American Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 1105 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of AMERICAN OIL CO31PANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF rrEADISTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA
Case No. C-2158.-Decided June 19,1942
Jurisdiction : petroleum and petroleum by-products marketing and distributing
industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: transfer and isolation of employees be-
cause of union activities ; questioning of employees as to reasons for union
membership; threats that union actiuty might result in reducing amount of
available work, encouragement of formation of unaffiliated union ; granting
of wage increases to discourage organizational activity
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist from unfair labor
practices.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Albert P. Wheatley, for the Board.
Mr. C. H. Thompson and Mr. James K. Eagen, Jr., of Baltimore,
Md., for the respondent.
Mr. Jacob J. Edelman, of Baltimore, Md., for the Union.
Mr. Fred A. Dewey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed by International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
herein called the -Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Bal-
timore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated March 4, 1942, against
American Oil Company, Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2. (6) and• (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing, were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
41N L R B,No 202.-
463892-42-vol 41--70 1105
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent : (1) discharged Norman Grover on
February 9, 1942, and has since- refused to reinstate him, because he
joined and assisted the Union; (2) from March 1939 to the date of the
issuance of the complaint has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act by: (a) urging, persuading, warning, and threatening its em-
ployees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union;
(b) making disparaging and derogatory remarks about the Union;
(c) questioning its employees concerning their union activities; (d)
promising and granting wage increases to its employees to discourage
union activity; (e) farming out part of its work to independent con-
tractors, because of the union activity of its employees; (f) reading at
a special meeting of its employees a prepared statement appealing to
them to vote against the Union in a forthcoming election to be con-
ducted by the Board; and (g) transferring employees to "isolated"
positions because of their union activity. The respondent filed its
answer on March 16, 1942, denying that it had committed any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 26 and 27, 1942, at
Baltimore, Maryland, before Will Maslow, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the. issues was af-
forded all parties. During the hearing the Trial Examiner made
rulings on numerous motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
On'April 9,1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Union,
wherein he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The• Trial
Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
that it take certain affirmative action. He further recommended that
the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices by contracting out part of its
work and by discharging Norman Grover.
The respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
brief in support thereof. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 1107
of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on
May 21, 1942. The respondent and the Union appeared by counsel
and presented oral argument. The Board has considered the excep-
tions and the brief filed by the respondent and, insofar as the exceptions
are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
American Oil Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pan-Amer-
ican Petroleum and Transport Company, is a Maryland corporation
with its principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. It is
engaged in the distribution and marketing of petroleum and petroleum
byproducts. It operates a terminal at Curtis Bay, Baltimore, Mary-
land, at which petroleum and petroleum products received by tanker
and barge from outside the State of Maryland are blended, stored, and
ultimately delivered by railroad and truck to points in 11 States and
the District of Columbia. During 1941 it received at its Curtis Bay
plant more than 20,000,000 gallons of gasoline and large quantities
of oil. It also operates a bulk plant and a garage in Baltimore,
herein called respectively the Liberty plant and the Clarkson plant.
The respondent employs approximately 6000 persons, of whom ap-
proximately 1000 work in Maryland and about 70 of whom are truck
drivers directly involved in this proceeding. The respondent admits
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning `of, the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, is a labor organization, admitting truck drivers employed by
the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On August 23, 1939, the Board issued its Decision and Order in a
prior proceeding against the respondent.' The Board found that the
respondent, by the statements and activities of the plant manager,
yard foreman, and chief clerk of its Curtis Bay plant between June
and November 1937, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
1Matter of American Oil Company, Inc (Curtis Bay Plant ) and Oil Workers International
Union, Local No. 411, 14 N. L. R. B 990.
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
employees. The Board further found that in December; 1937 the re--
spondent, through certain supervisory employees, had participated in
the formation of a labor organization among the Curtis Bay plant
employees. The Order of the Board required the respondent to cease
-and desist from dominating the organization and from interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by the Act, and directed the respondent to refuse to recog-
nize the dominated labor organization.2 _
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In February or March 1939, while the prior proceeding was pending,
the Union began to organize the Baltimore truck drivers of - the re-
spondent. Mulcahy, Schriner, and Rae, truck drivers at the Liberty
plant, distributed leaflets in the trucks and to employees for the first
meeting which was held in March 1939, and were active in the Union's
organizational campaign. Kahler, the Liberty plant manager, re-
moved the leaflets from the trucks. A second ,union meeting was held
about 2 weeks later, and approximately 40 drivers signed applications
for membership. On the same day, as shown by undisputed testi-
mony, a meeting was held in the locker rooms of the respondent's
Liberty plant. This meeting was called by the drivers who did not
want a union, and permission to hold this meeting on the respondent's
premises was secured by Fuller, 1 of the employees who was opposed
to unionization of the plant. Nastvogel, the respondent's assistant
plant manager, was present at the meeting but did not participate
therein. A vote to determine whether or not the majority of the
drivers favored the Union was taken and the Union won. Within a
week after these meetings, Mulcahy -was transferred to the respond-
ent's Curtis Bay plant to take the place of a driver named Hurley, and
Hurley was transferred to Mulcahy's job at the Liberty plant.' No
reason was given to Mulcahy for this transfer until he inquired of
Ward, the superintendent of the Ourtis Bay terminal. Ward replied
that Weber, the superintendent of the Liberty plant, reported that he
had had some "trouble" with Mulcahy and asked whether he would
trade Hurley for Mulcahy. Mulcahy testified, and we find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that he had had no trouble with Weber.4 At the
Liberty plant, Mulcahy had been 1 of a group of 85 drivers; at the
Curtis Bay plant he found himself isolated, driving the only truck
which operated from the loading racks of the plant. In view of the
2 The Board's Order was enforced on October 18.- 1940, but its scope was limited to the
Curtis Bav plant AT I R B v American Oil company, 114 P. (2d) 1009, (C C A 4)
Schriner and Rae were discharged. shortly prior toliulcahy's transfer
4 Neither Ward nor Weber testified at the hearing All statements herein attributed to
Ward and Weber are undenied and are based upon the testimony of witnesses whom the Trial
Examiner credited, as do we - -
i
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 1109-
circumstances surrounding Mulcahy's transfer, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondent transferred him because of and in
order to interfere with his union activities.
Mulcahy testified that shortly after he was transferred he was re-
quested by Dollinger, the respondent's divisional manager, through
Ward, superintendent at Curtis Bay; to go to Dollinger's office. When
he arrived at Dollinger's office there were 14 or 15 other drivers,
present, including Fuller, the employee who was opposed to the Union.
Fuller and another employee were talking to Dollinger, and Fuller was
-telling about "union trouble" at the plant of a customer, where he had
-just delivered some gas. When Mulcahy came in, Dollinger said, ac-
cording to Mulcahy, "Well, here is Mulcahy, he seems to be familiar
with the union . . . we will ask him what he has to say." Dollinger
then inquired concerning the grievances of the men and the reason for
the dissatisfaction of the drivers. The wage scale was discussed and
Dollinger said that if the men obtained a higher hourly scale he would
not have to work them as many hours and that if they received an,-
hourly rate instead of a monthly salary,he could arrange the working
hours so that they would not earn as much as they were presently mak-
ing on a monthly salary.
During March 1939, according to the testimony of several employees,
the Baltimore drivers were called to the offices of Dollinger and Weber,
singly and in groups, where they were questioned about the Union and
the reasons for their discontent. Norman Grover, a driver employed
at the Liberty plant, testified that he was questioned individually by
Dollinger about his reasons for joining the Union and that Dollinger-
remarked that if he wanted to, he could discharge the entire crew be-
-cause many other persons were applying for work. Grover further
testified that as he was leaving Dollinger's office, Dollinger patted him
on the shoulder and told him not to bite the hand that was feeding him.
Immediately following the conferences with Dollinger and Weber,
the drivers ceased their union activities. Dollinger admitted that he
knew the Union was 'organizing the respondent's employees in 1939,
but denied discussing union activities with the men singly or in groups
and denied generally the remarks attributed to him by Mulcahy and
Grover. Employees Barry and Grover testified that they were sent
to Dollinger's office by Weber -who, although present at the hearing,
did not testify. 'The Trial Examiner did not credit Dollinger's
'denials, nor do we. -
In February 1941, the "inside" employees of the Curtis Bay plant;
who worked inside the plant, canning and blending oil, began efforts
-at self-organization. Mulcahy interested himself in their behalf and
'obtained permission from the 'Union to hold a meeting in the -Union
hall. The meeting was field -on February 22, Mulcahy being the only
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
truck driver present. Two days later, as shown by uncontroverted
testimony, he was called into the office of Plant Manager Ward and
asked whether he had attended the meeting and what had taken place
there. Mulcahy admitted that he had attended the meeting, and told
Ward all about it. About 2 weeks later Mulcahy was transferred back
to the Liberty plant. When he inquired as to the reason for this
transfer, Weber replied that it was for the respondent's good. We
find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Mulcahy was trans-
ferred a second time by the respondent in order to prevent him from
assisting the inside employees in their efforts at self-organization.
Several weeks after Mulcahy's second transfer, the Union began
another effort to organize the respondent's truck drivers and conducted
several meetings. Thereafter, in June 1941, according to undisputed
testimony, Dollinger called together all the respondent's drivers and
addressed them. He promised them a wage increase of $10 a month,
informed them that the respondent had farmed out part of its hauling
work at Pittsburgh to an independent contractor, and urged them to
do more work. The wage increase was granted shortly thereafter.
On October 14, 1941, Joseph Jantz, the business representative of
the Union, called on F. A. Colonell, the respondent's sales manager,
a member' of its committee on labor relations and the highest ranking
representative of the respondent in the Baltimore area. Jantz asked
the respondent to bargain collectively with the Union, but Colonell
replied that the matter would have to be referred to the labor rela-
tions committee. During the discussion, Jantz suggested that the
respondent enter into a contract with the Union for the Baltimore
operations, as it had in Pittsburgh with another local of the Union.
Colonell replied that the demands of the Pittsburgh Union had been
so "severe" that the respondent had been forced to give its hauling
work to an outside contractor. He then stated, according to Jantz :
"If we got tight here in Baltimore . . . he would do the same thing
here." Colonell testified that he participated in the arrangement,
which was made in 1940, to farm out the hauling of gas and oil in
Pittsburgh and admitted discussing the matter with Jantz, but denied
that he said the respondent might act similarly in Baltimore. Under
these circumstances, we credit the testimony of Jantz, as did the Trial
Examiner.
On October 16, 1941, the same day that the Union filed with the
Board a petition for investigation and certification of representatives,.
the respondent entered into a contract with H. L. Shipley, by which
the latter undertook, as an independent contractor, to haul part of
the petroleum formerly transported by the respondent's own drivers.
The drivers displaced by Shipley's employees were transferred by the
respondent to the hauling of its fuel oil, an operation which began
AMERICAN , OIL COMPANY
with the onset of winter and for which the respondent normally
employed extra or temporary drivers. Although Colonell had
threatened in his discussion with Jantz to contract out the respond-
ent's hauling work and no effort was made by the respondent to inform
the employees of its reasons for the contract with Shipley, we find
as did the Trial Examiner, that the contract of October 16, 1941,
was entered into for business reasons unrelated to the union activities
of the respondent's employees.5
On December 18, 1941, following a hearing upon the Union's peti-
tion, the Board directed an election to be held among the monthly
salaried truck drivers employed by the respondent at its Liberty and
Clarkson plants.6 On Sunday, December 28, 1941, a non-working day
for most of the respondent's drivers, Dollinger called them to a meet-
ing on the respondent's premises where he read a prepared speech
and made other remarks to the drivers. Dollinger testified that he
had been approached by a number of drivers who came to him seeking
advice and information about the coming election and that he ar-
ranged the meeting to avoid answering their questions individually.
He further testified, and we find, that he wrote a speech which he
intended to deliver at the meeting and submitted it to the respondent's
legal department which was headed by C. H. Thompson, a member
of the respondent's committee on labor relations. The legal depart-
ment rejected the speech and prepared another which Dollinger was
instructed to and did deliver at the meeting. About 100 employees
were present at the meeting, in addition to Dollinger, Weber, Hum-
mel, Hatton, and Boyd, all supervisory employees of the respondent.
The complete text of speech follows : 7
1. The Company has been advised by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board that pursuant to a Petition filed by Truck Drivers
and Helpers, Local # 355, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, for
certification of said Union as the representative, for the purpose
of collective bargaining, of our truck drivers at the Clarkson
Street Plant and the Liberty Plant, the Board has directed an
Election to be held on January 5, 1942.
2. Those eligible to vote for or against the Union will be con-
fined to the regular employees on a monthly salary basis who
For several years the respondent had contracted out some of its hauling work and had
partially discontinued use of rail transportation . In October 1941 the respondent was
ordered by the War Production Board to return to rail transportation . According to Baker,
the respondent's traffic manager, whose testimony the Trial Examiner credited, this
resulted in depriving Shipley of work for which he had invested considerable money for
equipment and the respondent felt obligated to provide Shipley with other work.
Hatter of American Oil Company and Truok Drivers & Helpers, Local 355, International -
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America (A. F. L.),
37 N. L. R. B. 752.
7 The paragraph numbers and the italics do not appear in the original text.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were on the payroll during the pay period ending December 15,
1941. I believe that all of those present are qualified to vote
at said Election. It is important that each of you who are
qualified to vote do so, so that the result of the Election will
definitely reflect the majority opinion as to whether you should
or should not be represented by the Union.
3. I want each of you to • understand that it is your privilege
under, the Labor Act to make your own choice of a representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4. The Company fully realizes the importance of creating and
maintaining a high standard of cooperation between its officials
and subordinate employees that will assure an equally high stand-
ard of efficiency to the end that it may render a standard of
service to the public surpassed by none of its competitors. This
ideal of a high standard. of morale and efficiency cannot be
maintained if there is any failure on the part of either manage-
inent or the employees to assume their individual responsibilities
and to recognize their respective problems.
5. Those of you who have been with us several years can
'readily recall the fact that increases in wages have been granted
from year to year in substantial amounts and this has happened
twice in the past twelve months. There have also been other
Company considerations of importance, such as Group Insurance,
Sick Leave and Annuity Plans which are important to everyone
of you, to all of which the Company makes a substantial con-
tribution for your individual benefit.
6. The Company is definitely interested in your future well-
being and \I assure you that whenever I have the opportunity
to personally intercede on your behalf, for anything that is rea-'
sonable I will gladly do so.
7. The Management naturally, and I think properly so, has
the sincere feeling that the Company employees do not have to
go outside of the organization to seek representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
8. There is certainly no-reason why you can not directly ap-
proach the Management of this Company for an all-out discus-
sion of - any irregularities that you may feel exist through such
committee as you may decide upon to represent you.
- 9. There is really nothing complicated and nothing mysterious
at,all about the application of the National Labor Relations Act.
Without going into' all of the details of the Act, it has been held`
by the Supreme Court that workers everywhere have the right
to bargain collectively with their employers if they wish to do
so. 'It has been decided that employees may or may not form;
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 1113
their own Labor Organization or join an outside Labor Organ-
ization without any interference from their employers. The
right to bargain collectively is nothing new. Collective bargain-
ing simply means that instead of you going individually to the
boss or the management if you have a grievance or a complaint,
or when you want a raise in wages, or a change in hours of labor,
or anything of that sort, instead of doing that individually, you
all get together as a group and elect representatives and have
those representatives speak for you.
10. Employers may not assist in the formation of any Labor
Organization or may they prevent the formation of any such
Organization, or may they interfere with or prevent your joining
an Organization which you want to join and have it act for you.
Therefore, you will understand we can have nothing to do with
it. You now have three choices as I see it :
1. You can absolutely refrain, if you wish, from joining any
labor Organization-nobody can make you join and nobody can
prevent you from joining.
2. You can join an outside union, but nobody can make you
join and nobody can prevent you from joining.
3. You can form your own Labor Organization, control and
manage it yourselves, and have it represent you.
11. Now these are the three choices open today and every other
day, and particularly the day of the Election. Your employer,
the American Oil Company, or any of the plant managers, branch
managers, division managers or anybody in authority with The
American Oil Company cannot tell you in anyway whether you
should form an Organization or whether you should or should
not join a Labor Organization or which one. You can depend
upon it that you will not be discriminated against by The Ameri-
can Oil Company or by any representative of The American Oil
Company whatever course be taken in the matter.
12. In- any event we want you to know that we stand ready
and willing at all times, as we always have, to listen to and
to try and satisfy any suggestions, or any complaints, or any
requests that you individually or collectively through your own
Organization, or some other Organization, wish to make. You
may, but you do not have to, go outside of your group to select
representatives to deal with The American Oil Company on your
behalf. You can, but you do not have to, contribute to anyone
for the privilege of having them represent you in any of your
dealings with The American Oil Company. I just want you
to understand you have the right to do what you want to do.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR.JRELA-T-IONS-BOARD^
13. There are plenty of men among you, I am sure, who know
what you want, know what you need, and can show you how to
do what you want to do.
14. It has been my ambition during the several years in which
I have been Division Manager of Baltimore to build up this
branch of our service, as well as other branches which come under
my supervision, a general feeling among the employees that they
are being treated fairly. I hope that each of you feel that this
is so, and I will welcome further opportunities to help you when-
ever it is practicable to do so.
15. Now getting back to the Election to be held on January
5, each man in this room is absolutely free to exercise his own
judgment as to whether it is necessary or advisable to be repre-
sented by the Union or not to be represented by the Union, and
it is your lawful and moral right to exercise such judgment
freely and without fear of any reprisals from anyone. Once
again; I ask you all to vote.
16. I am not prepared at this time to give you the details
covering the place and time of voting; however, this information
will be given to you through the plant managers sufficiently in
advance of the date of the Election to enable you to be on hand.
17. I take this occasion to extend to you my sincere good wishes
for each of you and your families in 1942, and if I can do some-
thing in 1942 to hold your confidence and loyalty, as I feel I
have been able to do in the past, I will indeed be a very happy
person.
Dollinger testified that, in addition to reading the prepared speech,
he engaged in general conversation with the men. According to
Barry, Dollinger said that the men could vote for the Union but that
if it got too "one sided" the respondent would find other means of
doing its hauling and would not do it at a loss. When asked about
the prospects of a wage increase, he replied that due to gasoline
rationing and a general drop in business, he did not see how the
respondent could grant another wage increase. Dollinger testified
that he told the men he did not know whether a wage increase could
be granted at the present time, but when it was possible to get in-
creases'for them in the past he had always done so and that he would
try.
At the conclusion of his address Dollinger asked his audience for
comments. According to Grover, a driver named Morningstar stated
that he saw no reason why the men could not have a company union,
instead of joining the A. F. of L. and paying dues to the Union's
president and his organizers. Morningstar suggested that a com-
mittee be appointed. When someone in the back of the room shouted
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 1115
that Grover should be put on the committee, Dollinger replied that
he would be a good choice. Another driver, named Most, then began
to attack the Union, describing a jail sentence he had received during
a strike called by the Union. Dollinger interrupted, saying that such
matters could not be discussed before him, and left the room. The
other supervisors, however, including Plant Manager Weber and his
two assistants, remained in the room saying nothing while'Most con-
tinued his attack on the Union.
Since Dollinger admitted that his remarks at the meeting were not
,confined to the prepared speech and did not deny the remarks at-
tributed to him by Barry and Grover, we credit their testimony as, did
the Trial Examiner.
Although Dollinger testified that his purpose in calling the meeting
was to answer questions of the employees concerning an election
scheduled by the Board to determine whether or not they desired to
be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining,
it should be pointed out that the respondent knew that the Board
would post official notices prior to the election fully advising the
employees of the purpose thereof, that 'the ballot was secret, that
interference would not be permitted, and that the employees could
vote for or against the Union as they wished. In any event, the pre-
pared speech and the remarks of Dollinger definitely went beyond the
declared objective of the meeting and included statements inconsistent
with the neutrality enjoined upon employers by the Act. The first
part of the prepared speech dealt with matters within the avowed
purpose thereof. The tenor of the speech then changed. In para-
graph 4, the desirability of cooperation between the management and
the employees was pointed out. Paragraph 5 reminded the employees
of past benefits obtained without collective bargaining. Past wage
increases and "other Company considerations of importance such as
Group Insurance, Sick Leave, and Annuity plans" and the fact that
the respondent contributed thereto 'were mentioned. In paragraph
S, the employees were told that the respondent was interested in the
well-being of the employees and the speaker assured them that he
was willing to act as their representative by interceding with the
management on their behalf for anything that was reasonable.
The respondent also informed its employees that, if they were not
satisfied to bargain individually, they had another alternative to af-
filiation with the Union; namely, to form an organization of their
`.own." Not content with the bare recital of these alternatives, Dol-
linger made the respondent's preference for such a course clear when
he stated in paragraph 7 that:
The management, naturally, and I think properly so, has the
sincere feeling that the company employees do not have to go
,1116 DECISIONS OF-NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outside of the organization to seek representatives for the purpose
of collective bargaining:
Again, in paragraph 8, Dollinger saw "no reason" why "such com-
mittee as you may decide upon to represent you" could not serve as
a collective. bargaining representative and again, in paragraph 12,
'the employees were reminded that, while they could, they did not
have to go outside their group to select representatives for collective
bargaining. The speech .then proceeds subtly to suggest arguments
in favor of an inside organization as contrasted with an outside or
affiliated union. Thus Dollinger stated :
You can, but you do not have to, contribute to anyone for
the privilege of having them represent you in any of your deal-
ings with the American Oil Company.
There are plenty of men among you, I am sure, you know what
you want, know what you need, and can show you how to do
what you want to do.
At the time the speech was delivered, there had been no effort
among the employees to form an "inside" union and, as the respond-
ent knew, the scheduled election only' presented the question whether
or not the employees desired to be represented by the Union. Never-
theless, the prepared speech contained the following statement :
1. You. can absolutely refrain, if you wish, from joining any
Labor Organization-nobody can make you join and nobody can
prevent you from joining.
2. You can-join an outside union, but nobody can make you
join and nobody can prevent you from joining.
3. You can, form your own Labor Organization, control and
manage it yourselves, and have it represent you.
Now these are the three choices open today and every other
day, and particularly on the day of the election.
Thus respondent not only stated, contrary to fact, that a choice was
presented on election day of forming an unaffiliated union, but im-
plied that the Union, which it knew to have been designated as their
bargaining representative by a substantial number of employees, was
an "outside union" and not the employees "own labor organization."
On January 5, 1942, approximately a week after the meeting on
December 28, and just 2 days before the scheduled election, the re-
spondent announced a wage increase of $10 per month for all the
truck drivers and other employees in the trucking division. The re-
spondent offered evidence at the hearing tending to establish that
similar wage increases had been granted in preceding years and
AMERICAN' OIL COMPANY 1117-
contends in its brief that, in view of this evidence , no significance can
be attached to the fact that the wage increase was announced - on the-
eve of the election.
But for the speech delivered by Dollinger and his other remarks at
the meeting on December 28, the fact that the wage increase was
announced just before the election might be viewed as a coincidence.
But the timing of the announcement of the wage increase imparts.
significance to a number of statements made by Dollinger which were
wholly unrelated to the purpose for which the meeting was avowedly
called. During the course of the speech the employees were reminded
that they had received two wage increases within the past 12 months.
Dollinger stated that the respondent was interested in the future
well-being of the employees and added that he would be glad to,
intercede with the management on their behalf . He concluded his
speech by remarking that if he could do something in 1942 to hold:
the confidence and loyalty of the employees , as he had done in the
past; he would be "a very happy person." After the prepared speech-
he invited questions and the subject of a wage increase was discussed.
Dollinger stated that , due to gas rationing and the general drop in
business , lie did not see how the respondent could - grant another wage
increase but added that when it was possible to get raises for them he
had always done so and that he would try . Thereafter , within a
week's time the wage increase was announced.
- When viewed against the background of the events which occurred
at the meeting on December 28 and prior thereto, and particularly
the timing of the increase with respect to the speech delivered by
Dollinger at the respondent 's request , we are of the opinion and we
find, as did the Trial Examiner , that the wage increase was granted
for''the purpose of persuading the respondent 's employees that wage
increases could be obtained without collective bargaining , and thus
influencing them to vote against the Union.
We are convinced that the respondent 's acts and statements, as
found above , reveal a design to frustrate organizational activity
among `its employees and to defeat the rights guaranteed employees
in the Act . Thus, when organization began among the truck drivers
in 1939, the respondent permitted employees who were opposed to the
Union to hol 'd' a meeting in the plant , transferred Mulcahy; a - leader
in the union movement , to another plant in order to counteract his
union activity , questioned employees as to their reasons for joining
the Union , and suggested that continued activity might result in re-
prisals. In March 1941 the respohdent ` agaih transferred Mulcahy
after ascertaining that he was assisting employees at the Curtis Bay
plant, to which he had been transferred in 1939, in self-organization.
Thereafter ' the respondent threatened to curtail its hauling work by
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracting it out in the event the Union made unacceptable demands-
Finally, in December 1941, a few days before an election ordered by
the Board, the respondent called a meeting of the employees who were
to participate therein and reminded them of past benefits they had
obtained without collective bargaining, advised them that the re-
spondent preferred that they not "go outside of the organization to,
seek representatives," suggested that they bargain individually or
through an "inside" or unaffiliated union, and intimated that should
the Union win the election the respondent might make arrangements
for hauling which would result in less work for the employees.
Moreover, by granting a wage increase just before the election and
shortly after the meeting at which Dollinger had volunteered to inter-
cede with the management for the employees and had stated that he
would try to get a wage increase, although he did not see how the
respondent could grant one, the respondent sought to influence em-
ployees to'vote against the Union by creating the impression that
organization was unnecessary." We find that by the above acts and
course of conduct the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Norman Grover
The Trial Examiner found that the evidence did not substantiate
the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discharged Nor-
*man Grover on February 9, 1942, and thereafter refused to reinstate
him, because of his union membership and activities. The Union did
not except to this finding or to the Trial Examiner's recommendation
that the complaint be dismissed as to Grover. We have considered
the record and agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner. We
shall therefore dismiss this part of the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
' See N L. R. B. v. W. A. Jones Foundry and Machine Co ., 123 F. ( 2d) 552 ( C. C. A. 7),
enf g Matter of W. A Jones Foundry and Machine Co , a corporation and International
Association of Machinists, District No. 8 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
30 N L R. B 809; M. H. Ritzwoller Company v . N. L R. B, 114 F. ( 2d) 432 ( C. C. A-
7), enf 'g as mod. Matter of M. H. Ritzwoller Company and Coopers' International Union
of North America, Local No 28, 15 N. L. R. B. 15; Southern Colorado Power Co v N. L. R. B.
111 F. (2d) 539 (C. C. A. 10), enf'g Matter of Southern Colorado Power Co. and H. H.,
Stewart and I. L. Watkings , Individuals, 13 N. L R . B. 699; see also Great Southern
Trucking Company v. N . L R. B., April 13, 1942 , ( C C. A. 4 ), 10 L R. R 297, enf'g
Matter of Great Southern Trucking Company, Charlotte Branch and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America , Local #71, 34 N. L. R.B.
1068
AMERICAN OIL COMPANY 1119
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
. The respondent's long-standing interference, restraint, and coercion
of its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranted by the Act,
continuing even after the issuance by the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of a decree forbidding such inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion at its Curtis Bay plant, reveal 'a
purpose to defeat the basic rights to self-organization on the part
of its employees. In order, therefore, to make effective the guaran-
tees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent unfair labor practices and
thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce and thereby to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall
order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner inter-
fering with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The respondent, by its discharge of and refusal to reinstate
Norman Grover has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by contracting out part of its work to inde-
pendent contractors, has not engaged in an unfair labor practice,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, the 'National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the.
respondent, American Oil Company, Baltimore, Maryland, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering' with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to-
engage in-concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds'
will effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Curtis
Bay, Liberty, and Clarkson plants, and maintain for a period of at-
least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices,
to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct. from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1
of this Order; -
-(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing'
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has
taken to comply herewith ; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discharged and
refused reinstatement to Norman Grover because of his union mem-
bership and activities, and insofar as it alleges that the respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices by contracting out a part of its
work to independent contractors.