WDIV Post-Newsweek Stations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

550 LJS I NI'NI k tNt' I IN-L
WDIV Post-Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc. and
International Photographers of the Motion Pic-
ture Industry, Local 666, IATSE, AFL-CIO
and National Association of Broadcast Employ-
ees and Technicians, AFL-CIO, Party in Inter-
est. Case 7-CA-16620
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On September 9, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached
Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief," the
Party in Interest filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, the Charging Party filed a brief in answer to
the exceptions filed by Respondent and the Party
in Interest, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
answer to Respondent's exceptions.
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, find-
ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3
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, WDIV Post-
Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc., Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, except that the attached notice
I Respondent's request to reopen the record for the introduction of ad-
ditional evidence is hereby denied as the record as made at the hearing is
adequate fir the purposes of our decision.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Lass Judge It is the Board's established policy not t
overrule an administrative lasv judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
hility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vincees us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wal/ Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (195(), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find tno basis for reversing his findings.
We also find totally without merit Respondenlt's allegations of bias and
prejudice on the part of the Administrative Law Judge, since we do not
perceive any evidence that the Administrative Law Judge prejudiced the
case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated at bias against Respondent
in his analysis or discussion of the evidence.
' We find lno merit i the Charging 'arty's request fIor litigation ex-
penss. leck's Inc.. 215 NLRIB 765 (1974). See also WeCllman Inidustries,
Inc., 248 NLRB 325 (198(0) We have modified the Admiistrative Lass'
Judge's notice to conform with his recommended Order
254 NLRB No. 67
is substituted for that of the Administrative Law
Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bar-
gain collectively with International Photogra-
phers of the Motion Picture Industry, Local
666, IATSE, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of all of the
full-time and regular part-time cameramen em-
ployed at our Detroit, Michigan, television sta-
tion for the purpose of photographing news,
factual and documentary films, including but
not limited to operators of sound and photo-
graphic equipment known as "mini-cams," and
excluding office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bar-
gain collectively with International Photogra-
phers Of the Motion Picture Industry, Local
666, IATSE, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of all of the
full-time and regular part-time cameramen em-
ployed at our Detroit, Michigan, television sta-
tion for the purpose of photographing news,
factual and documentary films, including oper-
ators of sound and photographic equipment
known as "mini-cams," and excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and, if an agreement is
reached, WE WILL embody the terms of said
agreement in a signed written contract.
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS,
MICHIGAN, INC.
DECISION
STATEMF NT OF THE CASE
FINDINGS OF FACT
WAI.TER H. MAI.ONEY, JR., Administrative Law
Judge. This case came on for hearing before me in De-
troit, Michigan, upon an unfair labor practice com-
plaint', issued by the Regional Director for Region 7,
I The principal docket entries in this case are as follows
Continued
11.1 .1 . I I
-1. .
1

Irlkic nil . D r_%L~~ttI K KILLA I IVIND Ivalfv
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
which alleges that the Respondent, WDIV Post-News-
week Stations. Michigan, Inc., 2 violated Section 8(a)(l)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act. More particularly, the complaint alleges
that Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from
Local 666 in July 1979 as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its minicam operators. Respon-
dent contends that it was justified in withdrawing recog-
nition because it was presented with evidence that
NABET, not Local 666, represented the employees in
the bargaining unit in question and such evidence raised
a good-faith doubt of Local 666's majority status. Upon
these contentions, the issues herein were joined. 3
1. HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGEDI)
A. Prologue
Prior to the filing of the charge in this case, there ex-
isted a long and involved dispute arising out of techno-
logical change in Respondent's news gathering operation,
including litigation between the parties to this proceed-
ing and others over who should represent cameramen as-
signed to operate minicams used in televising local news.
Since June 26, 1978, Respondent WDIV-Post Newsweek
Stations, Michigan, Inc., has owned Channel 4 in De-
troit, which it operates under the call letters WDIV-TV.
Before that time, Channel 4 was owned by the Evening
News Association, which operated the station under the
call letters WWJ-TV. The Evening News Association
also publishes the Detroit Evening News, a large after-
noon newspaper of general circulation in the Detroit
area.
Before June 1978, The Washington Post operated
Channel 9 in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It
published and continues to publish a large morning news-
paper of general circulation in the Washington metro-
politan area. Because of a ruling of the Federal Commu-
nications Commission to the effect that a newspaper
cannot own and operate a television station in the same
market area where it sells and distributes the bulk of its
papers, The Washington Post and the Evening News As-
sociation now operates Channel 9 in Washington and Re-
Charge filed by International Photographers of the Motion Picture In-
dustry, Local 666, IATSE, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 666), against
Respondent on July 23, 1979; complaint issued by the Regional Director
for Region 7. on November 21, 1979; answer filed by National Associ-
ation of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, AFL-CIO (herein called
NABET), on January 9, 1980; amended answer filed by Respondent on
March 19, 1980; hearing held in Detroit, Michigan, on March 26. 1980;
Briefs filed with me by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, the
party in interest, and Respondent on or before May 28, 1980.
2 Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Michigan corporation
which maintains its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.
where it is engaged in the commercially televised broadcasting of news.
entertainment, and public interest materials for consumption by the gen-
eral public in the metropolitan Detroit area During the calendar year
ending December 31, 1978, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
these business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of 200,00)
and derived in excess of S50,000 from broadcasting commercial advertis-
ment of nationally advertised products for customers located outside the
State of Michigan. Accordingly, Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act. Local
666 and NABET are, respectively, labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Sec, 2(5) of the Act
3 Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected
spondent took over the ownership and control of Chan-
nel 4 in Detroit. When Respondent acquired Channel 4.
it retained most of the managerial personnel, includng
the WWJ labor relations director, and assumed the obli-
gations imposed by WWJ's existing collective-bargaining
agreements.
The relationships of Local 666 and NABET with Re-
spondent's predecessor began in 1970. Both were accord-
ed recognition by WWJ without the necessity of Board
certifications and both entered into collective-bargaining
relationships with WWJ concerning different groups of
employees. The NABET unit was by far the larger bar-
gaining unit and was composed of engineers and techni-
cians employed in WWJ's engineering and program de-
partments. Local 666 represented film cameramen em-
ployed by the news department, while another Local 812
bargaining unit (for soundmen) has ceased to exist and
no complaint has been lodged herein concerning its dis-
appearance.
In 1976, WWJ began to cover news events with the
use of minicams. The film camera previously used re-
quired that any film which was shot at a news event be
developed and processed before it could be shown on
television. By contrast, the minicam also transmits sound,
so the audio portion of a remote telecast no longer needs
to be separately recorded. Such work was formerly done
by an employee who accompanied the cameramen to the
scene of the news event with a tape recorder. However,
the use of a minicam requires, in addition to the camera-
men, a technician who must be present at the scene of
transmission to operate certain electronic equipment
which is attendant to the use of a minicam. As found in
certain unit clarification decisions growing out of this in-
novation, the operator of the minicam and his assistant
frequently interchange functions, so what actually oc-
curred was that WWJ (and later Respondent) still per-
formed remote telecasting (except for certain sports
events) with three-man crews. However, instead of em-
ploying a crew composed of a separately identified cam-
eraman and a separately identified (and separately repre-
sented) soundman, a minicam crew now is composed of
two individuals who perform a variety of functions-op-
erating the minicam and operating the related equipment
which goes with a minicam. At all times the news-gath-
ering team has also included a third member, the so-
called talent or television reporter, who actually appears
and speaks during the telecast. "Talent" are separately
represented by AFTRA and have never been involved in
this ongoing dispute over who should represent minicam
operators.
When WWJ began to introduce minicams in 1976, it
had eight news gathering teams, each composed of a
cameraman, a soundman, and a reporter. On November
23, 1977, when the Regional Director issued a Decision
and Order Clarifying Unit in Case 7-UC-131, he recited
that WWJ then employed five traditional film crews and
three minicams crews. By the time this litigation com-
menced, minicams had completely replaced film cameras
so there are no longer any traditional film camera crews
employed by Respondent.
551
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As film camera work was phased out and minicam
work was phased in, WWJ assigned the minicam work
to the same individuals who had been manning the film
cameras and who had been represented by Local 666.
NABET made a claim to WWJ that the work belonged
to them. When this claim was made, Peter Kaiser, the
vice president and general manager of WWJ, determined
that minicam operators would be represented by
NA13ET and presumably covered by the terms and con-
ditions of the existing NABET contract. At that time,
the highest salary classification under the NABET con-
tract for technicians and engineers was $357.50 per week
for an employee with 4-1/2 years or more of service.
Local 666 had just concluded a contract with WWJ, to
run from May 1976 to May 1979. During the first year of
that contract, cameramen were to receive $394 per week
and were also to receive increments of $23 in each of the
next 2 years. This contract contained no scale based
upon seniority or longevity in service. 4
When the cameramen were required to switch their al-
legiance from Local 666 to NABET, the NABET shop
steward, Ron Van Allen, informed them that, so long as
litigation was in progress concerning this dispute, he
would not enforce the union-security clause in the
NABET contract. The clause required bargaining unit
members to become NABET members after 30 days or
forfeit their jobs. However, Van Allen testified that this
policy was followed despite the insistance of the presi-
dent of the local, an employee at another station, that the
union-security clause in the NABET-WWJ contract be
invoked with respect to former Local 666 members. Ac-
cording to Van Allen, seven cameramen who were
former Local 666 members signed NABET designation
cards between 1977 and the spring of 1979.
While NABET was claiming and receiving recognition
as the bargaining agent for WWJ minicam operators,
Local 666 was pursuing its claim to represent them. By
letter dated October 26, 1976, sent by Local 666 Business
Representative Arthur W. Beeman to WWJ Labor Rela-
tions Director Robert Benyi, Local 666 insisted that it
should be recognized as the bargaining agent for the
same individuals. When WWJ refused, Local 666 filed
unit clarification petition (Case 7-UC-131), dated June 3,
1977, asking that its bargaining unit should be clarified
by the Board to include minicam operators. Both WWJ
and NABET actively participated in a lengthy hearing
on this issue which the Regional Director held on
August 9 and 10, 1977.
In addition to presenting evidence and arguments on
the merits of the contested claim, NABET and WWJ
also asserted that the matter at issue in Case 7-UC-131
actually was not a representation question arising under
Section 9 of the Act but was in truth a work assignment
dispute which the Board should address by means of a
10(k) hearing. In resolving this contention, the Regional
4 II one of many briefs filed by WWJ in the unit clarificalioni cases II
argued that Local 66 members who were taken over by NAltET re-
tained both their seniority and their pay rate. However. in April 197'
whenl Local 666 was again recognized as their collectise-bargaining
agent, cameramein were given increases ranging from 30 to S80 per
week because of disparities between the NABET and Local 6h6 con-
tracts I conclude from this fact that cameramen suffered pay cuts as a
result of being incorporated into the NABET unit.
Director viewed the issue in the case before him as one
involving which labor organization was to represent the
same discrete grouping of employees, namely, minicam
operators, not a question of which labor organization
should be awarded certain work. Citing the Supreme
Court's decision in Carey v. Westinehouse Electric Corpo-
ration,5 the Regional Director determined that the con-
troversy actually presented a unit issue, not a work as-
signment dispute, because it arose out of technological
changes in the Employer's operations causing an alleged
accretion and because the Employer had recognized
NABET as the bargaining agent for minicam operators
rather than having assigned this operation to the
NABET-represented bargaining unit. This conclusion
was supported by the prior finding that the work at
issue-news gathering-was being done by the same
people after the introduction of the minicam who had
been doing it before the introduction of this device.
Therefore, since the same people had been assigned to
do the same work but with different machines, a work
assignment dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k)
of the Act had not arisen.
Having made this determination, the Regional Direc-
tor went on to review the merits of competing claims by
Local 666 and NABET to represent the unit employees.
He decided, based upon several factors set forth in this
decision, that Local 666 was the appropriate bargaining
representative and that the scope of its unit should be
clarified to include minicam operators. Both NABET
and WWJ asked the Board to review this decision. On
February 9, 1978, the Board upheld the Regional Direc-
tor's determination by denying the requests for review.
NABET and WWJ then asked the Board to reconsider
its refusal to review the decision. The Board ultimately
declined to do so. The decision of the Board declining to
reconsider its decision in Case 7-UC-131 was communi-
cated to the parties by telegram dated February 28, 1979,
along with its decision not to grant review in another re-
lated clarification case.
While the unit clarification issue involving minicam
operators was in litigation, IATSE Local 812 filed an-
other petition, dated January 28, 1978, on behalf of
soundmen whose bargaining unit was also being eroded
by the introduction of the minicam (Case 7-UC-146).
The Regional Director noticed this petition for hearing
but later decided that an administrative investigaton was
sufficient to resolve the issues presented by that petition.
In an administrative Decision and Order, dated February
10, 1978, the Regional Director found the former sound-
men who had been represented by Local 812 were now
members of a two-man minicam crew and functioned in-
terchangeably with camera operators in the performance
of news-gathering functions. He recited that this innova-
tion now meant that the taking of pictures and recording
of sound became part and parcel of the same operation.
The Regional Director noted in his decision that, at the
hearing in the earlier unit clarification case involving
s 75 US. 261 (1964) In that case, the Supreme Court noted that a
"blurred line often exists between work assignment disputes and contro-
vrsies over which of to or nmore unions is the appropriate bargaining
(agent)" Supra at 2.
552
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
cameramen (Case 7-UC-131), extensive testimony had
been taken concerning the impact upon the soundmen of
the introduction of the minicam and evidently concluded
that this data was sufficient to form the basis of an ad-
ministrative judgment on the issues then before him.
Hence, he decided to avoid the necessity of a hearing in-
volving a rehash of the same evidence. He concluded
that soundmen would be represented by Local 666 be-
cause it was impossible to split up an interchangeable
minicam crew into separate and distinct segments and be-
cause Local 666 had previously been found to be the
proper bargaining agent for minicam operators.
The Employer and NABET also petitioned the Board
to review this decision. In addition to addressing the
merits of the issue, NABET argued to the Board in Case
7-UC-146, as it argues here, that the Regional Director
had denied it procedural due process in considering the
case because it had been misled by Regional Office per-
sonnel into believing that a hearing would be held in
Case 7-UC-146 but was later told that no hearing would
be held if the parties to the dispute would submit it to
the internal union procedures set forth in article 20 of
the AFL-CIO constitution. NABET told the Board that
a complaint had been filed by NABET under the AFL-
CIO's internal jurisdictional dispute procedures. Howev-
er a decision by the Regional Director was issued in
Case 7-UC-146, notwithstanding assurances that nothing
of the sort would be done. The Board considered these
arguments but refused to grant review and notified the
parties of its decision on February 28, 1979, together
with the aforementioned notice that it would not recon-
sider its decision in Case 7-UC-131.
B. The Events at Issue Herein
On December 28, 1978, while the decisions in the two
unit clarification cases were still pending before the
Board, the Charging Party in this case filed a refusal-to-
bargain charge against Respondent herein (Case 7-CA-
15903). When the Board disposed of the unit clarification
cases on February 28, 1979, the Regional Director imme-
diately issued a complaint based upon that charge alleg-
ing that Respondent had unlawfully refused to bargain
with Local 666 in the recently clarified bargaining unit.
Early in March 1979, Fred Elarbee, Respondent's coun-
sel, phoned Bernard M. Mamet, the Charging Party's
counsel,6 and asked Mamet if he would agree to a 30-
day extension of time in which to file an answer to the
outstanding unfair labor practice complaint. In the
course of this long-distance telephone conversation, Elar-
bee told Mamet that he and his clients were exploring a
number of options, one of which was to comply with the
provisions of the unit clarification orders, and he would
need more time to answer the complaint. Mamet agreed
to the request, so Elarbee sent a telegram to the Region-
al Director in Detroit, dated March 9:
Respondent herewith requests thirty days extension
of time to answer or respond to complaint issued in
above case. The undersigned counsel for Respon-
dent has recently become counsel for WDIV, the
successor respondent. Counsel is attempting to fa-
s Elarbee's office is in Atlanta, Georgia: Mamet's office is in Chicago
miliarize himself with the background and legal po-
sition of respondent. Settlement of case by bargain-
ing with charging union is being considered and is a
possibility. Other avenues of solution of all issues
are being explored with other unions. Extension of
time is needed because of above stated facts and cir-
cumstances. No further extension will be requested.
The requested extension of time was granted.
On April 2, Elarbee called Mamet and told him that
Respondent would agree to comply with the provisions
of the unit clarification decisions but he would need time
to "put it together" because the employees in question
had been covered by the NABET contract. Mamet re-
plied that he would withdraw a charge but that he
needed in his possession a settlement agreement. He sug-
gested that they call it a compliance agreement, adding
that he did not want Respondent to be required to post a
notice' or do anything else which would mean rubbing
Respondent's nose in it. Mamet and Elarbee met on
April 4 in Mamet's office in Chicago and worked out the
substance of written compliance agreement which was
executed on April I1.8
The recollections of opposing counsel herein sharply
differ concerning the various details of events which oc-
curred in April and May of 1979 regarding the dealings
between Local 666 and Respondent. It is not necessary
for purposes of this case to resolve most of those differ-
ences. Documents in the record indicate the following
events took place leading up to the disposition of the
charge in Case 7-CA-15193. On April 5 at noon, Elar-
bee directed a telegram to Mamet and sent a copy of the
wire to the Regional Director in Detroit. The telegram
read:
This is to advise that WDIV Post Newsweek Sta-
tions, Michigan, Inc., intends to comply with the
National Labor Relations Board in Case Nos. 7-
UC-131 and 7-UC-146. Therefore WDIV pursuant
to said orders hereby extends recognition to Inter-
national Photographers of the Motion Picture In-
dustry Local 666, IATSE (AFL-CIO) as the collec-
tive bargaining representative of the employees echo
operate the "mini-cam" as set forth in complaint in
NLRB Case 7-CA-15,903 and for those employees
assigned to the "mini-cam" crews as defined in the
unit clarification contained in case numbers 7-LIC-
131 and 7-UC-146. The Company is willing to bar-
gain upon request by Local 666 concerning all mat-
ters relating to wages, hours, and conditions of em-
ployment.
On the same day, at 3:39 p.m., Mamet sent a telegram to
the Regional Director in Detroit which read as follows:
7 The execution of a conventional formal or informal Board settlllcrint
agreement almost invariably carries with it an ohligation onr the part f a
respondent to post a standard Board notice for a priod of No da)s
R Accrding to Flarbee, hen he met Mamnt in Chicago on April 4.
he told Mamt that his people were thinking bout compling ,itih the
UC determinations and asked svhat Mamet as ging to do abou t he
charge Mamlet's reported repl 5 as, "If Nou recognie ILuW.al nOtj ue
vson' need it an more anti i ill ithdra\s it
553
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Re: WDIV Post Newsweek, 7-CA-15193. On
behalf of Local 666, Charging Party, based upon
employer's recognition and compliance with unit
clarification as set forth in Elarbee's telegram (of)
April 5, 1979, we hereby request withdrawal of
charge and complaint.
On April 6, 1979, the Regional Director issued an
order approving the withdrawal of the charge and dis-
missing the complaint in Case 7-CA-15903. The order
contained the following recitation of facts and conclu-
sions:
On February 28, 1979, [I] issued a Complaint in the
above-captioned matter.
On April 5, 1979, the Respondent notified the . . . .
Regional Director [for Region 7] that it had recog-
nized the Charging Party as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of its "mini-cam" opera-
tors employed for purposes of news gathering.
On April 6, 1979, the Charging Party herein re-
quested withdrawal of the charge upon which the
aforesaid Complaint is based.
It appearing that the Respondent has recognized the
Charging Party as the exclusive collective bargain-
ing representative of its "mini-cam" operators em-
ployed for purposes of news gathering and as the
Charging Party does not desire to proceed, and it
does not appear that further formal proceedings are
necessary herein to effectuate the purposes of the
Act ...
On April 11, 1979, the following agreement was ex-
ecuted in Chicago at Mamet's office:
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
This Compliance Agreement made and entered into
and effective this 11th day of April, 1979, (except as
otherwise indicated herein) by and between WDIV-
POST NEWSWEEK STATIONS, MICHIGAN,
INC., ("Company") and INTERNATIONAL
PHOTOGRAPHERS OF THE MOTION PIC-
TURE INDUSTRY, LOCAL 666, IATSE (AFL-
CIO), ("Union").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the National Labor Relations Board
has issued a unit clarification determination in Case
No. 7-UC-131 and has made related rulings in
other matters as well as issuing a complaint against
the Company in Case No. 7-CA-15903; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the Com-
pany to comply with federal law and specifically, in
this instance, the determinations of the National
Labor Relations Board, the result of which would
cause the National Labor Relations Board to with-
draw its unfair labor practice complaint heretofore
issued.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY
AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The collective bargaining agreement between the
parties expiring May 3, 1979, is hereby extended to
and including June 3, 1979, or until a new agree-
ment is reached, whichever is sooner, with the un-
derstanding that all monies and economic benefits
shall become effective May 3, 1979.
2. The following is added to paragraph 3A of the
collective bargaining agreement between the parties
(the last period in said paragraph being removed):
and for all employees employed by the Company
in its "mini-cam" crews who operate "mini-cam"
and associated equipment as defined and clarified
by the National Labor Relations Board in Case
No. 7-UC-131 and related cases involving mem-
bers of the crews.
3. All employees in the foregoing paragraph shall,
from this date forward, be in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein and represented by the Union and, in
instances where any of the employees are not mem-
bers of the Union, the 30-day requirement applica-
ble to membership as set forth in paragraph 3B of
the Agreement shall commence running on this
date. It is understood that only employees in the
bargaining unit shall perform the work of the bar-
gaining unit as described above.
4. Effective April 5, 1975, employees shall receive
at least the salary set forth for "cameramen" in the
collective bargaining agreement ($440.00 per week).
5. No additional notice shall be required with re-
spect to termination, the parties agreeing that the
requirements of Section 8(d) of the National Labor
Relations Act have been satisfied. The Union shall
notify the Federal and State Mediation Services.
It is a matter of dispute as to who called whom be-
tween April II and May 29 to set up a meeting for the
purpose of negotiating a new contract between Local
666 and Respondent. On or about May 25, Mamet spoke
with Elarbee by phone. They arranged for a bargaining
session in Detroit to take place on Friday, June 1. On
that date, Elarbee, Benyi, Mamet, and Local 666 Busi-
ness Representative Hal Harmon met in Benyi's office at
Respondent's station in Detroit for this purpose. At this
meeting, Mamet told Elarbee that Local 666 wanted to
talk about money. Elarbee replied that Respondent did
not want to discuss the economic aspects of a new con-
tract until it had all of Local 666's proposals before it
and asked for a set of written demands. Mamet said that
he did not think that arriving at a new contract should
be all that involved but told Elarbee he did not have a
package to present at that time and would have to meet
with his people before formulating an entire contract
demand. The bargaining session then adjourned for
lunch.
After lunch, the parties returned to Respondent's
office. It appeared clear that they were not going to be
able to complete negotiations on that day. From the con-
versations which occurred both during the morning
meeting and an extended luncheon, it also appeared that
554
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
Benyi, who normally participated in all collective-bar-
gaining negotiations for Respondent, was making prep-
arations for a long awaited European trip. For this
reason and because Harmon and Mamet wanted to meet
with their members, the parties agreed to extend the
compliance agreement, executed on April 11, until
August 15, a date following Benyi's expected return to
Detroit. Mamet and Elarbee took the compliance agree-
ment which had been executed on April 11, circled the
June 3 expiration date which appeared thereon, wrote
"6/1/79 date changed by mutual agreement to 8/15/79,"
and then signed it. The parties then parted company.
Immediately after Respondent had agreed early in
April to comply with the Board's clarification decisions
and had extended recognition to Local 666 for its mini-
cam operators, NABET filed a representation petition,
dated April 16, 1979, seeking an election in the unit
which the Board had determined to be represented by
Local 666 or, in the alternative, a self-determination elec-
tion (Case 7-RC-15369). On May 1, the Regional Direc-
tor dismissed this petition on the basis that a question
concerning representation could not be raised at that
time because Respondent had recently agreed to bargain
with Local 666 as a result of the decisions in 7-UC-131
and 7-UC-146 and because of the resolution of the com-
plaint which had been issued against Respondent in Case
7-CA-13903. Apparently this determination was not ap-
pealed by NABET to the Board. Simultaneous with the
filing of this representation petition, NABET also filed a
charge against Respondent, alleging that it had violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (5) of the Act by recognizing and
bargaining with Local 666 as the representative of Re-
spondent's minicam operators (Case 7-CA-16279). On
April 30, the Regional Director dismissed this charge.
NABET and Respondent were in negotiations early in
July with respect to a new contract covering the techni-
cians and engineers. On or about July 2, upon advice of
counsel, NABET business agents requested various cam-
eramen and others to resign or reexecute NABET desig-
nations cards which it had in its possession. During a
bargaining session with Respondent on July 12, NABET
told Elarbee that it represented the employees in the
minicam bargaining unit, demanded recognition, and of-
fered to prove its majority status to Respondent. Imme-
diately Benyi provided a Federal mediator with a list of
the individuals currently employed in the minicam unit.
The mediator and NABET representatives met privately
and compared the cards with the list furnished by Benyi.
Upon completion of this examination, the mediator told
Elarbee that NABET represented all or almost all of the
employees whose names appeared on the list. On the fol-
lowing day, July 13, Elarbee filed an RM petition with
the Board seeking an election in the minicam operator
unit (Case 7-RM-1157).
When Mamet received a copy of the RM petition he
phoned Elarbee and angrily accused him of sandbagging
Local 666. Elarbee explained that he had been in negoti-
ations with NABET when NABET presented him with
cards and demanded recognition. Elarbee explained to
Mamet that he had the cards checked and it appeared
that Local 666 did not represent a majority in the unit.
Mamet asked him, "What the hell did you think we rep-
resented when you took the unit over? You forced ev-
eryone into NABET anyhow." Elarbee replied that he
did not want to argue because Local 666 did not repre-
sent a majority, to what Mamet replied, "if we don't, its
because you took it away from us." Elarbee concluded
the conversation by saying that the Company would
wait to see what happened to the pending RM petition.
On July 23, Mamet filed the charge in this case.
On July 30, 1979, the RM petition was dismissed by
the Regional Director on the basis that a question con-
cerning representation could not be raised at that time
because of the settlement of the unit clarification cases
and the agreement of Respondent to bargain in accor-
dance with those determinations. His dismissal letter was
couched in almost the same language that was used to
dismiss NABET's petition on May 1. Mamet then called
Elarbee and asked him to negotiate a new contract with
Local 666. Elarbee declined, telling Mamet that he
thought the Regional Director was wrong and that he
was going to seek review of the decision by the Board.
Respondent then filed a petition for review with the
Board. This petition was denied on October 24. Mamet
then wrote Elarbee on October 29, noting that the peti-
tion for review had been denied and requesting a re-
sumption of bargaining. No reply was received. Respon-
dent filed with the Board a motion to reconsider its
denial of review of the Regional Director's decision. The
motion for reconsideration was denied on November 29,
1979. No bargaining has taken place since that time.
II1. ANALYSIS AND) CONCLUSIONS
A. The Settlement Agreement
In a line of cases beginning with Pool Foundry and Ma-
chine Company9 the Board has held that, for a reasonable
period following the execution of a settlement agreement
relating to a refusal-to-bargain charge, the majority status
of the bargaining agent may not be questioned so that
the parties may have an opportunity to establish a bar-
gaining relationship and to engage in collective bargain-
ing. When the incumbent union has been certified and a
refusal to bargain has taken place during the initial certi-
fication year, the Board will extend the certification year
for a period of time which is equal to the period in
which the employer ignored the union's certificaton. '
In other cases, the insulated period will be merely a
"reasonable time" sufficient to permit the bargaining re-
lationship to succeed." To warrant the application of
this rule, the settlement between the parties need not be
conventional Board settlement agreement executed on
standard form 4775, with notice form 4727 attached. A
9 95 NLRB 34 (1951), enfd. 192 F.2d 740 (4th Cir.). See also Theodore
P Monsours, d/b/a Ted Mansour's Market, 199 NLRB 218 (1972); Geb-
hardi-Vogel Tanning Company, 154 NLRB 913 (1965); Vantran Electric
Corporation, 231 NLRB 1014 (1977): Yellow Front Stores db/a Se-Low
Discount, 205 NLRB 449 (1973).
0 Prjde Refining, Inc., 224 NLRB 1353 (1976).
" Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583 (1966). A bargaining
unit is subject to Board clarification under Sec 9 of the Act, regardless
of whether recognition was originally extended (on a oluntary basis or as
the result of a Board certification. Brotherhood of Locomorive Firemen and
Enginemen. 145 NLRH 1521 (1964)
555
I)tCISI()NS OF NATI()NAI. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
non-Board agreement which accompanies or accom-
plishes the withdrawal of a charge and an outstanding
complaint is entitled to the same deference during the
post-settlement period. 12 The rationale behind the
Board's policy of insulating a reasonable period of time
from challenges to the bargaining agent's status was re-
cently restated by the Seventh Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Key
Motors Corporation, 579 F.2d 1388, 1390-91 (1978), as fol-
lows:
The Board has implicitly made the determination
that employee free choice may be temporarily sacri-
ficed (in that an employer may be forced to bargain
with a union that no longer has the support of a
majority of the employees) for a "reasonable time"
so as to give the bargaining relationship an opportu-
nity to succeed and thereby promote industrial sta-
bility. We have no difficulty with this determina-
tion.
Respondent attempts herein to avoid the impact of this
rule by contending that it never entered into a settlement
agreement disposing of the unfair labor practice com-
plaint issued in Case 7-CA-15903, in which it was
charged with an unlawful refusal to bargain with Local
666, and that the document which it executed with Local
666 on April 11 is not a settlement agreement disposing
of a Board complaint but a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, the terms and conditions of which would not pre-
clude any party from raising a question concerning rep-
resentation upon the expiration thereof. The Regional
Director acted in a manner contrary to these contentions
on two occasions, the Board by implication disposed of
this contention adversely to Respondent on one occasion,
and so will .
As noted above, no particular formalities need attend
the settlement of a refusal to bargain complaint in order
to invoke the Poole Foundry doctrine. What is important
is that parties litigating recognition decide to end their
dispute and negotiate a contract. In this case, what oper-
ated to settle the outstanding unfair labor practice com-
plaint in Case 7-CA-15903 were the telegrams sent by
Elarbee and Mamet on April 5 and the Regional Direc-
tor's order dated April 6, not the document which the
parties executed thereafter on April 11. By that time the
complaint had been withdrawn. Had the parties never
executed the April 11 compliance agreement set forth
above, the refusal-to-bargain complaint would still have
been disposed of and the nascent bargaining relationship
between Local 666 and Respondent would have been le-
gally entitled to a reasonable time from that point for-
ward to become established. In the first of these tele-
grams Elarbee told Mamet that Respondent would
comply with the unit clarification decisions, extend rec-
ognition to Local 666 as the representative of minicam
operators, and negotiate a contract covering these em-
ployees. Then 3-1/2 hours later, Mamet sent a telegram
to the Regional Director withdrawing the charge be-
cause the Respondent had extended recognition. On the
following day, the Regional Director approved the with-
i2 Straus C'ommunications, Inc., 246 NL.RB 846 (1980). enfd 625 ; 2d
458 (2d Cir.).
drawal of the charge and dismissed the outstanding com-
plaint, reciting in the preamble to his order the fact that
Respondent had notified him that it was extending recog-
nition to Local 66613 and that Local 666 had withdrawn
the charge. In light of this exchange, as well as Elarbee's
own versions of his conversation with Mamet on April 4,
it is idle for Respondent to argue now that an agreement
to grant recognition contained in the April 5 telegram
was not a quid pro quo for Mamet's telegram to the Re-
gional Director withdrawing the charge. Certainly the
Regional Director understood it as such when he ap-
proved of this action and brought the proceedings in
Case 7-CA-15903 to an end, and so did Mamet.' 4 It is
from this event that a reasonable time to permit the bar-
gaining relationship to succeed, demanded by Poole
Foundry and its progeny, should be measured. Moreover,
this agreement, accomplished by an exchange of tele-
grams and the issuance of a regional office order, is un-
sullied by reference to any particular terms or conditions
of employment which the Fifth Circuit in Pride Refining,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B.R' and the Seventh Circuit in N.L.R.B.
v. Vantran Electric Corporation 6 looked upon as trans-
forming a settlement agreement into a collective-bargain-
ing contract. Accordingly, I will count a reasonable time
for bargaining by Respondent and Local 666 as begin-
ning on April 6, 1979.
Nor should the execution of the compliance agreement
5 days later terminate the running of a "reasonable
time." As discussed more fully infra, this agreement and
the extension thereof should be deemed to define reason-
ableness rather than to frustrate it. When Local 666 and
Respondent agreed to establish a bargaining relationship
for the first time, there was already in existence a con-
tract which had been dormant for nearly 3 years but
which still had, by its terms, about 30 days to run. In this
agreement, WWJ, the predecessor in interest of this Re-
spondent, and Local 666 had agreed upon a salary scale
for technicians amounting to $440 per week for the final
year, had agreed to a union-security clause, and had
agreed to a recognition clause, although the latter provi-
sion did not provide for minicam operators. Respondent
herein has never disavowed its status as successor to
WWJ. A Board order emanating from the complaint in
Case 7-CA-15903 could have called upon Respondent to
give effect to the terms and conditions of the WWJ
Local 666 agreement' 7 and, in so doing, could have ap-
plied and extended the recognition agreement and the
union-security clause therein to the members of the re-
cently clarified bargaining unit. The only provisions of
the April 11 compliance agreement which could not
have found their way into a Board order are the items
F: Ilarbec was simply in error when he testified that he did not corn-
mulicate with the Regional Office in regard to the settlement of the
unfair labor practice complaint. The language of the telegram, a copy of
which was sent to the Regional Director, speaks for itself.
'4 I am at a loss to understand Respondent's argument that Board law
or policy prevented it from promising recognition in order to obtain the
withdrawal of the refusal-to-bargain charge. he Regional Director had
no trouble with this arrangement and neither do I.
is 555 F 2d 453 (1977).
580 rF2d 921 (1978).
7 See (' & S Industries, Inc., 158 NLRB 454 (1966)
556
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
calling for a 30-day extension of the contract, retroacti-
vity of economic benefits which might be negotiated in a
future contract, and the expression of compliance with
the notification provisions of Section 8(d) of the Act.
Such provisions do not make the compliance agreement
into something more than its name implies. These sec-
tions were designed merely to set the stage for a resump-
tion of bargaining and of a bargaining relationship at a
more leisurely pace than would have been the case had
the parties felt impelled to negotiate a contract before
the May 3 expiration date of the old contract. The same
holds true for the extension of the compliance agreement
until August 15. Like the original document the exten-
sion was designed to accomodate the establishment of a
bargaining relationship and further negotiations at times
which best suited the schedules of both parties, not to es-
tablish wages, hours, and terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
B. The Test of Reasonableness
In determining what constitutes a reasonable time for
purposes of insulating a union's status from challenge,
hard and fast limitations are difficult if not impossible to
draw. In Poole Foundry, supra, the Board found that a 3-
1/2-month time period following the resumption of a
bargaining relationship was insufficient to give a newly
established bargaining relationship a fair chance to suc-
ceed. In Keller Plastics, supra, 3 weeks was deemed to be
enough. In Yellow Front Stores, supra, 39 days was found
to be reasonable, while in N. J. MacDonald & Sons, Inc..
155 NLRB 57 (1965), a 6-month period was found not be
an unreasonable time to wait. Perhaps the most reliable
and most practical test of reasonableness is the one the
Board used in Pride Refining Company, supra, when it
concluded that the parties themselves had established
their own reasonable time from by agreeing to a settle-
ment which itself set out an expiration date. This ap-
proach is well designed to fit the facts of this case, inas-
much as the parties herein established for themselves a
time frame for completing work on a new contract. Ac-
cordingly, I conclude that a reasonable time for the es-
tablishment of a collective-bargaining relationship be-
tween the parties to this dispute did not elapse until at
least August 15, 1979, when the compliance agreement
expired by its own terms. The Regional Director implied
as much when he dismissed the NABET petition on May
I and the Employer's RM petition on July 28. The
Board implied as much when it affirmed the Regional
Director on October 23, and I explicitly conclude the
same herein. Accordingly, when Respondent herein
withdrew recognition from Local 666 on July 12 and re-
fused to bargain further with it, it was not free to enter-
tain a challenge to Local 666's majority status and violat-
ed Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by its acts and con-
duct.
C. Respondents Good-Faith Doubt of Local 666 '
Majority Status
Respondent premised its withdrawal of recognition
from Local 666 not only on the contention that it was
free to do so but also that it had been presented with a
substantiated claim by a rival union that, in fact, the rival
union and not Local 666 was the majority representative
in the unit in question. This contention also bears exami-
nation.
Respondent based its good-faith doubt of Local 666's
continued majority status as as of July 12 upon a report
by a mediator that authorization cards presented to him
by NABET bore the signatures of individuals whose
names appeared on a current list of cameramen employ-
ees. The employer never saw the cards nor did I see the
cards in this proceeding. Were this a so-called Gissel'8
case, in which NABET was relying on these cards to es-
tablish its majority status, such evidence would hardly
support such a finding. However, assuming that Respon-
dent may do what the Board may not-namely, deprive
a union of its status as bargaining agent on the basis of
multiple hearsay, the action of Respondent herein on
July 12 falls far short of a good-faith doubt.
Back in 1976, Respondent's predecessor in interest dis-
continued recognizing Local 666 as and when it discon-
tinued the use of film cameras and introduced the use of
minicams. As found by the Regional Director and af-
firmed by the Board, WWJ did not assign work from
one bargaining unit to another. It simply reassigned bar-
gaining agents to the same employees as it changed the
tools with which they worked. In so doing, WWJ began
covering news events with more expensive cameras and
less expensive cameramen. As minicams came to replace
film cameras entirely, NABET came to replace Local
666 as the recognized bargaining agent of the cameramen
to the point where a Local 666 bargaining unit could be
found only on paper. There existed an outstanding con-
tract between the parties but it eventually covered no
one. Elarbee was well aware of this history when, on
April 2, he told Mamet he would need some time to "put
it together" because the cameramen were covered by the
NABET agreement.
The interference with protected activities and the as-
sistance to NABET, which WWJ perpetrated when its
vice president told cameramen that they would be repre-
sented by NABET after the introduction of minicams, is
now beyond the Board's official reach, but the aroma
emanating from this patently illegal conduct lingers on
and makes a mockery of any present claim that employee
freedom of choice and principles of industrial democracy
are somehow in jeopardy if an election cannot immedi-
ately take place. NABET presented evidence herein that
it told ex-Local 666 cameramen that, so long as litigation
was pending concerning the dispute over the introduc-
tion of the minicam, it would not enforce the union-secu-
rity clause in its contract which required all unit mem-
bers to become NABET members after 30 days of em-
ployment. The Employer testified that it assumed that all
cameraman were now NABET members and were
paying dues. While this forebearance on the part of
NABET may have preserved it from the disgorgement
of illegally collected dues, it in no way detracts from the
inherently coercive impact upon employee rights which
stems from the mere existence of a union security clause
l I . R s (iB l i ':, d a( , (, ;th. 1 5 S .75 (1969)
557
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed upon between an employer and a union not enti-
tled to represent some of the employees covered by the
clause. The record herein reflects that none of the
NABET authorization cards upon which it based its
claim of majority on July 12 had been achieved during a
period of time when Respondent herein was performing
its statutory duty of recognizing the proper bargaining
agent for its cameramen and when the cameramen were
free from the terms and conditions of the NABET con-
tract. NABET was simply trying to achieve squatters
rights in this bargaining unit, signing up a number of ex-
members of Local 666 at a time it had achieved recogni-
tion through unlawful assistance and later attempting to
preserve those rights by asking the same individuals to
reaffirm what it had no business asking of them on the
first place. As the inheritor of WWJ's employees and the
contracts covering them, Respondent herein cannot ac-
quire present profit from its predecessor's wrongdoing
and still maintain that it is acting in good faith. Had
WWJ still employed the cameramen whose bargaining
agent is here in question and had it, rather than Respon-
dent, been presented with the NABET cards on July 12,
it could not assert good faith in doubting Local 666's
continuing claim to be the bargaining agent. There is no
reason to permit Respondent to disassociate itself from
these critical facts in the bargaining history of this unit.
Accordingly, in light of this history, I conclude that Re-
spondent herein could not have had, and did not have, a
good-faith doubt of Local 666's majority status on July
12 when it received the mediator's report of a NABET
card check and that, even if a question concerning repre-
sentation could have been raised at that time, Respon-
dent's withdrawal of recognition from Local 666 violated
Section 8 (a)(l) and (5) of the Act.
D. NABET's Due Process Claim
Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act does
not provide for judicial or other further review of the
Board's actions in representation matters. An employer
aggrieved by an adverse determination in a representa-
tion matter can refuse to honor a certification and ulti-
mately obtain further Board and court review by com-
mitting a punitive unfair labor practice in refusing to
honor the certification. This review takes place in the
course of litigating a complaint proceeding. A labor or-
ganization aggrieved by an adverse determination in a
representation case has no such option and no such op-
portunity for further appeal. What applies to convention-
al questions arising before the certification of a represen-
tative (or the certification of results of an election) ap-
plies with equal force to unit clarification determinations.
An employer can challenge them by refusing to bargain
but a labor organization that is unhappy with the clarifi-
cation of a unit has no further recourse. When in April
1979, Respondent herein agreed to honor the unit clarifi-
cations which had been made in Cases 7-UC-131 and 7-
UC-146, the disputes therein as to who was the proper
representative of minicam operators as well as the under-
lying question of whether the dispute was in fact a repre-
sentation question at all were brought to a final and un-
reviewable end.
The same can be said for NABET's contention that it
was denied procedural due process by the Regional Di-
rector in Case 7-UC-146. NABET brought this conten-
tion to the Board in that case without avail. It advanced
the same claim in the representation case it filed in April
1979 without avail, and it makes the same claim here.
The fact that its attack upon the decision in Case 7-UC-
146, on whatever grounds, has been brought to an end
by the Employer's agreement to abide by the results in
that case does not mean that NABET has a forum in this
proceeding to press the same arguments it unsuccessfully
advanced in other cases on other occasions. According-
ly, the contentions of the party in interest should be dis-
missed.
Upon a consideration of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole,
I make the following:
Ill. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent herein has committed
an unfair labor practice, I will recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act. I will also require that Respon-
dent recognize Local 666 as the bargaining agent for its
minicam operators and to bargain collectively in good
faith with it. I will further recommend that Respondent
be required to post the usual notice advising its employ-
ees of their rights and of the results in this case.
The Charging Party has requested me to recommend
to the Board a Tiidee remedy, so-called because the
Board once ordered such a remedy in 1972 on a case
called Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234 (1972). A
Tiidee remedy includes a requirement that an employer
found guilty of an unfair labor practice be required to re-
imburse a union for organizing expenses and costs of liti-
gation, including, attorney's fees. This case does not pre-
sent the same kind or degree of employer misconduct
found in Tiidee, so I decline to recommend the remedy.
CONCL.USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent WDIV Post-Newsweek Stations, Michi-
gan, Inc., is now and at all time material herein has been
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Photographers of the Motion Picture
Industry, Local 666, IATSE, AFL-CIO, and National
Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians,
AFL-CIO, are respectively labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time cameramen em-
ployed by the Respondent at its Detroit, Michigan, tele-
vision station for the purpose of photographing news,
factual and documentary films, including but not limited
to operators of sound and photographic equipment
known as "mini-cams," and excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all time material herein, Local 666 is and has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
558
WDIV POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS
all of the employees in the unit found appropriate in
Conclusions of Law 3 for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By withdrawing recognition from Local 666 and re-
fusing to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees em-
ployed in the unit found appropriate in Conclusion of
Law 3, Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(l) and
(5) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice has a close, inti-
mate, and adverse effect on the free flow of commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record herein
considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I make the following recommended:
ORDER' 9
The Respondent, WDIV Post-Newsweek Stations,
Michigan, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
International Photographers of the Motion Picture In-
dustry, Local 666, IATSE, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all of the full-time
and regular part-time cameramen employed at its De-
troit, Michigan, television station for the purpose of pho-
tographing news, and factual and documentary films, in-
cluding but not limited to operators of sound and photo-
graphic equipment known as "mini-cams," and excluding
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
"t In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 11)246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Lahor Relations Board, Ihe
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102 4 the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by he Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively in
good faith with International Photographers of the
Motion Picture Industry, Local 666, IATSE, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all of its full-time and regular part-time cameramen em-
ployed at its Detroit, Michigan, television station for the
purpose of photographing news, and factual and docu-
mentary films, including but not limited to operators of
sound and photographic equipment known as "mini-
cams," and excluding office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, and, if an agree-
ment is reached, embody the same in a signed written
contract.
(b) Post at its television station in Detroit, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by a rep-
resentative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by Respon-
dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order. what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
"' In the the evenl that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
Ulnited Slates Corlt of r.Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted
by Order of the National t.abor Relations Board" shall rad "Posted Pur-
suant to a udgment of the United States Ciourt of ppeals Enforcing an
()rder of the National Labor Relations Bloard"
559