Layton Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 252 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visors as to Eaton's general attitude of resentment toward criticisms by supervisors
and his threats to whip or to get even with those who reprimanded him, they estab-
lish that Eaton was discharged for the cause assigned. It is so found.
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases, which I find necessary to
remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I shall also recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it charges Respondent with unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the above finding of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operation of Respondent's business as set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Caroline M. Layton White , d/b/a Layton Oil Company and Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1249. July 25, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 17, 1959, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
I The Respondent has requested oral argument. As the record and brief adequately
present the issues and the position of the parties, the request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
128 NLRB No. 27.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 253
rulings are hereby affirmed 2 The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications.
1. We find, like the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent, through
her supervisory agents, Standeford, Stanley,3 Babb, and Emert, vio-
lated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogation of employees con-
cerning their union activity, by surveillance of the May 4 union
meeting at Sapulpa, and by threats of reprisal and promises of benefit,
calculated to discourage union activities.
2. The Trial Examiner found that on April 25, 1959, Respondent
terminated the employment of Jack C. Thomas at her Sapulpa field
location and on April 30,1959, terminated the employment of Thomas
J. King, E. Ray Hall, Robert D. Downey, and Lee M. Williams at her
Dewey field location for discriminatory reasons and thereby violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. We agree 4 and find, consistent
with the basic credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner, that
there is ample evidence in the record to support the Section 8(a) (3)
and (1) allegations of the complaint on both bases on which the com-
plaint was litigated, namely : (1) that the Respondent effected the
termination of the above-mentioned employees under guise of a
reduction in force which would not have been effectuated but for
antiunion considerations, and (2) that, even assuming the Respondent
effected the reduction in force because of economic necessity alone, the
Respondent was motivated by antiunion considerations in selecting the
employees here involved, rather than other employees, for termination.'
2 No exceptions were filed with the Board to the Trial Examiner 's rulings concerning
Rule 43 ( b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , and concerning other evidentiary
questions which arose at the hearing. As no exceptions were filed , and as a reversal
of such rulings would not affect our agreement with the Examiner ' s ultimate
conclusion that terminations were made at the two field locations in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to determine the correctness of
the Trial Examiner's evidentiary rulings.
awe agree with the Trial Examiner that Stanley, head roustabout at the Dewey loca-
tion, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act . The credited
testimony establishes that Stanley regularly was in charge of and assigned work to 8 to
12 roustabouts, that he substituted for Field Superintendent Standeford in the latter's
absence, that he effected the discharge of employees, and that he was summoned by
Respondent to the April 27 meeting of management employees at Independence , Kansas,
at which the Union, as well as general business conditions , was discussed.
4 The Trial Examiner dismissed the Section 8(a) (3) allegations as to Paul Smith. As
no exceptions were filed to such dismissal, we adopt it pro forma.
8 The Trial Examiner held that, having called certain of the managerial officers and
agents of the Respondent as witnesses , the General Counsel became "bound" by their
testimony with respect to the Respondent's economic or financial circumstances as of the
dates here material . He further found, in accord with this testimony , and, in the absence
of exceptions, we adopt such finding , that Respondent 's financial condition would have
justified reductions in the work force. He concluded, howevef, that neither the financial
circumstances of the Respondent, nor any other economic reasons, actually supplied the
motivation for the terminations here involved , but, rather , that the operative reasons
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record amply demonstrates the strong antiunion animus and
intent of the Respondent, stemming from that purpose, to rid herself
of the employees she regarded as responsible for the instigation of
union activity 6 Shortly after the union activity began, the Respond-
ent's agents took calculated steps, including the interrogation of the
employees, to obtain information as to who among them were most
strongly in favor of the Union and had promoted activity on its
behalf. On April 22, just prior to the meeting held and scheduled by
the Union for the Dewey employees, Standeford, Respondent's field
superintendent at Dewey, and Stanley, head roustabout, Summoned the
employees together and spoke to them about their organizational
efforts. Standeford and Stanley clearly indicated, as the Trial Ex-
aminer found, that continuation of union activity would result in
loss of employment or, at the least, loss of benefits. Despite these
coercive efforts to discourage activity, some of the employees nonethe-
less attended the Union's April 22 meeting. Within 5 days thereafter,
on April 27, the Respondent summoned its supervisory and mana-
gerial employees together at its main office and directed them, in effect,
to "get" the men who were leaders of the union activities and to fire
them. On the very next day, April 28, six employees who had at-
tended the Union's April 22 meeting were told by Standeford that
they were laid off effective April 30. Five of these six-Blanchard,
Hall, King, Downey, and Williams-represented, as a whole, the
employee group which had most prominently identified itself with
the Union's organizational activity.'' While two other employees who
were in fact discriminatory . Cf Missouri Transit Company, and its President, P. W.
Fletcher, 116 NLRB 587 , 589-590, enfd 250 F . 2d 261 ( C A. 8). See also Harlan B.
Browning and Roy J. Rasco , d/b/a Cottage Bakers , 268 F. 2d 938 (CA. 10 ), enfg 120
NLRB 841. The Respondent would have this conclusion reversed because the same
Respondent 's agents who testified as to what the financial or economic conditions of
the Respondent were also testified that these conditions motivated the termination actions
here involved We find no merit to this position The Respondent ' s motivation was the
substantive issue raised by the complaint and was presented to the Board for its determi-
nation on a record which was not confined solely to the testimony to which the Respond-
ent refers . In the exercise of the judicial function thus called into play, the statute
mandates that the record as a whole must be appraised both to determine what the true
facts are and what inferences such facts reasonably impel. See Section 10 ( c) and (e) of
the Act. The underlying determinations of credibility and of the weight to be afforded
particular and often contradictory pieces of evidence must , of course , be made We are
here satisfied , from our examination of the record as a whole, both that no basis exists
for overruling the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions, and that the preponderance of
all of the relevant evidence amply supports the ultimate conclusions sustaining the
complaint
O Respondent alleges that Thomas , discussed infra, Hall , King, Downey , Williams, and
Paul Smith , the employees who were the subject of the Section 8(a) (3) allegations of the
complaint , were "laid off " As the undisputed evidence shows that Respondent hired new
employees in the same classifications , and did not recall these employees , we find, as did
the Trial Examiner, and contrary to the Respondent 's contention , that they were in fact
terminated rather than " laid off."
7 Four union meetings were held which employees at Respondent ' s Dewey location
attended The first meeting was the March 20 regular meeting of the Union 's Caney
local. The second meeting was the Caney local's April 3 regular meeting. The Union
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 255,
had not attended the Union's April 22 meeting also received layoff
notices that date, they were not in fact ,terminated.'
The strong and almost inescapable inference arising from this
sequence of events is that the "layoffs" thus undertaken were to
effectuate discriminatory purposes. This inference is bolstered by
other facts. Thus, the 2-day notification represented a departure
from normal company policy of giving 2 weeks' notice or 1 week's
separation pay.' The list of the employees given termination notices,
considered as a whole, was totally unrelated to, and represented no
consideration of, the seniority and other principles Respondent had
theretofore considered in effecting layoffs and discharges? As indi-
cated more fully in the Intermediate Report, the reason given to the
employees, sale of equipment to third parties, was plainly false, and
the reasons for the terminations as supplied by Respondent's agents at
the hearing, that there was a causal connection between the state of
the Respondent's budget and the alleged curtailment action is
squarely contradicted by the objective facts.
In more specific terms, Respondent's agents pointed to the depleted
state of the funds budgeted for development costs for the fiscal year
ending August 31, and alleged both that a firm decision to reduce these
costs by curtailing the work force had been made as early as February
1959, and that directions to effect such a result were given at that time
to Standeford at the Dewey location. In appraising these claims, we
then scheduled and held two special ' meetings for Dewey employees • April 8 and 22.
Blanchard , Hall, and Downey attended all four meetings ; King attended all the meetings
except for one meeting of the Caney local , and Williams , who commenced working for
Respondent on March 30 , attended both special meetings held for Respondent 's employees.
There were three employees who also attended the Union 's April 22 meeting but did
not receive layoff notices They had not shown the same strong interest in the Union
indicated by the employees who were given notice . Two of them had attended no prior
meetings and Parks , alone among the three to attend a prior meeting , had only attended
that of April 8 at which 17 of the approximately 20 Dewey employees were present. In
any event , the failure to give notices to these three in no way negates an inference of
discriminatory motivation as to other employees . See N .L.R.B. v. Earl I. Stfer8, d/b/a
Ssfers Candy Company, 171 F. 2d 63 (CA 10).
8 Thompson and Stover, these two employees , had attended one prior union meeting.
Thompson was told by Standeford on the same day he received his notice to "forget it"
but not to tell the other men ; Stover was told on April 30 , the day the layoffs were to
be effective , to return to work on May 4 but not to tell the other men. In addition,
Blanchard , who, as noted above, had attended all four union meetings , was also told on
April 30 to return to work on May 4 but not to tell the other men. When he returned,
he was told by Standeford that if he stayed away from union meetings he would be "all
right " We note in this connection that Blanchard was the only employee capable of
performing the road maintenance equipment work
Nowhere does the Respondent explain why she immediately nullified Thompson 's notice
and "recalled " Stover and Blanchard , although she is contrarily contending that the April
28 notices were given pursuant to a decision made long before this date to curtail develop-
ment costs
8 Where 2 weeks ' notice was not possible , Respondent generally paid affected employees
1 week ' s separation pay. Where terminations occurred because equipment had been sold,
Respondent required the purchasers to give the men on the rig a chance to keep their jobs,
and she asked purchasers to keep the men for at least 2 weeks
10 Respondent normally took into consideration the seniority and marital status of its
employees when planning layoffs and discharges Neither factor was considered by the
Respondent in selecting these employees for termination.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
note at the outset that there is an inconsistency between the claimed
existence of a curtailment order or decision as early as February and
the Respondent's failure to follow the 2-week notice policy in effecting
the terminations here involved. This was never explained. More im-
portantly, however, we note a basic conflict between these claims and
the actual facts as disclosed from an examination of both the Respond-
ent's hiring prior and subsequent to the dates relevant here and the
size of Respondent's complement of employees at Dewey at a date after
the terminations here in issue. Thus, such examination shows that :
(1) Standeford hired four new development employees at Dewey be-
tween the end of March and the end of April, one of them being hired
on April 28, the very day the termination notices were given; 11 (2) Re-
spondent hired a number of new employees after April 28, recalling
but two of those who had been laid off on that date; 12 and (3) the
complement of development employees working at Dewey in early
August, and just prior to the end of the Respondent's fiscal year, as
well as the total complement of employees, was greater than the num-
ber working on April 27, the day prior to the notice of layoff here
being considered, and was also greater than the number working at
the end of February, a time subsequent to that when the Respondent
allegedly made a "firm" decision to curtail its costs by reducing its
work force.13 Further, the record shows that although the Respond-
ent's depleted budget and its alleged decision to curtail for that rea-
u Williams was employed as a relief pumper on March 31 ; Paul Smith and Sheridan
as roustabouts in early April ; and Cooper as a second relief pumper on April 28.
" We have already noted the "recall" of Stover and Blanchard . The new employees
hired included four hired for "summer relief" development work : Roger Elmore on
May 18 ( roustabout) ; Reed Wahnee on June 1 (roustabout ) ; Leslie Holmes on June 2
(roustabout ) ; and Raleigh Evans on August 7 (relief pumper ). A fifth person, Gene
McElyea, was hired on July 13 for permanent work in operations as a pulling unit
operator , and did the same work which, as admitted by Field Superintendent Standeford
at the hearing , Hall and King , the terminated operations employees, were both qualified
to perform.
We note in this connection Respondent 's claim that the hiring of the four "summer
relief" employees to perform development work represented Respondent's following of
past practice of giving temporary employment to needy and promising college students.
Whether or not this is true, the fact remains , nonetheless , that Respondent's decision to
follow such hiring practice is inconsistent with the claim of a reduction in force moti-
vated by the necessity to curtail development costs.
' We append below an analysis of the increases and decreases in the development por-
tion of the work force ( comparison table 1 ) on the basis of the record facts available to
us. These record facts included: ( 1) a payroll sheet ( Respondent 's Exhibit No. 3) and
a seniority list ( Respondent ' s Exhibit No. 4) both containing the names of most though
not all of the Dewey employees, but without separately identifying which of them were
in development and which were in operations ; and (2 ) testimony given by Respondent's
agents at the hearing of hires and terminations of employees not included in the written
lists mentioned and of designations of such employees as development or operations
employees . For the purposes of making the comparisons reflected in table 1 below, only
the testimony given at the hearing provided a usable source of information . This analysis
bears both on the defense advanced at the hearing of an economic necessity to reduce
development costs and on the defense advanced in Respondent 's original answer that
employees were laid off for "lack of work" for them to perform.
We also append below an analysis of the increases and decreases in the total work
force (comparison table 2 ) on the basis of the payroll sheet ( Respondent 's Exhibit No. 3)
LAYTON OIL COMPANY
son affected its development work only, the termination action of
April 30 was not confined to development employees but extended to
which, because of the omission of employees hired during that period , was supplemented
by record testimony.
With respect to the dates of the comparisons , we regarded as relevant the period be-
tween March 1 and April 27 as one base and the period between April 28 and August 31
(the date the Respondent 's fiscal year ended ) as another. However, the testimony given
at the hearing indicated that the Respondent discharged one Sheridan sometime between
August 10 and September 16, the date the hearing closed, without specifying the day in
this period the discharge occurred . Accordingly , the use of August 31 as a date of
comparisons was not possible , and we utilized , instead, two dates : August 10, which was
before the Sheridan discharge ( and prior to the voluntary quits of Wahnee and Holmes
between August 12 and 31 ) ; and September 16, the date the hearing closed.
The analyses made show as follows :
(1) As to the Dewey development complement:
TABLE 1
Dates
Mar 1-Apr 27------------------------------------------------ 3 0
Apr. 28-Aug.10---------------------------------------------- 5 4
Aug l0-Sept 16 (date instant hearing closed)------------------ 0 3
Total------------------------------------------------------- 8 7
Increases in
the number of
Dewey develop-
ment employees
because of
hirings, using
end of Febru-
ary as a base
Number
257
Decreases
because of
terminations
or voluntary
quits
Number
(2) As to the total Dewey complement :
TABLE 2
Increases in
the total num-
ber of Dewey
employees be-
cause of hirings,
using end of
February as
a base
Total comple-
ment at end
of period
Decreases
because o
terminations
or voluntary
quits
Number Number Number
Dates
Mar 1-Apr 27----------------------------- 4 21 2
Apr 28-Aug 10------------------------------ 6 23 6
Aug.10-Sept.16------------------------------ 0 20 3
Total----------------- ---------------------- 10 11
While we note that payroll cost figures submitted through May as part of the Respond-
ent's payroll list (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3) tend to indicate some reduction in the
payroll costs for the latter month, we also note that list does not provide support for the
Respondent ' s position : The list is inaccurate as it omits employees whose hiring is indi-
cated in the testimony, and it does not Indicate whether payroll costs were reduced in
subsequent months. We note further that as the Respondent's defense of economic neces-
sity to curtail costs was confined to the development phase alone , this list , which is not
broken down into operations and development work, does not indicate whether the
development costs alone ( payroll or total costs ) were reduced by the personnel action
taken. Nor is there any other record evidence to indicate whether or to what extent
any reduction occurred In the Respondent's overall costs in the periods here material.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two men employed in the separately budgeted operations work,
namely, Hall and King.14
In light of all the foregoing circumstances, we are convinced, as
was the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent's decision to effect the
terminations of April 30 was reached at or just before the manage-
ment meeting of April 27, and that such decision did not stem from
the Respondent's concern with the depleted state of its budget but,
rather, from opposition to the union activity of her employees. We
find further that the same antiunion motivations applied to the Re-
spondent's unexplained failure to recall these employees.
We need not, however, rest our conclusions as to the discriminatory
nature of the Respondent's termination of King, Hall, Downey, and
Williams, and her failure to recall them, on this basis alone. For, if
we assume, as Respondent contends, that she did lay off employees
on April 30 for valid economic reasons alone, we nonetheless find that
she selected the particular employees affected for layoff, and there
after failed to recall them, not because of business considerations but
because she intended thereby to rid herself of employees about whom
she had strong suspicions, if not actual precise knowledge, of their
strong prounion interest and activity,'-' and as part of her demon-
strated plan to discourage organizational activities.
'Thus, the record establishes that in the past Respondent has selected
employees for layoff on the basis of seniority and other objective con-
siderations; these policies were not followed here.ls Moreover, al-
though the employees affected were told they would be recalled when
work was available for them to perform, instead, at noted above, they
were not recalled and Respondent hired new employees just prior and
subsequent to April 30 to do work which the terminated employees
were admittedly qualified to perform. And, as also noted above, the
14 Although Respondent ' s brief to the Board implies that operation cost also had to be
curtailed , the evidence offered at the hearing as to economic necessity referred only to
the separately budgeted development work.
16 In addition to the evidence set forth in the Intermediate Report proving that Re-
spondent had specific"knowledge , or strong suspicions as the identity of the union "in-
stigators ," the record also supports the finding that Respondent had specific knowledge
of Hall's role as a union adherent . Thus, Hall Wormed the Union representative , Cross,
at the April 22 meeting that Sanborn , his brother-in-law who worked at Sapulpa, had
told Hall that he and a majority of other Sapulpa employees were interested in the
Union . Cross spoke with Sanborn on April 23 . Sapulpa Field Superintendent Babb
immediately heard from Sanborn of his talk with Cross, including the information that
Sapulpa employee Thomas, discussed snfre, was interested in the Union and was planning
to contact other employees for a union meeting scheduled for Sapulpa on May 4 None
of Respondent ' s supervisors or officers denied knowledge of Hall 's union activities It is
reasonable to infer, and we so find, that Field Superintendent Babb also learned from
Sanborn that Hall was actively interested in the Union and had sent the union repre-
sentative to Sanborn.
16 The employees terminated were all senior to Gayle , Sherld4n, hired in early April,
and to Cary Cooper, hired April 28. In addition , Haull, a qualified -,pulling unit operator,
was senior to Luttrell , an assistant pulling unit operator , and to at least seven other
employees in various classifications , and King , whom Luttrell assisted . and, Downey were
both senior to at least one other employee ( Stover ) who was retained.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 259
employees thus selected for termination were the known or suspected
leaders of union activity at Respondent's Dewey operations. Absent
a credible explanation, these facts, including the departure from estab-
lished practices, clearly establish the discriminatory nature of Re-
spondent's selections.
Respondent contends, however, that her usual policies were not
followed because the employees affected were unable or unwilling to
do relief pumping, the sole work allegedly remaining to be done.
This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Thus, there is proof that:
(1) Williams, who was hired as a pumper, had actually performed
relief pumping work while in the Respondent's employ, without criti-
cism; (2) Hall had been offered the work of relief pumping early in
April, a fact demonstrating that the Respondent felt that he was
capable of doing this work, but he was not again offered it at the time
of the terminations; 17 (3) King and Downey were never offered relief
pumping work; 11 and (4) the new employees who were subsequently
hired did work which all four of the terminated employees admittedly
were competent to perform and which was other than relief pumping
work.
In sum, we are convinced, and find, upon the basis of all of the fore-
going evidence, and in agreement with the Trial Examiner's ultimate
conclusions, that the Respondent discharged King, Hall, Downey,
and Williams at its Dewey field location because it knew or suspected
these employees to be proponents of union organizational activity, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
We now turn to the issue raised by the Respondent's termination of
Thomas at its Sapulpa operations on April 25. In considering this
issue, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's removal of
rig No. 8 from Pharoah to Sapulpa shortly after that date could
result in the layoff of one man at the Sapulpa operation. He con-
cluded, however, that the Respondent's "selection of Thomas as that
man was directly attributable to his union activity." We agree.
As is set forth in more detail in the Intermediate Report, the
Respondent terminated Thomas, an employee with 5 months' satis-
factory employment, on April 25 and, contrary to the seniority policy
and consideration given to marital status previously followed, re-
tained Schonfield, an employee hired but 2 weeks before. The termi-
nation was effected suddenly and equivocally, without the usual ad-
vance notification or 1 week's separation pay. It followed closely,
within 2 days, the identification of Thomas to Field Superintendent
17 Hall refused a relief pumper 's job on April 3 or 4 when his transferring to that work
would have resulted in a net loss of pay. He was not offered the job at the time of the
April 30 terminations when the choice for him would have been the relief , pumper's job
or no fob.
>e Respondent 's agents testified to this effect , thereby contradicting an allegation con-
tained in Respondent's answer to the complaint that Downey had been offered the work
but had refused it.
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Babb as the "instigator" of union activity among the Sapulpa em-
ployees and the promoter of the scheduled May 4 union meeting,'9'
and in a factual backdrop of Respondent's clear opposition to the
Union and its manifestation of a particular interest in forestalling the
success of the May 4 meeting.20 Furthermore, immediately after the
termination was effected, Cochran, one of the supervisors at the
Sapulpa operation,21 advised Ray, a coworker of Thomas, that Thomas
had been terminated becausehe had been identified as the "instigator"
of the Union and because he was promoting the May 4 union meeting.
While, as the Trial Examiner finds, this evidence alone clearly sup-
ports a finding of a discriminatory motive behind the Respondent's
selection of Thomas for termination, we note the existence of addi-
tional evidence that the Respondent failed to call Thomas back to
work at a time when work he was qualified to perform became avail-
able. Thus, it is undisputed that on May 5 Respondent hired Carlock,
a new employee, in the same roughneck classification that Thomas
had occupied. Carlock was assigned to roustabouting work for about
3 weeks and on May 25, when Schonfield voluntarily quit his em-
ployment, Carlock was given the same roughnecking work to do that
Thomas had been performing when terminated.
The sole defense offered by the Respondent at the hearing related to
the selection of Thomas over Schonfield for termination. Respond-
ent's supervisors testified that they retained Schonfield rather than
Thomas because the rig's return to Sapulpa necessitated the layoff of
one roughneck and the assignment of the remaining roughneck to
roustabout work-work which Thomas had allegedly shown no
"initiative" in doing. The pretextual nature of this explanation,
however, was exposed by the direct admission of Babb that Schon-
field's ability to do roustabouting work had never been tested and was
completely unknown. Furthermore, it is plain that this explanation
does not meet the failure of the Respondent to recall Thomas when,
10The Trial Examiner points out that Babb was advised by Sanborn, and possibly-by
Cochran , of Thomas ' role as an instigator of union activity at Sapulpa prior to the termi-
nation action, but does not mention the exact date The record shows, and we find, that
Sanborn's information as to Thomas' union activity was acquired on April 23 (see foot-
note 15, supra) and, according to Babb's admission at the hearing, was conveyed to Babb,
before the morning of April 25
20 In addition to the facts set forth in the Intermediate Report and above as to the
Respondent's opposition to the Union, we note the concession of Douglas Layton at the
hearing that he was strongly opposed to the organization of Respondent's employees
The especial interest of Respondent in forestalling the success of the May 4 union meet-
ing is indicated not only by the remarks to this effect repeated by Cochran to Ray, but
also by the surveillance of the May 4 meeting by Babb, Emert, and Stanley, three super-
visory employees , because, as Babb put it, he "had heard about the union meeting
and . . . wanted to see what was going on "
21 we agree with the Trial Examiner that Cochran was a supervisor while rig No. 8 was
located at Pharoah . In addition to the evidence summarized in the Intermediate Report
with respect to Cochran's supervisory authority, the undisputed facts show that while the
rig was at Pharoah, a distance of 50 to 75 miles from Sapulpa, Cochran was in complete
charge of both the rig and the employees assigned to it except during Babb's weekly or
twice-weekly visits.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 261
as above noted, Carlock was hired in the same roughneck classification
on May 5 and Schonfield voluntarily quit his employment on May 25.
In light of all of the above facts, we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the Respondent utilized the opportunity afforded by economic
circumstances which could necessitate the reduction of her comple-
ment at Sapulpa by one to rid herself of an employee believed to be
an active union promoter, and that she did so in furtherance of her
demonstrated purpose to discourage the effective unionization of her
employees. It follows, and we find, that the Respondent thereby
further violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner recommended only a narrow ("in any like or
related manner") cease-and-desist order. Because we believe that
discriminatory discharges, as in the instant case, go to the very heart
of the Act, and also because we believe that it may be anticipated, from
the Respondent's past conduct, that the Respondent may commit other
violations of the Act in the future, we shall issue a broad cease-and-
desist order, forbidding the Respondent from infringing "in any other
manner" upon the rights of her employees as guaranteed by the Act,
in addition to those rights found to have been violated herein. See-
Liquid Carbonic Corporation, 116 NLRB 795, 798.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c))
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Caroline M. Lay-
ton White, d/b/a Layton Oil Company, her agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or in any
other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to re-
employ any of the employees because of their concerted union activi-
ties, or by discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees regarding their union activity, affili-
ation, or sympathy or their knowledge of union activity in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings and telling em-
ployees that the instigators and ringleaders of union activity are
known.
(d) Telling employees that the instigators of union activity will
be discharged.
577684-61-vol. 128-18
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Advising employees to stay away from union meetings.
(f) Telling employees that they will lose benefits and that work
will be contracted out if they engage in union activity.
(g) Threatening to let employees go immediately and to cut the
power off if the employees engage in union activity.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or 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
,It 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 which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Jack C. Thomas, Thomas J. King, E. Ray Hall, Lee M.
Williams, and Robert D. Downey immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against them in the manner and method set forth in the section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other recordshelpful in analyzing the amount of backpay due and
the right of reinstatement under this Order.
(c) Post at her places of business at Independence, Kansas, and
Dewey and Sapulpa, Oklahoma, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, to bfurnished by
the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
,spo'ndent has taken to comply herewith.
21 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 263
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by its
discharge of Paul Smith, and violated Section 8(a) (1) in respects
other than herein found.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any labor organization, by discriminating in respect to
the hire, tenure, or other conditions of employment of any
employee.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees or question our em-
ployees regarding their union activity or affiliation or their
knowledge of union activity in a manner constituting interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act; spy upon union meetings or tell our employees that the
ringleaders and instigators of the Union are known to us; tell our
employees that the instigators and ringleaders of the Union will
be discharged; threaten our employees with loss of benefits, or
with contracting out our work, or with cutting off the power if
they engage in union activity; or tell our employees to stay away
from union meetings.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form organizations, to join or assist the above-named or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or 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.
WE WILL offer to Jack C. Thomas, Thomas J. King, E. Ray
Hall, Lee M. Williams, and Robert D. Downey, immediate rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination against then
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, except to,
the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
CAROLINE M. LAYTON WHITE, d/b/a
LAYTON OIL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard.before the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on September 14, 15, and 16 on the complaint
of the General Counsel and the answer of the Respondent. The issues litigated were
whether or not Caroline M. Layton White, d/b/a Layton Oil Company, herein
called the Respondent or the Company, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in
some 14 specified instances; and whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act by discharging 6 employees named in the complaint. The parties, except
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, presented oral arguments and briefs were received from the General
Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an individual proprietorship of which Caroline M. Layton White
is the sole owner. It does business under the trade name of Layton Oil Company
by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, and has its principal place of business
at Independence, Kansas. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
complaint it shipped crude oil and related products to points outside the State of
Kansas exceeding $50,000 in value. During the same period Respondent pur-
chased raw materials, equipment, and supplies from points outside the State of
Kansas exceeding $50,000 in value. I find the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Oil Workers or the Union , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. The Dewey operations
On April 30, 1959, the Respondent employed some 201 employees at what it
called its Dewey flood operations at Dewey, Oklahoma. These employees were
engaged in usual oil field operations including drilling, pumping, maintenance, etc.
They were under the general direction of Henry A. Standeford, field superintendent
at Dewey, and Lewis Stanley, variously described as assistant supervisor, gang
1 Respondent's Exhibit No. 4.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 265
pusher, foreman, and head roustabout. Standeford concededly exercised super-
visory authority and I also find that Stanley was a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act.2
Credited and uncontradicted testimony discloses that employees of the Respondent
.first became actively interested in organization in March 1959. Carl Bonds, vice
president of Local 5-432, located at Caney, Kansas, had established contact with
.some of them and on March 20 a few attended a regular meeting of the Caney
local.3 The next regular meeting of the local was April 3,4 and the first meeting
held specially for Layton employees was April 8.5 A second special organizational
meeting was held on April 22. This was the last meeting held for Respondent's
employees since the terminations effected April 29 ended all union activity.
According to the testimony of Field Superintendent Standeford, he must have
acquired knowledge of union activity on the part of the employees almost as soon
as it began, since, in March 1959, he informed Douglas Layton .6 at Independence
that he had heard the men "wanted to go union." The first overt action taken by
Standeford to combat this activity was taken on April 22 when he called a meeting
of the employees at the "doghouse" at 2 p.m. At this meeting Standeford admitted
telling the men that if they went union they would probably lose their Christmas
bonus and overtime pay. He also admitted that at this meeting Lewis Stanley told
the men "We will start throwing switches right now" 7 and stated that he reprimanded
Stanley for this remark since he did not have the authority to throw the switches.
The testimony of employees who attended this meeting goes further than the
admissions of Standeford. I credit the testimony of Park and King that Standeford
told the men that if they wanted to go "Union" he would "let them go now." I
.credit the testimony of Hall and Blanchard that he told them the work could be
"contracted out." (Standeford admitted that he told employees that work could be
contracted out but he did not admit that he told them so at this meeting.) I credit
the testimony of Smith that at the beginning of the meeting he asked the employees
what they knew about the Union. I do not, however, credit the testimony of King
in which he states that Standeford told the employees at this meeting that he had
a list of those who had joined the Union. This is not corroborated by any other
employee and is specifically denied by Blanchard. It is the kind of statement which,
if made, would ordinarily 'be remembered. It may well have been made to King
on another occasion but I make no such finding.8
Apart from the speech made to the assembled employees on April 22 other
evidence of interference, restraint, and coercion was offered by the General Counsel.
There is uncontradicted testimony by Roy Park, an employee, that on a morning
when the men were going to work (the date is not fixed but it appears to have
been prior to April 22) Stanley asked to see a box of matches held by another
-employee, Art Woody. The box had a union insigne on it and, according to Park,
Stanley told Woody he "had better not let Douglas Layton see you with those
matches or be will run you off."
E. Ray Hall, an employee terminated April 30, testified to a conversation with
.Standeford on either April 25 or 26. In this conversation he was asked by
a This finding is based on the credited testimony of employees at Dewey that Stanley
acted as the alter ego of Standeford and gave orders, made assignments of work, and
exercised all of the authority possessed by Standeford whenever Standeford was absent.
I credit the testimony of Roy Park, an employee, that he was witness to two instances in
which Stanley effected the discharge of employees Stanley was one of those summoned
to attend the meeting called at Independence, Kansas, on April 27, of field superintendents
and foremen to discuss the general conditions of operations and at which it was deter-
mined to lay off employees at Dewey Stanley was not called as a witness by the
Respondent
'Chester Barrowman, secretary of Local 5-432, testified that the employees who at-
tended this meeting were • Robert Downing, E Ray Hall, Tom King, and H. C. Blanchard.
6 Wesley Stover, Robert Downey, E. Ray Hall, H. C. Blanchard, Lee Williams, and
John Thompson attended.
5 A total of 17 employees attended this meeting, including all of those who attended
the first 2 meetings.
O Although Layton Oil Company was registered in the name of Caroline M Layton
White as a sole proprietorship, management of the proprietorship was distributed between
Douglas, Clyde, and Marshall Layton, sons of Caroline.
7 By "throwing the switches" Stanley meant that he would shut off the power, thus
closing down all operations.
8It was agreed upon between counsel that Downey would corroborate the testimony of
the other employees as to what was said at this meeting.
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Standeford if he knew anything about the Union. When he denied knowledge
Standeford repeated his threat that the employees would lose benefits if they "went
Union." At the same time he remarked to Hall, "Downey, I wonder why he wants
a union to come in?" He then remarked that Downey was not a welder anyway.
Continuing, he told Hall that he had just come from town and had been told that
the instigator of the Union was "tall, slim, has a crooked nose and he works on the
pulling unit." Standeford then remarked that it had to be Tom King.9 He told
Hall that he would find out for sure and that if it was King he would run him off,
and added that if he found out anybody else was for the Union he would run them
off too. While the substance of this conversation was denied by Standeford it
was in the form of a blanket denial with respect to the allegations of the complaint
(except as it related to Downey). The denial was unconvincing and I credit the
testimony of Hall as to the conversation. Standeford was not a credible witness.
It was evident that his testimony was gaited to the interests of the Respondent.
His admissions of conduct embracing restraint and coercion were made only when
the evidence was conclusive. As to individual conversations his testimony was in
the form of quick and ready denial and he is not credited where there is conflict
unless specific credence is given In making this evaluation of Standeford's credi-
bility full consideration has been given to the reliance necessarily placed on his
testimony by the Respondent and the determination has not been lightly made.
The General Counsel introduced testimony by employees that on the evening
of April 22 Standeford was observed at the Sinclair gas station at Dewey having
his car washed and greased. Employees who drove from Dewey to Caney to attend
the union meeting that night took the route that passed this station. From this the
Trial Examiner is asked to infer that Standeford's action in having his car washed
and greased at this particular time and at this particular station constituted an act
of surveillance No such inference'is drawn and no such conclusion is reached
Herschel Blanchard, a road maintainer, was laid off by the Respondent on April
30 and rehired on May 4. He testified that at the time he was rehired he was told
by Standeford that if he stayed away from union meetings he would be "all right."
Although this is denied by Standeford I credit the testimony and also the testimony
by Blanchard that at the time he was notified by Stanley of the meeting to be held
on April 22 (the company meeting at the doghouse) he was asked by Stanley if he
was a union member.
Johnny Thompson, a truckdriver, testified that he had a conversation with Stande-
ford in April 1959 in which Standeford asked him if he knew anything about the
Union and then told him that he (Standeford) knew who the ringleaders were.
Thompson is credited despite the denial of Standeford
Lee Williams, a relief pumper, testified that on April 27 Stanley told him he was
going to a company meeting at Independence that night. Williams' suspicion that
something was wrong was aroused the next day when he observed Stanley and
Standeford having a talk with a truckdriver and two roustabouts. (Williams stated
it was unusual for both Standeford and Stanley to be in the field at the same time.)
That evening Williams contacted Pat Coyne at his home He described Coyne as
head roustabout at Amstel, another field location of the Company.10 Williams had
worked with Coyne for 4 years (not with the Respondent) and asked him if he
(Coyne) had attended the supervisors' meeting at Independence. Coyne told him
he had and that the Laytons, their attorney, and all the supervisors were there and
that the attorney had advised the Laytons "to get all of the men that were the head
of this union and fire them immediately to stop it." Williams also testified that he
heard Standeford on April 25, remark to an employee named Pollan that if he
found out who the instigator of the Union was he would fire him. This testimony
is credited. Coyne, available to the Respondent, was not called as a witness to
dispute Williams' testimony.
2. The terminations at Dewey and related events
On April 30, 1959, the Respondent, through Superintendent Standeford, laid off
the following men at Dewey: Ray Hall, Robert Downey, Tom King, Paul Smith,
9 King was a witness and the description does fit King
101 credit the testimony of "Williams and find that Coyne was it supervisor within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Standeford admitted that Covne attended the
meeting of supervisory personnel at Independence on April 27 and that Coyne was a
foreman for the Company. Clyde Layton referred to Coyne as head roustabout
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 267
Lee Williams, Wesley Stover, and Herschel Blanchard.il Wesley Stover and
Herschel Blanchard were reemployed by the Company on May 4 and were not
named in the complaint, so the 8(a)(3) issue (at Dewey) is confined to the five
first-named employees.
Clyde Layton, office manager of the Company, was called as a witness by the
General Counsel.12 Layton testified that he had prepared the budget for Respondent
and that some $303,000 had been allotted for development operations at Dewey.13
In January 1959, the first 4 months of the Respondent's fiscal year (the fiscal year
ran from September 1 to August 31) had elapsed and some $200,000 had been
spent on development at Dewey. At a meeting of the brothers sometime in January
it was decided that the Dewey development operations would have to be curtailed
in the interests of economy. By April 30, 1959, $285,000 had been spent and in
July the Company was $19,000 over its budget.
Clyde Layton testified that in date April it was decided to terminate some of the
Dewey employees. This date is not fixed definitely by any of the witnesses but I
conclude from all of the testimony that communication of the decision was made to
Field Superintendent Standeford at the meeting of supervisors held at Independence
on April 27.14
It is now incumbent to study certain facts relevant to the terminations and the
motive for them.
E. Ray Hall was classified as a roustabout and pulling unit operator. He testifed
that he declined to take the job of relief pumper on April 3, 1959, because that job
involved certain automobile expenses and, at least to Hall, meant a reduction in his
net earnings. He was not, however, discharged because he refused to take this job.
and he testified that at least three other employees had refused it. He was inter-
rogated by Standeford as to his knowledge of union activity and denied having any.
Hall together with Downey, King, and Blanchard attended the first union meeting
according to the testimony of Barrowman, secretary of Local 5-432. (This was the
meeting at Caney on March 26.) Hall attended each of the succeeding meetings
Meld April 3, 8, and 22 (the last). He, Downey, and Blanchard were the only
employees who attended all four meetings, although King missed only the second.
From the point of view of original and continuing interest it is clear that the em-
ployees most interested in organization were Hall, Downey, Blanchard, and King,
all of whom were terminated and only one of whom (Blanchard) was rehired.
Hall was notified on April 29 by Standeford that there was to be a layoff of nine
employees the next day. The reason given by Standeford was that the Company
had sold its working equipment. At this time Hall was sixth on the seniority list at
Dewey 15 and was the senior roustabout. Since he was classified as both a roustabout
and pulling unit operator it is impossible to tell whether he was assigned to develop-
ment or operations and in view of the conceded interchangeability of jobs I find it
unnecessary to make such a determination Questioned as to why Hall was selected
for layoff instead of Luttrell, who had the same classifications, Standeford replied
only that he thought Luttrell was a better worker. (The record shows that Luttrell
attended only one union meeting, that of April 8.) This is all the evidence with
respect to the discharge of Hall.16
"Larry Mills , a brother- in-law of Douglas Layton, was named by Douglas Layton as an
employee to be laid off at this time The records of the Company indicate that Larry
Mills quit his employment on April 28 On the testimony of Lee Williams, Clyde G.
Layton , and Standeford I find that Mills quit to accept other employment and was not
laid off,
"The Trial Examiner refused to permit the General Counsel to call Layton under
Rule 43-B in view of the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent was a sole
proprietorship and not a partnership . In view of this ruling counsel for the General
Counsel was warned that he was making Layton his witness and that counsel for the
Respondent would be entitled to cross-examine him on all issues
13 The Company distinguished between development and operational costs. Rig costs
were development and roughnecks and roustabouts were generally charged to develop-
ment Pumping , meter reading , pulling unit operators , and office readers were charged
to operational costs.
"This determination is based in part on the fact that Standeford notified none of the
men of the layoff until he returned from this meeting on April 28 although the effective
date of the layoff was April 30. It is reasonable to infer that he had no knowledge of
the layoff until the meeting.
16 Respondent's Exhibit No 4.
19 Although both Hall and Standeford testified to an argument over repairing a pump
which took place 2 or 3 months prior to the termination , this argument does not appear
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robert Downey was employed by the Company as a roustabout since August 18,
1958. He attended all four of the union meetings . On April 28, 1959, he was
driving a welding truck ( there is evidence he was used as a welder ) when he was
stopped by Standeford, told that all the "junk equipment " had been sold, and that he
was laid off as of May 1. Since the parties agreed that Downey's testimony in other
respects would be merely cumulative he was not examined further.
There is, however , relevant testimony from other employees with respect to the
discharge of Downey. Hall testified that on either April 25 or 26 he had a conver-
sation with Standeford in which Standeford , after interrogating Hall as to his own
knowledge of union activity , made the remark, "Downey, I wonder what he wants
the Union for?" I have previously credited Hall as to this conversation and now
find that this is sufficient to establish knowledge of union activity on the part of
Downey by Standeford. During this same conversation Standeford told Hall that
if he found out anybody else was for the Union he would run them off too.
At the time of Downey's layoff all the roustabouts junior to him were likewise
laid off, although Stover and Blanchard were recalled on May 4.
Thomas J. King was employed as a pulling operator since August 11, 1958. He
was, therefore , engaged in operations and not in development at the time of his
layoff. He attended the first union meeting, missed the second , and attended the
third and fourth. At the time he was notified of his termination he was told by
Stanley that he was laid off because the equipment was being sold.
In evaluating the reason for his termination the credited testimony of Hall with
respect to Standeford 's statement that the instigator of the Union was tall , slim, had
a crooked nose, and worked on a pulling unit, is relevant . From this information
Standeford drew the inescapable conclusion that the instigator had to be King and
told Hall that when he found out for sure he would run him off.
Williams was employed as a roustabout on March 31, 1959, and Smith on April
16, 1959. Both were presumably engaged in development and neither had been
employed for more than a month when they were terminated . Both attended two
union meetings. According to Standeford , Williams was tried as a pumper but did
not make good and Cary Cooper was hired April 28 ( the day the employees were
notified of the layoff ) to do relief pumping.
3. The termination of Thomas at Sapulpa
Jack C. Thomas was employed as a roughneck by the Company at its Sapulpa
operations on or about November 11, 1958, and his last date of employment was
April 24.17 The complaint alleges that Thomas was discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Thomas did not appear at the hearing and most of
the testimony educed on his behalf was given by his wife.
The Respondent asserts that Thomas was terminated for economic reasons. When
it became necessary to lay off one of the men on the rig ( identified as rig No 8)
Thomas was selected by Field Superintendent Babb because, although he was con-
sidered a good floorman on the rig, the removal of the rig from Pharoah to Sapulpa
would necessitate assigning Thomas to roustabout work and Babb did not consider
Thomas well qualified for roustabouting
The facts and circumstances respecting the actual termination of Thomas are
tainted with some obscurity. Rig No. 8 had been sent from Sapulpa to Pharoah for
drilling operations sometime in January. Pharoah is about 50 miles from Sapulpa.
In charge of the rig while it was at Pharoah was Claude Cochran, designated as tool
pusher at that time . During this period Cochran had the duty of bringing supplies
to the operation , seeing that the rig was kept in shape, giving directions and orders
to the drillers, moving the rig to various locations . It was the testimony of Douglas
Layton that whatever independent judgment had to be used and whatever orders
had to be given at the Pharoah jobsite were used and given by Cochran. Cochran
had the power to make emergency decisions . In view of the testimony of Respond-
ent's own witnesses I find that Cochran, while in charge of rig No. 8 at Pharoah,
was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.18 A drilling rig
to have been a factor in selecting Hall. Standeford testified that Hall ' s attitude was
better at the time he was laid off than at any time during his employment , although he
also testified that he "couldn't keep him off his rear long enough to work "
17 Respondent 's Exhibit No. 2.
38 See Pennsylvania Power f Light Company, 122 NLRB 293 , where the Board held
five lines and substation engineers , located at five widely scattered substations at which
from three to seven employees were employed , were supervisors since no other supervisor
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 269'
is an expensive piece of equipment and the operation of drilling equipment requires
knowledge, skill, and judgment, it is not a matter of routine direction, and it is
hardly conceivable that the Respondent would have placed it in charge of one who
did not possess at least the supervisory authority to meet the standards of 8(2)(11).
According to Babb, 'Cochran attended the meeting of supervisory personnel at
Independence on April 27.
According to the testimony of his wife, a credible witness, Jack Thomas met with
Arthur L. Cross, International representative of the oil workers, at his own home
about April 23. Thomas had been previously given a "book" by a Mr. North,
identified only as a Sinclair Oil Company employee. When he met with Thomas,
Cross advised him to contact other employees of Layton and to arrange a meeting
of these employees in Sapulpa on May 4.
Field Superintendent Babb testified that on April 25 he called Elmer T. Ray, a,
driller on rig No. 8, and told him to bring his derrick man and complete the Pharoah
drilling. At the same time he told Ray that Thomas would not be needed. Al-
though Babb testified that Thomas could have worked a few more days it is undis-
puted that the removal of the rig from Pharoah back to Sapulpa could result in the
termination of one man, since Cochran would be transferred from tool pusher to
driller and one man could be bumped down the line. At this time Jerry Schonfield
was the only employee junior to Thomas on this rig.19 Babb testified that Thomas
was selected for termination ahead of Schonfield because the crew would be doing
roustabout work when they returned to Sapulpa and he doubted Thomas' ability to
do roustabout work. He also testified that he had heard Thomas was the instigator
for the Union 20 and that at about this time the Union was discussed at a company
meeting. (It appears that Babb meant the company meeting held on April 27, 2
days after he had decided not to keep Thomas ) Babb admitted that he had heard
no rumors that Schonfield was interested in union activity. Babb testified that he
had previously laid Thomas off when work on the rig was shut off and rehired him
when the rig went back into operation. This, however, was at the time when Babb,
believed the rig would be sold and there would be no further work for Thomas.
The record does not disclose how many others of the crew were involved in this
temporary separation. Babb's testimony with respect to this layoff was typically
evasive.21
Elmer T. Ray, a credible witness, testified that he received a telephone call from-
Field Superintendent Babb on Saturday, April 25. Babb told him (Ray was a
driller on rig No. 8) to take the derrick man and go to work but not to take Thomas.
He was given no explanation other than that "we was running pipe" and that
Cochran would tell him what the deal was. When he reached the jobsite Cochran
told him that "they" had heard that Thomas was an instigator for the Union.
Cochran did not tell Ray what action was to be or had been taken with respect to
Thomas but Thomas never did return to work. Cochran also told Ray that Thomas
had scheduled a union meeting for May 4 at Sapulpa and that that was the reason
they didn't want him brought out there." (This refers to the fact that rig No. 8 was
to be returned with its crew to Sapulpa )
other than the substation engineer was on hand to assume responsibility for the work and
the engineers appeared to be in sole charge at the substations where they were employed.
In referring to Cochran, Douglas Layton included him in the classification of head drillers
19 Douglas Layton testified that the Respondent had no fixed seniority policy but that
seniority was a factor in selection for termination He further testified that it was a
general policy to select single men for termination ahead of married men Schonfield
was single, Thomas was married.
2'Babb's testimony was that this was mentioned to him by Dir. Sanborn and possibly
by 'Cochran. Sanborn is identified as an employee of Layton at Sapulpa, a brother-in-law
of Ray Hall, who sent word to Cross through Hall that he was interested in the Union
and that a 50-percent interest could be aroused immediately in the Sapulpa area. This
was sometime between April 8 and 22. Sanborn was contacted directly by Cross and he,
too, was advised to set up a meeting at Sapulpa for May 4
21 Babb testified .
Q. Now when did the first layoff of Thomas occur?
A. Oh, that, the records will show that, but I cannot recall it
Q. Was it in December of 1958"
A. It's a possibility I don't know.
Q How long was he off that time"
A That I cannot answer. I do not remember.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ray further testified that on the next day, April 26 , Thomas called him to find
out "what the deal was" and Ray told him what Cochran had said-that Thomas
was an instigator for the Union . Thomas asked if he was being laid off and Ray
told him that he did not know but advised him to go call Cochran.
Mrs. Thomas testified that on Saturday , April 25, Elmer Ray stopped by their
house and told her husband that he (Thomas ) was not going to work that day.
Mrs. Thomas heard from her husband that Babb had called Ray, had told him not
to take Thomas , and that Buck (Cochran ) would explain the reason to Ray when
he reached the jobsite . On Sunday , April 26, according to Mrs. Thomas, her
husband called Ray. She heard only one side of the conversation but when it
was concluded her husband told her that Babb had informed him that he was
being let go because she was the instigator for the Union . As a result of this
conversation Thomas called Cochran and again , according to Mrs. Thomas, he
was told in effect that he was an instigator for the Union and had better look for
another job 22
On the same day Thomas and his wife tried to locate either Ray, Babb, or
Cochran but without success . They then determined to go to Independence to see
Douglas Layton. They went the next day, April 27, and met with Douglas, Clyde,
and Dale Layton, a cousin . Confronted with the circumstances from which
Thomas deduced that he was being discharged , Layton denied any specific knowledge
of action with respect to Thomas and remarked , "It's hard to believe you have been
fired or laid off." When he was asked if Thomas could go back to work he told
Thomas that he would have to look into it and that if he had been fired it must
have been for "disloyalty " and that he had Babb in the field looking for "loyal" men.
Thomas was also told, according to Mrs. Thomas, that the work at Sapulpa would
be "contracted out before it goes Union ." The conversation ended when Douglas
told them he was having a meeting that night ( this was the supervisors ' meeting) and
would get it straightened out. He told Thomas to go to Babb (presumably he
meant the next day and after the meeting ) and find out if he had been fired. The
next day Mr. and Mrs . Thomas did 'go to see Babb but the conversation , as related
by Mrs. Thomas, was inconclusive . While it was established that Thomas was laid
off he did not find out why nor who had made the decision . They then saw
Claude Cochran who was equally equivocal as to the reasons for the decision to
select Thomas, the responsibility for the termination , or how suspicion that Thomas
had been guilty of union activity had been acquired.
Babb's own testimony as to the termination has been set forth, supra. Babb was
an evasive witness throughout and relied on a plea of inability to remember when
the questioning probed his reasons for discharging Thomas.23 Nowhere was he
able to state in what respect Thomas was inadequate or unqualified for roustabout
work or why he should have been selected for termination rather than Schonfield
who had been hired only 2 weeks previously . Nothing could be clearer from his
demeanor on the stand , his hesitation in answering , his pleaded but incredible ina-
bility to remember facts with specificity , his resort to generalizations , than that Babb
a3 The testimony related by Mrs. Thomas as to these two telephone conversations was
rejected by the Trial Examiner as any evidence of the reasons why the Respondent termi-
nated Thomas The testimony was received only for the purpose of showing what action
was taken by Thomas and his wife as a result of these calls The conversations, as
repeated by Thomas to his wife , are not binding upon the Respondent The testimony
with respect to the conversation with Ray is , however, corroborated by the testimony of
Ray himself , there is no substantial discrepancy , and I find that such a conversation
did take place
23 Here is a portion of Babb 's testimony to support his charge that Thomas could not
ado roustabout work:
Q. (By Mr . EcKHARDT ) Did Thomas ever do carpentry work')
A That was a part of his roustabouting duties
Q. Was that all the roustabouting lie was ever tested or was on?
A I don ' t think so He was tried several different places.
Q What other places was he tried on"
A. On that I will have to check and see. I don't remember
Q. Do you know when he did this carpentry work's
A No
Q Was it in December 1958?
A. Could be.
Q. Around Christmas
A. Could be . I don ' t remember.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 271
was unwilling to testify truthfully when the truth was adverse to Respondent's
interests.
The testimony of Douglas Layton is of little help. He stated that the decision
had been made in January to lay off a man on rig No. 8 when it was returned from
Pharoah to Sapulpa. He did not explain why, if such a decision was made,
Schonfield was hired in April. He could not explain why Thomas was terminated
rather than Schonfield, except that it was Babb's decision. Layton did not know
exactly when Thomas was laid off or give an explanation of the unusual circum-
stances under which it took place, including the fact that no supervisor told Thomas
that he was laid off or why. Layton did deny mentioning "disloyalty" as a possible
factor in Thomas' termination. As to this conflict in testimony I credit Mrs.
Thomas. He did testify that Babb told him after the meeting of April 27 that
Thomas was the man he (Babb) was going to lay off when he moved the rig.
Despite the fact that Layton's conversation with Babb took place after Thomas had
been to see him to ascertain the reasons for his layoff, Layton did not find out from
Babb why Thomas was selected. The testimony of Layton as to his knowledge of
the reasons why Thomas was selected is replete with ambiguity and evasion.
One separate incident of violation of Section 8(a)(1) is alleged with respect to
Sapulpa. This is the admitted surveillance of the union meeting at Sapulpa on
May 4 by Babb, Stanley, and Emert. In view of the admission by Babb, I find
this conduct is a violation as alleged.
B. Conclusions
1. Evidence of restraint , interference , and coercion
The findings with respect to the allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(1) pose
no problem. Based on his own admissions I find that Standeford, in his speech on
April 22 violated this section by telling the employees that they would lose certain
benefits if they affiliated with the Union, including their Christmas bonus and over-
time pay. On the testimony of employees who attended the meeting and against
the denials of Standeford I find that he also told the employees that if they affiliated
with the Union we would let them go immediately and that the work could be
contracted out and that at the beginning of the meeting he asked the employees as
a group what they knew about the Union. Each of the above statements I find
to be a violatioi. Df Section 8(a)(1).
At this meeting I find, both because the testimony is uncontradicted and because
I credit the testimony of the employees, that Lewis Stanley, a supervisor, told the
employees that he would start throwing the switches immediately if the men had
affiliated with the Union. The only import to this remark was that the power would
be cut off and the work stopped if the men admitted affiliation. I find this
to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1). In addition to the foregoing I find the fol-
lowing conduct on the part of supervisors constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act:
(1) Statement made by Stanley to employee Woody (uncontradicted in the
record) that he "had better not let Douglas Layton catch you with those matches or
he will run you off " Since the box of matches was marked with union insignia, I
find this a clear threat of discharge for using union material.
(2) Standeford's statement to Hall that he would "run off" King or anybody
else if he discovered he was engaged in union activity.
(3) Interrogation of Hall, Thompson, and Blanchard by Standeford and Stanley
as to their knowledge of or participation in union activity.
(4) Standeford's statement to Blanchard when he rehired him that if he stayed
away from union meetings he would be "all right."
(5) Standeford's statement to Thompson that he knew who the union ring-
leaders were.
(6) Standeford's statement to Pollan in the presence of Williams that if he
(Standeford) found out who the union instigator was he would fire him.
(7) Admitted surveillance of a union meeting at Sapulpa on May 4 by Babb,
Stanley, and Emert.
(8) Statements made by Standeford to various employees that the Company
would "contract the work out" if it went Union. This constituted a threat of loss
of employment since the employees of Layton had no assurance they would be
retained by the contractor.
I have previously rejected the allegation that Standeford engaged in surveillance
by having his car washed and greased at a public gas station on April 22.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The terminations at Dewey
Seven men 24 were terminated at Dewey on April 30 , 1959 . Among the seven.
laid off were the four employees who attended the first meeting of Dewey 's employees-
on March 26. These were Downey, Hall, King, and Blanchard. Of the six em-
ployees who attended the second meeting on April 3 all but one (Thompson) were
laid off. These six included, in addition to the four already mentioned, Stover and
Williams. If any could be identified as the instigators of union activity at Dewey
it must have been the group which attended the first two meetings. They consti-
tuted the hard core.
Respondent's defense to the charge of discrimination is that the terminations were
due to economic factors alone . Since the Respondent 's witnesses to this defense
were called by the General Counsel I find he is bound by their testimony. The
testimony of Clyde Layton was that the budget for development at Dewey had
almost been exhausted in April. It had been previously decided in January that de-
velopment operations in Dewey would have to be curtailed and in the latter part of-
April this decision was made effective . It was communicated to Field Superintendent
Standeford who selected the men for discharge and notified them on April 28. The
effective date was the close of work on April 30.
Bound by the testimony of economic necessity there remain other factors to be-
considered. One is whether or not the individuals selected were so chosen because
of their union activity and a second is whether they would have been absorbed by
other operations had it not been for their union activity. A strong inference of dis-
crimination is drawn from the fact that all four of the men who attended the first
union meeting were selected 25 (Blanchard was rehired May 4 and no charge was
filed as to him.) This inference is strengthened by the fact that of the three addi-
tional employees who attended the second meeting two were discharged. (Stover
like Blanchard was rehired on May 4.) The inference, however, must be supported
by some evidence of company knowledge. As to this there is the credited testimony
of Standeford that in March 1959 he informed Douglas Layton that he had heard
that the men "wanted to go union ." Although it is denied by Standeford, I credit
the testimony of Thompson that sometime in April before the layoff Standeford
interrogated him as to his knowledge of union activity and also told him that he
(Standeford) knew who the union ringleaders were. The hostility of Standeford to-
ward union activity has been clearly shown by threats to individual employees and by
his talk to the employees on April 22.26 There is further evidence that Standeford's
suspicions and perhaps his knowledge were directed to certain of the employees who
were laid off. With respect to King, I credit the statement of Hall that Standeford
told him he had heard that the instigator was "tall, slim, has a crooked nose and
he works on the pulling unit ." Standeford then remarked that this had to be Tom
King and that he would "run him off" and "anybody else." During the same con-
versation Standeford remarked, "Downey, I wonder why he wants a union to come
in?" On the basis of this credited testimony I find that Standeford either knew or
strongly suspected that Downey and King were leaders of the Union and that he had-
determined to use his own words , to "run them off." It does not appear due to
coincidence alone that the evidence of interrogation on the part of Standeford and"
Stanley was directed to Hall, Thompson, and Blanchard, all three of whom had
attended either of the first two union meetings . If further evidence is required
that in the selection of the men for layoff union activity was the prime factor,
reliance is placed on the credited statement of Williams and Foreman Coyne, who
attended the meeting of company supervisors on April 27, told him that an attorney
advised the Laytons to get the men who were leaders of the Union and fire them.
Coyne, although still employed by the Company, was not called to refute this testi-
mony. There is the testimony, again credited, by Williams that he heard Standeford
tell Pollan, another employee, that if he found out who the union instigator was he
would fire him and Standeford's statement to Blanchard when he was rehired that
he would be "all right" if he stayed away from the Union. A clearer picture of dis-
criminatory motive translated into discriminatory action would be difficult to find.
24T have already found that Larrv Mills quit voluntarily on April 28 and was not
involved in the layoff. See footnote 11, supra.
as See F. W. Woolworth Company, et al., 25 NLRB 1362, 1373.
20 Douglas Layton testified that the Company considered union organization an operat-
ing hazard and that it would make it more difficult to operate the properties and to
transfer men.
LAYTON OIL COMPANY 273
Before considering the circumstances of termination of each alleged discriminatee
separately, the Company's own testimony creates a strong inference that the reasons
-given were not the real reasons. Following the meeting at Independence on April
27 the first notices were given to the men and this motive was that they were termi-
nated 2 days later, April 30. Layton had testified that the Company attempted to
provide 2 weeks' notice in cases of termination, yet no explanation is offered of the
failure to give notice despite the fact that the layoff had been anticipated as early
as January. When the notices were given a false reason (sale of company equip-
ment) was given to each man laid off. The only inference to be drawn from this
falsehood is that the real reason, discrimination to discourage union membership,
could not be given. Again, on its own testimony, the Company, having considered
the layoff problem since January and having ample time to evaluate its needs, was
forced, after making its terminations, to rehire two of the men and to hire three
new employees.
With respect to Hall, the only reason assigned by Standeford for his selection was
that Luttrell, while junior in point of service, was a better worker. While reference
was made to the fact that there had been an argument between them some time prior
to the discharge this was not a factor on Standeford's own estimony. I find that
there is sufficient evidence, in view of Hall's union activity, to characterize him as an
instigator. His interrogation and Standeford's promise to find out who the insti-
gators were and to "run them off" support the conclusion previously reached.
As to King, he was employed as a pulling unit operator at the time of the layoff
and was not engaged in development. Luttrell was retained rather than King, ac-
cording to Standeford, because he was a better pulling unit operator although at
the time of the layoff he was King's helper. Standeford added that he was also
retained because he could pump and King could not, but pumping was a develop-
ment operation and was therefore to be cut down-unit operators were operational
and not to be affected. It is not without significance that, according to Standeford,
Hall and King, among the first four to attend a union meeting, were both terminated
because Luttrell, who attended only one meeting, was characterized as a better
worker. It became necessary, shortly after the layoff, to hire a new employee to act
as helper in Luttrell's place, so that an actual cutback of only one employee was
affected by the termination of Hall and King.
Lee Williams, hired March 29, was assigned as a relief pumper prior to his dis-
charge. According to Standeford he was not adapted for this work and on the
day he was terminated another employee, Cary Cooper, was hired as a relief pumper
and roustabout. Cooper was hired because he was needed and Stover and Blanchard
were rehired because they too were needed, yet the Company asserts that all the
terminations of April 28 were the result of economic necessity. The incompatibility
between this asserted defense and the Company's own records of hiring and rehiring
is nowhere explained. A third new employe, Raleigh Evans, was hired as a pumper
to work the vacation periods, but again there is no explanation why a pumper
should be hired, even temporarily, when a reduction in force had been effected.
I conclude that the economic motive asserted by the Company is inconsistent
with the hirings, including rehirings, which took place at the time of and immediately
following the terminations; that the reason given the men by Standeford for termi-
nating them was false and that the Company did not sell and that it did not contem-
plate selling any equipment ; that the real reason for the selection of these particular
employees 27 was that Standeford was convinced they were the instigators of the
Union and that , in implmentation of his threats, he was "running them off." I
therefore find that King , Hall, Downey , and Williams were discharged in violation
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
I find no evidence to support the conclusion that Smith , hired only 2 weeks prior
to the terminations and who could not, for that reason, have been suspected by the
Company of having been an instigator or ringleader, was discharged in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3).
Conclusions as to Thomas
The termination of Thomas does not present a serious problem and I find that
he was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. While it is
true that the removal of rig No. 8 from Pharoah to Sapulpa could result in the
a'+ Even though a reduction in employment may have been necessitated by economic
factors, the selection of the employees on a discriminatory basis is a violation of the
Act. See N.L.R.B. v. Deena Pro,duct8 Company, 195 F. 2d 330 , 334-335 (C A. 7), cert.
denied 334 U.S. 827.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
layoff of one man since Cochran would be reduced from tool pusher in charge of
the rig to driller, it is clear that the selection of Thomas as that man was directly
attributable to his union activity. I credit the testimony of Ray that Cochran told
him that Thomas was selected because he was the instigator of the Union and that
the Company did not want him taken back to Sapulpa. At this time, Cochran knew
that Thomas had scheduled a union meeting at Sapulpa for May 4 and that he
communicated this knowledge to Babb is clear from the subsequent surveillance
of the union meeting scheduled for May 4. While it was Babb who selected Thomas
for discharge it was admitted by Babb that he had heard Thomas was instigator for
the Union. Babb's asserted reason for the discharge of Thomas, i e., that he was
not fitted for roustabout work, is unsupported by any specific citation of incompe-
tence. When questioned on this point all Babb could rely on was a faulty memory.28
No explanation was given for the fact that the layoff was in contradiction to the
company policy, insofar as it had a policy of terminating single men before married
men and considering seniority in employment. On either basis Schonfield would
have been laid off before Thomas. The General Counsel's case is supported, in-
ferentially, by the failure or refusal of any supervisor to tell Thomas why he was
laid off or even to tell him directly that he was being laid off. Again, men who work
in oilfields are not usually given to such equivocation. Even Douglas Layton was
unable to give Thomas a reason for his termination or to find out exactly why Babb,
selected Thomas instead of Schonfield. Having credited Mrs. Thomas' testimony
that during their conversation Layton stressed "disloyalty," I can only infer that
at that time Layton knew that Thomas was promoting a union meeting at Sapulpa
and that that was the reason he had been selected. I believe that Cochran's state-
ment to Ray that Thomas was terminated because he was the instigator of the Union
was the reason for termination. Cochran was available as a witness for the Re-
spondent but was not called to refute this testimony.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent terminated the employment of Jack C. Thomas
on April 24, 1959, in violation of the Act, and terminated the employment of Thomas
J. King, E. Ray Hall, Lee M. Williams, and Robert D. Downey on April 30, 1959,
in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer each of them
immediate and full reinstatement 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 earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages he
would have earned subsequent to the time of termination until the date of a proper
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings from other employment in that period.
Loss of pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Because certain of the unfair labor practices found are isolated incidents encom-
passed in the scope of other practices or are merely cumulative in nature, I shall
not make a specific recommendation with respect to each violation found.
Because there is no evidence that the Respondent has committed other unfair
labor practices in the past or that the unfair labor practices found herein will be
committed in the future the recommendations are accordingly confined.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11 See footnote 23.
MISSION MANUFACTURING COMPANY 275
3. By discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment of employees,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. Thereby and by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as above found, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Mission Manufacturing Company and Lodge 12 of District 37,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO
Mission Manufacturing Company and Lodge 2007 of District 37,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
23-CA-939 (formerly 39-CA-939) and 23-CA-940 (formerly
39-CA-940). July 25, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1960, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. These
findings, conclusions, and recommendations are more fully set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and briefs in support thereof. Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were also filed by the Charging Parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
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 en-
tire record in these cases, including the Intermediate Report and the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,
'We do not adopt , or find it necessary to pass upon , the Trial Examiner 's statement,
at footnote 21 of the Intermediate Report, regarding what occurred during the recent
national steel negotiations.
128 NLRB No. 18.