Rust Craft Greeting Cards, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

RUST CRAFT BROADCASTING COMPANY
Rust Craft Broadcasting Company , a wholly owned
subsidiary of Rust Craft Greeting Cards, Inc. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1987, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-8075
October 11, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On May 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Abraham H . Mailer issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding . Thereafter , General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Employer
filed an answer to the General Counsel 's exceptions
and cross -exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Rust Craft Broadcasting
Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rust Craft
Greeting Cards, Inc., Steubenville, Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said-recommended Order.
1 The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge' s resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall, Products , Inc, 91
NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing ' his findings.
DECISION
ABRAHAM H..MALLER, Administrative Law Judge: On
January 29, 1974, the. Regional Director for Region 8 of the
National Labor Relations, Board, herein called the Board,
issued on behalf of the General Counsel a complaint
against Rust Craft Broadcasting Company, herein-called
the Respondent. The complaint was issued upon a charge
filed on December 17, 1973, by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 1987, AFL-CIO, herein called
29
the Union. Briefly, the complaint alleged that the Respon-
dent interrogated its employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires; threatened its employ-
ees with economic reprisals, including loss of employment,
if they became members of, or supported, the Union; on
another occasion threatened employees that the Respon-
dent would not recognize and/or bargain with the Union if
it should become the duly designated collective-bargaining
representative of any of the employees; and discharged
Glenda Sue Morgan for the reason that Morgan had, or
the Respondent believed she had, joined, supported, assist-
ed, or favored the Union, or engaged in other concerted
protected activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 USC § 151, el. seq. ), herein called the Act. In
its duly filed answer, the Respondent denied any violations
of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Steu-
benville, Ohio, on March 5 and 6, 1974. All parties were
represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present
oral argument , and to file briefs . with me . Briefs were filed
by both parties on or before April.9, 1974. Upon consider-
ation of the entire record and the briefs, and upon my
observation of each of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now , and has been at all, times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its princi-
pal office situated at Dedham, Massachusetts. Alone in-
volved in this proceeding is Respondent 's television station
WSTV-TV located at Steubenville , Ohio, where it is en-
gaged in commercial television broadcasting . Annually, in
the course And conduct of its business, Respondent re-
ceives gross revenues in excess of $100 ,000 from its opera-
tion of WSTV-TV. Also, Respondent annually receives at
WSTV-TV products valued in excess of $10,000 directly
from points outside the State of Ohio. Accordingly, I find
and conclude that Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Board to assert jurisdic-
tion here.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
1987, AFL-CIO, is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD
1. Did the Respondent discharge Glenda Sue Morgan
because of her membership in, activities on behalf of, or
support of the Union, in, violation of Section 8(a)(3), and (1)
of the Act?
214 NLRB No. 9
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Did the Respondent interrogate its employees con-
cerning their union membership, activities, or desires in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
3. Did the Respondent threaten its employees with eco-
nomic reprisals, including loss of employment, if they be-
came members of, or supported, the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
4. Did the Respondent threaten its employees that Re-
spondent would not recognize and/or bargain with the
Union if it should become the duly designated collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology
The events leading to the instant-controversy are the out-
growth of the efforts of'the employees of the News Divi-
sion of WSTV-TV, six in number; to organize and affiliate
with the Union, which was then the collective-bargaining
representative of the production and engineering unit of
the TV station. Glenda Sue Morgan was the leading force
in this movement. During the : summer of 1973, she ap-
proached Richard Courtney, shop'steward of the-Union,
and inquired as to the procedure to follow in organizing
the employees in the newsroom. Courtney gave her some
cards which she distributed among the newsroom employ-
ees for their signatures. After obtaining signatures to four
cards, she returned them to Courtney.
On December 10, 1973, Union Business Agent Nocito
notified Sue Morgan' that he had filed a petition for an
election, and the next morning, December 11, Sue Morgan
notified the newsroom employees that a petition had been
filed. There was some discussion among the employees as
to whether Tom Peterson, the news director, should be told
of the filing of the petition. It was finally decided that he
should be told in order to prepare him for when the "flack
hit from downtown" I and because it was believed that
Louis Rocke, the vice president of the Respondent and
general manager of the TV station, would come down
"quite hard" on Peterson when Rocke found out about the
filing of the petition. ' , '
It is undisputed that News Director Peterson was told by
Sue Morgan and Tony Warner, the sports reporter, about
the petition for an election sometime between 11 a.m: and
12 noon on December 11. News Director Peterson was
shocked, angered, and very upset. Indeed, Peterson himself
testified that he was very upset.' According to Warner, Pe-
terson stated, "Haven't I done enough for you? " And Pe-
terson admitted that he had asked them why they needed a
union . However, according, to the credited testimony of
Peterson, he did not notify Vice President Rocke.about the
filing of the petition or of his conversation with the em-
ployees.
Later that evening, Peterson sought out Warner and told
' The busines's'offices of'the Respondent were located in downtown Steu-
benville, while the TV station' was located some 4 or 5 miles away "on the
hill."
him, "You know, this could cost you your job." However,
both Peterson and Warner testified that the statement was
made "friend to friend and not boss to employee:" Pe-
terson testified: "that it was in no way a threat that he
might possibly lose his job over this and it was in no way to
be construed as a threat. I was just cautioning him and
advising him that this could produce some friction and
some fireworks with the people downtown. Again, with me
in the middle." At the conclusion of the conversation, War-
ner suggested to Peterson that he call Vice President Rocke
that evening, and Peterson inquired where Sue Morgan
was because he wanted to talk with her. However, it ap-
pears that Morgan had already left the station.
On the morning of December 12, Alfred Matter, opera-
tions manager, approached Sue Morgan and told her that
Vice President Rocke wanted to see her. In the presence of
Matter, Rocke told Morgan that she was terminated imme-
diately because of her low ratings and because of her "af-
finity" for getting the station in trouble with its news sto-
ries.
Later that day, after Morgan was terminated, Carol Bu-
kac, the news producer, signed a union authorization card.
That evening, according to Bukac, News Director Peterson
stopped her in the hall and, according to Bukac, asked her
if she was involved in the union card business, if she had
signed a card. The testimony with-regard to this conversa-
tion is in conflict and will be discussed in detail infra.
Shortly after the first of the following year, Vice Presi-
dent Rocke had a conversation' with Bukac about.- the
Union. This, too, will be discussed in detail infra.
Also during January 1974, Joan Polk, who had replaced
Sue Morgan on the Tell-All program, had a conversation
with Lawrence Morgan, corporate director, of labor rela-
tions, with regard to the Union. Here, too, the testimony is
conflicting and will be discussed in detail infra.
It was stipulated that an election on the Union's petition
was held on March 1,1974, and was won by the Union.
B. The Supervisory Status of News Director Peterson
.
Preliminary to a discussion of the events involved in the
instant case, it is necessary to determine whether News
Director Peterson was a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act. The general organizational chart of the Respon-
dent indicates that Peterson is responsible for the news-
room and that he reports directly to Vice President and
General Manager Rocke. All of the other newsroom em-
ployees, including Charles Donley, who had been a former
news director, testified that they considered Peterson their
supervisor. The record shows that, although Peterson acts
as a news reporter himself, covering the Wheeling beat, he
assigns stories , makes final approval before a story goes on
the air, approves vacations and days off, recommends wage
increases , approves overtime, signs purchase orders, and is
in charge of the budget for the newsroom. In addition, he
discusses with individual employees what he considers to
be deficiencies in their performance. Vice President Rocke
admitted that Peterson did screening on interviews, and if
he did not feel that someone was-qualified, that was the,
end of. it. On one occasion, Peterson -made a commitment
to hire one, Bob Weirizeirl, a cameraman, before the latter
RUST CRAFT BROADCASTING COMPANY
was seen by Rocke. It is also significant that, although Vice
President Rocke wanted to use one, Joan Polk, in the news
department, Peterson objected, and Rocke respected his
position. Also, Peterson attended meetings of managerial
employees when he was available.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude that
Peterson was a supervisor within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. Peterson's duties and authority discussed
above include many of the indicia of supervisory status.
See, e .g., Wildwood Lumber Company, 144 NLRB 986, 989
(1963); Eastman Broadcasting Co., Inc., 188 NLRB 80, 81
(1971); WTAR Radio-TV Corporation, 168 NLRB 976, 978
(1967). In additon, his attendance at management meetings
is significant . Peerless of America, Incorporated, 198 NLRB
982 (1972); Ertel Manufacturing Corporation, 200 NLRB
525 (1972).
C. The Discharge of Glenda Sue Morgan
1. The employment record of Glenda Sue Morgan
Glenda Sue Morgan commenced her employment with
WSTV-TV on May 8, 1972. She was hired as.a news re-
porter at a salary of $600 per month, which was increased
to $630 per month after 1 year. During her employment,
she was asked to fill in on an interview-type program called
"Tell-All." This involved lining up persons for interviews,
preparing questions for them , and making them feel as
much at ease as possible before airtime. The program was
aired at 1 p.m. and the title was later changed to "At-One."
Later, she was assigned to do the program on a permanent
basis, for.which she was paid an additional $200 per
month. Eventually the program was moved to 9.30 a.m.
and was renamed "Coffee With Sue." The program was
under the general direction of Alfred Matter, operations
manager; however, her principal activity continued to be
that of news reporting under the direction of News Direc-
tor Peterson. As a feature reporter, her work was described
by News Director Peterson as "excellent. but on regular
news stories, she was considered to be average.. She re-
ceived various recognitions and awards including an award
for best spot coverage by the Associated Press, an excel-
lence in journalism award from the Weirtonian Lodge of
Italian Sons and Daughters of America, a writeup in
Broadcasting Magazine, the industry's trade publication,
and both she and the Respondent received recognition and
remuneration for three stories which'the Respondent sold
to CBS during 1973.
It appears, however, that News Director Peterson's opin-
ion as to Sue Morgan's performance was not shared by
Vice President Rocke who inserted 'several -derogatory
comments in her personnel file. First , a•letter written-on
April 3, 1973, to Rocke by -Ed Hart, when the latter left
WSTV-TV as news director, in which he gave Rocke an
assessment of the current status of personnel and equip-
ment. He made the following comment:
Glenda Sue Morgan: Had I stayed another 30 days I
would have dispensed with her services. Ms. Morgan
is not only vicious but quite outspoken in her criticism
31
of the hand that feeds her. I also consider her incom-
petent.
Under date of September 4, 1973, Rocke wrote a memo
to the files as follows:
It was interesting to note during the Jerry Lewis Tele-
thon which aired 10:30 pm Sunday through 6:30 pm
Labor Day, numerous people who answered the
phones to take pledges from the area, reported deroga-
tory remarks from callers regarding Sue Morgan.
These callers requested-and I took two or three of
the calls. myself, that Sue Morgan should be off the air.
Under the same date another memo to the files was in-
serted by Rocke as follows:
This past week-end at the Rodeo held at the St. John's
Community Arena, Sue Morgan in an effort to gain
publicity, rode a horse and was thrown.
She did this without prior-clearance or approval from
this office.
This "gimmick" was completely authorized by
WSTV-TV.
Another memo -in Sue Morgan' s personnel file was a
copy of a memorandum dated November 27, 1973, from
Rorke to News Director Peterson , a copy of which reads as
follows:
There has been much unhappy comment from the
downtown merchants regarding Sue Morgan's play of
a story relative to downtown Christmas lights, in an
interview with George Creegan. -
The basic problem seems to fie with her failing to con-
tact for an interview; any officer in the Downtown
Merchants Association. Since the-decisions lie with
this group, it would seem to me `that if the decision
was in question, they would have been the ones to be
contacted and interviewed.
As with other memos, a copy of this. is going in Ms.
Morgan's file.
Please advise.
Finally, there is the matter of Sue Morgan's involvement
in a story involving the North Ohio Valley Air Authority
(NOVAA), which is more fully discussed infra.
2. The NOVAA incident
The North Ohio Valley Air Authority , herein referred to
as NOVAA , publishes a daily air pollution index . During.
August 1973 , Charles Donley, a news reporter , began re-
ceiving calls from people with heart -and respiratory ail-
ments asking whether the pollution figures published by
NOVAA were correct . Donley asked Sue Morgan to check
this matter . She did so and discovered that the figures is-
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sued by NOVAA were incorrect. As a result, she aired a
story in which she attacked the credibility of the air pollu-
tion indices issued by NOVAA. This precipitated a violent
reaction on the part of Steubenville's Mayor Crabbe who
was head of NOVAA, and who believed that the informa-
tion obtained by Sue Morgan was from a disgruntled em-
ployee of NOVAA. In order to repair the relations between
WSTV-TV and Mayor Crabbe, Vice President Rocke ar-
ranged for a conference to be held with Mayor Crabbe at
the city hall in October. Although not invited by Rocke to
attend the meeting, Sue Morgan did so, accompanied by
City Solicitor Macio who was an avowed political enemy
of Mayor Crabbe.z The conference degenerated into a
shouting match between Mayor Crabbe and Attorney Ma-
cio, as a result of which Vice President Rocke, angered by
the turn of events, left the conference.3 Upon returning to
his office, Rocke phoned News Director Peterson and sum-
moned him to his office. There, he directed Peterson to fire
Sue Morgan for bringing Attorney Macio to the confer-
ence , but Peterson talked him out of it. Rocke thereupon
directed Peterson to take Sue Morgan off of the NOVAA
beat. Peterson communicated Rocke's instructions to Sue
Morgan, telling her also that Rocke had wanted to fire her.
Later, Sue Morgan telephoned Rocke and told him that
she wanted to explain why Macio was at the conference.
Rocke answered: "You'd better make it good," to which
she replied that Macio was there to represent her. Rocke
rejoined: "Damn it, I was there representing you."'
Vice President Rocke also communicated to Lawrence
Morgan, corporate director of labor relations, his intention
to discharge Sue Morgan. A meeting was held at the office
of Louis Berkman, chairman of the board of Rust Craft
Greeting Cards, Respondent's parent corporation, at which
Lawrence Morgan took the position that Sue Morgan
should not be terminated at that time for the following
reasons: The station's contract with IBEW for the produc-
tion and engineering unit was due to expire shortly, and the
station had already received a 60-day notice from IBEW
expressing its desire to negotiate a new contract. Lawrence
Morgan anticipated some rather stiff demands from
IBEW, which the Respondent might not be willing to meet,
and feared that a strike might result. Several years before,
the IBEW had struck the nation, but the station continued
to operate during the strike with nonunion employees. An-
ticipating the possibility of a strike and the concomitant
desire to continue operations with nonunion help, Law-
2 Unbeknownst to Vice President Rocke, Sue Morgan had obtained per-
mission from News Director Peterson to attend the conference. She ex-
plained that she asked Macio to accompany her because she suspected that
Mayor Crabbe would attempt to discredit her by informing Rocke that the
source of her information was an employee of NOVAA with whom she
might be accused of having an affair. She explained that she wanted Macio
to be present so that if Mayor Crabbe made those accusations, he could file
a suit on her behalf for defamation of character.
Sometime later, Vice President Rocke met with Mayor Crabbe, person-
all'. and apparently smoothed the matter over.
There is no suggestion in the record that the NOVAA story was inaccu-
rate. To the contrary, a memorandum which Charles Donley sent to Rocke
substantiated the accuracy of the story. Rocke's complaint, however. was
not as to the accuracy of the story, but as indicated above related to Sue
Morgan's asking City Solicitor Macio to represent her at the conference,
without Rocke 's knowledge or consent.
rence Morgan was loath to have Rocke take any action
which might cause dissatisfaction among the nonunion em-
ployees and thus impair the ability of the station to remain
in operation during a possible strike by the production and
engineering employees. Chairman Berkman directed Vice
President Rocke not to terminate or discipline any employ-
ee until he had cleared the matter with Lawrence Morgan.
3. Events immediately preceding the discharge
On December 1, the Union and the Respondent arrived
at an oral agreement, sealed by a handshake, regarding a
new contract for the production and engineering unit. On
Friday, December 7, the contract was signed. The follow-
ing Monday, December 10, Vice President Rocke was
away from his office, celebrating his wedding anniversary.
On December 11, Rocke, after studying the Nielson Rat-
ings which he had received on the 7th, determined to dis-
charge Sue Morgan. He telephoned Lawrence Morgan and
determined that the latter had no objection to her dis-
charge. Accordingly, on December 12, he discharged her
for her low ratings and her "affinity" for getting the station
in trouble with its news stories.
4. Efforts to obtain a replacement for Sue Morgan
In the meantime, Operations Manager Matter, on in-
structions from Vice President Rocke, had interviewed
some six people as a possible replacement for Sue Morgan
on the Tell-All or, later, the Coffee with Sue shows, which
had been receiving low Nielson Ratings. In addition to the
interviews, video tapes of sample "talk" programs were
made, and Sue Morgan participated in some of these. The
format was as follows: Sue Morgan was interviewed by the
applicant as if the applicant were the host of the program
and Sue Morgan were the guest, thus demonstrating the
applicant's ability to interview a prospective guest if she
conducted the program. In other words, it was not a case of
Sue Morgan's attempting to determine the qualifications of
the applicant; rather, she acted as the foil to demonstrate
how the applicant handled herself if she were conducting
the program. Nor was Sue Morgan asked for her opinion
as to the qualifications of the applicant. Among those who
were so interviewed was Joan. Polk who was later hired to
replace Sue Morgan on the morning talk show.
Polk originally applied for employment with the Respon-
dent in November 1973. Vice President Rocke told her that
there were no openings, but that something might possibly
be opening up in an off-the-air job. He told her to come in
the day after Thanksgiving for an audition and to call him
about December 7. On December 7, Polk called Vice Presi-
dent Rocke who told her that there was nothing available,
but suggested that she contact him in a couple of weeks.
On December 12, Vice President Rocke telephoned Polk
and asked her if she could start the next day; that Sue
Morgan was gone.
5. Conclusions
There is no evidence of any antecedent union animus on
the part of the Respondent. Nor is there any evidence that
RUST CRAFT BROADCASTING COMPANY
Rocke was aware of any union activity in the newsroom
until after Sue Morgan was terminated. Although as previ-
ously noted, on the morning of December 11, Sue Morgan
and Warner informed News Director Peterson of the filing
of the Union's petition for an election, Peterson did not
notify Rocke of that fact. According to the credited testi-
mony of Operations Manager Matter, he first found out
about the union activity after Sue Morgan had been termi-
nated, when he went into the newsroom to tell News Direc-
tor Peterson that Sue Morgan had been discharged. At that
time, he was informed of the union activity. He thereupon
called Vice President Rocke and told him about it. Accord-
ing to Rocke's credited testimony he received a copy of the
Union's petition for an election on December 14.
Although the Respondent had no knowledge of Sue
Morgan's union activities before her discharge, the General
Counsel argues that such knowledge may be inferred by (1)
the fact that News Director Peterson was apprised of such
activity before the discharge, and (2) the small size of the
unit and shop involved. Neither of these considerations
have any validity in the instant case. Normally, the knowl-
edge of union activity acquired by a supervisor is imputa-
vble to the Employer. This is a natural effect of the loyalty
which a supervisor by virtue of his position feels toward his
superiors. However, this is merely a presumption which
must give way to the facts. Thus, for example, the Board
would be loath to draw such an inference where a supervi-
sor, himself, actively engaged in, or encouraged, the union
activity. Cf. Thomas Spring and Mfg. Corp., 172 NLRB 612
(1968). In the instant case, the inference cannot be drawn
in the face of the credited testimony of Peterson that he did
not communicate his knowledge of the union activities to
his superiors. It would seem that Peterson was torn be-
tween his loyalty to the Respondent and his close friend-
ships with the members of his staff. As a result, he was
confused and did nothing insofar as informing his superi-
ors of this development. Indeed, his conduct later that eve-
ning in talking to Warner and in seeking Sue Morgan dem-
onstrates an attempt to dissuade them from union activity
in order to avoid what he feared would be the displeasure
of the Respondent's officers.
Nor can the small plant doctrine be accepted in this case
as a substitute or proof of knowledge of union activity. As
the Board said in Ralston Purina Company, 166 NLRB 566
at 570 (1967), quoting from Hadley Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, 108 NLRB 1641, 1650 (1954):
However , the mere fact that Respondent 's plant is of a
small size , does not permit a finding that Respondent
had knowledge of the union activities of specific em-
ployees , absent supporting evidence that the union ac-
tivities were carried on in such a manner, or at times
that in the normal course of events, Respondent must
have noticed them.
In the instant case, there is no evidence that Sue Morgan's
union activities were carried on in such a manner as to
subject them to notice by the Respondent. To the contrary,
even News Director Peterson was completely unaware of
them until Sue Morgan and Warner informed him of filing
of the petition for an election.
33
By the same token, the timing of the discharge, coming
as it did the day after Sue Morgan disclosed her union
activities, does not assist the General Counsel's case, in
view of the fact that Peterson had not disclosed to the
Respondent Sue Morgan's union activities, and Vice Presi-
dent Rocke discharged her before Operations Manager
Matter informed him of the union activities. Furthermore,
the timing of the discharge is equally supportive of the
Respondent's case. Vice President Rocke had determined
to discharge her in October, was ordered not to do so until
the problem of the upcoming collective-bargaining con-
tract with the production and engineering unit was re-
solved, and then discharged her 5 days after the collective-
bargaining contract had been signed.
Whether Sue Morgan was justifiably discharged from a
business viewpoint is not the issue in this case. It is well
settled that an "employee may be discharged by the em-
ployer for a good reason, a poor reason or no reason at all,
so long as the terms of the statute are not violated"
(N. L. R.B. v. Condenser Corporation of America, 128 F.2d
67, 75 (C.A. 3) ). From a review of all of the foregoing, I
find and conclude that Sue Morgan was not discharged
because of her membership in the Union or her activity
therefor. Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint
should be dismissed in this regard.
D. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. News Director Peterson's conversation with Warner
As previously stated, on the evening of December 11, the
day when Sue Morgan and Warner told News Director
Peterson that the Union had filed a petition for an election,
Peterson sought out Warner and told him, "You know, this
could cost you your job." Both agreed that the statement
was made "friend-to-friend and not boss to employee." As
Peterson put it: "it was in no way a threat that he might
possibly lose his job over this and it was in no way to be
construed as a threat. I was just cautioning him and advis-
ing him that this could produce some friction and some
fireworks with the people downtown." Despite the friendly
nature of the warning-indeed, because of it-I find and
conclude that News Director Peterson's statement to War-
ner was coercive. "[W]arnings from a friendly supervisor,
close to management, are no less a threat than warnings
from a hostile supervisor. Indeed, warnings from such a
friendly source may carry a greater aura of reliability and
truthfulness and may therefore in a sense -be doubly effec-
tive" (Caster Mold & Machine Company, Inc., 148 NLRB
1614, 1621 (1964) ). Accordingly, I find and conclude that
Peterson's statement to Warner was coercive in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
2. News Director Peterson's alleged
interrogation of Bukac
As noted in the Chronology, Carol Bukac, the news pro-
ducer, signed a union authorization card shortly after Sue
Morgan was terminated. That evening, according to Bu-
kac, News Director Peterson stopped her in the hall and
asked her if she was involved in the union card business, if
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she had signed a card . Bukac replied that she could not tell
him that. Peterson said , "All right, this is not a threat."
According to Bukac, Peterson repeatedly said that this was
not a threat , and she told him, "I understand that." Pe-
terson added that he was worried that those who were in-
volved would lose their jobs. Bukac testified further: "I did
not take it as a threat . I felt it was a friend talking to a
friend."
Peterson admitted having a conversation with Bukac,
but denied asking her whether she was involved in the
Union or had signed a card . However , Peterson 's testimo-
ny does not disclose what the conversation was about,
other than that he did not threaten her.
I credit the testimony of Bukac, and find and conclude
that the foregoing conversation was coercive and an inter-
ference with Bukac 's statutory rights. Peterson had no le-
gitimate cause to inquire whether Bukac was interested in
the Union or had signed a card, and this, in itself, was
sufficient to constitute the interrogation an interference
with her rights . Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 774-
775 (1964). Moreover , Peterson 's statement that he was
worried that those who were involved would lose their jobs,
emphasized the coercive nature of the interrogation . Caster
Mold & Machine Company, Inc., supra.
3. Vice President Rocke's conversation with Bukac
Shortly after the first of the year, Vice President Rocke
telephoned Bukac and asked her if he could see her some-
time that day. He then came to the station and told Bukac
that he would like to talk to her about "our little problem
here." Bukac asked, "What problem?" Rocke replied,
"The Union." He expressed regret that nobody had come
to see him first about their problem. He asked her what the
people were unhappy about. She replied that they wanted a
fair base wage, pay raises not based on the whim of man-
agement, and the benefits that the production people al-
ready had. Rocke asked her if that was the way she felt,
and she replied that she would rather not comment on that:
Rocke added that he hoped that the people were not fight-
ing Sue Morgan's battles for her, and Bukac replied that
they were not.
I do not find the foregoing conversation to be violative
of the Act. "The solicitation of employee grievances by an
employer is not illegal'unless accompanied by an express
or implied promise of'benefits specifically aimed at inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in their
organizational effort." ITT Telecommunications, a Division
of International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, 183
NLRB 1129 (1970). Vice President Rocke's statements
contained no promise of benefit, either express or implied.
Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed in this re-
gard.
4. Lawrence Morgan's conversation with Joan Polk
Joan Polk, who replaced Sue' Morgan on the Tell-All
program, testified that in January 1974 she had a conversa-
tion with Lawrence Morgan, corporate director of labor
relations, in which he told her that "if the Union went
through and if it was voted on, that it would not be accept-
ed by the Company. They did not want it."
Lawrence Morgan admitted talking to Polk in January
1974, but explicitly denied telling her that the Respondent
would not recognize the Union if it won an election. He
testified that as an experienced labor relations man:5 "I
just can't imagine me ever making a statement like that. I
know better. We have accepted unions." 6 He testified fur-
ther that the conversation occurred while he was visiting
the station and was told by Matter that Polk wanted to talk
to Vice President Rocke, but that the latter was not coming
to the station and would he, Lawrence Morgan, talk to her.
He found her, and -told her what his position was and that
he would be willing to answer any questions. She asked
him, "What's this unionization all about? " Morgan replied
that she was not involved at that particular time, inasmuch
as there was a question as to which payroll period would be
used to determine the eligibility of the voters, that if the
eligibility date were moved from December 14 or 15 to
December 29, she would be eligible to vote; but that if she
were eligible it did not necessarily mean that she would
have to sign a union card, nor would she have to join the
Union if the Union won the election. However, he added,
"If we sign a union shop clause, then you will have to join
the Union, but our last two contracts that we have with the
IBEW, we have a clause that the present employees do not
have to join the Union unless they voluntarily want to."
Both Polk and Lawrence Morgan impressed me as intel-
ligent, honest witnesses. Lawrence Morgan's version of the
conversation is diametrically opposed to that of Polk. I am
inclined to credit Lawrence Morgan's version as being the
more reasonable. According to Morgan, Polk was nervous
during the conversation, and she admitted being distressed.
It is conceivable that she misinterpreted Morgan's remarks.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that an experi-
enced labor relations man who has at one time or another
represented both labor and management would so conduct
himself as blatantly to commit an egregious unfair labor
practice. Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint be
dismissed in this regard.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
Lawrence Morgan testified that he is director of labor relations for the
Berkman Enterprises which include the Respondent, the parent corpora-
tion, and other subsidiary companies; that the Berkman Enterprises have
approximately 36 contracts with various unions ; and that he is the chief
negotiator of those contracts for management. Prior to obtaining his present
position, Lawrence Morgan had been a business agent for the Laborers and
Hod Carriers Unions, and at one time was vice president and chief negotia-
tor for Local Union 1318 of the United Steelworkers Union.
6 As to the policy of the Berkman Enterprises toward unionization, Law-
rence Morgan stated : "I think the Berkman Enterprises has the same policy
as any other large corporation. That they feel they can run their companies
much better without a union than they can with a union, but they can live
with them or without them."
RUST CRAFT BROADCASTING COMPANY
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and that it take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
35
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 8, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By warning Warner that his union activity could cost
him his job, the Respondent engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By interrogating Bukac as to whether she had signed
a union card, the Respondent engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER?
Respondent, Rust Craft Broadcasting Company, a whol-
ly owned subsidiary of Rust Craft Greeting Cards, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Questioning employees concerning their membership
in, activities on behalf of, or sympathy for, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1987, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization of its employees, in a man-
ner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals, including loss
of employment, if they join or support International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1987, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of its employees. _ _
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concert-
ed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and
all such activities, except to the extent that such right is
affected by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its television station in Steubenville, Ohio,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies
t In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall,
as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
8 In the event that 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 National 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
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning
their membership in, activities'on behalf of, or sympa-
thy for, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 1987, AFL 'CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation of our employees, in a' manner constituting in-
terference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals if
they join or support International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1987, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or -related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or•as-
sist any labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right is affected by the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
RUST CRAFT BROADCASTING
COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF RUST CRAFT
GREETING CARDS, INC.