-
cussed the proposed contract and exchanged views but nothing
definite was accomplished. Huffman had no power to bind the re-
spondent at this conference, but mailed Bell a report on the
discussion of the contract together with certain undisclosed recom-
mendations. On several occasions after the conference Morrell
inquired of Huffman as to whether he had heard from Bell with
respect to the proposed contract and Huffman replied in the negative.
However, sometime during the first week of February Bell was in
Denver for a short while and unsuccessfully tried to communicate
with Morrell by telephone.
On about February 11 Trelease informed Morrell that Bell would
be in Denver on March 1 to enter into negotiation. A couple of
days later Trelease called Morrell and stated that Bell had to be in
New York on March 4 and that the conference could not be held
before March 10.9 Shortly after March 4 Huffman scheduled a
conference for March 14, which was postponed by the respondent
until March 18.
On that date the parties finally met and" conferred for the greater
part of 3 days. The respondent's representatives included Bell and
its attorneys, Huffman, Trelease, and Peck, and the Union was repre-
sented by Morrell and others. The parties considered in detail all
$ Apparently Huffman was confined in the hospital from the middle of November to
the middle of December and was recuperating at home until the first part of January
1941.
a In explanation of the delay in arranging a conference with the Union, Bell testified
that he was ill for several days after Christmas 1940; that during January 1941 be was
busy preparing annual reports for scheduled meetings of corporations in which he was
interested ; and that during February 1941 and the first part of March he was engaged
in litigation in New York City.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
of the approximately 33 provisions of the Union's proposed contract.
The respondent rejected the Union's demand for a closed shop and
wage increases 10 but accepted in principle the procedure for the
handling and arbitration of disputes. As to the other provisions re-
lating to hours, overtime, vacations, travel compensation, and other
working conditions, the respondent accepted some and, for stated
reasons, proposed modifications as to others and rejected still others.
As the conference was about to conclude without an accord between
the parties the respondent agreed to submit to the Union a written
counterproposal ' as a basis for further negotiations. The parties
contemplated that a subsequent conference on the counterproposal
would be held in the early part of April.
On several occasions during April Morrell asked Huffman if the'
respondent's counterproposal was ready for submission, and each
time was told that Bell had not yet approved the draft submitted
by Huffman." However, on May 2 Huffman sent Morrell the re-
spondent's counterproposal and set a tentative date in May for an-
other conference. The counterproposal was a modified draft of the
Union's proposed contract and, save for some minor concessions, em-
bodied in substance the same position with respect to the proposed -
contract taken by-the respondent at the March conference. In it the
respondent waived an objection it had previously taken to the lan-
guage of the Union's recognition clause. Because the record does
not with sufficient particularity disclose the wages, hours, overtime,
and other working conditions current at the time of the negotiation,
it is impossible accurately to gauge the extent to which the respondent-
at the March conference and in the counterproposal granted conces-
sions in the way of improvements over existing conditions. It does
appear that the respondent accepted a proposed procedure for the
handling and arbitration of disputes and a proposal for extra com-
pensation for work on antennae higher than 15 feet, and that these
constituted genuine concessions. Likewise, it is clear that no conces-
sions were made as to the closed shop or wage scale.
On May 14 the parties again met and considered the counterpro-
posal. The proceedings at this conference may be summarized as
follows : Bell sought first to discuss the less controversial clauses
of the counterproposal in an effort to reach an accord on as many
"There was considerable discussion of the closed shop The respondent ' s position was
that it would not force the non -union employees to loin the Union. The Union insisted
on the closed shop and Morrell stated that all contracts for technicians in his jurisdiction
contained closed-shop clauses . Neither party offered any substitute for the closed shop
As, to wage increases , the respondent contended that it was operating at a loss and
could not grant any increases . At the hearing the respondent 's auditor testified that the
respondent had lost approximately $95,000 in the last 5 years
11 Bell testified that during April he and Huffman were working on the counterproposal.'
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY . 1375
issues as possible before considering the issues involving major dif-
ferences. On several occasions Dlorrell interrupted Bell's discussion
and insisted that the respondent give its decision on the closed-shop
question. The respondent stated that it would not agree to a closed
shop but that "it was willing to sign the counterproposal as sub-
mitted." * The Union took the position that the counterproposal con-
tained "virtually nothing" and that it would not accept it without
a closed-shop provision. One of the respondent's representatives then
stated that if the Union should insist upon a closed-shop contract,
further negotiations would be futile. Morrell replied "There is only
one thing left for us to do and that is to use every ounce of strength
the labor movement has got; we will-just have to throw a spark in
the shavings." In reply to Bell's inquiry as to whether the Union
was threatening the respondent with sabotage, Morrell replied that
nothing was said about sabotage, but that the Union intended to use
all its "strength . . . to bring about fair and decent conditions
at the respondent's station." The conference ended abruptly and the
Union has not since requested the respondent to resume negotiations.
4. Conclusions concerning the alleged refusal to bargain
Upon the entire record we are of the opinion, and find, that the
respondent has not failed of its obligation to bargain collectively
in good faith.
Most suspicious of the factors militating toward a contrary con-
clusion is the extended delay to which the respondent subjected the0
bargaining process. It is true that for 5 months after the Union's
initial request for' a conference, and in the face of oft-repeated re-
quests, the respondent found it impossible to arrange one, and that the
respondent required approximately two additional months in which to
prepare and submit its counterproposal to the Union's demands. Un-
explained, this circumstance might support an inference of deliber-
ate evasion., The respondent, however, offered a series of credible
explanations for the delay, none of which was contradicted either
directly or circumstantially. Moreover, the delay proved no obstacle
to- ultimate meeting and negotiation. Under all the circumstances
we are not persuaded that the respondent's delay evidenced a desire
to avoid bargaining.
Scrutiny of the negotiations themselves reveals the respondent as
reluctant to make any concessions upon major issues but we cannot
say that the respondent displayed an unwillingness to reach agree-
ment. The respondent met, recognized, and conferred with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the technicians. In discussing the
Union's demands and the respondent's counterproposal the parties
1376 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed as to certain matters but reached an impasse on the closed-
shop issue. At the last conference on May 14, the Union was in-
sisting upon a closed-shop contract to which the respondent was
unwilling to agree. Thus, with the parties firmly maintaining their
respective irreconcilable positions, bargaining negotiations were bro-
ken off and the Union has not since sought to renew negotiations.
We are not unmindful of our finding, above, that at the outset of
the Union's organization the respondent, through Strang, engaged in
unfair labor practices designated to discourage the technicians from
allegiance to the Union 12 We further find below that after negotia-
tions had been broken off the respondent, through Bell, resumed its
unfair labor practices.- Notwithstanding these findings, however,
we are convinced that the bargaining negotiations were terminated
because of the parties' inability to agree upon the closed-shop issue,
and that the respondent has not refused to bargain collectively within
the meaning of the Act. We shall accordingly dismiss the allegation
of the complaint to that effect.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion after cessation of negotiations
On the evening after negotiations had terminated, the respondent
held a staff dinner and meeting for all its employees to report on
the results of negotiations. Bell addressed the meeting and after
recounting the history of the respondent's operations stated in sub-
stance (1) that the respondent had invested considerable money in
the station; (2) that although it was operating at a loss the respond-
ent had been "good" to its employees, citing instances in which the
respondent had made substantial expenditures on behalf of two em-
ployees who had become, incapacitated; (3) that the contract pre-
sented by the Union was a "gross injustice" and sought to give the
Union "control of the situation"; (4) that the Union broke off negoti-
ations because the respondent refused to agree to a closed shop ; (5)
that it would not sign a closed-shop contract because it would not in-
terfere with the right of the employees to join an organization of their
own choosing; (6) that Morrell "is just impossible" and had threat-
ened the respondent with sabotage, necessitating the employment of
a guard; (7) that the Union had threatened.to call a strike and to
boycott the respondent; and (8) that if the technicians went out on
the strike, the respondent would obtain other operators and run the
station at "a complete loss for ten solid years in order to beat the
Union." 14
12 Section III A, supra
13 Section III C, infra.
14 This finding is based on the testimony of Buchanan and Bell. Their respective
versions of this speech differ slightly in detail but are not conflicting.
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY 1377
At the conclusion of this meeting Buchanan approached Bell and
-stated-that since it appeared that Bell had labeled the technicians as
"Reds," they , would like an opportunity to explain their position.
Bell acceded to his request and later in the evening met with several
of the technicians. At this meeting the technicians assigned a num-
ber of reasons which had prompted them to join the Union, stressing-
-the failure of the respondent to give them promised vage increases
.and to pay accrued overtime wages. Bell stated that since these
matters had arisen while Terry, the respondent's former manager, was
in charge, he could not intelligently discuss these matters in Terry's
absence. The meeting adjourned until the respondent could have
'Terry present.
The next day the technicians again met with representatives of
the respondent , including Terry , Bell, and Peck. At the outset Bell
urged the technicians to "let down [their] hair" and state their griev-
ances . A general discussion concerning the grievances of the tech-
nicians ensued. At one point, Peck stated that "had the employees
-come to him and Mr. Bell and got together around a table , that he
would have written a contract . . . acceptable" to the employees.
Buchanan replied that the technicians had selected Morrell as their
business agent because they trusted him. Bell then remarked that
the respondent did not want to bargain with an outsider and that the
technicians should have approached the respondent directly instead
of through Morrell. With reference to the technicians ' grievance con-
cerning overtime, Bell stated that it was the policy of the respondent
to pay overtime and instructed the technicians to submit their claims
for back overtime. At the hearing Bell stated that he understood
that all claims for back overtime had been satisfactorily settled.
Bell's remarks at the staff-dinner meeting constitute an indictment
of the Union and its leadership and was calculated to wean away its
adherents. By lauding the respondent and castigating the Union,
the respondent sought publicly to humiliate the technicians for select-
ing the Union as their freely chosen statutory representative. That
-the technicians so interpreted his words , is shown by their action in
requesting separate meeting with the respondent to justify the exer-
cise of their right to self -organization . At this subsequent meeting
representatives of the respondent, in clear unequivocal language and
-conduct, further manifested hostility toward the Union and again
sought to destroy organization among its employees. Bell and Peck
admonished the technicians for bargaining through an outside rep-
resentative and told them that a satisfactory agreement would have
been concluded had they approached the respondent directly instead
of through Morrell. Further to convince the employees that an out-
side representative was not needed to negotiate for them, the respond-
ent settled claims for back overtime directly with the technicians. --
455771-42-vol. 40-87 -
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
We find that the respondent,, by Bell's statements at the stafF-
dinner meeting, by Bell's and Peck's remarks at the subsequent
meetings with the technicians, and by its action in unilaterally settling
claims for overtime, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act 15
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of respondent set forth in Section III A and C above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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 the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 113,
affiliated with the A. F. of L., is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. All technicians employed by the respondent, excluding the chief
engineer, at all times material herein, constituted and they now con-
15 Cf Matter of Reed & Prince Manufacturing Company and Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, 12 N L R B 944, enf'd as mod., National Labor Relations Board v. Reed &
Prince Mfg Co. 118 F (2d) 874 (C C. A 1), cert denied , 311 U S 595; Matter of
Valley Mould and Iron Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee etc, 2Q
N. L R B , 211, enf'd in National Labor Relations Board v Valley Mould & Iron Corp.,
113 F. '(2d) 760 (C. C A 7), cert denied , 313 U. S 590; and Matter of John J
Oughton, et al and Textile Workers Organizing Committee (C I 0 ), 20 N L R B. 301,
enf'd in Oughton v National Labor Relations Board 118 F (2d) 486 , 118 F. (2d) 494
(C C A 3) ; cert denied 62 S Ct. 485
OUT WEST BROADCASTING COMPANY 1379,
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 113,
affiliated with the A. F. of L., is, and at all times since November 8,1940,
has been the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of_
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within'
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations,
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Out
West Broadcasting Company, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and its-
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing-
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to,
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will"'
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its studios and'
transmitter station, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees-
stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from.,
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region!,
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what-
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the-,
National Labor Relations Act.