NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1944)

anEmzmxo WASHINGTON Phone NAtional 2080 J. H. Ryan, President C. E. Arney, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer Robert T. Bartley, Director of War Activities ; Lewis H. Avery, Director of Broadcast Advertising ; Willard D. Egolf, Assistant to the President ; Howard S. Frazier, Director of Engineering ; Paul F. Peter, Director of Research ; Arthur C. Stringer, Director of Promotion. FCC REVISES MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE (Continued from page 101) the taxpayer so elects, be treated as an involuntary conver¬ sion of such property within the meaning of subsection (f) of this section. For the purposes of subsection (f) of this section as made applicable by the provisions of this sub¬ section, stock of a corporation operating a radio broad¬ casting station, whether or not representing control of such corporation, shall be treated as property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted. The part of the gain, if any, upon such sale or exchange to which sub¬ section (f) of this section is not applied shall nevertheless not be recognized, if the taxpayer so elects, to the extent that it is applied to reduce the basis for determining gain or loss upon sale or exchange of property, of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation under section 23 (1) , remaining in the hands of the taxpayer immediately after the sale or exchange, or acquired in the same taxable year. The manner and amount of such reduction shall be determined under regulations prescribed by the Commis¬ sioner with the appoval of the Secretary. Any election made by the taxpayer under this subsection shall be made by a statement to that effect in his return for the taxable year in which the sale or exchange takes place (or, with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 1944, by a statement to that effect filed within six months after the date of the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1943 in such manner and form as may be prescribed by regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary) and such election shall be binding for the /taxable year and all subsequent taxable years.” (b) Taxable Years to Which Applicable. — The amend¬ ments made by this section shall be applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1942.” Editor’s Note: For additional discussion of this pro¬ vision, see NAB Tax Bulletin No. 3, dated December 24, 1943.) The Press Release accompanying the order stated : “In the consideration of individual applications under the provisions of Regulation 3.35 (Multiple Ownership Rule), the Commission will examine the facts in each case. In determining whether or not an overlapping of signal strength results in a standard broadcast station rendering primary service to “a substantial portion of the primary service area of another broadcast station” within the meaning of Section 3.35, the Commission will give consid¬ eration to location of centers of population and distribution of population, location of main studios, areas and popula¬ tions to which services of stations are directed as indicated by commercial business of stations, news broadcasts, sources of programs and talent, coverage claims and lis¬ tening audience.” WCQV WINS ARBITRATION AWARD WCOV and the IBEW Local No. 1299 entered into an arbitration agreement in the fall of 1942 with respect to certain disputed matters arising between them. The mat¬ ter was submitted for arbitration to tribunals of the American Arbitration Association. In an award opinion dated March 20, 1944, the majority of the board, H. 0. 102 — April 7, 1944 Davis and Abit Nix, find in favor of the broadcaster. Their Award and Opinion follows: “We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been desig¬ nated in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement en¬ tered into by the above-named Parties, and dated Septem¬ ber 1, 1942, and having been duly sworn according to law, and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the Parties, AWARD, as follows: “We find that the contract entered into on the first day of September, 1942, by and between the Capital Broadcast¬ ing Company, Inc., trading as Radio Station WCOV, Mont¬ gomery, Alabama, and Local Union No. 1299 of the Inter¬ national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, provided in Pararaph 2, Section 4 of Article 1, as follows: “ ‘It is understood and agreed that this Section of this agreement shall be opened on August 7th, 1943, for ne¬ gotiations with respect to having Technicians perform all work in connection with studio control boards.’ “Upon the hearing it developed that the Union desired that Technicians perform all work in connection with studio control boards, or that announcers and control board operators (not being technicians within the mean¬ ing of the contract) be required to become members of the Union. “The employer took the position that while the above quoted section opened the matter up for negotiations on August 7, 1943, it did not bind the employer to do anything except negotiate concerning the matter, and that it will be against the public interest, the interest of the employer, and the interest of the non-union employees to compel them to join the Union. “We award in favor of the contentions of the Capital Broadcasting Company and hold that under the evidence as presented and under the rules of the Federal Communi¬ cations Committee the employer should not be required to employ technicians for the operation of the studio control boards.” In dissenting, J. J. Buffington, the third member of the tribunal, wrote the following opinion: “I am reluctant to express an opinion on the question involved in the controversy between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Broadcasting Company, for the reason that there seems to be a mis¬ understanding of the real issue. It was my understanding that the Arbitrators were to pass on the sole question of jurisdiction. And the question of the application of Article I, section 4, which is purely jurisdictional, was the only submission for our consideration. “My experience as an arbitrator, especially of disputes between Employees and Employer, which covers more than thirty years, leads to the conclusion that we cannot agree upon the issue until we have a clear conception of the language contained in Article 1, section 4 of the agree¬ ment. “The language in Article 1, section 4 is a technical re¬ cital-. The purpose of this article, which was the question for the Arbitrators to consider, was to bring studio workers under the jurisdiction of the Union in the classification of Technicians. The object of this, apparently, was neither economic or prejudicial, but for the protection of both the Company and the Union against the encroachment of other organizations. This was brought out in the testi¬ mony. “The application of the provisions of the petition would not compel the employees in the Studio to become members of the Union where they were in the service prior to the Union’s acquiring such jurisdiction, but would hold them under protection of the Union agreement, and when new employees were taken in the service, the Union members should be given preference in employment. This is no new departure, but a regulation as old as the Union itself. It must be conceded that the public interest is paramount to both, the Company and the Union, and that in the award by the Board due consideration must be given the public interest. “It is a well established fact that jurisdictional disputes have been the cause of more public inconveniences within the past few years than all other labor disturbances com¬ bined. Therefore, it cannot be said, with any degree of consistency, that the public interest will be served by