Big Lake Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of BIG LAZE OIL COMPANY, and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LoOAL 7 09 (A. F. L.)
Cases Nos . 16-C-1007, 16-C-1008, and 16-R-6993, respectively.-
Decided May 20;19.44 '
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the Board,l an
election was held on October 22, 1943, among the, employees of the re-
spondent at Texon, Texas, to determine whether or not International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 709 (A. F. L.), herein called the
Union, was the majority representative of'the employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. Having lost the election, the Union,
on November 3, 1943, filed objections with- the Regional Director;
alleging that the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices which had affected the outcome of the election. The Regional Di-
rector investigated the objections, reported to the Board that they
raised substantial and material issues, and recommended that a hear-
ing be held. On November 3, 1943, the Union filed charges with the
Board alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices. On December 21,,1943, the Board issued an Order consolidating
the above proceedings and directing that a hearing on the objections
and on the charges of unfair labor practices be held. On February
7,, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his'Intermediate Report finding
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices, recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. On February 28, 1944, the respondent filed
exceptions to' the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of
the exceptions. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and
,the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the 'Trial Examiner.
1 52 N. L R. B. 1188.
- 56,N. L . R. B., No. 134.
684 1
BIG LAKE OIL COMPANY 685
Since the record establishes that the respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices prior to the election, we find that the election was not
an expression of the free will of an uncoerced majority and therefore
should be set aside, and we shall so order. We shall not, however, di-
rect a further election, until such time as the Regional Director ad-'
vises us that the effects of the unfair labor practices have -been dis-
sipated.
ORDER . '
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Big Lake Oil Company,
Texon, Texas; and 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, and to
engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining
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 policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its offices and
throughout its oil fields at Texon, Texas, 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 Sixteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT Is FURTHER, ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Chaffin R. Proctor within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby'isi dismissed.,
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the-election held on October 22, 1943,
among the employees of the Big Lake Oil Company at Texon, Texas,
be, and it hereby is,'set aside.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert F Proctor, for the Board.
Mr. Robert T. Neill, of San Angelo, Texas, for the respondent.
Mr. Arvit Inge, of Fort Worth, Texas, for the Union.
STATEMENT- OF THE' CASE
Upon two separate charges both duly filed on November 3, 4943, by Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 709, affiliated with the American
11
686 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
i
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
(Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated January 7, 1944, against Big
Lake Oil Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in, and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
f of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (9)' and (7) of the'National'Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,' herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and
notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the, Union:'
With respect to the unfair labor practices,. the complaint alleges, in substance,
(1) that the respondent, from, on or about June 1, 1943, to the date of the com-
plaint, disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, interrogated its em-
ployees concerning their union affiliations and activities, urged, persuaded, threat-
ened, and warned its employees to refrain' from assisting, becoming members of
or remaining members of the Union ; (2) that the respondent, about October 22,,
1943, and prior thereto, interfered with the conduct of a Board-ordered election
among its employees by publishing and circulating on July 24 misleading' and
threatening statements concerning the employees' union activities, by discrim-
inatorily soliciting employees in the armed forces to participate in the election,
by using company time and equipment to transport "a few favored" employees
to the polls, by conducting a poll among the employees to determine how they in-
tended to vote in the election, by making remarks designed to induce the em-
,ployees to vote against the,Union, and by stating to certain employees that if the
Union were successful in the election, there would be little chance of promotion
in the future and that certain benefits enjoyed by the employees would probably
be denied;, (3) that the respondent, on October 27. 1943, discharged one named
employee and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him because he joined
or, assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or piotection; and (4) that the respond-
On July 27, 1943, the Union filed with the Board's Regional Director a petition for
investigation and certification in Case No 16-11-692. On September 7, 1943, a hearing was
held on said petition. On October 5, 1943, the Board issued -its Decision and Direction of
Election. On October 22, 1943,,an election by secret ballot was conducted among the-re-
spondent's employees found by the Boaid to,constitute an appropriate unit On Oc,ober
25, 1943 , the Regional Director issued his report on the results of the election. On'1the
same day the Union, by letter 'to the Regional Director protested the results of the election
On November 1, 1943," the Regional Director issued his revised report on the results of the
election, finding, tinter alia,,that the Union had not been designated by a malority.of the
employees in the, apps opiate unit On Novemoer 3, 1943, the Union filed with the Regional
Director objections to the election , alleging in substance that„the.respondent , by,suggest-
ing to certain employees that they vote, by suggesting to, certain employees that they "knew
how to vote," by transporting'ceitain employees to the polling place, by stating to certain
employees that the respondent was transporting to the polls a sufficient number of em-
ployees then in the armed forces "to will said election," by utilizing the services of an
employee-soldier in electioneering against the-,,Union, and by assisting said soldier in that
activity by transporting him from place to place on the day of the election, had prevented
a free and uncoerced election On November 20, 1943, the Regional Director, issued his
report on the Union ' s objections to the election , finding , inter alia, that the respondent's
conduct prior to and during the election had prevented a "free and unhampered expression
by the employees of their desires with respect to representation " and recommending that'
a hearing be held in the matter ' On November 26, 1943, the respondent filed its reply
to the Regional Director's report on the Union's objections Oil December 7, 1943, the
Board'issued its order directing a hearing on the Union's objections and referring the case
to the Regional Director with authorization to him'to issue notice of such hearing On
December 21, 1943, the Board, pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (b) and Article III,
Section 13 (c) (2) of its Rules and Regulations-Series 3, consolidated cases Nos 16-R-
692, 16-C-1007, and 16-,C-1008. On December 28, 1943, the respondent filed with the
Board a protest against the consolidation of these cases ' On 'January 7, 1944 , the Regional
Diiector issued -notice of a consolidated hearing in the three cases
BIG LAKE OIL COMPANY 687
ent, by the above-stated conduct, discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent filed an answer dated January 14, 1944, containing' no aver-
ments,regarding the operations of the respondent and denying that the respond-
ent committed any of the alleged unfair labor practices. The answer also con-
tains a motion to dismiss, the complaint on the ground that it is beyond the scope
of the Board's order of December 7, 1943,. directing a heat ing in Case No 16-R-092
< Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Big Lake, Texas, on January 20 and
21, 1944, before William F. Gaffey, Jr, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel,, the Union by its representative, and all participated in
the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon'the issues was afforded all
parties At the beginning of the hearing the motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was contained in the respondent's answer, was denied At the conclusion
of the hearing, counsel for the Board and the respondent presented oral argument
on the record before the undersigned The parties were advised that they might
file briefs with the, undersigned. All parties, waived this right and no briefs
have been filed.
Upon the entire record in the case,and ifrom his observation- of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE, BUSINESS OF-THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, -Big Lake Oil Company, is a Delaware corporation, 'having its
principal place of business at Texon, Texas; where it is engaged in the production
of crude petroleum and the manufacture of casinghead gasoline obtained pursuant
to oil and gas leases upon land owned by the.University of Texas. During the
year 1943, the Company purchased raw materials valued at approximately $440,000,
more than 50 percent of which was shipped to the respondent at Texon from
points outside the State of Texas. During the same period; the respondent pro-
duced approsim'ately 1,515,000 barrels of petroleum, all of which was delivered
to a pipe line near the, respondent's premises and thence transported to the'Humble
Oil & Refining Company. During the same period; the respondent produced
approximately 2,400,000 gallons of casinghead gasoline, all of which was delivered
to the Republic Oil & Refining Company near Texas City, Texas. The respondent
concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 709, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Union began its organizational activities among the respondent's employees
early in July 1943. Several organizational meetings were held in the local court
room, on the local school grounds, and in an open field on or near the respondent's
property. On July 27, 1943, the Union filed- with the Board's Regional Director a
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
petition for investigation and certification. An election was held pursuant to this
petition on October 22, 1943. The Union lost the election by two votes. Shortly
thereafter, the Union filed objections•to the election and the unfair labor practice
charges which resulted in this proceeding.
i
4
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion2
On July 24, 1943; the respondent posted on its bulletin boards and mailed to each
of its employees a statement signed by Charles E. Beyer , the respondent's vice-,
president and general manager, stating that the Union had notified the respond-
ent that a petition for -investigation and certification was about to be filed with
the Board and setting forth the respondent's, position regarding the unionization
of its employees and the election which probably would be held. The full text of
this statement is 'as follows :
TO THE EMPLOYEES of BIG LAKE Orr, COMPANY :
Representatives of the American Federation of Labor have given notice
that a petition will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board for an
election to determine whether a majority of the employees of Big Lake Oil
Company desire to organize a union to. engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining-with the Company.
The employees of Big' Lake Oil Company have a right to form such' an
organization if they choose. The Company has no right to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of that right. It will
not do so.
Any election held will be by secret ballot. In the United States it is the
duty of every citizen to. vote. Do so. There will be no effort to interfere,
and regardless of the result of the election no employee will get in bad with
the Company because of any activity to carry the election or because of any
argument he may advance. Whether an employee votes affirmatively or
negatively, his standing will not be jeopardized. Of course no such activity
should, nor necessarily will, interfere with the work for which the Company,
pays and to-which it is entitled. The Company will make it possible to vote
if necessary on Company time. -
The National Labor Relations Act does not compel an employee to assist
in forming or to join a labor union. Under the law he is as free not to do so
as he is to do so. If he does not join a union he has the right to deal
individually with his employer. k
The Big Lake Oil Company has the right to express its views on this ques-
tion. The employees are entitled to those views. -
In the judgment of the Big Lake Oil Company the organization sought to
be effected would not prove to the interest of the employees or to their mutual
interest. -
For the present and for some indefinite time in the future our united efforts
and interest must be to assist in winning the WAR as soon as possible and in
getting our boys back home. This is no Mime for experimenting. The Com-
pany takes this opportunity regardless of what the future may bring to state
that its employees have done their part consistently, continuously and satis-
factorily, and it offers its congratulations and appreciation.
Old Number One-the discovery well-was brought in in May, 1923.
Shortly thereafter the Company was organized - Some of you have been here
since the organization. Some of you have sons and daughters born and
raised on the lease that are old enough to have gone through college and
' Unless otherwise noted, the findings herein rest upon undisputed and credible evidence.
BIG LAKE OIL COMPANY 689
some of the boys are now in the Army and Navy. We are holding their jobs
for them.
Without any union we have been able every year to pay a Christmas bonus.
Sick benefits have been established. Hospitalization has been provided and
is being maintained at a loss. The picture show is being run at a loss.
We have our own golf course, tennis courts and swimming pool. We have
established an annuity retirement plan. It became effective June 1st of this
year. To accomplish this the Big Lake and the Plymouth Companies are
paying more than five hundred thousand dollars back premiums for the
employees' benefit. The Company contributes toward the payment of the
premiums. Sons of the employees have been consistently aided in getting
an education by giving them work in the summer-and they have done their
work well. These are not the accomplishments of any union but the result
of twenty years cooperation between you and the Company.
It is possible that there may be an attempt to construe the mere recital of
these benefits as a threat that they might be withdrawn. This would be
unfair. Such is not the intention. The Company cannot know any more
than you can know what may happen if the projected organization is ac-
complished.
The foregoing is submitted with the earnest hope that it will receive the
careful and thoughtful consideration of eacy [sic] employee.
In the latter part of July-or early August, the Union held a meeting on the
local school grounds. The first part of this meeting was open to the public ; the
latter part was only for those interested in the Union. W. J. Grissett, the re-
spondent's assistant superintendent, attended this open meeting upon the invita-
tion of one of the employees who was active in the Union. During the course of
the meeting, those present were permitted to ask questions of the Union's repre-
sentatives. Grissett took this opportunity to inquire, in the presence of about
70 employees, if any law compelled the respondent to carry free insurance on its
employees, to pay them a 2-weeks Christmas bonus, and to maintain a hospital
and swimming pool for its employees. Grissett testified, and the undersigned
finds, that his purpose in asking these questions was "to call the men's attention
to something they had already received without having to bargain for it, or use
any tactics whatever, what they had gotten without any effort on their part other
than being loyal employees." About a month prior to the election, Grissett told
three employees that "if this union business come up," the respondent "might do
away with the hospital, and bonus, and all."
About two weeks prior to the election, Grissett told R. T. Norwood, another
employee, that Norwood had always been independent of matters such as the
Union, but that he might be compelled to join the Union later on, and that his
[Grissett's] brother had once belonged to a union which levied a special assess-
ment on him, "so much money . . . he didn't like it, and . . . moved."
Shortly before the election, Grissett told Willie C. Dies, an employee, that no
employee would be discharged because of the Union or the election and that he
[Grissett] had "no regards" which way the election went, but that the respondent
was privileged to fight the Union in the election and that it was doing so. Gris-
sett added that the respondent was going to get some of its employee-soldiers to
return to Texon and vote, that some of the soldiers did not want to participate
in the election but the respondent had written their commanding officer who had
them return to Texon regardless of their wishes in the matter.' About the same
8 Beyer testified, and the undersigned finds, that the respondent wrote no commanding
officers concerning this matter. Dies' credible testimony concerning Grissett's statement
to that effect, however, stands' undisputed in the record.
587784-45-vol. 56-45
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, Paul Danner, an employee, questioned Grissett concerning his [Danner's]
future prospects with the respondent. Grissett replied that if the matter rested
with him, he thought Danner "could get somewhere" with the respondent, but if
the Union won the election, "it would be left up to the union" and Grissett would
have little to do with Danner's future.
The day before the election, Grissett spent most of his time showing the em-
ployees a sample ballot to be used in the election and explaining how to mark the
ballot to vote either for or against the Union.' Grissett thus explained the ballot
to 70 or 75 employees.
On October 13, 1943, Vice-President Beyer sent identical letters to seven em-
ployees in the armed forces notifying the addressees of the forthcoming Board
election and of their right to participate therein, and expressing the respondent's
hope that the addressees would be present to participate in the election. The
following day, Beyer sent another letter to the same persons notifying them of
the time and place of the election and again stating the respondent 's desire that
the addressees be present to cast their vote. At the time of the election, there
were 35 or. 40 of the respondent's employees in the armed forces. According to
Beyer's credible testimony, he notified only seven of the election because the others
were either stationed at inconvenient distances from Texon or had had recent
furloughs which, he assumed, would preclude them from being in Texon on the
day of the election.
On the day of the election, the respondent transported four or five employees
to the polls in a company car. It brought one member of the armed forces from
San Angelo to Texon, a distance of about 85 miles, in a company car to enable
him to participate in the election. According to credible and undisputed evidence,
it has always been the respondent's practice to take its employees to the polls on
political election days if that was necessary to permit them to vote.
About a week or ten days after the election, Assistant Superintendent Grissett
told J. C. Baker, an employee , that he would not be discharged because of his
membership in the Union, that "from now on" the employees' "work was what
would count," but that "those leaders in the union had. better watch their step."
He also told Baker on this occasion that the Union was not "so smart after all"
and that the respondent "had the union full of spies all the time."
C. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint , and coercion
Upon the foregoing facts, the undersigned is of the opinion that the respondent
has failed to maintain the neutrality concerning its employees' choice of a bargain-
ing representative which the Act requires. At the very outset of the Union's
organizational drive, Vice-President Beyer, in his July 24 written statement, noti-
fied all the employees that in the respondent's view the Union "would not prove
to the interest of the employees." He then recited the benefits the employees
enjoyed as a result of cooperation between employees and management "without
any union." In the same statement Beyer anticipated the possibility that his
rmarks might be construed as a threat to withdraw these benefits in the event
the Union made a successful appeal to the employees. He did not, however, as-
sure the employees that the benefits would not be withdrawn. Instead, he stated :
"The Company cannot know any more than you can know what may happen if
the projected organization is accomplished." This statement is open to but one
construction-that to seek mutual aid and protection through concerted activity
was to risk the loss of benefits already enjoyed. The same threat was implicit
in the questions asked by Assistant Superintendent Grissett at the Union meeting
held shortly after Beyer's statement was circulated. The threat became all but
direct when Grissett told three employees that if the Union were successful, the
BIG LAKE OIL COMPANY 691
respondent "might do away with the hospital, and bonus, and all." These state-
ments of Beyer and Grissett, as well as Grissett's other above-noted statements
to Norwood, Dies, Danner, and Baker demonstrate the respondent's hostility
toward the Union. They were calculated to, and had the necessary effect of
discouraging adherence to the Union.
Additional interference with the employees' exercise of their right to select
a bargaining representative is found in Grissett' s ballot-explaining actively the
day before the election, Beyer's urging of the employees to vote, Beyer's letters
to seven employees in the armed forces, and the respondent's transportation of
certain employees to the polls on election day. In view of the respondent's ex-
pressed antipathy for the Union, the employees could not fail to understand that
the respondent was'urging them and assisting them to vote against the Union.'
The respondent, in its reply to the Regional Director's report on objections
to the election in Case No. 16-R-692, asserts that. Beyer's statement of July
24, 1943, was a privileged statement protected by the constitutional guarantee
of free speech. In this connection the respondent relies upon the Virginia Electric
case 5 and the American Tube Bending case.6 The contention is without merit.
The respondent's "total activities," as outlined above, place the instant case out-
side the applicable scope of the American Tube Bending case and within the doc-
trine expressed in the Virginia Electric case.
The undersigned finds that by Beyer's statement of July 24, Grissett's state-
ments and activities outlined above, urging employees, including those in the
armed forces, to vote, and transporting employees to the polls, the respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It is further found that the record does not support the allegations of the com-
plaint, that the respondent interrogated its employees concerning their union
affiliations and activities anal conducted a poll to ascertain how they intended
to'vote in a Board-ordered election.
D. The discharge of C'halfin R. Proctor
The complaint alleges that on or about October 27, 1943, the respondent dis-
charged and theerafter failed and refused to reinstate Chaffin R. Proctor because
he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The respond-
ent, in its answer, admits that it discharged Proctor on the alleged date, but
avers that he was discharged because he was found asleep at his post of duty
on the night of his discharge.
Proctor joined the Union on July 28, 1943. Proctor admitted that he attended
none of the Union's "preliminary" meetings, that he held no office in the Union,
that he solicited no other employees to join the Union. In short, Proctor's total
union activity consists of joining the Union and attending five or six of its meet-
ings. Thus, it appears that Proctor was not active either in the organization
or administration of the Union.
In addition to Proctor's scant union activity, the only evidence suggesting
discrimination in the discharge is the statement of C. M. Satterfield, acting
farm boss at the time of the discharge, that the respondent had been watching
4 Matter of Stonewall Cotton Mills , 36 N. L. it. B. 240, 249-51, enforced as modified on
another point, 129 F. (2d) 629 (C. C. A. 5), cert. denied, 317 U. S. 667.
6 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Company, 314 U. S. 469.
N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Company, 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert.
den., 320 U. S. 768.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Proctor and had his discharge "timed to perfection," Grissett's statement to
Proctor that he had had someone watching Proctor, Grissett's statement to
Baker shortly after the election that the leaders of the Union had better watch
their step, and Grissett's admission that prior to the election he had heard that
Proctor was a member of the Union. Grissett testified, however, that there
were many other employees whom he thought to be members of the Union.
It is true, as Board counsel argued at the hearing, that a finding of dis-
crimination may rest upon circumstantial rather than direct evidence. But
the circumstances of the instant case do not persuade the undersigned to such
a conclusion. The statements of Grissett and Satterfield are subject to an
interpretation indicating discriminatory motive. But the, fact remains that
Proctor was not a leader of the Union. He was just a member as were many
other employees. There is nothing in the record which sets Proctor apart from
the other members. There is no persuasive showing of any reason why the
respondent should have singled out Proctor for discriminatory discharge and
left all the other members of the Union untouched. On this state of the record,
it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the respondent's defense.
The undersigned finds that the record fails to support the allegation of the
complaint that the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate
Proctor because of his membership in and activity on behalf of the Union or.
because he engaged in other concerted activity.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Sec-
tion III, B and C, above, occurring in connection with its operations described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the record fails to support the allegations of the
complaint that the respondent interrogated its employees concerning their union
affiliations and activities, conducted a poll to ascertain how the employees. in-
tended to vote in a Board-ordered election and discriminatorily discharged
Chaffin R. Proctor, it will be recommended that those allegations of the complaint
be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 709, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, 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 did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogating
BIG LAKE OIL COMPANY 693
them concerning their union affiliations and activities or by conducting a poll
to ascertain how its employees would vote in a Board-ordered election.
5. The respondent did not discriminate with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Big Lake Oil Company, Texon,
Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,.to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its offices and throughout its
oil fields at Texon, Texas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraph 1 of these recommendations ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaipt that the,
respondent interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliations and
activities, conducted a poll to ascertain how its employees intended to vote in a
Board-ordered election, and discharged Chaffin R. Proctor because of his union
membership and activity or other mutual aid and protection be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with"the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any
other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or
objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
WILLIAM F. GuFFEY, Jr.
Trial Examiner.
Dated February 7, 1944.