Colo. Well Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 707 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC. 707
Accordingly, if the Rockville Centre plant is not an
accretion to the existing multiemployer unit, nothing
is to be gained by postponing consideration of this
case until completion of the pending arbitration
proceeding. We turn to this question.
The two plants are engaged in essentially the
same operation. The Brooklyn plant has
approximately 62 production employees, the
Rockville Centre plant has approximately 70. When
the Rockville Centre plant was opened, only three
production employees at the Brooklyn plant were
transferred to the new location and these three
employees were made supervisors. All other
employees at Rockville Centre were newly hired. No
employees at the Brooklyn plant have been laid off
or discharged as the result of the opening of the new
plant, and there has been no decrease of work at the
former location. None of the operating machinery at
the Brooklyn plant was transferred to the Rockville
Centre plant.2
Each of the plants is a self-contained operation.
Each has its own plant manager and supervisors,
keeps its own bank and payroll accounts and
records, and handles its own purchasing and billing.
There is no interchange of personnel between the
plants. Except for a small amount of print
enlargement and copy work performed for Rockville
Centre by the Brooklyn plant, there is no
interchange of work between the two plants.
Although work is the same at both plants, wages,
hours, and working conditions are different because
the terms of the existing collective-bargaining
agreement applicable to the Brooklyn plant have not
been extended to the Rockville Centre plant.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Rockville
Centre plant is not an accretion to the existing
contract unit and, therefore, that the collective-
bargaining contract relied upon by the Union is not a
bar to a present election.3 Accordingly, we further
find that a question concerning representation exists
among the employees of the Rockville Centre plant
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer-Petitioner seeks an election in a
unit of production and maintenance employees at
the Rockville Centre plant, excluding office clerical
employees, executives, foremen, comptrollers,
credit managers, engineers, advertising managers,
outside salesmen, confidential secretaries,
supervisors, and guards as defined in the Act. The
Union declined to take any position regarding the
appropriate unit, merely noting that the contract unit
at the Brooklyn plant does not exclude office
clericals.
We find that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Rockville Centre, New York, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, executives,
foremen, comptrollers, credit managers, engineers,
advertising managers, outside salesmen,
confidential secretaries, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election4 omitted from
publication.]
2 One printing machine which was not being used at the
Brooklyn plant was transferred to the Rockville Centre plant for
storage purposes only
3 Pullman Industries, Inc., supra, Morgan Transfer & Storage
Co., Inc., 131 NLRB 1434; Buy Low Supermarket, Inc, 131 NLRB
23.
4 An election eligibility list, containing the names and
addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer
with the Regional Director for Region 29 within 7 days after the
date of issuance of this Decision and Direction of Election. The
Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the
election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by
the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.
Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236
Colo. Well Service, Inc. and International
Union of District 50, United Mine Workers
of America , Petitioner. Cases 27-CA-2017 and
27-RC-2982.
March 30,1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On December 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Stanley
Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommended that such allegations
be dismissed, as set forth in the attached Decision.
In addition, with regard to the election held in Case
27-RC-2982, the Trial Examiner recommended
sustaining the challenges to the ballots of driller-
operators Brenton, Burchett, Sims, Halcomb, Tullio,
Wood, and Temples, and overruling to challenge to
the ballot of employee Bradley. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and
a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-
exceptions and a brief in support thereof, and a brief,
in support of the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
295-269 0-69-46 163 NLRB No. 101
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudical error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the General Counsel's and the
Respondent's exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations , except as modified herein. i
In considering the challenges to eight ballots, the
Trial Examiner recommended sustaining the
challenges to the ballots of driller-operators Brenton,
Burchett, Halcomb, Sims, Tullio, Wood, and
Temples, and overruling the challenge to the ballot
of Bradley. We adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommendation sustaining the challenges to the
ballots of the seven driller-operators since we agree
with the Trial Examiner's finding that they are
supervisors. As the results of the election can no
longer be affected by opening Bradley's ballot, we
find it unnecessary to pass upon the challenge to his
ballot, and shall disregard the Trial Examiner's
recommendation with respect thereto. Accordingly,
in view of the fact that the Union has not received a
majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Colo. Well
Service, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the
valid votes has not been cast for International Union
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and
said organization is not the exclusive representative
of the Employer 's employees in the unit heretofore
found appropriate by the Regional Director for
Region 27 , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's finding that Wood and
Temples are supervisors , we note that these two individuals are
classified along with five others in the Respondent's employ as
"driller- operators ," and that the 'General Counsel did not except
to the Trial Examiner 's finding, supported by adequate record
evidence , that the five others are supervisors by virtue of their
authority to hire, fire , and transfer.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner: Based upon a
charge filed on March 30, 1966, and amended on April 4,
1966, by International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union,
the complaint in Case 27-CA-2017 was issued on May 25,
1966. By order dated June 27, 1966, the Regional Director
for Region 27 consolidated a hearing on the challenges to
eight ballots in an election held in Case 27-RC-2982 with
the hearing on the aforesaid complaint. The complaint
alleges that Colo. Well Service, Inc., hereinafter referred
to as Respondent or the Company, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
In its answer, Respondent denies that it was guilty of the
unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in Meeker,
Colorado, on July 19 and 20, 1966, before me. At said
hearing the General Counsel and the Company were
represented by counsel. An appearance was entered on
behalf of the Union only with respect to the hearing on the
challenged ballots in Case 27-RC-2982. Briefs were
submitted by the General Counsel and the Company
within the time designated therefor.
From my observation of the witnesses and upon the
entire record,' I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
As is admitted by the Company, it is a Colorado
corporation with principal office and place of business in
Rangely, Colorado, where it is engaged in the business of
servicing and maintaining producing oil wells. In the
course and conduct of its business operations, it annually
has purchased, transported, and delivered to its aforesaid
place of business goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported thereto directly from
States other than the State of Colorado. Furthermore, as is
admitted by the Company, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, it annually performs from its
aforesaid place of business services valued in excess of
$50,000 to Chevron Oil Company, a California corporation
engaged in the production of petroleum products, which
annually produces and ships goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly out of the State of Colorado to other States
of the United States.
The Company is, and has been at all material times
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by the Company, the Union is, and at all
times material herein has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES HEREIN
A. Background Information
Sometime prior to its filing of the aforesaid original
charge on March 30, 1966, the Union commenced its
organizational activity among the - employees of the
Company and apparently among the employees of other
well service companies operating in the same area. On
March 11, 1966, it held an organizational meeting in
' The parties stipulated that the entire record of the hearing in
Case 27-RC-2982 held in Denver , Colorado, on April 19 and 20,
1966 , be made part of the record in the instant proceeding.
COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC. 709
Rangely, Colorado, which was attended by employees of
various well service companies as well as by owners and
other management personnel thereof, including Hershl
Pilcher, vice president of Respondent , and John
Pittsenbarger , who is a toolpusher of Respondent and an
admitted supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Subsequently , on March 25, 1966, the Union conducted
another organizational meeting at the same location.
During the period between said two meetings,
Respondent informed its driller -operators that they were
supervisors and warned them against participating in any
union activity . Among said driller -operators were Billy V.
Wood and B . L. Temples. On March 29, Respondent
interrogated Wood as to whether he was engaging in union
activity , which he admitted, and discharged him on that
date for engaging in such activity . On or about March 30,
1966, Respondent also interrogated Temples as to whether
he was engaging in union activity , which he admitted, and
he was discharged on April 3, 1966 , for engaging in such
activity.
On March 31, 1966, the Union filed its petition in Case
27-RC-2982 and an election was conducted by the Board
on June 15 , 1966 . According to the aforesaid Regional
Director 's Supplemental Decision the tally of ballots
showed the following:
Approximate number of eligible voters, 20
Void ballots, 0
Votes cast for petitioner, 2
Votes cast against participating labor organization, 9
Valid votes counted, 11
Challenged ballots, 8
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots, 19
Of the eight challenged ballots, seven were ballots of
driller-operators , including Wood and Temples. Said
seven ballots were challenged by the Company on the
ground that the driller-operators are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. The eighth ballot was that of
Walter G. Bradley , whose ballot was challenged by the
Company on the ground that he had been permanently
terminated prior to the election.
The personnel involved in the operations of the
Company are divided into the following strata (from top to
bottom): ( 1) two office -owners of the Company, (2) four
toolpushers , (3) the driller-operators 2 and (4) the
roughnecks . (The first two of the above categories are
admitted by all parties to be supervisory personnel.) The
Company handles its servicing operations in the field with
rigs manned by crews consisting of a driller-operator and
two or three roughnecks depending upon the type of work
being done. It appears that at the time material herein
there were seven or eight of such crews.
B. The Issues
1. The major issue in this proceeding is whether all or
certain of the driller -operators are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. The General Counsel contends that
Wood and Temples are not supervisors and takes no
position with respect to the other driller-operators. The
Union takes the position that none of the driller-operators
is a supervisor and the Company contends that they are all
supervisors.
2. The allegations in the complaint of discriminatory
discharges of Wood and Temples will be disposed of upon
the determination whether or not Wood and Temples are
supervisors .3 Furthermore , the determination of whether
Wood and Temples are or are not supervisors will dispose
of the issues with respect to the allegations of violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act contained in subparagraphs V(d),
(g), (h), (i), (j), and (1) of the complaint , since it was
stipulated that the Respondent engaged in the conduct
alleged in the said subparagraphs and that said conduct
only involved Wood or Temples . The Respondent's
position is that the conduct was not unlawful because
Wood and Temples were supervisors and it is clear that
General Counsel does not contend that said conduct was
unlawful even if Wood and Temples were found to be
supervisors . Also, the issue with respect to the allegation
in subparagraph V(e) of the complaint will be disposed of
by a determination of the supervisory status of the driller-
operators , since it was stipulated that the Company did
engage in the conduct alleged therein , that of ordering its
driller-operators "not to talk about the Union , attend union
meetings , or in any other way to aid , assist , or give support
to the Union."4
3. Other issues raised by the complaint are whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
conduct alleged in subparagraph V(a) of the complaint
(surveillance ); the conduct alleged in subparagraphs V(b)
and (c ) of the complaint (interrogation ); and the conduct
alleged in subparagraph V(f) of the complaint (promise of
economic benefits). The conduct alleged in said
subparagraphs involved personnel who are clearly
"employees" within the meaning of the Act.
Subparagraph V(k) of the complaint was withdrawn by
the General Counsel upon leave granted by the Trial
Examiner , since no evidence was submitted in support
thereof.
4. The issue with respect to the seven challenged
ballots of the driller -operators will be disposed of by the
aforementioned determination of their supervisory status.
The issue raised by the challenge to the eighth ballot
requires the determination of whether Walter Bradley was
or was not permanently terminated by the Company prior
to the election.
There is little or no dispute as to the facts . A resolution
of the issues raised herein requires , for the most part, a
determination of the appropriate inferences to be drawn
from the facts.
1. The supervisory status of the driller-operators
Wood and Temples testified , in effect, that they were
never expressly given any supervisory authority, that they
never exercised any supervisory authority , and that in
performing their jobs they did not responsibly direct the
work of other members of their respective crews. Hershl
Pilcher , an officer of the Company, testified that although
2 As is indicated herembelow , there is some variation in the
testimony as to the appropriate title of this category of employees
The term driller-operator is used in this Decision , since it appears
to be the one most frequently used in the record
3 It was stipulated by the parties that, if Wood and Temples are
found to be supervisors, their discharges do not constitute a
violation of Section 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, and, if they are found
not to be supervisors , their discharges were unlawful
' If all of the driller -operators are found to be supervisors, then
it would follow that the admitted conduct alleged in subparagraph
V(e) would not be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act If,
however , one or more of the driller - operators were found not to be
supervisors , then the said admitted conduct with respect to such
driller-operators would be violative of the Act
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management never "spelled out" to the driller-operators
their duties and authority, they possessed and exercised
the authority to hire and fire as well as other supervisory
authority. The testimony of the seven driller-operators who
worked for the Company discloses there was a
considerable variation as to what supervisory authority, if
any, they believed they possessed and what authority they
had exercised.
Testimony was elicited with respect to the proper title of
their job; i.e., whether they are "drillers," "driller-
operators," or "operators." It appears that the Company
sought to affix the label of drillers to them in order to
equate them with drillers employed by companies engaged
in exploratory operations, and cited cases in which the
Board has held that "drillers" employed by such
companies are supervisors. It does not appear, however,
that said cases are dispositive of the issue of supervisory
status in this proceeding. For example, in Gulick Drilling
Company, 139 NLRB 1137, and Sprecher Drilling Corp.,
139 NLRB 1009, both representation cases, the Board, in
finding that drillers are supervisors, pointed out that it is
the practice for drillers to hire their crews from the various
local labor markets in which they conduct their drilling
operations . In the instant proceeding the Company's labor
market is centralized in the area in which the Company
maintains its office and plant. It is noted also that in the
cited cases the Board found that the drillers "responsibly
directed" the work of their crews. It cannot be determined
whether the factors which prompted such a conclusion in
the cited cases (which involved crews engaged in
exploratory drilling) were also present in the operations of
the Company's crews engaged in servicing wells.
A great deal of testimony was elicited with respect to the
functions that the Company's driller-operators carry out in
the operations of their crews. It appears that the driller-
operators perform certain paperwork, that of logging the
nature of the work performed and the hours required
therefor. The amount of pay to the driller-operators and
their crews and the billing of the companies whose wells
are serviced are based upon said paperwork. It does not
appear that this function is any more than clerical in
nature. In my judgment, the record will not support a
finding that the driller-operators, in performing the
mechanical and physical duties involved in servicing
wells, exercise independent judgment or responsibly
direct the other members of their crew. It appears that
when any problem arises outside those of a routine nature,
the driller-operators follow the practice of obtaining
instructions from one of the toolpushers by telephone or
two-way radio. Furthermore, it appears that a toolpusher
or a representative of the Company for which the well
servicing is being done directs the driller-operator as to
what work is to be performed. Also, although it appears
that it is the practice of a toolpusher to make only brief
visits to the sites where the crews are working, the record
indicates that very little direction of the work of the crew is
required of the driller-operator.-It is concluded that, in
carrying out their mechanical and physical operations, the
various members of the crew know what functions to
perform and work together as a team without the need of
more than a minimal amount of direction from the driller-
operator.5
s This is predicated upon the uncontradicted and credited
testimony of Temples as to how a crew functions in performing its
work It does not appear that the testimony of others as to the
However, it is concluded that the Company's driller-
operators are supervisors within the meaning of the Act
based upon an analysis of the record which is set forth
hereinbelow.
In view of the small amount of time that a toolpusher
generally spends at the site in which any crew operates, it
is apparent that the toolpusher is not in a position to
evaluate the performance and skill of the various members
of a crew. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
management has no alternative but to rely upon the
judgment of the driller-operator with respect to the
personnel in his crew.
It is also reasonable to infer that management does hold
the driller-operator responsible for evaluations of his crew
members and for the crew's productivity. This inference is
supported not only by the fact that only the drill er-operator
is in a position to evaluate the work performance of
crewmembers, but also by the record which indicates that
both management and the driller-operators regard the
driller-operator as being responsible for the evaluation of
his crew and its efficiency. Some 2-1/2 years prior to the
hearing in the instant proceeding, management apparently
was having trouble with the productivity of its crews and
held a meeting of its toolpushers and driller-operators to
discuss with them the need for increasing the efficiency of
the various crews. Also, Pilcher testified, without
contradiction, to two conversations with Temples as
follows:
Q. Do you remember having any conversation with
Mr. Temples at Red Wash about toolpushers?
A. Yes. He was over there on a job for Pan
American. We had sent him over there to replace a
crew that the company representative had asked us to
replace. And in a telephone conversation with Bud
while he was on this job-
Q. Bud is Bud Temples?
A. Yes. He made the statement he would run the
rig and look after the crew and he would appreciate it
if the pusher would stay away.
Q. Do you recall having a service job on a well
identified as a Larson A-2?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the driller in charge of that job?
A. Bud Temples.
Q. Do you recall having any conversation with Mr.
Temples on that job about supervision?
A. Yes, I went to his rig one day. He was having
trouble with his transmission and when I drove up on
location he had a roughneck sitting in the pickup. I
thought the man was asleep. So Bud was on the break
and I went up and I said do you feel it is right that
these boys should set out here on the payroll and
sleep in the pickup. He said he didn't realize the guy
was asleep. So we had quite a little discussion about
it. Either he or I pointed out to the other one that
neither of us agreed on whether or not the work
around the rig had been kept up. He maintained that
if his work was done and he had all of the work done
around the rig and there was nothing more for the
crew to do why he maintained they could sit in the dog
house or what have you. At the end of this discussion
he told me that he felt he was responsible for these
details of the operations involved in servicing wells affords a basis
for a contrary conclusion
COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC. 711
men out there; that he would keep them busy at his
discretion, and he felt his main purpose as far as the
management is concerned was to keep the pusher
happy. And in this case "you" he said.
The above-quoted testimony, which is credited, clearly
indicates that Temples regarded himself, in his capacity of
driller-operator, as being responsible for the efficiency of
his crew.
The uncontradicted and credited testimony of five of the
driller-operators (those other than Wood and Temples),
also supports the inference that the driller-operators had
the responsibility of maintaining good crews and that in
varying degrees they exercised supervisory authority to
that end. Their testimony is summarized hereinbelow.
Jack Burchett, who classified himself as a "driller,"
testified that he understood he was "boss" and that he had
the right to hire and fire his crew members. He cited
instances in which he exercised his authority to hire and
fire. Bluford Halcomb, who classified himself as an
"operator-driller," testified that when he was hired he was
told by management that he could hire his own crew. He
further testified that he fired one man and that he hired
eight or nine men (over the 2-year period preceding the
hearing), without consulting management . Jerald Tullio,
who classified himself as an "operator,' 16 testified that he
believed that he had the right to hire and fire; that while he
has never hired without "going through the toolpusher"
the toolpusher generally followed his recommendation as
to the men whom he hired. He further testified that he had
never fired a man . However, he further testified that he
believed that he had the authority to fire and explained as
follows:
A. Well, I either-if I didn't like the way the man
was working, if I couldn't fire him that I wouldn't go
out myself, either him or me, one or the other that
wouldn't be out there the next day working.
Q. You feel that you had the right to fire?
A. Well, yes, I believe so.
Arthur Sims, who stated that he is a "driller-operator,"
testified that he never classified himself as a "supervisor,"
that he never hired anyone, and that he was never told that
he had the authority to hire and fire. However, he further
testified that he "has left some man at home," but did not
use the word "fire." His testimony in explanation thereof
clearly supports the conclusion that the driller-operator
does evaluate the personnel of his crew and that the
Company gives effect to a decision of the driller-operator
that he does not wish to retain a particular employee on his
crew. This testimony of Sims is as follows:
Q. Now, you just said in your direct examination
that sometimes you had left men at home?
A. That's right.
Q. Who were these men that you left?
A. Out of those period of years I have worked
several people. I would say in the neighborhood of
possibly 50, for one or two days at a time we'd send
out as an extra hand or replacement or while one of
my regular crew was on vacation as a replacement for
him.
Q. You didn't want him to work that day, is that
what you are saying?
A. I didn't want him to work period anymore with
me.
Q. You didn't go by and pick him up that morning?
A. That's correct.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Did you consult with anybody
before you took this action?
THE WITNESS: I called the pusher or Pilcher or
Poole which is the owners, I told them I would need
another hand, I would not pick up this man that I had.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You were the one that decided as
to whether you were going to continue to work them or
get a replacement?
A. In a sense of the word yes, they was not very
good workers, I needed replacements and asked
permission for such.
Richard Brenton, who classified himself as a "driller-
operator," testified that he was told by management that
he had the authority to fire, but had never been told that he
had the right to hire. It appears that about 7 months prior
to the hearing he complained about one of his
crewmembers to management and was told that he had the
authority to fire him. He also testified that he hired one
man, in that he was given the names of two available men
and selected one of them. It also appears from his
testimony that on occasions he has, on his own initiative,
when he needed a member for his crew, selected someone
from another crew which was on layoff status, and that he
has done that quite frequently. He further testified that on
one occasion he asked the toolpusher to transfer one of his
crewmembers to another crew because he was dissatisfied
with his work performance, which request was granted.
He also testified that, although he generally followed the
practice of asking the toolpusher for replacements in his
crew when he was shorthanded, he did not have to do so;
and that he followed the practice of going through the
toolpusher because "it was easier to get the names off of
him than to hunt them up myself."
The record discloses that the toolpushers, who are
admitted supervisors, receive fixed salaries while the
driller-operators and roughnecks are paid at an hourly
rate. However, the driller-operators receive 34 cents an
hour more than do the roughnecks.
It is concluded from the above analysis of the record
that, although only some of the driller-operators were
expressly told of their authority to exercise control over
the composition of their crews and some of the driller-
operators were more aggressive than others in exercising
such control, because of their responsibility for
maintaining good crews and productivity, they had, as a
minimum , the implicit authority to effectively recommend
the replacement of members of their crews.' It is further
concluded that it is reasonable to assume that all
categories of the Company's personnel including the
driller-operators and roughnecks were aware of this basic
authority of the driller-operators. Consequently it is my
considered judgment that the driller-operators, by virtue of
possession of at least said basic authority, are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
6 Tullio testified that the classification of operator was not the
same as driller-operator and that he did not do any drilling. It is
noted that Burchett and Halcomb apparently did perform some
drilling operations However, it further appears that the amount of
their drilling operations was insubstantial as compared to that of
servicing wells
' It is clear that the majority of the driller-operators had more
than said minimum authority, either by express grant or by
acquiescence of management in their exercise of greater
authority The fact that all of the driller-operators may not have
exercised said minimum authority is not a sufficient basis for
concluding that it does not exist.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The alleged unfair labor practices involving driller-
operators
As indicated hereinabove , the issues raised by the
allegations of the discriminatory discharges of Wood and
Temples and Respondent 's other conduct with respect to
them are disposed of by finding that both of them were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, their
discharges , admittedly for engaging in union activity, were
not unlawful . Similarly, the conduct of Respondent with
respect to Wood and Temples (of interrogating them about
their union activity , ordering them not to engage in such
activity , and promising them economic benefits if they
refrained from adherence to the Union or giving assistance
or support to it), was not unlawful in view of the
determination that Wood and Temples were supervisors.
Also, in view of the determination that all of the driller-
operators are and were supervisors within the meaning of
the Act , Respondent 's conduct in ordering them not to talk
about the Union, attend union meetings , or in any other
way aid, assist, or give support to the Union was not
violative of the Act.
3. Unlawful conduct of Respondent with respect to its
nonsupervisory employees
It is alleged in subparagraph V(a) of the complaint that
Respondent , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act "kept
under surveillance the activities of its employees on behalf
of the Union" on March 11, 1966 . There is no substantial
dispute as to the facts relating to this allegation . Pilcher,
an officer-owner of Respondent , and Pittsenbarger, one of
Respondent ' s toolpushers , attended the Union 's first
organizational meeting on March 11, 1966. Pilcher
testified as to the events leading up to his attendance of
the meeting and what occurred at the meeting. His
testimony is as follows:
A. During the first part of March , it was common
knowledge everyone in the small town of Rangely was
talking about the union meeting and it was a
controversy as to who shall be there and who shall not
be going and of course I was real interested in the
thing, I went to one of our driller -operators, Arthur
Sims and asked him if it would be all right if I
attended and he said I don 't know if it is all right if you
attend or not but I will ask someone and find out. He
told me a couple of days later and he had talked to one
of the union men and he said that there was no law
preventing my going to the union meeting, that I
would probably be asked to leave if I went but if I
wanted to come I would be welcome so I informed
John Pittsenbarger of what Mr . Sims told me and we
attended.
Q. You heard testimony about your conversation at
the meeting , will you tell us your side of the story,
what did you say and what was said to you?
A. During the course of the meeting, Mr. Franklin
[a union representative], as has been testified , told of
the possibility of a union and he started to especially
explain the union policy . In a period of about 15
minutes why, as was testified , Harry Peacock
[another employer] came in the back door, or in the
front door , Bill Wood stood up and said Mr. McReady,
there is an employer in the audience . At that time Mr.
McReady said , are there any other employers in the
audience and of course I-there was several of us
there, we made ourselves known.
A. He said that the employers were not welcome at
the meeting , he didn 't want the employers at the
meeting or owners, as was stated . Mr. Peacock asked
if he had a law against it and it was stated there was, I
asked if he would read the law and he read from the
National Labor Relations Board book that it was
against the law for management to spy on a union
meeting. I informed them that I didn 't think we were
spying, especially Mr. Pittsenbarger and I because we
were sitting in the front row. The discussion went as
Mr. Temples ' testimony states between Mr . Peacock
and Mr. Franklin and finally he said he would
appreciate it if we would leave . At that time Mr.
McReady said why don't we let them stay. One of the
other men in the room said it was all right with him to
let them stay. One of the other fellows suggested that
they take a vote on it to see if we should stay and Mr.
Franklin vetoed all these suggestions . He said he
would like for us to leave and we got up and filed out
in single file and as stated when I went by Mr.
McReady I said I hated to leave just when we were
getting warmed up . I don't recall any conversation
with Mr. McReady.
McReady's testimony is somewhat at variance with that of
Pilcher in that McReady testified that he had a discussion
with Pilcher in which Pilcher stated that "he thought this
was a free country and he had a right to stay there [at the
meeting] if he wanted to." According to the above -quoted
testimony of Pilcher, he (Pilcher) did not "recall any
conversation with Mr . McReady." In view of McReady's
clear recollection of his conversation with Pilcher, his
testimony with respect to the conversation is credited. In
all other respects the above-quoted testimony of Pilcher
(substantially consistent with that of other testimony of
what occurred at the meeting), is credited.
Respondent contends that the fact that Pilcher and
Pittsenbarger attended the meeting did not constitute a
violation of the Act and in support of this contention
argues in its brief as follows:
There was here in effect, an invitation to the public
to attend , as the union simply had the invitation
passed by word-of-mouth around Rangely . Here there
was no attempt on the part of the employer to conceal
his presence . There is no evidence that the employer
noticed who among his employees was at the meeting.
The fact of several other employers attending the
meeting proves that the informal public invitation
issued by the union was misinterpreted by others.
Pilcher and Pittsenbarger received direct invitations
from the union organizers through two of their driller-
operators.
Finally, it is undisputed that no less than (5) of
Respondent 's driller-operators were invited and did
attend the meeting. Therefore , if driller-operators are
found to be supervisors , then the fact that these
supervisors were invited and did attend makes the
fact that Pilcher and Pittsenbarger attended totally
harmless and irrelevant.
It does not appear that there was. in fact, an invitation to
the public to attend the meeting. However, even if the
facts were to be so construed , an invitation to the "public"
cannot be considered to include as invitees employers and
representatives of management . W. T. Carter and
COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC.
Brothers , 90 NLRB 2020 , 2061 . It is of no moment that
there was no attempt on the part of Pilcher and
Pittsenbarger to conceal their presence . On the contrary,
the very fact that their presence was apparent to
employees of Respondent would reasonably tend to inhibit
said employees from freely participating in the meeting.8
Although the General Counsel agrees with Respondent
that it is not unlawful for an employer to attend a union
meeting upon an express invitation , General Counsel
contends such an invitation was not extended by the
Union. Clearly Sims' statement to Pilcher that he would
probably be asked to leave if he attended the meeting
negates the possibility that Pilcher could reasonably have
understood from Sims that he had an "express invitation."
While it is true that driller-operators of Respondent did
attend the meeting (apparently upon invitation) and have
been found to be supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, it appears that it was the belief of the Union at that
time that they were not supervisory personnel (which
position the Union persisted in during the course of this
proceeding). The fact that said supervisory personnel in
the lowest echelon of supervisors were invited to and did
attend the meeting did not mitigate the effect on the
employees of the attendance at the meeting of
representatives of management in the top two echelons
thereof. While it may very well have been that Pilcher and
Pittsenbarger did not believe that they were engaging in
unlawful conduct by attending the meeting , this cannot be
considered a meritorious defense since the issue is not as
to whether or not they were aware of the impropriety of
their presence at the meeting,9 but rather what the
reasonable effect of such conduct was . It is concluded that
the attendance of Pilcher and Pittsenbarger at the meeting
did reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain , and coerce
Respondent 's employees within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
It is alleged in subparagraphs V(b), (c), and (f) of the
complaint that Respondent , through its president, Julius
Poole, unlawfully interrogated its employees , shortly after
the organizational meeting of March 11 , 1966 , and, through
Carl Fellows, a toolpusher , unlawfully promised
employees "economic benefits and other benefits,"
shortly before the organizational meeting of March 25,
1966 . The testimony relating to these allegations, which
was uncontradicted1O and is credited , is set forth
hereinbelow.
Martin Etcheverry, one of Respondent 's roughnecks,
testified to a conversation he and Louis Eude, also a
roughneck , had with Poole "at the office," which
testimony is as follows:
A. Well, I don 't recall exactly how it started but
during the conversation it was asked by Poole what
we planned , you know , on benefiting by this union,
you know, what we were wanting and I said better
wages. I mean I felt we needed better pay and our
vacations back. We lost our vacations during my
employment and he asked and Eude says , Yah, that is
something we all looked forward to was a vacation
Walter Bradley testified to a conversation he had with
713
Poole at approximately the same time as that to which
Etcheverry testified . Bradley's testimony as to said
conversation , which was held at the location of a rig, is as
follows:
A. He [Poole] wanted to know who was at the
meeting [ the union meeting of March 11], I wouldn't
tell him . He wanted to know how many people were at
the meeting which I later told him that part of it.
Q. What did you say to him, how many were there?
A. I told him later there were about 70 people there
at the first meeting.
Q. Was that later in the conversation?
A. Later on, yes. In fact, I decided to come back
and tell him that after our conversation was over with.
Q. Would you continue with the conversation at
this time?
A. He tried to impose on me I thought . He said that
I should owe them loyalty and inserted that I
shouldn 't bother with the union , should let it lay still,
that I should stay with them and their little
organization which he called a family.
Q. Do you recall anything else about the
conversation?
A. No. He wasn't threatening or violent or anything
like that . As far as anything else I can't recall right
now.
Q. Do your-do you recall Mr. Poole's saying about
his preference for the Union or attitude toward them?
A. Yes, they were-they said time and time again
they couldn't afford a union and didn 't want no part of
one.
Bradley also testified to statements made by Fellows to
him and two others (Les Andrews, apparently another
roughneck , and Wood, who was found hereinabove to be a
supervisor). His testimony with regard thereto is as
follows:
A. (The Witness) He [Fellows ] waE discouraging
about the union that they were no good here, etc., etc.,
we shouldn't push the union and if we wanted
recognition from the company that we could then go
to Pilcher, Mr. Pilcher and Mr. Poole and form our
own little union . He says the same words, deal with
Mr. Pilcher and Mr . Poole directly through our own
little union and do it on a friendly basis and firmly. He
says you will have recognition and they will sit down
and talk to you about your problems , that was about
the essence of that meeting here.
It is concluded that the above-credited testimony
establishes that Respondent was strongly opposed to the
Union and that this opposition was communicated to its
employees . It is further concluded therefrom that Poole
attempted in his interrogation of Eude and Etcheverry to
determine what their sentiments were with respect to the
Union (by asking them what they "planned" to gain from
it), and that such conduct reasonably tended to interfere
with, restrain , and coerce employees within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is also concluded that
Poole's conduct , in attempting to elicit from Bradley
information as to who attended the first organizational
8 It is not necessary to find that Pitcher and Pittsenbarger employees were not relying upon what they considered to be an
"noticed" which of Respondent 's employees were present in express invitation because, even after they were requested to
order to reach this conclusion . leave , they did not do so immediately , but rather insisted upon
8 It is noted that Pilcher must have suspected that it would be being shown that they did not have the right to remain
inappropria te for him to attend the meeting, for he consulted Sims 10 Neither Poole nor Fellows was called as a witness
about it Furthermore , it is apparent that Pilcher and the other
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
meeting and the number present , reasonably tended to
interfere with , restrain , and coerce an employee within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. It is further
concluded that Respondent , through the conduct of
Fellows, solicited employees to establish their own labor
organization , instead of relying upon the Union as their
bargaining representative , and implied that such a
procedure might be a more successful way to obtain the
benefits they were seeking . It is found that said conduct of
Fellows constitutes interference , restraint , and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The challenged ballots
As indicated above, the finding that all of the driller-
operators were supervisors within the meaning of the Act
disposes of the issues with respect to the challenges of the
Company to their ballots. Consequently, it is
recommended that the challenges to the ballots of
Richard D . Brenton, Jack Burchett , Arthur Sims , Bluford
Halcomb , Jerald Tullio , Billy Wood , and B . L. Temples be
sustained.
The ballot of Walter Bradley was challenged on the
ground that he had been permanently terminated prior to
the election . Walter Bradley testified that on the day of the
election , June 15, 1966, he was working for "R and R Well
Service," that he had been doing so for about a week, and
that this was the first time he had ever worked for it.
Burchett , one of the driller -operators , testified that on
May 5, 1966 , he "fired" Bradley. Burchett 's testimony
with respect thereto is as follows:
A. We were to bring out some circulating lines and
I told him [Bradley ] to get a hammer and break the
lines out . He turned around to-later and he was
holding the cat lines . I asked him what he was doing,
he said he had understood that I had told him to get
the cat lines . I told him maybe he could understand if
I just told him to get his clothes and go home, that he
was through and he did.
Q. Did he leave?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you check with anyone prior to firing him?
A. No sir.
Bradley testified that he had a misunderstanding with
Burchett and that he told Burchett "he would not work for
him again anyway." Bradley further testified that
thereafter Pittsenbarger , a toolpusher , came over and
asked him if he wanted to have "a ride in" which invitation
he accepted ; that on the way back he told Pittsenbarger
that he would appreciate it if Pittsenbarger would talk to
Pilcher on his behalf, and that he would work for anybody
else except Burchett; and that the next day he went to
work "for Sims." His testimony with respect to going to
work for Sims is as follows:
A. Art Sims had a job out at Bags, we were staying
out at Craig. He was short handed and he came by
and asked me-he had found out some way or other I
guess my deal with Jack [Burchett],
misunderstanding , and he asked if I wanted to go to
work for him.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What is his position?
THE WITNESS : He is a driller-operator.
Q. (Mr. McReady) What took place then?
A. He told me that he would like for me to work for
him, that he had a job and he made it very plain that
he wasn 't going to hire me because he didn't get-he
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
didn't figure he could anyway but he could go see Mr.
Pilcher and Poole and talk to them and he did and
supposedly-he came back and told me what-that
I'd go to work for him up in the Bags area.
Bradley also testified that he worked on Sims' crew for a
week; that the crew returned to Rangely; that Sims then
told him to stand by; and that thereafter he received no
notice of any sort from the Company. He further testified
as follows:
Q. (Mr. McReady) Mr. Bradley, in this standing by,
is this a normal procedure in working for these well
service outfits, these people?
A. That's the normal procedure, therefore I wasn't
alarmed when I stood by as long as I did because I
had done it before.
Q. For the same company?
A. Yes sir.
Sims was questioned as to whether or not it was customary
to work for another company while on layoff status. His
testimony which was uncontradicted and is credited is as
follows:
A. Yes, it is customary, one well service outfit will
have a crew off. Another well service outfit will be
busy and shorthanded. They in turn will more or less
borrow men from each other. I have worked for
different contractors when working-during my
employment with Colorado Well Service and vice
versa. I have worked with other employees from R
and R Well Service and other well service people
when they had slack periods in work.
Q. Did you-during your term or during your
course of employment with Colorado Well Service, in
slack times, have you worked for other employers but
still remained an employee of Colorado Well Service.
A. Yes.
Q. Could you name a few?
A. I worked with R and R Well Service, I worked
with R and R Well Service through Chapman Oil
Company.
Q. This was during your employment with
Colorado Well Service?
A. Correct.
It is concluded from the above-credited testimony that
Burchett did fire Bradley, but that Respondent rehired
Bradley through Sims without any loss to Bradley of
working time. It is further concluded therefrom that it is
customary for employees in the well service industry in
that area, including employees of the Company, to work
for another company while on layoff status; that, even
though Bradley was working for R and R Well Service on
the day of the election, he was on layoff status in relation
to Colo. Well Service; and that he had a reasonable
expectation of being recalled to work by Colo. Well
Service. Therefore it is found that the Company's
challenge to his ballot is without merit , and it is
recommended that the challenge be overruled.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
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 disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC. 715
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by the following conduct:
(a) Engaging in surveillance of an organizational
meeting of its employees conducted by the Union.
(b) Interrogating its employees with respect to their
sentiments toward the Union and as to its organizational
activities.
(c) Soliciting employees to form their own union,
instead of adhering to the Union, and implying that such a
procedure might be a more successful way to obtain
benefits they seek.
2. Respondent did not, in discharging Billy V. Wood
and B. L. Temples, violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
3. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by the conduct alleged in subparagraphs V(d), (e), (g), (b),
(i), (j), and (1) of the complaint.
4. Richard D. Brenton, Jack Burchett, Arthur Sims,
Bluford Halcomb, Jerald Tullio, Billy Wood, and B. L.
Temples were supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act at the time material herein and the
Company's challenges to their ballots upon that ground
are meritorious.
5. Walter Bradley was an employee of the Company at
the time of the election on June 15, 1966, and its challenge
to his ballot on the ground that his employment was
terminated prior to said election is without merit.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is
ordered that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining , and coercing its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
engaging in surveillance of an organizational meeting of its
employees conducted by the Union, by interrogating
employees as to their sentiments toward the Union and as
to its organizational activities, and by soliciting its
employees to form their own labor organization instead of
adhering to the Union and implying that such a procedure
would be a more successful way to obtain the benefits they
seek.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and plant at Rangely, Colorado,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
with the Recommended Order herein.12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be
dismissed insofar as it relates to the allegations of unfair
labor practices set forth in paragraph VI and
subparagraphs V(d), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (1) thereof.
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of
organizational meetings of our employees conducted
by International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with
respect to their sentiments toward said Union or with
respect to its organizational activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to form their
own labor organization instead of adhering to the
aforesaid Union and imply that such a procedure
would be a more successful way to obtain the benefits
they seek.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above-named or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
COLO. WELL SERVICE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609 Railway
Exchange Building, 17th & Champa Streets, Denver,
Colorado 80202, Telephone 297-3551.
Cal-Pacific Poultry, Inc. and Meat Cutters
Local No. 439, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-7170.
March 30,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
On December 8, 1966, Trial Examiner E. Don
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed 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 considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Cal-Pacific
Poultry, Inc., Pomona, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Order.'
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E. DON WILSON , Trial Examiner : Pursuant to due
notice, a hearing in this matter was held before me in Los
Angeles, California , on August 9, 1966 . The parties fully
participated . Upon a charge filed by Meat Cutters Local
No. 439 , Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union , on April 15 , 1966 , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , herein the Board , issued
a complaint dated June 6, 1966 , alleging that Cal -Pacific
Poultry, Inc., herein Respondent , violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein the Act.
Briefs from all parties have been received and
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation engaged
primarily in the business of poultry processing and at all
material times had its office at Pomona, California. During
all material times it has sold and shipped poultry valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
California. It, at all material times, has been engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
At all times material , the Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
At various times beginning about March 18, 1966,' did
Respondent through Max Posik, its secretary-manager,
offer directly to individual striking employees wage
increases or other benefits in excess of those offered to the
Union during contract negotiations as an inducement to
desert the strike; about April 11, did Posik ignore the
Union and present contract proposals directly to
employees?
B. Preliminary Findings
All Respondent's production and maintenance
employees, excluding all office clerical employees, guards
i The Recommended Order in the Trial Examiner's Decision is
hereby amended by substituting for paragraph 2(d) therein the
following paragraph.
"Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in
Pomona, California, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked `Appendix' Copies of said notice, both in
English and Spanish, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being signed by a duly
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days, thereafter, in such conspicuous places
Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material "
i Hereinafter, all dates refer to 1966 unless otherwise stated
163 NLRB No. 103