Hillin Drilling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 510 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hillin Drilling Company and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 826, AFL-CIO. Case
16-CA-3627
September 19, 1969
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Issue
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On July 25, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
together with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner 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 brief, and the entire record in
this case. and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Hillin Drilling
Company, Odessa, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'We reject, as did the Trial Examiner, Respondent ' s contention that the
eligibility principles of Hondo Drilling constitute an unlawfully adopted
rule which may not be applied herein We note particularly that the Hondo
Drilling standards have been applied only if warranted by the facts of a
given case See, e g. Carl B King Drilling Company . 164 NLRB No 68
We further note that here, Respondent was granted a hearing on objections
to permit it to litigate both the validity of the Hondo Drilling standards,
and the propriety of their use as applied to its operations, and that the
facts were fully contained in the record and considered by the Board in its
ruling thereon Accordingly, in view of the Respondent's agreement that
the election herein be held subject to its right to litigate thereafter the
propriety of using the Hondo Drilling eligibility standards, we see no basis
for concluding that the Board's ruling did not amount to a finding made
on the facts of record in an adjudicatory proceeding which was binding on
the Respondent Cf, N.L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S
759. Under these circumstances , also, it is clear that all procedural
safeguards on behalf of Respondent were preserved and were fully
satisfied.
CHARLFS W. SCHNFIDER, Trial Examiner: The case arises
on a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the General
Counsel upon an admitted refusal by the Respondent to
bargain with a certified union on the ground that the
Respondent's challenges and objections to the election had
been improperly overruled.
The Representation Proceeding'
On March 29, 1968, pursuant to Section 9 of the
National Labor Relations Act, International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, filed a Representation Petition in Case
16-RC-4875. On April 23, 1968, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 16 approved a stipulation for
certification upon consent election which had been
executed by the Hillin Drilling Company, herein called the
Respondent, and the Union, wherein they agreed that an
election be held among the employees of Respondent in an
appropriate bargaining unit described hereinafter.
On May 9, 1968, secret-ballot elections were held at
Odessa, Texas. and Monahans, Texas, among the
employees in the appropriate unit to select a bargaining
representative. Upon conclusion of the balloting the
parties were lurnished a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 33 eligible voters. 14 cast valid votes for
and 13 cast valid votes against the Union, 9 cast
challenged ballots, and there were no void ballots. The
challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election.
Pursuant to timely objections to the election filed by
Respondent on May 14, 1968, and by the Union on May
15, 1968, an investigation of the challenged ballots was
made by the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 who
thereafter on June 25, 1968, issued his Report on
Challenged Ballots in which he recommended to the
Board that the challenges to three ballots he sustained and
that the challenges to the remaining six ballots be
overruled. The Acting Regional Director further
recommended that resolution of the objections be
deferred, pending a decision on the challenged ballots. On
July 8, 1968, Respondent filed with the Board in
Washington, D.C., its Exceptions to Report on
Challenged Ballots by Regional Director, in which it
excepted to the over-ruling of the challenge to the ballot
of one employee, I D. Haney, for the reason that Haney
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. No other
exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report were
filed by either party within the time provided therefor.
The Board on July 16, 1968, as corrected on July 23,
1968. issued an order directing Regional Director to open
and count challenged ballots in which it deferred ruling on
'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding , Case 16-RC-4875 as the term "record" is
defined in Sec. 102.68 and 102 69 (1) of the Board ' s rules (Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure , National Labor Relations
Board, Series 8 as amended). See LTV Electrosystems , Inc , 166 NLR B
No 81, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (CA. 4); Golden Age Beverage Co, 167
NLRB No 24, enfd . 415 F 2d 26 (C A 5), Intertype Co. v. Penello. 269
N Supp 573 (D C Va ), Intertype Co v N L.R. B. 401 F 2d 41 (C A. 4),
Follett Corp et al. 164 NLRB No. 47, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7), Sec
9(d) of the National Labor Relations Act
178 NLRB No. 84
HILLIN DRILLING COMPANY
the employer ' s exception to the challenge to the ballot of
Haney and adopted, pro forma, the Acting Regional
Director ' s recommendation on the remaining challenges.
The Regional Director was directed to open and count the
overruled challenges to which exception had not been
taken. The Regional Director was further directed to
prepare and serve on the parties a revised tally of ballots.
In the event that the revised tally of ballots showed the
one ballot excepted to be determinative of the election.
the Regional Director was instructed to refer the matter
to the Board for further action on the Employer's
exception and the challenge to the ballot.
Thereafter, on July 24, 1968, the Regional Director
issued a revised tally of ballots which revealed 16 votes
for, and 15 votes against the Union , l ballot still
challenged , and one void . As the challenged ballot was
sufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director referred the matter to the Board on July 26,
1968, for further action. The Board, on August 15, 1968,
issued its Decision and Direction ordering the Regional
Director to open and count Haney ' s ballot and then
prepare a revised tally of ballots including the challenged
ballot. The Regional Director was further directed to take
appropriate action concerning any further unresolved
issues
Pursuant to the Board ' s direction, the Regional
Director opened Haney's challenged ballot and on August
23, 1968, issued a final Revised Tally of Ballots showing
17 votes cast for the Union and 15 votes against. On
August 26 , 1968, the parties were notified of the revised
results and on September 17, 1968, the Union withdrew
its objections to the election.
Pursuant to the Board ' s further direction , the Regional
Director then conducted an investigation of the three
objections to the election filed by the Respondent. The
objections were. (1) that the election should not have been
conducted under the voter eligibility rules set out in
Hondo Drilling Company NS L , 164 NLRB No 67, for
the reason that Respondent does not meet the criteria for
such rule (The stipulation for certification upon consent
election had specifically reserved to Respondent the right
to object to this election being conducted under such
special rules); (2) that a union observer had made a false
statement to two voters at one of the two voting places
during the voting ; and (3 ) that because of the violence
conducted by the Union in connection with another labor
dispute, one employee was so frightened and intimidated
that he failed to mark his ballot after being informed that
the Union challenged his right to vote and that he would
be investigated.
After an investigation pursuant to Section 102.69 of the
Board's rules, the Regional Director on September 19,
1968, issued his report on objections in which he
recommended to the Board that objections 2 and 3 be
overruled in their entirety and that a hearing be conducted
to enable the parties to present record evidence with
regard to objection 1. Thereafter on September 30, 1968,
Respondent filed Employer's exceptions to report on
objections with the Board in Washington, D.C., insol'ar as
the report recommended the overruling of objections 2
and 3. On November 22, 1968, the Board issued an order
directing hearing in which the Board found that
Objections 2 and 3 raised no material or substantial issues
of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the
Regional Director ' s findings , conclusions and
recommendations , or which would necessitate a hearing.
However, in regard to objection 1. in the absence of
exceptions to the Regional Director ' s recommendations,
511
the Board adopted pro forma the Regional Director's
recommendation that a hearing be conducted thereon for
the purpose of receiving evidence relating to the voter
eligibility rules set forth in Hondo Drilling Company,
NS L.. 164 NLRB No. 67, and Carl B. King Drilling
Company, 164 NLRB No. 68. and to the propriety of the
use of such rules in this case
A hearing on Respondent's objection 1 was held on
January 30, 1969, and thereafter, on February 19, 1969,
the Hearing Officer issued his report on objections in
which he recommended that objection 1 be overruled in its
entirely for the reason that the voter eligibility rules set
forth in the above-cited cases were applicable, and that the
Union be certified. The Respondent, pursuant to Section
102.69 ( c) of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations filed
timely exceptions with the Board in Washington. D.C., to
these recommendations. On May 9, 1969, the Board
issued its Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representative finding that the Respondent ' s exceptions
"raise no material or substantial issues of tact or law
which would warrant reversal of the Hearing Officer's
findings, conclusions , or recommendations ." Accordingly
the Board adopted the Hearing Officer ' s findings,
conclusions and recommendations, and, as the tally of
ballots showed that the Union had obtained a majority of
the valid ballots cast the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
The Complaint Case
On May 19. 1969, the Union filed the unfair labor
practice charge involved in the instant case, in which it
alleged that since on or about May 15, 1969, the
Respondent refused to bargain with the Union.
On May 29, 1969, the General Counsel, by the
Regional Director of Region 16. issued a complaint
(subsequently amended) and Notice of Hearing alleging
that the Respondent had committed unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and ( 5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union
upon request. On June 9, 1969, the Respondent filed its
Answer to the Complaint, and on June 18, 1969, its
answer to the Amendment to the Complaint, in which
certain allegations of the complaint were admitted and
others denied.
In its answers Respondent admits the following
allegations of the complaint: (1) filing and service of the
charge: (2) certain jurisdictional facts; (3) that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act; (4) that the unit is appropriate, (5) the receipt
of the final revised tally of ballots, the fact of the hearing
on Respondent's objection 1 and the fact of the Hearing
Officer's recommendation of dismissal thereof; (6) the
Union's request on or about May 13, 1969, to bargain
collectively. (7) the Respondent's refusal thereof on or
about May 15, 1969, and (8) that Joseph Connally,
attorney for Respondent , has been and is now an agent
for Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.
Respondent's answers denied paragraphs 7, 8 in part,
12, 13, 17, 18, and 19 of the complaint as amended. In
sum, Respondent denied that the stipulation for
certification upon consent election referred to in complaint
paragraph 7 contained an agreement that an election be
held for the employees of Respondent in the appropriate
unit. Respondent affirmatively asserted that it would show
that, subject to Respondent's right to litigate the propriety
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the application of the Hondo rule to it, "the Stipulation
provided that many non-employees be allowed to vote in
the election." Respondent also denied that the election
was conducted among the appropriate unit, that the
revised final tally of ballots showed that the Union had
obtained a majority of the valid votes, that the Union was
the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit, and that the
Respondent had committed or engaged in any unfair labor
practices.
Under date of June 19, 1969, received June 20, 1969,
Counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings in which he contends that the
pleadings considered together with the official Board
record in the underlying representation proceeding raise
no issues requiring a hearing, that Respondent's defense
set forth in its answers raise no litigable questions of fact
and that, as a matter of law, Respondent has no valid
defense to the complaint.
On June 24, 1969, 1 issued an order directing the
parties to show cause as to whether or not General
Counsel's motion should be granted.
On July 9, 1969. Respondent filed a response to order
to show cause stating contentions more specifically
referred to hereinafter No other responses have been
received
Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Counsel for the Respondent opposes the motion for
judgment on the pleadings. In its response. Respondent
urges that the General Counsel's motion should be denied
for the following reasons. First, Respondent asserts that
certain fact issues which have been created by
Respondent's pleadings and its objections to the elections
have never been litigated and that the Respondent is
entitled to present evidence at a hearing on these issues
and to confront witnesses and cross-examine them As a
matter of due process, Respondent insists, it is entitled to
such a hearing. Secondly, Respondent asserts that the
Board's Hondo rule was improperly applied to the facts
of this case and further, that even if Respondent were a
proper subject for the application of the rule as the rule
has been set out by the Board, the rule was adopted in
contravention of the requirements of Section 6 of the
National Labor Relations Act and Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act and thus it should not be
applied to Respondent. Thirdly, Respondent contests
General Counsel's motion which in Respondent's
response is said to pray "that in accordance with
Sections 102.20, 102 24, and 102.25 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations (Series 8, as amended) that the
allegations of the complaint be deemed to be admitted to
be true, and be so found prior to a hearing and without a
hearing being held, and that the Trial Examiner's Decision
be issued based thereon " Respondent asserts that, "Such
a prayer is contrary to the Rule relied upon, 102.20,
because Respondent has denied some allegations and
thereby raised and created fact issues within the pleadings
themselves.''
In support of its contention that it has raised litigable
fact issues, Respondent, in its response on page 2 lists the
two issues on which it seeks a hearing. They are (I) the
allegation that a union observer had made a false
statement to two voters at one of the two voting places
during the voting; and (2) the allegation that because of
the violence conducted by the Union one employee was so
frightened and intimidated that he failed to mark his
ballot after being informed that the Union challenged his
right to vote and that he would be investigated.
These are the exact issues which the Regional Director,
after an investigation pursuant to Section 102.69 of the
Board's Rules, recommended in his report on objections
of September 19, 1968 be overruled in their entirety
without a hearing. These recommendations were adopted
by the Board on November 22, 1968, at which time the
Board held that no material or substantial issues of fact or
law were involved which would warrant reversal of the
Regional Director's recommendation or which would
necessitate a hearing respecting the allegations. Thus
Respondents contention that a hearing is required has
already been resolved by the Board to the contrary in the
representation proceeding The Respondent thus seeks to
relitigate the issue here. This the Respondent may not do
before the Trial Examiner.
It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence, not to
permit litigation before a Trial Examiner in a complaint
case of issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior related representation proceeding ' This policy is
applicable even though no formal hearing on objections
has been provided by the Board. The Respondent does not
assert that it has newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence.
Contrary to Respondent's assertion, it is not entitled as
a matter of due process to an evidentiary hearing. There is
no absolute right to a hearing under Section 10(b) of the
Act if there are no litigable issues,' and that there are not
such issues here has been effectively decided by the Board
The cases cited by the Respondent' are not authority to
the contrary. Those cases hold that an evidentiary hearing
is required where there are substantial and material issues
They are not to be construed as requiring such a hearing
where, as here, there are no such issues.
Respondent's second contention concerns the
applicability of the Hondo rule (see Hondo Drilling
Company, N.S.L , 164 NLRB No. 67) to its operations.
In the Hondo case, the Board set down certain specialized
criteria for determining voter eligibility and the scope and
composition of the unit in operations of oil well drilling
employers who operated in the Permian Basin , an area
located in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico. These
differing standards were established because employment
practices in the oil well drilling industry differ
substantially from those found elsewhere.`
-Krieger-Ragsdale & Co, Inc., 159 NLRB 490. enfd 379 F 2d 517
(C A 7). cert denied 389 U S 1041, N L R B v Macomb Potterv.
376 F 2d 450 (C A 7), Howard Johnson Company. 164 NLRB No 121,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 63 NLRB No 71 Rnercide Press,
Inc v. NLRB 415 F 2d 281 (C A 5) See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v
Is L R B , 313 U S 146, 162, Board Rules and Regulations , Sec. 102 67(f)
and 102 69(c).
'Harry Campbell Sons' Corporation , 164 NLRB No 36, fn 9, and cases
there cited , O K. Van and Storage Inc, 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F 2d
74 (C A 5). N L R B. v Air Control Window Products . Inc. 355 F 2d
245 (C A. 5). See especially N L R B v. Bata Shoe Co. 377 F 2d 821, 826
(C A 4), " there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that
there be a hearing in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial
to determination of whether NLRB election results are to be accepted for
purposes of certification "
'V L R.B v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, 318 U S. 9, Home
Town Foods, Inc d/b/a Foremost Dairies of the South v N L R B, 55
LC 12,019, N L R B v Dallas City Packing Company , 230 F.2d 708
(C A 5), N L R B v Lamar Electric Membership Corp. 362 F 2d 507
(C.A 5); N L R B v. Jocklin Manufacturing Co, 314 F.2d 627 (C A. 2);
United States Rubber Co v N,L R.B. 373 F 2d 602 (C A. 5), N L R B
v. Lord Baltimore Press, Inc, 300 F 2d 671 (C A 4)
'Hondo Drilling Company , N S L., 164 NLRB No. 67
HiLLIN DRILLING COMPANY
Respondent claims that it is not a proper subject for
application of the Hondo rule and that the record bears
out this contention. What the record shows is that on
January 30, 1969, a hearing was held on Respondent's
contention that the Hondo rule was inapplicable to it and
on February 19, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued a report,
later adopted by the Board, in which he found that the
Hondo voter eligibility rules did in fact apply to
Respondent's operations.
Respondent is thus attempting to litigate a matter on
which a full hearing was afforded in the prior
representation proceeding. The Trial Examiner in these
circumstances is bound by the prior determination of the
representation proceeding.`
Respondent further asserts that in formulating the rule
in Hondo Drilling the Board failed to follow the
requirements of Section 6 of the National Labor Relations
Act and of Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The basis for this contention is not explained, but
presumably the proposition is that the Board was required
to follow the rule making procedure set out in Section 4
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S C. 553). This
contention is not sustained.
In the first place. the Board is directed by Section 9 of
the National Labor Relations Act to determine
appropriate units, to direct elections and to certify the
results thereof. In that connection the Board is given a
broad discretion "rarely to be disturbed." Packard Motor
Car Company v. N L.R.B. 330 US. 485, 491; State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 163
NLRB No. 24, enfd. 411 F 2d 356 (C.A 7); Ureda v.
Brooks, 365 F.2d 326 (C.A. 6). Section 9 and its
accompanying authority. reenacted by Congress following
passage of the Administrative Procedure Act, are not to
be considered as modified by Section 4 of the latter Act.
The Board decided the issue of the composition of the
voting unit in the adjudicatory proceeding and issued
appropriate orders. including a certification of the
bargaining representative. That action, being within the
Board's statutory authority, was therefore valid
irrespective of the requirements of Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act. N.L R B. v.
Wyman-Gordon Co. 394 U.S. 759.
In the second place the Hondo rule is a general
statement of policy, applicable on a case by case basis in
accordance with the employment experience of the
particular employer. Such a rule, if rule it can be called, is
not subject to the requirements of Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Section 4(a) states in part:
Except where notice or hearing is required by statute,
this subsection shall net apply to . . general statements
of policy... .
The hearing referred to is, of course, one relating to the
establishment of a statement of policy. There is no statute
requiring notice or hearing in the establishment of
statements of policy in representation issues of this nature.
In the third place the Respondent was given adequate
notice of the proposal to apply the Hondo rule to the
Respondent's situation and to contest it. The Stipulation
for Certification upon Consent Election specifically
recognized the Respondent's right to contest and to
litigate the issue. Thus, paragraph 7 of the Stipulation
provided in part as follows
... this Stipulation for Consent is without waiver of or
prejudice to the Employer's right to contest and litigate
`See cases cited at fn 2, supra
513
through objections to the election. Section 8(a)(5)
procedures or otherwise the validity of or applicability
of the particular voter eligibility rule followed by the
Regional Director for the employees of this Employer
in this election, pursuant to direction of the National
Labor Relations Board in Hondo Drilling Company,
N S.L , 164 NLRB No. 67 and Carl B King Drilling
Co., 164 NLRB No. 68.
The Respondent exercised that right, and a hearing was
provided for this purpose in which the Respondent was
afforded full opportunity to present its views and evidence
both as to the intrinsic merit of the Hondo rule and the
validity of its specific application to the Respondent's
operations. Thus, even if it be assumed that establishment
of the Hondo rule was subject to the requirements of
Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act the
Respondent has been afforded every right to which it
would have been entitled if the application of the rule had
been pursuant to the procedures of Section 4 instead of by
adjudication Thus, the Respondent has not been
prejudiced in any event. Cf. Wyman-Gordon Co., .supra.'
The last of Respondent's contentions is that by its
denial of some of the allegations of the complaint it has
raised and created fact issues within the pleadings
themselves which require a hearing. This contention is
without merit Pursuant to Section 102.20 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Respondent must specifically
either deny or explain, unless he is without knowledge.
each allegation of the complaint or it will be deemed to be
admitted. It does not follow, however, that a simple denial
of the allegation will always raise a factual issue. Here, on
the basis of the prior representation proceeding, which has
been officially noted, it is found that the denials of the
allegations of complaint paragraphs 7, 8. 12. 13, 17, 18,
and 19 do not raise issues warranting a hearing.
There thus being no unresolved matters requiring an
evidential hearing the motion of the General Counsel for
Judgment of the Pleadings is granted, and I hereby make
the following further.
Findings and Conclusions
1. TFIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hillin Drilling Company is. and has been at all times
material herein, a Texas corporation. having its principal
offices in Odessa, Texas, and engaged in the business of
drilling oil and gas wells in southeast New Mexico and
that area in west Texas known as the Permian Basin.
In the course and conduct of its business, Respondent,
during the past calendar year. which period is
representative of all times material herein, performed
services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located
'Indeed the Respondent appears to have been accorded more procedural
protection by the adjudication than he would have received if the Board
had used the rule making mechanism Under Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act the only notice of the rulemaking to which
the Respondent would have been entitled is publication of the proposal, its
time and place, in the Federal Register of which Respondent may or may
not have learned But whether it was aware of the proceeding or not, the
Respondent would have been bound by the rule , and its only recourse
would have been to file a petition for a waiver or amendment of the rule
U S v Storer, 351 U.S. 192 In addition under Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act the Respondent's participation would have
been limited to "submission of written data. views or arguments with or
without the opportunity to present the same orally in any manner"-a
degree of participation substantially less than that accorded the
Respondent by the Board
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outside the State of Texas, and, during the same period of
time, purchased goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from outside the State of Texas which were
transferred to its operations in the State of Texas directly
from other states of the United States
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION iNVOIV'FD
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE UNI'AiR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
On May 9. 1968, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board in
which a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
designated and selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. On May 9, 1969, the
Union was certified by the Board as, and at all times since
the Union has been, the collective-bargaining
representative of a majority of the employees in the said
unit and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been, and
is. the exclusive representative of all the employees in said
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay. wages. hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
It is admitted and found that on or about May 13,
1969, the Union requested the Respondent to meet with it
for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to the
employees in the appropriate unit, and that on or about
May 15, 1969, Respondent refused and continues to refuse
to do so.
By thus refusing to bargain collectively the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with,
restrained. and coerced its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has refused to
bargain collectively it will be recommended that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The nature of employment with the Respondent, which
impelled the Board to apply the Hondo rule to the
election, makes special provision necessary for adequate
publication of the provisions of the order As has been
seen, employment may be at locations other than at
Odessa and Monahans. In addition some employees who
were on the Respondent's payroll at the time of the
refusal to bargain, but are not at the present time, may
anticipate possible re-employment by the Respondent
Therefore, in addition to requiring the posting of copies of
the order at the offices and yards of the Respondent at
Odessa. it will be recommended that the order contain the
following provisions
(1) That copies be posted at crew headquarters at
drilling sites for 60 days or until the rig is stacked.
whichever occurs first.
(2) That copies be provided the Union for posting (the
Union willing) at union halls or meeting places in the
Permian basin.
In view of the fact that the election was held on May 8,
1968, special provision is also necessary concerning the
duration of the certification, to the end that the employees
will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining
agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac
Poultry Co, Inc. 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co. d/h/a
Lainar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600
(C.A 5), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817: Burnett Construction
Co , 149 NLRB 1419. 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10)
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, I recommend that the Board
issue the following.
ORDER
Hillin Drilling Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with international
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees in the following appropriate
bargaining unit
All employees, but excludirg office clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive collective
bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 826,
APL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its offices and yards in Odessa, Texas,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies
of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by
an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Similar copies shall be
posted at the crew headquarters at drilling sites for 60
days or until the rig is stacked, whichever occurs first
Copies shall also be provided the Union for posting (the
Union willing) at Union halls or meeting places in the
Permian basin. Reasonable steps shall he taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals enforung an Order' shall he substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
HILLIN DRILLING COMPANY 515
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.'
'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 16 , in writing, within 10 days from receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE 10 Al L EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
WE WILL NOI refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Operating Engmeers , Local 826,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of all our following employees:
All employees, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees , watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
collective-bargaining representative.
Wi- WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit and if an
understanding is reached we will sign a contract with
the Union.
Dated By
HILLIN DRILLING
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
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
Any questions concerning this notice may he directed to
the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal Office
Building. 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102
Telephone 817-334-2921.