Stage Employees Local One, IATSE, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1165 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE, IATSE , AFL-CIO
Stage Employees Local One, IATSE, AFL-CIO, The-
atrical Protective Union and Motion Picture Studio
Mechanics Local 52, IATSE, AFL-CIO and Inter-
national Photographers of the Motion Picture In-
dustries, Local 644, affiliated with IATSE, AFL-
CIO and Motion Picture Film Editors , Local 771,
IATSE and RKO General , WOR-TV Division and
WOR-TV Engineers.' Case 2-CD-489
August 18, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, AND DETERMINATION
OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING JENKINS, AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed by RKO General, WOR-TV Divi-
sion, herein called the Employer, alleging that Stage
Employees Local One, IATSE, AFL-CIO, Theatrical
Protective Union, herein called Local One; Motion
Picture Studio Mechanics Local 52, IATSE, AFL-
CIO, herein called Local 52; International Photogra-
phers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 644,
affiliated with IATSE, AFL-CIO, herein called Lo-
cal 644; and Motion Picture Film Editors, Local 771,
IATSE, herein called Local 771, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer-
tain conduct with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign particular work to employees
represented by Local One, Local 52, Local 644, and
Local 771 rather than to the Employer's engineers,
herein called the Engineers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Mary W. Taylor on April 10 and 11
and May 1 and 5, 1975. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to present evidence bearing on the issues.2 Thereaf-
ter, all parties filed 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 reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing.
2 The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving
Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO,
herein called the International , appeared at the hearing claiming to repre-
sent the Engineers.
The Engineers have no local charter and their dues are paid to the Inter-
national , but they are participating in this proceeding as WOR-TV Engi-
neers , represented by their own counsel.
1165
The Board has considered the briefs and the entire
record in this case and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
RKO General, WOR-TV Division, with its offices
and principal place of business located at 1440
Broadway, New York, New York, owns and operates
WOR-TV which broadcasts television publications
to the general public in the metropolitan area of New
York, which includes the States of New Jersey and
Connecticut. During the past calendar year, WOR-
TV received in excess of $1 million in revenues from
firms located outside the State of New York for ad-
vertisement purposes and, during the same period,
purchased goods, supplies, and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from firms located outside
the State of New York.
Accordingly, we find: the Employer is an employ-
er within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act; it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act; and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Stage Em-
ployees Local One, IATSE, AFL-CIO, Theatrical
Protective Union; Motion Picture Studio Mechanics
Local 52, IATSE, AFL-CIO; International Photog-
raphers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 644,
affiliated with IATSE, AFL-CIO; and Motion Pic-
ture Film Editors, Local 771, IATSE, are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
111. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer operates a television station located
in New York City and serving the metropolitan area
of New York. Its primary features are old movies
and various prescheduled events, such as sports
events from Shea Stadium and Madison Square Gar-
den, parades, and entertainment shows such as the
Tony awards. Prior to 1970, WOR-TV was not
known as a "news-oriented" station. When news was
broadcast, it was obtained primarily from a news ser-
vice such as United Press International.
Since 1949, when WOR-TV first began broadcast-
ing, it has employed Engineers to operate the large
and immobile camera used for shooting predeter-
219 NLRB No. 185
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mined events at remote locations. This "pedestal
camera" is an electronic camera which reproduces an
image on videotape. Initially weighing close to 300
pounds, the pedestal camera has been refined to its
present weight of 90 pounds. Engineers operate the
camera under the general supervision of a director,
but they are responsible for capturing any events of
an unpredictable nature. Upon their return to the
studio, Engineers perform the technical work in-
volved in the editing of the tape, while a member of
the Directors Guild of American exercises the crea-
tive and judgmental discretion needed to put togeth-
er a good program. Members of Local One provided
the lighting at remote locations.
In 1970, the Employer decided to broadcast a daily
one-half hour news program. Lemuel Tucker was
hired to develop a television news department. The
news-gathering function required portability and mo-
bility in order to capture fast-breaking news events,
characteristics not available with the pedestal cam-
era. To this end, the Employer purchased two hand-
held 16 mm. film cameras with accompanying sound
and light equipment. Members of Local 644 were
hired as film cameramen ; members of Local 771
were hired to edit the news film; and Local 52's
members performed the required sound and lighting
functions. While in the field capturing news events
on film, the camera crew, consisting of three people
(including the reporter), is under the general direc-
tion of the reporter to whom the event is assigned.
Engineers continued to operate the electronic pedes-
tal camera at remote locations.
In late 1974, the Employer, apprised of new devel-
opments in electronic technology, investigated the
feasibility of utilizing a new electronic camera. This
"mini-cam" is a hand-held camera with accompany-
ing backpack weighing approximately 22 pounds,
and is basically a miniaturized version of the pedestal
camera. In early December 1974, the Employer com-
menced tests with the Akai camera and accompany-
ing videotape cassette to determine its suitability for
broadcasting. Engineers performed the testing. Satis-
fied with the results produced by the mini-cam, the
Employer purchased three such cameras . The station
disposed of its two film cameras, so they are no lon-
ger available for use either as frontline equipment or
as backup facilities.
The miniature electronic camera has been in limit-
ed use in the broadcasting industry for approximate-
ly 2 years, but electronic pedestal cameras have been
used for over 20 years. The basic difference between
the two is the size of the camera. The use of the
mini-cam, in the opinion of news experts, has com-
pletely revolutionized the concept of news-gathering,
and future developments are expected to lead to a
highly sophisticated and sensitive camera.
The real difference between a film camera and the
miniature electronic camera lies in the use of video-
tape. Both cameras are similar in size. With a film
camera, the film must be returned to the studio and
developed, then edited, and finally put on the air.
Film editing involves cutting and splicing the pieces
of film together, and film, once exposed to light, can-
not be used again. The use of videotape does not
require the delay in processing there is with film, as
tape may be transmitted immediately. Additionally,
the tape is electronically edited so there are no cuts in
it, and it may be erased and reused.
Furthermore, the use of a film camera requires
that the sound be picked up on an external micro-
phone which records the sound on magnetic tape. It
is necessary to utilize an external amplifier with the
film camera in order to keep the level of sound con-
stant. However, the videotape camera contains a mi-
crophone built into the camera itself, which records
the sound and the picture on the same tape. There is
also provision for a hand-held microphone which can
be plugged into the tape recorder. However, there is
a circuit in the tape recorder containing an amplifier
which automatically keeps the sound at a constant
level.
In addition, the mini-cam is much more sensitive
to light, so that not as much light is needed with it as
is required with the film camera. It is not anticipated
that supplemental lighting will be necessary with the
mini-cam.
After the camera was tested and purchased, the
Employer assigned both the operation of the camera
and the operation of the tape editing equipment to
Engineers, relying on their past experience with the
electronic pedestal camera and on the Engineers' col-
lective-bargaining contract. Prior to making the as-
signment, the Employer notified the locals of its in-
tention to introduce the new equipment. Each local
responded and claimed jurisdiction over various as-
pects of the new camera and its accompanying
equipment. On February 21, 1975, the Employer no-
tified members of Locals 52 and 644 and two mem-
bers of Local 771 that, effective February 24, 1975,
their services would no longer be needed. The sound
and lighting functions formerly provided by Local 52
are integral parts of the videotape camera and no
extra sound or lighting is necessary. Since the Engi-
neers would be operating the camera, and since the
film cameras had been disposed of, members of Lo-
cal 644 had no work to perform. And, as the video-
tape is edited by electronic equipment, two film edi-
tors represented by Local 771 were no longer needed,
as there is no longer any film to edit. Subsequent
picketing by the locals to protest the work assign-
STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE, IATSE , AFL-CIO 1167
ment gave rise to the present proceeding.
B. Work in Dispute
The notice of hearing states that "the dispute con-
cerns the assignment of the work of news gathering
by electronic camera for use by WOR-TV on its Dai-
ly News program." The scope of the work was en-
larged at the hearing to include editing of the video-
tape, as well as the operation of the camera. The
equipment involved is the Akai miniature electronic
television camera and accompanying videotape re-
corder, as well as the electronic editing equipment.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer assigned the disputed work to Engi-
neers, claiming that the assignment is supported by
their collective-bargaining agreement. The Employer
further points to the long experience that Engineers
have had in operating electronic cameras. The Engi-
neers agree with the assignment, also citing their ex-
perience, and further claim that the assignment to
them is supported by the factors of area and industry
practice. The Engineers claim to possess a superior
knowledge of electronics which is imperative in the
operation of the camera. They further contend that
they are entitled to edit the tape, as they have always
done, and cite the fact that members of Local 771
have never edited videotape at WOR-TV. Further-
more, they argue that they possess the knowledge
and capability to perform a wide variety of functions,
thus making it more efficient and economical for the
Employer to employ them. In response to Local 644's
contention that Engineers have never operated an
electronic camera for the purpose of gathering news,
the Engineers contend that prescheduled events are
just as much news as are fast -breaking events.
Each of the local unions claims that the disputed
work should be separated into its various component
parts, and that its members should be assigned their
traditional work. Local One has claimed jurisdiction
over any supplemental lighting that may be required
on location, citing its contract with the Employer as
well as the fact that its members accompany Engi-
neers to provide lighting at remote locations. Local
52 also claims the lighting function, as well as the
sound function, based on the work it has performed
with the film camera. Local 771 has asserted jurisdic-
tion over the editing of the videotape on the basis of
its contract and the skills possessed by its members.
Local 644 contends that its members should oper-
ate the camera, claiming that the basic functions of
both the film and electronic cameras are the same-
to capture an image, whether on film or on tape. It
claims that its members can be trained very quickly
in the technical operation of the electronic camera. It
also argues that the technical operation of the cam-
era is not nearly as important as the ability to do so
in a news-gathering context, claiming that a news
cameraman must have special creative abilities to
function as a broadcast journalist, not merely as a
technician. Local 644 argues that even though Engi-
neers have operated an electronic camera they have
not done so in a news-gathering context, claiming
that predetermined events are not of the same caliber
as fast-breaking news events which have been filmed
by its members.
Additionally, Locals 644 and 771 have moved to
quash the notice of hearing in the present case,
claiming that there is no evidence of 8(b)(4)(D) activ-
ity, and further claiming that the parties have agreed
upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the
dispute.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers the Board to
determine a dispute out of which an 8(b)(4)(D)
charge has arisen. However, before the Board pro-
ceeds with a determination of the dispute, it must be
satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and that there is
no agreed-on method, binding on all the parties, for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
At the hearing, counsel for Locals 644 and 771
moved to quash the notice of hearing, claiming that
no jurisdictional dispute exists for the following rea-
sons : (1) there is no evidence of 8(b)(4)(D) activity,
as the picketing by the film locals was to advise the
public of the Employer's actions, and was to retrieve
and preserve the work previously done by the film
locals; (2) the International, on behalf of the Engi-
neers , has disclaimed any interest in the disputed
work; and (3) there is an agree-on method for settling
the dispute'
On February 3, 1975, the Employer sent a letter to
Locals 52 and 644, informing them that it was con-
sidering the introduction of new equipment which
might have an effect on employees represented by
those locals. Locals 52 and 644 responded in writing,
claiming jurisdiction over their respective work func-
tions and suggesting that a meeting be held to discuss
the matter. Local One, having heard of the impend-
ing introduction of the new camera, sent a letter to
the Employer claiming jurisdiction over lighting. A
meeting was held on February 18, 1975, at which all
J The International has filed a brief in support of the motion to quash.
Local 52 has also joined in the motion to quash.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties were represented, and at which the Employer
announced that the mini-cam would soon be put into
operation. Representatives of the various locals and
the shop steward of the Engineers each claimed juris-
diction over various aspects of the disputed work.
Although there had yet been no assignment of the
work, Local One's representative threatened to take
economic action if the lighting work was not as-
signed to members of Local One.
On February 21, 1975, the vice president and man-
ager of WOR-TV notified members of Locals 52,
644, and 771 that their services would no longer be
needed, as the work in dispute had been awarded to
Engineers. On February 25, 1975, Engineers began
gathering news with the electronic camera, Locals 52
and 644 began picketing, and members of Local One
and 771 withheld their services. Members of Local
771 subsequently joined in the picketing. The picket-
ing by the film locals ceased on April 4, 1975, as a
result of a 10(1) injunction issued by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
New York upon the application of the Board's Re-
gional Director for Region 2.
Shortly after the picketing commenced, the Engi-
neers' negotiating committee met with representa-
tives of the Employer. The Engineers were asked
what their position would be if the Employer, under
pressure from the International, reversed its original
assignment and awarded the work to the film locals.
Adrian Penner, shop steward for the Engineers, stat-
ed that his members would stop working and com-
mence picketing.
Locals 644 and 771 claim that the picketing by
their members did not give rise to a jurisdictional
dispute because it was for the purpose of informing
the public that their members had been locked out
by the Employer, and their actions were instituted
for the purpose of retrieving the jobs formerly held
by their members. However, it would appear from all
the evidence before us that an object of the picketing
was to force assignment of the work in dispute to the
members of the picketing unions. With respect to the
work retrieval argument, as appears from this deci-
sion, the work in dispute relates to a new instrumen-
tality for the gathering of news, and was not previ-
ously assigned to members of Locals 644 and 771.
It was argued at the hearing that there is no juris-
dictional dispute because the International, as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Engineers,
has disclaimed any interest in the disputed work.
However, a disclaimer is ineffective where the parties
do not act in accordance with such disclaimer. Al-
though the International argues that it has acted pur-
suant to the disclaimer and has not sought the dis-
puted work herein, the Engineers have continued to
claim jurisdiction over the work and have continued
to perform the work. A disclaimer of interest by a
union does not render the dispute moot where the
individual members to whom the work was assigned
continue to claim and perform the work .4
The locals further contend that the parties have
agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute, citing a determination made by the In-
ternational that Jurisdiction over "videotape" be-
longs to the locals. Approximately 2 years ago at a
national convention of IATSE locals, Resolution 51
was passed empowering the International to make a
determination of jurisdiction over "videotape." Dur-
ing the next year, four hearings were held on the sub-
ject, and participation by all locals was invited. After
the hearings, the International determined that juris-
diction over "videotape" at WOR-TV belonged to
Locals 52, 644, and 771. These locals and the Inter-
national contend that this determination bound the
Engineers as well as the Employer.
The pertinent provisions of Local 77l's contract
with the Employer are section 3.01 and article XVIII.
Section 3.01 states:
His [TV Editor] duties shall also consist of ed-
iting and re-editing other television recordings.
However, in the event another Union affiliated
with the same parent body as Local 771 shall
claim jurisdiction over such work, it is agreed
that the matter shall be referred to the office of
the International Union for its determination.
Article XVIII provides the following:
The scope of this Agreement shall also include
foregoing work functions whether made on or by
film, tape or otherwise, and whether produced by
means of motion picture cameras, electronic cameras
or devices, tape devices or any combination of the
foregoing, or any other means, methods or devices
now used or which may hereafter be adopted.
The Engineers' contract provides in article II, section
2.01(a):
It is agreed, however, that should any dispute
arise between the unit covered hereby and any
affiliated local of the Union in respect to con-
flicting jurisdictional claims over the editing of
video tape, then and in that event such dispute
shall be resolved by the General Office of the
Union.
However, section 2.01(f) of the Engineers' contract
provides for the following:
4 Local 153, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
(Commercial Electronics, Inc.), 197 NLRB 934 (1972); Local 926, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers (High Point Sprinkler Company of Atlan-
ta). 191 NLRB 603 (1971)
STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE, IATSE , AFL-CIO 1169
The jurisdiction currently granted hereby to
the Engineers hereunder with respect to the
work of "tape editing" is understood and agreed
not to constitute exclusive jurisdiction, except to
the extent of the operation of the technical
equipment used in conjunction with such "tape
editing" which was heretofore and shall contin-
ue to remain the exclusive jurisdiction of Engi-
neers.
Local 771 contends that, by virtue of these con-
tracts, the Employer and Local 771 and the Engi-
neers have agreed that any dispute over the jurisdic-
tion of tape editing shall be resolved by the
International, which, as already noted, has rendered
a decision with respect to "videotape." However, we
do not agree that the Employer has bound itself to an
International determination with respect to any of
the work in dispute in this case. Unfortunately, the
aspect of the work in dispute which involved "edit-
ing" was not thoroughly explored at the hearing. The
editing work involves two separate functions: the
judgmental function of determining which material
is to be retained for the program and which is to be
edited out; and the mechanical function of operating
the technical equipment needed to edit the tape. Lo-
cal 771 apparently claims the entire tape editing pro-
cess, both the judgmental function and the actual op-
eration of the videotape editing machines. The
Engineers claim only the operation of the electronic
videotape editing machines, and only such of the
judgmental and creative function which becomes
necessary in the absence of instructions from those to
whom the judgmental function has been assigned. It
is clear, therefore, that only that aspect of tape edit-
ing which involves the operation of the technical
equipment is in dispute herein.
That work is expressly given to the Engineers by
the Engineers' contract, and that is the nature of the
work which the Engineers have been performing. To
the extent that the contractual provisions cited above
refer to other aspects of editing as to which disputes
may arise, and which are to be referred to the Inter-
national for resolution, our reading of the contracts
in their entirety, especially in light of testimony given
at the hearing, including evidence of past practice,
convinces us that the references are to the judgmen-
tal aspect of tape editing which is not in dispute here-
in. We therefore find that the Employer is not a party
to any agreed-on method or settlement which would
abort this proceeding insofar as the editing work in-
volved herein is concerned.
At the hearing , testimony was elicited concerning
the lighting needed with the videotape camera. The
camera itself is extremely sensitive to light, and it is
anticipated that no supplemental lighting will be re-
quired. However, Local One has asserted jurisdiction
over the future use of any lighting that "may" be
needed. But, as the Employer sees no current need
for lighting, it made no assignment of any lighting
work. Without an assignment of the work antici-
pated, there can be no dispute as to who will perform
the work. Therefore, the notice of hearing is quashed
as to Local One.
After considering the contentions of the parties
and the evidence with respect thereto, we find that
the Board is not precluded from making its determi-
nation in this proceeding, that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred, and that the dispute as described above
is properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
1. Collective-bargaining contracts and certifications
There are no orders or certifications of the Board
awarding jurisdiction of the work in dispute to mem-
bers of any of the unions involved in the present pro-
ceeding. All unions, including the International on
behalf of the Engineers, presently have collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer.
The Engineers' contract provides for the following
work jurisdiction in article II, section 2.01(a):
Section 2.01. Work Jurisdiction. The work ju-
risdiction to be covered by this agreement shall
be as follows:
(a) The development, design, installation, op-
eration, repair and maintenance of the
Employer's technical equipment used for .. .
television or facsimile broadcasting, closed-cir-
cuit operation, recording equipment (i.e., equip-
ment for making audio and/or video recordings
whether on disc, film, wire, tape or kinescope),
all playback equipment including that used for
the purposes of editing tape, wire or disc, all
sound effects equipment . . . and, subject, to the
provisions of subdivision "(d)" hereof, the work
of "tape editing."
The Engineers and the Employer claim that this
section, as well as section 2.03, which gives the Engi-
neers exclusive jurisdiction over the operation of
technical equipment (with some exclusions, but not
excluding electronic cameras), clearly awards the op-
eration of the camera to the Engineers. Additionally,
section 17.01(f) defines the technical equipment
which is to be operated by Engineers:
The term "technical equipment" means any
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stationary, portable or mobile equipment used
in transmitting, converting, interrupting, modi-
fying and/or conducting audio, video, frequency
modulation, amplitude modulation and facsimi-
le playback equipment which may be used for
putting programs on the air for editing purposes,
and/or any other equipment, both audio and
video....
With regard to the operation of the camera, Local
644 contends that its contract supports an award to
its members. The language of section 1(a) covers
cameramen who do the work of "photographing
newsreels, factual and documentary films." Section
13(d) lists the work of such cameramen:
The work of motion picture film cameramen
and assistant cameramen shall include not only
the operation of all equipment and apparatus
used in connection with or as auxiliary to the
shooting of such motion pictures, but also the
handling of any such equipment or apparatus.
However, the Employer points to an introductory
paragraph in Local 644's contract in support of its
contention that the work of Local 644's members is
strictly limited to film. That paragraph reads as fol-
lows:
WHEREAS , the Station is engaged in the
making of newsreels , documentary and factual
films, and utilizes in such business the services of
motion picture film cameramen covered by the
terms of this agreement . . . . [Emphasis sup-
plied.]
We believe that the contracts of the Engineers and
of Local 644 clearly define and delineate the jurisdic-
tion of the respective unions, and that the Engineers'
contract favors the assignment of operating the cam-
era to the Engineers.
With regard to the editing of the videotape, we
have already made it clear that the only issue in-
volved is the operation of the technical equipment.
The Employer and Engineers claim that the Engi-
neers' contract clearly mandates that the operation
of the technical equipment used in tape editing
should be performed by Engineers , whereas Local
771 relies on its contract to support its claim. We
have already set forth the pertinent contractual pro-
visions and our belief that the Engineers' contract
assigns to the Engineers exclusive jurisdiction over
the operation of the technical equipment.
Local 52 claims that the operation of the sound
equipment should be assigned to its members, relying
on section 1.01 of its contract which covers "all per-
sons who perform services in the shooting of news-
reel, documentary film employed in the categories of
Electrician or Soundman." However, other provi-
sions in Local 52's contract deal only with motion
picture film and film other than newsreel. We find
that its contract appears to be limited to supplying
sound functions only when film is used.
2. Area, craft, and industry practice
The electronic mini-cam is not yet in widespread
use in the broadcasting industry, and many stations
are still experiementing with its use. The three na-
tional networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) have all utilized
the miniature version of the electronic camera for
news-gathering purposes. Each network has five
owned and operated television stations throughout
the country which are now using the mini-cam. Addi-
tionally, station WPIX and Channel 67 in New York
are using the new camera . Richard Quodomine, chief
engineer at WOR-TV, testified that at each and ev-
ery station in the New York metropolitan area which
is now utilizing the mini-cam , as well as at the owned
and operated stations of the national networks, the
operation of the camera has been assigned to em-
ployees represented by an engineering unit.
William Horgan, business representative Local
644, testified that members of his union operate the
electronic camera at a Westinghouse station in Balti-
more, and at Television News, Inc., which supplies
news to television stations.
While industry practice is not conclusive, the fact
that the three national networks have assigned the
operation of the camera and its auxiliary equipment
to an engineering unit is regarded by us as a factor
favoring an assignment to the Engineers.
3. Job impact
When the Employer decided to utilize the electron-
ic camera and tape editing equipment, and to assign
the work to the Engineers, eight positions were elimi-
nated: two news film cameramen represented by Lo-
cal 644 ; two news editors represented by Local 771;
and four news electricians and soundmen repre-
sented by Local 52 were informed that their services
were no longer required. Although film cameramen
and soundmen are no longer needed as the Employer
has disposed of its film cameras and sees no need for
extra lighting, the record revealed that film editors
are still required in order to edit the movies broad-
cast by the Employer. The Employer has not in-
creased the number of Engineers employed by it, but
has assigned three of the unit members to perform
the new work. The Employer expects to train and use
STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE, IATSE, AFL-CIO 1171
a pool of 15 Engineers to perform the work . Richard
Quodomine testified that three Engineers would lose
their jobs if the work were assigned to members of
the other locals.
4. Economy and efficiency
The broadcasting industry, as a whole, and the
Employer , in particular , are satisfied with the results
of the mini -camera because of its compactness, its
efficiency , the economy of operation which results
from its use , and the immediacy with which news can
be gathered . The operation of a film camera required
a mandatory three -man crew : the film cameraman,
the sound and light man , and the reporter assigned to
the event. Additionally, the film itself was edited by
yet another person.
The use of the electronic camera has produced a
marked change in efficiency of operations. An im-
portant factor in this result is the high degree of inte-
gration of all functions of the electronic camera as
compared to the film camera . Several pieces of auxi-
liary and supplemental equipment were absolutely
necessary when the film camera was used. Extra
lighting was needed to produce a high quality film.
Sound equipment consisting of a microphone and
amplifier was also required . There is no such manda-
tory supplemental equipment needed with the elec-
tronic camera . The camera is extremely sensitive to
light , and there is anticipated no need for supplemen-
tal lighting . The camera itself also includes a built-in
microphone to pick up the sound . Both the sound
and the image are recorded on a tape contained in
the videotape cassette recorder, which is carried by
the cameraman by means of a shoulder strap.
Richard Quodomine testified that the engineer op-
erating the camera can gather news by himself; he
can take a program and perform all the required
functions from inception to conclusion . The engineer
can shoot the tape, arrange all the equipment, edit
and air the tape , and maintain the equipment . Locals
644 and 771 claim that the "one-man" theory does
not hold up when it is considered that at least two
pieces of equipment are used-the camera and the
videotape editing equipment . While the Employer
acknowledged that an engineer other than the engi-
neer assigned to shoot the event will probably edit
the tape , it was stressed that all Engineers possess the
knowledge and capability to perform the tape edit-
ing.
Furthermore , the Engineers ' unit is able to per-
form a wide variety of functions other than, operating
the camera and editing the tape . Engineers , perform
all the functions relating to the recording and playing
back of all television shows . Engineers, if they have
no particular news event to which they have been
assigned , can be assigned to projection work; to re-
cord and play back programs ; and to edit, view, and
time programs . In addition , Engineers can be sent to
the studio where they perform camera , audio, and
switching work . Furthermore , since Engineers are as-
signed to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the
Employer has great flexibility and gains the potential
of gathering news at any time. -
We conclude , therefore , that the factors of econo-
my and efficiency favor an assignment of the disput-
ed work , including the tape editing, to the Engineers.
5. Skills
The operation of the electronic camera in a new's-
gathering context requires the possession of two sep-
arate and distinct skills: the technological skill and
knowledge of electronics to perform the functional
operation of the camera and the esthetic and creative
skills to put together a good story.
There is no question but that the Engineers possess
the requisite technological skills. For over 20 years
they have operated electronic cameras for the Em-
ployer. Their thorough knowledge of electronics is
the main reason why the Employer assigned the work
to them. The salesman for the Akai camera indicated
that the most important skill necessary was a com-
plete knowledge of electronics. Local 644 stresses the
ease with which its members could learn how to op-
erate the camera, citing a statement in the Akai sales
brochure that the camera "features simple operation
so that it does not take a video expert to make a
professional color recording." The Employer ac-
knowledges that the film cameramen could readily
be trained in the use of the electronic camera.
However, a very important consideration in the
Employer's assignment is the fact that the camera is
extremely sensitive, and adjustments are necessary
for its proper operation. The operator of the camera
must possess full knowledge of his equipment so that
he can prepare or fix it on the spot while he is out in
the field. He must know how to register-the camera;
balance the color; adjust levels of color intensity and
linearity ; and measure and time the impulses accord-
ing to Federal Communication Commission regula-
tions . While the basic operation of the camera may
not be complex, the sophistication of the camera re-
quires more than merely functional skills. -
All the technical skills come through experience
and proper training, which Engineers have- had.
While the operation of the electronic camera is simi-
lar to the operation of the film camera, the film cam-
eramen have had no experience in electronics, no ex-
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perience with adjusting color levels (color levels on
film are adjusted in the processing lab), and no expe-
rience with the sensitivity of the electronic equip-
ment.
Local 644 places great emphasis not on the techni-
cal skills needed , but on the creative and judgmental
abilities which a good cameraman should possess. It
claims that Engineers have never operated an elec-
tronic camera in a true news-gathering context, con-
tending that there is a great deal of difference be-
tween the prescheduled events assigned to the
Engineers and the fast breaking , more newsworthy
events shot by its members . Local 644 argues that
Engineers do not possess the abilities needed to make
a good "photo journalist" instead of merely a techni-
cian . A great deal of time was spent at the hearing
describing the creative qualities needed for news
gathering, including a knowledge of picture composi-
tion, imagination, the ability to be quick and accu-
rate in following fast action, and the ability to work
independently of a reporter if necessary.
Local 644 claims that the Engineers do not possess
any of the above-cited capabilities and further states
that the Board has previously recognized that "the
determinative consideration is not simply the ability
to operate the electronic camera, but the ability to do
so in a news-gathering context." 5 However , this ar-
gument ignores the fact that Engineers have been
garthering news, albeit of a different genre , for many
years. While the events to which Engineers have been
assigned are predetermined and are in many ways of
a predictable nature , nonetheless , Engineers must
possess the same judgmental skills as a film camera-
man shooting the more traditional news story. Fur-
thermore , Engineers are often called upon to capture
unplanned and spontaneous events, and are often re-
quired to work independently of either a director or
reporter.
We believe that Local 644's reliance on the King
case in support of its contention that only its mem-
bers possess photojournalist abilities is misplaced.
For the evidence quite clearly indicates that Engi-
neers, as well as Local 644's members, are experi-
enced in the news-gathering function. The present
dispute thus involves an entirely different situation
than was present in King, where members of only one
group possessed the requisite news-gathering and
creative skills. Here , both groups are able to operate
a camera in a news-gathering context , but, even as-
suming that both groups are able to perform the
technical operation of the camera , it is quite clear
that Engineers possess a superior all-around knowl-
s International Photographers Local 659 (King Broadcasting Company), 216
NLRB No. 164 (1975).
edge of electronics not possessed nor claimed by the
film cameramen of Local 644. For that reason, a
comparison of the relative skills favors an award of
the operation of the camera to Engineers.
With respect to the editing of the videotape, Local
771 claims that its members are far more skilled and
further contends that the judgmental skills are more
important than are the technical skills. This argu-
ment loses its force, however, when it is once again
pointed out that the dispute concerns only the tech-
nical operation of the electronic machines used to
edit the tape. The record clearly indicates that mem-
bers of Local 771 have never edited tape at WOR-
TV. Local 771 furthermore did not claim that its
members could be trained to operate the electronic
editing equipment. The techniques for editing film
and tape are quite different. Engineers have always
edited tape for the Employer, tape which they have
produced from their operation of the electronic ped-
estal camera and tape obtained from news services.
Local 771's experience and skills-are strictly limited
to film. We conclude, therefore, that the skills and
experience of the Engineers favor an award of the
work to them.
6. Employer preference
After a consideration of all the relevant factors,
the Employer assigned the work of operating the
Akai camera and editing the videotape produced by
such camera to the Engineers. The record indicates
that the Employer is satisfied with the results of the
assignment and maintains a preference for an assign-
ment of the work to the Engineers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consid-
eration of all the relevant factors involved, we con-
clude that the Engineers are entitled to the disputed
work and we shall determine the dispute in their fa-
vor. Where Engineers have traditionally operated an
electronic camera and edited tape; where skills,
economy and efficiency, and contract favor an as-
signment of work to the Engineers; where industry
practice, though not conclusive, favors such an as-
signment ; and where the Employer is satisfied with
and continues to prefer the assignment , we must con-
clude that an assignment of the work to the Engi-
neers is warranted.
In making this determination , we are assigning the
disputed work to Engineers employed by the Em-
ployer and represented by the International, but not
to the International or its members. Our present de-
STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE, IATSE, AFL-CIO 1173
termination is limited to the particular dispute which
gave rise to this proceeding.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing is-
sued in this proceeding with respect to Stage Em-
ployees Local One, IATSE , AFL-CIO, Theatrical
Protective Union , be, and it hereby is, quashed.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro-
ceeding , the National Labor Relations Board hereby
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Engineers employed by the Employer, RKO
General, WOR-TV Division, and represented by the
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the Unit-
ed States and Canada , AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the work of news gathering by use of the Akai
electronic camera and accompanying videotape cas-
sette recorder, and to perform the work of operating
the electronic equipment used to edit videotape for
use by the Employer on its Daily News program, at
the Employer's facilities located at 1440 Broadway,
New York, New York.
2. Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Local 52,
IATSE, AFL-CIO; International Photographers of
the Motion Picture Industries, Local 644, affiliated
with IATSE, AFL-CIO; and Motion Picture Film
Editors, Local 771, IATSE, are not entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(a)(4)(D) of the Act, to
force or require RKO General, WOR-TV Division,
to assign any such disputed work to soundmen and
electricians, film cameramen, or TV editors who are
represented by their respective labor organizations.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination, Locals 52, 644, and 771 shall no-
tify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing,
whether they will refrain from forcing or requiring
the Employer, by means proscribed in Section
8(a)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute to employees
represented by Locals 52, 644, and 771, rather than
to the Employer's Engineers represented by the In-
ternational.