Bell Oil and Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 562 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

fn the Matter of BELL OIL AND GAS COMPANY and LOCAL UNION 258.
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL FIELD, GAS WELL AND
REFINERY WORKERS OF AMERICA and GEORGE E. BEBERMEYER, E. H.
HAYNIE, FRANK T. GROZIER., F. C. Cox, CLIFFORD D. JACKSON,
B. F. JACKSON AND Roy W. BOWMAN
Case No. C-48.-Decided April 17, 1936
Oil Producing and Refining Industry-Representatives: proof of choice:
membership in union, petition designating ; resolution-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaining: community of interest ; functional coherence ; geographi-
cal differences; history of collective bargaining relations; occupational differ-
ences ; organization of business-Strike-Collective Bargaining: refusal to ne-
gotiate with representatives; refusal to recognize representatives as bargain-
ing agency representing employees-negotiation in good faith : counter pro-
posals ; meeting with representatives but with no intention of bargaining in
good faith, reasonable effort, in general-negotiations suspended by strike, effect
of-Employee Status: during strike-Discrimination: non-reinstatement follow-
ing strike-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers: discrimination in reinstatement-
Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Karl Mueller for the Board.
Mr. C. J. Brannan and Mr. 0. R. Tipps , of Wichita Falls, Tex., for
respondent.
Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed by Local
Union 25a, of the International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well
and Refinery Workers of America (hereinafter referred to as Local
258) and George E. Bebermeyer, E. H. Haynie, Frank T. Grozier,
F. C. Cox, Clifford D. Jackson, B. F. Jackson and Roy W. Bowman,
the National Labor Relations Board, by its agent, the Regional Di-
rector for the Sixteenth Region, issued and duly served its complaint,
dated November 16, 1935, against the Bell Oil and Gas Company,
Grandfield, Oklahoma, respondent herein, alleging that the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions.
(1), (3) and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935.
562
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 563
The complaint, as duly amended by the Trial Examiner, alleges, in
substance, as follows :
That the respondent, a corporation organized under and existing
by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is engaged in the business of
producing, purchasing, transporting and refining crude petroleum,
and in the production, purchase and transportation of natural gas,
and in the sale and distribution of petroleum and petroleum prod-
ucts; that the respondent owns, operates and maintains producing
oil and gas wells in Oklahoma and Texas, and a system of pipe lines
for the transportation of oil from such wells to Grandfield, Okla-
homa, where it owns, operates and maintains a refinery; that the
respondent owns an undivided interest in a repressure plant situated
in Wichita County., Texas, and owns in part and leases in part and
operates and maintains a system of pipe lines to and from gas and
oil wells in Oklahoma and Texas to and from said repressure plant.
That the respondent produces oil at its wells in Texas and Okla-
homa. and purchases oil at the wells in said states from various
persons, firms and corporations; and that it transports, by means
of a system of pipe lines, oil so produced and purchased to its
refinery at Grandfield, Oklahoma.
That the respondent transports, by means of a system of pipe lines,
natural gas produced at wells in Texas and Oklahoma to a repressure
plant situated in Wichita County, Texas where said gas is placed
under pressure and then transported, by means of a system of pipe
lines, to so-called "key" wells situated in Texas and Oklahoma, where
it is forced into the ground to facilitate and stimulate the production
of oil from surrounding wells; that, in the process of placing natural
gas under pressure at said repressure plant, casinghead gasoline is
precipitated, part of which is transported to the respondent's refinery
in Oklahoma where it is used for blending with gasoline produced
at the refinery.
That the respondent operates and maintains a refinery at Grand-
field, Oklahoma where it produces gasoline and other petroleum
products; and that the respondent causes the gasoline and other
products so produced at said refinery to be sold and transported in
interstate commerce.
That the aforesaid operations of the respondent occur in the course
and current of interstate commerce and are an integral part of the
operations of instrumentalities of such commerce, and constitute
commerce among the several states.
That the respondent, on September 26, 1935, discharged, refused
employment to, and refused to reinstate George E. Bebermeyer, E. H.
Haynie, Frank T. Grozier, F. C. Cox, Clifford D. Jackson, B. F.
Jackson, and Roy W. Bowman for the reason that they joined and
564 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assisted a labor organization known as the International Association
of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, Local No.
258, and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act.
That the production department, the pipe line department and the
repressure plant of the respondent each constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining; that a majority of the em-
ployees in each of said units designated Local 258 to represent them
for the purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent; that
by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act said Local 258 has been the
exclusive representative of all the employees in each of said units
for the purposes of collective bargaining; that Local 258, acting by
its duly authorized representatives, on August 12, 1935, August 26,
1935 and September 2, 1935, requested the respondent to bargain
collectively with it as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in each of said units; that the respondent, on each of said
dates, refused to bargain collectively with Local 258 as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in each of said units, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (5) of the Act.
That the unfair labor practices of the respondent have occurred
and, are occurring in the course and current of commerce among the
several states, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes affect-
ing commerce as defined by the Act.
In its answer the respondent denied the authority of the Board,
under the Act, to require it to answer for its failure to employ the
individuals named in the complaint and alleged that the Act is void
and unconstitutional under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States.
Answering the allegations of the complaint, the respondent admits
that it is a corporation; that it is engaged in the business of pro-
ducing, purchasing, transporting and refining crude petroleum and
in the sale and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products;
that it owns, operates and maintains producing oil and gas wells in
Oklahoma and Texas and pipe lines for gathering oil and transport-
ing it to its refinery at Grandfield, Oklahoma; and that it owns an
undivided interest in and to a repressure plant situated in Wichita
County, Texas. The respondent denies that it operates the repres-
sure plant exclusively and alleges that it owns an undivided 2/5th
interest therein and that it operates the plant at the direction of and
under the supervision of the owners of a 3/5th undivided interest
who control the policies in the operation of the plant. It denies that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 565
it transports any gasoline from the plant to its refinery and alleges
that it sells all of the gasoline produced at the plant in Wichita
County, Texas to local consumers.
The respondent denies that on September 26, 1935 it discharged
George E. Bebermeyer, E. H. Haynie, Frank T. Grozier, F. C. Cox,.
Clifford D. Jackson, B. F. Jackson and Roy Bowman, and alleges
that F. C. Cox, Clifford D. Jackson and B. F. Jackson were never
at any time stated in the complaint employees of the respondent, and
that the others were at one time employed by it, but that they vol-
untarily left its employment on September 17, 1935. Further, the
respondent denies that it refused employment to these petitioners,
because of their membership in Local 258.
In its original answer the respondent denied that the production
department, pipe line department and repressure plant each consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
alleged that the only practical unit for such purposes is the employer
unit, consisting of the employees of the refinery, pipe line and pro-
duction departments, and the repressure plant. It denies that a ma-
jority of its employees designated Local 258 as their representative
for collective bargaining. It also denies that it has refused to bar-
gain collectively with Local 258, and alleges that it met with repre-
sentatives of the Local when requested to do so and that it has at
all times negotiated with thein with respect to wages and working-
conditions. The answer alleges affirmatively that the employers in
the Northwest field, where it operates, were negotiating with their
employees with respect to wages and working conditions; that a rep-
resentative who was assisting in such negotiations was called away;
that Local 258 advised the respondent that negotiations would be,
continued upon his return and that no action would be taken in the
meantime; that without notice, and in violation of the agreement, a
minority group of the employees of the respondent and other em-
ployers forced the respondent's employees to cease operations and
refused to permit them to enter upon the respondent's properties for
the purpose of operating them; that this minority group of the re-
spondent's employees caused several thousand dollars damage to re-
spondent's properties; and that said acts reduced the production of
the Northwest field to such an extent that when operations were re-
sumed it was not necessary to employ as many employees in the-
respondent's operations as previously.
Finally, the respondent denies that it has engaged in unfair labor-
practices affecting commerce, and alleges that none of its action
has led or tends to lead to labor disputes.
Pursuant to notice of hearing, the Trial Examiner, as agent of the-
Board, conducted a hearing commencing on December 20, 1935, at
566 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Federal Building , Wichita Falls, Texas. The respondent ap-
peared by counsel and participated in the hearing . The Board was
also represented by counsel.
At the opening of the hearing the Trial Examiner declined to hear
a rguments on the constitutional questions raised by the respondent.
' These arguments were heard at the close of the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard , to cross-examine witnesses and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
Upon the record thus made, the stenographic report of the hearing
and all evidence, oral and documentary, offered and received at the
hearing, the Trial Examiner, on January 21, 1936, filed with the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region an intermediate report,
finding in substance that F. C. Cox, Clifford D. Jackson and B. F.
.Jackson were never at any time stated in the complaint employees
of the respondent and that it never employed them, did not discharge
them, and did not refuse to employ them; that the members of Local
'258 went out on strike in violation of an agreement made between the
Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, the em-
ployers and Local 258 to permit the situation existing immediately
prior to September 17, 1935 to remain in status quo until the Regional
Director 's return from a trip, and until further conferences were
had for the purpose of working out an agreement between the em-
ployees and employers ; that George E. Bebermeyer , E. H. Haynie,
Frank T. Grozier and Roy W. Bowman participated in this strike
and voluntarily left the employ of the respondent; that the respond-
ent did not discriminate against Bebermeyer because of union activi-
ties, but did not reinstate him after the strike because lie had devoted
a part of the time for which he was paid by his employer to union
activities; that the complaint of discrimination by the respondent
against Bebermeyer has not been sustained because the evidence shows
that the Reno Oil Company, the Burk-Divide Oil Company and the
respondent jointly owned and operated the repressure department
where he was employed and that therefore the respondent does not
have the power to reinstate him; that Haynie was not reinstated
after the strike because of a cut in the force in the department in
which he worked and not because of his union activities ; that Grozier
was not reinstated because he had made numerous mistakes over a
period of time which would have justified the respondent in dis-
charging him prior to the strike; that Bowman was not reinstated
because of inefficiency ; that the respondent did not refuse to bargain
-collectively with its employees, and that Local 258 does not represent
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Upon
the basis of these findings the Trial Examiner concluded that it is
not necessary to pass upon the constitutionality of the National
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 567
Labor Relations Act and recommended that the complaint against
the respondent be dismissed.
On February 3, 1935 Local 258 filed exceptions to the intermediate
report, contending that the Trial Examiner 's findings are not sup-
ported by evidence and are contrary to the evidence . They contend
that the Trial Examiner was not justified in considering the circum-
stances of the strike because the Act provides ( Section 13 ) that noth-
ing therein shall be construed so as to interfere with or impede or
diminish in any way the right to strike. They also contend that the
only issue before the Trial Examiner , in connection with the allega-
tions under Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act, was whether or not
the respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local 258 and
therefore that the evidence admitted on the question of -the appro-
priate bargaining unit was irrelevant and that the Trial Examiner
was not justified in considering and passing on that question.
Upon the record as thus made , the stenographic report of the
hearing, and all the evidence , including oral testimony , documentary
and other evidence offered and received at the hearing , the Board
makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
I. The respondent, Bell Oil and Gas Company, is a corporation
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Delaware, having its principal office and place of business in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. It also maintains offices at Chicago, Illinois; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Grandfield, Oklahoma; Pampa and Wichita Falls,
Texas.
II. (a) The respondent owns, operates and maintains producing
oil wells in what is known as the Northwest field, which lies partly
in Wichita County, Texas, and partly in Tillman County, Oklahoma.
Part of this field lies in the bed of the Red River, which forms the
boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. The wells owned and oper-
ated by the respondent in this field are located in the river bed. It
owns and operates no wells in other parts of the field. Approxi-
mately 7 of the respondent's wells in the river bed are located on the
Texas side of the boundary line and 25 or 30 of them are on the
Oklahoma side. The respondent also owns, operates and maintains
producing oil wells in the Pampa, Texas field, which is 300 miles
from the Northwest field.
(b) The Northwest field has been producing for 18 or 19 years.
The flush production has long since been taken out. It is now what
is known as a stripper field, that. is, production is obtained by me-
97571-36-vol 1-37
568 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chanical means. There are over 1,000 wells in the field, every third
one of which has been abandoned. The average production of the
wells still producing is about 2 to 5 barrels per day. In that part
of the field lying outside of the Red River bed production is ob-
tained by maintaining a high vacuum on the field. The vacuum
elevates the oil out of low areas underground. It has taken many
years to increase the vacuum to its present point. Without it the
operators would get no production. It serves to draw oil to the
producing wells, from which it is pumped by mechanical means-a
pumping process which elevates the oil to the surface.
In that part of the Northwest field which lies in the Red River
bed, where the respondent operates producing oil wells, production
is obtained by means of repressure, a process whereby natural gas
is injected into the ground under high pressure through so-called
"key" wells for the purpose of forcing oil to move toward the pro-
ducing wells. The wells in this area were formerly produced by
vacuum, but in 1933 the operators determined to switch over to the
repressure system. Since December of that year the wells in the
river bed have been operated on that system.
(c) The repressure plant itself is located in Wichita County,
Texas. It is jointly owned by the Reno Oil Company, the Burk-
Divide Oil Company and the respondent. When it was built the
Burk-Divide Oil Company and the respondent each contributed
40/0 of its cost and the Reno Oil Company contributed 2017o. The
operating expenses are pro-rated among the three joint owners on
the basis of the production of each.
The operations at the plant consist of taking natural gas from
the wells, circulating it through condensers in the plant to cool it,
placing it under pressure and pumping it, under high pressure, back
into the ground through key wells located throughout the river bed
area. The gas injected into the ground permeates "oil sand", thus
artificially inducing a condition once produced by nature. The gas
pressure causes the oil underground to move in a body toward the
producing wells, from which it is elevated to the surface by a pump-
ing process. This system prevents salt. water from moving with the
oil to the producing wells and thus prolongs the life of the field. By
this process the operators hope to recover more oil per acre than it
was possible to recover under the old vacuum process.
The gas used in the repressure system is obtained from wells lo-
cated in both Texas and Oklahoma. However, these -wells do not
produce enough gas to supply the system and the additional amount
needed is purchased from the Shasta Gas Company. The gas is
piped from the producing wells to the plant and from the plant to
the key wells. Under ground it moves from the key wells to the
producing wells, from which it is piped back to the plant, thus form-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 569
ing a complete circuit. The producing and key wells being located
in both Texas and Oklahoma, the pipe lines carrying the gas cross
and recross the state line. These pipe lines are a part of the repres-
sure system and are jointly owned by the Reno Oil Company, the
Burk-Divide Oil Company and the respondent.
In the process of condensing natural gas at the repressure plant
natural gasoline, which the gas picks up in the course of its cir-
culation under ground, is precipitated. Five to six hundred gallons
per day of natural gasoline are produced by this process at the
plant. This is sold to the La Salle Petroleum Company at Burk-
burnett, Texas and to the employees of the respondent.
(d) The respondent's oil producing operations are carried on at
its wells located on both sides of the Texas-Oklahoma boundary line
in the Red River bed. These wells are connected with the repressure
system described above. Production is obtained by pumping the
oil to the surface where it is stored in stock tanks located near the
wells.
- (e) The respondent owns, operates and maintains an extensive
pipe line system through which oil produced in the Northwest field
is gathered and transported to its refinery located at or near Grand-
field, Oklahoma. Oil produced at the respondent's wells in the river
bed is transported from the stock tanks located near the wells
through gathering lines to a main line pump station located in
Wichita County, Texas, just below the Texas-Oklahoma boundary.
From this station it is pumped through a trunk pipe line to the
respondent's refinery at Grandfield, Oklahoma. Thus, regardless of
the location of a particular well, the-oil produced at the respond-
ent's wells in the river bed crosses the Texas-Oklahoma boundary at
least once in the course of its transportation to the refinery.
The respondent purchases an average of 3200 barrels of crude oil
daily from other producers operating in the Northwest field. Ap-
proximately 2600 barrels of this total is purchased in Texas and the
balance in Oklahoma. The respondent's gathering pipe lines connect
with stock tanks located near the vendors' wells. It maintains such
connections with about 300 batteries of stock tanks located throughout
the field. Approximately 250 'of these batteries are on the Texas
side of the Texas-Oklahoma boundary and the remainder are on
the Oklahoma side. The purchases are made and the respondent
accepts delivery of the oil so purchased at the vendors' tanks. The
oil so purchased is piped through gathering lines to the main. line
pump station located in Wichita County, Texas. At this station the
respondent maintains a battery of tanks, in which the oil piped from
throughout the field is accumulated. The oil is then pumped from
the pump station through the trunk pipe line to the respondent's refin-
ery at Grandfield, Oklahoma. All of the oil purchased or produced by
570 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent in the Northwest field passes through the pump sta-
tion in the course of its transportation to the refinery, regardless
of whether it is produced in Texas or Oklahoma. Thus, it crosses
the Texas-Oklahoma boundary at least once before reaching the
refinery.
(f) The respondent owns and operates a refinery at or near Grand-
field, Oklahoma, about 61/2 miles north of the pump station described
above. The crude oil transported to the refinery is first pumped
into a stock tank. It is then pumped through a skimming plant
where natural gasoline and kerosene are removed. The balance of the
crude passes through high pressure stills where two cuts are made,
the first the gasoline cut, and the second the residue or fuel oil cut.
The daily production of gasoline at the refinery is about 2080
barrels. Approximately one-fourth of this production is sold and de-
livered in Oklahoma, and the balance in other states. The respondent
has regular gasoline -customers in Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Colo-
rado, Wyoming, Ohio and Tennessee. It sells its gasoline all over
the Mississippi Valley. Shipments are made from the refinery by
tank car and truck. The respondent owns and operates its own trucks
for local short hauls in Oklahoma. It owns no tank cars but leases
some. The respondent's policy is to market its gasoline through inde-
pendent jobbers throughout the United States. It does not own any
retail service stations.
The kerosene produced at the refinery is sold in Oklahoma and
Texas, approximately 1/5th of the production being sold in the latter
State. Most of the fuel oil produced is sold to railroads. It is de-
livered to them in their tank cars at the refinery. ' Among others,
it sells to the Missouri, Kansas and Texas R. R., on whose lines the
refinery is located. The respondent also sells fuel oil to the South-
western Light and Power Company at Lawton, Oklahoma and to
cotton seed oil companies.
III. The aforesaid operations of the respondent constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, commerce and transportation among
the several States.
B. THE EFFECT OF THE STRIKE OF SEPTEMBER 1 7-2 7, 1935 UPON THE
RESPONDENT 'S OPERATIONS
IV. (a) From September 17 to September 27, 1935 the respond-
-ent's employees in the Northwest field operations in the repressure,l
' While the repiessure plant and system are the joint property of the respondent, the
Reno Oil Company and the Burk-Divide Oil Company ( see Finding II (c)), the em-
ployees in that plant were regarded as employees of the respondent in all negotiations
between the respondent and its employees in the Northwest field. For convenience we
will refer to the plant as one of the departments of the respondent 's field operations.
The case of George E. Bebermeyer , an employee in the plant and one of the individuals
involved in this case , is considered separately in Finding XII (c).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 571
production and pipe line departments were out on strike and opera-
tions in those departments were completely suspended. During that
period no oil was produced at the respondent's wells and, due to the
shut down in the pipe line department, no oil was transported to
the refinery through the trunk pipe line from the main line pump
station in Wichita County, Texas. The effect of this strike upon
operations at the refinery was almost immediate. When the strike
went into effect the respondent had approximately 10,000 barrels of
crude oil in stock at the refinery, but within a week this supply
was exhausted. The respondent was then forced to bring in oil by
rail. The skimming plant was shut down, but with the oil thy:
respondent had on hand and that shipped in by rail it was able to
keep its cracking plant running at sufficient capacity to fill its con-
tracts. After the supply of oil on hand was exhausted and the
respondent became dependent entirely upon rail shipments to supply
the refinery production of gasoline dropped 50%.
(b) When the strike was called most of the producers in the North-
west field whose stock tanks were connected with the respondent's
pipe line system and who depended upon the respondent to pur-
chase their production of crude oil had full tanks. Consequently
the strike of respondent's employees affected them very seriously.
Due to the complete stoppage of the flow of oil through the respond-
ent's main line pump station and thence to the refinery at Grandfield,
Oklahoma, these producers had no outlet for their oil and were
forced to curtail production. Many of them threatened to take their
business away from the respondent and connect with some other pipe
line system because of the shut down in the respondent's pipe line
department. The effect of such a loss of patronage upon the re-
spondent's refinery would be disastrous. In the past several years,
due to diminishing production in the Northwest field, the respondent
has been forced to acquire several small pipe line companies from
time to time in order to insure a sufficient supply of crude oil to
operate its refinery. Any diminution in this supply would immedi-
ately cause curtailment of operations at the refinery.
C. PAST RELATIONS BETWEEN Mt RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
V. The International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and
Refinery Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Inter-
national, is an international labor organization, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, and includes within its jurisdiction
all bona fide wage workers working in the oil, gas well and refinery
industries in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Burkburnett,
Texas Local No. 258 of this organization, hereinafter referred to as
Local 258, was organized and chartered in 1933. Its membership is
572 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
composed of field and refinery workers employed by various em-
ployers operating in and adjacent to the Northwest field, including
employees in the respondent's repressure, production and pipe line
departments.
VI. Early in August, 1934 the members of Local 258 employed
by the respondent and other employers operating in the Northwest
field went out on strike in an effort to secure written agreements
with their employers. As a direct result of that strike the respond-
ent, on August 11, 1934, entered into a written contract for one year
with the International as the representative of the employees of the
respondent who had designated Local 258 as their agency for col-
lective bargaining. This included only employees in the repressure,
production and pipe line departments. Local 258 had no members
in the respondent's Grandfield, Oklahoma refinery. That contract
provided that the respondent would abide by all of the labor pro-
visions of the Code of Fair Competition for the Petroleum Industry;
for the settlement and arbitration of disputes; that there should be
no strike or lockout; and for leaves of absence and vacations, over-
time pay, the checkoff, and recognition of seniority in laying off and
promoting employees. Pursuant to its terms a so-called workmen's
committee of the employees was appointed. It was the function of
this committee to present grievances to the management and
negotiate for their settlement.
D. THE BARGAINING AGENCY
VII. (a) In the spring of 1935 the workmen's committee was in-
structed by Local 258 to call a meeting of the members of the Local
employed by the respondent for the purpose of selecting a committee
to draft a new contract for presentation to the management. Pur-
suant to this instruction Frank T. Grozier, as chairman of the work-
men's committee, called a special meeting for that purpose on May
13, 1935. Approximately 15 of a total of 25 or 26 employed in the
repressure, production and pipe line departments attended. At that
meeting a committee of five, composed of George E. Bebermeyer,
W. R. Stimpson, D. F. Lamb, H. L. Dunn and Grozier, was elected tc
draft a new contract. This committee, on July 11th, wrote to C. J.
Rohner, superintendent of the repressure and production depart-
ments, stating that the employees desired to continue the 1934-1935
contract with revisions and requesting a conference within twenty
days (Exhibit B-16). There was no immediate response to this
communication.
(b) Thereafter, Grozier, acting again as chairman of the work-
men's committee, called a meeting of the union employees in the re-
pressure, production and pipe line departments on July 22, 1935 for
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 573
the purpose of considering the contract drafted by the committee of
five appointed at the meeting of May 13th. This meeting was at-
tended by two employees from the repressure department, ten from
the pipe line department and nine from the production department-
a total of twenty-one. The contract submitted by the drafting com-
mittee was accepted by the group. It was decided that the drafting
committee of five previously appointed was too large for the pur-
pose of negotiating with the management. A committee of three was
then elected to present the contract to the respondent and negotiate
an agreement with it. The members of this negotiating committee
were elected by secret ballot. Those present were given slips of
paper upon which they made their nominations for the first commit-
tee post. The nominee polling a majority of the votes cast was de-
clared elected to the committee. The group then proceeded in the
same manner to elect committeemen from each of the two depart-
ments not represented by the first man elected. Thus, each member
of the committee was elected by a majority vote of all those present
and each department was represented on the committee. The election
procedure followed at this meeting was pursuant to the deliberate
policy of the group to have representation from all departments on
all committees acting for the group. Bebermeyer from the repres-
sure department, Grozier from the pipe line department and Haynie
from the production department were thus elected to serve as the
contract negotiating committee.
(c) On or about May 1, 1935, at a meeting of Local 258, the mem-
bers were instructed that appointments to contract negotiating com-
mittees representing the various groups of employees of employers
operating in the Northwest field would have to be made by the Local.
Under this plan each group was to elect its own committee and the
committees so elected were to be confirmed by and as committees of
the Local as well as committees of the various groups of employees.
Pursuant to this policy the contract negotiating committee elected
by the union employees of the respondent at their meeting on July
22nd reported the election at a meeting of the Local held prior to
August 10th. On motion duly made and carried the committee was
accepted, confirmed and appointed as a committee of the Local to
represent the union employees in the repressure, production and pipe
line departments in negotiations with the respondent.
(d) On August 10, 1935 twenty-one of the employees in the re-
pressure, production and pipe line departments signed a petition
stating that they had organized themselves into Local 258 of the
International Union;'that through this organization they desired to
make a collective bargain with the respondent, and requesting a con-
ference with representatives of the management "to begin negotia-
J
574 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions to work out a collective bargain and to agree on terms of em-
ployment and orderly methods of settling differences between
management and employees." (Exhibit B-25)
(e) At all of the times mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)
above Local 258 represented an overwhelming majority of the em-
ployees in the repressure, production and pipe line departments.
Of a total of 25 or 26 employed in the three departments, at least 21
were members of the Local. By departments, all of the three men
employed in repressure, all of the ten or eleven in productior and
eight of the twelve or thirteen in pipe line were members of the
Local.
The respondent does not deny that Local 258 represents a majority
of its employees in these three departments, either separately or
collectively.
E. EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT
VIII. (a) Pursuant to the authority vested in it by Local 258
and the employees it represented, the negotiating committee of the
respondent's employees met with Rex Young, general superintendent
of the respondent, and C. J. Bohner, superintendent of the repressure
and production departments, on August 12, 1935 and presented for
their consideration the contract previously prepared by the drafting
committee and approved by the employees. At that meeting the
committee requested that the respondent enter into a new contract
with the International on behalf of the employees in the repressure,
production and pipe line departments. Young, speaking for the re-
spondent, stated that is was "the policy of the company to organize
the entire Bell personnel, including Pampa, the refining and pipe
line departments into one union;" that after the first of the year he in-
tended to hold an election among all of such employees for the purpose
of designating representatives for collective bargaining; that the re-
spondent stood ready to negotiate with any representatives so desig-
nated by a majority of all of its employees; that therefore Local 258
did not represent a majority of the respondent's employees; and that
the respondent would not negotiate with the committee and would not
recognize Local 258 for the purpose of collective bargaining on behalf
of the employees in the repressure, production and pipe line depart-
ments or any of its employees. The committee replied that the em-
ployees in the three field departments had no interests in common
with the refinery employees; that the respondent had recognized
Local 258 the year previously under the 1934-1935 contract, and that
the field employees felt that they should not be absorbed with the
refinery employees into one unit. The respondent's representatives
at this meeting made no counter proposals to the contract offered by
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 575
the committee, nor did they discuss the terms of this or any other
contract. Young told the committee that there would be no wage
cuts; no increase in hours and no change in working conditions, but
that the men in the field departments would have to work without
the benefit of a contract. The committee then requested Young to
meet again with it and with J. L. Coulter, the general secretary of the
International, in an effort to work out an agreement . Young agreed
to do so.
Coulter arrived in Burkburnett after the meeting of August 12th.
He came at the request of the members of Local 258, including a ma-
jority of the employees in the repressure, production and pipe line
departments, to assist in negotiations with the employers.
At a special meeting of Local 258 on August 16th, on motion duly
made and passed, the contract negotiating committees representing
the various groups of employees in the Northwest field, including the
committee representing the employees in the respondent's repressure,
production and pipe line departments, were directed to form them-
selves into a joint committee for the purpose of drafting a blanket
contract , acceptable to all of the employees involved, to be presented
to all of the employers at a joint meeting of the several contract nego-
tiating committees and the representatives of the employers. This
action was prompted by the suggestion and request of Tucker, one
of the employers involved in the negotiations with Local 258. Pur-
suant to this direction of the Local, the several committees, with Coul-
ter's assistance , drafted one contract to cover all of the employers
and employees involved. The contract so drafted was to be adapted
to meet the circumstances of each case.
(b) On August 26th the contract negotiating committees of the
various groups of employees met with representatives of their em-
ployers in a joint meeting at which Coulter presided. The respondent
was represented by Young. Coulter presented the blanket contract
as a basis for negotiation and discussion and asked the employer
representatives present to state the positions of their companies.
Young reiterated the stand he took at the meeting of August 12th
and refused to recognize or negotiate with Local 258. He declined to
discuss the contract presented and made no counter offers or pro-
posals. Consequently nothing was accomplished at this meeting. At
Coulter's suggestion the employer representatives agreed to meet with
a federal conciliator.
(c) On September 2nd the contract negotiating committees of the
various groups of employees again met with the representatives of
their employers in a joint meeting, presided over by Dr. Edwin A.
Elliott, Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, National Labor
Relations Board, acting in this, controversy as a duly authorized rep-
576 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resentative of, the Conciliation Service of the United States Depart-
ment of Labor and not in his capacity as an agent of the Board.
Elliott opened the meeting by calling for the blanket contract pre-
viously drafted by the joint committee of employee representatives as
a basis for discussion and negotiation. Young again stated that the
respondent 's policy was to organize all of its employees into one
unit; that Local 258 did not represent a majority of all of the re-
spondent's employees, and that therefore he would not negotiate with
or recognize the Local for the purpose of collective bargaining on
behalf of the employees in the repressure, production and pipe line
departments. General discussion followed between Elliott, the joint
contract negotiating committee, and the other employer representa-
tives present. Among the demands made by the employee repre-
sentatives in the proposed contract were the closed shop and a 30/"0
increase in wages. The employers, Young included, insisted that
they could not meet these demands. The employee representatives
then proposed a 20% increase in wages, but this was likewise re-
jected. The operators explained that due to a break in the price
of Pacific Coast crude which they feared might reach the Northwest
field they could make no commitments. Elliott then proposed the
selection of a subcommittee composed of Coulter, one representative
of the employees and one of the employers to meet with him in an
effort to reach an agreement. This was done and the rest of the
representatives withdrew from the meeting temporarily.' To this
subcommittee of three Elliott proposed a renewal of the old con-
tract, revised to include an agreement by the employers that there
would be no objection to the employees joining the union., He pro-
posed further that, because of the break in the price of Pacific Coast
crude, the wage question be held in abeyance for sixty days. The
other representatives were then called back into the meeting and
Elliott's proposals were announced. After some discussion the em-
ployer representatives present agreed to take these proposals to their
superiors and report back to Elliott the next day whether or not they
were acceptable. The employee representatives then asked the em-
ployers to withdraw from the meeting so that they could discuss
Elliott's proposals with him. There is some conflict in the "record as
to the result of the discussion which followed. Elliott testified that
the employee representatives stood "pat" on their demands for a
20% increase in wages and the other features of the proposed blanket
contract, including the closed shop, and that they instructed him to
convey those demands to the, employers. Grozier testified that Elliott
was instructed to advise the employers that the employees did not
feel that they could accept a renewal of the old contract, but that
they were ready to negotiate a new contract with them. At any rate
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 577
Elliott reported to the employer representatives, who were awaiting
him outside of the meeting place, that the employee representatives
demanded the proposed contract as presented, except for the change
from a 30% to a 20% increase in wages. He asked them to consider
these demands and also his proposal to renew the old contract with
modifications and to do the best they could on them. Young agreed
to discuss them with Mr. Albert Finston, !vice-prei3ident of the
respondent, and report their decision to Elliott the next day
(September 3rd).
At the meeting described above the terms of the joint committee's
proposed contract were not discussed at any length. Young made no
counter proposals to any of the demands of Local 258. Neither did
he accept Elliott's proposal to renew the old contract with modifi-
cations. Not once did he question the majority representation by
Local 258 in the repressure, production and pipe line departments.
His participation in the discussion was largely confined to the ques-
tion of the proper bargaining unit, his contention being that all
departments of the respondent's operations, including the refinery,
should be consolidated for the purposes of collective bargaining. To
his demand that this question be determined before he would enter
into negotiations for an agreement, Elliott replied that it was not
before the meeting and that a petition for a determination of the
appropriate unit would have to be presented by the employees.
F. THE BARGAINING UNIT
IX. The original complaint alleged that the respondent's repres-
sure, production and pipe line departments each constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. In its original answer the
respondent denied this allegation and alleged that the employer unit,
consisting of the employees in the refinery, repressure, production and
pipe line departments, is "the only practicable unit, which could be
used as a unit of collective bargaining." Much evidence was adduced
at the hearing to support these conflicting allegations. Witnesses for
the Board described the operations in the three field departments and
pointed out the functional differences in the duties performed by the
employees therein. It was their contention that men trained in the
work of a particular department are better qualified to represent the
employees of that department than men employed in one of the other
departments; that they know the problems of the employees in their
department and the conditions under which they work. The re-
spondent's witnesses testified to the similarity of the tasks performed
by the employees in the three field departments and the refinery. For
example, gaugers are employed in the pipe line and refinery depart-
578 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nients; operators of pumps of various descriptions are employed in
all four departments. On the other hand there are functional differ-
ences in the duties of employees in the same department. All of the
witnesses testifying on the subject stated that the operations of the
respondent naturally break down into the four departments-repres-
sure, production, pipe line and refinery. Each department is super-
vised by a foreman or superintendent and each performs a distinct
function. On behalf of the respondent, Young testified that all of
the departments are part of one integrated unit; that each is de-
pendent upon the other for the successful operation of the whole.
Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the
Board, on March 10, 1936, amended its complaint so as to allege that
the repressure, production and pipe line departments of the respond-
ent constitute a single, appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining with the respondent. All of the parties to the proceeding
were duly notified of this action and the respondent was given an
opportunity to file its answer and to petition for a hearing on the
amended complaint. Thereafter, on March 20, 1936, the respondent
filed its supplemental answer to the amended complaint in which it
denied that the repressure, production and pipe line' departments
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and alleged that the only practicable unit is the employer unit
consisting of the employees in the repressure plant, production and
pipe line departments, and the refinery.
'Ve think that the evidence proves conclusively that the respondent's
repressure, production and pipe line departments together constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with
the respondent within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The
men in these departments are all employed in and adjacent to the
Northwest field. Those in the repressure department work in the
plant itself. The production employees work at the wells, located in
the Red River bed. The men in the pipe line department are scat-
tered throughout the field attending to the respondent's pipe line
system, gauging oil in tanks and pumping it through the gathering
lines and thence to the refinery. They are all engaged in the work
,of producing and transporting oil. Each of them is familiar with
the nature of the duties of the others. In the performance of their
duties the pipe line department employees are separated from the
,employees in the production and repressure departments, who work
in the river bed, but all of them clear their work through a central
office. All of the field employees have their homes in the field itself
or in the nearby town of Burkburnett, Texas. The refinery employ-
ees, on the other hand, live at Grandfield, Oklahoma, which lies 20
,or 25 miles north of Burkburnett. There is little or no contact of any
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 579
kind between the two groups. The duties of the refinery employees
and the conditions under which they work are entirely dissimilar to
those in the field.
Each of the field departments is small. Three men are employed
in the repressure department, ten or eleven in the production depart-
ment, and twelve or thirteen in the pipe line department. At least
twenty-one of the total of twenty-five or six men employed in the
field are members of Local 258 (see finding VII). The Local has no,
members in the refinery. This factor of itself tended to set the field
employees apart as a separate bargaining unit.
Both the respondent and Local 258 have in the past treated the
employees in the repressure, production and pipe line departments as
comprising one unit, separate and distinct from the employees in the
refinery and the Pampa field. So far as the record disclosies, the
Pampa employees never figured in negotiations between Local 258
and the respondent. We may, therefore, omit them from considera-
tion in this case. The respondent recognized the unity of the em-
ployees in the three field departments in question by entering into a
contract, in August, 1934, with the International on behalf of the
respondent's employees who ' were members of Local 258. At that
time, and continuing to the present, only employees in those depart-
ments were members of the Local. That contract made no distinc-
tion between departments. It applied alike to all of the field union
employees. At about the same time the respondent recognized the
refinery employees as a distinct unit by entering into a separate con-
tract with them. Local 258 never claimed the right to represent the
refinery employees, and, on the other hand, the latter never requested
the Local or its committees to represent them in their negotiations
with the respondent.
Under the 1934-1935 contract the respondent's employees in the
three field departments who were members of Local 258 considered
themselves as comprising one distinct bargaining unit, rather than as
three separate units. Each of the departments was represented by
one or more men on the workmen's committee which functioned under
that contract as the representative of the group in the presentation
of grievances to the management. The field union employees met
once a month as a separate and distinct group to discuss and decide
their common problems. The will of the majority of the entire
group always prevailed. The committee selected to draft a new con-
tract to present to the management (see finding VII (a)) and the
contract negotiating committee (see, finding VII (b)) were elected
at meetings of the group. Each of the members of these committees
was elected by a majority vote of those present. Only one contract
covering all of the field employees was presented to the respondent.
580 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The fact that the members of the group always selected a representa-
tive from each department to serve on committees representing the
group does not militate against our conclusion that the field employ-
ees constitute a single, appropriate bargaining unit. The group
being made up of component parts the men felt that the fair thing to
do would be to include representation from each of the parts on com-
mittees representing the group before the management and this
became their policy. A bargaining arrangement such as this com-
bines the simplicity of a single agency negotiating for a more or less
complex group with no accompanying sacrifice of the individual
interests of the group's component parts.
Upon the record and upon precedent we find that the employees
in the repressure, production and pipe line departments constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with
the respondent.
In so finding we have not lost sight of the fact that the repressure
plant is the joint property of the respondent, the Reno Oil Company
and the Burk-Divide Oil Company (see finding II (c) ). Section 2,
subdivision (2) of the Act provides that "the term `employer' in-
cludes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or
indirectly." We think it clearly appears from the record that for the
purposes of collective bargaining, the respondent is the employer of
the plant employees within the meaning of this definition. By agree-
ment among the joint owners the respondent was delegated as the
agency to pay and supervise these employees. They are paid with
the respondent's checks. The 1934-35 contract between the respond-
ent and the International covered them. The respondent's Northwest
field employees at all times considered the plant employees as being a
part of their group for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
latter were always represented by one of their own number on com-
mittees representing the group before the, management of the re-
spondent. They had representation on the workmen's committee
which functioned under the 1934-35 contract (see finding VI) ; on
the committee which drafted the new contract presented to the
respondent (see finding VII (a)) ; and on the committee which
negotiated with the respondent at the meetings of August 12th and
26th and September 2nd (see finding VII (b) ). At all of the times
above mentioned the respondent met and dealt with these committees
as the representatives of the employees in the repressure plant as
well as of those in the production and pipe line departments. The
plant employees were never regarded as a separate and distinct
group, occupying a peculiar relation to the respondent, and requiring
special treatment. So far as appears from the record, the negotia-
tions which concerned the repressure department employees were
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 581
always conducted with representatives of the respondent and not with
representatives of the other two joint owners. In its original and
supplemental answers to the complaint the respondent alleged that
the only practicable bargaining unit of its employees is the "em-
ployer unit which consisted of the employees of the refinery, pipe line
department, production department and repressure plant", and that
all of these four departments, and the employees therein, are oper-
ated and directed under one directing head or authority.
On this record, therefore, we find that, in all negotiations affect-
ing the plant employees, the respondent acted in its own behalf and
as the agent of the other two joint owners and that these employees
are properly a part of the bargaining unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with the respondent.
G. THE STRIKE OF SEPTEMBER 17-27, 1935
Y. On the morning of September 3, 1935 Dr. Elliott was called
to Washington, D. C. on urgent official business in his capacity as
Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board. He no-
tified Coulter before his departure and requested of him that Local
258 withhold any further action until his return, which he antici-
pated would be about ten days hence. The employer representatives
who were present at the meeting of September 2nd were also noti-
fied that Elliott had been called away temporarily and they were
likewise requested to maintain the status quo until his return. At
a meeting held the night of September 3rd, Local 258, upon Coulter's
recommendation, voted to grant Elliott's request. Pursuant to in-
structions, Bebermeyer, as Secretary of the Local, by a letter dated
September 3rd, notified Young that Elliott had requested the Local
to delay further action until his return and that the Local had
granted his request (Exhibit R-1). Thereafter there were no fur-
ther negotiations between Local 258 and the respondent. Coulter
went to South Texas on other business expecting to return in ten days
with Elliott. On September 14th, in Fort Worth, Elliott, who had
just returned there from Washington, advised Coulter that he had
been called to El Paso on urgent business and that he would be
unable to return to North Texas for a few days. Coulter arrived
in Wichita Falls the evening of September 16th where he was met
by the contract negotiating committees representing the employees
of the respondent and the other employers. He advised the members
of these committees that Elliott had been delayed for a few days.
They complained that the respondent had, since September 3rd, laid
off one man and had put the pipe line department on longer hours
and that other employers had laid off some men. _(It will be re-
called that Local 258 included in its membership employees of other
0
582 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employers operating in and adjacent to the Northwest field. See
finding V.) They felt that, they could not restrain the members
of the Local any longer and demanded that Coulter, as an officer
of the International, give them permission to cease work. A strike
vote had been taken at a regular meeting of Local 258' on August
30th and an overwhelming majority of those present had voted
favorably to such action. No date was set for the strike at this
meeting. Coulter yielded to the demand of the committee members
and gave permission for a cessation of work. The committee mem-
bers then notified the members of Local 258 of a mass meeting
to be held in a nearby ball park for the purpose of receiving the
reports of the contract committees and taking action thereon. At
this meeting, attended by an overwhelming majority of the mem-
bers, it was agreed that the strike would go into effect at 4: 00 A. M.,
September 17th. The respondent had no notice of the strike. How-
ever, Coulter had advised Young at the meeting of September 2nd
that the men had voted to strike at any time after September 2nd
unless an agreement was reached. The strike lasted for about ten
days, during which time -operations in the repressure, production
and pipe line departments were closed down completely. The other
employers against whom the strike was directed were similarly
affected.
On or about September 26th Elliott returned to the field and im-
mediately started negotiations for a settlement of the strike. He
succeeded in inducing the employers to reinstate all of their striking
employees except the seven involved in this case. Operations in the
field were resumed on the morning of September 27th.
H. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 8, SUBDIVISION (5)
XI. On September 3rd, when Elliott was called to Washington,
negotiations between Local 258 and the respondent were still in prog-
ress. The issues had been clearly defined at the meetings of August
12th and 26th and September 2nd. While the parties had reached
an impasse by reason of Young's refusal to recognize Local 258 as
representing an appropriate bargaining unit, the situation was not
hopeless. When the meeting of September 2nd adjourned it was
clearly understood by all parties that Young was to confer with
Finston, his superior, on the demands made by the contract com-
mittee and also on Elliott's proposal to renew the old contract with
modification. There is some evidence that Young intended to have
Finston come to Wichita Falls on the 3rd to participate in the nego-
tiations. All of the employer representatives present at the meeting
had agreed to report to Elliott the afternoon of the 3rd and he had
arranged to meet with the contract committees later that day. All
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 583
parties to the negotiations expected that further conferences would
be held. This was the situation when negotiations were suspended
by Elliott's temporary absence. The strike called on the 17th effec-
tively prevented any further efforts to reach a written agreement.
When Elliott returned on or about the 26th he directed his efforts
toward a settlement of the strike based upon the reinstatement of the
striking employees.
In these circumstances we do not think there has been a violation
of Section 8, subdivision (5), and we will, therefore, dismiss the
complaint in so far as it charges such violation.
In doing so, however, we cannot fail to take cognizance of the re-
spondent's attitude in its negotiations with Local 258. At all of the
meetings with the representatives of its Northwest field employees
Young repeatedly refused to recognize and deal with the Local on
the sole ground that it did not represent a proper bargaining unit.
A determination of the question as to unit was demanded by him as a
prerequisite to negotiation. It was his contention that the proper
unit should include the refinery and field employees. It is interesting
to note that some 50 or 55 men are employed in the refinery. Not
one of them is a member of Local 258. A total of not more than
26 are employed in the Northwest field, and at least 21 of them are
members of Local 258. The testimony of witnesses for the Board
that Young stated that he intended to organize all of the respond-
ent's employees into one organization was not contradicted. There
is some evidence that the respondent maintained a company union at
the refinery and this also was not denied. We think this evidence
explains why Young was so insistent that the field and refinery em-
ployees be grouped together as one unit. There is ample evidence
in the record to show that the respondent was decidedly prejudiced
against Local 258. If the field and refinery employees were grouped
together the respondent would be in a position to dominate the whole
group through its control over the organization of the refinery em-
ployees who far outnumbered those employed in the field. By means
of this device the respondent would be enabled to thwart the, efforts
of the field employees to organize and bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and thus nullify the rights
guaranteed to those employees in Section 7 of the Act.
On the whole record we think that the respondent was not acting
in good faith in the negotiations outlined in finding VIII. While
it is true that Young met with representatives of Local 258 every
time they requested a meeting, he made no genuine effort to reach, an
agreement with them. His persistent refusal to recognize the Local
as the representative of an appropriate bargaining unit prevented
any real discussion of the contract submitted to him by the repre-
97571-36-vol 1-38
584 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives of the Local . At none of these meetings did he make
any counter offers to the proposals of Local 258 . His participation
was largely confined to disputing their right to bargain at all because
they would not include the refinery employees in the bargaining unit.
The obligation to bargain collectively requires considerably more of
an employer than merely meeting with the representatives of his em-
ployees and then challenging the composition of their unit or em-
ploying other dilatory tactics to thwart their ,efforts to reach an
agreement with him. We do not think the- respondent fulfilled this
obligation in the negotiations conducted up to September 3rd. But
in view of our finding that those negotiations were still pending and
that there was still a distinct possibility of reaching an agreement
when Elliott was called away and again when the strike was called,
we think that the respondent did not violate Section 8, subdivision
(5) of the Act.
I. THE DISCHARGES
XII. (a) The complaint alleges that the respondent refused em-
ployment to , discharged and refused to reinstate Bebermeyer, E. H.
Haynie, Grozier, F. C. Cox, Clifford D. Jackson , B. F. Jackson and
Roy W . Bowman because of their union membership and activity.
The respondent denies that Cox and the two Jacksons were ever at
any time stated in the complaint employed by it. With respect to
the remaining four, the respondent alleges that they were at one
time employed by it, but that they voluntarily left its employment
on or about September 17, 1935. It specifically denies that it refused
employment to or discharged or refused to reinstate these four men
because of membership or activities in Local 258 or that it ever
discriminated in regard to their hire or tenure of employment.
The respondent contends that the strike of September 17-27th was
a violation of an agreement made between Elliott, Local 258 and the
respondent at the time Elliott was called away on other business.
This alleged agreement is predicated upon the letter written by Beber-
meyer, as Secretary of the Local, to Young advising him that Local
258 had agreed to grant Elliott's request that it withhold further
action until his return . The respondent made no reply to this letter,
and, so far as appears from the record , made no promises to either
Local 258 or Elliott. Witnesses for the Board testified that between
September 3rd and 17th the respondent laid off at least one man and
put the pipe line department on longer hours. Witnesses for the
respondent denied that any regular employees were discharged be-
tween those dates and testified that only one extra employee, whose
services were not required at the time , was laid off . It was admitted
that the pipe line department was put on longer hours , but Young
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 585
and Gilchrist, the superintendent of the department, testified that
this was necessary because the respondent had recently acquired a
small pipe line system which it had to connect up with its old system
as quickly as possible in order not to inconvenience the producers
who thus became dependent upon it to buy their oil and that it was
done with the consent of the pipe line employees. Other witnesses
against the respondent testified that it and other employers engaged
in acts of discrimination and intimidation against the members of
Local 258 between September 3rd and 17th, but there is no evidence
to substantiate these charges. It is clear, however, that the members
did fear that unless an agreement was reached soon the employers
would discriminate against them and interfere with their efforts to
maintain their organization. Thus, when Coulter informed them on
the evening of September 16th that Elliott had been delayed in re-
turning to resume negotiations, their patience had been taxed to the
limit and they felt that an immediate strike was their only means
of protection. They took the position that the respondent had vio-
lated the status quo since September 3rd and that they were no longer
under obligation to Elliott since he had told them that he expected
to return on or about September 13th:
We do not think the strike was a violation of any agreement with
the respondent. The Local's agreement was with Elliott, not with
the employers. Without conceding or in any way implying that a
strike in violation of an. agreement alters the status of striking em-
ployees under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act,
we find that the men involved in this case are individuals whose work
has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a, current labor
dispute and that they are "employees" within the meaning of Section
2, subdivision (2) of the Act.
After returning to Wichita Falls on or about September 26th,
Elliott engaged in conferences with representatives of Local 258
and the employers in an effort to settle the strike upon the basis of
the reinstatement of the strikers. At his first conference with repre-
sentatives of the employers he induced all but Young to reinstate all
of their employees without discrimination. Young at first refused to
agree to reinstate a number of the strikers, but after further dis-
cussion he agreed to reinstate all except Grozier, Haynie, Bowman
and Bebermeyer. As a condition to reinstatement, however, he re-
quired the men to present themselves at the Burkburnett office of the
respondent on the morning of September 27th to make application
for employment. Elliott conveyed these instructions to the men,
who were awaiting the results of his conference with the employers.
At that time he told all of the men involved in this case except Cox,
who was not present, that they would not be reinstated.
586 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) B. F. Jackson, Clifford D. Jackson and F. C. Cox. These
three men were part of a group of 30 or 35 who worked under the
supervision of C. J. Bohner. Bohner is the president of the C. J.
Bohner Oil Corporation, which owns and operates producing wells
in the Northwest field, and in that capacity supervises operations at
those wells. He owns and operates some producing wells in the field
in his individual capacity and others in partnership with associates.
Bohner is also employed as superintendent of the respondent's produc-
tion department and of the repressure plant. He maintains an office
in the field from which she directs operations at all of the wells under
his supervision, whether as owner or agent for others.
The respondent does not employ roustabouts and clean out gangs
in its production department. Whenever it needs men for cleaning
out a well or other extra work on its properties it borrows them from
Bohner. Nearly all of the men in his employ worked part of the time
for the respondent. Among these were the Jackson brothers and
Cox. They worked under Bohner's supervision at all times, either
in his capacity as their employer or as superintendent of the respond-
ent's production department. Each of them kept his own time sheet
showing the exact number of hours worked for the respondent and
for Bohner. The respondent paid them with its own checks for the
time they worked for it.
For two months prior to September 17th B. F. Jackson worked
exclusively as a pumper on a Bohner well. Prior to that date he
worked as a gang pusher, roustabout and tool dresser for both Bohner
and the respondent, but most of his work was on Bohner's properties.
He was originally hired by Bohner.
Clifford D. Jackson worked for both Bohner and the respondent
for 15 years prior to September 17th. Just prior to that date he was
employed as a gang pusher. From March 15, 1935 to September 17th
he worked most of the time on the respondent's properties and so
received most of his compensation from it.
F. C. Cox, a tool dresser and roustabout, was working for Bohner
just prior to September 17th. From January 1, 1935 to September
17th he worked 180 hours for the respondent and 1200 hours for
Bohner and his associates.
These three men and many others in the group who worked part
of the time for the respondent were members of Local 258. The
union members in this group were represented by their own contract
negotiating committee composed of the Jackson brothers and one
Livingston. This committee negotiated exclusively with Bohner on
behalf of these employees. The group did not participate in the
meetings of the respondent's union employees in the repressure, pro-
duction and pipe line departments, nor in the election of the contract
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 587
committee representing those employees. This latter committee did
not purport to represent the group to which the Jacksons and Cox
belonged. Bohner's union employees participated in the strike and
all properties under his management were shut down. In his nego-
tiations for the reinstatement of the strikers Elliott dealt with Bohner
as the employer of these three men. Bohner refused to reinstate them
under any circumstances. Young testified that if Bohner would rein-
state them, the respondent would have no objection to employing
them whenever it had need for their services as it had done in the
past.
We think B. F. Jackson, Clifford D. Jackson and F. C. Cox were
employees of the C. J. Bohner Oil Corporation or C. J. Bohner indi-
vidually or with his associates. At best they were only part-time
employees of the respondent. We will therefore dismiss the com-
plaint as to them, without prejudice, however, to their right to file
charges against their employer.
(c) George E. Bebermeyer. Bebermeyer was employed in the
repressure plant as the operator in charge at a salary of $125 per
month. The plant is the joint property of the respondent, the Reno
Oil Company and the Burk-Divide Oil Company and the operating
expenses are pro-rated among them (see Finding II (c) ). This was
common knowledge to the employees in the plant and throughout the
Northwest field. Except for two or three short periods, Bebermeyer
had been employed in the Northwest field for eight or nine years
prior to September 17, 1935. He was employed in the construction
of the repressure plant in 1933 and upon its completion was assigned
to work there as an employee of the joint owners. Bohner, the
respondent's superintendent of production, was his immediate supe-
rior. Boliner received a salary from the respondent for his work as
superintendent of the production department, but received no addi- .
tional compensation when he took over superintendence of the repres-
sure plant. Bebermeyer was active in union affairs and was the
Corresponding Financial Secretary of Local 258. He was also a
member of the committee which tried to negotiate a new contract
with the respondent in August and September, 1935.
The repressure plant employees participated in the strike of Sep-
tember 17-27th. On September 26th Elliott endeavored to effect the
reinstatement of Bebermeyer by request to representatives of the
Reno and Burk-Divide Oil Companies and Young, representing the
respondent. It was pointed out to Elliott at this conference that
Bebermeyer was employed jointly by the three companies. Young
refused to accede to Elliott's request on the ground that Bebermeyer
had absented himself from his job to attend to union business. The
Reno and Burk-Divide representatives concurred in this refusal. The
h
588 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record does not support this charge against Bebermeyer. So far as
appears from the evidence he was an efficient and reliable employee.
Before the strike three men, including Bebermeyer, were employed
at the repressure plant, all of them being members of Local 258. The
other employees were reinstated on September 27th and a night
watchman was employed. There is evidence in the record that op-
erations at the plant were curtailed after the strike. Two com-
pressors were operated before the strike, but when operations were
resumed on September 27th only one was used. Gas injections into
the wells were reduced. The respondent's witnesses testified that no
more than two men are needed at the plant now. However; Beber-
meyer testified that the watchman performs the usual tasks at the
plant, such as oiling machinery and the like. He also testified that
it takes as many men to operate the plant on the curtailed schedule
as were employed when it was operated at its full capacity.
On the whole record we find that Bebermeyer was discharged on
September 27th because of his union affiliation and activity. But
because of the fact that the Reno and Burk-Divide Oil Companies
are not parties to this proceeding the complaint as to him must be
dismissed. We think it clearly appears from the record that Beber-
meyer was an employee of the respondent in its own behalf and as
agent of the Reno and Burk-Divide Companies (see finding IX).
This agency was revoked, however, on September 26th when the rep-
•resentati'ves of the two latter companies refused to reinstate him: For
this reason an order directed to the respondent requiring Beber-
meyer's reinstatement would be ineffective. We will dismiss the
complaint as to him, without prejudice to his right to file charges
against his joint employers.
(d) Frank T. Grozier. Grozier had been employed by the respond-
ent since 1925. From 1928 to September 17, 1935, he was a gauges
in the pipe line department at a salary of $171 per month. He was
active in union affairs and was President of Local 258 the first half
of 1935. He was on the committee which negotiated the 1934-35
contract; the workmen's committee which functioned under that con-
tract, and was chairman of the contract committee which tried to
negotiate a new contract with the respondent in August and Septem-
ber, 1935. On September 26th Young told Elliott that Grozier would
not be reinstated because he was inefficient.
A gauger's duties consist of running oil from the stock tanks located
near the wells through the gathering lines to the main line pump
station tanks. The flow is controlled by a stop located close to the
stock tank. When a run is made the gauger makes out a run ticket
stating the tank and lease number, the owner's name, the temperature
of the oil, the amount of waste in the bottom of the tank and the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 589
number of feet or inches of oil in the run. Payment for the oil is
based upon the measurements stated on the run ticket. After the
run is made the stop is sealed with a numbered metal seal similar to
those used on railroad cars. The numbers of the seals removed and
placed on the stop before and after a run is made are entered on the
run ticket.
We do not think Young's charge of inefficiency against Grozier is
sustained by the evidence. The mistakes he made in entering seal
numbers on run tickets were ordinary clerical errors which all
gaugers make. They are the result of the nature of the job rather
than carelessness or inefficiency. The respondent's estimate of
Grozier's ability and efficiency as a gauger is illustrated by the state-
ment made by Young to a regular monthly meeting of the pipe line
department employees on July 1, 1935. Bowman testified that Young
said at this meeting that "if all the gaugers' runs would check out as
close as Frank Grozier's that it would come out pretty nice." This
evidence is not contradicted.
After the strike Grozier was replaced by a non-union gauger who
had worked for the respondent in the Pampa field. From September
27th to the date of the hearing he was unemployed.
(e) E. H. Haynie. Haynie had been employed by the respondent
since 1926. Since August, 1929 he worked as a pumper in the pro-
duction department. Prior to September 17, 1935 he worked six
hours per day, six days a week, at the rate of 65¢ per hour. He was,
active in union affairs and was a member of the workmen's committee
under the 1934-35 contract and of the contract committee which tried
to negotiate a new contract with the respondent in August and Sep-
tember, 1935. He participated actively in the September 17-27th
strike. On September 26th Young told Elliott that Haynie would
not be reinstated because of his efforts to intimidate non-union em-
ployees of the respondent. There is no evidence to support this
charge. Haynie was active, along with others, in soliciting em-
ployees to join Local 258, but there is nothing in the record to show
that he resorted to intimidation.
After the strike the respondent cut pumping operations in its pro-
duction department to eight hours per day. The wells had been
pumped continuously before the shut-down. Prior thereto four
full-time pumpers were employed, but because of this curtailment in_
operations only three were reinstated after the strike. Bohner testi-
fied that the three reinstated were considered the most efficient and
"reliable" and that the principal reason for not reinstating Haynie-
was the curtailment in pumping operations. All three of the reg-
ular full-time pumpers who were reinstated are members of Local
258. A part-time pumping job was given to a man who had previ-
590 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ously worked as an extra in a roustabout gang. Haynie was not
offered this part-time job. He was the oldest pumper on the job
for the respondent. The others were hired after the code for the
industry was promulgated. In all the years of his employment by
the respondent he was never charged with inefficiency or negligence.
From September 27th to the date of the hearing he had earned $8.50.
(f) Roy W. Bowrinan. Bowman had been employed by the re-
spondent since September, 1932. Prior to September 17, 1935 he
operated the main line pump station at a salary of $140 per month.
Between, September 27th and the date of the hearing he earned
$157.88 as an automobile salesman. He is an active member of
Local 258 but has never served as an officer or committeeman. On
the morning the strike was called Bowman did not start the main
line pumps. Young called him from Grandfield that morning by
phone and when Bowman told him that he could not start the pumps
because a strike had been called, Young replied that he would send
in some one who would. Young told Elliott on September 26th that
Bowman would not be reinstated because of inefficiency. There is
no evidence in the record to support this charge. Bowman was
never threatened with discharge or demotion for inefficiency or any
-other reason. On the morning of September 27th when the men
were returning to work Young told Bowman that he was sorry he
(Bowman) was mixed up in the "mess" and that he might consider
Bowman for reemployment later. After the strike Bowman's job
was given to a non-union employee of the respondent.
J. CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING GROZIER, HAYNIE AND BOWMAN
XIII. We think it clear from the evidence that Grozier, Haynie
and Bowman were discharged on September 27th because of their
union affiliation and activity. The testimony of several of the men
who were reinstated with respect to statements made to them by
Young when he received their applications for reemployment on the
.morning of September 27th demonstrates a strong prejudice on his
part against Local 258 and the International and against the organi-
zation and activities of the respondent's employees. He advised one
of them "to get out of the union"; told another to let him know by
letter when he withdrew from the union ; another : "When you get
ready to turn your card in turn it in to Mr. Bohner"; and asked
.another what' he thought of the union and if he had had enough
,of the strike. The same morning Young asked one of the union
men applying for reinstatement if he knew what the Liberty League
-of America represented. When he received a negative answer Young
advised this man that "it was fifty of the smartest lawyers in the