Continental Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1400 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 550, AFL
Case No. 16-C-1207.Decided February 26, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 29, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report 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 copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions, with a
supporting brief, to the Intermediate Report. None of the parties
requested oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., and
none was held.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief of the respondent, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as hereinafter
modified.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in
a campaign to discourage the organizational efforts of its employees.
In the setting of the respondent's threats of and actual economic re-
prisal against its employees for engaging in organizational activities,
as revealed by the respondent's interrogation of employees and pros-
pective employees as to their union affiliation and activities, its clear
intimation that it would employ no active union adherents, its direc-
tion that an employee should instruct other employees to vote against
the Union, and the respondent's other similar conduct more fully out-
lined in the Intermediate Report, we also agree with the Trial Exam-
iner's findings on the coercive effect of Superintendent Purswell's
remarks at the May 1944 meeting.
65 N. L. R B., No. 231.
1400
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1401
The Trial Examiner further concluded, however, that the respond-
ent, by requiring its employees to attend the May 1944 meeting at
which it discussed their organizational activities, infringed upon the
employees' constitutional right of free speech and free assembly, and
that such compulsory attendance violated Section 8 (1) of the Act.
We need not, and do not, pass upon nor adopt the Trial Examiner's
conclusions in this regard.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Continental Oil Company,
Ponca City, Oklahoma, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Taking or threatening to take economic reprisal against its em-
ployees because of their membership in, and other activities on behalf
of, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 550, AFL, or
any other labor organization;
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or
other activities on behalf of, the above-named or any other labor
organization ;
(c) Directing employees to vote for or against the above-named or
any other labor organization;
(d) Using abusive or threatening language to employees for re-
sorting to the administrative processes of the Act;
(e) Interfering with its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, and to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Rincon Field, Starr County, Texas, copies of the no-
tice attached hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to 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 the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
1. We will not take, or threaten to take, economic reprisals
against our employees because of their membership in, and other
activities on behalf of International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local 550, AFL, or any other labor organizations.
2. We will not interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in, or other activities on behalf of, the above-named or
any other labor organization.
3. We will not direct our employees to vote for or against the
above-named or any other labor organization.
4. We will not use abusive or threatening language, to our em-
ployees for resorting to the administrative processes of the Act.
5. We will not interfere with our employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, or to
join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization.
6. All our employees are free to become or remain, members of
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 550, AFL, or
any other labor organization.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. `
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. William J Scot t, for the Board.
Messrs. William H Zwwk and W. C. MacMillan , of Ponca City , Okla ., for the
respondent.
Mr. J. E. Gilliland , of Corpus Christi, Tex., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed-by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
No. 550, A. F. L, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated July 30, 1945, against Continentnal
Oil Company, Ponca City, Oklahoma, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. Copies
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1403
of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondent, from about May 1944 to the date of the issuance of the
complaint, (a) vilified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union,
(b) interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliation, and (c) urged,
persuaded, threatened, and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becom-
ing members of, or remaining members of the Union; and (2)- that the respond-
ent, by the foregoing conduct, engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Rio Grande City, Texas, on August
21, 1945, before Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner ' The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by an official representative. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
Following the introduction of all evidence, the undersigned granted, without
objection, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to dates and minor variances At the same time, the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint on the grounds (1) that the evidence adduced by the
Board failed to sustain the complaint and (2) that the statements and conduct
complained of were privileged under the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
The undersigned reserved ruling upon this motion For the reasons set forth
below, the notion is hereby denied Upon the conclusion of the hearing, all
parties waived oral argument and indicated that they would not file briefs
with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned snakes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Continental Oil Company, a Delaware corporation having its principal office
and place of business in Ponca City, Oklahoma, is engaged in the production,
transportation, manufacture, and sale of petroleum and related products. Its
operations produce oil in 11 States of the United States, including the State of
Texas' The products of its operations enter into interstate commerce. The
respondent concedes that it is subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 550, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Sequence of events
The first indication of employee interest in self-organization occurred the
last of April or the first of May 1944, when one Lynch, a representative of the
'The instant proceeding is concerned with the respondent 's operations at its Rincon
field in Starr County near Rio Grande City, Texas.
1404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Federation of Labor, visited the Rincon field and a meeting was
held in the evening after working hours in the yard of the Fain Drilling Com-
pany, about three-fourths of a mile from the respondent's Rincon office. Between
18 and 25 employees of the Rincon field attended the meeting. The advantages
of self-organization were discussed and several employees filled out membership
application cards
The next morning Farm Boss Ernest Enyart notified the employees that
W. Monroe Purswell, district superintendent of the respondent's Rincon and
Cameron fields and Navarro properties, desired to meet with all Rincon em-
ployees in the garage The employees assembled at 10 that morning, on the
respondent's property during woi king hours. Farm Boss Enyard and District
Foreman Clem Christienson, both admittedly supervisory employees, also at-
tended the meeting Superintendent°Purswell took charge of the meeting and,
according to his testimony, addressed the employees, in part,2 as follows :
I said to those boys . . . I wanted to talk to them a little bit about the
union And I told each and every one of them, I impressed it. I think I said
it over tsdice, that regardless of whether you joined the union, whether you
belonged to it now, or whether you don't, that it will not make any differ-
ence in your standing with the Continental Oil Company. And then I told
them about the fellows that come out and negotiated these unions, these
organizers . . . I told these boys that those fellows had a job to do. They
made their living doing, that very thing, and it was to their interest to go out
and organize these men because they profited by it, but I says "Now, before
you boys go too far with these fellows, . . . Each and every one of you weigh
it out carefully as to what they tell you. They might think they can do a
lot for you that they can't But go ahead and listen to them and then use
your own heads. Each one of you has got a head on your own shoulders, and
weigh the thing out carefully before you make any definite move either
way" . . . I told those fellows that I would think that thing over very care-
fully and not get my name on a ledger . . . some future date . . . that I'd
be ashamed of having there . . . I asked them "Do you boys, any of you re-
member seven or eight or nine or ten years ago, how the Ku Klux Klan swept,
the country around here," . . . how many of them now that you know that
were engaged in that thing will admit it and own up to it? . . . "Now boys,
whether you belong to the union, whether you join it or don't join it, it has
no reflection on you one way or the other."
Purswell testified, in addition, that during the meeting he asked employee Ned
Reese "how much money it had cost him to get this job and hold his job out here
with the Continental Oil Company," that Reese had replied, "It hadn't cost him
anything," and that Purswell thereupon said:
Well, that's the American way of doing these things; that's the way it
should be done. There should be no law or no fixed rule by any group
whereby a man had to go out and buy, or pay somebody for the privilege of
earning a living for himself and his family.
Upon the credible testimony of witnesses called by the Board and by the re-
spondent , the undersigned finds that in addition to the remarks above quoted
from Purswell's testimony, Purswell also expressed the following sentiments
at the garage meeting: (1) That he wondered why the employees wanted "to
organize a Union" which was composed of "just a bunch of racketeering sons-of-
2 Purswell admitted that he was unable to recall everything that he had said at the
meeting.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1405
bitches",' which was interested only in collecting dues from the employees, and
which could do the employees no good, (2) that if the employees "went union,
it would sure as hell be union" and "things would be different," (3) that an
earlier personal experience of belonging to a union had been unsatisfactory to
him and had produced no benefits for him, (4) that it would be better for the
employees "to take out insurance policies instead of joining the union",' and (5)
that by paying dues to a union, the employees were paying for their jobs and for
"somebody else to tell [them] what to do."
Purswell testified and the undersigned finds that Purswell's "primary pur-
pose for calling" the garage meeting was "the sincere hopes that the desired
effects would be effected; that those fellows wouldn't organize" and that he
assembled the employees "to let the boys know how I felt about" their organi-
zational efforts. Although Purswell professed at the hearing not to be opposed
to "organized labor," he stated that he was "against racketeering . . . and
that is what we have got" and that "the type of unions," such as the charging
Union, "that we have this day and time is no good." Employees, including Farm
Boss Enyart, expressed their varying opinions regarding the Union before the
meeting adjourned
Employee B Fianklin Jackson testified that following the garage meeting, the
employees "were all kinda scared." The organizational movement lapsed im-
niediately after Purswell's discussion with the employees and no further inter-
est in self-organization was evidenced by the employees for about 9 months.
Employee D. W. Cowan testified that he did not attend the garage meeting
but a few days later was asked by Purswell how he "felt concerning the union"
and what he knew about two men who had come out to the lease with Organizer
Lynch and that when he told Purswell that the two men in question were looking
for jobs, Purswell stated, "There's two sons-of-bitches that are not going to
work here." Purswell did not deny Cowan's testimony but admitted that he
made the statement regarding the two men accompanying Lynch because he
had interviewed the men and found that one was too old to perform the work
and that the other was inexperienced and for the additional reason that he
"assumed that they were connected with that organizer" Lynch In view of
the credible nature of the testimony of Cowan and Purswell's admission, the
undersigned finds that Purswell made the statement attributed to him by Cowan
and also inquired as to Cowan's opinion of the Union.
According to the uncontroverted and credible testimony of employee Tyler,
about January 8, 1945, he inquired of Purswell whether a friend of Tyler might
transfer to the Rincon lease from another operation in the "Panhandle" and
Purswell asked if Tyler knew of his friend's "feeling toward the union." Tyler
testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds that when Tyler stated
that his friend was employed in an organized field but he did not know whether
his friend was a union adherent, Purswell said, "I don't want any more union
agitators down here than I could help."
3
Purswell admitted that he had referred to the union organizers as racketeers but
denied the expletive attributed to him by several Board witnesses From his observation
of the witnesses and for the reasons below set forth, the undersigned does not credit
Purswell's denial
* Purswell admitted that he possibly made this statement.
S On cross-examination, Purswell stated that he did not recall making a statement to
this effect . However, on direct examination, he testified, as noted previously, that there
should be no "law or . . fixed rule" requiring an employee "to go out and buy, or pay
somebody for the privilege of earning a living . . In view of this admission, as well
as from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned finds that Purswell made the
statements set forth in the text.
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sometime in February 1945, interest in self-organization revived with the
appearance of the Union. A meeting was scheduled one evening in February
to be held in Rio Grande City. Employee Ollie Breeden testified that immedi-
ately prior to his leaving the Rincon field to attend this meeting, Purswell told
him, "You better go in there and tell that bunch of goats to vote against that
union." On cross-examination by counsel for the Board, Purswell denied that
he made the statement attributed to him by Breeden. Purswell admitted, how-
ever, that he had a conversation with Breeden on the evening in question and
he told Breeden "along with 5 or 6 of the other boys, that I wanted them to go
[to the meeting] because we wanted full representation" but did not say anything
to them about not voting for the Union. In view of the statements made by
Purswell earlier in regard to the Union and the fact that Purswell admitted
having had a conversation about the Union with Breeden on the evening of the
scheduled union meeting, as well as the undersigned's observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned does not credit Purswell's denial and finds that he made
the statements attributed to him by Breeden.
About 27 employees assembled at the union meeting in Rio Grande City. A
majority voted to affiliate with the Union that evening and officers were elected
Witnesses for the Board testified that immediately following the affiliation
of the employees with the Union, Purswell's attitude toward the employees
changed completely Whereas he had formerly been friendly to them and had
frequently gone fishing or hunting with them, he was thereafter no longer "neigh-
borly or friendly" but avoided the employees and spoke only when "forced" to do
so. Purswell admitted that his attitude changed and attributed such change
to the fact that the day following the union meeting in February, the employees
seemed embarrassed and quiet ; whereupon Purswell testified, "I decided that
maybe I had better play the same game. So I started in myself. I would walk
by those fellows and never see them ; but if one of them ever recognized me and
spoke to me, I have never failed yet to recognize them "
Employee Tyler testified, without contradiction, and the undersigned finds that
shortly after the February meeting of the Union and the change evidenced in
Purswell's attitude to the men, Tyler asked Purswell if he believed Tyler was
a union organizer or agitator, that Purswell replied. "Not necessarily" and
inquired the reason for the question When Tyler explained, according to his
credible testimony, that the change in Purswell's attitude was the cause for his
query Purswell asked, "What good do you think anybody will get out of the
Union anyway? . . . What good do you think it will do for the men out here?"
Tyler further testified that he explained the various benefits the employees
hoped to obtain through the efforts of the Union and that Purswell replied,
"If any man here thinks it will keep him from getting fired, if he belongs to the
Union, he is wrong." "
Employee L. T. Swearingen testified that about,10 days after the February
meeting of the Union and after the change in Purswell's attitude, Swearingen
told Purswell that it was Swearingen's hope that Purswell and one Conway
were not "carrying any chips" on their shoulders because the employees had
joined the Union, and Swearingen assured him that the employees had no "hard
feelings" toward Purswell or Conway According to Swearingen, Purswell
became angry and said, "It hurt me deeply that you boys went and joined the
Union without saying anything to me about it . . . From now on, everything is
going to go the straight and narrow : from now on, I will run this oil patch."
"Purswell was not questioned with respect to this colloquy and did not deny the state-
ments attributed to him by Tyler. The undersigned finds that Purswell made the state-
ments as testified to by Tyler.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1407
Purswell did not specifically deny the statements attributed to him by Swearingen
but merely generally denied the truth of Swearingen ' s testimony concerning the
garage meeting . Since Swearingen 's testimony regarding Purswell ' s speech
at the garage meeting is in many respects identical to Purswell 's admission above
set forth , it is clear that Purswell 's denial of Swearingen 's testimony is not
entitled to credence . Furthermore , Swearingen impressed the undersigned as
an especially earnest and truthful witness and he accordingly finds that Purswell
made the statements testified to by Swearingen
According to the uncontroverted and credible testimony of employee Cowan,
before the employees joined the Union they had "more or less a flexible working
schedule ," whereby they were privileged to take time off for essential personal
business provided they worked the full number of hours per day or, alternatively,
if they had worked more hours than scheduled on one day, they might on suc-
ceeding days take off the number of overtime work hours . However, after the
organizational activities started, according to Cowan , the employees were
required to work a set shift of 8 hours , without the privileges of taking time off
that theretofore existed.
Employee Albert Wicks testified that when he and John Hiller applied for
employment with the respondent on March 22, 1945, Purswell asked him how he
"felt about the Union " and said, "Well , all I want you to know is that you
do not have to belong to the Union to work out here at Continental." Hiller was
unable to recall definitely whether Purswell inquired as to their union member-
ship but stated that when Purswell gave them application blanks, he warned them
that they might be approached by union adherents and said, "I just want to
tell you that you don ' t have to join to have a job here." Purswell did not
testify with respect to this incident . The undersigned finds that Purswell made
the query attributed to him by Wicks and the statement attributed to him by
Wicks and Hiller
On May 7 , 194:5, the Union filed with the Board a charge alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act . Employee
Swearingen testified that on May 11, 1945, Purswell entered Swearingen ' s office,
flung on Swearingen ' s desk a letter from the Board ' s Regional Director relating
to the filing of the unfair labor practice charge, and asked Swearingen "Do you
know anything about that ? I understand you are the secretary of that thing "
Swearingen further testified that when he admitted his secretaryship but sug-
gested that Purswell consult either the representative or the president of the
Union about the letter from the Regional Director , Purswell said, "Well, you
dirty-dirty sons of bitches , what are you trying to do ? Are you trying to push
me into the river ? . . . You are damned sure going to have to prove I have been
discriminating against you."
Purswell admitted that lie took the letter from the Regional Director to Swear-
ingen and asked him what he knew about it. According to Purswell , Swearingen
replied, "the Union man will take care of that ;" whereupon , Purswell told
Swearingen , "Well, I have an idea there is a penciled copy of that thing around
here somewhere and . . . you are going to get a chance to prove that ." Purs-
well denied that lie had made the abusive statement attributed to him by Swear-
ingen. Upon the entire record, the undersigned does not credit Purswell ' s denial.
As noted previously , Swearingen impressed the undersigned as an especially
earnest and honest witness . Moreover, it appears that this incident led him
voluntarily to terminate his employment with the respondent about 17 days
later. Purswell ' s earlier activities and statements with respect to the Union,
particularly his language employed in the garage meeting and the change in
attitude evidenced by him after the employees . affiliated with the Union , typify a
679100-46-vol. 65-90
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
temperament and speech habits from which it would be likely for such remarks
to emanate. The undersigned credits Swearingen's version of the colloquy with
Purswell in regard to the Regional Director's letter and finds that Purswell made
the statements attributed to him by Swearingen
On May 25, 1945, the Board conducted a consent election to determine whether
the respondent's employees desired to be represented by the Union for the purpose
of collective bargaining. Of the 16 ballots cast, 11 were for the Union and 5
were against the Union The day following the election, the respondent's garage
in which the employees were accustomed to service and repair their automobiles
in their flee time, was locked at 5 p. in., the close of the workday. At the same
time it locked the gates into the garage yard where the air and water lines were.
The removal of the privilege for the use of these facilities created a great hardship
for the employees since the Rincon lease on which they worked and lived was
a considerable distance from the nearest town where comparable services were
available and since the use of their automobiles was necessary in the performance
of the duties of most employees. Purswell and Luther Pearce, who was a
mechanic in the garage, testified that the garage was closed and the yard gates
locked, on the order of Purswell, because some equipment and tools had dis-
appeared from the garage and that this was not the first time that the garage
had been locked at the close of the working day. However, they admitted that
on the earlier occasions when the garage facilities were locked, the key was left in
a box near the entrance so that employees might enter and use the garage in their
free time. Although employees complained, no explanation for the closing was
given until about the middle of June when the matter was discussed at a meeting
between representatives of the Union and the respondent, who were negotiating a
collective bargaining contract. In view of Purswell's statements and attitude
toward the Union and his announcement after the employees affiliated with the
Union that "From now on, everything is going to go the straight and narrow . . .
I will run this oil patch," as well as the change to a strict 8-hour work shift for
all employees, the undersigned finds that Purswell ordered the garage hnd yard to
be locked the day following the Board election because the employees had,
contrary to his desires, chosen the Union as their statutory representative
2. Conclusions
a
The foregoing findings establish that the respondent, through District Super-
intendent Purswell, engaged in a campaign designed to discourage the organiza-
tional efforts of its employees. The undersigned is of the opinion that the
respondent, in doing so, has exceeded the limits of free expression and has
engaged in a course of conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
It cannot he said that the statements concerning the Union and its organizers
made by Purswell in his speech at the garage meeting and also on other occasions
were a temperate argument against the Union as an employee representative.'
Admittedly, the intended effect of the speech by Purswell and the use in reference
to the union organizers of such appellations as "racketeering sons-of-bitches" was
to discourage the employees from joining the Union. Contained in Purswell's
opprobious description of the Union and its leaders were implications of economic
reprisals to be visited upon the employees should they choose the Union as a
7 Theretofore, the employees had had access to the garage at all times.
8 Upon negotiation with the respondent and ultimately upon appeal to officials of the
respondent in San Antonio, the garage facilities were made available again to the em.
ployees about the first of July 1945.
a Compare N. L R B. v. American Tube Bending Co, 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert.
den. 320 U S 768.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1409
bargaining agent. Thus, Purswell stated that if the employees "went union, it
would sure as hell be union" and "things would be difterent." Delivered in a
setting where the listeners were economically dependent upon, and compelled to
give heed to the speaker, the whole tenor of the speech was to coerce the employees
into rejecting the Union's organizational efforts.
By compelling its employees to assemble during working hours on the respond-
ent's premises to listen to Purswell's anti-union statements, the respondent,
through Purswell, not only effected an illegal use of its economic power over
its employees in order to interfere with their choice of a bargaining representative
but also violated the employees' "fundamental right" of self-organization,10 which
is part of the right of free speech and also of free assembly ll It. is clear that
the right of free speech includes the right to refrain from speakinb 12 Similarly,
concomitant with the right of free assembly is the right to refrain from assem-
bling, which in respect to self-organizational purposes is protected by the Act.
Thus, the expression of opinions and the choice of place, manner, and means
respecting their self-organization is guaranteed employees free from employer
interference. By Purswell's addressing his anti-uniop remarks to a "captive
audience" of employees, the respondent infringed upon the employees' right of
free discussion and assembly and also upon their right to organize without inter-
ference on the part of the respondent. The employer's right of free speech cannot
afford it immunity for such conduct.
Purswell's threats and derogatory statements against the Union and its leaders
are peculiarly significant when considered in the light of his subsequent conduct.
A few clays after the garage meeting, lie told employee Cowan that two men
who had accompanied the union organizer to the oil field in the search for em-
ployment were "not going to work here." The implication that the reason he
would not employ them was their association with the Union was admitted by
Purswell at the hearing. Similarly, when employee Tyler asked Purswell about
the possibility of a friend's transfer to the Rincon lease, Purswell immediately
inquired as to the friend's union affiliation and indicated that the transfer would
not be effected since Purswell did not "want any more union agitators down
here." These statements are plainly coercive in effect since they patently demon-
strate to employees the manner in which District Superintendent Purswell exer-
cised economic power in connection with persons associated with or members
of a union.
That Purswell achieved the effect he admittedly desired, that is, the rejection
of the Union by the employees, is revealed by the fact that following his speech
the employees were "scared" and abandoned their organizational efforts
Upon the revival of the employees' interest in self-organization some 9 months
later, Purswell immediately interfered with the movement to launch the Union
by advising employee Breeden to attend the first union meeting and "tell that
bunch of goats to vote against that union." After a majority of the employees
determined to join the Union in February. Purswell at once evidenced his dis-
pleasure with their choice by replacing his former convivial demeanor with an
attitude of cold hauteur toward his employees When employees, concerned by
Purswell's change in manner, attempted to placate him, he again disparaged the
Union by inquiring of employee Tyler what benefits he hoped to receive from the
Union and by admitting to employee Swearingen that it "hurt" Purswell deeply
'ON. L. R. B. v. Jones t Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S 1.
11 Hague v . Committee for Industrial Organization , 307 U S 496 , wherein the Court
stated, "The right to discuss and inform people concerning the advantages and disad-
vantages of unions and joining them is protected not only as part of free speech, but as
part of free assembly " See also Thomas v Collins, 323 U S 516.
11 Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U S. 624.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the employees had joined the Union. At the same time, Purswell voiced
further implied threats of economic reprisals against the employees because of
their affiliation with the Union Thus, he informed employee Tyler that "if any
man here thinks it will keep him from getting fired, if he belongs to the Union,
he is wrong." and stated to Swearingen that "From now on, everything is going
to go on the straight and narrow; from now on, I will run this oil patch." In
compliance with these threats, shortly thereafter the flexible working schedule
was replaced by a more rigid system and after a majority of the employees chose
the Union as their statutory representative in the Board's election, the privilege
of using the respondent's garage for the service and repair of the employees'
cars was revoked by Purswell. Furthermore, Purswell's inquiry as to the atti-
tude of Wicks and Hiller toward the Union and his abusive language and state-
ments made to Swearingen relative to the Regional Director's letter constituted
additional interference, restraint, and coercion
Upon the entire record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the acts
and statements of Purswell, outlined above, were integral parts of a course of
conduct whereby the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act "
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent 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
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 550, A. F. L, is a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (0) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Continental Oil Company, Ponca
City, Oklahoma, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
"See Matter of M E Blatt Company , 38 N L. R. B 1210 , and 47 N. L . R. B 1055, enf'd
143 P ( 2d) 268 (C C A 3), cert den 323 U S 774; Matter of Agar Packing & Provision
Corporation, 58 N. L. R. B. 738.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1411
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 550,
A F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its Rincon Field, Starr County, Texas, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respond-
ent's representative, he posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to 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 the Sixteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda=
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
FRm)m c B PARKus, 2ND,
Trial Examiner.
Dated November 29, 1945.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLoYEEs
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to join or assist International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 550,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization , 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.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any
other labor organization.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated--------------------------------- By------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
e