Exxon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 203 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

EXXON COMPANY
Exxon Company , U.S.A. and Industrial Employees
Association, Inc. and Gilbert Conde . Cases 29-CA-
4338 and 29-CA-4340
March 23, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On December 17, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Exxon Company,
U.S.A., 320 Freeman Street , Brooklyn, New York, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L . DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Brooklyn , New York, on September 8,
1975. The charge in 29-CA-4338 was filed by the Industri-
al Employees Association , Inc. on May 2 , 1975, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by Respon-
dent . The charge in 29-CA-4340 was filed on May 2, 1975,
by Gilbert Conde, an individual , alleging violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Since both charges related
to an identical set of circumstances, an order consolidating
cases, complaint and notice of hearing was issued on June
30, 1975. The complaint was limited to two allegations: (1)
that on various dates during the months of November and
December 1974 Respondent denied the request of the
Union and the various employees that the Union's repre-
sentative be permitted to be present during investigatory
interviews with employees ; and (2) that on various dates
during November 1974 Respondent , through its supervisor
203
Frank Giles, threatened employees with discharge and
other reprisals if they refused to participate in investigatory
interviews without a representative of the Union being pre-
sent.' Respondent's answer denied the allegations of unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. All parties were
afforded a full opportunity to participate in the hearing.
The Charging Party Union and the Respondent filed briefs
which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire rec-
ord and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Exxon Company, U.S.A., the Respondent, is a New Jer-
sey corporation with its principal office and place of busi-
ness at Houston , Texas . Respondent maintains a plant lo-
cated at 320 Freeman Street, Brooklyn, New York, where it
is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the
manufacture, sale; and distribution of gasoline, petroleum
products, and related products. During the past year, a
representative period, Respondent purchased and received
at its Freeman Street plant gasoline and other goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of New York. During the same period of
time Respondent manufactured, sold, distributed, and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State of New York. As admitted in the
answer, I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Industrial Employees Association, Inc., hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Union, is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement
between Respondent and the Union for the period May 1,
1973, to April 30, 1975, certain "posted offenses" are listed
in "Schedule D" of that agreement as conduct for which an
employee may be dismissed or otherwise disciplined with-
out notice. Among the itemized list of proscribed conduct
appears the following:2
1. General
a. Committing a crime on company time or proper-
ty or committing a crime anywhere at any time
which is punishable by death or imprisonment in a
penitentiary.
s
Hereafter , all dates are in 1974 unless otherwise specified.
a Copies of the collective -bargaining agreement had been distributed to
all unit employees, including those who testified in this proceeding. These
offenses were also posted in Respondent 's plant.
223 NLRB No. 24
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. Damaging company property, or damaging the
property of others on company time or property, on
purpose or through negligence.
q a s q
2. Dishonesty
a. Stealing from the Company, or stealing from
others on company time or property.
b. Making a statement to the Company, which he
does not believe to be true . For example : Making
false statements in connection with employment,
medical history , investigation of accidents, etc.
c. Offering or accepting anything of value in ex-
change for a job, work assignment, work location or
other favorable condition of employment.
s s s
e. Substituting a product.
s * n
3. Insubordination
11
q s
s
c. Refusing a company request to answer a ques-
tion in the investigation of an accident.
During the fall of 1974 security employees of Respon-
dent commenced an investigation to determine whether or
not its gasoline truckdrivers and dispatchers were engaged
in an unlawful arrangement with certain service station op-
erators whereby, in return for appropriate compensation,
the drivers reportedly delivered regular grade gasoline to
the stations' high test tanks . George S . Oed, plant operator
at the Brooklyn plant and president of the Union, first
learned of this investigation from Company Attorney Ma-
honey on November 5. Mahoney told Oed that the New
York state operations manager, Mr. Clements , wanted to
talk to Oed about the matter . After telephoning Clements,
Oed met with him that afternoon at the Company's region-
al office in Pelham , New York. Clements said that as the
result of a single dealer complaint , a big investigation has
taken place , and that a number of drivers in Brooklyn were
involved in dishonesty . Clements refused to identify the
suspects . Clements stated that on that very day 20 dealers
were being interviewed at the Brooklyn plant , and that the
employees would be interviewed the following day. Cle-
ments described the dishonesty as the adulteration of gaso-
line. Following this meeting Oed called Anthony Levan-
dowski , and John Martin , James Holden , and John
Wheeler, employee union representatives at the Brooklyn
plant , and informed them of the conversation with Cle-
ments . Upon reporting for work at 7:15 a.m. on November
6, Oed called Labor Relations Coordinator John C. Fisch-
er, and asked if any of the employee union representatives
were involved in the investigation . Oed explained that he
wanted to avoid embarrassing the Union "by having a rep-
resentative called out of a meeting and told, `You are
next' " Fischer called back at a later time and suggested
that Oed have Wheeler accompany him in his meetings
with the Company concerning this matter. Oed then con-
tacted Wheeler and together they proceeded upstairs to the
terminal office where the Union was allowed to use an
empty desk in the outer office during the initial phases of
the investigation.
Oed and Wheeler arrived at the Company's offices and
found the investigation already in progress . The first em-
ployee interviewed was Mike Macintosh. Oed succeeded in
getting him to leave the interview room where privately the
union representatives advised him to ask for union repre-
sentation during this meeting . Macintosh stated he would
do so. Next Wheeler and Oed proceeded to the office of
George Carse, the terminal superintendent. Oed and
Wheeler told Carse that they wished to be present during
the interviews that were being held with their employee
members. Carse refused, stating that they would be permit-
ted to attend any interviews involving discipline, but not
interviews for investigatory purposes. Oed and Wheeler
had several meetings with Carse during the course of the
morning, and at one of these meetings Carse stated that
any employee who refused to submit to an interview would
be subjected to disciplinary action.
Approximately eight interviews were conducted on the
first day of the investigation. During this time and on other
days during the investigation, until forced to move, Oed
and Wheeler remained stationed at the desk in the outer
office, 15 to 20 feet from the interview site, from which
point they could see the employees entering and leaving.
As the employees entered the union representatives suc-
ceeded in speaking to many of them. They advised those to
whom they spoke not to sign any statements , and, concern-
ing anything that was asked them of an incriminating na-
ture, not to answer without being permitted to have their
union representative present . Oed and Wheeler also ex-
plained briefly to these employees that the investigation
invoved the adulteration of gasoline at certain New York
City stations. Oed estimated that out of some 43 employees
interviewed they succeeded in speaking to 37 or 38. Ac-
cording to Oed and Wheeler they were later permitted to
attend all the disciplinary interviews at which employees
were either suspended or discharged.4 According to Oed, at
each of the suspension interviews a company investigator
stated that the employee was possibly involved in a mixture
of product at stations and therefore was being suspended
pending the completion of the investigation. At the dis-
charge interviews employees were told they were being ter-
minated for a violation of the posted offenses in the con-
tract. Respondent's investigation, as described above,
continued through the remainder of November and into
December 1974. The last discharge date specified on the
Rider to General Counsel's Exhibit 1(b) is December 19.
3 At a later time , during the course of the investigation , after the union
representatives had managed to speak to and give advice to certain of the
affected employees, union officials were moved to other office space at the
end of the building where they could not see or talk to anyone entering or
leaving the investigative interviews.
4 Those employees suspended were Bob Betsch , Jerry D 'Agostino, Ray
Melcer, Frank Colasuonno , Bill Trotter , Richard Cassaliggi, Joe Nocerino,
Bob Schank , Jack Jackson, Joe Montefinesse , George Cakoganis, Gil
Conde, Bob Twibel , Henry Hulst, John Martin, and Michael Macintosh.
The employees discharged (either outright or following a suspension) were:
Ed Kenny, Dan Ryan , David Delimonico , Thomas Slaski, and Larry Fen-
sore.
EXXON COMPANY 205
John P. Wheeler, a heating oil dispatcher and employee
union representative , testified concerning his accompani-
ment of Oed to the Company's offices during the investiga-
tive period. Wheeler corroborated Oed's testimony, specifi-
cally stating that Carse refused the Union's request to be
present during the investigative interviews and told them
that, if an employee refused to cooperate with the investi-
gators, disciplinary action would be taken against him.
Employees John T. Martin, Henry J. Hulst, David Deli-
monico, Robert Twibel, and Lawrence Fensore, all of
whom were interviewed during the course of the investiga-
tion , testified in substance that they had some advance in-
formation concerning the nature of the investigation, that
they requested to be allowed to have their union represen-
tative present during their investigative interview, that this
request was denied, and that they were told that if they
persisted in taking this position or refused to cooperate
without a union representative present they would be disci-
plined.
Martin learned of the investigation from Oed while ac-
companying him at the same meeting at which Oed and
Mahoney first spoke of this matter. Concerning his individ-
ual role in the investigation , Martin testified he was taken
to the office by Frank Giles, the dispatch supervisor. After
requesting and being denied union representation by Giles,
Martin asked what would happen if he insisted on it. Giles
replied, "Well, you could be terminated." Under these cir-
cumstances Martin agreed to be interviewed after which he
was suspended for posted offenses l.a, 2.a.b., and 3.c. Ac-
cording to Martin he was recalled approximately Decem-
ber 17 or 18 and again asked to talk to the investigators.
This time Martin refused to talk to them without the Union
being present , whereupon the union officials were called in
and Martin was discharged. Martin further testified that
following his interview he spoke to employees Betsch, Hol-
den, MacIntosh, Twibel, and others prior to their own in-
terviews and informed them concerning the nature of his
interview and that he had been suspended.
Henry J. Hulst testified that he first heard about the
investigation by means of a phone call from Harry Laza-
rus, an employee friend, who telephoned Hulst on a Wed-
nesday night, his day off. Lazarus informed Hulst that an
investigation was going on and that some men had been
fired and others suspended. Hulst next reported for work
on Friday at 4:45, at which time John Martin informed
him that the Company wanted to see him. Hulst went to
see Giles in his office. Hulst requested to have the Union
present, but this request was denied. Giles added, "If you
don't want to cooperate and face them alone you're going
to be terminated immediately." Hulst responded, "I really
have no decision-I guess I have to go ." Hulst was inter-
viewed by the investigators following which he was taken
to George Carse's office. At this point the union represen-
tatives were permitted to be present. Carse said they had
evidence Hulst was involved in wrongdoing with the Com-
pany, and that he would be suspended until further notice.
About a week later, in another interview with union offi-
cials present, Hulst was discharged.
David Delimonico, a gasoline truckdriver, testified that
he first heard of the investigation on Wednesday, Novem-
ber 6, by means of a phone call from one of his fellow
workers. He also was later informed by Oed and Wheeler,
prior to being interviewed, that the investigation concerned
the adulteration of gasoline at different stations, and that
drivers were being questioned about payoffs to dispatchers.
On the day following his conversation with Oed, a Satur-
day, he was told to report to Giles who in turn told him to
go see the investigators . Delimonico asked what would
happen if he refused to go and Giles answered that he
could be fired for refusing to cooperate. Delimonico's re-
quest to have the union representatives present at the inter-
view was denied. He was told that it was either go along
with the investigation or be fired, after which Delimonico
agreed to go. Delimonico was interviewed after having
been denied the opportunity to speak to the union repre-
sentatives. After being interviewed for over an hour, Carse
told him he was not involved and to return to work. How-
ever, on December 17, Delimonico was called upstairs for
another session with the investigators. Again he asked to
see the union representatives, but his request was refused.
Following this interview he was taken to Carse's office and
discharged.
Robert Twibel met Henry Hulst on Friday night, No-
vember 8. Hulst had just come out of the office as Twibel
was starting work. Hulst said he had been suspended. Later
Twibel was told to go see Frank Giles. In his office Giles
stated that there was an investigation going on, and that he
wanted Twibel to talk with the investigators up in the main
office. Twibel asked to have the Union present but Giles
refused, stating, in response to Twibel's question, that if he
did not go talk with the investigators he would be fired for
insubordination. Twibel stated he would cooperate and
proceeded to be interviewed. An additional request to be
permitted to see the Union first was also denied. Following
his talk with the investigator Twibel was taken to Carse's
office and, in the presence of the union representatives,
suspended.
Lawrence Fensore first learned of the investigation on
Wednesday or Thursday from employee Dan Ryan. On
Friday, November 8, he also talked to George Oed and
John Wheeler who gave him the names of the employees
who had been suspended as a result of the investigation.
Oed and Wheeler also told him that the employees inter-
viewed were not allowed union representation, and there-
fore he should be careful concerning his behavior during
the interrogation. Later Fensore was informed by Giles
that he was to be interviewed, and not to talk to anyone.
Giles denied Fensore's request for union representation at
the interviews, and stated that if Fensore refused to coop-
erate he would probably be terminated. After being inter-
rogated for approximately an hour and a half, Fensore was
led to Carse's office where he was told he had been cleared
of any complicity and to return to work. However, approx-
imately a month later Fensore was reinterviewed by the
investigators, taken to Carse's office, and in the presence of
Oed, Levandowski, and Wheeler, discharged for infrac-
tions of the posted offenses.
George Carse did not testify. Dispatch Supervisor Frank
L. Giles testified that his. role in the investigation was sim-
ply to assemble the employees to be questioned at a rea-
sonable time, tell them that they were to be questioned by
people in the terminal investigating a "company probe"
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and to conduct them to the interview location . He denied
that the employees requested union representation , or that
he told them they would be discharged if they did not co-
operate . He testified on direct examination that he knew
.not very much at all" about the investigation which was
taking place, and suggested in his direct testimony that he
was, therefore, not in a position to inform employees con-
cerning the nature of the investigation . However, on cross-
examination Giles testified that he did in fact have advance
information concerning the nature of the inquiry, predat-
ing the employee interviews, and relating back to the time
when dealers were being called in for questioning . Giles'
testimony was shifting and evasive. He clearly was at-
tempting to tailor his testimony and minimize his role for
the benefit of the Respondent 's case . To the extent that his
testimony is at variance with that of Oed, Wheeler, and the
General Counsel's employee witnesses , it is discredited.'
In Mobil Oil Corporation, 196 NLRB 1052 (1972), the
Board stated:
An employee's right to union representation upon re-
quest is based on Section 7 of the Act which guaran-
tees the right of employees to act in concert for "mutu-
al aid and protection ." The denial of this right has a
reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce employees in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the
Act. Thus, it is a serious violation of the employee's
individual right to engage in concerted activity by
seeking the assistance of a statutory representative if
the employer denies the employee's request and com-
pels the employee to appear unassisted at an interview
which may put his job security in jeopardy. Such a
dilution of the employee's right to act collectively to
protect his job interests is, in our view, unwarranted
interference with his right to insist on concerted pro-
tection, rather than individual self-protection , against
possible adverse employer action.
The Board then delineated the circumstances under which
this right arises . They are: (1) Only where the employee
requests representation ; (2) under circumstances where the
employee reasonably believes the investigation will result
in disciplinary action ; (3) the exercise of the right may not
interfere with legitimate employer prerogatives. Thus,
when a request for representation is made the employer
may refuse and cancel the interview without being prevent-
ed from acting on the basis of other information. (4) An
employer need not bargain over the question of whom may
be permitted to attend an investigatory interview. In addi-
tion the Board said in Quality Manufacturing Company, 195
NLRB 197 (1972), ( 1) that in determining whether an em-
ployee has reasonable ground to believe that an interview
may adversely affect his employment is to be measured by
objective standards in the light of all the circumstances of
the case, and (2) that for the employer to insist upon the
appearance of the employee alone at the investigative in-
terview to the extent of threatening to discipline the em-
ployees' representative unless the interview was held with-
out his presence , further violates Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
s I find that at all times material herein Frank Giles was a supervisor and
agent within the meaning of the Act, acting on Respondent 's behalf.
The Board's rationale in Mobil Oil Corporation, supra, was
approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in
N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975); and in
ILGWU v. Quality Manufacturing Co., 420 U.S. 276 (1975).
The Court stated (420 U.S. at 260-261):
The Board's holding is a permissible construction of
"concerted activities for . . . mutual aid or protec-
tion" by the agency charged by Congress with en-
forcement of the Act , and should have been sustained.
The action of an employee in seeking to have the
assistance of his union representative at a confronta-
tion with his employer clearly falls within the literal
wording of §7 that "[e]mployees shall have the right
... to engage in . . . concerted activities for the pur-
pose of . . . mutual aid or protection ." Mobil Oil
Corp. v. NLRB, 482 F.2d 842, 847 (1973). This is true
even though the employee alone may have an immedi-
ate stake in the outcome ; he seeks "aid or protection"
against a perceived threat to his employment security.
The union representative whose participation he seeks
is, however , safeguarding not only the particular
employee's interest , but also the interests of the entire
bargaining unit by exercising vigilance to make certain
that the employer does not initiate or continue a prac-
tice of imposing punishment unjustly.
I find that the facts of the instant case fall squarely within
the limits delineated by the Board, and approved by the
Supreme Court in its Weingarten decision . In its brief Re-
spondent contends firstly that the employees interviewed
never requested union representation . This contention is
based upon Giles' denials which I have discredited. My
finding that each of the employee witnesses herein made
such a request is buttressed by Oed's uncontradicted testi-
mony that he so instructed these employees after having
made a similar blanket appeal to Carse on behalf of the
Union . Secondly, I reject Respondent's argument that the
employees interviewed had no objective basis on which to
believe that the interviews might result in disciplinary ac-
tion. An abundance of evidence exists in the record that
the affected employees had heard from various sources,
including Giles, that the investigation was related to the
alleged adulteration of gasoline , an obvious form of dis-
honesty clearly within the scope of the posted offenses in
the contract for which an employee could be dismissed
without notice . It is clear that the employer contends that
much of the evidence concerning what the employees
heard is hearsay evidence and thus should not be consid-
ered. However , the standard enunciated by the Board is
simply one of whether a reasonable belief exists in the
employee's mind based on some objective evidence, rather
than a mere figment of the employee 's imagination. In my
view this standard has been met in each instance in this
case regardless of whether the information related to the
individual employee by either the union representatives or
their fellow employees was in fact totally accurate or not. I
find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act by rejecting the individual employee's request
for union representation during their investigative inter-
views under the circumstances described herein . In view of
the Court's adoption of the Board's holding in Quality
EXXON COMPANY 207
Manufacturing Company, supra, a portion of which was that
a threat to discipline the employee 's representative unless
the interview was held without his presence constituted a
further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it follows
that Giles' direct threat to employees that they would be
discharged or otherwise disciplined upon refusing to par-
ticipate in the investigative interviews without the presence
of their union representative also violates Section 8 (a)(1) of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By denying employees' requests for union representa-
tion at interviews conducted by Respondent under circum-
stances from which employees could reasonably conclude
that their jobs were in jeopardy, and by threatening them
with discharge or other disciplinary action if they refused
to be interviewed without union representative, Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The foregoing are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices described above, I shall recommend that it
be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. I note that the complaint in this matter does not allege
any unlawful conduct by Respondent in suspending and/
or discharging employees because of their union or con-
certed activities , although the charge in Case 29-CA-4340
contains such an allegation. At the hearing the General
Counsel specifically disavowed any intention or proceed-
ing on this aspect of the charge . Consequently the merits of
the suspensions and/or discharges of the named employees
were not litigated . In its brief the Charging Party simply
requested an appropriate remedy . Finally, the General
Counsel did not argue orally nor did he file a brief or a
proposed remedy seeking such relief . Thus , under all the
circumstances I find only an order consistent with the spe-
cific allegations of the complaint appropriate.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER6
Respondent , Exxon Company, U.S.A., Brooklyn, New
York, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from requiring any employee to take
part in an interview or meeting without union representa-
tion, if such representation has been requested by employ-
ees and if the employee has reasonable grounds to believe
that the matters to be discussed may result in his being
subject to disciplinary action.
2. Cease and desist from threatening employees with
discharge or other disciplinary action if they refuse to take
part in an interview or meeting without union representa-
tion, if such representation has been requested by the em-
ployees and if the employee has reasonable grounds to be-
lieve that the matters to be discussed may result in his
being subject to disciplinary action.
3. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant located at 320 Freeman Street,
Brooklyn, New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
7 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by
the following:
WE WILL NOT require that any employee take part in
an interview or meeting without union representation,
if the employee requests such representation, and if
the employee has reasonable grounds to believe that
the matters to be discussed at such interview or meet-
ing may result in his being subject to disciplinary ac-
tion.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the
other disciplinary action if they refuse to take part in matters discussed at such interview or meeting may
an interview or meeting without union representation result in his being subject to disciplinary action.
if the employee requests such representation and if the
EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A.