NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1944)

are owned by national networks and these national net¬ works, with an interest in their relations with the Union because of the over-all network operations, are influenced by considerations that do not obtain in the case of the independent WMAL. The Hearing Officer concludes that the assigned fee feature is the prevailing pattern in the Washington area. While WRC and WTOP are owned by national head¬ quarters, Station WOL, like WMAL, is a national network affiliate. It, like one of the smaller stations, has agreed to the fee system. The Hearing Officer believes that the establishment of this method of payment in Washington by all stations except the one here involved, taken in con¬ junction with the fact, mentioned above, that the old con¬ tract defines the competitive area as Washington, D. C., must be given consideration in arriving at the recommen¬ dation to be made in this case. The National Pattern The Union contends that the provisions of contracts between the Union and radio stations outside of Washing¬ ton are irrelevant. Testimony was given by representa¬ tives of the Company on the national pattern, without direct assertion so far as the record reveals, that devi¬ ations between the national and the Washington patterns are of controlling importance. Testimony on the national pattern was also given by a witness for the Union. This testimony revealed that in New York, as well as in Wash¬ ington, there are contracts involving local commercial fees; that in Cincinnati likewise such fees are included in the contracts; and that in other cities various compro¬ mises with the assigned commercial fee proposal here in¬ volved have been worked out. Apparently three general types of compromises have been worked out. The Hearing Officer finds that the assigned commercial fee feature involved in this case does not occupy the place in the national pattern that it does in Washington, but that it or variations of it obtain at various places through¬ out the country. Also, the national pattern does not seem to be the one which should receive the weight in view of the already sketched circumstances of this case that is given to the Washington pattern. In view of the fact that the assigned commercial fee feature is not peculiar to Washington and in view of the already stated conclusion that the Washington pattern is the one of the greater relevance in this case, the Hearing Officer cannot regard the absence of the assigned fee provision in a good many cities, and the deviations from it in others, as dictating that this Washington station should not adopt the method of payment prevailing there. Relative Effort in Sustaining and Commercial Broadcasts The Company has contended that sustaining programs, for which it is not compensated by one of its customers, involved as great or greater, skill and effort than do com¬ mercial broadcasts. The Union through statements of its representatives and testimony of a witness has contended that commercials involve greater effort on the part of — make greater demands upon — the announcer than do selectives. All of the material introduced has been given care¬ ful consideration. The Hearing Officer does not find that this material establishes the fact of greater effort for skill in the case of commercial broadcasts. The "Competitive Advantage" Issue The Union’s position is that to permit WMAL to com¬ pensate solely on the basis of a flat salary, while its com¬ petitors in Washington pay fees for assigned commercials, would place the latter at an unfair competitive advantage. This contention was predicated upon the hypothesis that under the flat salary arrangement there would not be opportunity to charge back to the Company the remuner¬ ation of the announcer, while under its proposal the Com¬ pany has the privilege of charging this back to the sponsor as a talent fee. Testimony was also introduced indicating that at least in some cases the competing companies do charge back the announcers’ fee. It was also brought out, April 28, 1944-138 however, that there is nothing to prevent stations with assigned commercial fees from absorbing these fees if they wish to, and that a station having the flat salary arrange¬ ment could, upon agreement with their customers, charge an announcer’s or “talent” fee. Whether or not WMAL could absorb the fee appears, therefore, to be a matter of its decision in this matter of business policy and of the arrangements it could negotiate with its customers. The “competitive advantage” issue does not, therefore, seem to the Hearing Officer to be one of controlling importance; but uniformity in the method of wage payment among competing stations obviously would eliminate any develop¬ ment of competitive advantage that might obtain as a result of variations in these methods of wage payment. Approval by War Labor Board The Union takes the position that the method of in¬ creasing monthly remuneration of the announcers that it proposes has been approved by the War Labor Board, whereas an increase in flat salaries such as the Company proposes (i.e., an increase from $200 per month to $250) has not been. It has further contended that the increase in flat salaries is not allowable under the Little Steel formula. The Company, on the other hand, has contended that the approval by the War Labor Board of assigned fees for other Washington stations was tantamount to in¬ creasing the pay of the staff announcers, that since the basic question under the stabilization program is the in¬ crease in money wages rather than the method of pay¬ ment, there is no reason why approval of its method should not be forthcoming and that the approval of the com¬ mercial fee scales in contrast to other stations did not con¬ stitute approval of the principle of assigned commercial fees. On August 10, 1943, the WRC schedule was ap¬ proved, and later, according to testimony during the hear¬ ing, station WOL was advised that in view of the WRC precedent it need not submit for approval the scale of fees it had submitted. The Hearing Officer believes in this matter his function is chiefly that of recording the positions of the parties, not in deciding whether the ap¬ proval of the assigned fee schedules established by other stations was in effect an approval of wage increases within the stabilization program. The present base pay, as al¬ ready stated, is $200 per month. Examination of the con¬ tract of March, 1940 shows that the base pay there agreed upon was $180 per month. In answer to the query of the Hearing Officer it was stated that there has been no in¬ crease since January 1, 1941; and also that the March, 1940 scale had obtained since then. Since the scale in that contract was $180 a month, it is patent (a fact revealed by examination of the exhibits since the hearing) that either the present salaries of $200 per month began to be paid subsequent to the signing of this contract or else that immediately thereafter the Company be'fan paying $200 a month. It is stated in the record, ht wever, that there has been no increase since January 1, 1941. The increase in remuneration under either the Company’s pro¬ posal or the Union’s proposal would be, accordingly, about 25 per cent. Retroactive Date The Union has pointed out that negotiations broke down on August 22, 1943 because the Company refused to con¬ tinue with them, and its position is that any changes in the existing salary arrangements should be retroactive to that date. The Company’s position is that it proceeded in good faith, that it was not responsible for delays in the negotiations, that there should be no retroactive clause in the Board’s Directive, but that if a retroactive date is set such date should be not earlier than that of certification of the case to the Board — October 15, 1943. Union Ex¬ hibit No. 3 shows that negotiations did continue on through October 22, 1943, and testimony during the hearing — while indicating considerable delay as a result of changes in the personnel of Union representatives, vacations on the part of those who served, and other reasons — did not indicate a lack of good faith bargaining. It is evident that an impasse was reached on August 22, 1943, and the period from August 22 to October 15, 1943 was one of efforts on the part of the United States Conciliation Service to bring the