Plant and Field Service Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 849 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION
Plant and Field Service Corporation and Oilfield
Maintenance Workers, Local 1234 and Interna-
tional Union of Petroleum Workers, affiliated with
The Seafarers International Union of North
America, Party to the Contract. Case
21-CA-8435
August 1 1, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Richard
D. Taplitz issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . He further found that Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices and
recommended that the appropriate portions of the
complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, the Respondent
filed an answer to the General Counsel's exceptions
and brief, and the Party to the Contract filed cross-
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and 'a
brief in support thereof and in answer to the
General Counsel's brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the
cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the following modification.
The Trial Examiner found that by distributing
checkoff authorization forms to eight employees on
February 10, 1969, as part of its hiring process,
Respondent assisted the Party to the Contract and
interfered with the rights of employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Viewing the
circumstances surrounding the distribution in this
case, however, where the forms indicated on their
face that execution was voluntary and where em-
ployment was not conditioned on execution, we
find that no violation has occurred. In our view,
whatever improper effect the initial distribution
might have had was promptly and fully remedied
when the Respondent sent a letter to all employees
on February 14 which emphasized that the
checkoff authorization was voluntary. Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
849
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Trial Examiner: This case
was tried at Los Angeles, California, on August 19
and September 16, 18, and 19, 1969.' The issues
litigated were framed by a complaint dated April
30, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3),
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and answers filed by Plant and Field Ser-
vice Corporation, herein called Respondent, and by
International Union of Petroleum Workers, af-
filiated with the Seafarers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract,
herein called the Petroleum Union, both of which
answers admitted some and denied other factual al-
legations of the complaint but denied that Respon-
dent violated the Act. The complaint was based on
a charge filed on February 13 by Oilfield Main-
tenance Workers, Local 1234, herein called the
Maintenance Union. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were given full opportunity to par-
ticipate, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to
file briefs herein. Briefs which have been carefully
considered have been filed on behalf of the General
Counsel, Respondent, and the Petroleum Union.
ISSUES
1. Whether Respondent became the successor to
the bargaining relationship that Wonderly Con-
struction Co., herein called Wonderly, had with the
Maintenance Union when Respondent displaced
Wonderly as the oilfield maintenance contractor on
an oilfield operated by Thums Long Beach Com-
pany, herein called Thums, located at Long Beach,
California, herein called the Thums' facility.
2. Whether Respondent unlawfully assisted the
Petroleum Union by extending its contract with
that Union to cover its employees at the Thums'
facility.
3. Whether Respondent unlawfully required its
employees at the Thums' facility to sign dues-
checkoff authorizations in favor of the Petroleum
Union.
Upon the entire record' of the case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:
' All dates ate in 1969 unless otherwise specified
' All parties herein filed a point motion to correct the transcript of the
record The motion is granted and the corrections are set forth in Appendix
B of this Decision (omitted from publication]
184 NLRB No. 100
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged
in plant maintenance work of a mechanical nature
and oilfield maintenance work. During 1968,
Respondent performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 for customers, each of whom shipped
products to and performed services for customers
located outside the State of California, which were
valued in excess of $50,000.
The complaint alleges, the answers admit,3 and I
find the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce 'within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the Respondent and
Petroleum Union admit ,' and I find that the
Petroleum Union , the Maintenance Union , and the
Southern California District Council of Laborers,
affiliated with the Laborers ' International Union of
North America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Dis-
trict Council , are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting and Facts
1. The Thums operation
Oil deposits in California are located in a
somewhat checkerboard pattern, with the main
production in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
The primary area is 40 or 50 miles from end to end.
One of these deposits is near the city of Long
Beach.
In late 1964 or early 1965, the city of Long
Beach, California, held a public bidding for the
development of certain oilfields known as the East
Wilmington Field, which underlies the Pacific
Ocean just south of the city of Long Beach. Tex-
aco, Humble, Union, Mobile, and Shell oil compa-
nies formed a company which they named Thums
to bid on the project. Thums was the successful
bidder.
As part of its development project, Thums
created four man-made islands in the ocean off the
city of Long Beach. Each of these islands, which
were designated as islands A, B, C, and D, have
about 10 acres of surface area. Drilling, pumping,
and injection (the introduction of water into the
well to maintain pressure) were undertaken on
each of the islands. Thums also drilled, pumped,
and injected on a location on the Long Beach
The answer of Petroleum Union as amended at the hearing
Either by answer, amended answer, or by stipulation
The following general oilfield maintenance contractors performed ser-
shorefront known as pier J. Also on pier J, Thums
built a large storage area, a central treating area
where all the oil was treated, and pumping and
pipeline equipment for moving the oil to another
location in Long Beach where the oil left Thums'
ownership. There are no treating or storage facili-
ties on the island except for small tanks. Materials
to be taken by barge to the islands leave from
another pier facility known as pier G, which is near
pier J. The islands are about 5 to 15 minutes
offshore.
By the latter part of 1965, some of the new con-
struction and drilling had been completed and it
became necessary to have men working on the
maintenance of the facilities that had already been
installed. This maintenance work was done on a fill-
in basis by the construction contractors until some
time in 1968, when enough of the construction was
completed so that there was a need for the regular
use of maintenance crews to maintain the facilities.
From that time on Thums began using contractors
who supplied general oilfield maintenance crews.
2. The work performed by Wonderly
One of the contractors that Thums used to
furnish general oilfield maintenance crews was
Wonderly. Wonderly is primarily engaged in heavy
construction work with about 90 percent of its
gross revenue derived from new construction. As a
heavy construction contractor, Wonderly per-
formed construction work for Thums on the
islands. In addition to that work, Wonderly supplied
general oilfield maintenance crews for Thums
between September 1968 and February 7, 1969.
During that period, Wonderly performed main-
tenance services only on pier J and other related
onshore locations, such as pier G. All such work
was closely related and will generally be referred to
as pier J work. Other general oilfield maintenance
contractors furnished crews on the islands.5 Won-
derly used maintenance crews that were separate
and distinct from its new construction crews. There
was no interchange between the crews. Though
Thums exercised a good deal of control over the
contractors, the contractors were responsible for
performing certain tasks with their own employees
and the means of performing these tasks were left
largely to the contractors; there is no contention
that they were other than independent contractors.
Each of these contractors worked pursuant to a
written contract with Thums which was terminable
at will by either party. Contracts often were ter-
minated and different contractors were used.
General oilfield maintenance work is a designa-
tion of job tasks that is far from exact. In/general it
includes all maintenance work between' the well-
head and the delivery point into the pipeline. The
vices on the islands Pierose on island A, O'Meara and,Rogers on island B,
Western Maintenance on island C, and Ledford on island D
PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 851
employees of the general oilfield maintenance con-
tractors, who are called roustabouts, do cleanup
work, pick up oil spills, lay pipe and screw it
together, tear out pipe and transport it, clear out
cellars, help tear down heater treater vessels so that
specialists can work on them, and perform a mul-
titude of other tasks, some of which are difficult to
distinguish from new construction. These em-
ployees will on occasions not only rip out old pipe
but put in new pipe to replace it. It is not unusual
for them to set tanks even though the tanks are
new. The work that these employees perform is the
same on pier J and on the islands except that on the
islands there is no need to maintain heater treater
equipment or other special facilities that are
located only on pier J. The tools that the employees
use on the islands and pier J are basically the same.
A frames, vacuum trucks, skip loaders, compres-
sors, and related equipment plus small tools such as
pipe wrenches and pipe threading machines are
used. Each contractor is required to supply his own
equipment.
In addition to the work on pier J, Wonderly also
did some maintenance work on pier G. That con-
sisted of picking up parts, cleaning work, and paint-
ing. It was done with the same crews that work on
pier J. On February 7, 1969, Wonderly was work-
ing two maintenance crews. One consisted of a
foreman and seven employees and the other of a
foreman and six employees. Each of the four con-
tractors on the islands employed from five to eight
employees. There was more work to be done on
pier J than any single island, but more work on the
islands as a group than on pier J.
3. Wonderly's contract with the Maintenance
Union
Prior to August 1, 1967, Wonderly had a collec-
tive -bargaining agreement covering maintenance
employees with Local 507, Laborers' International
Union of North America , AFL-CIO , which was af-
filiated with the District Council . Local 507 was
primarily a construction local but it also contained
members who were maintenance employees. Pur-
suant to a policy whereby the Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union sought to give separate identity to oil-
field maintenance employees , the International on
March 18, 1968, chartered the Maintenance Union
as a separate organization for such employees. On
September 1, 1968, Wonderly, through its member-
ship in the Los Angeles Basin Oilfield Contractors'
Association, became bound to a contract with the
District Council and its affiliated Maintenance
Union . The contract , by its terms, was to remain ef-
fective through December 31, 1969 , and from year
to year thereafter unless 60 days' written notice was
given prior to an expiration date. Wonderly agreed
to recognize the Maintenance Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining agent for all its employees over
whom that Union had jurisdiction. The territorial
jurisdiction was set forth as including 12 California
counties. The coverage of the unit was set out as
follows:
A. Oilfield Production and Maintenance is
defined as all work within private and/or leased
oilfield property, including installation, main-
tenance and repair, grounds and property, and
such other work as pertains to the production
of oil, gas and water from its source to
discharge from the shipping pump or compres-
sor to the refinery or customer, also including
the maintenance and repair of meter runs, cen-
tral or mainloading racks, booster stations,
compressor stations, pumping stations, located
within the field containing the oil, gas or water
wells, also including the maintenance on
offshore drilling platforms and artificial islands;
but specifically excluding new construction,
construction of absorption plants, meter runs,
adjacent thereto, booster stations, coi pressor
plants, pumping stations, and any initial instal-
lation of a like nature, as well as any major ex-
pansion, alteration, or addition thereto; and
also excluding transportation gas and oil
pipelines and utilities, including booster sta-
tions, pumping stations, and tank farms along
the right-of-way of the transportation gas and
oil pipelines and utilities. It is specifically un-
derstood and agreed that this Agreement does
not cover any work which is already covered
by construction agreements between the Union
and other employers including, but not limited
to, that certain collective bargaining agreement
known as the Southern California Master
Labor Agreement between Southern California
General Contractors and the Southern Califor-
nia District Council of Laborers.
This contract was applied to Wonderly's main-
tenance work for Thums. However, as the contract
was interpreted by the parties, 7 out of 15 in-
dividuals named on Wonderly's payroll for Februa-
ry 7 were not covered by the agreement. One was
excluded as an operating engineer, another as a
welder, and five more as pipefitters.6 A master
labor agreement with the Associated General Con-
tractors was applied for the operating engineer,
pipefitters, and welder. Two truckdrivers were in-
cluded within the bargaining unit of the Main-
tenance Union.'
Kupka testified that in his capacity as foreman he
had discharged an employee, and Paul E. Stillman,
Respondent's president, testified that foremen had
the power to discharge employees and to hire new
employees for their own crews. Though Stillman in
a different part of his testimony stated that foremen
6 The 15 who were named were Kupka ( foreman ), Cole, Lawson , Smith,
Coupe, Wise, Baity, Heston, Sanders , Williams, Pugh, Freeman , Pittman
Jones, and Perez Heston was the operating engineer, Perez, the welder,
and Sanders ( listed on Wonderly's records as a foreman), Williams, Pugh,
Freeman, and Pittman, the pipefitters
' Wise and Baity
427-835 0 - 74 - 55
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
could only make recommendations, it appears that
these were effective recommendations. I find that
Kupka was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.
From the 15 persons named on Wonderly's
payroll for February 7, Kupka as foreman, Heston
as operating engineer, Perez as welder, and Sanders
(who was also a foreman), Williams, Pugh,
Freeman, and Pittman as pipefitters cannot be con-
sidered within the bargaining unit described in the
contract between Wonderly and the Maintenance
Union. Only seven employees, Cole, Lawson,
Smith, Coupe, Wise, Baity, and Jones, were
covered by that contract as of the last day that
Wonderly performed maintenance work for Thums.
It is the usual practice for collective-bargaining
contracts covering oilfield maintenance employees
to be based on a geographical area so that the con-
tractor can move from job to job and work under
the same contract in the entire area among the oil-
fields. Wonderly worked at various times at the
Huntington Beach field, the Sunset field, and the
Fillmore area, and in each case the crews were
moved from one field to another but remained in
the same bargaining unit so that the employees did
not have to transfer from one union to another
when they transferred from jobsite to jobsite. The
general practice in this industry is that each con-
tractor brings in his own crew.
4. Respondent's prior work
Since 1966, Respondent has been performing
maintenance services both in chemical plants and
on oilfields. Though both types of maintenance in-
volve work related to the movement of liquids and
therefore are somewhat similar, the crews that
Respondent used for plant maintenance were al-
ways separate from those doing oilfield main-
tenance and the plant maintenance part of Respon-
dent's business has little bearing on this case. The
type of oilfield maintenance work performed by
Respondent was the same as that done by Won-
derly, which is described above. However, there is
no ownership or business relation between Respon-
dent and Wonderly. In general, the work included
all maintenance work between the wellhead and the
delivery point on the pipeline, but it also included a
multitude of tasks including some that could be
considered new construction Since 1966, Respon-
dent performed oilfield maintenance work for vari-
ous oil companies at Huntington Beach, Yorba Lin-
da, Newport Beach, and Culver City, all in Califor-
nia. Some of the jobs lasted for extended periods
but others were for only a few weeks or months.
In January 1969, Respondent was performing
general oilfield maintenance services for Gulf Oil at
Century City, which was about 30 miles from
Thums, and for Standard Oil at Yorba Linda,
California, which was about 20 miles from Thums.
At each of these sites Respondent employed about
four roustabouts. At that time Respondent knew
that the Yorba Linda project would have to be
phased out.
5. The bid for the Thums maintenance work
Prior to February 7, 1969, Thums was using five
separate contractors who had no relation to each
other. Wonderly was on pier J and different con-
tractors were on each of the four islands . Each of
the five contractors had a contract with Thums that
was terminable at will.
Some time prior to October 31, 1968, Thums was
criticized by the State of California because the
maintenance work being performed was more ex-
pensive than the work done by certain competitors.
Thums decided to switch from a variety of main-
tenance contractors to a single contractor in the
hope that the work could be done more inexpen-
sively. In addition, Thums decided to give the con-
tractor who was awarded the work a contract for a
fixed duration of 1 year , again in the hope of reduc-
ing costs by guaranteeing a minimum of work. The
city of Long Beach directed Thums to award the
maintenance work by competitive bidding. As a
result, on October 31, 1968, Thums issued an in-
vitation to bid on the general oilfield maintenance
work to number of contractors, including Respon-
dent and Wonderly.8 On December 5, 1968,
Respondent was determined to be the low bidder.
About that date, Thums told Respondent that it was.
low bidder and that a final award would be made
subject to Respondent's securing a state license and
review by Thums of Respondent's labor agreement.
Thums' policy was to award contracts only to con-
tractors who had agreements with labor organiza-
tions. Respondent received the state license but was
told by Thums that an addendum was needed to the
contract it had with Petroleum Union to specifically
note Respondent's new worksite at Thums. The ad-
dendum was added and Respondent was awarded
the work. By letter dated February 7, Respondent
was formally awarded the work, which was to begin
on February 10. Pursuant to the contract, Respon-
dent was to do all of the general oilfield main-
tenance work on pier J and the four islands. How-
ever, in order to allow the contractors on the
islands and their unions time to place their em-
ployees elsewhere and avoid putting them out of
work, Thums arranged for Respondent to take over
the work on a staggered basis. Respondent was
scheduled to begin the pier J maintenance work on
February 10, the island C maintenance work on
" Respondent submitted its bid based in part on the wage rates contained
in its contract with the Petroleum Union and Wonderly submitted its based
in part on its contract with the Maintenance Union
PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 853
February 24, the island D maintenance work on
March 3, and the island B maintenance work on
March 10.9 The schedule also provided for Respon-
dent to staff pier J with one foreman and seven men
and to staff each of the four islands with one
foreman and five men.
6. Respondent's staffing of the Thums job
Respondent's general approach to staffing new
jobs was to use people who were already on the
payroll, to use a file of applicants that was kept in a
central location, and as a final resort to use
newspaper advertising. Priority is given to em-
ployees who previously worked for Respondent.
Shortly before Respondent undertook the Thums
job, it was in the process of phasing out its Yorba
Linda work and Respondent intended to transfer
the crew from Yorba Linda to Thums and to add
other employees who had formerly worked for
Respondent but who were not then working. At
that time Respondent anticipated that a total com-
plement, including foremen, of 45 to 50 men would
be required. Additional employees were to be hired
by the foremen with the subsequent approval of
higher management and through central hiring.
James M. Cook is the manager of field operations
for Respondent, and clearly is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act. A few days before Februa-
ry 7, while he was at the Thums' facility, one of
Thums' foremen named Hill introduced him to Wil-
lard Sanders, Wonderly's general foreman. Sanders
asked Cook how he was fixed for labor and Cook
answered that he had all the people that he needed
to start with. Sanders replied that Wonderly had
quite a few employees on pier J and that Wonderly
didn't need them any longer. He asked if Cook had
any use for them and Cook answered that they
could probably use some additional employees but
he didn't know whether it would be on pier J or
not. After some discussion of the wage rate that
Respondent was paying and the contract that
Respondent had with the Petroleum Union, Sanders
said that he had a lot of good people on pier J and
he hated to see them without a job so he would get
a list of employees who wanted to work for Respon-
dent and give them to Cook.
On February 6, Cook was once again on the
Thums' facility, where he met William J. Kupka,
one of Wonderly's foremen. They discussed the
possibility of Wonderly employees going to work
for Respondent and Kupka said that he would get a
list of people that wanted to work for Respondent
and give the list to Sanders.
On February 7, while Cook was once again at
Thums' facility, Sanders gave him a list of people
who worked for Wonderly who wanted to work for
Respondent. Sanders told Cook that they were all
good, especially Kupka. Thums' foreman, Hill, was
also present and concurred with Sanders. The
names on the list were Kupka, Baity, Wise, Coupe,
and Cole. Cook went over the list with Kupka, who
recommended each man and gave his qualifica-
tions. Cook told Kupka to have all the men on the
list at work on February 10 and they would see if
they could find a place for them.
Later on the same day, which was a Friday,
Thums' foreman, Hill, told Cook that there was
some work that needed doing over the weekend,
cleaning a frog pond (the place where oil skim is
removed from water before it is returned to the
ocean ). Cook answered that he had not planned to
have anybody work until February 10, and Hill said
that Wonderly's crew had already been released.
Coupe then went to Kupka and told him to pick
another man and the two of them could begin the
frog pond cleaning work the following morning.
Cook also arranged to have four men bring equip-
ment , trucks, and hand tools from Respondent's
yard to the Thums' facility over the weekend.'o
Respondent's payroll records show that on
February 10 it began working for Thums with one
foreman and eight employees. The foreman and
seven of these employees had, through February 7,
worked for Wonderly.'t In addition, the name of R.
1. Marcum, an employee of Respondent who had
worked at Yorba Linda and was transferred to the
Thums' facility, also appears on the payroll. The
payroll for the following day, February 11, does not
show Lawson as having worked but does add the
name of D. L. Bellini, another employee of Respon-
dent's who was transferred from Yorba Linda.
Respondent's records also show the number of em-
ployees, excluding foremen, employed on succeed-
ing weeks . For the week ending February 16, there
were seven employees on pier J. For the week end-
ing March 9, the seven on pier J remained , but six
employees were added to island B. For the week
ending March 16, pier J had seven, island B six,
island C six, and island D two. For the week ending
March 23, pier J had seven, island B five , island C
six, and island D six . For the week ending March
30, pier J had 7, island B 6, island C 8, island D 11,
and island A 7. From that time on pier J as well as
all four islands were staffed and the payroll records
show that from March 30 through July 27, the em-
ployee complement, excluding foremen, ranged
from a low of 38 for the week ending April 6 to a
high of 56 for the week ending June 29. Each crew,
whether on pier J or one of the islands, had its own
foreman.
None of Respondent's employees used any tools
or equipment owned by Wonderly. Even the con-
struction shack which Wonderly had used was
"The testimony of Thomas S Richards, vice president and manager of
Thums, on which these findings are based, does not mention any date for
staffing island A However, Respondent 's records show that it started
staffing island A the week ending March 30
` o Kupka and Cole worked 4 hours on February 7 and 4 hours on Februa-
ry 8 on the frog pond Kupka, Barry, Wise, and Coupe each worked 4 hours
in equipment moving on February 8
" The foreman was Kupka, the employees were Barry, Perez, Wise,
Lawson, Coupe, Cole, and Smith As noted above, Perez had been ex-
cluded from Wonderly's bargaining unit with the Maintenance Union, as he
was a welder Thus, there were six employees who had been part of that
unit
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
removed and Respondent brought its own shack.
Ninety-nine percent of the tools used by Respon-
dent came from Respondent's yard in Santa Fe
Springs.
7. Respondent's contract with Petroleum Union
On June 1, 1968, Respondent and the Petroleum
Union executed a collective-bargaining agreement
which, by its terms, was effective from March 1,
1967, until April 30, 1969, and thereafter, unless
certain written notices were given. The recognition
provision of the contract read:
A. The Company recognizes the Union as the
exclusive bargaining agent of those em-
ployees of the Company referred to in this
Article for the Purpose of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of work, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
B. This Agreement shall apply to employees
on the payroll of the Company including all
production, construction, and maintenance
employees for work being performed for the
Company's client named in the addendum to
this Agreement, but excluding office, execu-
tive, clerical, timekeepers, guards and super-
visors above the rank of foreman.
Though the above unit description applies only to
work being performed for Respondent's "client
named in the addendum to this Agreement," the
contract, which was admitted in evidence without
objection, does not disclose any addendum except
one for Thums which was executed on January 31.
However, the uncontradicted testimony of Paul E.
Stillman, president of Respondent, establishes that
Respondent uniformly applied this contract with
the Petroleum Union to all of its general oilfield
maintenance jobs, and it was the understanding of
both Respondent and the Petroleum Union that the
contract covered all employees whether or not
Respondent had notified the Union as to the exact
location where the work was taking place.
As noted above, before Respondent was formally
awarded the maintenance contract, it was notified
by Thums that an addendum should be added to
the contract between Respondent and the Petrole-
um Union so that Thums would be specifically
named. Though both Respondent and Petroleum .
Union felt that an addendum would not be needed
for the contract to cover Respondent's work for
Thums, an addendum was executed on January 31,
because Thums had requested it.
The collective-bargaining agreement also con-
tained a union-security clause requiring employees
to join the Union within 30 days after the date of
11 The cards in question read
Date '19
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
PAYROLL DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATION OF UNION DUES
hereby authorize (Company)
to deduct monthly from my wages the amount equal to the then regu-
lar monthly dues of the International Union of Petroleum Workers,
employment or the date of the agreement,
whichever was later, and a provision for the volun-
tary checkoff of dues and initiation fees.
The contract coverage as interpreted by the
parties thereto was similar to the coverage under
the agreement between Wonderly and the Main-
tenance Union except in one major area. Wonder-
ly's contract as interpreted by the parties thereto
did not cover operating engineers, welders, or
pipefitters. Employees in those classifications were
covered by different contracts with different
unions. Respondent, when it took over the main-
tenance work, informed its employees that they
would be expected to do all work and that all would
be covered under the Petroleum Union contract.
8. The incident involving the checkoff
The findings of fact set forth above is a com-
posite of testimony of a number of witnesses, all of
whom testified credibly and without substantial
contradiction. However, a sharp conflict of
testimony does exist with regard to the circum-
stances under which certain employees of Respon-
dent signed checkoff authorizations in favor of the
Petroleum Union.
James M. Cook, manager of field operations for
Respondent, testified as follows: On February 8, he
spoke to the men who were working that day about
the wage rates in the Petroleum Union contract and
showed them a copy of the contract. Some of the
men may have signed applications for employment
at that time. On February 10, he met with all the
employees who were working that day and he
handed each of them a W-4 form, an employment
application, and a payroll deduction authorization
for union dues in favor of the Petroleum Union. He
told the employees that they had to fill out the ap-
plication for employment and the W-4 form. One of
the employees asked when he wanted the cards
back and he answered that they could give them
back when they wanted to and the only require-
ment in the contract was that the employees had to
become a member after 30 days. He specifically de-
nied ever telling them that they would lose their
jobs if they didn't immediately turn in the signed
checkoff authorization card, but acknowledged that
he did say the card should be turned in within 30
days if the employees decided to join the Union.
Some time later, one of the employees, Wise, told
him the card had the wrong address and asked for
its return . Cook did return it and Wise substituted a
new one thereafter without saying anything more
about it.12
Kupka's testimony concerning the cards differed
substantially from that of Cook. Kupka testified as
AFL-CIO, and to pay such definite amount in full to such Union until
further notice from me
It is understood that this authorization is voluntary , and shall remain
in force until cancellation by me, such cancellation to be submitted to
the payroll office not later than the IOth of the month in which the
deduction is to be cancelled
Witness Signed
Date of Birth Address
Local City
Dept Zip #
PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 855
follows: Cook gave him the checkoff authorization
cards to pass out among the employees the morning
before he started working. Cook told him to return
the cards that evening because he (Cook) had to
have them but Cook did not make any statement
about what would happen if the men did not sign
the cards, and no threats were made concerning the
cards. About 4 p.m. on February 10, Cook met
with all the employees. Cook told the men that all
the cards had to be signed for the Union and had to
be turned in that day. Cook did not say anything
about what would happen if the cards were not
signed nor did he say anything about the signing
being a condition of employment. However, he left
for home after signing his card and other employees
were still there.
Two employees also testified concerning the
checkoff authorizations. Charles E. Wise testified
that at the meeting with Cook on February 10
Cook not only gave the cards to the employees but
told them that it was necessary for them to sign and
turn in the cards because they could not work there
unless they were. Wise also testified that he sub-
sequently got back the card from Cook on the pre-
text that the card had the wrong address but that
Cook told him that another card had to be signed
and turned in. Wise did turn in another card but it
was unsigned. Another employee, John D. Baity,
corroborated parts of Wise's testimony. In his initial
testimony Baity testified that he did not hear Cook
say anything about checkoff cards, but after his
memory was refreshed by the examination of an af-
fidavit that he had previously given, he testified that
at the February 10 meeting Cook passed out the
checkoff cards and told the employees that the
cards had to be signed and returned that night if the
employees wanted to work there.
The testimony of Wise and Baity must be viewed
in connection with the report that they gave to
Leas, the general representative for the Main-
tenance Union. Leas testified that he spoke to Wise
and Baity, as well as the rest of the crew, and they
reported to him that Cook told them that he would
like them to sign authorization cards and give them
back to him and that "they had to get them back in
so that they would be members at the end of 30
days or they could not work there."
After observing all of the witnesses and reviewing
their testimony, I credit Cook's version of the
February 10 meeting. Wise and Baity testified that
Cook told them they had to sign the cards if they
wanted to work there. However, according to Leas'
testimony, Wise and Baity told him in effect that
they had to join the Union within 30 days to work
there. Kupka testified that he heard no threats at
all. Cook's testimony that he only told the men that
they had to join the Union within 30 days was con-
vincing and is credited. However, I do find, on the
basis of Cook's own admission, that he did dis-
tribute the checkoff authorization cards to em-
ployees.
On February 14, Respondent sent the following
letter to all employees:
Shortly after you were employed by us, you
signed a "Payroll Deduction Authorization of
• Union Dues" card. The purpose of this card is
to provide for monthly deduction of dues of
the International Union of Petroleum Workers.
Dues will not be deducted from your wages
until such time as you decide to become a
member of the I.U.P.W. By the terms of our
agreement with the I.U.P.W., you must
become a member of the I.U.P.W. by the thir-
ty-first day of your employment by us. Prior to
this time you may or may not become a
member, at your option.
The deduction authorization is voluntary. You
may cancel the authorization and pay dues
directly at such time as you become a member
and dues are payable.
9. The strike and the demand for recognition by
the Maintenance Union
On February 10, employees Wise and Smith and,
on February 11, employees Baity and Cole signed
bargaining authorization cards in favor of the Main-
tenance Union. All the cards showed that the em-
ployees were employed by Respondent. Employee
Wise collected the cards and on February 13 gave
them to Leas, the general representative for the
Maintenance Union. On the same day, the Main-
tenance Union began picketing Respondent at the
Thums' facility. After the picketing began neither
Kupka nor any of the employees, except Marcum,
who began work on February 10, reported for
work. All engaged in picketing and all were
replaced by Respondent.
On or about February 11, Leas, on behalf of the
Maintenance Union, and Stillman, on behalf of
Respondent, had a conversation. In substance Leas
said that he wanted to talk about a contract with his
union and Stillman replied that he would not
discuss a contract because of his outstanding con-
tract with the Petroleum Union.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The successorship issue
The United States Supreme Court has held that
"the disappearance by a merger of a corporate em-
ployer which has entered into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with a union does not automatically
terminate all rights of the employees covered by the
agreement, and that, in appropriate circumstances,
present here, the successor employer may be
required to arbitrate with the union under the
agreement. .." John Wiley and Sons, Inc. v.
Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964). In reaching this
conclusion the high Court equated the merger
situation with one where an owner is replaced by
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another owner but the business entity remains the
same.
This concept of continuing business entity has
been consistently employed by the Board to require
successor employers to honor the bargaining
obligations of their predecessors." In Will Coach
Lines, Inc., 175 NLRB 518, the Board adopted the
decision of Trial Examiner George J. Bott which
held in part:
Respondents refused to bargain with the Union
when it took over E & OV's operations, and it
justifies its refusal on various considerations
connected with the transfer and change of
ownership. It has long been established, how-
ever, that a change in ownership in an enter-
prise does not automatically extinguish the
rights of employees or their representatives
and absolve the new owner from any duty to
recognize the union which represented his
predecessor's employees or to comply with any
of the terms of a labor contract which covered
those employees. Since it is the "employing in-
dustry" which the Act seeks to regulate,10 the
predecessor's obligations may devolve on the
successor in certain circumstances. Critical
questions in determining the extent of the new
employer's obligations are whether there has
been a "substantial continuity of identity in the
business enterprise" or "the enterprise remains
essentially the same," after the change in
ownership." The basic question had also been
described as "whether respondent continued
essentially the same operation, with substan-
tially the same employee unit .... 1114 In at-
tempting to answer these critical questions and
determine whether a new employer is a "suc-
cessor employer" obligated to bargain with the
Union which represented his predecessor's em-
ployees, the Board and the courts consider
many factors. What combination of factors is
controlling is not always easy to determine, but
prime considerations are the continuation of
the business without substantial interruption, in
such a form as to make the bargaining unit
readily discernible, with some or all of the
former employees employed at their old jobs.13
10 N L R B v Cotten, d/b/a Kiddie Kover Mfg, Co , 105 F 2d 179,
183 (CA 6)
" John Wiley & Sons, Inc v Livingston, 376 U S 543, Cruse Motors,
Inc , 105 NLRB 242, 247
i2 Maintenance , Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1299, 1301, Glenn Gould-
ing, d/hla Fed-Mart, 165 NLRB No 22
11 Overnite Transportation Company v N L R B , 372 F 2d 765
(C A 4), Randolph Rubber Company, Inc, 152 NLRB 496, Firchau
Logging Company, Inc , 126 NLRB 1215, 1221
As counsel for the General Counsel points out in
his comprehensive and well-written brief, the suc-
cessorship principle has been applied by the Board
where a successor has introduced improved
13 Sec Wackenhut v International Union , United Plant Guards , 332 F 2d
954 (C A 9, 1964), Overnite Transportation Co v N L R B , 372 F 2d 765
machines and techniques, changed the managerial
staff and used a new trademark, Randolph Rubber
Company, 152 NLRB 496, and the same doctrine
has been used where there did not exist any privity
of contract between the predecessor and the suc-
cessor. Thus, in Maintenance, Inc., 148 NLRB
1299, the Board found that a successor was
required to honor the bargaining obligations of a
predecessor where the predecessor was an indepen-
dent concern which lost a contract to provide
custodial janitorial services for NASA's Marshall
Space Flight Center and the successor was an inde-
pendent concern that was awarded that contract. In
that case, the successor performed substantially the
same operation that the predecessor had, serviced
the facilities in the same manner at the same site,
and utilized the predecessor's work force, who did
basically the same job. The Board found that there
had been no substantial change in the employing in-
dustry.
The Board has also held that "among the central
factors in the successorship question is the new em-
ployer's relationship to the old employer's work
force." Tallakson Ford, Inc., 171 NLRB 503. To
put that relationship in perspective some discussion
of the bargaining unit is required.
The General Counsel contends in his brief that as
Wonderly's general oilfield maintenance employees
were restricted to pier J, a separate bargaining unit
for pier J is appropriate and that Respondent is the
successor in that bargaining unit. Thus, in deter-
mining the relationship between the old and new
employees General Counsel would exclude all of
Respondent's employees on the islands. I cannot
find merit in that contention. The collective-bar-
gaining agreement between Wonderly and the
Maintenance Union was not limited to Wonderly's
employees on pier J. The bargaining unit included
all of Wonderly's oilfield maintenance employees
over whom the Maintenance Union had jurisdic-
tion. As interpreted by the parties, the contract ex-
cluded operating engineers, welders, and pipefit-
ters, but is clear that Wonderly's roustabouts would
be in the bargaining unit no matter where they were
employed on the Thums' facility. If Wonderly had
been awarded the oilfield maintenance work on the
islands, no new agreement would have been needed
to include the island roustabouts in the bargaining
unit. In other words, the contract covered the en-
tire Thums' facility even though Wonderly hap-
pened to be working only on pier J. As this broad
coverage has to be considered when the employing
entity was Wonderly, it would also have to be con-
sidered if the same employing entity was Respon-
dent.
Before Respondent came into the picture, Thums
contracted the oilfield maintenance work to five
separate contractors, four on the islands and one on
(C A 4, 1967 ), and cases cited therein for judicial approval of this doc-
trine
PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 857
pier J. Based on economic motivation, Thums ter-
minated the contracts with the independent con-
tractors and unified all of the oilfield maintenance
work by consolidating it for bidding purposes. The
result was that one employer was to take on the
function of supplying roustabouts for the islands
and pier J. As a successful bidder, Respondent was
required to supply roustabouts for all of Thums' oil-
field maintenance needs. Though, as discussed
above, there were some differences between the
jobs roustabouts performed on the islands and on
pier J, the basic work was the same . Wonderly's
contract with the Maintenance Union covered its
roustabouts working at Thums with the exception
of the operating engineers , welders, and pipefitters,
and Respondent took over all the roustabout work
at Thums without those exclusions.
As is set forth in more detail above, on February
7, which was Wonderly's last day as general oilfield
maintenance contractor for Thums, Wonderly had
in its employ 15 persons, 2 of whom were foremen
and 7 of whom were in the bargaining unit in
question.14
On February 10, which was the first full day of
Respondent's work as general oilfield maintenance
contractor, Respondent employed nine persons,
one of whom was a foreman and eight of whom
were employees. The foreman and seven of the
eight employees had been employed by Wonderly
at Thums on February 7. Six of those seven em-
ployees had been in the bargaining unit established
between Wonderly and the Maintenance Union.
Between February 10 and March 30, Respondent
gradually increased the scope of its general oilfield
maintenance work until it was manning pier J and
all four islands. For the week ending March 30, it
had 39 employees, excluding foremen. Between
that time and July 27, the lowest number of em-
ployees was 38 and the highest 56, again excluding
foremen.
The General Counsel urges that Respondent's
relationship to Wonderly's work force should be
considered as of the February 7 and February 10
dates. However, I do not believe that would be an
adequate comparison. Respondent did not bid on
or accept a maintenance job at pier J alone. It bid
on and received the general oilfield maintenance
work for all of the Thums' facility, including pier J
and the islands. It was anticipated that the work
would require the employment of 45 to 50 men and
in fact, when Respondent was fully staffed, it did
employ between 39 and 56 employees. It would not
be fair to say the Respondent took a small job
which grew in size . Rather it took a large job and
phased in its . operation. This phasing in was
required to prevent unnecessary hardship to em-
ployees of other contractors on the islands. Con-
sidering Respondent's total function on the Thums'
facility, it cannot be said that there was a represen-
tative employee complement of Respondent's em-
ployees on February 10. It follows that the six em-
ployees who were hired by Respondent and who
had formerly worked in Wonderly's bargaining unit
must be viewed in the light of the normal employee
complement of Respondent which ranged from 39
to 56. In addition, the one foreman hired by
Respondent who had formerly worked for Won-
derly must be viewed against the five foremen nor-
mally employed by Respondent.15 In addition, con-
sideration must be given to the fact that the
foreman and the seven employees who had previ-
ously worked for Wonderly left the job and were
replaced.16
As the Board said in Tallakson Ford, Inc., supra,
one of the main factors to be considered in deter-
mining whether a true successorship relation exists
is the new employer's relationship to the old em-
ployer's work force.17 In that case, the Board found
that a majority of the employees of the successor
had never worked for the predecessor and there-
fore the successor had no obligation to bargain with
the union which represented the employees of the
predecessor. In Thomas Cadillac, Inc., 170 NLRB
884, the Board also held that no true successorship
existed and refused to order a successor's to bar-
gain with the union which represented the em-
ployees of the predecessor. In that case, two inde-
pendent auto dealers each acquired a Cadillac sales
business that had been formerly run by General
Motors. Noting that at one location only 16 of 63
service department employees of the new employer
had formerly been employed by General Motors
and at the other location only 11 out of 35 were in
the same situation, the Board found that "neither
employed a significant number of service em-
ployees who had worked for GM, and the super-
visory heirarchy bears little resemblance to that for-
merly existing under GM," and that the new
franchise dealers had no obligation to bargain with
the union that had represented the GM employees.
Under the criteria set forth in Thomas Cadillac,
Inc., supra, and Tallakson Ford, Inc., supra, I must
conclude that, considering the overall employee
complement of Respondent, Respondent did not
employ a significant number of employees who had
formerly worked for Wonderly in Wonderly's bar-
gaining unit with the Maintenance Union, nor did
Respondent's supervisory hierarchy bear much
resemblance to Wonderly's.
Considering the nature of the industry involved
where it is not uncommon for employees to follow
a contractor from one job to another; the scope of
the contracts that Respondent and Wonderly had
with the Petroleum Union and Maintenance Union,
" As noted, the operating engineers, welders, and pipefitters were ex-
cluded
15 There is a separate foreman for each crew and at least one crew on
pier J and each of the islands
's There is no contention that these employees were terminated in viola-
tion of the Act
it See also Ellary Lace Corp , 178 NLRB 73, and Marion Stmcox, Trustee
of Wagner Shipyard and Marina Inc, 178 NLRB 516
18 The word "successor" in this context means "the one who came after"
and does not imply a legal obligation
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respectively; the disparity in the size of the job un-
dertaken by Respondent as contrasted to Won-
derly; the exclusion of the operating engineers, wel-
ders, and pipefitters from Wonderly's bargaining
unit and the lack of that exclusion from Respon-
dent 's; the complete lack of any relationship, con-
tractual or otherwise, between Respondent and
Wonderly; and, most important of all, the small
number of Wonderly's employees who were taken
on by Respondent, I conclude that Respondent is
not the successor to Wonderly's bargaining obliga-
tions with the Maintenance Union. I shall therefore
recommend that the portion of the complaint which
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act be dismissed.
2. The extension of contract issue
On January 3 1, when Respondent and the
Petroleum Union executed an addendum to their
contract to specifically name Thums as one of
Respondent' s clients, Respondent had no em-
ployees working at Thums. It can thus be argued
that the contract was an unlawful prehire agree-
ment .19 However, I found that the parties to this
contract understood that this contract covered all
of Respondent's employees no matter which client
Respondent happened to be working for I further
found that the contract was uniformly applied to all
of Respondent 's general oilfield maintenance jobs. I
do not believe that the contract can be considered
prehire any more than it would be if Respondent
expanded its operation at one existing location. The
contract as interpreted by the parties covers all of
Respondent's employees and the particular location
where they are assigned to work by the Respondent
is not controlling. Respondent's contract granted
exclusive recognition to the Petroleum Union as the
representative of Respondent's employees and such
recognition " raises a presumption of regularity,
namely, that the Union was the majority represen-
tative of the employees at the time of the execution
of the contract; for, otherwise, it would have been
unlawful for the Respondent to have extended such
recognition." Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 124 NLRB
494, enfd. 280 F.2d 665 (C.A.D.C., 1960).20 As the
General Counsel is seeking to show that the appli-
cation of the contract to the Thums' facility is a
violation of the Act, the General Counsel has the
burden of rebutting that presumption of regularity.
The presumption has not been rebutted either as to
Respondent's overall employee complement or
Respondent's employee complement at Thums. I
10 Section 8 (f) of the Act provides that a prehlre agreement shall not be
unlawful where it is made by " an employer engaged primarily in the build-
ing and construction industry covering employees engaged in the
building and construction industry with a labor organization of which
building and construction employees are members " However, Respon-
dent is not engaged in the building and construction industry Though
Respondent does perform such functions which overlap with construction
work, it is a general oilfield maintenance contractor and its primary func-
tion relates to maintenance rather than building and construction
have found that Respondent's normal employee
complement at Thums ranged from 38 to 56 em-
ployees. It is not possible from an examination of
the record to determine whether a majority of these
employees were members of the Petroleum Union
or not. Respondent gave priority in employment to
persons who previously worked for it. How many of
the total employee complement were recalled em-
ployees who were members of the Petroleum Union
cannot be determined from the record. The main
thrust of the General Counsel's brief on this issue is
that Respondent violated the Act by recognizing
the Petroleum Union when it had a duty under law
to bargain with the Maintenance Union and,
moreover, considering the employee complement
on February 10, the Petroleum Union could not
have represented a majority of Respondent's em-
ployees on that date in a unit limited to pier J.
However, in the section of this Decision entitled
"successorship issue ," I have found that Respond-
ent did not have an obligation to bargain with the
Maintenance Union, that February 10 was not the
critical date, and that there was no bargaining unit
limited to pier J. I conclude that the General Coun-
sel has not met the burden of proof required to
establish that Respondent's application of its con-
tract with the Petroleum Union to its Thums' em-
ployees violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), or (3) of the
Act. I shall therefore recommend that those allega-
tions in the complaint be dismissed.21
3. The checkoff issue
I have found that Respondent, through its
manager of field operations, Cook, distributed
checkoff authorization cards in favor of the
Petroleum Union to the employees at a meeting on
February 10. At the same time he gave them em-
ployment applications and W-4 forms. Thus, the
checkoff cards were given as part of Respondent's
hiring process with regard to the employees who
were present. Those employees were Baity, Perez,
Wise, Lawson, Coupe, Cole, Smith, and Marcum.
Though I have found that Cook did not condition
employment on the execution of the checkoff
cards, that the cards on their face indicated that
they were voluntary, and that Respondent's pres-
ident, Stillman, on February 14, wrote to all the
employees emphasizing the fact that the payroll
deduction authorizations were voluntary, the
question remains whether the mere distribution of
the cards by Respondent on February 10 as part of
the hiring process was in itself a violation of Section
20 Sce also N L R B v Local3, IBEW, 362 F 2d 232 (C A 2, 1966)
21 The General Counsel relies in his brief on Midaest Piping and Supply
Co, 63 NLRB 1060, in arguing that Respondent's recognition of the
Petroleum Union was unlawful However, the Midwest Piping doctrine is
applicable only where a valid question concerning representation has been
raised As Respondent had an outstanding contract with the Petroleum
Union covering all of its employees and that contract has not been found to
be invalid, the Midst est Piping doctrine would not be applicable
PLANT AND FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 859
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The distribution is by
its very nature an implied solicitation to the em-
ployees to execute the cards.
In Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., 122 NLRB 1552,
the Board found that an employer violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by permitting a union to
solicit dues-checkoff authorizations during the
process of hiring. This conclusion was reached even
though there was no evidence the job applicants
were required to sign the dues-checkoff authoriza-
tions as a condition of receiving employment. The
Board held "the conditions under which applicants
were asked to sign the authorizations-conditions
for which the Respondent was responsible-greatly
helped the Union in securing necessary signatures.
Employees, particularly unsophisticated ones, could
very well believe from the circumstances, that sig-
ning a dues checkoff was a routine part of the hir-
ing process."22 The rationale of that case applies
even more strongly where as in the present case an
employer did not merely go along with a union's
distribution of checkoff cards during the hiring
process, but distributed the cards itself through a
high level supervisor.
I conclude that Respondent's distribution of
checkoff authorization cards in favor of the
Petroleum Union through its supervisor, Cook, to
the eight employees named above on February 10
was an unlawful assistance to the Petroleum Union
and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
by the distribution of checkoffs during the hiring
process to eight employees. I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from en-
gaging in such conduct and to post appropriate
notices. However, I do not believe that a dues reim-
bursement order running in favor of the eight em-
ployees would be warranted under the particular
facts of this case. One of the employees, Marcum,
was not a new employee but was transferred from a
location of one of Respondent's other clients. Prior
to his reporting to the Thums' facility, he was
covered by the Petroleum Union contract. The
seven other employees who executed checkoff
authorizations on February 10 all left the job on
February 13 and were replaced. By letter dated
February 14 from Respondent, it was made clear to
all these employees that the dues would not be
deducted from their wages until such time as they
decided to become members of the Petroleum
Union, that they had 30 days to join the Union, that
the deduction authorization was voluntary, and that
they could cancel the authorization and pay dues
directly at such time as they became members. In
these circumstances, with all seven employees hav-
ing been replaced after they had worked on the job
for 3 days, a dues reimbursement order would be
meaningless.23
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent with respect to
the distribution of checkoff authorization cards in
favor of the Petroleum Union as set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with Respon-
dent's operations described in section 1, 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 certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. I have found that Respondent un-
lawfully assisted the Petroleum Union in obtaining
employees ' signatures on checkoff authorizations
r' See also Cadillac Wire Corp, 128 NLRB 1002, enfd 290 F 2d 261,
Campbell Soup Company, 152 NLRB 1645, enfd 378 F 2d 259, Western
Building Maintenance Co, 162 NLRB 778, enfd 402 F 2d 775
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Petroleum Union and the Maintenance
Union are both labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By distributing checkoff authorization forms
in favor of the Petroleum Union to eight employees
on February 10 as part of its hiring process,
Respondent assisted the Petroleum Union and in-
terfered with the rights of employees set forth in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Except as is set forth in 3, above, the General
Counsel has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publica-
tion. )
' See Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc , supra, where the Board refrained
from ordering a dues reimbursement remedy after the employer had par-
ticipated in the solicitation of checkoff cards during the hiring procedure