Reno Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 196 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practice by its execution and effectuation of the unlawful
preference clauses of the Coast Agreement.4b
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Notice to Show Cause Why a Supplemental Decision and
Order Amending and Clarifying Certain Findings in the Decision
and Order of February 26,1952, Should Not Issue.
4b We note that , in any event , the continued existence of the unlawful preferential hiring
contract and its enforcement at all tinres here material is in itself sufficient to support
an order prohibiting WEW from giving the unlawful portions of the contract any further
effect, and from renewing , extending , or entering into any like or related agreement.
See e. g. N. L. If . B. v. Gaynor News Co., 147 F. 2d 719 ( C. A. 2) ; Federal Stores, Inc.,
91 NLRB 647, 657.
RENO OIL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1073. November 4,1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the
Board on August 7, 1952, an election by mail ballot was conducted
beginning August 25 and ending September 8, 1952, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region. Upon completion of the election, the parties were furnished
with a tally of ballots, showing that of approximately 76 eligible
voters, 66 cast ballots, of which 28 were for and 29 against the Peti-
tioner, 7 were challenged by the Petitioner, and 2 were void.
On September 15, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the Board
agent's action in voiding one ballot and not counting that ballot. On
September 16, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. On September 29, 1952, the Regional
Director, after investigation, issued and duly served upon the parties
a report on challenged ballots and objections to election in which he
recommended that the Petitioner's challenges to all seven ballots be
sustained, that the Employer's objections to the voiding of one ballot
and the, Petitioner's objections to the results of the election be over-
ruled, and that the Board dismiss the petition.
The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report, alleging that the Employer had continued to electioneer by
letter during the period of the mail balloting, and that the letter
identified the Regional Director as being in opposition to the Peti-
tioner. The Employer filed answers to the Petitioner's,objections to
the election.
The Regional Director stated in his report that the Employer mailed
a letter to its employees dated August 23, 1952, to which was attached
s Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
101 NLRB No. 57.
SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY 197
a letter from the Employer's attorney. The Employer's letter re-
ferred the employees to the attachment "showing" the efforts of the
Petitioner and its parent organization "to prevent the officers of
the C. I. O. from having to take the oath that they were not members
of the Communist Party." The attachment set forth a "brief his-
tory" of court actions involving the non-Communist affidavit section
of the Act, including Oil Workers International Union v. Elliott,
Regional Director, a Federal district court case. By letter dated
August 26, 1952, the Regional Office of the Board advised the parties
that the ballots had been forwarded to the eligible voters on August 25.
Clearly the reference by the Employer in its letter to a court de-
cision, which has in its title the Petitioner as plaintiff and the Regional
Director as defendant, cannot reasonably be said to have conveyed to
the employees the impression that the Board was prejudiced against
the Petitioner. Further, there is no evidence that the receipt of the
Employer's August 23 letter by the employees at about the date the
mail balloting was scheduled to begin, was so close in time to the
actual marking and returning of the mail ballots as to have constituted
substantial interference with the conduct of the election? Accord-
ingly, we find that the Petitioner's exceptions do not raise substantial
or material issues with regard to the conduct or results of the election,
and they are hereby overruled.
As the Petitioner has not obtained a majority of the valid votes
cast in the election, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN IIERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
2 Cf. Meyer cf Welch, Inc., 85 NLRB 7Q6, where the Board held that the employer's letter
distributed to the employees during a period ending 20 minutes before the beginning of
actual balloting was not ground for setting the election aside.
SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY and SINCLAIR PLANT PROTECTION
EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER
SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 716 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL.
Cases Nos. 39-RC-465 and 39-RC-469. November 4, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Clifford W. Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
101 NLRB No. 59.