AH BELO CORPORATION (WFAA-TV) v. NLRB

• Decision Date: 28 July 1969
• Docket Number: 26459.,No. 25991,25991
• Citation: 411 F.2d 959
• Parties: A. H. BELO CORPORATION (WFAA-TV), Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. LOCAL UNION 1257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. A. H. BELO CORPORATION (WFAA-TV), Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

411 F.2d 959 (1969)

A. H. BELO CORPORATION (WFAA-TV), Petitioner, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

LOCAL UNION 1257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v.A. H. BELO CORPORATION (WFAA-TV), Respondent.

Nos. 25991, 26459.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 23, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1969.

Larry M. Lesh, Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, Joseph Alton Jenkins, Joseph Alton Jenkins & Associates, Dallas, Tex., for A. H. Belo Corporation.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R .B., Washington, D. C., Elmer P. Davis, Director, 16th Region, N. L. R. B., Fort Worth, Tex., Gary Green, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter Kinzler, Atty., for N. L. R. B.

L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy, Levy & Richards, Dallas, Tex., for Local Union 1257 of the Intl. Brotherhood of Elec. Wkrs., AFL-CIO.

Before COLEMAN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and SCOTT, District Judge.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge:

This is a proceeding to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued against the petitioner, A. H. Belo Corporation(WFAA-TV), April 17, 1968.Except as to the Cedar Hill situation the Board orders will be enforced.

In its decision and order, the Board found that Belo Corporation had violated §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., by failing and refusing to meet with the union at reasonable times for purposes of collective bargaining, by conducting negotiations with the union without a sincere desire to reach an agreement, and by unilaterally making changes in the working conditions of its employees during the period of collective bargaining.

The Board ordered the company to cease and desist from refusing to bargain in good faith with the union and from discontinuing the normal and regular wage increases and other benefits.Affirmatively the company was ordered to bargain in good faith, to meet and confer at reasonable times, to afford the union an opportunity to bargain collectively with respect to any changes in wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment, and to make whole its employees for any losses suffered as a result of its discontinuance of wage increases.

Belo Corporation, a Dallas, Texas corporation, is the owner and operator of radio stations WFAA-AM and WFAA-FM, and television station WFAA-TV.It also publishes the Dallas Morning News, a daily newspaper.The unfair labor practices charged concerned only the company's operation of WFAA-TV.

In October 1965, Local 1257, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, claimed representation of a majority of the engineering department employees of WFAA-TV (exclusive of production and maintenance employees, general office workers and announcers) and sought recognition from the company as the exclusive bargaining agent of those employees.Less than a month later, the company granted the union recognition, stating that there was no necessity for either a card check or an election.

Negotiations for a contract began a short time later.During the course of the negotiations, the parties met twenty-seven times, from March 3, 1966 to May 16, 1967.It was the company's position at the beginning and throughout the sessions that because of bargaining commitments with other unions it would be unable to meet more than once a week for a period of two hours.The company was usually represented by Richard Blum and Audrey Jenkins, while A. R. Brewton spoke for the union.

At the first meeting, the union submitted a comprehensive thirty-four page proposal.The company asked for a delay in further meetings in order to have a chance to study it.After waiting two months the company countered with a four page proposal, including only such basic subjects as hours and wages, omitting items dealing with grievance-arbitration procedures, vacation benefits, and no-strike, no lockout provisions.At the third meeting, the company flatly rejected the union's requests for a no-strike, no-lockout clause and an automatic renewal clause.

On May 31, the company rejected the suggestion that the contract include a provision that an employee could be discharged only for "just cause", insisting that it had a right to discharge any employee for any reason not prohibited by the Act.At that point, Brewton, the union negotiator, remarked to the company negotiator, Blum, "You must feel the Company is God."To that, Blum retorted,"We are God as far as the employees * * * wages, hours, and working conditions."

The parties met again June 7, but only Jenkins was present to represent the company.Overtime pay was discussed.Although the company's formal proposal was for overtime after 40 hours, Jenkins admitted that the company's newspaper bargaining units were paid overtime after a certain prescribed shift.The union then requested that the Local 1257 employees be paid on such basis.Jenkins was non-committal.When Jenkins was asked about vacation benefits, he replied that they were included in the company's rule book and could possibly be included in the contract.He stated that he personally had no objection to making the rule book available to the union.

At the next meeting, Blum was present and announced that he was opposed to the company's paying overtime after a prescribed shift, since, in his opinion, anything that was costlier to the company would be considered unreasonable.(The company did ultimately agree to the union's overtime proposal.)Blum also rejected the union's proposal that the company's existing practice as to sickness, retirement, and death benefits be incorporated into the bargaining agreement, claiming that the company preferred to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis.This same position was taken regarding jury pay.At this meeting Brewton sought to obtain longer, more frequent bargaining sessions, and although Blum stated that the company might be able to add an extra session occasionally, the sessions proceeded substantially as before.Blum did indicate that he would be on vacation for three weeks during July and August.

On July 12, the company rejected, as unreasonable, the union's proposal for seven paid holidays, certain safety measures, and travel pay.Although Blum did agree to submit in writing the company's present practice on travel pay, this was never done.At the following meeting, the company again stated its refusal to put in writing its present practice regarding sickness, retirement, and death benefits, insisting that these be reviewed on an individual basis.

The August 16 and September 6 sessions proved as futile and exasperating as the previous ones.On these occasions, the union's proposals as to employee discipline and discharge were again rejected.In addition, the company refused to include a provision on lay-offs in the proposed contract, reasoning that if one were included, the company would have to use it and lay employees off.Finally, the company rejected a proposal on arbitration, stating that it preferred to settle its differences in the courts.

The question of wages was raised at the September 13 meeting, with the company demanding that the agreement include the same wage rate as that used by it since late 1964.It specifically rejected the union's call for an interim wage increase, claiming that to grant it "would shorten the company's lever to take away a pressure point".The company wanted resolution of other matters before considering a wage increase.

Beginning with the September 20 session, a Federal mediator was present.The subject of wages was again raised but no progress was made.However, Blum did admit on questioning that wage increases had previously been given on an annual basis, or when overdue, made retroactive.Meetings were also held September 27 and October 18.At the September 27 meeting the company rejected outright the union's checkoff proposal.

The wage issue was raised for a third time on October 25, when the union again sought an interim increase, stating that it would not regard it as unlawful unilateral action.But once again the company refused, remarking that employee "suffering was necessary, if unfortunate".When the mediator noted that the terms upon which the parties ultimately agreed would have to be put in writing, the company replied that its formal proposal was its existing practices and the union would have to come over to it.

Work scheduling at the company's Cedar Hill transmitter station was discussed November 1.The company rejected the union's suggestion that the parties adopt the same provisions on that subject that the union had in its contracts with two other television stations, stating that it would manage the station "as it saw fit".On November 8, the company did concede to the first two paragraphs of the union's vacation proposal, but expressed a desire to develop its own language on the subject.

After cancellation of two sessions and time out for the Christmas holidays, the parties resumed bargaining January 10, 1967.The company again opposed a request that the parties meet more often, feeling that they should get two hours of negotiations out of their meetings before expanding them.Nevertheless, it did agree to extend the meetings past two hours.For a third time, on January 17, the company emphasized that it would not agree to putting its proposals on fringe benefits into writing, reasoning "We were all honorable men and didn't need specific language to cover some of the areas".In addition, the union's proposal for severance pay was rejected, since it would mean paying employees for work not actually done.At that session, Blum remarked that the employees could have a union if they wanted one but "would be better off...