Halliburton Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1968

168 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

HALLIBURTON CO. 1091
Halliburton Company and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW),
AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-2821
January 2, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On July 26, 1967, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommended that such allegations be
dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support-
ing briefs.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, I conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as modified
herein.,
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities; advising an employee that if
he took his union button off, everything would be
"okay"; reprimanding an employee for wearing
union emblems on a welding hood which was his
personal property; threatening an employee with
retaliation for having the foreman's name included
in a list of supervisors whom the Union had charged
with unlawful interference; and promulgating for
discriminatory reasons a no-solicitation and no-dis-
tribution rule, and disparately enforcing this rule.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the Respondent discriminatorily transferred em-
ployees Deaton, Stephens, and Evans, and dis-
criminatorily suspended and subsequently
discharged employee Ford, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respond-
ent did not discharge employee Edwards for dis-
criminatory reasons, as alleged in the complaint, but
for insubordination. We find merit in the General
Counsel's exceptions to these findings for the
reasons set forth below.
On October 1, 1966, the Respondent had posted
on the plant bulletin board a newspaper clipping en-
titled "Aero Employees Spurn UAW Union,"
which described the rejection of the Union in a
Board election by employees at a nearby location.
On October 7, Edwards, an active member of the
Union's organizing committee, requested permis-
sion of Shift Foreman Pruitt to post, in response to
the Aero article, a union publication referred to as
the "Good Guys" article. Pruitt advised Edwards
to see Talley, who worked in the personnel office,
about it. Edwards and employee Bridges went to
Talley's office that same day, and Edwards re-
peated his request. After reading the article, Talley
advised Edwards and Bridges that he would have to
talk to a lawyer about it, and would give them an
answer on Monday, October 10.
On October 10, Edwards and Bridges met with
Personnel Manager Birdsong, Talley, and Robin-
son, another employee in the personnel office. Bird-
song advised Edwards and Bridges that the "Good
Guys" article could not be placed on the bulletin
board, but did not explain why. Both Edwards and
Bridges understood Birdsong to, indicate that they
could put union material on personal property, such
as their toolboxes.
On October 13, the "Good Guys" article was
distributed by employees Edwards and Ford at the
plant entrance, and Edwards and Ford, as well as
employees Bridges and Little, affixed copies of the
article to their toolboxes.
On October 17, a series of conferences was held
in the office of Shift Foreman Pruitt at which Pruitt,
Birdsong, and Line Foreman Crawford were
present for management. Edwards, Bridges, and
Little were called in for these conferences; there is
no explanation as to why Ford was not requested to
attend. Little was the first employee called in, fol-
lowed by Edwards, who requested the presence of
Bridges as a witness, which request, was granted.
During each of these conferences, Birdsong advised
the employees to remove the handbill from their
toolboxes because it was a violation of the Re-
i The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolu-
tions. It is the Board's established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the
prepondernace of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are in-
correct. Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (C A. 3).
168 NLRB No. 149
We note that the Trial Examiner's Decision, apparently inadvertently,
in two instances referred to Line Foreman Little where it is apparent from
the context that the reference was to Line Foreman Lane. The Decision
is hereby corrected in this respect.
336-845 0 - 70 - 70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent's no-solicitation and no-distribution rule.
The handbills were removed, but, on October 18,
all four employees again placed the handbill on their
toolboxes in accord with advice received from the
union representative that they had a right to do so.
Shortly after the work shift began, Pruitt advised all
four employees in individual interviews to remove
the handbills from their toolboxes. None of the four
did so. Pruitt then met with the four employees as
a group and issued a direct order that they remove
the material prior to the beginning of the shift the
following day, and warned that disciplinary action
would be taken if they refused.
Bridges and Little on October 19 complied with
Pruitt's directive. Ford refused to do so, and told
Pruitt the Union had advised him that he had a right
to have the handbill on his toolbox. Ford was given
a 3-day layoff and, after returning to work, was per-
manently laid off for his continued refusal to
remove the handbill from his toolbox. As noted
above, the Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Ford's suspension and later discharge were viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Edwards, like Ford, refused to remove the hand-
bill, and was summoned to Pruitt's office on Oc-
tober 19 by Line Foreman Crawford, who told him
that it was "about the material on your toolbox."
Edwards told Crawford that he wanted a witness
present. When Crawford reported this request to
Pruitt, Pruitt refused, and issued a direct order,
through Crawford, that Edwards was to report to
Pruitt's office. Edwards responded that he would
not go to a closed room and meet with management
alone, but that he would talk to anyone in manage-
ment in the hall or at his work station. A few
minutes later, Edwards called Pruitt to inquire why
he could not have a witness. Pruitt advised Ed-
wards that it was to prevent any embarrassment to
Edwards, and that it was not necessary to have a
witness present in a disciplinary action. Pruitt re-
peated his request that Edwards come to his office,
and Edwards again refused. Shortly thereafter,
Pruitt came to Edwards' work station and told him
that he was discharged, stating, "if you had come to
the office, as told, you would have got a three-day
temporary layoff, the same as Mike Ford."
As found by the Trial Examiner, the posted arti-
cles were not, as claimed by the Respondent, inter-
fering with production or discipline, and therefore
Edwards' conduct in affixing the article on his tool-
box was protected concerted activity. Moreover,
Edwards knew that he was being summoned to
Pruitt's office to be disciplined for such activity and
not for any matter related to his work. Edwards
previously had been permitted to have a witness
present at a conference with Pruitt regarding this
matter, and he was not warned at this time that his
refusal to come to the office without a witness
would result in his discharge. It is conceded by the
Respondent that Edwards had previously received
no reprimands, never refused to obey an order relat-
ing to his work, and never engaged in misconduct.
On the basis of the entire record and particularly
the foregoing circumstances, we find that Edwards
was engaged in union or protected concerted activi-
ty at the time of his discharge, that his refusal to
comply with the Respondent's directive was used
by the Respondent as a pretext to discharge him for
his refusal to cease engaging in such activity, and
that the Respondent's discharge of Edwards was
therefore a further violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act. 2
As we have found that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged Edwards, we shall order
him reinstated to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniori-
ty and other rights and privileges, and made whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of his discriminatory discharge.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, we hereby adopt
Conclusions of Law 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, but insert at the end of line 2 of
Conclusion of Law 4 the name Delbert Edwards,
Jr., delete Conclusion of Law 5, and renumber Con-
clusion of Law 6 to 5.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hal-
liburton Company, Duncan, Oklahoma, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified.
1. Substitute for paragraph 1(d) the following:
"(d) Discriminatorily promulgating, maintaining,
or enforcing a no-solicitation and no-distribution
rule."
2. Insert in paragraph 2(a) "and Delbert Ed-
wards, Jr.," after the name Burl M. Ford.
3. Delete the last paragraph and substitute the
following therefor:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of
paragraph 8(a) of the complaint, alleging conduct
constituting an unfair labor practice by Foreman
George Bourland , on October 10, 1966, be
dismissed."
2Schneider Mills, Inc., and Jimmy and Josh, Inc., 164 NLRB 879
HALLIBURTON CO. 1093
4. Substitute the following for the fourth in-
dented paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily promulgate,
maintain , or enforce a no-solicitation and no-
distribution rule.
5. Insert in the sixth indented paragraph of the
notice and in the Armed Forces note immediately
following the signature line, "and Delbert Edwards,
Jr.," after the name Burl M. Ford.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was heard before me in Duncan, Oklahoma, on February
28, and March 1, 2, 14, 15, and 16, 1967, on the com-
plaint of General Counsel, as amended, and the answer,
as amended, of Halliburton Company, herein called the
Respondent.) The complaint alleged violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argu-
ment and briefs filed by the General Counsel and
Respondent have been carefully considered. During the
hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved rulings on several
motions, including Respondent's motions to dismiss the
complaint. These motions are disposed of in accordance
with findings and conclusions herein set forth.
Upon the entire record,2 and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation, with a place of
business at Duncan, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the
business of manufacturing oil field equipment. During the
year preceding the issuance of the complaint, a represent-
ative period, Respondent manufactured, sold, and
shipped, from its Duncan, Oklahoma, plant, finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located in other States. The complaint alleges,
the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The charge herein was filed on October 13, 1966, amended on
November 4, 1966 , a second amended charge was filed on November 7,
1966, and a third amended charge was filed on November 8, 1966. A
complaint was issued on December 29, 1966, and amended during the
hearing herein.
2 The record is hereby corrected to accurately reflect the receipt and re-
jection of exhibits, some of which are incorrectly marked, or incorrectly
recorded, or not recorded , in the index , and to correct the spelling of
names. The name James A. Brashears appears incorrectly , in portions of
the record, as Brasher, and the name Jerry Allen Stephens is incorrectly
recorded as Stevens . G C Exh. 2 was received. G.C. Exh. 7, incorrectly
marked, was withdrawn. G.C. Exh. 8, incorrectly marked received, was
rejected. G. C Exh. 21, incorrectly marked received, was rejected. Resp
Exh. 22, identical with Charging Party's Exh. 2, is incorrectly marked
received , it was withdrawn . Resp. Exh. 23 (a) and (b), not marked received
or rejected, were rejected.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The principal issues raised by the pleadings and
litigated at the hearing are: (a) whether the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1), by (1) interrogation by
Foreman George Bourland on August 4, October 4 or
10, 1966, or by Foreman Lloyd Major on September 6 or
15, or October 4 or 12, 1966; or (2) by Foreman Randall
Tullous prohibiting the wearing of union insignia, in the
plant, on September 16, 1966; or (3) by the promulgation
of a discriminatory no-solicitation no-distribution rule, on
or about September 13, 1966; or (4) by discriminatorily
and disparately enforcing the aforementioned no-solicita-
tion no-distribution rule, on and after October 5, 1966, by
supervisors and agents, hereinafter identified; or (5) by
threatening an employee with discharge or other
reprisals, because of an employee' s union activities, by
Foreman Roy Williams, on or about January 5, 1967; or
(b) whether the suspension of Burl M. Ford, on October
19, 1966, or his discharge on October 25, 1966, or the
discharge of Delbert Edwards, Jr., on October 19, 1966,
or the transfers of Kenneth R. Deaton, on August 15,
1966, Jerry Allen Stephens, on August 19, 1966, or Jack
Clifford Evans, Jr., on September 14, 1966, were, in each
or any instance discriminatorily motivated and an unfair
labor practice, violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. Respondent, by answer, denies the commission of
any unfair labor practice, acknowledges that it
suspended, and later discharged, Ford, and discharged
Edwards, as alleged, but asserts these discharges were for
cause. Affirmatively, Respondent asserts that the adop-
tion of the no-solicitation no-distribution rule was not
violative of the Act, and denies that it discriminatorily
and disparately enforced said rules, and asserts the trans-
fers of the three named employees were motivated by
valid business reasons.
Supervisory Personnel and Agents
It is undisputed that Harry P. Conroy, senior vice pre-
sident and general manager , John Birdsong, personnel
and public relations manager, Randel D. Tidwell,
warehouse area supervisor, Carl Diecker, shop foreman,
welding shop, Randall Tullous, line foreman, welding
shop, Roy Steely, line foreman, sheet metal shop, Mike
E. Pruitt, shift foreman, machine shop, George Bourland,
materials handling foreman, Lloyd Major, warehouse
foreman, J. W. Crawford, line foreman, machine shop,
Arthur W. Lane, line foreman, machine shop, Claude
Shirley, materials handling foreman, Roy Williams,
warehouse foreman, Bill L. Spradling, acting foreman in
material handling, Bill Bruton, truck shop foreman, Ver-
nal Rowland, line foreman tooling department, A. C.
(Pat) Newman, line foreman, paint and sandblast depart-
ment, and Charles Bentley, line foreman, machine shop,
are, and at all material times were, supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. It is undisputed
that Johnny Robinson and Buzz Talley are employees in
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the personnel department under Birdsong . To the extent
it is material herein , I find both were agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.
Background and Sequence of Events
Except as noted, there is no dispute as to the
background facts and sequence of events herein.
Birdsong, personnel manager, related that in 1958 the
Operating Engineers and the IAM engaged in an organiz-
ing effort at Respondent's plant, in Duncan. During that
period, Respondent caused the following "Notice" to be
posted, over the signature of W. D. Owsley, senior vice
president, bearing the date of September 12, 1958:
All employees are hereby reminded and notified that
the Company has a rule prohibiting solicitation of
any kind during working hours and that disciplinary
action will be taken against any employee who vio-
lates this rule.
There is no other evidence, in this record, of the precise
content, or publication, of any Respondent rule treating
with the subject of "no-solicitation and no-distribution,"
prior to a rule published on September 13, 1966, al-
legedly an act violative of the Act, considered infra. To
the extent Birdsong referred to the 1958 rule as encom-
passing "no-distribution" his assertions are patently er-
roneous.
The 1958 rule was posted in what is described as the
"old plant," encompassing some 30 buildings, and
referred to as plant one and plant two. When Respondent
moved to its present plant, in late 1964, it is undisputed,
that no copy of that rule was posted. It is obvious from
undisputed testimony, set forth infra, that the rule was
honored more by its breach, by Respondent's supervisory
personnel, as well as others, than by compliance or en-
forcement, prior to September 1966.
In 1965 the Union, Charging Party herein, undertook
an organizing campagin of the P & M unit at Respond-
ent's plant, without success.3 As an aftermath of the prior
campaign, the Union filed charges against Respond-
ent alleging conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.4 While this matter was settled, a substantial
portion of the controversy herein is directly related to a
publication, by the Union, of the payment of monies by
Respondent, to the named employees, as a result of the
settlement, in a handbill distributed on October 12 and
13, 1966, and the posting of copies of the handbill on four
toolboxes.
Birdsong estimated there were approximately 1100 em-
ployees in the P & M unit, at all times material herein.
Many of these worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a set 1-
hour lunch period. However, approximately 350 are on
rotating shifts, which rotate each 4 weeks, with worktime
designated as 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 4 p.m. to midnight, and
midnight to 8 a.m. Thus, these employees have a paid
lunch period and paid coffeebreaks; i.e., the periods al-
loted for lunch and coffeebreaks are within the 8 hours
paid time. It is undisputed, and I find reasonable to infer
from the record, that employees take approximately 5 or
7 minutes to wash up before lunch, some simultaneously
eat lunch and operate their machines, a 15-minute period
is alloted for lunch, four or five coffeebreaks per day are
not uncommon, and it requires from 5 to 10 minutes for
an employee to go to the coffee vending area, next to the
restrooms, and return to his machine. Line foremen are
charged with the responsibility, among others, of making
certain that the coffeebreak privilege is not abused.
Respondent's plant, which includes offices, is divided
into a number of distinct departments including, inter
alia, machine shop, tooling, float equipment assembly,
heat treat, saw house, heavy fabrication and truck as-
sembly, welding, pump assembly, tool and small parts as-
sembly, instrument assembly, several warehouse areas
for different commodities, a receiving dock, a shipping
dock, an export shipping dock, a chemical storage area,
and, in a separate building, a paint shop.
In early August 1966, the Union commenced an or-
ganizing campaign at Respondent's plant, holding
meetings of employees, distributing pencils with UAW
clips, UAW buttons, organizing committee buttons, and
other paraphernalia, including stickers and handbills, and
obtaining signatures to and distributing authorization
cards. Respondent was formally advised of this activity,
by a letter from union counsel, on August 26, 1966. The
events herein, with one exception, all occurred in the
period of August, September, and October 1966.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The evidence relative to acts and statements of
Respondent's supervisory personnel, allegedly conduct
in derogation of the provisions of the Act, is summarized
under the name of the particular representative specified
in the complaint and testimony.
George W. Bourland
Bourland is a foreman in the material handling division
of the materials department. It is alleged that he engaged
in interrogation violative of the Act on August 4, and Oc-
tober 4 and 10, 1966.
Kenneth R. Deaton, allegedly discriminatorily trans-
ferred on August 15, 1966, credibly related that he at-
tended a union meeting on August 1, 1966, and signed an
authorization card on August 7 or 8. At the first union
meeting he received various UAW paraphernalia, includ-
ing matchbooks with UAW insignia. While Deaton's im-
mediate foreman was Claude Shirley, it is undisputed that
Shirley was absent because of a prolonged illness and had
been replaced by Bourland. On August 4, 1966, Deaton
was advised that Bourland wanted to see him in Shirley's
office. Upon reporting accordingly, Deaton was asked by
Bourland if Deaton had been passing out matchbooks
with UAW insignia on them. Deaton acknowledged that
he had been engaged in such activity.5
Jerry Allen Stephens, allegedly discriminatorily trans-
ferred on August 19, 1966, in October 1966, was under
8 I have taken official notice of Case 16-RC-4058, which reflects that
in an election conducted on November 4, 1965, there were 1,069 eligible
voters, of whom 382 voted for and 620 against designation of the Union,
with 46 challenged ballots. A certification of results issued on November
15, 1965.
4 I have taken official notice of Case 16-CA-2575, in which the charges
were filed on January 18, 1966, and a complaint issued on March 18,
1966 This case was settled with provision for the customary posting of a
notice , dated June 13, and an agreement that Ford, Bridges, and Brashear,
further identified infra, would receive a total of $181 69. The case was
closed on August 15, 1966. No inference of conduct violative of the Act,
by Respondent, ensues.
5 I find Bourland unimpressive and unconvircing , particularly in regard
to his denial of this event , which denial I do not credit.
HALLIBURTON CO. 1095
Foreman Bourland. Stephens credibly related that he had
attended a union meeting and signed an authorization
card in August 1966, and wore, inter alia, an organizing
committee button. On October 4, 1966, about 10 a.m.,
Stephens related a conversation with Bourland, in the
steelhouse. Bourland first inquired how things were go-
ing, then asked Stephens "if I had any converts," to
which Stephens made no response.6
Stephens related that on October 10, 1966, while
operating a forklift, and picking up a pallet, inferentially
the prongs of the forklift hooked under a pipefitting,
through which a "milk" solution was being conveyed to
a machine. It was necessary for Bourland to fill out an ac-
cident report, and Stephens accompanied him to the of-
fice of Roy Williams, steel warehouse foreman. The
filling in of the form required some 30 minutes, near the
end of which period Bourland asked him what his "UAW
number was," and Stephens did not respond. Williams
asked Bourland "do you mean they've got numbers," and
both laughed. Bourland then turned to Stephens and said
"that was a slip of the tongue, I meant your company
number." Stephens showed Bourland his badge and
Bourland copied the number. Bourland repeated his
apology, again asserting it was a slip of the tongue, and
Williams advised Bourland that Williams thought he
would report Bourland. Bourland inquired "to who, to
Mr. Kirby." Williams asserted he did not know Kirby.
Kirby is identified as a UAW representative.' In view of
the fact that Stephens was wearing an organizing commit-
tee member badge, and absent any inquiry relative to
Stephens'activities, desires, or attitude toward the Union,
I find nothing in the recitation of Stephens which would
support a ,finding that the inquiry, which I am satisfied
was a slip of the tongue, constituted interference,
restraint, or coercion, and accordingly I will recommend
dismissal of that portion of paragraph 8(a) of the com-
plaint alleging interrogation by Bourland, on October 10,
1966.
Lloyd Major
Major is a warehouse foreman. It is alleged that Major
engaged in interrogation of a nature proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) on September 6 and 15, and October 4 and 12,
1966.
Stephens credibly related a conversation he had with
Major, during the lunch period on September 6, 1966, in
the steelhouse. Stephens asserted that he was playing
dominoes, with another employee, and Major, who was
standing nearby watching, noticed his organizer's com-
mittee button. Major inquired if Stephens was a member
of the committee and Stephens responded in the affirma-
tive. Major then asked Stephens "what in the hell that I
thought we would gain if we got in." Stephens asserted he
responded that they were not supposed to talk about it.
Major then responded that he would talk, "about any g-
d-thing that he pleased." This ended the conversation.8
Jack Clifford Evans, Jr., allegedly discriminatorily
transferred on September 14, 1966, credibly related that
he attended a union meeting on September 13, 1966, and
thereafter wore a pencil clip with a UAW holder, and an
organizing committee button, having signed an authoriza-
tion card early in August. On September 15, 1966, Evans
had a conversation with Major about 10 a.m. in the
chemical room. Major asked Evans why he was wearing
the UAW button and Evans responded that he did not
want to talk about it.
On October 4, Evans related that he had another cog
versation with Major in the chemical room about 10 a.m.
Major inquired as to why Evans was dissatisfied, advising
Evans that when Evans was working for Major in the saw
house everything seemed to be O. K. Evans
acknowledged that everything was O.K. Evans was still
wearing his organizing committee button, and Major ad-
vised him, "well if you pull the button off, everything will
be O.K."
On October 12, Evans had a further conversation with
Major, in the chemical room, about 10 a.m. Major asked
Evans if the Union got in the plant who would be running
things. Evans responded he did not want to talk about it.
Major then said, "I'll* tell you who would be running
things, Halliburton would." 9
Randall Tullous
Randall Tullous is line foreman in the welding shop. It
is alleged that Tullous, on September 16, prohibited the
wearing of union insignia by an employee.
Harold Dean Patterson credibly related that he has
been a welder, in the paint section of the welding depart-
ment, for 5 years, and for an indefinite period, including
early September 1966, he wore his own hood, as distin-
guished from a company hood. On September 9, 1966, he
placed three "UAW" stickers on his hood.10 Patterson
had a conversation with Tullous on September 16, 1966,
6 Bourland acknowledged having made this inquiry, which he described
as a "passing comment for which he did not wait for an answer " Bourland
further explained that it was part of his duty to check with people under
his supervision several times daily, "this was a part of that."
9 Bourland's version of this incident is at variance, to a degree, with the
recitation of Stephens. Bourland asserted when he reached the bottom of
the form which requires the individual's name and badge number, Bour-
land made the appropriate inquiry, "that seemed to have created a certain
amount of laughter, and in looking around to see what the laughter was
for, why, it seems that Mr Stephens had not one badge but several badges
on his chest front." Bourland asserted that Williams asked if Bourland was
not afraid of being called on the carpet for asking for a badge number
Bourland acknowledged he asked if he would be called on the carpet to
Mr. Kirby. Bourland asserted that all three present laughed. To the extent
Bourland's version of the event is at variance with that of Stephens, I
credit Stephens
8 Major was not called as a witness , and no explanation of his failure to
appear was given However, Archie W. Hare, a saw operator, appeared as
a witness for Respondent. Hare, inter alra, asserted that he was playing
dominoes with Stephens at the time of the incident . Hare asserted that
Stephens was talking the pros and cons of the Union and Hare inqui red as
to the nature of additional benefits, other than those the employees had,
which the Union might obtain, "because that's the only way you can sell
it to me." Hare asserted that Stephens responded that he really did not un-
derstand all about it but that they would have more benefits. Hare as-
serted that he then asked Major if Major knew of any benefits, and Major
responded in the negative, and advised that Hare would have to ask
Stephens. Hare asserted that Stephens then advised Major that Major
could not talk to him about this, and that Major responded that he was
talking to Hare. Hare denied that Major said "I'll ask you anything I g - '
d - well please." To the extent the testimony of Hare is at variance with
that of Stephens, I credit Stephens.
9 Respondent sought to challenge the accuracy of Evans' statements by
introducing a pretrial affidavit, which contained dates at varinace with the
dates given by Evans in his testimony . I am satisfied with Evans' explana-
tion that at the time he gave the statement he had the dates of these events
at his home, and after he went over the statement he found the errors in
dates. Subsequently Evans submitted a supplemental affidavit correcting
the errors in dates in the earlier statement
10 The sticker is circular, 4 inches in diameter, and contains the letters
UAW in the center, with the full name of the Union inscribed in smaller
letters in a circular pattern
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about 11 a.m. in stall 42 in the paint section. Tullous
handed an AVO to Patterson.11 Patterson related that the
AVO stated that he could take his welding hood out of
the plant, and Tullous advised him that Tullous wanted
him to take it out of the plant. Patterson inquired as to the
reason, advising Tullous that he would rather wear his
own hood as it was a better fit than the company hood.
Tullous then advised him that if he wanted to keep it, "to
take the stickers off of it." Patterson, pursuant to Tullous'
instructions, took the hood home with him at the end of
the workday. Patterson acknowledged that, commencing
about November 18, 1966, he had taken his hood back
into the plant, with the stickers still attached and had been
wearing it since. Patterson also acknowledged that he had
a UAW sticker on his jacket about the time of the in-
cident related, and continued to wear it approximately 3
weeks, and was never told to take the sticker off the
jacket. Patterson also acknowledged that he had been
wearing a UAW button since the middle of August 1966,
and was not told to take it off.12
Roy Williams
Williams is warehouse foreman in the steel warehouse.
It is alleged that on January 5, 1967, Williams orally
threatened an employee with discharge or other reprisals,
by reason of the employee's union activities.
James M. Brashears has been employed by Respond-
ent for 5-1/2 years in the steel warehouse. His foreman
is Williams. On January 5, 1967, the Union caused a
handbill to be distributed at the plant from approximately
7:15 a.m. until 7:55 a.m. Brashears was among those dis-
tributing the handbills, and worked, on that day, on the 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. shift. In the handbill, it was asserted that
Respondent had issued a letter to employees on Sep-
tember 16, 1966, over the signature of Conroy, in which
Respondent advised the employees of their right to en-
gage in activities, "to promote or defeat the Union's or-
ganizing efforts." The Union related that it had filed un-
fair labor practice charges by reason of the alleged
misconduct of named supervisors, including Williams.
Brashears credibly related that about 8:45 a.m., he was
with a group of employees. 13 When Williams approached
the group, he assigned Howard to a particular job, then
turned to Brashears and said, "Jim, you got my name on
the list, didn't you." Brashears asserted he responded in
the negative. Williams then stated, "yes, you did, and now
I will get even with you." This ended the conversation.
Brashears asserted that others in the group, unidentified,
then inquired, "did he say what I thought he said," and
the group disbanded.14
Respondent's No-solicitation No-distribution Rule of
September 13, 1966, and Background
It is alleged that Respondent discriminatorily promul-
gated a, no-solicitation no-distribution rule on September
13, 1966, in order to deprive its employees of their rights
to engage in union activity.
It is undisputed that on September 13, 1966, over the
signature of Conroy, senior vice president and general
manager, Respondent promulgated and caused to be
posted the following:
"Notice to all hourly employees of Halliburton
Company."
This notice is to direct your attention to the Com-
pany's rules concerning solicitation and distribution
of literature and the application of those rules to
union activities.
The Company does not allow solicitation of mem-
bership in or support of any organization on the
working time of the employee doing the soliciting or
the working time of the employee being solicited.
This means that at such times there shall be no
discussion of union matters (either for or against).
The Company furthermore does not allow the dis-
tribution of literature in the working areas.
Violation of this rule will necessarily interfere with
both the work of the employee violating the rule and
the work of the Company, and any employee violat-
ing this rule will be subject to disciplinary action, in-
cluding discharge.
Personnel Director Birdsong erroneously described the
notice of September 13, 1966, as "only a reminder" of
the no-solicitation rule previously posted, which he
identified as the 1958 rule, set forth supra. Birdsong
acknowledged that the September 13 rule was posted at
his direction on all company bulletin boards after a meet-
ing he conducted with supervisory personnel, to explain
the rule so that the supervisors could answer any
questions raised by employees. Birdsong erroneously
described the September 13 rule as a "long standing
Rule" which did not contain any changes in the rule in ex-
istence during the summer of 1966 and previously.
Respondent relies, in part, on its advice to the Union, by
letter of August 29, 1966, that it would expect the Union
and its representatives to comply with the law, "including
our plant rules covering solicitation and distribution of
literature." I have found supra, under Background, that
the Company, on September 12, 1958, did promulgate a
notice advising that the Company had "a rule prohibiting
solicitation of any kind during working hours." There is
not a scintilla of evidence that prior to September 13,
it The initials AVO stand for "Avoid Verbal Order " Mike E Pruitt,
shift foreman of the machine shop, described an AV O as a sheet of paper,
put out in a booklet form, which is not issued to an employee but goes into
his personnel jacket. Pruitt explained , "this AVO is made up by either his
immediate supervisor or myself and in a major portion of the events, these
are shown to and discussed with the employee, and they are told that they
are being put in his personnel file." Pruitt also asserted that an AVO
would assist him in making a determination relative to "the term of his em-
ployment." It is thus inferred that the issuance of an AVO is a form of
reprimand.
12 Tullous was not called as a witness , and no explanation was made of
his failure to appear.
13 Identified as Renfro; Winfred (Whippy) Nelson Whitehead, Joseph
Howard, and James (Jimmy) Lee Ledford.
14 Williams did not appear as a witness , and no explanation was given of
his failure to appear. Whitehead, called as a witness for Respondent, sub-
stantially corroborated the assertions of Brashears relative to the incident,
and those present. Whitehead, however, asserted that Williams had a grin
on his face. Upon being asked if Williams, "often teases or jokes with the
employees," Whitehead asserted, "some days he does." Ledford, called
as a witness for Respondent, substantially corroborated Brashears, as to
the event. Ledford also asserted that Williams does joke with employees
and that he "grinned," when he walked off Ledford also described Wil-
liams as having a smile on his face almost constantly . While a Joseph D.
Howard, who works in the warehouse under Williams, appeared as a
rebuttal witness for General Counsel, he was not questioned relative to
this incident.
HALLIBURTON CO. 1097
1966, the Company ever promulgated or posted a written
rule, or announced to employees the existence of an oral
rule related to distribution of literature. 15
It is patent that the 1958 rule was honored more by its
breach, including conduct of company officials relative
thereto, than by conformity with it or enforcement of it. 16
The same observation applies although to a lesser degree
to the 1966 rule. It is undisputed that each year until 1966
the Respondent conducted a "Red Feather" campaign, a
combined community chest type campaign , by having the
foreman distribute pledge cards to the employees at the
employees' work stations during worktime and discussing
with the employees the filling out and return- of the
cards.17
Brashears, who has been employed in the steel
warehouse for over 5 years, asserted that he has operated
football pools, selling 100 numbers at $1 each, and
identified Foremen Williams and Major as supervisors
who purchased chances, which were sold during both
worktime and nonworktime, in work areas and out of
work areas. Brashears asserted that other pools relating
to Oklahoma University home games were similarly sold
in the plant, and a listing of those who had drawn chances
was posted on the glass in the maintenance office, includ-
ing postings after September 13, 1966. Brashears
described another employee, Bob Syall, as the employee
in the steel warehouse who solicited for a flower fund for
the last year or two, throughout the department, including
work hours and at work stations. The last collection was
made on Feburary 16, 1967. Brashears has seen a list of
contributors, which is kept on Syall's locker door, and in-
cludes Foreman Williams. The collections are made
either every payday or every other payday. Brashears
described a "eheckpot," which he defined as the best
poker hand on your check number, which was repeated
every 2 weeks on payday. Brashears asserted the checks
are distributed at 11:30 in the morning, during worktime;
the pot is collected prior to that time. Brashears identified
the winner of the last pot, in which 23 participated.
Brashears identified Foreman Carter as being within 3
feet -of Brashears and the winner at the time they
discussed his winning the pot, in February 1967. The
foremen engaged in this activity before they went on sa-
lary, approximately July 1966, which resulted in the
foremen receiving their paychecks on a different date
than the employees. Brashears also described a "fishing
petition" which was circulated in the steel warehouse.
This related to a new lake, where it was asserted that
there was an overcharge for permits for fishing and boat
permits, and the petition was circulated for the purpose of
obtaining a reduction on the cost. Brashears asserted that
this petition was circulated during working hours, in both
work areas and nonwork areas, since September 13,
1966.18
M. K. Dixon has been employed in the paint shop for
15 years. Dixon was one of a number of witnesses who
asserted that prior to September 13, 1966, he had not
seen a written no-solicitation no-distribution rule posted
at the Duncan plant, and had never been orally instructed
by any supervisor against soliciting or distributing materi-
al at the plant. Dixon described football pools being
operated in the paint shop, which were participated in by
Foreman Newman, which were collected in both work
and nonwork areas, and both during worktime and non-
worktime. However, Dixon acknowledged that during
the World Series 1966, Foreman Newman instructed the
employees that this was soliciting and that they would
have to do it on their own time.19Dixon asserted that,
prior to the fall of 1966, there were collections for a
flower fund in the paint shop, both during worktime and
nonworktime. In 1966, Foreman Newman advised the
employees that this would have to be done during non-
worktime as it was soliciting.
Julius Adley is a machinist and has been employed by
Respondent for 18 or 19 years. Adley was among the wit-
nesses who asserted that he had never seen a no-solicita-
tion no-distribution rule posted at the Duncan plant prior
to September 13, 1966, and had never been given any
oral instructions against solicitation or distribution by any
foreman. Adley asserted that he brought a newspaper to
work with him quite frequently and read it at his work sta-
tion, on occasion in the presence of his foreman, whom he
identified as Charles Bentley. Adley asserted that at the
old plant when they were on the evening shift the paper
was delivered regularly by a newspaper boy who would
pass it through' the window every afternoon. Adley
described his machine, as an automatic, which permits
him time to read the paper while the machine is operating
through its cycles. Adley asserted the first time he had
any knowledge that Respondent did not want literature
distributed in the working areas of the plant was in Sep-
tember 1966.
' Birdsong explained the reason for the promulgation and posting of
the September 1966 rule. He asserted some supervisors , whom he could
not identify, between August and September 13, 1966, complained that
there was a lot of visiting , and some material was being passed out, and
some employees were not making production quotas because of solicita-
tion. Birdsong then asserted the solicitation was "distracting " employees
from their work. He identified Warehouse Area Supervisor Tidwell as
having made the latter complaint . Birdsong was uncertain if the distribu-
tion occurred in work areas or nonwork areas. Birdsong was not aware of
any complaints that employees were failing to make the close tolerances
required, this applied particularly in the machine shop, as set forth infra.
While Birdsong asserted there was some littering of the plant just prior to
the 1965 election , he acknowledged there was no complaint of littering in
the 90 days preceding September 13. Birdsong asserted that in the
summer of 1966, prior to September 13, he explained to the supervisors
"our rules of longstanding concerning solicitation and distribution of
literature - that it would have to be done during non-working time and in
non-working areas " Birdsong asserted this applied to tickets, flower
funds , and similar matters Birdsong asserted he did not permit any viola-
tion of the rule as posted . In the light of the wealth of evidence in conflict
with the assertions of Birdsong , I find his recitation of the reasons for the
adoption and posting of the rule are not credible.
16 It appears undisputed , and several witnesses who appeared for
General Counsel credibly testified, that no no-solicitation no-distribution
rule was posted in the Duncan plant , after Respondent moved into it, in
the fall of 1964 prior to September 13, 1966. Shift Foreman Pruitt also so
testified. Pruitt, who has been employed by Respondent for more than 31
years, asserted the no-distribution no-solicitation policy was based on
charitable organizations coming into the plant in the 1940's , at which time
the plant was not enclosed , and he had seen charitable organizations and
business people talking to employees on the job. Pruitt then stated that the
September 13, 1966, rule was "the first time I was aware of it as written
posted rule."
17 In 1966 the Company varied this practice by mailing the pledge cards
to the respective employee's home, and provided a box for the pledge
cards to be dropped into , by the employees , near the entrance to the plant.
Personnel Manager Birdsong acknowledged the practice , prior to 1966,
was as stated.
18 Respondent did not cross-examine Brashears , or call as witnesses
any of the foremen identified by Brashears as participating in these activi-
ties. Brashears' testimony thus stands undisputed.
19 While Newman did not appear as a witness, Dixon asserted that
Newman had suffered a heart attack, approximately a month prior to Dix-
on's testimony , which I infer explains his failure to appear.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Delbert Edwards, Jr., credibly related that paychecks
are distributed at the work station of the employees, by
the immediate line foreman, anywhere from 4 hours to 30
minutes before the end of a particular shift. The paycheck
is in an envelope which also contains a four-page
pamphlet titled "The Dispatcher." It was stipulated that
this is a company pamphlet, containing a variety of arti-
cles which the Company believes should be called to the
ttention of employees, and is distributed every payday.
Upon receipt employees remove "The Dispatcher," and
read it during worktime. Edwards asserted that he had
never observed any foreman say anything to any em-
ployee relative to the practice of reading this material dur-
ing worktime.
The Respondent also distributed a company magazine
called "The Cementer," each 2 or 3 months. Each issue
is approximately some 57 pages. This magazine, likewise,
is distributed to the employees by the respective line
foreman during worktime, and on many occasions are
read at the work stations by various employees. Edwards'
assertion that he had never witnessed any supervisor
reprimand any employee for reading this magazine during
worktime stands undisputed. It is undisputed that
Respondent's practice of distributing "The Dispatcher"
and "The Cementer" to employees, at their work sta-
tions, that employees read this material during worktime,
and this practice was continued after the publication of
the no-distribution rule on September 13, 1966.
It is alleged that Respondent's no-solicitation no-dis-
tribution rule of September 13, 1966, was discriminatori-
ly and disparately enforced by identified supervisors on
and after October 5, 1966. Since the events which relate
to this allegation are factually interwoven with events
leading to the suspension and subsequent discharge of
Ford, and the discharge of Edwards, the evidence relative
to this sequence of events is next set forth.
The Events of mid-October 1966, the Suspension and
Discharge of Burl M. Ford, and the Discharge of Delbert
Edwards, Jr.
I have found supra, under Background, that the Union
commenced an organizing campaign at Respondent's
plant in August 1966 and the Respondent was formally
advised of this activity on August 26, 1966.
Delbert Edwards, Jr., Burl Mike Ford, Eugene Bridges
and K. K. Little all employed in the machine shop, were
among the more active members of the organizing com-
mittee.
Edwards credibly related that on October 7, 1966, he
had a conversation with Shift Foreman Pruitt, about
11:30 a. in. Edward inquired if the Company could "so-
licit" on the company bulletin board, could he also "so-
licit." Pruitt responded that he did not know what Ed-
wards was talking about, and suggested they read the arti-
cle to which Edwards had referred.20 Edwards called
Pruitt's attention to a newspaper clipping from the Daily
Oklahoman of October 1, 1966, carrying the caption of
"AERO EMPLOYEES SPURN UAW UNION," in
large letters. The article then states that Aero Com-
mander P & M employees rejected the UAW in a Na-
tional Labor Relations Board election, at a plant at the
Wiley Post Airport at Norman, and an adjacent training
center. After Pruitt read the article, he responded to Ed-
wards' inquiry by saying "that's a good question," and ad-
vising Edwards to see Buzz Talley, in the personnel of-
fice, relative to it.21 Pursuant to an appointment made by
Pruitt at Edwards' request, Edwards and Bridges went to
Talley's office at 4 p.m. the same day. Johnny Robinson,
another employee in personnel, was also present.22
Edwards restated the question he had asked Pruitt advis-
ing Talley that Edwards felt that the Aero Commander
article was antiunion . Talley responded that the board
was company property and the news item concerned all
employees. Edwards responded that he had a news item
which he believed concerned all the employees and
requested that it be posted. Many of the events con-
sidered under this section are related to this "news item"
referred to by Edwards, which for brevity will hereafter
be referred to as the "Good Guys" article.23
Edwards asserted that after reading the article, Talley
stated, "I doubt that we can post it, because it's for the
Union." Edwards related that Bridges asked Robinson if
he thought the Aero article was put on the bulletin Board
as antiunion material, and Robinson responded that he
did. Edwards asserted that he also asked Talley if the bul-
letin board was a nonworking area, and that Talley
responded that he could not make a flat statement relative
to this. Talley advised Edwards and Bridges that he
would have to talk-to a lawyer about it and would provide
them with an answer on Monday, October 10.
Edwards related that he worked the 4 p.m. to midnight
shift on October 10. He and Bridges met with Birdsong,
Talley, and Robinson at 3:30 p.m. Edwards asserted that
Birdsong advised that the bulletin board was a working
area, that the nonworking areas of the plant were the
parking lot, the main entrance hall, the restrooms, and the
wash areas adjacent to the restroom.24 Birdsong advised
Edwards and Bridges that the Aero article was not put on
the bulletin board as an antiunion piece of material, and
that the "Good Guys" article could not be placed on the
bulletin board, but did not explain why. Bridges, who
substantially corroborated these assertions of Edwards,
relative to the meetings of October 7 and 10, asserted
that when Talley was asked to explain the no-solicitation
rule, he asserted that it meant that there would be no so-
liciting either for or against the Union in working areas.
20 It is undisputed that all company bulletin boards are glass encased
and locked , that employees , on occasion, were permitted to use such bul-
letin boards to advertise items of personalty they had for sale, after obtain-
ing permission of the employees ' respective foreman . The bulletin boards
are in various areas of the plant, including the side wall of a line foreman's
office in the machine shop, used by several line foremen on each shift.
2i Pruitt 's version of this event does not vary in substance.
22 Neither Talley nor Robinson appeared as witnesses
23 The caption is: "UAW `GOOD GUYS' WEAR WHITE HATS IN
DUNCAN, OKLA." The article recites that the in-plant organizers at
Respondent 's plant made good on a promise , which occurred in the prior
campaign, of providing western hats and boots to named UAW represent-
atives, when they came in to negotiate the first contract. The article states
that these hats were presented at a banquet attended by over 50 of
Respondent's employees , "to officially reopen the organizing comapign."
The article also relates that the UAW, while losing the National Labor
Relations Board election, had filed charges against Respondent , that the
case was settled out of court "with backpay awards to all three workers "
The individuals awarded backpay were identified, and the amount
awarded was stated as : James Brashears ($31.60), Eugene Bridges
($66.40), and B M. Ford ($83 60).
24 It is undisputed that a lunchroom which contains vending machines,
and the vending machines which are near the restrooms in the machine
shop were also designated as nonwork areas by Birdsong. However, dis-
tribution was not permitted in the vending area
HALLIBURTON CO. 1099
Edwards asserted that on October 10 Birdsong advised
that he could put "material" on his private property; i.e.,
toolbox.25 Bridges, at variance with Edwards, asserted
that on October 10 he asked Birdsong if they could put
literature on their personal toolboxes and that Birdsong
had responded that they could put the UAW emblem on
their toolboxes.26
Edwards and Ford, and inferentially other employees,
handbilled Respondent's plant on October 13, 1966, at
the entrance. Three articles were simultaneously dis-
tributed; i.e., a copy of the "Good Guys" article, an arti-
cle entitled "Only you can open the door" over the signa-
ture of Kirby and Starnes, union representatives, and
union authorization cards. Distribution was made to all
three shifts. Ford asserted that each employee was given
a copy of the handbill and other literature, and that
Robinson came out and, at his request, was given several
copies. Ford asserted that many of the employees after
receiving a copy of the handbill appeared to stop to read
it. It is undisputed that, the same day, Ford, Edwards,
Bridges, and Little, each of whom was employed in the
machine shop, affixed a copy of the "Good Guys" article
to the personal toolbox of each. There is no evidence that
any other employee posted a copy of the "Good Guys"
article in the plant. October 13, 1966, was a Thursday. It
is undisputed that no comment was made by any super-
visor, relative to these postings, prior to Monday, Oc-
tober 17.
It appears undisputed that a series of conferences were
held in the office of Shirt Foreman Pruitt on October 17,
1966, for the purpose of persuading three of these em-
ployees to remove the articles from their respective tool-
boxes. Present for the Respondent were Personnel
Manager Birdsong, Shift Foreman Pruitt, and Line
Foreman Crawford. Little appears to have been the first
employee called in, followed by Edwards, who requested
the presence of Bridges. A request that was granted.
There is no explanation of why Ford was omitted. Bird-
song acknowledged he did not talk to Ford, at any time,
relative to this subject. Little did not appear as a witness.
Thus, the evidence relative to what was said to him, by
Birdsong, stands undisputed.
Birdsong asserted that he had been advised early in the
afternoon of October 17 that Little had posted the article
on his toolbox. Birdsong asserted he checked to see
which shift Little was on, who his immediate supervisor
was, and who the shift foreman was. He asserted that
shortly after 4 p.m., Pruitt called him and "relayed the
same information to me concerning this article, that he
had observed it was causing a'distraction' for the last few
days."27 Birdsong then asserted "at that time I felt it was
necessary to give Mr. Little an explanation, to show him
the areas where he could distribute this literature, to keep
from causing such a distraction and disruption in our
plant operations." 28 Birdsong asserted that he, at the
meeting with Little, advised that it had come to Respond-
ent's attention that he had the "Good Guys" article
posted on his toolbox, "that this was causing some dis-
traction, and that we could not allow any material, such
as this type, either for or against the Union, to be posted
in the plant area, especially in the machine shop, where
particular attention was considered necessary in the
operation of their machines." Little responded that this
was at variance with what he had understood Edwards
and Bridges had been told by Birdsong about posting
material on their toolboxes. Birdsong asserted he advised
Little there was a misunderstanding, and they would ap-
preciate it if he would remove the material from his box.
Birdsong then asserted, "I also had a copy of the no-sol-
icitation and no-distribution of literature rules in front of
me, and I explained to Mr. Little where he could dis-
tribute this literature, where he could solicit during his
nonworking time, and in these nonworking areas, spelling
out again the areas that we were talking about, such as the
parking lot, the main entrances, the dining room and the
restrooms and the main hallways." It is patent, and I find,
Birdsong advised the employees, "they could solicit and
distribute literature in the nonworking areas, on their non-
working time." Thus, I find, they were advised they could
not solicit in working areas on free time.
Little responded that he wasn't trying to cause any
trouble and would remove the material immediately, and
left.29
Edwards, who was employed by Respondent in the
25 Edwards acknowledged that in his pretrial statement he had used the
word "stickers" as distinguished from the word "material." Edwards as-
serted that in using the word stickers he meant material.
21 Birdsong 's version of his meeting with Bridges and Edwards on Oc-
tober 10 does not vary substantially from their recitation , corroborating
Bridges relative to posting on toolboxes . Birdsong asserted he explained
that the Aero article was placed on the bulletin board, "because many of
our employees were interested in the outcome of that election and that it
contained no anti-union statements ." Birdsong acknowledged that Ed-
wards advised that Robinson had characterized the Aero article as antiu-
nion in the prior meeting , and acknowledged that Robinson stated "he
didn't think it was for the union " Birdsong acknowledged describing the
company bulletin board being in the work area, and subject to the no-dis-
tribution rule Birdsong acknowledged advising Bridges and Edwards that
they could solicit during their nonworking time , in nonworking areas.
Birdsong acknowledged that he advised Bridges and Edwards that they
were not to distribute literature outside, and adjacent to, the restroom
area, or near the vending machines adjacent to the restroom , asserting
they did not want the plant cluttered with a lot of paper . By way of ex-
planation, Birdsong asserted that after the 1965 election , on November 4
he advised Tillery, the UAW representative , that he did not appreciate the
activities of the Union in the closing days of the campaign, which Bird-
song described as placing stickers all over equipment and slapping stickers
on the backs of employees as they were walking down the aisle.
Birdsong acknowledged advising Bridges and Edwards that they could
not post the "Good Guys" article on the bulletin board. It is undisputed
that he advised them that there was no prohibition against the wearing of
UAW buttons, and asserted he also advised them that they could place
UAW stickers on their personal property, which he described as tool-
boxes and lunchboxes
27 I do not credit Respondent's evidence relative to the impact or "dis-
traction" created by the postings, for reasons explicated infra.
28 At variance, Birdsong asserted the no-solicitation no-distribution rule
was not applicable to these postings, nor did Respondent have an applica-
ble rule. He then asserted the November 4, 1966, explanation of the rule,
set forth infra, was a "clarification" of the rule. It patently covers postings
on personal property.
21 Pruitt first saw the "Good Guys" article on Little's toolbox on either
October 13 or 14, and the same day saw a similar article on Edwards'
toolbox Pruitt acknowledged recognizing Ford and Bridges, as well as
Cletus Ball, a welding shop employee, in the picture which is part of the
article Pruitt described the location of Little's toolbox as being on the
aisle way which leads back to the coffee machine and restrooms, while
Edwards' toolbox is visible from the turret lathe section across the aisle.
Pruitt stated his reaction after seeing the article posted was, "I felt like it
would create an interest, and I decided to observe it to see what the reac-
tion was, and I saw various employees stop and read it." Pruitt related
after observing it on Thursday and Friday he had decided that it had
created enough "distraction" that something had to be done about it
Pruitt stated he waited until he came in on Monday, October 17, then
called Birdsong, at 4 p.m., when his shift started, and told him about it.
Birdsong then advised Pruitt that he had already been notified by the day
shift, "that it was creating a distraction." Pruitt asserted that Birdsong ad-
(Footnotes continued on following page)
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machine shop from 1959 until his discharge on October
19, 1966, under circumstances considered infra, credibly
related that he had a conversation with Pruitt on October
17, relative to the Aero article and relative to the Red
Feather campaign.30 Edwards asserted, he inquired of
Puritt if Pruitt considered the Aero article to be antiu-
nion, and related that Pruitt responded that he thought the
Company pulled a "boo-boo" and that the article should
never have been posted. In the same conversation, Pruitt
related to Edwards that Respondent was going to solicit
for the Red Feather campaign in the plant, in the working
area, as they had in previous years, until Pruitt brought
their attention to the fact that they would be breaking
their own no- solicitation rule, and advised them to mail
the cards out.31
It is undisputed that at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Oc-
tober 17, Line Foreman Crawford advised Edwards that
he was wanted in Pruitt's office to discuss the material on
his toolbox. It is also undisputed that after he arrived in
Pruitt's office, where Pruitt, Birdsong , and Crawford
were present, Edwards requested that Bridges be present
as a witness, and this request was granted. Edwards
credibly related that Birdsong advised that he was asking
Edwards to remove the material on his toolbox asserting,
"it is breaking the Company's no-solicitation rule."32
Edwards related that he responded that, in the earlier
meeting, Birdsong had advised they could put "material"
on their toolboxes and if Birdsong wanted the material
removed he would have to remove it. Edwards
acknowledged that the discussion became heated and that
Birdsong had stated that, in the earlier meeting, instead of
material he had meant UAW insignia and was requesting
Edwards to remove everything else. According to Ed-
wards, Bridges then advised that maybe Edwards was
wrong in what Birdsong had meant when he said "materi-
al" and that maybe Edwards should think about it before
he decided on the outcome. Edwards asserted on the way
back, after a discussion with Bridges, he decided to
remove the leaflet and did so until he could talk to Kirby,
the union representative. After talking to Kirby he placed
the material back on his toolbox the following day.
Bridges corroborated Edwards' assertion that Birdsong
advised the material should be removed "because it was
a violation of the no-solicitation policy." Bridges then
corroborated the balance of Edwards' testimony.33
Burl Mike Ford, , who was initially employed by
Respondent in August 1959 and terminated, under cir-
cumstances considered infra, on October 25, 1966, was
a machine tool grinder in the machine shop and credibly
related that he had attached a copy of the "Good Guys"
article on his personal toolbox after handbilling the
plant34 on October 13 when he reported to work, at ap-
proximately 4 p.m. that evening. Ford's assertion that he
had no conversation with any supervisor relative to this
posting prior to Tuesday, October 18, is undisputed.
Birdsong acknowledged that he did not discuss this
matter with Ford at any time.
Pruitt asserted that when he arrived at work on
Tuesday, October 18, 1966, inferentially at approximate-
ly 4 p.m., he was advised that the articles had again been
placed on the toolboxes of Little and Edwards and also
had been placed on the toolboxes of Bridges and Ford.
Pruitt asserted he had not previously seen the article on
Ford's or Bridges' toolbox. He described the article on
(Footnotes continued from preceding page)
vised Little that the article was taking the employees' interest or attention
away from their work, "and could cause work discrepancies in an area
where normally close tolerances are held, and it could lead to some
disciplinary problem, and asked him to remove it." Pruitt acknowledged
that he did not know if the employees who stopped to read the articles on
Little's and Edwards' toolboxes on October 13 and 14 were going to
lunch or were on coffeebreak, and he did not investigate to see if they
were on worktime or not. Birdsong, who acknowledged he had not per-
sonally investigated the situation, as of October 18, admitted that he did
not know if the employees who stopped to read the article were on
lunchtime or coffeebreak, when they read the article. It is undisputed
there is no set lunchtime for the employees on the rotating shifts in the
machine shop , there is also no set time for coffeebreaks, and employees
are allowed four or five coffeebreaks per day Birdsong asserted that Pruitt
had advised that the article was "distracting" employees who were
stopping to read it and "congregating." Birdsong acknowledged that Pruitt
did not specify whether this occurred during worktime or nonworktime.
Pruitt's version was that he would see individuals, and groups of two or
three people reading the article at the same time, but he made no effort to
count the number he saw.
Pruitt asserted that, on October 17, Little asserted that he had been ad-
vised by Edwards that, in a prior conversation with Talley or Birdsong,
they were told that they could put this "material" on their toolbox. Bird-
song responded that this was a mistake that they had been given permis-
sion to put UAW insignia on their toolbox. Pruitt asserted that Little then
stated that he would remove the article from his toolbox.
30 It is undisputed that Edwards wore union insignia in the plant from
August 1966 on, and engaged in handbilling of the plant.
31 Pruitt denied discussing the Aero article with Edwards on more than
one occasion , denied discussing it with him on October 17, and denied
having stated that the posting of the article was a "boo-boo." Pruitt did not
deny Edwards' recitation relative to the Red Feather campaign. On this
conflict I credit Edwards.
31 The denial of Birdsong that he advised Edwards and Bridges, on Oc-
tober 17, that the posting was a violation of Respondent's no-solicitation
rule, and Pruitt's corroboration of Birdsong, are not credited.
33 Pruitt asserted that Birdsong told Edwards that the article was creat-
ing a "distraction ." Since Edwards had no clear memory on this point, I
credit this assertion of Pruitt. I do not credit Pruitt's assertion that Bridges
stated that they had been given permission to put up the standard UAW
insignia, but not the article Pruitt's assertion that Birdsong explained the
term "distraction" as "it was taking people's attention from their work and
causing a loss of time in an area where close tolerances were required to
be held," is not credited for reasons explicated infra. Pruitt acknowledged
he had not received any complaint from any supervisor that employees
were losing time by reading the article. Pruitt's assertion that Line
Foreman Crawford advised him that some of Crawford's employees, and
some of Hilburn's employees, were spending time reading the article and
discussing it on the job, stands in sharp contrast with Pruitt's
acknowledgement that he did not know if the employees were on break-
time or not when they were reading the article and is not credited, particu-
larly in view of Pruitt's acknowledgement that he neither investigated, nor
instructed the foreman to investigate, if worktime was involved.
Birdsong asserted that Pruitt had advised that the article on Edwards'
toolbox, and inferentially the other three toolboxes, was causing a "dis-
traction." Asked if he received a report from Pruitt that it was interfering
with production, Birdsong responded, "it would be interfering with
production if they stopped their machine to go over there and read it."
This stands in sharp contrast to the acknowledgement of both Pruitt and
Birdsong that neither ascertained if worktime was involved. Birdsong's as-
sertion that he advised Edwards and Bridges that they could not allow this
type of material, either for or against the Union, to be posted in the plant,
"because of the distraction and the disruption and interfering with produc-
tion, because of this, and it would also cause a littering problem," is not
credited and appears as an afterthought.
Birdsong's assertion that when Edwards told him he would see that the
article did not become detached from his toolbox, he advised Edwards
that Edwards had no control over 250 or 300 other toolboxes in the plant
is not credited
34 It is undisputed that Ford engaged in handbilhng the plant several
times , and was a member of the in-plant organizing committee. He also
obtained some 30 signed authorization cards He was a union observer at
the 1965 election.
HALLIBURTON CO. 1101
Ford's toolbox as being on the back of the box, facing an
aisle and facing the cement section. He described the
aisle as an open aisle, but not with as much traffic as some
areas in the general machine shop. He had personally ob-
served all four toolboxes. Pruitt then advised Crawford
to bring each of the named employees to his office, one at
a time , the order being Little, Edwards, Ford, and
Bridges. Pruitt asserted he advised each the same thing
that Edwards and Little had been advised the prior day
that the article created a "distraction, where people's at-
tention should be kept on their work only, and we had
asked them to take it down, and they did, and then they
put it back up." Pruitt asserted he asked each one to
remove the material and suggested they take the rest of
the shift to determine whether they wanted to remove it
or not, and, if they did not, to tell Foreman Crawford that
they were not going to.35 About 11:45 p.m. Pruitt advised
Crawford to bring the four named employees to his office,
none having removed the article from their respective
toolbox. At this time they met as a group. Pruitt related
that he restated the reasons why Respondent wanted the
material taken down and inquired of each employee if it
was his decision to leave the material on the toolbox.
Pruitt asserted that at this time he told them that since
they had refused, and two of them had refused twice, a
request to remove the material, that he was putting the
request in the form of a direct order that they remove the
material prior to the beginning of the shift at 4 p.m. the
'following day. Pruitt acknowledged that Bridges and Lit-
tle inquired as to what would happen if they did not
remove the material and asserted he responded that he
would take some type of disciplinary action. When they
inquired as to the nature of disciplinary action, Pruitt ad-
vised that he would decide that when it was necessary.-36
Pruitt described the postings as a "distraction." Ford
credibly related that he asked Pruitt if the "Good Guys"
article was any more of a distraction than the Aero article
on the bulletin board, and that Pruitt responded "per-
sonally, no, but I don't set the policy around here."
On October 19, inferentially shortly after work com-
menced at 4 p.m., Pruitt made a trip to the machine shop,
determined that the material had been removed from the
toolboxes of Little and Bridges, and inquired of them if
they intended to leave the material off their toolboxes,
and was so advised. The material had not been removed
from the toolboxes of Ford and Edwards. Pruitt returned
to his office, called Foreman Crawford, and requested
that Crawford bring Edwards to Pruitt's office.
Thereafter, Crawford advised that Edwards wanted a wit-
ness. Pruitt advised Crawford to advise Edwards that this
would be in the form of disciplinary action, and that Pruitt
felt there should not be a witness, and instructed Craw-
ford to repeat Pruitt's request. Thereafter, Crawford ad-
vised that Edwards refused to come to the office. Ed-
wards' recitation does not vary substantially from that of
Pruitt. Edwards acknowledged that Crawford advised
him, "I have been told to make it a direct order that you
report to Mike Pruitt's office." Edwards acknowledged
he responded that he would not go to a closed room and
meet with management alone, that he would be glad to
talk to anyone in management in the hall or at his work
station.
Pruitt then called Foreman Rowland and requested
that he bring Ford to Pruitt's office. Ford made the same
request for a witness and was advised that he could not
have one and that Pruitt would explain the reason when
he went to Pruitt's office. Ford repeated his request to
Pruitt. Pruitt responded that Respondent's attorneys had
advised that disciplinary action, between an employee
and an employer, did not require a witness. Pruitt then ad-
vised Ford that he had given him a direct order the prior
day to remove the article from his toolbox by 4 p.m., that
he had refused to do so. Ford asserted that he had not
refused to do anything, that he had advised Pruitt that he
had been advised by attorneys as to his rights, and that
further conversation should be had with the attorney.
Pruitt then advised Ford that Pruitt had no alternative but
to put him on a 3-day layoff. Pruitt instructed Ford to
take his toolbox with him when he left the plant, and upon
returning to have the article removed, and that if he
placed it back on the toolbox at a later date he would be
subject to further disciplinary action.37
Pruitt asserted that he again called Crawford and asked
him to repeat to Edwards, Pruitt's request that he come
to the office advising Crawford that if Edwards again
refused, Crawford was to put it in the form of an order. A
few minutes later, Edwards called Pruitt to inquire why
he could not have a witness. Pruitt advised Edwards that
Pruitt thought it was for his own good, that they do not
have witnesses to prevent any embarrassment, and that it
was not necessary to have a witness in a disciplinary ac-
tion. Pruitt asserted he repeated his request that Edwards
come to his office, which request was refused. Pruitt as-
serted he thereupon stated it as an order and Edwards
again refused .311
Edwards related that, at approximately 5 p.m., Pruitt
came to his work station and advised him that he had dis-
obeyed a direct order to come to Pruitt's office. Pruitt
then stated, "Since you have, I'm making your discharge
permanent." Pruitt then advised, if Edwards had come to
the office, he would have received a 3-day temporary
layoff, the same as Ford. Edwards acknowledged he did
not know at that time that Ford had been laid off.39
35 The only variation in the testimony of Budges, Edwards, and Ford
relative to these meetings is Ford's assertion that he advised Pruitt that
Ford had been advised of his rights by the union attorney and that any
further conversation should be with him.
31 While Ford asserted that Edwards advised Pruitt that the employees
had been advised by their attorneys "in regard to our rights," and any
further conversation should be had with him, I find this of no con-
sequence. Ford also asserted that Pruitt stated, when asked by Bridges
what the "or else' would be, that he had been ordered to give them a direct
order, and this assertion is in contradiction to the testimony of Birdsong
that Pruitt had authority to and did decide what action to take, in-
ferentially without instructions . I find this of no consequence.
37 I do not find Pruitt's version of these events to contain any substan-
tial variance from the recitation of Ford. Pruitt asserted that Ford as-
serted he had been instructed not to discuss the matter without the
presence of Kirby, ninon representative, and asserted that he advised
Ford there was no need for any further discussion.
sa Edwards' version of these events does not vary substantially from the
testimony of Pruitt Ewards acknowledged that, in his telephone conver-
sation with Pruitt, he advised Pruitt he would not come to his office, that
he would meet any one man in management in the hall or at his machine,
but that he would not go into a closed room without a witness. I find it un-
necessary to resolve Pruitt's assertion, denied by Edwards, that he ad-
vised Edwards that if Edwards did not come to the office the disciplinary
action would be more severe.
39 The only variance, of substance, in Pruitt's recitation of these events
is Pruitt's assertion that he advised Edwards that Edwards had twice
refused a direct order to come to his office.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Ford returned to work, on October 24 at 4 p.m.,
he had removed the "Good Guys" article from the tool-
box. In place thereof he pasted a piece of paper contain-
ing the, legend "Vote UAW" in the same area of his tool-
box. About 7 p.m. Foreman Crawford advised Ford that
Pruitt wanted to see him in Pruitt's office. Ford related
that he advised Crawford he would go to Pruitt's office
with him, but wished to have Bob Kirby, UAW interna-
tional representative, whom Ford had authorized to
represent him, present. Crawford responded that Ford
should address this request to Pruitt. At the urging of
Ford, Crawford called Pruitt and advised him of Ford's
request. Crawford then advised Ford that Pruitt stated
that disciplinary action between an employer and an em-
ployee required no witness. Ford and Crawford went to
Pruitt's office. Pruitt advised Ford he had observed the
sign on Ford's toolbox, "that while it wasn't as offensive
to the Company as the other bulletin," Pruitt was not
telling him to take it down, but Pruitt would observe it for
awhile and see how much of a distraction it caused and
how many other employees put it on their toolboxes.40
On October 25, when Ford reported for work, he
removed the "Vote UAW" sign and replaced it with the
"Good Guys" article, folded in half, so that the upper half
of the sheet was displayed. About 6:30 p.m. Ford ob-
served Pruitt talking to two employees, whom Ford
identified as Swineheart and Murray. After Pruitt left,
Ford saw these two employees move toward the toolcrib,
then return and stop and read the article on his toolbox,
then proceed to the line foreman's office where they used
the telephone. About 10 minutes later, Foreman Craw-
ford advised Ford that Pruitt wished to see him in Pruitt's
office.41 Ford, in response to Crawford, again requested
the presence of Kirby, and repeated this request when he
arrived at Pruitt's office. Pruitt advised Ford, "In the first
place, Bob Kirby is not going to get into this plant under
any circumstances, and in the second place disciplinary
action between an employee and an employer requires no
witness." Pruitt then advised Ford that he had observed
the article back on Ford's toolbox after Ford had been
given a direct order to take it off, and that he left Pruitt no
alternative but to place him on permanent layoff. Ford
responded that he had been advised by attorneys as to his
rights, and suggested that any further conversation should
be had with the attorney. Pruitt responded there would be
no further conversation.42
General Counsel, in support of his contention that the
discharges of Ford and Edwards were pretextuous, and
that the application of the no-solicitation no-distribution
rule to the "Good Guys" article was discriminatorily and
disparately enforced, introduced a variety of items dis-
played at various times in Respondent's plant, particu-
larly in the machine shop area, including religious tracts,
tabloids, cutouts of nude women from elongated
magazine pictures, etc., which were on exhibition for ex-
tended periods up to and exceeding 1 year, both before
and after the adoption of the September 13, 1966, rule.
40 Pruitt's version of these events contains no substantial variance from
the recitation of Ford.
41 while Ford described Murray and Swineheart as antiunion, asserting
he had talked to them upon several occasions, neither appeared as a wit-
ness, and I find the assertion of no consequence. Pruitt acknowledged ask-
ing two employees to read the article on Ford's toolbox on October 24,
and stated he did not see any other employee stop to read it. I find this
An enumeration follows:
Joe Richardson, a machinist in the lathe section, during
the entire 7 years of Ford's employment, posted notices
of revival meetings and similar material on the outside of
his toolbox, and kept church tracts and leaflets, observa-
ble when the toolbox was opened, on the inside of his
toolbox, and discussed his religious activities, during
worktime, with other employees.43
I have set forth supra, the facts relative to the distribu-
tion, by Respondent's foremen, of the Cementer
Magazine, to employees, during working time, both be-
fore and after the adoption of the rule, and also the dis-
tribution, with paychecks, of the pamphlet titled "The
Dispatcher."
Marshall Thomas, identified as an employee, was a
candidate for Sheriff in the spring of 1966. Thomas was
observed discussing his campaign with a number of em-
ployees at their respective work stations during work-
time. Thomas campaign cards were posted in various
places in the machine shop, both on toolboxes and
machine racks.44
Edwards, inferentially as a sideline, was engaged in
business under the name of Allied Aluminum Products,
and prepared, as advertising material, a calendar contain-
ing the picture of a scantily clad female and the wording
"the custom built fit." These calendars were distributed
in the machine shop, heat treat department, and toolcrib
in late 1965 and early 1966, and one remained posted in
the toolcrib at the time of Edwards' discharge. Distribu-
tion was made in work areas, both during worktime and
break period.
Bridges described Joe Bob Henley as an employee who
operated an automatic machine next to Bridges. Bridges
identified a newspaper article dated March 15, 1965,
setting forth a news story of the criticism of a Methodist
minister by a bishop "for urging President Johnson to
make a personal visit to racially tense Alabama," as hav-
ing been on the back of Henley's toolbox, facing the aisle,
ever since the approximate date of the article until it was
removed, inferentially by Bridges, on February 3, 1967.
Bridges identified a color picture of a topless female
with a Batman type headdress, with a caption "How do
you like my Dynamic Duo?", as having been taped on the
bulletin board on a machine identified as a Lynn Drive
Victor machine, in the same department in which Bridges
was employed, having been so exhibited at all times on
and after September 13, 1966, until it was, inferentially
removed by Bridges on February 3, 1967. The picture
was in clear view of other employees, and Crawford was
the foreman in that particular section.
Bridges identified a three-page foldover from Playboy
Magazine of a female, sans clothing, as having been on
the back of machine 32102, a machine in the group on
which Bridges worked. Part of the machine can be raised
and lowered. When the hood is raised the picture is ex-
posed and when the hood is closed it is partially covered.
When the machine is operating the hood is raised. Bridges
event occurred on October 25 as related by Ford.
42 Pruitt's version of this event contains no substantial variance with the
testimony of Ford.
43 A composite of the testimony of Ford and Edwards, which stands un-
refuted.
44 A composite of the testimony of Edwards and Bridges.
HALLIBURTON CO.
credibly related this picture was on view at all times on
and after September 13, 1966, until it was removed by
Bridges on February 3, 1967.
Bridges identified an article titled "Re: Standard
Procedure instructions in the death of employees." It is
a five paragraph satire about employees who refuse to fall
over after they are dead, while on the job., Bridges
identified it as having been posted on the plant .wall,
directly behind a machine operated by Troy Spocs in the
inspection department. It was posted at least 2 weeks
prior to its removal on February 3, 1967.
Bridges identified a map showing homesite areas and
pleasure resorts as having been on the toolbox of H. O.
Ballard for a period of 6 or 8 months, prior to its removal
on February 3, 1967, and being visible from the restroom
area and to employees in the grinding section.
Bridges identified a picture of a fisherman with a 360
pound sturgeon, which was taped on the toolbox of Tom
Vincent, who works on one of the machines that Bridges
works on, and was so displayed for 3 or 4 months prior to
its removal by Bridges on February 3, 1967. It was also
visible to employees in the area.
Brashears identified a picture of a female in shorts
hanging up washing, titled "A mouth full," as having been
attached to a post in the sheet metal shop, for a period of
4 to 6 months until February 3, 1967.
Brashears identified a three-page foldover picture of a
female, sans clothing, from Cavalier Magazine, which he
asserted was hanging on the shear in the sheet metal shop,
for approximately 1 month prior to February 3, 1967.
Brashears identified an ad for a Rattlesnake Hunt at
Wauirka, Oklahoma, as having been on a tow motor fork-
lift in the sheet metal shop for 2 or 3 weeks and simul-
taneously being posted on the wall behind the brake in the
sheet metal shop, and having been removed from the tow
motor on February 3, 1967. Brashears asserted that ad
on the wall was there for a year and a half.
Brashears identified a card titled: "Our working
schedule," a ludicrous indication of extended periods for
coffeebreaks and lunch periods, covering all but approxi-
mately 2 hours of a workday, as having been on the stall
wall in the body shop for approximately 3 weeks prior to
its removal on February 3, 1967.
Brashears identified a flier advertising a boxing tourna-
ment, sponsored by the Duncan Jaycees, as having been
posted on the Respondent's bulletin board in the machine
shop in February 1967.
Patterson, a welder in the paint section of the welding
department, identified a flier advertising the schedule of
Marlow High School football games, and listing various
college 'football schedules, inter alia, as having been
"stuck on the blindi in stall 29," which was his working
area, and having been there well over a year.
Adley identified a picture of a nude, reclining on a foam
41 None of the line foremen, except Lane, whom the various witnesses
identified as being in charge in the various sections where these articles ap-
peared, appeared as witnesses, and Respondent did not attempt to refute
the testimony of these witnesses as to the location and period during
which these various articles were posted, on Respondent's property as
well as on the private property of employees, as described. Shift Foreman
Pruitt who acknowledged seeing the picture of the nude, on machine
31202, acknowledged that he talked to the foreman in that area about it.
Pruitt asserted you "had to kind of look for it to find it," and related he
looked for that type of material, both before and after the discharges, ex-
plaining they had visitors come through the plant continually and looked
for this type of material Pruitt acknowledged he had never spoken to em-
1103
mattress, coupled with a July 1966 calendar, as having
been on a blackboard, which holds a blueprint, in the
machine and engine lathe section and which was posted
for approximately 1 year prior to its removal by him on
February 3, 1967.
Adley identified the picture of a topless female from
Modern Man Magazine as having been on the electric
panel of one of the monomatics in the engine lathe sec-
tion, and having been so exhibited for 1 or 2 months prior
to February 3, 1967.
Adley identified a humorous article containing several
paragraphs relating an incident relative to a lawyer
discussing an accident with a client, which he described
as having been posted on one of the building supports in
the turret lathe section, and having been there for approx-
imately 2 years and removed by him on February 3,
1967.
It is undisputed that John D. Gilbey, a machine opera-
tor, had taped to his blueprint holder, on his machine for
approximately 12 months prior to February 3, 1967, a
three-page picture from Playboy Magazine of a female
with a bare bottom exposed and a three-page picture, also
from Playboy Magazine, of a topless female, with a bikini.
It is undisputed that in May 1966, a petition was circu-
lated in the machine shop for the purpose of getting a
game preserve at a new lake being constructed in the
area; also that Gilbey, for approximately 3 weeks in May
1966, had attached to the back of his toolbox a list of
Oklahoma State Legislators, names and addresses, with
a suggestion that letters be written to them relative to the
game preserve.
There is no evidence to dispute the assertion of several
of these employees that no supervisor ever reprimanded
an employee by reason of the display of the described
material, either before or after the promulgation and
publication of the no-solicitation no-distribution rule '45 of
September 13, 1966. It is inferred, and I find, that, unlike
the "Good Guys" article, Pruitt did not find the described
exhibits constituted "distractions."
I turn next to Respondent's "explanation" of its no-so-
licitation no-distribution rule, posted November 4, 1966,
and Birdsong's explanation of the reason for its posting,
as well as the recitations of Birdsong and Pruitt of the na-
ture of the "distractions," which Pruitt asserts caused
him to order the removal of the "Good Guys" article, as
set forth supra.
A "Notice to all hourly employees of Halliburton Com-
pany," over the signature of Harry P. Conroy, senior vice
president and general manager, was posted November 4,
1966, on all of Respondent's bulletin boards, and contains
the following:
A copy of the Company's no-solicitation and no-
distribution rules remains posted along with this
notice. While these rules are clearly stated, certain
ployees where this material was displayed or ordered them to remove the
articles.
Lane, a line foreman in the machine shop, undoubtedly gave a
reasonably accurate appraisal of Respondent's attitude relative to these
displays . Asked if he was ever given instructions with regard to these
items , he asserted, "The instructions were that we should discourage this
sort of thing , at least not have these sort of pictures in conspicuous
places " He then elaborated , "we have a number of visitors that-come
through the plant, and we try to keep these where they are not obvious to
anybody walking down the aisles " The objection of Respondent, it is in-
ferred, is placement , not content.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
questions have been asked by employees about
specific application of these rules which have been
explained to them, and we desire to make this com-
ment for all hourly employees.
These are valid rules of the Company of long-
standing and allow reasonable activity and discus-
sion within the plant, in accordance with their terms,
and yet serve to maintain our Company's high stan-
dard of quality and tolerance in its products. At the
same time efficiency is maintained, disruptions are
avoided, and interference in production and
discipline are prevented.
Solicitation is not permitted on the working time of
the employee doing the soliciting or the working time
of the employee being solicited. Such solicitation or
discussion is permitted if both employees are on their
own time or break time, such as on their way to or
from their work stations, or their lunch hour, etc.
Literature may be handed out by employees during
their non-working time in the non-working areas of
the plant, such as the lunchroom, main hallway and
restrooms, etc. Literature may not be distributed
within the working areas of the plant nor may the
Company's walls or property be defaced. Employees
are allowed to wear or place on their personal pro-
perty ordinary pins, emblems, union identification,
and similar insignia in the plant or premises, includ-
ing the working area. Of course, we cannot permit
material or items in the working area which would
create a harmful disruption or interfere with produc-
tion or discipline.
Should any question arise as to the specific appli-
cation of these rules, please discuss it with your su-
pervisor.
While the November 4 explanation clearly encom-
passes what can be placed on personal property in the
plant, and Birdsong asserted that the November 4 ex-
planation was identical with an explanation given to su-
pervisors on September 13, 1966, at the time of the post-
ing of the initial rule, the inconsistencies contained in
Birdsong's recitation are illustrated by his denial that the
posting of the "Good Guys" article was a violation of the
no-solicitation no-distribution rule. The November 4 ex-
planation is subject to the interpretation given by Bird-
song, that he instructed employees that they could not
solicit on free time at their work stations. The precise lan-
guage being, "such solicitation or discussion is permitted
if both employees are on their own time or break time,
such as on their way to or from their work stations, etc."
Birdsong admitted advising Edwards and Bridges on Oc-
tober 10 that they could solicit on nonwork time in non-
work areas.
Pruitt, having acknowledged that he did not know if
employees who read the "Good Guys" article were on
breaktime or worktime, was asked to explain how it was
"distracting" employees. Pruitt asserted, "I feel that in
46 Little was vague on the question of whether worktime was involved.
Having asserted he saw employees stop their machines and go to read the
article, he was asked if he saw these individuals then return to work. He
replied, "Like I said awhile ago, unless you were watching this area at the
times the men stopped there, you didn't know whether they were coming
the area like this where normal work tolerances-, some
of them are exceptionally close, we require all of the at-
tention of the employees that we can get, and in my
opinion, anything that takes the employee's mind from his
work and causes it to be discussed between him and other
employees, gives him something to think about besides
his work, and in my experience, this is an area where peo-
ple lose the concentration they need to do this type of
work. And it results in sloppy work." Immediately
thereafter, Pruitt acknowledged that he had no complaint,
in October 1966, from any line supervisor, that any em-
ployee was not making essential tolerances, that produc-
tion had decreased, or that disciplinary or littering
problems ensued.
Acknowledging that any time'there is a discrepancy he
gets a written complaint, Pruitt acknowledged he
received no written complaint, from any supervisor, that
required tolerances were not being maintained. Pruitt
acknowledged that no employee was given an AVO, by
any supervisor, as a result of inattention to work duties,
in this period, resulting from the article being posted or a
discussion of it during worktime.
Pruitt's assertion that he saw single indivuduals, and
two or three employees at a time, stop to read the articles
on Edwards' and Little's toolboxes, inferentially on Oc-
tober 13 and 14, stands in sharp contrast with his
acknowledgement that he did not see anyone read the ar-
ticle on Ford's toolbox, and he requested two employees
to read it. Since Pruitt's office is away from the machine
shop area, I find it implausible that the "Good Guys" ar-
ticle could have caused the amount of "distraction" Pruitt
would attribute to it, in the absence of any complaint by
any line supervisor. There is not a scintilla of evidence
that there was any effect on production, or accuracy on
tolerances, or that any disciplinary problem was created
or any reprimands issued to other employees. How the
article could be "distracting" if the employees were read-
ing it on their breaktime stands unexplained, and Pruitt
acknowledged he did not know if they were on breaktime
or worktime when he saw them reading the article.
Line Foreman Lane asserted that he saw between 35
and 40 employees, whom he described as all 20 who were
in his section and the balance in the section next to his,
stop and read the article on Little's toolbox, some more
than once, each group staying 5 to 7 minutes, all within a
3-day period. Little acknowledged that some were on
their way to or from the concession areas or restroom.46
Lane acknowledged he did not investigate to determine
if these employees were on a break or lunch period. I do
not credit Lane, whose demeanor was unimpressive. It is
reasonable to infer that some of the employees identified
by Lane obtained copies of the article duffing the, hand-
billing. While the witnesses for General , Consel asserted
they saw a small number of employees look at these
posted articles, Respondent's witnesses, other than Lane,
or going, or whether they had come directly from their machine." Lane
first asserted he did write some discrepancy tickets where employees
failed to make tolerances during this period, then acknowledged he did not
know if he wrote more or less than usual.
HALLIBURTON CO.
make Lane 's recitation appear astronomical ." It is un-
disputed that employees did read this article while it was
posted.
Personnel Director Birdsong acknowledged he was not
advised by Shift Foreman Pruitt or Line Foreman
Powers that the article on Ford's toolbox caused other
employees to be "distracted" from their work. Birdsong
acknowledged he had not received a complaint from A. L.
Davis, supervisor in the floating equipment shop, that
those employees were being "distracted" by the article on
Ford's toolbox, and he did not know if their production
quotas were affected . Birdsong acknowledged he had no
advice from Davis that the article on Ford's toolbox was
causing either a disciplinary problem or a littering
problem. Queried as to why Respondent wished these ar-
ticles removed from the toolboxes, Birdsong asserted, "It
had been observed that it was causing some disruption in
production and distraction out there ." Birdsong asserted
this was reported to him by Pruitt, whom Birdsong re-
lated advised that "several people [were ] congregating
around these things." While Birdsong attributed the re-
port of "distraction" to Pruitt, he acknowledged that
Pruitt did not specify in what manner it was causing a dis-
traction. I have found, supra, that neither Pruitt nor Bird-
song made any investigation to determine if those reading
the article were doing so on breaktime or lunchtime. Bird-
song acknowledged that Pruitt did not specify in what
manner the work of any employee was being interfered
with.
The Transfers of Deaton on August 15, Stephens on Au-
gust 19, and Evanson September 14, 1966
These transfers are alleged to have been discriminatori-
ly motivated, and to involve more arduous and less agree-
able job tasks. The evidence relative to each is considered
seriatim.
41 Respondent called as witnesses several employees who related that
they saw other employees reading the "Good Guys" article on one of the
four identified toolboxes . I am unable to find from an examination of this
testimony any indication that these events occurred during worktime, ef-
fected production , or the accuracy of tolerances , or created any disciplina-
ry or littering problem
Raymond L.'Knapp, who saw some literature on Edwards ' toolbox
could not remember it containing a picture . He asserted he saw three or
four employees, in groups , stop two or three times to read the article on
Little's toolbox. He was uncertain if any or all of these employees were on
a lunchbreak or coffeebreak, and acknowledged that Little's toolbox
faces an aisle which is used by most of the employees to go to the coffee
machine. Knapp did not see employees congregating near Edwards' tool-
box during this period. Reuben E. Seay, a machinist , acknowledged read-
ing the article on Little's toolbox, while he was on his way to the
washroom, during allowed washup time preceding his lunch break. Seay
saw one employee at a time read the material on Edwards ' toolbox, but
could not recall ever seeing more than one person stop at a time, and was
uncertain if the individual was on breaktime.
L. V. Foster saw the article on Ford 's toolbox and saw three or four em-
ployees stop to read it . Foster acknowledged he did not read it, "because
we'd already had the literature ," inferentially as a result of the distribution
of the handbills prior to the posting. He related that employees discussed
the article with him "possibly once or twice a day" during the period of the
posting. He did not indicate if these discussions were during worktime or
freetime. He did not know if the employees he saw reading the article on
Ford 's toolbox were on breaktime , but knew that some were on their
lunch break.
Roy Gene Sadler , who saw the article on Ford's toolbox , first asserted
that he had about two conversations a day relative to the article, with
other employees , then could not estimate if he had 5 such conversations
Deaton
1105
Deaton was initially employed by Respondent in April
1965 as a tow motor operator in the material handling de-
partment , and was assigned to the paint shop and sand-
blasting department, moving painted material to stock, or
to work locations. It is undisputed that he received his
regular periodic merit increases on the normal review
dates. I have found, supra, that Deaton was active in the
union organizing effort, and was interrogated by Bourland
relative to those efforts in early August 1966. Deaton as-
serted that he obtained union authorization cards from
some 10 or 12 employees in the paint department, where
a total of 20 to 25 employees are engaged.48
Deaton credibly related that on Friday, August 12,
1966, in a conference with Warehouse Area Supervisor
Tidwell and Foreman Bourland, Tidwell inquired if
Deaton would like to be transferred. Deaton asserted that
he responded that it would depend on where he was being
transferred. Tidwell then advised that they would transfer
him to the shipping dock the following Monday morning,
as a tow motor operator. Deaton related that Tidwell had
advised him that Respondent likes to transfer men around
"to give them an overall picture of the operation of the
Company." Deaton responded that he would prefer to
stay where he was. Deaton credibly related this was the
only time he had been told by any supervisor that it was
company policy to transfer men from one job to another,
so they might gain overall experience in the operations of
Respondent.
Deaton asserted that, after his transfer, his duties in-
cluded the loading of oil field equipment and chemicals
into trucks, using a forklift. Deaton experienced a dust
condition and fumes, which he described as, "so thick in
these trailers that you could hardly breathe." Deaton also
asserted that it affected his eyes and his nose , explaining
there was no ventilation system or fans. Deaton
or 20. Sadler did not indicate if these conversations occurred during
freetime or worktime , and he did not know if the other employees, at the
time of these discussions , were on lunchbreak or coffeebreak.
J. W Bradley , who has a clear view from his work station of Little's
machine, could recall only one occasion when he saw two or three em-
ployees looking at the article posted on Little's toolbox, and did not know
if they were on a coffeebreak or a lunchbreak at the time. While Bradley
asserted that he discussed the article on Little's toolbox with two named
employees, on separate occasions , he also asserted these discussions did
not affect his productivity , and he was not "distracted."
I. L. McDaniel , a tool-and-die maker, worked approximately 50 feet
from Ford McDaniel asserted that he made a special trip to read part, but
not all , of the article on Ford's toolbox the first day it was up, explaining
that he was curious to see what it was. He also saw Jamison, a tow motor
operator, stop and read the article . McDaniel testified variously that he
saw a total of 4 or 5 employees go over to read the article, then increased
the number to 10 in the "2 days" the article appeared on Ford 's toolbox.
The 2-day estimate is an obvious inaccuracy. McDaniel was vague and
unimpressive when asked if the article caused a decrease in his produc-
tion, first asserting that he left his bench to look at it, then asserting it did
not take him any longer than it would take to get a cup of coffee , then ad-
mitting that it would be "hard to answer" as to whether his production was
effected by his stopping to read the article . McDaniel acknowledged he
did not know if the other employees were on a coffeebreak at the time they
read the article on Ford's box.
46 While Deaton related that Foreman Bourland arranged for Deaton to
meet with Robinson in the personnel department , that subsequently
Robinson explained company benefits and advised Deaton that Robinson
did not feel that Halliburton needed a union , and that Talley expressed
similar views, I find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether these
expressions of views are attributable to Respondent.
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acknowledged that there were fumes in the paint shop,
but explained there were fans with a suction system
which drew the fumes away from the work areas.49
Stephens
Stephens credibly related that he was initially em-
ployed by Respondent in 1961 in the material handling
department as a forklift operator in the warehouse. He
was then transferred in late 1964 to the job of dispatcher
in the truck shop, and for a period of approximately 3
months was temporarily assigned as a crane operator in
the truck shop. His duties as a dispatcher were to get
parts and distribute material, driving a forklift and a three-
wheeled buggy. In June 1966, Stephens' foreman, Shir-
ley, assigned him to operating the overhead crane, in the
truck shop for a week. Three weeks later Stephens had a
further conversation with Shirley and called his attention
to the fact that Stephens was still on the overhead crane.
At that time, Shirley advised Stephens that he was going
to be assigned to the overhead crane permanently. so
I have found, supra, that Stephens attended union
meetings, and signed a union authorization card in early
August 1966 and started wearing a union pencil clip with
a UAW insignia at the plant, commencing approximately
August 12. Stephens asserted there were approximately
75 to 100 employees in the truck shop area, when he was
operating the overhead crane, and that he obtained 12 or
more signed union authorization cards, at that time. It is
undisputed that Stephens, during his period of employ-
ment, received the periodic merit raises provided under
Respondent's merit raise plan.
On August 18, 1966, Foreman Spradling, who had
replaced Shirley, took Stephens to Shirley's office for a
conference with Tidwell and Bourland. Tidwell, after
some preliminary questions, inquired if Stephens would
accept another job if it were offered. Stephens responded
that he guessed he would if it were a better job than the
one he had. Stephens related that he advised Tidwell that
49 I find of no consequence Deaton's assertion that he received over-
time while working in the paint shop, and had only 1 hour of overtime
between the time of his transfer and the time of his testimony herein, in
March 1967, in view of the undisputed assertion of Tidwell that the entire
plant was working overtime pnor to the time of Deaton's transfer, and that
this was substantially reduced throughout the plant thereafter.
Tidwell, who has been employed by Respondent for 24 years, and has
been an area supervisor for 1 year, acknowledged that from the time of
Deaton's employment, until his transfer, Deaton had worked only on the
paint shop assignment. Tidwell was unconvincing in asserting that the
Respondent had a policy of transferring people from time to time because
"it gives them an opportunity to broaden their knowledge, and it gives
them greater experience of the overall company operations." In part,
Respondent relies on a booklet entitled "Let's get acquainted," which is
distributed to new employees. One portion of the booklet, captioned "Op-
portunities for Advancement," recites the desire of Respondent that em-
ployees who demonstrate ability, conscientous effort, and competent
workmanship, shall be given an opportunity to advance to more responsi-
ble and higher rated jobs No reference appears relative to lateral trans-
fers. Tidwell, in conflict with his asserted representation to Deaton, at the
time of Deaton's transfer, related that Deaton's chances for advancement
were exactly the same, neither diminished nor increased, by reason of the
transfer.
Tidwell asserted that he never remembered hiring a new employee or
interviewing him, that he was not told it was company policy to transfer
employees from job to job to broaden their knowledge and give them
greater experience Joseph D. Howard, who talked to Tidwell, when he
was hired on April 24, 1966, credibly related he was not advised of this
policy by Tidwell, who introduced him to Foreman Williams. Ledford,
hired in material handling on February 14, 1966, was not told of this al-
he thought he had the best job in the department, that he
could not describe a better job, but could describe a
worse one. Tidwell invited him to do so. Stephens then
asserted that he felt the forklift job in the steelhouse was
the dirtiest and hardest job in the department. Prior to
that time, Tidwell had not mentioned the steelhouse.
After some additional questions by Tidwell, relative to
what gripes the employees had, how the department
might be improved, etc., Tidwell advised Stephens that he
guessed Stephens had guessed what they had in mind.
Tidwell then advised Stephens that they were, considering
sending him over to the steelhouse to drive the forklift.
Stephens responded he would rather stay where he was.
Stephens acknowledged that Tidwell asked if Stephens
had any complaints about the overhead crane, and
Stephens advised that it was at the top of the building and,
clunng the workday, it filled with smoke. At Tidwell's
urging, Stephens asserted that he felt the conditions could
be improved by enclosing the cab and providing a filter to
remove the smoke.
Stephens was transferred to the forklift in the steel-
house commencing August 19, 1966, and was still so em-
ployed at the time of his testimony on March 2, 1967.
Stephens described the difference in his duties on the
two jobs. In driving the overhead crane, he merely moved
levers to lift and drop the hook and very little physical ex-
ertion was involved. As a forklift operator, he would pick
up pallets of steel and move them into the sheet metal
shop, or into the heat treat department or machine shop.
He was required to fill out a shop order folder, run it
through an IBM machine, then deliver the folder to the
office. In working on the forklift, he also moved an oil
which is mixed with water, described as a cooling agent,
for the steel saws. He asserted it was quite often essential
to rearrange material, to keep it from falling off the' pallet,
and on occasions he would get the oil mixture on his
clothing.
Stephens related a conversation he had with Bourland
on August 19 in Bourland's office. In this conversation,
leged policy. Bourland, at variance with Tidwell, asserted that this was a
policy of the material handling department, which he explained to newly
hired employees. A number of witnesses for General Counsel, including
those hired in the material handling department, asserted theywere never
so advised I do not credit Tidwell or Bourland.
I do not creditTidwell's assertion that he had received complaints from
Paint Shop Foreman Newman about Deaton's work, specifically that he
would be gone longer than the foreman thought necessary to complete an
assignment. Newman did not appear as a witness Tidwell did not assert
that these complaints were called to the attention of Deaton, at the time
Tidwell discussed the transfer, nor were they stated by Tidwell to Deaton,
as a reason for the transfer More important, Tidwell acknowledged these
complaints were not noted in Deaton's personnel file, and Deaton did not
receive an AVO pnor to the transfer.
While Tidwell asserted that Foreman Bourland talked to Deaton about
the complaints, he then qualified that assertion by relating that it was
while Foreman Shirley was still on duty that the complaints existed. Shir-
ley did not appear as a witness. Bourland, who acknowledged that Deaton
advised him that Deaton was not too happy with his progress, asserted
that he gave Deaton some of Respondent's history and background and
referred him to Robinson, in the personnel department There is no sug-
gestion in Bourland's testimony that he ever reprimanded Deaton, or ad-
vised him of any complaints about Deaton's work. Bourland's explanation
of Tidwell's representations to Deaton, as to the reason why Deaton was
being transferred, was that the area covered by the paint shop was too far
flung, that he was too long at times without immediate supervision
so Shirley went to the hospital, approximately August 1, 1966, and was
not on duty at the time of the transfer of Stephens, on August 19, 1966,
and was not called as a witness.
HALLIBURTON CO.
Bourland explained Stephens' duties in the steelhouse,
and advised Stephens that Bourland did not understand
why anyone working for Halliburton needed any outside
help. Bourland also advised Stephens that Tidwell had
advised Bourland, Stephens was to be kept under close
supervision. As the conversation ended, Bourland
pointed to the UAW insignia, which was in Stephens'
shirt pocket, and advised Stephens, "that we'd get along
just fine, as long as I didn't let that interfere with my
job."st
Stephens asserted he had a conversation with Tidwell
about September 1, 1966. Stephens inquired of Tidwell
as to why he was transferred to the steelhouse, and Tid-
well responded that he thought he was doing Stephens a
favor, getting him out of the smoke in the overhead crane.
Stephens related that Tidwell then advised that there
were two or three men who would like to have Stephens'
job. Stephens responded by asking why he did not give it
to one of them. Tidwell then laughed, and advised
Stephens that it was a "gravy job," and that he wanted
Stephens to have all the gravy.
Stephens asserted he was never told by anyone in
management that it was company policy to transfer men
from one job to another so that they could learn overall
functions of the Respondent. A number of witnesses, ap-
pearing on behalf of General Counsel, asserted that they
were never advised that it was company policy to transfer
employees from one job to another, inferentially to learn
more about Respondent's operations. Absent any
evidence that such purported policy ever appeared in
written form, or ever was disseminated to employees, I
find it to be entirely a figment of the imagination of
Tidwell.' 52
Evans
Evans was initially employed by Respondent in late
1964 as a saw helper in the warehouse, also referred to as
the sawhouse. It is undisputed that Evans received the
periodic merit raises provided under Respondent's merit
raise plan. Evans credibly related that he was a helper on
51 Bourland's denial that he made the latter statement to Stephens is not
credited.
51 An indicia of the inaccuracies indulged in by Tidwell was his asser-
tion that Stephens had been a forklift operator with Respondent, "I be-
lieve about 10 years " There is nothing in this record to dispute Stephens'
assertion that he was initially hired in May 1961.
Tidwell asserted his description of a crane operator assignment as a
promotion, from forklift operator, applied to an outside crane which
travels on wheels. He asserted the inside crane, which is a traveling crane
in the building, is the same classification as a fork truck operator.
Tidwell's explanation of the reason for Stephens' transfer was, that
Stephens complained about the fumes, and Stephens asserted that Shirley
had promised Stephens, when he was put on the crane, that Shirley would
move him off at the first opportunity. Tidwell was unconvincing in assert-
ing, "he wanted to transfer, and he didn't want to transfer to the place we
transferred him." Tidwell then explained that Stephens was an ex-
perienced fork truck operator, that they were ready to install an IBM
system, and they needed someone with experience. Tidwell then
acknowledged that Stephens had no IBM experience, but meant that he
had experience handling shop orders, and was capable of reading shop or-
ders. Tidwell asserted this was the reason for the transfer. Stephens de-
nied requesting that he be transferred from the crane On this conflict I
credit Stephens.
Tidwell denied having made the remark about "gravy." On this conflict,
I credit Stephens
Tidwell acknowledged the transfer did not constitute a promotion, but,
inferentially, was a lateral transfer. Tidwell acknowledged that Stephens
did advise him that Stephens did not wish is be transferred to the steel-
1107
an abrasive saw for 4 months, then a helper on a "Do All"
saw, then operated an abrasive saw for about 2 months,
although still classified as a helper. He was then placed on
the overhead crane, in the sawhouse, part time. His im-
mediate supervisor was Foreman Roy Williams, who in
turn was under the supervision of Tidwell.
On September 14, 1966, about 10 a.m., Evans, wearing
UAW insignia in the form of an organizing committee
button, was operating the overhead crane engaged in
providing material for the saws, when he saw Tidwell
staring at him for approximately 5 minutes. Tidwell then
motioned for him to come down out of the crane, and Tid-
well stared at his UAW button. This was the first day
Evans had worn UAW insignia in the plant. About 11:30
a.m. Evans was advised by Line Foreman Jones to report
to Tidwell's office. Those present included Foreman
Major, Foreman Williams, Tidwell, and Warehouse Area
Supervisor Cloud. Evans related that Tidwell advised
him that when he was first employed he had been advised
that he would be transferred from time to time. He
responded that he had not been told anything of the sort.
Tidwell then inquired if he wanted to be transferred, and
Evans responded that he did want a transfer to the sheet
metal shop.53 Tidwell advised Evans that he was being
transferred to the chemical room, advising Evans that
Tidwell thought it would help Evans to learn how to fill
shop orders (pigtails).
The job to which he was transferred, under Foreman
Major, was the unloading of boxcars, by using a tow
motor to lift pallets. Evans explained his duties as includ-
ing the lifting of bags of chemicals of various weights,
from 25 to 100 pounds, and stacking them on the pallets.
It is undisputed that some chemicals come in boxes and
others in 55-gallon drums. Evans asserted there was a lot
of chemical dust, particularly if a sack burst. Evans ex-
plained the dust would get into his lungs and cause con-
siderable discomfort. Evans acknowledged that, on occa-
sion, in the saw house he would do some lifting, but did
none when he was operating the crane, and his former job
required "very little" physical labor.54
house. Tidwell acknowledged that Stephens advised that he would rather
work on any other job in preference to working in the steel warehouse.
Foreman Bourland, who corroborated the testimony of Tidwell, relative
to the events of the transfer conference with Stephens, was, nevertheless,
at variance with Tidwell, in asserting that Stephens, while objecting to the
transfer on the grounds that the steel warehouse job was a hard job, agreed
to the transfer. I do not credit this assertion of Bourland.
Bourland , who first sought to premise the transfer on the basis of
Stephens' experience, acknowledged that Stephens had no experience
relative to IBM data processing, which appears as a substantial element of
the job to which Stephens was transferred.
53 While of no consequence herein, Evans acknowledged that he had
talked to Foreman Steely about a possible transfer to the sheet metal shop
about 2 weeks prior to this incident. Steely advised Evans that he would
check on the matter, and the following day advised Evans that he would
take him. Nothing further occurred until September 14, when Evans made
a further inquiry, and Steely advised that he did not need him at that time.
This preceded the conference in Tidwell's office, the same day.
54 Tidwell asserted he had received several complaints that Evans was
not supplying the material to the saws to the degree required Tidwell as-
serted that he knew that Evans had requested a transfer, an obvious
reference to Evans' conversation with Foreman Steely. Tidwell implied
that a reason for his decision was that Evans was being transferred "to
another supervisor," whom he identified as Major. Tidwell then
acknowledged that Evans had formerly worked upder Major, in the steel
section, inferentially the saw house. Tidwell then asserted that he did have
complaints about Evans from Major previously. Tidwell then asserted
(Footnotes continued on following page)
336-845 0 - 70 - 71
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Contentions of the Parties and Concluding Findings
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I have found, supra, that on August 4, 1966, Foreman
Bourland did interrogate Deaton, relative to Deaton's
union activity of distributing matchbooks with UAW in-
signia on them; that on October 4, Bourland inquired of
Stephens if Stephens had any "converts," which obvi-
ously related to Stephens' union activities; that on Sep-
tember 6, 1966, Foreman Major inquired of Stephens as
to what Stephens thought the employees would gain if the
Union got in; that on September 15, 1966, Major inter-
rogated Evans as to why he was wearing a UAW button;
that on October 4, 1966, Major interrogated Evans as to
why he was dissatisfied and advised Evans if he took the
UAW button off everything would be okay; that on Oc-
tober 12, 1966, Major interrogated Evans, inquiring
whom Evans thought would be running things if the
Union got in, then advising Evans that it would be the
Respondent; that on September 16, 1966, Foreman Tul-
lous advised Patterson, a welder, to remove his personal
welding hood from the plant, because it contained three
UAW emblems, and simultaneously issued a reprimand
to Patterson, for the same reason; and that on January 5,
1967, Foreman Williams threatened Brashears, advising
Brashears that he would get even with him, by reason of
Brashears' allegedly having Williams' name incorporated
in a list of those supervisors the Union asserted had inter-
fered with employees' rights, which formed the basis of
the unfair labor practice charges herein.
In the Blue Flash case,55 the Board held that interroga-
tion of an employee, as to union membership, activities,
and desires is not per se unlawful. The Board, in that
case, found legitimate reason for inquiry, which was con-
ducted with appropriate safeguards. The Board held that
the test is whether, under all the circumstances, the inter-
rogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
In the Johnnie's Poultry case,56 the Board stated:
The purposes which the Board and courts have held
legitimate [permitting interrogation] are of two
types: [Clarification] of a union's claimed majority
status to determine whether recognition should be
extended ... and the investigation of facts concern-
ing issues raised in a complaint where such interroga-
tion is necessary in preparing the employer's defense
for trial of the case.
(Footnotes continued from preceding page)
that he did not receive complaints about Evans ' work, while Major was his
foreman, "to the extent I had had later." Tidwell acknowledged the
transfer was a lateral transfer and Evans' opportunities for advancement
were the same as previously existed.
Tidwell was unconvincing in asserting that he received complaints rela-
tive to Evans' work from the saw operators, whom he identified as Bill
Hare and Tommy Jinks, and also from Foreman Roy Williams. Tidwell,
when asked the relationship between the transfer and the complaints
about Evans' work, first asserted that he received a complaint 1 day be-
fore the transfer, the asserted the complaints were every day, for 2 or 3
weeks, or maybe a month . Asked as to the nature of complaint , Tidwell
asserted it was that "they" were not getting the steel to the saws. Tidwell
then asserted that these complaints were only part of the reason for the
transfer, that other reasons were that Evans had worked only in the steel-
house, since he had been hired and was asking for a transfer . Tidwell was
inconsistent, asserting that he told Evans about the complaints at the time
of the transfer, then asserting that he did not say that they were transfer-
ring him because of the complaints . Tidwell acknowledged that Evans in-
dicated that he did not wish to be transferred to the particular job to which
he was being assigned Tidwell asserted that he told Evans he was being
The Board further stated:
In allowing an employer the privilege of ascertain-
ing the necessary facts from employees in these
given circumstances, the Board and courts have
established specific safeguards designed to minimize
the coercive impact of such employer interrogation.
Thus, the employer must communicate to the em-
ployee the purpose of the questioning, assure him
that no reprisal will take place, and obtain his par-
ticipation on a voluntary basis; the questioning must
occur in a context free from employer hostility to
union organization and must not be itself coercive in
nature; and the questions must not exceed the neces-
sities of the legitimate purpose by prying into other
union matters, eliciting information concerning an
employee's subjective state of mind, or otherwise in-
terfering with the statutory rights of employees.
When an employer transgresses the boundaries of
these safeguards, he loses the benefits of the
privilege.
Prior to the Blue Flash case all interrogation was held
to be per se unlawful. As stated in the Decision in
Johnnie's Poultry, that holding has been modified to per-
mit legitimate inquiry, where legitimate inquiry is essen-
tial and proper safeguards are established.
Respondent, in its brief, asserts that Bourland's inquiry
of Deaton, on August 4, did not constitute coercion or a
threat. It clearly constituted interrogation, without
safeguards or legitimate purpose. Respondent describes
Bourland's comment to Stephens on October 4 as being
addressed to a known union organizer, "only to chide him
about his known sympathies." It was, nevertheless, inter-
rogation, with no legitimate purpose. Respondent charac-
terizes the interrogation of Stephens, by Foreman Major,
on September 6, as lacking coercion or restraint. There
are numerous cases where, under similar circumstances,
the Board, with court approval, has found such conduct
to be violative of the Act. Respondent acknowledged that
Major, on September 15, asked Evans, why he was wear-
ing a UAW button. Respondent is accurate in asserting,
"the most that Mr. Major could have obtained from that
question was what Evans' complaint was with the Com-
pany." Probing into an employee's subjective state of
mind is proscribed. Respondent again correctly charac-
terizes Major's inquiry of Evans on October 4, when he
asked Evans why he was dissatisfied, as "he was obvi-
ously trying to find out and get to the root of the problem
transferred "to broaden his knowledge and give him an overall broader
knowledge and experience in the company operations ." Tidwell
acknowledged he did not tell Evans that he was being transferred because
of complaints. Tidwell acknowledged he had no memory of Evans having
received an AV O, a disciplinary slip.
Tidwell acknowledged he did not know how many hours a day Evans
was operating the crane, at the time of transfer, and acknowledged that the
loading of the saws involved the tieing on and untieing of steel, on the
crane, as distinguished from operating the crane. In other words it was at
least a two-man operation to load the saws
Hare corroborated Tidwell's assertions about Hare complaining about
Evans ' shortcomings , which Hare placed as being on three or four occa-
sions, which he specified as one complaint to Foreman Major , one com-
plaint to Williams, and a complaint to Tidwell, in the period of 30 days
prior to Evans ' transfer . Hare described Evans as the only steelhauler in
the sawhouse at that time . How Evans could have been responsible for
both the tieing on and the tieing off of steel on the crane hook, and simul-
taneously being the crane operator , an improbability is unexplained.
ss Blue Flash Express , Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
ss Johnnie 's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770,775.
HALLIBURTON CO. 1109
with regard to Mr. Evans' attitude." Again a probing
without legitimate purpose. Respondent asserts that
Major's inquiry of Evans on October 12 did not con-
stitute interrogation. I do not agree. This event does not
stand in isolation.
Respondent urges that the action of Foreman Tullous,
in requiring Patterson to remove his hood from the plant
on September 16, in the light of the fact that Patterson
wore a UAW sticker on his jacket, and wore a union but-
ton, on and after the middle of August, and was not told
to remove them, coupled with Patterson's bringing his
hood back into the plant, on November 18, renders the
question moot. Respondent describes this incident as per-
suasive evidence that Respondent was trying to be
reasonable in evaluating each imaginative new approach
that the in-plant committee came up with. Respondent
would also rely on the fact that Tullous, and the others,
whom I have found engaged in interrogation, were first-
line supervisors. I find no merit in these contentions. It is
undisputed that a reprimand was issued solely by reason
of Patterson engaging in protected activity.
Respondent describes the conduct of Foreman Wil-
liams on January 5, 1967, involving Brashear, as an iso-
lated event, involving a firstline supervisor who had been
instructed as to what he could and could not do under the
Act. Respondent would characterize this incident as
"joking." Respondent would characterize the violations
of Section 8(a)(1) as being of "frivilous nature." I do not
agree. A threat by a supervisor who can carry it out is no
less a threat because it is said with a smile.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, I find each of the
incidents recited constitute interference, restraint, and
coercion and thus were violative of the probisions of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The September 13, 1966, No-solicitation No-distribution
Rule and its Application
It is alleged that the no-solicitation no-distribution rule
was discriminatorily promulgated and discriminatorily
and disparately enforced.
I have found supra, that prior to September 13, 1966,
Respondent on September 12, 1958, had posted a no-sol-
icitation rule, which contained no reference to distribu-
tion of literature. The 1958 and 1966 rules were posted
during union organizing campaigns.
I have also found, from undisputed evidence that the
1958 rule was honored more by its breach, than by con-
formity with it or enforcement of it, after the campaign
ended, including the conduct of company officials in per-
mitting, as well as sponsoring, collections during working
hours for charitable drives, flower funds, etc. I have also
found, from undisputed evidence, that after the promulga-
tion and posting of, the 1966 rule, the Respondent con-
tinued its bimonthly practice of distributing the company
magazine, "Cementer," encompassing approximately 57
pages of reading material, which was distributed by
foremen to employees during worktime at work stations,
where employees were permitted to examine and read the
material during worrktime. Similarly, each payday, every
other week, Respondent's four-page pamphlet, "The
Dispatcher," was distributed, by supervisors, to em-
ployees at their work stations during working time, with
their paychecks, and employees were allowed to read this
material during worktime. I have also found that collec-
tions during worktime, at work stations, for such varied
enterprises as football pools, flower funds, baseball pools,
checkpot, etc., with participation of foreman, were per-
mitted both before and after the adoption of the 1966 rule.
It is patent from the language of the 1966 rule that it
was directed to union activities. The first paragraph of the
rule so states. In so finding, I do not find the rule violative
of the Act on its face. The Board has so held.57 However,
in the same case, the Board held that while such a rule
may be valid and enforceable under different circum-
stances, where the record demonstrates that Respondent
was motivated by discriminatory considerations in
promulgating and enforcing the rule, such conduct is
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Personnel Manager Birdsong explained the reason for
the adoption of the 1966 rule. He asserted that in August,
and early September, a "small portion" of supervisors re-
ported there was a "lot of visiting" and some material
being passed out in the plant, and "some" employees
were not meeting production quotas because of solicita-
tion. He could then identify only Warehouse Area Super-
visor Tidwell as having so complained. 511
Birdsong acknowledged advising Bridges and Edwards,
on October 10, 1966, that under the rule they could so-
licit during their nonworking time "in non-working areas."
That this undue restriction, which I find excessive on the
record herein, without explanation or reason in support
thereof, was no slip of the tongue is borne out by Re-
spondent's November 4, 1966, "clarification" of the
September 13 rule, in which it is asserted:
Such solicitation or discussion is permitted if both
employees are on their own time or break time, such
as on their way to or from their work stations, or
their lunch hour, etc.
Birdsong also asserted, in explanation of the rule, "they
could solicit verbally if they were out of the plant area it-
self during their break time, but we did not allow them to
distribute literature." Birdsong also asserted "they could
solicit and distribute literature in the non-working areas
on their non-working time."
The Board has held in numerous cases, with court ap-
proval, that an employer may make and enforce a rule for-
bidding his employees to engage in union solicitation dur-
ing worktime. However, a broad no-solicitation rule, in
the absence of special circumstances making such a rule
necessary in order to maintain production or discipline,
is presumptively "an unreasonable impediment to self-or-
ganization and is therefore presumptively invalid."59
While the November 4 explanation of the September
rule appears to permit distribution in nonworking areas of
the plant, it is patent that Personnel Manager Birdsong's
interpretation is to the contrary. The explanation of
November 4 states "literature may be handed out by em-
ployees during their nonworking time in the nonworking
areas of the plant, such as the lunchroom, main hallway
and restrooms, etc." Birdsong acknowledged that on Oc-
tober 10 he advised Bridges and Edwards that they could
57 Pepsi-Cola Bottlers ofMami, Inc, 155 NLRB 527, 528.
58 While of no consequence to the issue here considered , it would ap-
pear unlikely that a warehouse supervisor would be concerned with, or re-
port on failure to meet , production quotas. Such failure is not established
in this record
59 See Peyton Packing Company, 49 NLRB 828, cited with approval in
Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B , 324 U.S. 793; Twenty-Eighth An-
nual Report of the National Labor Relations Board, p 66; Idaho Potato
Processors, Inc , 137 NLRB 910, enfd. 322 F 2d 573 (C.A. 9).
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distribute literature on the parking lots, in the dining
room, in the main hallway, at the plant entrances, and in
the restrooms. He acknowledged he was asked, by
Bridges, about the area adjacent to the restrooms, which
the evidence reflects is a vending machine area, thus a
nonwork area. Birdsong asserted he told the employees
that they could solicit there verbally during breaktime,
"but we do not appreciate them distributing literature in
that area because we did not want the plant cluttered up
with a lot of paper."60
The Board in the Minneapolis-Honeywell case '61 held
the presumption of invalidity was unrebutted.'The Board
in that case, distinguished between a rule which had appli-
cation limited to areas where the employees had their
work stations. The Board asserted that it: "unanimously
adheres to the Walton viewfi2 that a ban on distribution of
literature is presumptively invalid, in normal circum-
stances, if and insofar as it precludes employees from dis-
tributing union literature when they are on nonworking
time and also in nonworking areas of the employer's
establishment." I find no evidence of "special circum-
stances" making the rule as written and enforced necessa-
ry in order to maintain production or discipline.
Next considered is the disparate application of the no-
solicitation no-distribution rule insofar as it relates to the
posting of the "Good Guys" article.
I have found, supra, that in a conference on October
17, 1966, Birdsong advised Edwards and Bridges that the
posting of the "Good Guys" article on their toolboxes
was a violation of Respondent's no-solicitation rule.63
Birdsong, in denying that his request for removal of the
material was predicated on the Company's no-solicitation
rule, asserted that the request was not premised upon any
established rule of the Company, but resulted from the ar-
ticle "causing a distraction and interfering with produc-
tion." 64 Birdsong's assertion that the no-solicitation rule
was not the basis of the request for the removal of the
"Good Guys" article from the toolboxes, appears im-
plausible in view of the following provision contained in
the November 4, 1966, "clarification" or "explanation"
of the September 13 rule:
Employees are allowed to wear or place on their per-
sonal property ordinary pins, emblems, union
identification, and similar insignia in the plant or
premises, including the working area. Of course, we
cannot permit material or items in the working area
which would create a harmful disruption or interfere
with production or discipline.
At the risk of unduly extending this Decision, I have
seen fit to set forth in substantial detail the wide variety
of paraphernalia which Respondent has permitted to
remain posted throughout the work area, without objec-
tion , running the gamut from religious tracts, news items,
and humorous articles, to a variety of pictures of females
in various stages of undress and sans clothing.
To the extent Respondent's no-solicitation no-distribu-
tion rule was or is applicable to the posting of the "Good
Guys" article, or similar union literature, such an applica-
tion must be found to constitute disparate and dis-
criminate treatment, under the facts appearing in this
record. In so finding, I am not unmindful that after the
adoption of the rule, commencing approximately October
1, 1966, and for a period of several weeks thereafter,
Respondent caused to be posted on its bulletin boards the
Aero Commander article, allegedly as a news item, and
for that reason of interest to the employees, reciting that
the Union lost an NLRB election at that plant. Respond-
ent was thus less than subtle in conveying its message of
opposition to the union organizing efforts. The difference
in context, as "news items," between the Aero Com-
mander article and the "Good Guys" article would ap-
pear to be the difference between. tweedledum and
tweedledee, except to the extent that they were slanted in
opposite directions on the question of unionization.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent, by promulgating
and discriminatorily and disparately enforcing a no-sol-
icitation no-distribution rule which (a) prohibited em-
ployees from engaging in solicitation in work areas during
the -nonwork time of the employees involved, (b)
prohibited distribution of literature in nonwork areas of
the plant during free time of the employees involved, and
(c) prohibited the posting of the "Good Guys" article, to
the extent said articles were posted herein, on the proper-
ty of the employees, in the light of the facts herein, en-
gaged in conduct which constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion, and such conduct was, violative of
the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Suspension and Discharge of Ford
It is undisputed that Ford was suspended on October
19, 1966, for 3 days, solely by reason of his failure to
obey the order of Pruitt to remove the "Good Guys" arti-
cle from his toolbox. Thereafter, after Ford returned to
work on October 24, he again attached the same article
to his toolbox on October 25, 1966, and for that reason
was discharged by Pruitt on that date.
General Counsel alleges that the discriminatory motive
of Respondent, underlying the discharge of Ford, is
revealed by the discriminatory and disparate enforcement
of Respondent's no-solicitation no-distribution rule.
General Counsel accurately asserts that the effort of
Birdsong, who originally requested the removal of the
"Good Guys" article from Edwards' toolbox, because it
was assertedly a violation of the Company's no-solicita-
tion rule to assert that the reason for the request was
because of the "distractions" it was creating, with a pro-
jected and speculative loss in production, was a maneuver
on the part of Respondent to extricate itself from an il-
legal, discriminatory, and disparate application of its rule.
Respondent proceeds on a premise that any employer,
with or without such a rule, has a right to prohibit a dis-
traction "which would create or cause a harmful disrup-
tion or interfere with production or discipline." There can
be no dispute with this premise, provided it is supported
by record facts. Unfortunately for Respondent, the essen-
tial record facts are absent and Respondent's conduct
60 There is no evidence in the record that Respondent ever had a litter-
ing problem. In so finding, I am not unmindful of Birdsong's assertion,
that at the time of the 1965 election , UAW stickers were pasted on com-
pany property and slapped on the backs of employees while the em-
ployees were walking up the aisle I find this description does not con-
stitute littering as that term is normally used.
61 Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 139 NLRB 849, 851.
62 Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F.2d
177 (C.A. 5). See Southw,re Company, 145 NLRB 1329
63 I have not credited the denials of Birdsong and Pruitt that this
representation was made by Birdsong.
64 It is patent that Birdsong's assertion resulted from reports allegedly
made to him as distinguished from firsthand observation, since Birdsong
made no investigation.
HALLIBURTON CO.
clearly reveals its union animus as a motive for the
suspension and discharge of Ford.65
I do not find Pruitt's description of the article on Ed-
wards' and Little's toolboxes on October 17 as a "dis-
traction" to be an afterthought, as I believe he so charac-
terized it at the meeting on that date. Pruitt acknowledged
he was not aware on that day of similar articles being on
the toolboxes of Ford and Bridges.66 However, how these
articles constituted a "distraction" is left largely unex-
plained. The admission of Pruitt that no supervisor re-
ported that employees were not making tolerances, or es-
sential production, or encountering disciplinary or litter-
ing problems, requires a finding that the term "distrac-
tion" was used in an anticipatory sense, and did not
describe an existing condition.
It is undoubtedly true that individual employees, and,
on occasion, as many as two or three employees, were
observed on October 13 and 14 reading one of the four
articles so posted. Pruitt and Line Foreman Lane, Re-
spondent's only supervisory witnesses who asserted they
observed, first hand, this activity, were unable to assert, in
a single instance , that this activity was engaged in during
worktime, as distinguished from free time . Neither Bird-
song, who related reports he received from others, as
distinguished from firsthand observation, nor Pruitt,
made any investigation to determine if any employee was
engaging in this activity during worktime.
Respondent, during the union campaign, approximately
on October 1, 1966, posted the Aero Commander article
on the company bulletin boards, including the bulletin
board in the machine shop. Thus, Respondent was not
too subtle in calling to the attention of its employees the
fact that the Union, which was seeking to organize
Respondent's employees had lost a Board election, at a
nearby plant. The evidence indicates this article remained
posted for several weeks. Why an article reciting that the
Union was undertaking a new campaign at Respondent's
plant and had obtained a settlement of a backpay claim
for three of Respondent's employees would be more "dis-
tracting" than the Aero Commander article, is unex-
plained. Why this particular article would be "distract-
ing" when compared to the diversity of printed as well as
visual material on exhibit in Respondent's plant, some for
substantial periods of time, remains unexplained.
It is' as reasonable to infer, on the basis of the credible
evidence herein, that the employees who engaged in the
reading of the "Good Guys" article were on lunchbreaks
and coffeebreaks at the time of such activity, as it is to
find the contrary.
The Supreme Court has stated that no restriction may
be placed on the employees' right to discuss self-or-
ganization among themselves, unless the employer can
demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain
production or discipline. 67
The assertion of Birdsong, and to the extent Pruitt's
testimony would appear parallel, that the order of Pruitt
to Ford to remove the "Good Guys" article was not
premised on the Respondent's no-solicitation rule is
necessarily rejected. Respondent's, November 4, 1966,
elaboration of the purpose of the rule refutes this asser-
tion of Birdsong. There is no other reasonable explana-
tion of Respondent's assertion in the November 4 notice
that: "We cannot permit material or items in the working
area which would create a harmful disruption or interfere
with production or discipline."
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find that Respond-
ent's purported reasons for the 3-day suspension and
subsequent layoff of Ford were, in each instance, pretex-
tuous, and the real reason and underlying motive for both
actions was the protected union activities engaged in by
Ford, and that these actions were discriminatorily
motivated in contravention of the provisions of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Discharge of Edwards
The discharge of Edwards varies substantially, in con-
text, from the discharge of Ford, even though the chain of
events which set it in motion was initiated by Edwards at-
taching a copy of the "Good Guys" article on his toolbox.
It is undisputed that on October 19 Edwards successive-
ly declined and refused a request from Crawford that Ed-
wards proceed to Pruitt's office; an order from Pruitt,
conveyed by Crawford, that Edwards proceed to Pruitt's
office; a direct order from Pruitt, by telephone, that Ed-
wards proceed to Pruitt's office. Edwards' premise was
that he would not comply with the order until and unless
he was assured that he could be accompanied by a wit-
ness of his own choosing. It appears undisputed that, im-
mediately thereafter, Pruitt proceeded to Edwards' work
station and advised him of his discharge.
While it is undisputed that the suspension of Ford on
October 19 intervened between Crawford's request that
Edwards report to Pruitt's office and Pruitt's ultimate
direct order, the fact of Ford' s suspension was unknown
to Edwards. Edwards so acknowledged. It may be in-
ferred, nevertheless, that Edwards knew the reason he
was being summoned was directly related to his failure to
comply with Pruitt's order of October 18 to Edwards and
the others to remove the "Good Guys" article form their
toolboxes prior to the commencement of work on Oc-
tober 19.
General Counsel, on the premise set forth, urges the
application of the Board's Decision in the Franklin Brass
case .611 I find that case inapposite. Edwards, unlike Full-
wood, in the Franklin Brass case, was not being asked to
go to Pruitt's office to discuss his views of unionization.
General Counsel urges the application of the Board's
finding relative to Wright, in the Aluminum Extrusions
case.69 I find this case inapposite. It is clear that Wright
was discharged for refusing to discontinue wearing a
union button, upon order from management. The Board
rejected Respondent's contention, in that case, that the
refusal was an act of insubordination.
There can be no doubt, and no conjecture is required to
assume , as Respondent asserted during the hearing, that
if Edwards had reported to Pruitt's office he would have
been given the same 3-day layoff that was meted out to
65 I can perceive no purpose in setting forth at length the facts which
establish, without dispute, that a substantial portion of Respondent's
machine shop production requires extreme accuracy and close tolerances
to avoid catastrophes, when the end products are placed under extremely
high pressures. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the required
tolerances were not met, that production was in any way affected by any
of the union activity, including the posting of the "Good Guys" article.
66 This fact alone gives rise to a question of how much observing Pruitt
had actually done in the machine shop area on October 13 and 14, when,
in fact, these articles were on the toolboxes of Ford and Bridges.
61 N L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U S. 105, 113, citing
Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L R.B., 324 U S. 793, 803.
66 Franklin Brass Products, 151 NLRB 800, 807, 808.
6s Aluminum Extrusions, Inc., 148 NLRB 1662, 1669, 1670.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ford, and for the same reason. Such a result I would have
found violative of the Act. However, here we are not con-
fronted with the result that might have obtained had Ed-
wards complied with Pruitt's order. Edwards' refusal,
which is undisputed, was premised upon Edwards' con-
cept that he was entitled to be accompanied by a witness
of his own choosing. In other words, Edwards sought to
establish the conditions under which he would comply
with an order from his supervisor, Pruitt. No mental gym-
nastics are essential to characterize this as a blatant act of
insubordination. There are numerous Board and court
cases which hold that an employee's engaging in union
and concerted' activities neither increase nor decrease his
prerogatives as an employee.
I am convinced, and I find, that while Pruitt, as he
acknowledged, would have suspended Edwards had Ed-
wards complied with Pruitt's order, Edwards' refusal to
comply was the sole causation of the discharge. Ac-
cordingly, for the reasons stated, I will recommend
dismissal of those allegations of the complaint which al-
lege that the discharge of Edwards was discriminatorily
motivated.
The Transfers of Deaton , Stephens , and Evans
Deaton
I have found, supra, that from the time he was initially
hired in April 1965 until August 12, 1966, Deaton was
the tow motor operator in the paint shop and sandblasting
department. I have also found that Deaton's immediate
supervisor, Bourland, interrogated Deaton about his dis-
tribution of UAW matchbooks on August 4, 1966. It is
patent that Deaton was active in the union campaign,
having obtained some 10 or 12 union authorization cards
from a total of approximately 20 to 25 employees in the
paint department. Deaton also wore union insignia in the
plant prior to his transfer. Deaton estimated there was a
total of approximately 15 employees in shipping and
receiving. He described a job to which he was trans-
ferred, over his objection, as causing him discomfort by
reason of the chemical fumes to which he was exposed in
loading chemicals on trucks.
While it is undisputed that warehouse area supervisor,
Tidwell, on August 12, 1966, in the conference related to
Deaton's transfer, advised Deaton that Respondent had
a policy of transferring people from time to time because
"it gives them an opportunity to broaden their knowledge,
it gives them greater experience of the overall company
operations," it is also undisputed that Deaton had never
previously been so advised by anyone in management. It
is undisputed that the transfer was a lateral transfer, and,
as stated by Tidwell, Deaton's chances for advancement
were exactly the same, neither diminished nor increased
by reason of the transfer. Respondents premise of the
reason for transfer is thus patently without merit.
I find no merit in Tidwell's assertion that he had
received complaints from Paint Shop Foreman Newman
about Deaton's work. There is no evidence these com-
plaints were a motivation in effectuating the transfer, and
there is no contention that they were called to the atten-
tion of Deaton. Tidwell acknowledged these complaints
were not noted in Deaton' s personnel file and that
Deaton did not receive an AVO prior to the transfer.
Deaton at all times received his periodic merit wage in-
creases.
Respondent urges that the transfer was motivated by a
"business reason." Respondent urges its policy was to
move material handling employees around, If Respond-
ent had such policy it was neigher known to employees,
in the light of numerous General Counsel witnesses who
testified they have never been advised of such policy, nor
does it appear in the booklet distributed to employees, or
in a separate booklet distributed to supervisors, which
ostensibly set forth the Company's varied policies.
Absent any satisfactory explanation by Respondent as
to the motivating reason for the transfer of Deaton to a
less desirable job, in terms of physical comfort; in view of
the timing of the transfer during Deaton's efforts to obtain
union authorization cards in the paint shop; and in view
of Respondent's knowledge of Deaton's union activities,
I find it reasonable to infer that the transfer was dis-
criminatorily motivated and thus violative of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Stephens
I have found, supra, that Stephens was initially hired as
a forklift or tow motor operator in the material handling
department and was assigned to the warehouse. At all
times he received his regular periodic merit wage in-
creases. In late 1964 he was assigned to the job of
dispatcher, which included the driving of a forklift or a
three-wheeled buggy, with the duties of obtaining parts
and material and making distribution thereof. He also, at
that time, was temporarily assigned as a crane operator in
the truck shop for approximately 3 months, a material
handling department assignment. In June 1966, Foreman
Shirley assigned Stephens to operate the overhead crane
in the truck shop for 1 week, and 3 weeks later advised
Stephens that he was to be assigned to that job per-
manently. -
I have found that Stephens attended union meetings,
signed a union authorization card in early August 1966,
started wearing UAW insignia at the plant on approxi-
mately August 12, and obtained some 12 or more union
authorization cards, inferentially in the truck shop.
On August 18, 1966, in a conversation with Tidwell,
and others, upon being asked if he would accept a
transfer, Stephens advised Tidwell that Stephens felt the
forklift job in the steelhouse was the diciest and the hard-
est job in the department. Stephens also advised Tidwell
that he thought he, at that time, had the best job in the de-
partment, as a crane operator. Stephens was transferred
to the forklift job in the steelhouse. He described the
work as being dirtier by reason of the spillage of "milk,"
a mixture of oil and water used as a cooling agent, which
sometimes spilled on his clothing. The rearrangement of
material, to keep it from falling off a pallet, also con-
stituted physical exercise, which was not required on the
job of crane operator. On the day of Stephens' transfer,
August 19, he was advised by Foreman Bourland that
Bourland had been advised by Tidwell to keep Stephens
under close supervision, that Bourland did not un-
derstand why anyone working for Respondent needed
outside [union] help, and Bourland, pointing to the UAW
insignia worn by Stephens, advised Stephens, "that we'd
get along just fine, as long as I didn't let that interfere with
my job." Thereafter, about September 1, 1966, Tidwell
advised Stephens, in answer to Stephens' inquiry as to
why he was transferred, that Tidwell thought he was
doing Stephens a favor, that Stephens had a "gravy job,"
and that Tidwell wanted Stephens to have all the "gravy."
HALLIBURTON CO.
I find no merit in Respondent's effort to imply that a
consideration in the determination to transfer Stephens
related to Stephens' complaint about a smoke condition
in the overhead crane. While it is undisputed that
Stephens, at the urging of Tidwell, in relating how the
crane job could be improved, did relate a suggestion that
the cab could be enclosed, there is no evidence that such
a complaint was registered prior to the conference, which
was obviously held for the purpose of having Tidwell ad-
vise Stephens of his transfer. I also find no merit in the in-
ference that Stephens was transferred to the forklift job
because he was an experienced forklift operator. It is
patent that the IBM system was being installed, at the
time of transfer, and Stephens had no prior training in that
facet of the job.
Respondent, in its brief, acknowledges that Tidwell did
not tell Stephens that he was being transferred to broaden
his knowledge because Stephens already had the ex-
perience and knowledge of the job to which he was being
transferred. Respondent is thus inconsistent in asserting
that this was the reason for Stephens' transfer, while the
transfers of Deaton and Evans were purportedly for the
purpose of broadening their knowledge. Respondent al-
ludes, in its brief, to the testimony of Rose, who operated
the overhead crane in the truck shop, and described that
particular job as an undesirable job because of fumes.
Respondent then acknowledges that Rose, unlike
Stephens, had requested that he be transferred from the
crane job.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, I find the
transfer of Stephens was effectuated at the height of his
activities on behalf of the Union, to a job which it is un-
disputed he described to Tidwell as the most undesirable
job in the department. The union animus of Respondent
is demonstrated by the comment which Bourland made to
Stephens, relative to Stephens wearing the union insignia.
The transfer thus, it is reasonable to infer, was dis-
criminatorily motivated and violative of the provisions of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Evans, Jr.
I have found, supra, that Evans, Jr., was initially em-
ployed by Respondent in late 1964 as a saw helper in the
warehouse, also referred to as the saw house. He
received the periodic merit raises provided under
Respondent's merit raise plan. After 6 months as a
helper, while still so classified, he became an operator for
approximately 2 months, then was transferred part time,
to the overhead crane. He continued to work in the
sawhouse until his transfer on September 14, 1966.
September 14 was the first day on which Evans had
worn an organizing committee button. About 11:30 a.m.
Tidwell advised him that when he was first employed he
had been advised that he would be transferred-from time
to time. Evans denied ever having been so advised. In
response to Tidwell's inquiry as to whether he wished to .
be transferred, Evans indicated an interest in being trans-
ferred to the sheet metal shop. Evans was transferred to
the chemical room, with the duty of using a tow motor to
unload boxcars, including chemicals, which he had to
stack on pallets, and which weighed from 25 to 100
pounds. Evans asserted that if a sack burst, the dust
would get into his lungs and cause considerable discom-
fort. Evans credibly related that he had very little physi-
cal labor as a saw helper and none when he was operating
the crane.
1113
Tidwell was confused and unconvincing as to which of
Evans' supervisors had complained of Evans' work, but
acknowledged he did not advise Evans that he was being
transferred because of the complaints. Tidwell
acknowledged advising Evans that Tidwell thought it
would help Evans to be transferred since he would learn
how to fill out shop orders. I have found, supra, Tidwell's
assertion that he advised employees when they were
hired of Respondent's policy relative to transfer was sub-
stantially disputed by numerous witnesses, including one
hired by Tidwell, and was not credible.
I have found that the day after the transfer of Evans,
Foreman Major approached him and asked him why he
was wearing the UAW button, and Evans responded he
did not want to talk about it. On October 4, 1966,
Foreman Major advised Evans if he pulled the UAW but-
ton off everything would be okay.
Respondent acknowledges, in its brief, that Evans' op-
portunity for advancement, as stated by Tidwell, remains
the same as it was formerly. Respondent acknowledged
that Evans was transferred to the material department.
The former is under Warehouse Area Supervisor Cloud,
while the latter is under Tidwell. While Cloud did not tes-
tify, Respondent asserts that its policy of transferring em-
ployees to broaden their knowledge of Respondent's
operations applied in the material department as well as
the material handling department. I find no substance in
this contention.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, I find the unex-
plained transfer of Evans, whom the record fails to in-
dicate was ever reprimanded or advised of complaints
about the manner in which he carried out his various as-
signments, while he at all times received his regular
periodic merit increases, coupled with the timing of the
transfer the day after he first wore his union organizing
button to a job entailing more physical labor and more
onerous duties, was discriminatorily motivated and viola-
tive of the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
In arriving at my findings on credibility, I have con-
sidered: the demeanor of the witnesses; the interest, or
lack thereof, each may have in the outcome of the litiga-
tion; the self-contradictions, particularly in the testimony
of Birdsong; the inconsistencies of testimony when com-
pared to undisputed documentary evidence;' candor or
lack thereof; and the failure to refute opposing testimony.
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 Respondent
operations described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship 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 Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having suspended and subsequently dis-
charged Burl M. Ford on October 19 and 25, 1966, respec-
tively, because of his union activities, I recommend that
the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstate-
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
might have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages from the date of his suspension and sub-
sequent discharge on October 19 and 25, 1966, respec-
tively, to the date when pursuant to the Recommended
Order herein contained, Respondent shall offer reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during said period. Said
backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716.
Respondent having discriminatorily transferred Ken-
neth R. Deaton on August 15, 1966, Jerry Stephens on
August 19, 1966, and Jack Evans, Jr., on September 14,
1966, I recommend that Respondent reinstate each to his
respective former position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges of employment.
It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to
make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and
other records to facilitate the checking of amount of
earnings due.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices com-
mitted, the commission of similar and other unfair labor
practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall therefore
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and de-
sist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed
its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW),, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion ," to the extent therein found , the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment , and the terms and conditions of
employment , of Burl M . Ford , Kenneth R. Deaton, Jerry
Stephens , and Jack Evans , Jr., thereby discouraging the
free exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
and discouraging membership in or activities for the
above-named labor organization , the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act in its discharge , on October 19, 1966, of Delbert-Ed-
wards.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that Halliburton Company, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of its employees , by discharging,
transferring to less desirable jobs, or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
(b) Interrogating or threatening employees in a
manner violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(c) Prohibiting the wearing of union insignia in the
plant.
(d) Promulgating , maintaining , or enforcing a no-so-
licitation no-distribution rule which : (a) prohibits em-
ployees from soliciting union membership in work areas
during nonwork time of the employees involved; or (b)
prohibits employees from distributing literature in non-
work areas during nonwork time of the employees in-
volved ; disparately and discriminatorily applying said
rule to the posting of prounion literature on the personal
property of employees.
(e) In any other 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 the above-named Union, or any other labor or-
ganization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other
concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid of protection , or to refrain from any
and all such activities , except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Burl M. Ford immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed , and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's discrimination against him , in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in "The Remedy."
Notify Burl M . Ford, if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States , of his right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(b) Restore Kenneth R . Deaton , Jerry Stephens, and
Jack Evans, Jr., to the duties and job assignment formerly
assigned to each , without prejudice to the seniority or
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed by each.
(c) Revoke, rescind, and remove from the personnel
record of Harold Dean Patterson , the AVO issued by
Foreman Randall Tullous on September 16, 1966.
(d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for inspection and reproduction, all
payroll records, social security reports, timecards, per-
sonnel files, and all other records necessary to analyze,
compute , and determine the amount of backpay and
rights of employment to which discriminatees herein may
HALLIBURTON CO.
be entitled under the terms of this Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
(e) Post at its plant in Duncan, Oklahoma, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."70 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including each of Respondent's bulletin boards. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.71
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's
Decision the Respondent shall notify said Regional
Director, in writing, it will comply with the foregoing
Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the portion of para-
graph 8(a) of the complaint alleging conduct constituting
an unfair labor practice by Foreman George Bourland on
October 10, 1966, and the allegations of paragraph 10 of
the complaint alleging the discriminatory discharge of
Delbert Edwards, and the portions of paragraph 12 to 15,
to the extent they relate to said portions of paragraph 8(a)
and paragraph 10, be dismissed.
70 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
71 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Reccommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna-
tional Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
of our employees , by discharging , or transferring to
less desirable jobs, or by discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees or
threaten them with economic retaliation in a manner
violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
1115
WE WILL NOT prohibit the wearing of union insig-
nia in the plant.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain , or enforce, a
no-solicitation no-distribution rule which prohibits
our employees from soliciting union membership in
work areas during nonwork time of the employees in-
volved , or which prohibits employees from distribut-
ing literature in nonwork areas, during the nonwork
time of the employees involved , or which disparately
and discriminatorily applies said rule to the posting
of prounion literature on the personal property of
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in any other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or pro-
tection , or to refrain from any and all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of - employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Burl M . Ford immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
WE WILL make him whole for any loss of salary or
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him.
WE WILL restore Kenneth R. Deaton, Jerry
Stephens , and Jack Evans , Jr., to the duties and job
assignment formerly assigned to each , without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed by each.
WE WILL revoke, rescind , and remove from the
personnel record of Harold Dean Patterson the
AVO issued by Foreman Randall Tullous on Sep-
tember 16, 1966.
Dated By
HALLIBURTON COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify Burl M. Ford if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal
Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas
76102, Telephone 334-2921.