BEFORE THE F.C.C. 70-904 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND PRESS Applications for Requisite Commission File Nos. 6463-C4- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Adopted August 26, 1970; Released September 1, 1970) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONERS JOHNSON AND H. REX LEE CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 1. The Commission has for consideration a petition filed on March 18, 1970 by ITT World Communications Inc. (ITT), pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, requesting partial reconsideration of the Commission's decision in the above-captioned matter, ITT World Communications Inc., 21 F.C.C. 2d 426, released February 16, 1970. In this decision, the Commission granted certain applications necessary to the merger of Press Wireless, Inc. (PW) into ITT, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions established certain procedures for the handling of complaints by employees relating to provisions adopted for their protection in Appendix A of the original Commission decision authorizing the transfer of control of PW to ITT, ITT World Communications Inc., 1 F.C.C. 2d 213 (1965). This condition is the only part of the decision that ITT requests that the Commission reconsider. 2. Copies of the petition were served by ITT on March 18, 1970 on the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the union representing the workers at ITT; the United Telegraph Workers, the union representing the workers at PW; and Miss May B. Gilhooley, whom ITT served in response to our request to serve an appropriate representative of the non-union employees. The CWA responded by letter dated March 27, 1970. 3. The labor procedures condition in the decision released February 16, 1970 requires that ITT settle all outstanding and future complaints with respect to compliance with Appendix A of the 1965 Authorization in the manner set forth in paragraph 29 of the decision. In that paragraph the Commission asserted its belief that, to the extent practicable, such complaints should be resolved by procedures usually followed in employer-employee disputes. The Commission provided in paragraph 29 that Appendix A complaints should be considered under the grievance procedure of ITT's labor contract without regard to any time limitation in such procedure. In the event the disputes are not settled under this procedure, they should, if the parties so desire, be submitted to the arbitration procedures of such contract. ITT must agree to settle such complaints under the foregoing procedures. Once such a complaint is settled under either of these procedures, the final decision is to be submitted to the Commission for review. 4. ITT raised a number of objections to the proposed procedures in its petition for partial reconsideration. The CWA responded with a letter simply stating that it supports the Commission's statement in paragraph 29 dealing with the need to establish procedures to handle complaints which may arise as a result of the Commission's 1965 authorization. 5. ITT points out that employee rights and protections provided for in Appendix A would, for all practical purposes, be inapplicable after July 28, 1971, and that nearly five years have passed without a single finding that the terms of Appendix A were violated, and that the incidence of complaints has been reduced substantially. ITT therefore argues that rather than introducing new procedures, which it alleges are unduly complicated and would not serve any useful purpose, we should permit the past practices to be continued. 6. It is true that there are no complaints currently pending before the Commission regarding violation of Appendix A. However, the previous incidence of union member complaints was quite high. While the Commission did consider the complaints, it concluded in the process that such complaints, involving as they did interpretation of labor conditions and existing labor contracts, could be handled more quickly and properly by persons experienced in the field. For this reason it required that the disputes be resolved by the procedures usually followed in employer-employee disputes. 7. ITT contends that the Commission's proposed procedures would unilaterally amend ITT's present labor agreement, and that this would violate the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended. We do not agree with this conclusion. The Commission's proposed procedures are not an amendment to the ITT labor agreement, but are rather a condition to an authorization and certificate which the Commission has issued. This condition is attached pursuant to the power granted to the Commission in Section 214 (c) to "attach to the issuance of the certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require." In this connection we note that ITT does not contend that the original conditions for the protection of employees in the 1965 order authorizing the merger were not within this power. The procedures specified in our 1970 order represent a relatively minor modification of those conditions and spell out the steps which should be taken to consider and if possible resolve complaints without reference to the Commission. A requirement for such procedures is well within the Commission's power. 8. In addition to the objections considered above, ITT raises specific objections to the use of the grievance and arbitration procedures as provided for in paragraph 29. ITT points out that the formal grievance procedure specified in its labor contract is now employed as a means of settling disputes involving bargaining unit personnel only and contends that a procedure under which the union could represent the interests of nonbargaining unit employees might be unfair to such employees. ITT further contends that, because all employees now have the right to complaint to their supervisor, the establishment of new procedures might impede the resolution of disputes. 9. We cannot agree with ITT's contentions in regard to the grievance procedure. We believe that, in connection with our labor conditions, all employees-union and non-union-seeking redress of grievances, should not be limited to direct complaints to agents of the employer and that the grievance procedure presently provided for in the labor agreement should be available to all employees. This procedure is currently in use, and has been tested by a considerable amount of experience in labor relations. The non-union employee should be protected by having the right to such representation as he desires, union or otherwise, in the handling of this complaint. Our order permits this. Of course union representation for a non-union employee is possible only if the employee requests it and the union is willing to furnish it. It also is important to note that in the past there has been a very low incidence of non-union complaints. In view of our and ITT's desire to avoid undue complication, we shall continue to provide that union and non-union employee complaints be handled by the existing grievance procedure. We think it simplifies rather than complicates procedural aspects to provide that such complaints be handled initially by the procedure now being used for other types of complaints, namely, grievance procedure. 10. ITT raises certain objections to the Commission's requirement for submission to arbitration, as opposed to the requirement for submission to grievance procedure. ITT asserts that arbitration may be employed only to resolve specific terms of its labor agreement. It also contends that binding arbitration is not an appropriate procedure for the interpretation of Commission policies and requirements, and that binding arbitration under the contract and subsequent review by the Commission are wholly inconsistent. 11. The original employee protection conditions were proposed by the union, involve employee rights, and may involve interpretation of existing and former labor contracts on which arbitrators are more expert than the Commission. We believe that the Commission can, in the exercise of its power to attach conditions, provide appropriate procedures for the resolution of disputes regarding the employee protection conditions. In our recent order, we provide for arbitration of such disputes in this matter. Nevertheless, even though arbitration may be appropriate in certain situations, we are now persuaded that it is unnecessary in the present situation to require arbitration in every instance, particularly in light of the probability that there will not be numerous additional complaints regarding such conditions during the remaining time that they will, for all practical purposes, be effective. Therefore, we believe that a satisfactory solution in the present case would be to provide that, if the dispute cannot be resolved by grievance procedure, the complainant may appeal directly to the Commission, which then will take such action as it considers appropriate. 12. Therefore, the portion of paragraph 29 requiring arbitration after grievance procedure should be superseded as follows: In the event that the complainant is not satisfied with the results after grievance procedure has been exhausted, the complainant may file wtih the Commission a brief statement as to the results of the grievance procedure, and the procedure that it believes should be followed thereafter in resolving the dispute and the reasons therefor. Such statement will be referred to ITT for comment. Detailed discussion of the merits of the controversy by either party should not be submitted at this stage. The Commission will then determine how the dispute will be resolved. 13. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the ITT petition for partial reconsideration should be granted in part, as set forth in paragraph 12, and otherwise should be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the petition by ITT World Communications Inc. for partial reconsideration of the Commission's decision providing for procedures for settlement of all outstanding and future complaints with respect to compliance with Appendix A of the 1965 authorization IS GRANTED IN PART, and our Memorandum, Opinion, Order and Certificate of February 16, 1970 (21 FCC 2d 426, 435) is amended as set forth in paragraph 12 of this Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the remaining part of the ITT petition for partial reconsideration is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the authorizations contained in the Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate of February 16, 1970, shall not be effective until ITT World Communications Inc., submits its agreement and undertaking to settle all outstanding and future complaints with respect to compliance with Appendix A of our 1965 Authorization, in the manner set forth in paragraph 29 of our Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate of February 16, 1970, as modified by paragraph 12 of this Order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 25 F.C.C. 2d F.C.C. 70-525 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of NEW JERSEY PUBLIC BROADCASTING CO., NEW Docket No. 18863, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Adopted May 20, 1970; Released May 21, 1970) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT E. LEE AND H. REX LEE DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 1. By Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted today, pursuant to decisions adopted in Dockets 18261 and 18262 concerning land mobile use of portions of the present UHF spectrum, the Commission has withdrawn from television use, for the near future, certain assignments on UHF Channels 14-20 near the top 10 urban areas of the United States. These withdrawals were necessary in order to afford short-range relief to the land mobile shortage in these areas, including, among others, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Chicago. In these cases, it was found that an adequate measure of land mobile relief (or any, in the case of Chicago) could be obtained only by withdrawing two assignments on which there were authorized, though not yet operating, stations, and a third for which a pending application was recently dismissed. These are Channel *20 at Santa Barbara, California; Channel 14 at Joliet, Illinois; and Channel *19 at New Brunswick, New Jersey. In the first case, a pending application for a new station was recently dismissed; the other two have permits and the permittees also have pending applications for modification of the authorized facilities. 2. Replacement channels have been added to the Table of Assignments contained in Section 73.606 of the Rules, to permit these parties to proceed with prosecution of their applications and prompt rendition of service, despite the "freeze" on the lower UHF assignments. Accordingly, we are herein ordering the Joliet and New Brunswick permittees to show cause why their outstanding authorizations should not be modified to specify Channels 66 (Joliet, Ill.) and *58 (New Brunswick, N.J.), respectively. 3. No channels are being removed from the Table of Assignments contained in Section 73.606 of the Rules. Appropriate footnotes are |