Continental Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 231
Case No. C-911.-Decided March 29, 1940
Oil Production and Refining Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-
Company-Dominated Union : domination of and interference with formation
and administration , contribution of support ; dissolution company-dominated
Employee Representation Plan by employer ; participation personnel supervisor
and former Plan representatives in formation ; use of company facilities ; pay-
ment of 27 employees by employer for time spent drafting constitution ; sub-
mission constitution to company official and company counsel for inspection
before adoption by employees at plant election ; contrasting attitudes of super-
visory employees showing hostility to outside unions; grant of exclusive recog-
nition and limited check -off ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining ;
employer ordered to reimburse employees for amounts checked off as dues
for company -dominated union-Discr imination : charges, as to one employee,
dismissed.
Mr. Harry C. Duncan, Jr., and Mr. Elmer P. Davis, for the Board.
Mr. William H. Zwick, of Ponca City, Okla., for the Respondent.
Mr. Maurice Daly and Mr. W. J. Trombley, of Fort Worth, Tex.,
for the Oil Workers Union. ,
Marls & Maxis, by Mr. L. A. Maxis and Mr. L. R. Marls, of Ponca
City, Okla., for the Continental Union.
Mr. Abraham L. Kaminstein , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Oil Workers
International Union, Local No. 231, hereafter called the Oil Workers
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by Edwin A. Elliott, Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
(Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated May 27, 1938,
against Continental Oil Company, a corporation, Ponca City, Okla-
homa, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
22 N. L. R. B., No. 9.
61
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Oil Workers
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent, intending to form and dominate
a labor organization, called a mass meeting of its employees and
through its agents, formed, assisted, and dominated the Continental
Employees Union of Ponca City Area, herein called the Continental
Union; that at all times since the organization of the Continental
Union, the respondent accorded preferential treatment to members
of the Continental Union and expressed antipathy toward any outside
union; that the respondent, in furtherance of its intention to frustrate
the organization of its employees for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, discharged Ira C. Potts because of his activities on behalf
of the International Union ; and that by the afore-mentioned acts
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices under Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
On May 27, 1938, the Regional Director issued an order dismissing
that portion of the amended charge dealing with the alleged dis-
criminatory discharge of Jay Crowley.'
On June 7, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
in which it alleged that the Board was without jurisdiction, and
without waiving its objection because of Want of jurisdiction, ad-
mitted certain facts relating to its incorporation, the nature of
the business, and the formation of the Continental Union, but in
substance denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices.
' On June 10, 1938, the Continental Union filed a motion to inter-
vene, in which it claimed an interest in the controversy, requested
permission to present evidence, and denied the allegations referring
to it contained in the complaint. Ruling on this motion was reserved
for the Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Ponca City, Oklahoma,
from June 13 to 21, 1938, before E. R. Strempel, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, the Oil
Workers Union, and the Continental Union were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
i The Oil Workers Union did not appeal from the Regional Director's ruling as provided
for in National Labor Relations Board Rples and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
Article Il, Section 9
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 63
At the outset of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted the
motion of the Continental Union to intervene in the proceeding,
limiting its intervention to the issues pertinent to that portion of
the charge dealing with the alleged violation of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved
to conform the complaint to the proof in certain respects? On sev-
eral occasions, before and during the hearing, counsel for both the
respondent and the Continental Union moved to dismiss the entire
complaint or portions thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved
decision on these motions but denied them in his Intermediate Re-
port, except in so far as they related to allegations in the complaint
that Ira C. Potts had been discharged for union activities. As to
the last-mentioned allegation, the Trial Examiner granted the mo-
tion of the respondent. During the course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. We have reviewed the above-
mentioned rulings and all the other rulings made by the Trial
Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. In addition, the Board denies all mo-
tions to dismiss the complaint except in so far as they are granted
hereafter in its decision.
On September 9, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report on the record, copies of which were duly served on all parties,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices so found and withdraw recognition from and com-
pletely disestablish the Continental Union as a representative of
its employees. On September 22, 1938, the respondent and the Con-
tinental Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to notice, on May 4, 1939, oral argument was had before
the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent presented oral
argument on its exceptions, and the respondent and the Continental
Union submitted briefs in support of their positions. The Board
has considered the exceptions and the briefs and, save as the ex-
ceptions are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order set
forth below, we find them to be without merit.
2 The motion was limited to changing references to "Oil Workers Union" to read "Oil
Workers International Union."
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 3
The respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its main office at
Ponca City, Oklahoma, is engaged in the processing of crude oil
and in the selling and distributing of products produced therefrom.
The respondent maintains and operates refineries at Ponca City,
Oklahoma ; Wichita Falls, Texas ; Baltimore, Maryland ; Glenrock,
Wyoming; Farmington, New Mexico; Artesia, New Mexico; Denver,
Colorado; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Lewiston, Montana. At
each of these refineries the respondent engages in the processing of
crude oil and the selling and distributing of gasoline. At its Ponca
City refinery, with which we are herein concerned, the respondent
manufactures and distributes gasoline, lubricating Oils, greases, and
other petroleum products.
During the 11-month period from July 1, 1937, to May 31, 1938,
the respondent processed 4 7,108,014 barrels of crude oil at its Pollca
City refinery. Approximately 14.15 per cent of the crude oil re-
ceived at Ponca City came from outside the State. During the same
period, the respondent produced at its refinery at Ponca City, 5,009,-
831 barrels of gasoline, 500,237 barrels of lubricating and engine
oils, and 4,740,295 pounds of grease, 90.10 per cent, 93.31 per cent
and 92.61 per cent of which, respectively, were transported out of
the State of Oklahoma. Over 44 per cent of the gasoline, 52.59
per cent of the lubricating and engine oils and 90.72 of the greases
thus shipped out of the State were shipped to bulk plants owned
by the respondent.5
The Ponca City plant employs approximately 700 employees, of
whom 40 or 50 are temporary workers. The plant covers some 1,000
acres.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 231, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 6
admitting to membership employees of the respondent employed at
the Ponca City refinery.
s The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of facts entered into by the
Board and the respondent during the hearing
4 The stipulation uses the word "produced" but the content indicates that "processed"
was intended.
5 At the oral argument , counsel for the respondent stated, "It (the Continental Oil Com-
pany ) Is an integrated company. It produces oil, owns pipe lines, manufactures gasoline
and petroleum products and it markets them. It is engaged in business in approximately
38 States of the Union There is no question at all but that it is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Wagner Act."
Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 65
Continental Employees Union-of Ponca City Area is an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the re-
spondent employed at the Ponca City refinery.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleged that the respondent, on or about April 21,
1937, formed, established, and since that date has assisted and sup-
ported the Continental Union. Prior to.April 1937 and the advent
of the Continental Union, the employees of the respondent had been
organized in the Management-Employe Cooperative Council, here-
inafter referred to as the Council. The Council was established
in November 1933 and continued in operation after July 5, 1935, the
effective date of the Act. The actions of the respondent prior to
July 5, 1935, of course, could not constitute unfair labor practices
under the Act, and we make no finding to that effect. However, man-
agement-employee relations before the formation of the Continental
Union are set forth in order to assist in the evaluation of the re-
spondent's subsequent conduct.'
A. Management-Employe Cooperative Council
The plan of the Council was devised and promulgated by a group
of management and employee representatives meeting under the chair-
manship of George D. Olds, Jr., an official of the respondent. 8 This
group, consisting of seven elected representatives and seven man-
agement-appointed representatives, met for approximately a week
and developed the governing rules of the organization. The com-
mittee then assumed "the responsibility of putting this plan in opera-
tion by authorizing the employe representatives to conduct the first
elections." As soon as the new employee representatives were elected,
the temporary joint committee ceased to exist.
Although several minor changes were thereafter made, until its
dissolution the plan retained the essential outlines it had assumed
on November 3, 1933, when it had been approved by the joint com-
mittee. s The plan provided for equal representation for employees
4 National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 272.
s Olds took the place of the regular chairman, Walter Miller, Vice President in Charge
of Manufacturing . The genesis of the plan is not clear . According to some testimony,
the respondent summoned 32 employees to consider the entire idea , after some employees
had suggested some such plan . The pamphlet which described the plan states , "Realizing
that the method of handling matters of mutual interest to management and` employees of
Ponca City refinery might be improved , Mr. Walter Miller, Vice President in Charge of
Manufacturing , decided to test the sentiment of the employees relative to the formation
of a plan which would provide the employees a more direct voice in such matters. The
question was informally discussed on October 6, 1933, with a group of thirty-two employees
from the various divisions of the refinery; who wholeheartedly endorsed the idea and
undertook,to discuss it with their fellow workers "
4 The lnst ' revisions were made in January 1936.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and management on the Council, which served as the representative
body. The privilege of voting for employee representatives was re-
stricted to those who had been employed at the plant at least 60 days
prior to the election, and employee representatives had to be chosen
from among those who had "served for at least sixty days in that
district, must be a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age or
over, must have had one year or more of continuous service with the
refinery immediately prior to his nomination, and [be a] qualified
voter in this refinery." No general meetings were provided for under
the plan, and employees had no voice in the conduct of the plan
except through their representatives.
The outline of the structure of the Council illustrates the role
played by the respondent in its functioning, and the absence of
participation by the mass of employees. Management bore the cost,
and held a decisive veto power over all matters coming before the
Council. Decisions of the Council were appealable only to higher
officials of the respondent. Similarly, no amendment to the basic
structure could occur without "the affirmative vote of at least three
fourths of the total membership of the Council."
It is evident that during its entire existence the Council was com-
pletely dominated and supported by the respondent. 10 As we shall
have occasion to point out, the respondent withdrew its support
from the Council within a week after the Supreme Court of the
United States handed down its decisions on the Act. Nevertheless,
for a period of almost 2 years after the effective date of the Act,
in reliance on its belief that the Act was invalid on constitutional
grounds, the respondent had thus interfered with the self-organiza-
tion of its employees.
B. The Townsend incident
Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States had passed
upon the constitutionality 'of the Act' on April 12, 1937, some 20
employees met in the council room of the plant. Ralph H. Town-
send, who took a leading part in the affair, testified that he did not
know that any one person had called this meeting, but that it "just
kind of happened." 11 Prior to the meeting Townsend had gone to
the office of Van Nest, the respondent's personnel supervisor, to ask
him "what we could do about forming a . . . or what we was go-
10Cf. National Labor Relations Board vs Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and
Greyhound Management Company, 303 U. S 261
n Cf. Titan Metal Manufacturing Company -and Titan Employees Protective Association
and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company . Intervenors, v.
National Tabor Relations Board , 106 F. (2d) 254 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied , 308 U. S. 615,
enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Federal Labor Union No. 19981,
5 N. L. R . B. 577, where the Court stated , "The-National Labor Relations Board and this
Court are asked to believe that no one present at the meeting can now remember how they
happened to be there."
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 67
ing to do about a bargaining agency." While speaking to Van Nest
on that occasion the latter called Townsend's attention to an article
in a trade magazine which gave Townsend the idea for a petition
which he subsequently presented to the meeting. 12
Townsend opened the meeting by informing the other employees
present that the decisions on the Act had outlawed the Council, but
that it had also "made it compulsory for us to have some kind of a
bargaining agency." Following this statement Townsend sent for
Van Nest, asking him to come to the meeting and to "bring in that
magazine." When Van Nest appeared he said, "We are all liable to
get in jail for this, because I don't know what this newly formed
National Labor Relations Board is going to say about this meeting."
Van Nest also expressed some doubt as to the legality of holding the
meeting in the council room. Van Nest or Townsend then read the
magazine article to the group. After some discussion, the meeting
proceeded to revise and circulate the petition or letter first drafted
by Townsend. As revised this petition reads as follows :
We the employees of the Continental Oil Company, Ponca
City Refinery, believe that our problems can be worked out
better, quicker and more satisfactorily the way they have been
in the past, than would be possible through any one union, and
realizing that the quality of the Product we manufacture, the
success of the Continental Oil Company and our own well being
all require uninterrupted, operation by contented workmen,
secure ' in the knowledge that the benefits of employment by
the Continental Oil Company will not be affected by any out-
side influence. And do hereby
Resolve : To resist to the uttermost any attempt by any
organized group to dominate us, or obstruct the free movement
and actions, collectively or individually in bargaining with our
employers, and to assure the Continental Oil Company that the
employees of the Ponca City Refinery will not be influenced by
any outside . organization.
One employee in the group refused to sign the petition, but the
others did so and decided to distribute it among the various de-
partments in the plant. Typewritten copies 'were made and placed
in the open working desks of the head operators in each department.
The petition proved unpopular, being referred to by some employees
as the "yellow-dog petition," and was soon withdrawn.
It is plain from the foregoing that the Townsend incident repre-
sented an attempt to create an organized opposition and resistance
among the employees toward outside organizations. It is equally
12 The article described the establishment of the "Security League, " an organization
formed by employees of the Humble Oil Company.
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apparent that Van Nest, the respondent's personnel supervisor, par-
ticipated in the movement by furnishing a concrete suggestion in
the form of the magazine article for the procedure to be followed,
and by taking an active part in the one meeting of the group.
The respondent contends that it was not responsible for this
activity, that the Townsend meeting was the result of a spontaneous
movement on the part of some 20 of its employees, that the thoughts
there expressed were the individual views of those present, and that
it had no knowledge of the meeting. The validity of this conten-
tion is dependent upon whether or not Van Nest is a supervisory
employee, whose actions are chargeable to the respondent, which
question we now consider.
In May 1935 Van Nest, then employed as a welder, was asked to
"take charge of personnel relations" at the refinery, with the title
of Personnel or Employment Supervisor. At the time of his as-
sumption of the position, Fellows, the superintendent, instructed
Van Nest that he was "to keep the records of the employment offices
... to create a market for labor . .. a labor market, in other words;
take the applications and segregate the various transfers and
interpret the policies; that . . . [Van Nest] was to instruct in the
policies, or in the policies and standard working conditions." His
duties include the keeping of employment records, the interviewing
of applicants for positions, the selection of eligible applicants, and
the making of recommendations for hiring, but he has no power to
hire or discharge. Occasionally, on his own initiative, Van Nest
recommends salary increases.
As is hereinafter discussed in Section C, Van Nest attended the
meeting at which the respondent withdrew its support from the
Council and left with the management representatives and there-
after attended bargaining meetings between the respondent and the
Continental Union. In the minutes of the Continental Union he is
described as a member of the Management Committee. He is not
an hourly paid employee, but is on a salary, receiving from $225 to
$300 per month, and occupies an office in the refinery office building.
Finally, the record is clear, and we find, that other employees do not
regard Van Nest as an.ordinary employee, but consider him a repre-
sentative of the management. Moreover, while Van Nest denied
that he occupies a supervisory position, it appears from what he has
told other employees that he considers himself part of the respond-
ent's managerial staff. Townsend, a witness for the respondent, tes-
tified that at the meeting referred to previously Van Nest "kind of
seemed to think that as an-that is the way I got it at least-that
as an official of the Continental Oil Company, he was prohibited from
talking to the employes about anything connected with collective
bargaining."
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 69
In support of its position that Van Nest does not have any super-
visory status,13 the respondent urges that he has no authority to hire
or discharge. While it is true that Van Nest does not have that au-
thority, only two men at the refinery have such absolute power. Mil-
ler testified, and we find, that except in unusual cases department
heads and even superintendents and assistant superintendents of the
plant do not have final authority to discharge a man ; such a case
would be referred to either Miller as vice president of the respond-
ent or Osborn, general manager of the plant. Similarly, Fellows
testified, and we find, that no one is finally hired until the employ-
ment is approved by Osborn. In a refinery of this size the right to
hire or discharge is not determinative of the existence of supervisory
authority.14
Van Nest's duties, while in part composed of handling routine
personnel matters, admittedly include the interpretation of manage-
ment policies and the instruction of other employees in such policies.
He functions in a liaison capacity between management and men,
as the respondent asserts, and by virtue of that unique position must
of necessity serve as the direct conduit through which management's
policies and wishes are conveyed to the men. We find that the nature
and incidents of his employment differentiate his position from that
of ordinary employees and identify him with the management, both
in fact and in the minds of the employees. We find that Van Nest
is a part of the management and that, as such, his acts are binding
upon the respondent 15
Is Miller, vice president in charge of the refinery, testified, "Mr Van Nest is not consid-
ered by me to be a part definitely of the Management of the organization. He is an assist-
ant to the Management in the keeping of the records of employees, in the hiring of new
men, and so forth, and in helping to straighten out personnel problems that may arise,
but as to having managerial or supervisory authority it does not exist and he is in many
respects looked upon moie as a liason (sic) man between the company and the workers
than as one of managerial capacity."
11 As we stated in Matter of Al Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. and Bookkeepers', Stenographers'
and Accountants' Union, Local No. 16, United Office and Professional Workers of America,
C. I. 0 ; Matter of M. Lowenstein if Sons, Inc. and Textile Workers' Organizing Commit-
tee, Local No. 65, C. I. 0 ; Matter of M. Lowenstein if Sons, Inc. and United Wholesale
Em ploi;ees of N. Y, 6 N. L. R. B. 216, . . The respondent points out that the sole
power to hire and discharge rests with its personnel manager. There can be little doubt,
however, that one executive cannot pass on the merits of more than 300 employees without
the advice of persons in intermediate positions, who are in close contact with those under
them . . .
icCf. Matter of Consumers' Research, Inc and J. Robert Rogers, Representative for
Technical, Editorial and Office Assistants Union, Local No 20055, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, 2 N. L. R B. 57, 65, where we stated, "A personnel director is,
ipso facto, intimately connected with management and in a position to effect employment
policy." See, also, Swift if Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 87,
94 (C. C A 10), enf'g as mod Matter of Swift & Conipan0, a corporation and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North .nnerica, Local No 641, and United Packing
House Workers Local Industrial Union No .300, 7 N L R B 269, and International Associa-
tion of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, Affiliated with the International
Association of Machinists , and Production Lodge No 1200, Affiliated with the International
Association of Machinists , v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 L R. R. 335 (C. A. D. C.),
enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L R. B. 621.
28303%-41-voI 22--6
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Continental Union
On April 17, 1937, 5 days after the decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States upholding the constitutional validity of the
Act Walter Miller, vice president of the respondent, issued a state-
ment over his signature asserting that the decisions made necessary
certain revisions in the Council Plan as it then existed, but that it
would continue to function as in the past. The full text of this
statement, which was posted on all bulletin boards in the plant, is
as followh.
To Empouyees Interested in and Members of the Ponca City
Manayement Employe Cooperative Council:
I have rieen asked whether our present Council Plan conforms
to the National Labor Relations Act (generally known as the
Wagner Act).
I have made a study of the Act and find some revisions in the
Council Plan are necessary, but in my opinion revisions can be
made in the existing plan which will bring it completely within
the scope of all the requirements of the Act, and enable the con-
tinuance of collective bargaining substantially as has been the
case in the past few years.
On the next day, however, the management changed its position
and summoned a meeting of the Council at which Osborn, manager
of manufacturing, announced orally that management was withdraw-
ing its representatives from any further participation in the Council,
and would not further recognize the Council as a bargaining agency.16
After a brief discussion, during which officials of the respondent
explained that the decisions on the Act required this action, the
management representatives turned the Council over to the employee
representatives and withdrew.17 The employee representatives
requested Osborn to remain in the building within call, so that they
might ask him questions, and he did so. One of the employee repre-
sentatives, Herschel Myers, testified and we find that, after Osborn
had retired from the meeting, "there were one or two questions asked
him" by the representatives. During the meeting, Myers went to
"Miller testified that , "when I wrote that I did not have a full realization of all the
imports of the Wagner Act . . I felt that the sentiment of the great majority would be
to continue the collective bargaining with the Management on a direct basis as they had
been doing in the past , but realized more fully later than I did when I wrote that letter
that there would have to be drastic changes , much more drastic changes in the Plan
than occurred to me at the moment "
"Osborn stated at this point that , " It [the Council ] was ours [the employee repre-
sentatives ] from there on " Cf Matter of Swift & Company and United Automobile Work-
ers of America,' Local No 265 ; Matter of Swift of Company ^ and United Packing House
Workers L I Union No 928 affiliate C. 10, 7 N L R B 287
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 71
Osborn to ask him again if the management would not render some
assistance "in drafting something that we might start with," but
Osborn refused. For 3 or 4 hours after the management representa-
tives had left them, the employee representatives who had attended
the last meeting remained in conference. They decided to call a gen-
eral meeting for the next day. Notice of this meeting was conveyed
to other employees by the conferees.
Herschel Myers, Buchanan, and Don Crooks, employee representa-
tives present at the April 18 meeting, requested Van Nest, the respond-
ent's personnel supervisor, who had withdrawn with management
representatives from the Council meeting of the previous day to come
to the April 19 meeting at the American Legion Hut. Crooks, Paden,
Myers, and Buchanan "assumed the responsibility" of carrying on
and decided that, at such a meeting, Buchanan would present a motion
for an inside organization.
Van Nest opened the April 19 meeting by explaining its purpose
and informing the employees of what had happened to the Council.
Myers then explained the differences between the "proposed Council"
or union, and the old Council. Since this meeting was poorly at-
tended, it was decided to call another meeting for Wednesday, April
21. On this occasion, notices were posted on all the plant bulletin
boards, and the meeting itself was held in the machine shop of the
plant. The use of the machine shop for this purpose was secured by
Van Nest,ywho first obtained the permission of Fellows. Care was
taken to see that employees would attend this meeting. Fellows
testified, and we find, that Van Nest asked him to make it possible to
have "some of the mechanical department ... leave work early in
order .' .. to attend the meeting".18 The evidence is not clear as to
whether all employees who left their work a half-hour before the shift
ended on this day were paid for attendance at the meeting but the
respondent admits that "three of the several hundred employees who
attended the mass meeting ... were through the oversight or neglect
of respondent also not docked in wage for the 30 to 50 minutes they
spent at the meeting."
When the meeting was called to order by Van Nest 19 as chairman,
at 3: 30 p. in., on April 21, there were some 250 to 300 employees
present. The procedure of the previous meeting was followed;
Van Nest explained the reason for meeting and Myers outlined the
proposed plan. We find that Van Nest stated : "We will have to do
away with our old Council but it is still functioning until we get
something else."
Is Fellows testified that these men 's ere to be allowed to leave early but were not to be
paid for the time spent at the meeting.
19 Van Nest was asked to attend this meeting by Crooks , Buchanan, and Myers.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Buchanan moved that the meeting go on record as favoring the
formation of an organization not affiliated with any outside group,
and this motion was carried. Buchanan then moved "that the
elected representatives of the old Cooperative Council continue in
their work in that capacity until the by-laws and procedures of the
new Union was set up." Accordingly, the meeting voted to have
the representatives of the old Council draft the new constitution and
to appoint two men from each district to help them in this work. A
motion to elect these additional drafters was ruled out of order by
Van Nest.
The drafting committee met on April 22, 23, and part of April 24,
and spent its entire time during this period in formulating a consti-
tution. Though Osborn first informed the committee that it, would
not be paid, the respondent admits and we find that each member
received his regular salary while working on the committee. On
April 24 members of the committee, having finished their task,
invited Walter Miller, Sr., and a legal representative of the respond-
ent, to meet with them "for their opinion and advice on any questions
which the committee may ask them." 20 In response to this request,
Miller and Judge Hull came to the council room and read the pro-
posed constitution and bylaws. Both stated that, except, for a few
minor corrections, it was a well-drawn document.21 They remained
for approximately 13/4 hours, answering questions, and then left.
Exclusive of this incident and the activities of Van Nest, no member
of the management was called before the committee or aided in its
deliberations:
In accordance with the suggestion from Judge Hull, the representa-
tives changed the order of certain sections of the constitution, trans-
posing the purposes and procedure sections. At 3: 10 p. m. that
afternoon, the representatives adopted the constitution and later
adjourned the meeting. Copies of the constitution were then mimeo-
graphed and distributed to all employees, together with a covering
letter signed by Don Crooks, as committee chairman, and Alberto E.
Paden, secretary.22
40 When asked why Hull and Miller had been invited to meet with the group, Buchanan,
a witness for the respondent , stated, "to examine . . . the bylaws . . . as to the legality
of the construction of it."
21 Although Paden, secretary-treasurer of the Continental Union, testified that he did
not know the source or example used in formulating the new bylaws , a comparison of the
governing rules of the Council and the Continental Union reveals the fact that the later
instrument was, in large part , taken from the first. For example, the sections entitled
5B (1), relating to election procedure , are identical in the two documents , and include a
reference to employe representatives.
21 The letter stated that the constitution would "if adopted by a majority of the em-
ployees , cover collective bargaining in the future between the employees and the manage-
ment. The plan was framed entirely by the employes committee , and no management
representatives were present. . . An election will.be held you will have the oppor-
tunity to adopt or reject this plan "
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 73
The constitution was mimeographed by the respondent. Some
members of the Continental Union thought that the organization
had reimbursed the respondent for this expenditure but, although
lie was given every opportunity to examine his vouchers and can-
celed checks, Paden, secretary-treasurer of the Continental Union,
could find no sign of any such payment. We find that the respondent
was not reimbursed for the mimeographing.
From April 30 to May 3, an election was conducted "I among
employees of the plant, offering them an opportunity to vote yes or
no upon the question of whether they desired to select the Con-
tinental Union as bargaining representative.24 Paden, secretary-
treasurer of the Continental Union, testified and we find that the
ballots used in the election were mimeographed in the drafting room
of the plant by the respondent.
On May 7, 1937, the drafting committee met from 9 a. m. to
12 noon. The committee first tabulated the votes and found that
62 per cent of the employees had voted "Yes." It was decided to
demand recognition from the respondent, and a letter to the manage-
ment stating the results of the election and embodying this request
was drafted and forwarded to Miller. The minutes of the meeting
reveal that by the time the committee had considered the question
of printing membership cards, an answer was received from Miller,
"officially accepting [the Continental Union] as the collective bar-
gaining agency with its employees . . ." The meeting then voted
to ask Miller to post notices on the plant bulletin boards announcing
the recognition of the Continental Union. Immediately thereafter,
Miller was asked if he would allow pay-roll deductions for Con-
tinental Union dues. He replied that he would have to consult the
officers of the respondent at their next meeting.
On the same day, in response to the request of the Continental
Union, the respondent posted notices on each of its bulletin boards
announcing its recognition of the Continental Union as bargaining
23 For the most part , voting was done between shifts and after hours , but uncontradicted
testimony showed that some voting took place in the office of a foreman and during work-
ing hours . In this case , the employee had been requested to vote and another employee
sent up to take his place while he cast his ballot. Testimony indicated that one ballot
box was so imperfectly sealed as to make it possible to tamper with the ballots , though it
was not claimed that this had occurred . See Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and
Titan Employees Protective Association and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal
Manufacturing Company, Intervenors v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 254
(C C. A. 3), cert denied 308 U S. 615, enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Com-
pany and Federal Labor Unwn No. 19981, 5 N. L. R B 577: "The election procedure, like -
the plan, shows no sign of the cruder form of unfairness . . . It could hardly be said,
however, to meet the full requirements of the mechanism fashioned by the political scien-
tists for the effective recording of free choice . The polling place was not on neutral
territory."
24 The ballot stated, "I hereby select the Continental Employes Union of Ponca City area
as my representative in collective bargaining with the management of Continental Oil
Company."
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agent. The announcement continued, "This takes the place of the
Management-Employe Cooperative Council which has functioned,
since 1933, but which can no longer be kept up because of certain
provisions in the Act." The respondent also pledged its cooperation
to the new organization and stated that it felt that the objectives
of the Council would be continued in the new Continental Union.
Subsequently, the respondent entered into an informal arrange-
ment with the Continental Union providing for the check-off of union
dues where the employee concerned desired such an arrangement.
Early in 1938 the Continental Union participated in a series of con-
ferences concerning the respondent's seniority rules and the alloca-
tion of seniority status to particular employees. The Continental
Union has presented many individual grievances to the management
but has never sought nor obtained a collective contract with the
respondent covering wages, hours, or working conditions.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that since the organization of
the Continental Union, the respondent, by and through its super-
visory employees, accorded preferential treatment to members of
said union, and expressed antipathy toward the Oil Workers Union.
In its answer, the respondent denied this allegation of the complaint.
Since we have hereinabove set forth the facts concerning the re-
spondent's relationship to the Continental Union we pass to a con-
sideration of the respondent's conduct towards the Oil Workers
Union and some of the instances revealed by the record in which
the respondent's supervisors are alleged to have expressed antipathy
toward the Oil Workers Union.
Dwight J. Bottrell, who had been in the respondent's employ for
the last 15 years, testified that in June 1937 he was called to the
office of Dodson, division superintendent; that Dodson informed.
him that he knew of his attendance at C. I. O. meetings, and that
Bottrell could either stop such attendance or leave the respondent's
employ; that Dodson then launched into an attack upon the C. I. 0.,
stating that "The C. I. O. union is a Red, Communist, anything you
may want to call it" and that "he [Dodson] would fight as long as
he had one red drop of blood in his body to keel, it [the C. I. 0.]
out of the Company"; that Dodson warned Bottrell that although
the respondent could not discharge him for union activity, there
were a thousand other reasons for dismissing an employee.
Dodson testified that he had called Bottrell to his office on June 15,
1937, to inform him that he was neglecting his duty and spending
too much time at the pump house; that he warned Bottrell to stay
close to his job and that was "all the conversation" he had "along
that line." Dodson denied that he had ever "in substance" had any
such conversation as attributed to him by Bottrell. However, Sut-
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 75
tle, a reclaimer foreman, testified that he had overheard a conver-
sation 25 between Bottrell and Dodson, in which Dodson was "giving"
Bottrell "Hell" for talking union on the job.
Irrespective of the exact date and place of the conversation and
while Dodson may have had occasion to reprimand Bottrell as he
asserted, we are satisfied and find that he made in substance the
statements regarding the Union attributed to him by Bottrell.
J. M. Webb, employed for 3 years' in the yard department, testi-
fied that he had a conversation in July 1937, with his superior,
E. L. Glover, construction engineer; that Glover started the con-
versation by stating that he understood Webb was devoting too
much of his time to the "Union uptown" ; that he agreed that he
was attending union meetings and stated that he would continue
to do so until he had investigated union activities and found out
what they were; that Glover then said that he did not care what
Webb belonged to, but added, "I like you and I want to see you
stay here, but be careful"; that at the same time Glover stated that
some woman had reported that Webb had been drunk and that he
denied this but admitted that he occasionally did take a drink of
whiskey and kept beer in his icebox.26
The above testimony was read to Glover when he took the stand.
Glover remembered the conversation but testified that he had spoken
to Webb about his excessive drinking; that when they had exhausted
this topic, Webb asked Glover what he thought of the Union; that
Glover replied that he was not interested in the Union, but that.
Webb claimed that he, Webb, was and stated "that some years prior
to that, that he belonged to the railroad organization, they had gone
out on strike and he was still out; they had never bought him a
meal or helped him toward a job, . . . and he was through with
the Union"; that he told Webb "that was contrary to some of the
rumors in the plant; that it was rumored that he was talking
Unionism some or talked about the Union"; that a month after this
conversation, Webb returned and tried to tell him about a number
of men in the Union who were dangerous, but that he refused to
listen to such information.
We are not persuaded that Webb initiated the discussion of the
Union as Glover asserts. Upon Glover's own version of the con-
versation, he had independent knowledge of Webb's union activities
and during the course of the discussion Webb sought to disclaim
such activity and finally assured him of his abandonment of the
25 Suttle had no recollection of the exact conversation between the men and placed it in
October 1937 at a different location than that stated by Bottrell.
20 Glover stated at the hearing that he had never heard of Webb's being drunk on the
job, and that Webb was not the only employee whom he had talked to about drinking.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, whereupon Glover expressed doubt. All the evidence con-
cerning the conversation seems to us more consistent with Webb's
version to the effect that Glover warned him in regard to his union
activities and at the same time took the occasion to speak to him con-
cerning his drinking. We find that Glover in substance made the
statements regarding the Union attributed to him by Webb.
Webb also testified that, at a seniority conference attended by
employees of the plant, Osborn, the plant manager, remarked upon
the fact that "the propaganda uptown" had not worried the respond-
ent 10 or 15 years back but that it was now getting to be a serious
proposition. He then asked the employees whether they thought
the respondent or Russia would pay their next Christmas bonus.
Osborn did not take the stand to deny this statement, although
there was no showing that he was unavailable. Kelley, an employee
called as a witness by the respondent, testified that he had attended
one meeting at which he saw both Osborn and Webb but that he had
heard no such statement.' On cross-examination Kelley stated that
he had not attended all the seniority meetings held at that time.
Under these circumstances we find that Osborn made the statements
described above.
Ned King, an employee, testified without contradiction, and we
find, that in April 1938 Osborn asked him whether he belonged to
the C. I. 0.27 The respondent did not call Osborn to testify.
Other employees testified that no one in a managerial position
ever discussed union affiliation with them and there is evidence that
supervisory employees had been warned not to talk to employees on
this subject. However, neither of these considerations alter the fact
that in the instances cited above, the respondent's supervisory em-
ployees did nevertheless interfere with the rights of the respondent's
employees to self organization.28
27 King further testified that no one had ever criticized him for belonging to one union
rather than another
2e See Matter of The A. S. Abell Company, a Corporation and International Printing and
Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, 5 N. L.
R. B. 644 , 650, enf 'd as mod. in National Labor Relations Board v The A S. Abell Com-
pany, 97 F (2d) 951 (C. C. A. 4), in which the Board stated "The respondent 's policy
must be judged in this case , if we are to administer the Act properly , not by broad pro-
fessions of general principle , but by the specific acts of its supervisors " , Matter of The
Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R. B. 654. 102 F . ( 2d) 383, 390 (C C. A. 7) ; 106 F ( 2d) 454
(C C. A 7) , enf'd in National Labor Relations Board v The Falk Corporation, 308 U. S
453; of Matter of William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publications , Inc, Hearst Consoli-
dated Publications, Inc, Hearst Corporation , American Newspapers, Inc and King Features
Syndicate, Inc. and American Newspaper Guild, Seattle Chapter, 2 N. L. R. B . 530, enf'd
as mod in National Labor Relations Board v . William Randolph Hearst , Hearst Publica-
tions, Inc, a Corporation, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., a Corporation , Hearst
Corporation , a Corporation, American Newspapers , Inc, a Corporation, and King Features,
Inc., a Corporation , 102 F. ( 2d) 658 (C C A 9).
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 77
We find that by the activities of the respondent's supervisory em-
ployees as hereinabove described the respondent expressed antipathy
toward the Oil Workers Union and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Conclusions regarding the Continental Union
From November 1933 to April 1937, including a period of almost
2 years after the effective date of the Act, the respondent maintained
the Council, an organization which it completely dominated as an
agency for employee representation. Within less than a week after
the validation of the Act on April 12, 1937, the respondent through
Van Nest participated in a movement to create employee resistance
to any outside form of organization. On April 17, 1937, the respond-
ent withdrew recognition and its representatives from the Council
but, apart from that action, did nothing either to remove the con-
tinuing effect of its past domination of the employees' bargaining
representative or to accord its employees an opportunity to exercise
freely their rights under the Act.29 In fact, on the day before the
dissolution of the Council, in Miller's statement to the employees, the
respondent expressed an unmistakable desire to retain the Council
as the agency for collective dealing with its employees, with such
limited modifications as might be necessary to satisfy the require-
ments of the Act. When the respondent realized the next day that
the Council could not thus be saved, the employee representatives on
the Council were informed by the respondent of its dissolution and
the reasons therefor but no step was taken to remove the impression
among its employees, created by its advocacy of a modified Council
plan, that it desired the continuation of the Council in an altered
form.
Indeed even the employee representatives themselves seemed to be
under the impression that the Council still functioned, for Buchanan,
an employee representative present at the time the dissolution was
announced, testified that he believed "that one of the Management
stated that we would continue under the old Cooperative Council
until such time as we had a bargaining agency." That the employee
representatives were sensitive and amenable to the respondent's wishes
is evidenced by the fact that when management representatives with-
drew from the April 18 meeting the employees' representatives
29 See National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Com-
pany, 308 U S 241, aff'g and mod , 101 F (26) 841, and enf'g Matter of Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, 8 N. L. R B. 866.
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promptly sought to have the plant manager assume the active initia-
tive in the formation of a successor organization. Although the
latter refused this request, the respondent maintained its participation
in the organizational affairs of its employees through Van Nest,
personnel supervisor, who acted as chairman of the employee meetings
of April 19 and 21, in which former employee representatives tinder
the Council plan assumed the leadership.30
In addition to the participation of Van Nest, the respondent
furnished tangible support to the formation and growth of the Con-
tinental Union.31 Van Nest assisted the employees in securing the
,use of the machine shop on April 21 and permission from Fellows to
allow members of the staff to leave work early in order to attend the
meeting. A few employees were paid for time during which they did
not work. Notices for the April 21 meeting were posted on all bul-
letin boards. The respondent extended financial help to the new organ-
ization by paying an entire committee, consisting of 27 employees,
for more than 2 days' time spent in drafting a constitution and
bylaws. Upon the completion of work on the proposed constitution
and bylaws, the draft was submitted to the respondent's vice presi-
dent and counsel for inspection and approval before submission to
the employees. Copies of the proposed constitution and bylaws and
ballots for an election were mimeographed at the respondent's ex-
pense. An election, in which the employees' choice was limited to a
"Yes" or "No" vote on the Continental Union, was conducted on com-
pany property in a manner which did not insure its secrecy or
freedom. from employer interference.32
When, under the circumstances heretofore set forth, the major-
ity of the employees had voted to accept the Continental Union,
providing for an organization substantially similar in structure to the
abandoned Council Plan, except for the absence of management rep-
resentatives, the respondent accorded it the valuable privilege of
recognition as a collective bargaining agency, within a few hours
after a formal request therefor by the organization. On that same
day it further announced on its bulletin boards that the Continental
Union would be the representative of the employees in the plant.
30Cf Matter of Swift C Company, a corporation , and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No 61,1, and United Packing House Workers Local
Industrial Union No 300, 7 N L R B 269 , enf'd as mod Swift cC Company v National Labor
Relations Board , 106 F ( 2d) 87 , 94 (C C A 10), as to the role taken by former repre-
sentatives under an admittedly dominated organization in the formation of a new
organization
31Cf. Matter of Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation and Industrial Union of
Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America , 12 N L. R. B 886
82 Cf . Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Titan Employees Protective Association
and the Individual Employees of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company, Intervenors v.
National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 254 (C C A 3), cent denied , 308 U S 015,
enf'g Matter of Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Federal Labor Union No. 19981.
5 N L. R B. 577.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 79
Thereafter the respondent insured the financial stability of the or-
ganization by granting it a limited check-off privilege. The re-
spondent's affirmative support of the Continental Union stands in
marked contrast to the antipathy to the Oil Workers Union expressed
by certain of its supervisory employees.
The respondent contends that its withdrawal of recognition from
the Council dispelled any coercive effect its past conduct may have
had on its employees; that thereafter it did not dominate the forma-
tion of the Continental Union; that Van Nest appeared at the meet-
ings of April 19 and 21 "at the request of fellow employees and for
the sole and only purpose of discussing the Wagner Act;" that no
official of the respondent interfered with the drafting of the con-
stitution and bylaws of the Continenal Union; that the Continental
Union was established by a very substantial majority of the em-
ployees in a fair election uninfluenced in any manner by any action
or conduct of the respondent; 33 that the organization has truly rep-
resented employees, both in collective and individual bargaining; 34
and that the organization is functioning within the letter and spirit
of the Act. We are not persuaded by any of these contentions, and
in view of our findings heretofore set forth we do not deem it neces-
sary to discuss them further.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Continental Union and has
contributed financial and other support to it and has thereby in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
D. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Ira C. Potts
The complaint alleged that the respondent had discharged Ira C.
Potts because of his organizational activities on behalf of the Oil
Workers Union.
The Trial Examiner found that Potts had been discharged for
adequate and legitimate business reasons and not because he had
joined or taken part in activities on behalf of the Oil Workers Union.
The Oil Workers Union filed no exceptions to these findings. We
have considered the evidence and agree with the Trial Examiner's
findings. We find that the respondent did not discriminate in re-
as See National Labor Relations Board v. Brown Paper Mill Company, 108 F. (2d) 867
C. C. A. 5), enf'g Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company , Inc., Monroe, Louisiana and
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , affiltiated with the American Federation of
Labor; Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe , Louisiana and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
12 N. L. R B. 60
8E National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company,
308 U S. 241, aff'g and mod, 101 F. (2d) 841, 1939, and enf'g Matter of Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, 8 N. L. R. B. 866.
SO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bard to the hire and tenure of employment of Potts within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The allegations of the com-
plaint with regard to his discharge will, therefore, be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III (a) 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 disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Continental Employees
Union of Ponca City area and has contributed financial and other
support to it. The organization was not freely chosen and cannot,
in view of the circumstances, function as an independent representa-
tive of the respondent's employees. We shall therefore, in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, order the respondent to withdraw
recognition from the Continental Union and to disestablish it as
representative of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work.35
The record reveals that the respondent and the Continental IJhion
have entered into an informal arrangement permitting the check-off
of dues at the request of an employee member of that group. Since
we have found that the check-off constituted additional support, to
the company-dominated Continental Union and served to perpetuate.,
its existence by affording it a measure of financial stability we will
order the respondent to cease and desist from giving any effect to
any such arrangement." For reasons which we have stated in
previous decisions, and to restore the status quo, the respondent will
be required to reimburse its employees for the amounts which have
been checked off as Continental Union dues.37
36 See National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Com-
pany, 308 U S. 241, and National Labor Relations Board v Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
303 U. S. 272.
-' Matter of Centre Brass Works , Inc., and Enterprise Novelty Co. and Metal Polishers,
Platers, Buffers and Helpers International Union, Local No. 8, 10 N. L. R. B. 1060; Matter
of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 50,
13 N. L. R. B. 993.
37 See Matter of The Heller Brothers Company of Neweomerstown and International
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths , Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L. R. B. 646. See also
Matter of Western Garment Manufacturing Co, A. B. Malouf, as Liquidating Agent of
Western Garment Manufacturing Co, and A. B. Malouf, IV. B. Malouf, Frances B . Malouf,
Edward I. Malouf, and Bert B. Malouf, trading as Malouf Brothers Manufacturing Co. and
Paul M. Peterson, President, Utah State Federation of Labor, 10 N. L. R. B. 567.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 81
In addition, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist
from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 231, and Continen-
tal Employes Union of Ponca City Area, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area
and by contributing financial and other support to it, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
-, respond'ent, `Continental Oil Company, a corporation, Ponca City,
=Oklahoma,: and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from : -
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Con-
tinental Employes Union of Ponca City Area, or with the forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, and from contributing financial and other support to the
Continental Employes Union of Ponca City Area, or any other
labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to any check-off or other arrangements or agree-
ments which it has made with the Continental Employes Union of
Ponca City Area;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Continental Employes
Union of Ponca City Area as a representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish the Con-
tinental Employes Union of Ponca City Area as such representative;
(b) Reimburse the employees who were members of the Con-
i inental Employes Union of Ponca City Area for the dues which
have been deducted from said employees' wages on behalf of said
Continental Union ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department
of its plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days, notices to its employees stating that the respondent
will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a), (b),. and
(c) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a)
and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in'
writing, 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, in so far as it
alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.