COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), and its Local 404, herein called the Union, has charged that WBAI Pacifica Foundation, herein called Respondent, has been engaging in unfair labor practices as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., herein called the Act. Based thereon, the General Counsel, by the undersigned, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Section 102.15 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issues this Complaint and Notice of Hearing and alleges as follows:

1.    (a) The charge in Case No. 2-CA-301755 was filed by the Union on August 29, 1997, and a copy thereof was served by regular mail upon Respondent on or about September 4, 1997.

       (b) The charge in Case No. 2-CA-31274 was filed by the Union on February 23, 1998, and a copy thereof was served by regular mail upon Respondent on or about March 11, 1998.

       (c) The first amended charge in Case No.2-CA-31274 was filed by the Union on June 12, 1998, and a copy thereof was served by regular mail upon Respondent on or about June 16, 1998.

2.    (a) At all material times, Respondent has been a not-for-profit California corporation with offices located at 120 Wall Street, New York, New York, engaged in the operation and broadcast of a noncommercial FM radio station in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

       (b) Annually, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $2,000,000 and uses Associated Press wire services to produce its newscast.

3.    At all material times Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

4.    At all material times the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

5.    At all material times, the following-named individuals have held the respective positions set forth below and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent acting on its behalf:

————Pat Scott—————— Executive Director

————Valerie Van Isler——— WBAI General Manager

6.    (a) The following employees, herein called the Unit, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

Section I Recognition

1. The Employer recognizes the UE as the sole exclusive bargaining agent for all paid and unpaid, full-time or part-time programming, technical, bookkeeping, and clerical workers, excluding the Manager, Assistant Manager, and Program Director for the purposes of collectively bargaining in respect to wages, hours of employment, and all other terms and conditions of employment.
2. The Chief Engineer is recognized as a member of the bargaining unit but under any circumstances will be responsible for transmitter operation in order to maintain sub-carrier service.

7.    For many years, and at all times material herein, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit and has been recognized as the representative by Respondent. This recognition has been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective from 1995 to March 31, 1996, and has been extended to the present on a month to month basis commencing on April 1, 1996.

8.    On November 1, 1995, Respondent filed a petition in Case No. 2-UC-496, and on May 3, 1996, Respondent filed a petition in Case No. 2-UC-517, seeking to eliminate certain positions from the above unit, including, inter alia, the Business Director.

9.    On February 12, 1997, the undersigned Regional Director issued a Decision and Order Clarifying Unit finding, inter alia, that the Business Director was properly included within the appropriate unit.

10.    (a) In or about February 1997, the Respondent eliminated the Chief Engineer position, a bargaining unit position.

        (b) In or about March 1997, Respondent assigned the duties of the Chief Engineer to a management consultant, Jake Glanz.

        (c) Commencing in February 1998, Respondent created the non-unit position of Director of Technical Operations.

        (d) In or about April 1998, Respondent, by Valerie Van Isler, informed the Union the Director of Technical Operations position that performed the duties of the Chief Engineer was not a unit position.

11.     (a) In October 1997, Respondent eliminated the Folio Editor position, a bargaining unit position.

        (b) In January 1998, Respondent took certain of the duties of the Folio Editor and assigned them to non-unit or managerial employees.

12.     Commencing in or about early 1996, Respondent, acting through Valerie Van Isler, eliminated the following duties from the position of Business Director:

        (a) the responsibility of preparing budgets and attending the Friday policy meetings from the position.

        (b) the access to financial information and to financial officers who could provide required information.

13.     Respondent, acting by Valerie Van Isler, issued written warnings to Sybil Wong, Business Director:

        (a) In or about July 1997, issued a written warning to Sybil Wong for job abandonment;

        (b)In or about September 1997, issued a written warning to Sybil Wong for the manner she spoke to a Board member during a discussion of employees' rights;

14.     On or about January 30, 1998, by the conduct described above in paragraphs 12 and 13, Respondent caused the termination of its employee Sybil Wong.

15.     Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 14 because Sybil Wong assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.

16.     On or about January 26, 1998, Respondent eliminated the position of Business Director and replaced it with the position of Assistant Manager for Finances and Planning, a non-unit position.

17.     (a) On September 10, 1997, December 3, 1997, February 18, 1998 and April 19, 1999, the Union by letters, requested that Respondent provide it with the date of hire, salary, job title, job description (a detailed listing of job duties and expectations,) hours of work and names of immediate supervisors for Jake Glare;

        (b) a detailed description of (i) the reasons for and the process of the elimination of the traditional polio, including copies of all notices memos, etceteras to the employees and the listeners regarding the matter; (ii) the manner in which programming information is to be disseminated after the elimination of the traditional folio; and (iii) the name(s) and job title(s) of anyone who is involved in the production of the new “folio;”

        (c) regarding all of the individuals (both bargaining unit members and non-bargaining unit employees) who had or presently have any part in the production of the new “folio,” along with the above requested names and job titles, the Union needs the hours worked on “folio” duties and the rate of pay for such work, if any. Please note which duties were performed by unpaid staff, by management and by paid staff.

20.     On May 19, 1998 and April 19, 1999, the Union by letters requested that Respondent provide it with information on all consultants employed by WBAI since 1996, including their date of hire, job descriptions, dates of termination of their employment, pay rates, any benefits given to them and date of job postings.

21.     On May 19, 1998, June 30, 1998 and April 19, 1999, the Union, by letters, requested that Respondent provide it with information on all temporary workers hired by management to do the Business Director job, including all temporary agencies. Specifically, their names, hours worked, pay rates and job duties.

22.     The information requested by the Union, as described above in paragraphs 19 through 21, is necessary for, and relevant to the Union's performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.

23.     At all times material therein, Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested by it as described above in paragraphs 19 through 21.

24.     Respondent eliminated the bargaining unit positions set forth in paragraphs 10, 11 and 16 thereby unilaterally altering the scope of the Union's recognition.

25.     In the alternative, the Employer subcontracted the work of Chief Engineer as described above in paragraph 10 without affording the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain

26.     By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs 13 through 15, Respondent has discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of §8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

27.     By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 16, and 23 Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the representative of its employees, and Respondent thereby has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.

27. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that commencing at 9:30 A.M. (EST), on the 13^th day of September, 1999, and on consecutive days thereafter, a hearing will be conducted in the Mary Walker Taylor Hearing Room, at 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614, New York, New York, before a duly designated administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board on the allegations set forth in the above Complaint, at which time and place you will have the right to appear in person, or otherwise, and give testimony.

You are further notified that, pursuant to § 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Respondent shall file with the undersigned, acting in this matter as an agent of the National Labor Relations Board, an original and four (4) copies of an answer to said Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the service thereof, and that, unless Respondent does so, all of the allegations in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board. You are also notified that pursuant to said Rules and Regulations, Respondent shall serve a copy of its answer on each of the other parties.

Form NLRB-4338, Notice, and Form NLRB-4668, Statement of Standard Procedures in Formal Hearings Held Before the National Labor Relations Board in Unfair Labor Practices Cases, are attached.