Santa Fe Drilling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1968

171 N.L.R.B. 161 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 161
Santa Fe Drilling Company and Alaska Petroleum
Crafts Council and International Union of
Petroleum Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases
19-CA-3324-1, 19-CA-3328, 19-CA-3470,
19-RC-3851, and 19-RM-598
May 2, 1968
DECISION, ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 18, 1967, Trial Examiner Irving
Rogosin 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 Trial Examiner's Decision at-
tached hereto. He also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions, and a brief in support of the
cross-exceptions, and the Respondent thereafter
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-ex-
ceptions, and the briefs of the parties, and the en-
tire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications
herein noted.'
For the reasons expressed by the Trial Examiner,
we agree that Sherwood was discriminatorily laid
off on March 20, 1966, and that Gardner was
similarly discriminatorily discharged on May 8,
1966. However, we do not agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer that Sherwood and Gardner should be de-
nied reinstatement and backpay.
In our view Sherwood's strong expression of dis-
pleasure to Crew Supervisor Blair upon being in-
formed that he was being replaced by an employee
with more seniority who had been laid off from
another rig, and that he was being laid off rather
than being permitted to bump to the lower skilled
job of roustabout does not warrant the withholding
of the customary remedy. Sherwood was hired as a
roustabout on December 7, 1965, and was
promoted to the higher skilled job of derrickman
on January 21, 1966, under driller Huckaby.
Although Blair testified that Sherwood had been
promoted while Blair was away on a trip and that
he (Blair) would not have recommended Sherwood
for this promotion, there is no showing that he had
ever criticized Sherwood directly or had asked any
other supervisor to discuss with Sherwood any of
Sherwood's alleged shortcomings. Nor does the
record show that Sherwood had ever been warned
or disciplined for his alleged shortcomings as a der-
rickman by other supervisors. To the contrary,
around the middle of February, Respondent's
Manager Lage asked Sherwood how he liked work-
ing for the Respondent, and, according to Sher-
wood's uncontradicted testimony, informed him
that more job opportunities would be available if he
remained with the Respondent and that there
probably would be chances for advancement. Thus,
it appears that Sherwood's sense of indignation
upon being told thereafter by Blair that he was
being let go because of his poor work had con-
siderable justification.
As for the actual remarks themselves, contrary to
the Trial Examiner, we fail to interpret them as ex-
pressing an animal exuberance, indicating physical
threat or harm which would make any future em-
ployer-employee relationship untenable. According
to Blair, after Sherwood was told that he was not to
be retained, Sherwood told him that "he (Sher-
wood) thought I was a pretty good man when he
came out there and said he had told all the hands or
some of the hands around there that if I bumped
him, why he was going to whip my [obscenity], but
he was not going to do it because that would make
him a bigger [obscenity] than I was." Sherwood
continued to use obscenity in regard to Blair. How-
ever, he did not threaten him with physical harm or
.bodily violence. Blair apparently maintained his
composure throughout.
While we do not condone these remarks, we do
not believe them sufficiently serious, in all the cir-
cumstances, to warrant a denial of reinstatement
and backpay. Indeed, the record supports the Trial
Examiner's findings that Blair, himself, and driller
i The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's finding that certain re-
marks of toolpusher Prim Roady violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It was
agreed at the hearing that evidence of these remarks was being introduced
by the General Counsel only for background purposes, and that the
General Counsel was not thereby seeking an additional 8(a)(1) violation
In view of the parties' stipulation at the hearing concerning this matter, we
do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the remarks in question con-
stituted a violation of the Act.
171 NLRB No. 27
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Troy White frequently used obscene remarks in
conversations with employees. Moreover, the Trial
Examiner discounted the seriousness of the use of
obscenity because of "the rough-and-tumble at-
mosphere in which the crews worked, the restricted
quarters in which they lived, and the exigencies of
the enterprise." The Trial Examiner characterized
such language as "privy graffiti."2 We are of the
opinion that such characterization of Sherwood's
remarks is applicable here.
In view of the provocation which prompted the
remarks and the nature of the remarks themselves,
we are unable to find that they indicated such ag-
gravated and gross misconduct as to render Sher-
wood unfit for further employment.' Accordingly,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, we shall direct that
Respondent reinstate Sherwood and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered.
As for Gardner, while finding that he was dis-
criminatorily discharged, the Trial Examiner
further found that the Respondent did not dis-
criminate against him by failing to reinstate him to
his former or substantially equivalent employment
because Gardner had indicated that he intended to
quit his job in any event, and that he had obtained
or was about to obtain another job at which he was
working at the time of the hearing. This, in effect,
while finding a violation the Trial Examiner pro-
vided no specific remedy in regard to Gardner. We
do not agree.
In our opinion, the basis for Gardner's decision
to seek employment elsewhere and any action he
may have taken as to other employment were
directly related to the Respondent's unfair labor
practices, particularly the numerous instances of in-
terference, restraint, and coercion found by the
Trial Examiner to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, and which recommendations we have
herein adopted. Such illegal conduct by the
Respondent, we are convinced, would reasonably
cause an employee to be insecure and to think in
terms of other employment. For example, after the
February 20, 1966, election at which Gardner had
been an observer, Blair announced to the em-
ployees that he was going to be extra strict in his
work standards, no longer permit Gardner time off
to "go fishing" in the summer, that he had "run off
some men ... he was going to run off more." As
' Trial Examiner 's Decision fn. 12.
See, e .g., N.L.R.B. v. M & B Headwear Co, Inc., 349 F.2d 170, 174
(C.A. 4), N L R B. v Efco Manufacturing, Inc, 227 F.2d 675, 676 (C.A.
1), cert . denied 350 U S. 1007; N.L.R.B. v. Kohler Co., 300 F.2d 699,
702-704 (C.A.D.C ), cert . denied 370 U.S. 911, J P Stevens & Co, Inc.,
157 NLRB 869, fn 8 , enfg 380 F.2d 292 (C A 2), cert denied 88 U.S. at
564; J. P. Stevens Company, Inc., 163 NLRB 217, fn. 11. We find that Lau
noted above , Gardner was in fact eventually dis-
criminatorily discharged.
We find, in the circumstances , that Gardner's
decision to terminate his employment the day after
he was unlawfully discharged even though he had
formed his intention to do so before his discharge
was not an unequivocal resolve not to accept rein-
statement , but was made in the heat of dissatisfac-
tion with his treatment by Respondent and could
hardly be characterized as a rational , uncoerced
decision. We therefore do not consider Gardner's
action to be a waiver of his right of reinstatement.
To consider this a waiver of such right would mean
permitting the Respondent to accomplish indirectly
what we have found the Respondent could not do
directly: to remove Gardner discriminatorily from
its work force.
Both in order to preserve the public interest in
Respondent 's meaningful compliance and in order
to safeguard a discriminatee 's rights, we find that it
would effectuate the policies of the Act not to give
weight to Gardner 's statements and conduct regard-
ing his decision to discontinue his employment rela-
tionship with Respondent prior to a good-faith offer
of reinstatement made at a time when the effects of
the unfair labor practices found herein have been
dissipated .' Accordingly, we find that Respondent's
failure to reinstate Gardner and to make him a bona
fide offer of reinstatement is a continued expression
of its unlawful motivation and conduct leading to
his layoff. Contrary to the Trial Examiner , we shall
direct that Respondent reinstate Gardner and make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Santa Fe Drilling Company, Anchorage, Alaska, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Paragraph 2(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Offer Lloyd W. Collins, Sidney R. Sherwood,
David L. Gardner, Arthur W. Gordon, and Ernest
Blower Company, 146 NLRB 1226, 1234 , relied upon by the Trial Ex-
aminer , is inapposite , and distinguishable upon its facts in that it involved,
unlike here , a discharge because of threatening language and a dispute with
a supervisor and not an expression of indignation in response to a dis-
criminatory discharge
a See Heinrich Motors, Inc., 166 NLRB 783, cf. W. C. Nabors, Co., 89
NLRB 538, 550 , 571, fn 50.
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 163
N. Barefield immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make them whole in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
2. Paragraph 2(b) is deleted and the remaining
paragraphs are relettered accordingly.
3. The fourth and fifth indented paragraphs in
the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision are deleted and the following paragraph
substituted:
WE WILL offer Sidney R. Sherwood, David
L. Gardner, Lloyd W. Collins, Arthur W. Gor-
don, and Ernest N. Barefield immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted in Cases 19-RC-3851 and 19-RM-598 on
February 20, 1966, among certain employees of
Santa Fe Drilling Company be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
DECISION OF TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRVING ROGOSIN, Trial Examiner: This matter is
before the Board upon its order directing hearing
on objections of Alaska Petroleum Crafts-Council ,
the APCC herein, Petitioner in Cases 19-RC-3851
and 19-RM-598, dated November 14, 1966, and
order of the Regional Director, dated December 6,
1966, consolidating for hearing the consolidated
complaint , issued July 22, 1966, in Cases
19-CA-3324-1 and 19-CA-3328, and the com-
plaint , issued December 6, 1966, in Case
19-CA-3470, with the objections to the election, as
provided in the Board's order directing hearing.'
The consolidated complaint in Cases
19-CA-3324-1 and 19-CA-3328 alleges that on or
about specified dates in January and February 1966
Respondent (1) interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening them with
discharge or loss of employment, more arduous
work, loss of benefits under a profit-sharing plan,
loss of privileges and accomodations, and restricted
lavatory and rest periods because they had engaged
in union or other concerted activities; (2) dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Lloyd Collins on
or about February 22, Arthur Gordon on or about
February 24, and laying off Sidney R. Sherwood on
or about March 20, 1966, and thereafter refusing to
reinstate them.
The complaint in Case 19-CA-3470 alleges that
Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Dave Gardner on or
about May 7 and E. N. Barefield on or about June
2, 1966, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them.
Respondent's answer to the consolidated com-
plaint in Cases 19-CA-3324-1 and 19-CA-3328
admits the procedural allegations of the complaint,
including the allegations concerning commerce, but
denies generally and specifically the substantive al-
legations.'
In its answer in Case 19-CA-3470, Respondent
asserts substantially the same defenses set forth in
the previous consolidated complaint; denies that it
discharged Dave Gardner, asserting that that deci-
sion was made by Shell Oil Company personnel;
and, while admitting that it discharged E. N.
Barefield, denies that the discharge of either of
these employees was in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
Hearing was held from February 13 to 17, inclu-
sive, at Anchorage, Alaska. The General Counsel,
Respondent, and the IUPW were represented by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence relevant and material to the is-
sues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. All parties
declined to argue orally but reserved the right to
file briefs . Pursuant to successive extensions duly
i The original charge in Case 19-CA-3324-1 was filed by the APCC on
February 23, 1966, and served the same day , the original charge in Case
19-CA-3328 was filed by the IUPW, on February 28 and served the same
day, the amended charge on March 7, 1966, the second amended charge
on March 28, the original charge in Case 19-CA-3470 was filed by the
IUPW on August 5 and served the same day, the amended charge on Sep-
tember 12, 1966 All dates, unless otherwise shown , are in 1966 Designa-
tions are as follows the General Counsel, unless otherwise stated, his
representative at the hearing , Santa Fe Drilling Company, Respondent, the
Company, or Employer, Alaska Petroleum Crafts Council, the APCC, In-
ternational Union of Petroleum Products , the IUPW , the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 U S C Sec 151,
et seq ), the Act, the National Labor Relations Board, the Board
R Despite its categorical admissions of the commerce allegations,
Respondent separately alleged " 10 Respondent specifically denied that its
acts have led or tend to lead to labor disputes burdening or obstructing
commerce or the free flow of commerce or that any of its activities con-
stitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a)(I) and ( 3) and Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act "Further an-
swering, Respondent alleged, in substance , that it was prejudiced in regard
to the issuance of the consolidated complaint in that an attorney in the Re-
gional Office failed to maintain an attitude of neutrality in the investiga-
tion, and that the Regional Director, although requested to do so, denied
Respondent an opportunity to produce , for questioning by him, supervisory
employees who could furnish information in the matter of the alleged dis-
criminatory discharges before issuing the complaint Apart from the fact
that these allegations are irrelevant to any of the issues in the case and
would not, in any event , constitute a defense to the complaint , Respondent
made no offer to prove the allegations , and has failed to mention this in its
brief It is, therefore, assumed that Respondent has abandoned this issue in
its defense
353-177 0 - 72 - 12
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
granted (six, to be exact), briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent on April 24,
1967. No proposed findings of fact or conclusions
of law have been filed by any of the parties. Motion
of the General Counsel to correct the transcript,
duly filed and served on April 24, 1967, in the
absence of objections, is hereby allowed and made
part of the record.
Upon the entire record in the case, my observa-
tion of the attitude and demeanor of the witnesses,
and the briefs of the parties, I hereby make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The consolidated complaints allege, Respon-
dent's answer admits,3 and it is hereby found that
Santa Fe Drilling Company, Respondent herein, a
California corporation with its principal office and
place of business at Santa Fe Springs, California, is
engaged, among other things, in offshore drilling
operations in the United States, including Cook In-
let, Alaska.
During its last fiscal or calendar year, Respon-
dent furnished goods and services valued in excess
of $50,000 to the Shell Oil Company in the State of
Alaska. During the same period, the Shell Oil Com-
pany purchased goods and procured services for
use in its operations in Alaska valued in excess of
$50,000 from points outside the State of Alaska.
It is, therefore, found that at all times material
herein Respondent has been an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2), and has engaged in and is
engaging in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Alaska Petroleum Crafts Council, herein called
the APCC, is, and at all times material herein has
been , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
International Union of Petroleum Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the IUPW, is, and at all
times material herein has been , a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether, prior to the , election on February
20, 1966, Respondent, through its supervisors, in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by various coercive
9 See, however, fn 2, supra The record amply establishes that Respon-
dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act Moreover, in
the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, Cases
statements and threats , including threats of
discharge , increased work , loss of privileges, and
benefits under a profit-sharing plan.
2. Whether , after the election, Respondent,
through its supervisors , interfered with , restrained,
and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) by statements to its employees that,
because many of them had voted for a union, they
would be obliged to work harder , that they would
be deprived of coffeebreaks , and would have their
lavatory privileges curtailed.
3. Whether , after the election , Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and ( 3) by discharging Lloyd Collins on or
about February 22; Arthur Gordon on or about
February 24; and by laying off Sidney R. Sherwood
on or about March 20 , and thereafter failing and
refusing to reinstate said employees.
4. Whether Respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of em ployment of employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) by discharg-
ing Dave Gardner on or about May 7 and E. N.
Barefield on or about June 2 , 1966, and thereafter
refusing to reinstate them.
5. Whether Respondent , by the foregoing con-
duct which occurred before the election, affected
the results of the election to which timely objec-
tions were filed by the APCC.
B. Background
As has already been noted, Respondent is en-
gaged in the business of oil well drilling. This
proceeding involves an offshore drilling operation
at Middle Ground Shoal, Cook Inlet, Alaska,
designated as Shell Platform "A." The platform is
owned by the Shell Oil Company but the drilling
operations are performed by Respondent under a
labor contract between these Companies, the
details of which are not disclosed by the record and
with which we need not be concerned.
Drilling operations are conducted on a 24-hour
basis by three drilling crews, each working a 12-
hour tour of duty, 10 days on and 5 days off duty.
Each crew consists of a driller, derrickman, pit
watcher, motorman, and three rotary helpers or
roughnecks under the immediate supervision of the
driller. The crews are, in turn, supervised by the
pushers or foremen, two of whom are employed by
Respondent, and two, by the Shell Oil Company,
who share responsibilities for the operation of the
entire platform operation. There are usually two
pushers on the platform, one each for Respondent
and Shell, who work alternate 12-hour shifts. The
pusher on duty is usually in charge of the platform,
although the Shell pusher is regarded as having
authority over Respondent's pusher even when the
19-RC-3851 and 19-RM-598, Respondent acknowledged that it was en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 165
latter is not on duty. During the period with which
we are concerned, Vernon Blair4 and Coleman
"Prim" Roady were Respondent's pushers.
Although Respondent has apparently been en-
gaged in oil drilling operations in Alaska since
1962,5 the present installation was inaugurated in
the latter part of 1964, when the drilling platform,
constructed by Kaiser Steel Corporation, was
turned over to the Shell Oil Company for operation
at Middle Ground Shoal, Cook Inlet. Operation of
the platform was initiated by Don Quinn, chief
foreman for Shell, who had also been involved in
the construction of the platform. Late in 1965, Ver-
non "Bud" Furry succeeded Quinn as drilling
foreman. Furry was charged with responsibility for
the overall operation; Blair or Roady for the drilling
operation.
In addition to the drilling crews, Respondent em-
ploys crane operators (or roustabout pushers) and
roustabouts. Although not regarded as a supervisor
in the conventional sense, the crane operator works
with and directs the work of two roustabouts. Since
May 1966 the three crane crews have work 12-hour
shifts or tours (from 6 to 6 o'clock), 12 hours on,
12 hours off, duty, 10 days on and 5 days off. The
drilling crews' tours are from 12 to 12 o'clock. The
crane operators and roustabouts are under the su-
pervision of the platform maintenance foremen,
who are Shell employees. Additionally, Respondent
employs or hires intermittently on a contract basis
mechanics, electricians, and welders. The drilling
operations, as has been noted, are furnished to
Shell by Respondent, which furnishes manpower
and certain equipment. Under the contractual ar-
rangement between Respondent and Shell,
although all drilling and roustabout crews are em-
ployed by Respondent, Shell personnel often exer-
cise direct supervision over Respondent's em-
ployees. Thus, the crane operators and their crews
receive directions from the platform maintenance
foreman, a Shell employee. Also, since Respon-
dent's pusher and Shell's pusher alternate 12-hour
shifts, the drilling crews are under the supervision
of a Shell pusher about 50 percent of the time.
The rigging of the platform occupied the first
phase of the operation, consuming a period of 40
days. Drilling operations did not begin until March
1965. Some drilling and production equipment,
however, still remained to be rigged. Drilling and
rigging continued until about September 1965.
Thereafter, through the winter months, drilling of
wells proceeded concurrently with maintenance of
equipment.
Transportation between the mainland and the
platform is provided by an independent helicopter
service; supplies and equipment are delivered by
vessel.
C. The Election Proceedings
On January 25, 1966, the APCC, filed a petition
for representation and election among Respon-
dent's employees (Case 19-RC-3851). Two days
later, on January 27, Respondent filed its petition
(Case 19-RM-598). The IUPW intervened in those
proceedings and, thereafter, the three parties en-
tered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election, approved by the Regional Director
on February 11, 1966. On February 20 (Sunday),
an election was held at the platform in the bargain-
ing unit defined in the stipulation.' The tally of bal-
lots revealed that of 36 eligible voters, 15 ballots
were cast for the IUPW, 2 for the APCC, 14 for
neither, and 5 were challenged. Timely objections
to the conduct of the election were filed by the
APCC, and the challenged ballots, sufficient to af-
fect the results of the election, have not been.
resolved.
On September 8, following an investigation, the
Regional Director issued and served on the parties
his revised report on objections to election (sup-
planting his original report on objections, issued
July 22), recommending that objections I and 2 be
overruled, and that objection 3, which "encom-
passes all of the illegal conduct of the Employer"
alleged in the outstanding consolidated complaint
in Cases 19-CA-3324-1 and 19-CA-3328, be con-
solidated for hearing before the Trial Examiner as-
signed to hear the allegations of said consolidated
complaint. Timely exceptions were filed by the Em-
ployer to the Regional Director's Report. On
November 14 the Board issued its Order directing a
hearing on objection 3 of the APCC's objections, as
recommended by the Regional Director.
D. Sequence of Events
1. Events preceding the election
On February 12 Respondent's president, Ed L.
Shannon, Jr., sent a circular letter on company sta-
tionery to each of the employees at the Platform
"A" operation. The letter notified them of the
forthcoming election on February 21, advised them
of the choices on the ballot, and assured them that
the Company would respect their choice and bar-
gain in good faith if the majority of the employees
selected either of the Unions. Pointing out that the
employees were already receiving the highest wages
and enjoying the best working conditions of any
' Until November 1966 Blair was " head " pusher for Respondent , at that
time, Blair was promoted to the job of drilling superintendent , and Ray
Olds replaced him as pusher.
According to the circular letter of Respondent's president , Ed L. Shan-
non, Jr , dated February 12, 1966, later discussed.
6 All employees employed by the Employer in its drilling operations on
the Shell platform (SRS Platform A, Middle Ground Shoals) in Cook Inlet,
State of Alaska, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, drillers, and other supervisors as defined by the Act
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drilling employees in the area , and reminding them
of the benefits , including a profit-sharing and retire-
ment plan which they were receiving , the letter
stated , " A labor union in Alaska will almost cer-
tainly destroy some of this flexibility [of operation]
and as a result , and to this extent , the work of our
employees in Alaska may also be reduced." The
letter urged a "NEITHER" vote , but closed with
the assurance that the Company would " respect
whatever choice " the employees made.
The letter was followed by a similar letter on
February 16, calling attention to the impending
election ( moved back a day to February 20), urging
the employees to vote , asserting that the IUPW had
signed no contracts with oil well drilling contractors
in Alaska , and that neither of the contracts signed
by APCC in Alaska provided wages, benefits, or
working conditions comparable to those enjoyed by
the company employees . Again , the letter closed
with the statement , " Whatever the election on Sun-
day decides , Santa Fe will continue to play the
game [with all the cards on the table and for the
best interests of all concerned ] knowing the best in-
terests of the employees and of the company are
just the same. "'
Several days before the election , Donald H.
Lage , Respondent's manager of Alaska drilling,'
visited the platform and spoke to the men in a se-
ries of group meetings, as well as individually.
LeJeune Wilson , manager of domestic operations
for Respondent , and Lage 's superior , was also
present during some of these meetings.9
According to Lage 's testimony , he talked with
the crewmembers about the impending election, in-
formed them that the Unions had requested recog-
nition , and that their choice as to whether they
wished to be represented by a union would be
respected . Lage also testified that Wilson told Blair,
in his presence , that the hiring or retention of men
should not be affected by the way they voted in the
election and , although Lage did not know whether
Blair relayed this to the crew , testified that he, him-
self, advised them to this effect . In a discussion dur-
ing the same period , at which Blair and Lage were
also present , Wilson made similar remarks to
Roady , Respondent 's other toolpusher.
Sometime between February 16 and 18 Lage ad-
dressed driller Ray Olds ' crew in the recreation
room . According to Lloyd Collins , a derrickman
and one of the alleged discriminatees, Lage
' Since it is neither alleged , nor contended , that the letters or their dis-
semination among the employees violated Section 8(a)(1), the General
Counsel conceding that Respondent 's "pre-election campaign [letters and)
speeches , ( presently discussed ), were admittedly within legal bounds and
perhaps artfully drawn and performed ," neither the contents of the letters
nor of the speeches are detailed or relied on , except to the extent that they
furnish background for the events which followed A recent wage increase,
effective February 8, mentioned in Respondent's letter of February 12, re-
lied on by APCC as one of the grounds for its objections to the election,
together with the alleged discriminatory discharge of three -named em-
ployees before the election , and one, in an amended charge by the IUPW
after the election, was found to afford no basis for objections and, for
reasons stated in his revised report on objections to election, the Regional
discussed the approaching election and , after stat-
ing that Respondent and Shell were satisfied with
their work on the platform and informing them that
the recent wage increase was in recognition of their
work performance , invited questions from the men.
Collins thereupon asked Lage why, if the men
were as good as he said they were, they were not
being paid the same wage rate as men working "on
the beach ," referring to crews working ashore.
When Lage pointed out that the men on the plat-
form were receiving free room and board , Collins
countered that they were working on the platform
for the convenience of Shell and Santa Fe and not
for their own . Collins added that if the Company
would pay the men the same wage rate it was pay-
ing the crews on shore , he would be glad to com-
mute to the platform by helicopter since it made
trips to the platform daily , and commented that he
would much prefer living ashore while working on
the platform for the same wages as the crews on
land were receiving.
In January 1966 while Arthur Gordon, a
roughneck on Olds' crew , was on the catwalk on
the top deck of the platform , Blair called him from
the catwalk and told him that he wanted to talk to
him about " this union deal ." Blair told Gordon that
he had the names of a number of persons who had
engaged in union activities and that his name was
among them. Gordon said that if Blair had asked
him he would have told him that he had been in-
volved in such activities before . Gordon
acknowledged that Blair said that he had no objec-
tion to persons engaging in union activities just so
they did their work well. Gordon observed that he
had been "buggered up" in union activities before
and that he had no intention of letting it happen
again . Blair mentioned to Gordon the Company's
profit-sharing and insurance plan and the high
wages it paid , and urged Gordon to be sure to vote
in the election when it was held. Gordon assured
him that he would and the conversation ended. Ac-
cording to Gordon , Blair's attitude toward him
became friendlier after Gordon mentioned his earli-
er unsatisfactory union experience.
Gordon testified that his previous union involve-
ment had occurred while he was an employee of
Reading & Bates, another drilling contractor in the
area from which he had been discharged following
a strike. Although Gordon had been on the picket
line during the strike , he denied that any violence
Director recommended that those objections , designated as I and 2, be
overruled As has already been noted , the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations were adopted by the Board in its Order dated November
14, 1966
8 According to Lage, his responsibilities were primarily administrative,
including bidding and billing and the negotiation of the labor contract on
the Shell platform He was Blair's supervisor , and moved to Anchorage on
a permanent basis in August 1966, having previously made periodic trips to
the platform
8 The subject matter of some of these meetings, insofar as they relate to
Lloyd Collins, one of the alleged discrimmatees, is discussed in the section
dealing with his discharge
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
had occurred or that he had ever been accused of
engaging in such conduct . He testified that neither
he nor Blair made any mention of Reading & Bates
during this conversation , and that no mention of
violence was made by either of them.
Blair , however , testified that it had been reported
to him by a representative of Reading & Bates that
Blair had two men in his employ, Arthur Gordon
and David Sistrunk , who had participated in the
strike , and that " there had been violence out
there ," and that the secretary of another company
had told him that she "thought " Bob Tally, who
had participated in the strike, had also been in-
volved in violence . Blair testified that he had the
names of some men who had reportedly been in-
volved in the Reading & Bates strike, and that he
was concerned about violence in the event of a
strike at the platform . According to Blair, he was at
the foot of the stairs to the catwalk and called Gor-
don down , questioned him about whether he had
been involved in that strike, and whether he had
engaged in any violence there . Gordon denied that
he had engaged in any violence and said that as far
as he was concerned he hoped he never became in-
volved in a similar situation . Blair expressed
satisfaction and indicated to Gordon that he in-
tended to talk to the other man, presumably refer-
ring to Sistrunk , although he probably did not men-
tion him by name.
Although Blair testified that his primary purpose
in talking to Gordon was his concern over the pos-
sibility of a similar occurrence and his determina-
tion to avoid it in regard to Respondent 's venture, it
is evident that Blair was utilizing this opportunity as
a means of ascertaining the extent of Gordon's in-
terest in the organizational activities at Respon-
dent 's operations . 10 Thus , it is undisputed that Blair
pointedly called Gordon down from the catwalk
while he was on shift to discuss union activities,
though ostensibly at another company , lending cre-
dence to Gordon 's testimony that Blair said he
wanted to discuss "this union deal ." Blair's admis-
sion that he told Gordon that he had the names of
men, including Gordon 's, who had reportedly en-
gaged in picketline violence, justifies the conclusion
that Blair had already undertaken to identify union
adherents among his crews . The fact that Gordon
readily acknowledged his former union allegiance,
remarking that if Blair had asked him he would
10 The General Counsel 's argument that since neither Union had as yet
achieved exclusive representative status, and no demands had been made
upon Respondent which might lead to a strike with attendant picketing and
possible violence , Blair had no reason to anticipate any violence. The
record does not establish the exact date in January the conversation took
place . The APCC representation petition was filed on January 25 and ex-
perience demonstrates that the filing of a petition is usually preceded or ac-
companied by some form of organizational activity It is reasonable to as-
sume that this was so here , and that Blair was aware of the union activity in
the platform operation . Assuming, however , that Blair's concern about
possible violence stemming from organizational activity , based upon re-
ports which had reached him about the strike at Reading & Bates, was
genuine , this does not gainsay the likelihood that Blair was actually more
concerned with probing Gordon 's union sympathies
167
have admitted it, makes it evident that Blair made
his purpose to ascertain Gordon 's union sentiments
at that time abundantly clear . That Gordon volun-
teered his regret at his previous union involvement
and avowed that it would not happen again affords
no justification for Blair 's oblique inquiries into
Gordon 's union activities . On the contrary , it mere-
ly serves to demonstrate that Gordon reacted to
Blair's inquiries , as Blair intended he should, by as-
suring him of his lack of interest in unionization,
persuasive evidence that Gordon obviously con-
cluded that any other course might jeopardize his
tenure . Coupled with Blair 's reference to the
benefits which the Company provided its em-
ployees and the admonition to make certain to vote
in the election , which had not even yet been
scheduled ," his remarks warrant the inference that
Blair 's statements to Gordon and his none too sub-
tle interrogation were reasonably calculated by
Blair and interpreted by Gordon as an attempt to
ascertain the latter 's union sentiments, and to instill
in him apprehension of the consequences of any
renewed union activity . In these circumstances,
Blair's statement , as attributed to him by Gordon,
that Blair "didn 't mind people that were in union
activities , just as long as they did their work well,"
was insufficient to neutralize the effect of his other
remarks, especially since Blair did not assure Gor-
don that he was free to engage in union or con-
certed activities without fear of reprisal.
Judged by the foregoing , and on the basis of
Blair's attitude and demeanor on the witness stand
and admitted statements to employees evincing bla-
tant hostility toward them and their organizational
activities, it is found that , by Blair 's statements to
Gordon in January 1966, related above, Respon-
dent has interfered with , restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 , thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.12
During this period , Blair also talked to other
crewmembers on the Shell platform regarding the
forthcoming election . According to crane operator
John Dale Carter , some 3 weeks before the election
Blair summoned him to his office and, after produc-
ing a copy of a labor contract between Coastal
Drilling Company and the APCC, told Carter that
there was a likelihood that the men would not gain
anything or benefit from having a union . Carter
11 The stipulation for consent election was executed on February 8 (by
APCC ) at the earliest , and not approved by the Regional Director until
February I 1 The date of the election , originally set for Monday , February
21, on the Shell platform , was advanced I day, to Sunday, February 20,
with the consent of all the parties.
11 To obviate the necessity for repeated references to testimony imputing
to Blair and driller William Troy White, familiarly called Troy White,
frequent obscene remarks in conversations with employees , it will merely
be stated here that making due allowance for the type of offshore operation
involved , the rough-and-tumble atmosphere in which the crews worked,
the restricted quarters in which they lived, and the exigencies of the enter-
prise, the language to which these supervisors resorted is perhaps best
described as privy graffiti or hard core pornography
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also testified that Blair said that the men would
probably lose their ice cream , pop, and movies,
which Shell was not obliged to provide if the Union
were elected . Blair also remarked , according to
Carter, that if the Union were successful and the
Company was required to raise wages they would
have to "drive the men harder ," that those who
could not " keep up " would be fired , and that
"there would probably be a lot of men discharged."
At the end of the interview , in an apparent effort to
divert Blair from the subject of unions, Carter re-
marked , " Vernon , you have me brainwashed."
According to Sidney R. Sherwood , a derrickman,
about 2 weeks before the election , while he and
three or four of the men were in the washroom
Blair told Sherwood that he wanted to talk to him
about " this union business " and asked him to go to
his office . When Sherwood reached the office he
found a mechanic there, whom he identified by
name, and a Shell supervisor whose name he could
not recall . Sherwood testified that Blair began by
stating that the men had signed cards in an effort to
obtain an election and that he did not feel that a
union would help them in anyway. Blair reminded
Sherwood that he had told him when he was hired
that the Company was nonunion and intended to
keep it that way. Sherwood countered that he be-
lieved in unions and would probably support a
union " if [it] was the right union." The two men
discussed the pros and cons of unions and Blair
finally brought out a specimen drilling company
labor contract on which the names of the parties
had been deleted showing the wage scales and
pointed out that if the men were represented by a
union they would be "taking a wage cut ." Sher-
wood maintained that the contract was out of date,
and after some heated argument Sherwood said
that his driller would be wondering where he was
and that he had to return to work because he was
on duty. During the discussion , Blair told Sherwood
that the profit -sharing plan (for which he was not
yet eligible because he had not been with the Com-
pany long enough ) would be eliminated and that
would affect some of the older hands , that some
medical benefits would be withdrawn , and that the
ice cream and soda pop, which they had always en-
joyed in abundance , and the movies would "more
than likely " be eliminated . Although , according to
Sherwood , Blair did not actually state why these
benefits would be withdrawn , Sherwood testified
that he understood him to mean that if the men
designated the Union it would increase the Com-
pany's labor costs to such an extent that it would
not be able to afford the fringe benefits.
Sherwood testified that Blair told him that he
knew who was " ushing this union deal ," although
he did not identifpy him by name, and that he would
have "run him off a long time ago but Shell Oil
Company wouldn 't let him."
David LeRoy Gardner , originally hired as a
roustabout , later a roughneck , testified that about 3
days before the election Blair called at his home
one evening while Gardner was on his 5 days off to
notify him of the change in the date of the election.
Blair told Gardner to return for the election on
Sunday, and that he could continue his 10-day tour
of duty. Observing that he had never talked to him
about the Union, Blair told him that he wished to
do so and urged him to consider carefully before he
voted in favor of the Union, and that if he voted for
the Union his family would be "threatened" and his
wife would be "chased," a remark not explained.
According to Gardner, Blair said that if the men
voted in favor of a union they would lose their soda
pop, milk, and ice cream, and that movies would be
reduce to two a week, all the Company was
required to provide.
With regard to his conversation with Carter, Blair
testified that although he was not certain of it, he
was under the impression that Carter had come to
his office to discuss some work with a Shell
foreman. He recounted to Carter the Company's
benefits, comparing, as he had with Sherwood, the
Company's life insurance and medical plans with
those at Coastal Oil Company under its contract
with the APCC, and told Carter that he would like
him to vote "with the company," but that there was
no way in which it would know how he voted.
Denying that he stated that "many employees
would be fired," and that "everyone would have to
work harder every minute," he testified that if he
said that no one would gain anything by "going
union," he did so only in the sense of comparing
the Coastal contract with the APCC with condi-
tions at the Company, and by telling him that he
and Millard E. "Pete" Woodson (Shell drilling su-
perintendent of Alaska operations) would work for
the men "wagewise and benefitwise," and that he
felt the Company could do as good a job in that
respect as anyone else. Although uncertain whether
he mentioned the profit-sharing plan in that discus-
sion, he testified that in comparing the Coastal
labor contract with benefits at the Company he
could have pointed out that the Company had such
a plan whereas Coastal did not.
As to his conversation in Gardner's home, Blair's
testimony differed primarily in emphasis. Accord-
ing to Blair , he went to his house, among the homes
of other employees, the night before the election to
notify them of the change in the date of the elec-
tion. He pointed out that he and Woodson had ex-
tended themselves for the men, had arranged for
them to have at least four movies a week instead of
the customary two, had provided free soft drinks,
milk, and juices, which no other company in the
area had furnished its employees, and had exerted
every effort to procure the best possible wages for
the men. He concluded by telling Gardner that if he
would come out and vote, he could work the rest of
the day and would be paid for a full day. As he left,
Blair said, "Dave, we want you to come out and
vote, there is no way in the world we will ever know
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 169
how you vote, but we would sure appreciate your
vote for the company." Blair denied that he
threatened during that conversation to withdraw
the movie or other privileges or benefits, and
testified that if he mentioned the subject at all in his
conversation with Carter it would have only been in
the same vein as he had in his discussion with
Gardner.
The importance attributed both by the Company
and the employees to these benefits is self-evident.
The need for recreational facilities for workers who
spend 24 hours a day, 12 on their tours, at 10-day
intervals, in closely confined quarters, was obvi-
ously recognized by the Employer and, while re-
garded by it as a boon or privilege, was in practical
terms an indispensable element of their conditions
of employment. This is further manifested by the
emphasis on the subject in Blair 's remarks to the
employees.
Blair denied, however, that he threatened any of
these employees with withdrawal of these benefits if
they voted for either Union or designated it as their
bargaining agent and, in this respect, a number of
employees, including three of those alleged to have
been discriminatorily discharged, acknowledged
that neither Blair nor any other supervisor explicitly
threatened the employees with loss of these benefits
in the event a union became the bargaining. agent of
the employees. Carter's testimony, affirming a
pretrial statement to Respondent's counsel, that
neither Blair nor any other supervisor had
threatened him before the election, and never
threatened reprisals or loss of benefits if the Union
were successful, does not preclude the possibility of
an implied or tacit threat.
Respondent appears to contend that the notion
that the Company might reduce or discontinue
benefits previously extended to employees in
retaliation for their attempted unionization
originated not with the Company, but with rank-
and-file employees as a matter of speculation or, as
in the case of Gordon, an assumption that organiza-
tional activity was bound to evoke reprisals. Obvi-
ously, Respondent cannot be charged with the ap-
prehensions of its employees unless , of course, it
was responsible for generating such apprehensions.
Nor does the fact that an employee may testify that
he did not regard himself threatened or feel that he
was being coerced absolve the employer from the
consequences of his unlawful conduct, since it has
long been established that the effectiveness of such
conduct need not be shown to constitute an unfair
labor practice.
Whether Blair, in an effort to enlist the support
of the employees on the side of the Company in the
forthcoming election, by contrasting the benefits
enjoyed by the employees with those under the
union contract at Coastal, or as Carter, Sherwood,
and Gardner testified, expressly threatened
reprisals or loss of benefits, or whether, as Blair and
other supervisors as well as some rank-and-file em-
ployees testified, no overt threat was made, Blair
admitted that he brought up the fact that the Com-
pany had been furnishing employees at the platform
with milk, soft drinks, and ice cream, and providing
them with movies at least four times a week,
although according to him the Company was not
required to do so more than twice a week.14 He also
testified that he discussed the Company's profit-
sharing plan, albeit in contrasting company benefits
with those afforded under a union contract. Con-
ceivably, Blair may not have made statements to
each of the employees in precisely the same lan-
guage, and his mode of expression may have varied
with the particular employee to whom he was ad-
dressing himself. It is common experience that dif-
ferent individuals may react differently to the same
remarks. What may have been implicit to some may
very well have been explicit to others. The issue,
however, assuming there was no overt threat, is
whether his remarks were reasonably intended to
convey the impression that the privileges and
benefits might be withdrawn and whether the em-
ployees reasonably construed Blair's remarks that
way.15
Obviously, Blair's remarks cannot be considered
in a vacuum. They must be viewed against the
background-of the antecedent events. Respondent
was aware that at least one oil drilling company in
the area had already been organized and had en-
tered into a labor contract with one of the Unions
contending for representation of Respondent's em-
ployees. While the organizational drive was under
way at Respondent's platform, Blair, who already
had in possession names of employees who had
been active in the attempted organization of
another oil drilling company, Reading & Bates, and
had participated in a strike there, questioned Gor-
don, whom he suspected of being an active
unionist, under the pretext of concern with possible
violence at Respondent's operations, in a scarcely
concealed effort to ascertain his union sentiments.
Gordon's ready admission that he had participated
in the union activities at Reading & Bates and his
recanting of any further interest in unionization
speak more eloquently for the impact of Blair's in-
is By interlineation in the typewritten statement Carter declared, in con-
nection with his exculpation of Blair as to threats of reprisals and loss of the
profit-sharing plan , "He did say that by voting for the union there was a
good chance that we would not better ourselves by it and he showed me a
copy of Coastal's union contract ;" as to the alleged threat of withdrawal of
movie privileges , free milk , ice cream , or soda pop, Carter added to his
statement , "but he did say that if Shell was going to have to pay more
money they might have to discontinue these privileges."
11 As Respondent 's counsel points out in his brief, there was no explana-
tion as to why Blair assumed the Company was under any obligation to
furnish movies at all Blair, however , may have assumed that this was com-
pany policy or practice in the industry in offshore drilling operations
" In this connection , it may not be amiss to recall the language of the
Supreme Court. "Slight suggestions as to the employer 's [desires] may
have a telling effect among men who know the consequences of incurring
that employer's strong displeasure ," International Association of Machin-
ists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35 [Serrick Corp ] v. N L R.B, 311
U S 72, 78
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terrogation than any protestation by an employee
that he was not intimidated or coerced by Blair's
remarks . Blair 's statement to Gordon after he had,
in effect, indicated his disenchantment with the
Union that he had no objection to employees en-
gaging in union activities, providing they did their
work , was cant assurance that employees could en-
gage in such activities without fear of retaliation. It
is obvious from the preelection letters to the em-
ployees that Respondent was opposed to the
unionization of its employees , and it is equally ap-
parent that this policy prevailed when Blair was ut-
tering these statements to employees. To maintain
in the face of these considerations that Blair's sole
purpose in reminding the employees of the benefits
they were already enjoying, and contrasting these
benefits with those available under a union con-
tract, while importuning them to vote against the
Unions, were merely an appeal to their reasoned
judgment is to fly in the face of reality. Moreover,
as will later appear, Blair 's statements were not
made in isolation but were part of the congeries of
what must be viewed as a calculated campaign to
interfere with the self-organizational efforts of
Respondent 's employees by means of intimidation,
coercion, and discriminatory discharges . It is, of
course , immaterial that Respondent may not ac-
tually have intended to deprive its employees of the
benefits and privileges they enjoyed in the event
one of the contending Unions achieved status as
bargaining agent. Nor is the fact that these benefits
and privileges were not, in fact, withdrawn after the
election. The election itself proved inconclusive,
and the threat to withdraw the benefits was itself
sufficient to constitute interference.16
On the basis of the foregoing, it is found that by
his statements to, and interrogation of, Gordon, and
his remarks to Carter, Sherwood, and Gardner, re-
lated previously, Blair either explicitly or tacitly
conveyed or intended to convey the impression,
and the employees reasonably believed, that if they
selected either of the Unions as their bargaining
agent in the forthcoming election, they would be
'" In considering the effectiveness of the statements of Blair and other su-
pervisory employees , while the results of the election may be of no proba-
tive value , it is noteworthy that of a total of 36 ballots , 15 were cast for the
IUPW, and 14 for neither Union , without taking into account the chal-
lenged ballots
" According to Respondent 's witnesses, discussion about curtailment of
movies originated as a "practical joke" by "Corky" Fuller, and Shell Main-
tenance Foreman Reamer and Shell Drilling Foreman Furry About 3
weeks before the election , Reamer admittedly told the crews that Furry
had said there would be no more movies He claimed , however, that he and
the hands joked about this In his brief, Respondent 's counsel asserts that
this "joke undoubtedly spread to include soda pop or anything else which
might be temporarily in short supply ," and was discussed only among rank-
and-file employees There was no showing , however, that any threatened
loss of refreshments was because they were in short supply In any case,
even if the loss or withdrawal of these privileges was discussed in a jocular
fashion among the employees, it is evident that Blair was perfectly serious
in his remarks on the subject to the employees to whom he made the state-
ments. The evidence of the bantering discussion among other crewmem-
bers, therefore , does not mitigate the effects of Blair 's remarks
'" White , in effect , conceded that he had a conversation with Bloodworth
deprived of benefits and privileges then enjoyed by
them; that some privileges would either be
withdrawn or curtailed; that the employees would
be compelled to work harder if their bargaining
agent procured a wage increase ; and that
discharges would take place following the selection
of a union.
By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.17
About a week before the election, Blair engaged
Harold G. Bloodworth, a derrickman, in a conver-
sation while he was on duty in the pumproom. Ac-
cording to Bloodworth, Blair asked him whether he
thought the Company would win the election.
Bloodworth replied that he did not know, that they
would "just have to wait and see," adding that he
hoped no one would "get hurt ... over this ." Blair
apparently made no response.
During this period, when Lage and Wilson spoke
to driller Troy White's crew in the dayroom, Blood-
worth, addressing Lage familiarly as Don, protested
that when the yard workers and riggers worked on
the platform they were "taking home" from $770
to $1,000 a week, something the Company should
have realized the drilling crews would resent.
Bloodworth then said that he thought the men
probably believed they could obtain higher wages
and improved benefits if they were represented by a
union.
Later that day, after the completion of his tour,
Bloodworth had a conversation with Troy White in
a bunkroom which they shared. White told Blood-
worth, "Harold, you sure gave your hole card away
today." Bloodworth demurred but White persisted.
Bloodworth argued that he had given no indication
of how he intended to vote. White advised, "Well,
you go tell Prim Roady right now that you are for
the company," adding "because every hand that
votes for the union will be run off within six
weeks. "16
on this occasion , admitting that he told him that he was not much of a
poker player because he had shown his hand White denied, however,
telling Bloodworth, in effect , to correct the impression he had left by noti-
fying his foreman that he was in favor of the Company. White further de-
nied the statement as to what would happen to men voting for the Union
Instead , White sought to explain his statement by relating it to a different
conversation after the election in which Bloodworth questioned him about
the Company's reaction to unionization According to White, he told
Bloodworth that he did not know how the Company would react but that in
his past experience he had seen men lose their jobs and seniority when
unions attempted to organize in the oilfields. Since there appears to be no
logical explanation as to why Bloodworth should ask White such a question
after the election , it is more probable that this discussion , if it took place at
all, occurred before the election and in the context described by Blood-
worth. White's evident concern at Bloodworth's outburst at the meeting
with Lage and Wilson makes it more reasonable to believe that White made
the statement substantially as testified to be Bloodworth, including the
reference to the Company 's retaliation against those voting for a union
Moreover , White 's attitude and demeanor on the witness stand failed to in-
spire credence It is found that White made the statements in this en-
counter substantially as attributed to him by Bloodworth.
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 171
On the day of the election, soon after the Board
agent conducting the election left by helicopter,
some of the men, including Collins, Gardner, and
Carter, were in the recreation room. Toolpusher
Roady told the men, according to Carter, "All
right, you sons of bitches, you voted for this union.
From now on one man will go after coffee and
there won't be no other breaks. You will work from
6:00 to 6:00," and "you will have lunch with one
glove off." Collins and Gardner testified to substan-
tially similar remarks by Roady.
Roady testified that he did not learn the "results"
of the election, although he had, in effect, learned
what the tally of ballots disclosed. As to his remarks
to the employees, he referred to a conversation in
the washroom in which he told them "they had
killed enough time and the election was over, now
let's get back to work." He admitted, however, that
immediately after the balloting was completed, he
was on the deck, but denied any such conversation
in the recreation room, testifying that he was not
even there. He further denied any threats of
reprisal because the Union had won the election.
He denied using the phrase "assess and elbows,"
testifying that it was not in his vocabulary.19
2. The events following the election
The Saturday following the election Gardner,
who had been as IUPW observer, sent for Blair to
check trouble in the valves in the washroom basin.
Ernest "Bud" Barefield, a roughneck or it
watcher, was also there. After completing the
repairs Blair turned to the men and said, "I [might]
just as well tell you two guys right now," and
proceeded to deliver himself of a barrage of ob-
scenity, the gist of which was that if the men
thought they could take advantage of him (using a
vulgar and obscene expression), he could assure
them that better men than they had tried to do so
without success. He told them that he had been
with the Company for 17 years, that the Company
and all his drillers were behind him, and that the
two men would not accomplish what others had
tried and failed. Remarking that 17 of the men,
whom he referred to by an obscene epithet, had
voted for "that union," he said, "I am going to run
every [god] damned one of you off," adding, "And
you two are going to be first." Gardner rejoined
that he did not believe anyone was trying to take
advantage of him, repeating the obscene expression
Blair had used. According to Gardner, Blair con-
tinued, "You don't, huh? Lloyd Collins made the
statement he was going to." Then continuing, Blair
said, "You guys think I am going to stand like an
old cow while you climb on a stool behind me and
... me, and I am not going to stand still for it," add-
ing, "I don't want to see nothing but your asses
from now on." Gardner replied, "Vernon, I don't
think you have seen anything but our asses for quite
some time ." Blair replied, "I saw you standing on a
pipe rack when you could have been rolling up
slings ," then, shaking his finger at Gardner, said,
"Another thing, Mister, you won't be getting time
off to go fishing this summer, either.""
Blair did not deny this encounter. Moreover, he
conceded, in effect, that he spoke to Sherwood in a
similar vein and that he tried to convey the
message-that he was not about to let the crews im-
pose on him-to all platform employees. In justifi-
cation of his remarks, he testified that his wife, who
had heard it from another woman , had told him
that some of his men had been discussing him, say-
ing that he was pretty cocky but that as soon as the
election was over they would ". . . him good." Blair
construed this to mean that his men would drag
their feet in their work, thereby placing him in a
bad light so as to jeopardize his job. Determined to
prevent this, as soon as the election was over, he
made a point of notifying as many of the hands as
possible that he would not permit this to happen.
Blair denied, however, that he made any mention
about "run[ning] off" 15 employees who had voted
for the Union.
Respondent contends that the true import of
Blair's remarks was that with the election over he
expected the men to settle down to work, that he
did not intend to be imposed on by the crews, and
that if they did not perform their jobs they would
not be working there very long. Gardner's and
Barefield's version, according to this view, was
merely their interpretation of Blair's innocuous
statements to suit their own purpose. Apart from
the mutual corroboration by Gardner and
Barefield, Carter and Bloodworth testified to
similar statements by Blair.
Respondent's counsel challenges the reliability of
the testimony of Gardner and Barefield because of
alleged discrepancies in their respective versions.
Far from impairing the weight to be accorded their
testimony, such discrepancies tend to support their
credibility. Indeed, if they had testified identically it
would undoubtedly be argued that their testimony
was suspect. Thus, it is noted that Gardner quoted
Blair to the effect that he had worked for the Com-
pany for 17 years, while Barefield said that Blair
had merely said he had been with the Company a
long time.
Blair had, in fact, been in Respondent's employ
only 3 years at the time of the hearing, the last 6
months as drilling superintendent. He had, how-
ever, been employed in the oil drilling industry for
over 21 years. It is not likely, therefore, that Blair
referred to his long experience in the industry
rather than with the Company in his remarks, and
that this was how Gardner understood it. According
"The phrase was actually attributed to Blair and White but Respon- I" An obvious allusion to Gardner's commercial fishing venture,
dent 's counsel may have mistakenly assumed that it had also been imputed discussed later in connection with his discharge
to Roady
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Barefield, Blair said that he had "run off some
men and ... was going to run off some more." The
facts, as argued by Respondent's counsel, that it
was not until prompted that Barefield testified that
Blair said, "All you guys that voted for this union
has had it," and that he was not positive whether
Blair mentioned the number 15 do not detract from
his credibility.
Barefield also testified that Blair said that the
men were oing to "stay hooked up" or "get run
off," an oilfield expression connoting that men
were to be kept busy without rest periods regardless
of whether necessary. Respondent's counsel further
contends that Gardner did not mention this in his
testimony and that other witnesses, who cor-
roborated Gardner's testimony in other respects,
did not corroborate his testimony that Blair had
said that the 17 (the combined number of ballots
cast for both Unions), who had voted for the Union
would be discharged, until prompted, and that
Bloodworth made no mention of it at all. This,
counsel argues, renders the testimony of these wit-
nesses worthless. The position is not well taken. In
view of all the circumstances, including an ap-
praisal of the attitude and demeanor of all the wit-
nesses involved, and Blair's violently intemperate
remarks, Gardner's version, substantially cor-
roborated by Barefield, is credited. In doing so, the
possible bias and interest of Gardner and Barefield
as dischargees has been carefully considered.
The day after the election, according to Blood-
worth, as the crew was finishing breakfast, driller
Troy White told them that because they had voted
for the Union there would be no more cof-
feebreaks, that movies were to be curtailed, and in
less than elegant terms that if they went to the
toilet, they had better be sure to bring back proof
that the trip had actually been necessary. He also
told the men that thenceforward there would be
"nothing but ... holes and elbows out here," and
that the men "were going back to the old Rocky
Mountain style of drilling," an expression not
further explained.
White denied making all but the remarks about
lavatory restrictions, but acknowledged that he
made the remarks in the coarse and vulgar lan-
guage attributed to him.
If, as Respondent implies, use of lavatories were
restricted after the election because of loitering,
which White attributed to electioneering, it is
reasonable to assume that there was probably at
least as much loitering because of this before the
election as afterward. Yet, there is no evidence that
Respondent made any effort to restrict these
privileges before the election.21
1 1 Respondent may, of course , now argue that it refrained from doing so
lest it be charged with interference with the election No such contention
was made, however , at the hearing
11 White's denials on this score are not credited Bloodworth 's testimony
imputing to White the phrase , "old Rocky Mountain style of drilling," and
This suggests that loitering in the lavatories either
had never posed a problem or that Respondent was
willing to overlook any possible abuse of the lavato-
ry privileges until the results of the election became
known. Moreover, the length to which White was
willing to go by telling them what evidence he
would require as proof of the necessity for the lava-
tory trip is a measure of White's resentment toward
the employees for their union support in the elec-
tion.
White's version of this episode was that with the
election over "the rig had to be cleaned up, the
work had to be done, that we would have to get
busy and forget about the election, and if they had
to gang up in the bathroom ... if they went ...
they would have to bring back [evidence] to prove
[that they had needed to go]."
According to Robert Mulholland, a witness for
Respondent, White told the men on this occasion,
"Now that the election is over we are going to have
to hit it harder, and if you go to the bathroom you
have to bring back [evidence] to prove where you
had been," and that this was greeted with laughter
by Dthe men.
espite the fact that some of the crew may have
reacted to White's remarks with laughter (which,
incidentally, could have been a nervous reaction),
it is clear that White did not make these remarks in
a jocular vein. That he may never have actually in-
tended to enforce the restrictions, or ultimately
may not have done so, is immaterial to a finding as
to whether he made the remarks attributed to him,
and whether they had a coercive effect. The fact is
that they were an integral part of other threats of
loss of privileges and warnings that the men would
be held to stricter account for their work.22
It is, therefore , found that by Blair 's statements
to Gardner and Barefield on the Saturday after the
election , and similar statements to Sherwood and
Carter; by Roady's statements to crewmembers im-
mediately after the election; and by White's state-
ments to Bloodworth and other members of White's
crew the day after the election, detailed above,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
E. Discrimination in Regard to Hire and Tenure of
Employment
1. Lloyd W. Collins
Collins was hired by Blair on September 4, 1965,
initially as a floor hand or roughneck on Shell plat-
his graphic description of how he expected the men to perform their work
is too graphic to have been fabricated by Bloodworth . Moreover , the ex-
pressions seem perfectly consistent with White's appearance and
demeanor , his manner of speech , and his qualified admissions
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 173
form "A." About a month later he was promoted to
the job of derrickman for driller Olds, a job which
he held until he was terminated on February 22,
1966, 2 days after the election , under circum-
stances presently discussed . He was present during
the meeting of the drilling crew addressed by
Drilling Manager Lage, and his remarks in response
to Lage's invitation in the question period have
been recounted earlier. ( See supra.)
Respondent 's reason for discharging Collins are
threefold , although apparently not of equal im-
portance . The first relates to an alleged theft of
diesel fuel on a previous job; the second alleged
neglect resulting in loss of drilling mud; and, the
third , his generally unsatisfactory attitude and
behavior as an employee.
Dealing with grounds for discharge in that order,
the evidence discloses that prior to his employment
at platform "A," Collins had worked for Respon-
dent on a mainland operation , designated as Rig 35,
where Respondent had a labor contract with the
Union Oil Company . Blair testified that in
November 1965, some 2 months after Collins was
hired at platform "A," he learned from the Union
Oil Company supervisor that Collins had quit fol-
lowing an incident in which he allegedly removed
diesel oil from a storage tank for use in his private
automobile.23
The second and perhaps most serious incident in-
volved Collins ' neglect in allowing the escape of
drilling mud on the morning of the day he was
discharged . Between 8 and 9 a .m., on a trip to the
pumproom , Blair discovered drilling mud running
out on the floor which then covered an area of
about 35 feet by 40 feet and about 2 inches deep.
As derrickman , Collins was responsible for the
pumproom area on his shift , and this obviously en-
tailed seeing that the valves were turned off.
Blair testified that he immediately shut off the
valves, decided to terminate Collins , and instructed
Olds, Collins ' driller , to notify him to pick up his
check at the end of his shift.
In mitigation of his obvious dereliction , Collins
testified that , although his responsibilities as der-
rickman included duties in the pumproom, taking
care of the mud pumps , and of the mud "as it was
programmed," on occasions he would remain in the
derrick above the rig floor for nearly his entire
tour, except for his lunch period. When he was able
to anticipate this, he arranged with the pit watcher
to have him check the pumproom periodically. On
the day in question, Collins testified he had spent
all but the last 2 or 4 hours of his shift, which ended
at noon, in the derrick.
Apart from the mess caused by the mud loss,
Respondent contends that it sustained an estimated
monetary loss of nearly $1,000, the value of the
mud lost by Collins' negligence.24 Collins and other
witnesses for the General Counsel, however,
testified that loss of drilling mud was not uncom-
mon, Collins testifying that on at least one occa-
sion , involving Bloodworth, mud had escaped in
much larger quantities, at least 3 times as much as
in Collins' case, and that neither Bloodworth nor
any of the other men were discharged or disciplined
for that dereliction. In fact, according to Collins, he
had helped clean up the mess on one occasion
when he was reporting on his tour. Blair himself
conceded that he had never discharged or
disciplined any other employee for similar neglect.
Bloodworth testified that while he was working at
the platform there were mud spillages on an
average of at least once a month. Gordon testified
that there were two such occurrences in the 3
months he was employed on the platform; Gardner,
that spillages occurred frequently and that
roustabouts were assigned to help clean up the
pumproom floor; Barefield, that during his stay on
the platform there were spillages once or twice a
month, sometimes in greater amounts than in Col-
lins' case; and derrickman Joseph Dewey, that in
June or July 1966 it was necessary to dump 160
barrels of drilling mud overboard because of a
mistake which he claimed he and a Shell supervisor
had made in putting some Barold chemical in the
salt mixture so that the mud was unusable. Yet,
Dewey was not discharged or otherwise disciplined,
although Dewey conceded that he was "chewed
out" by the Shell supervisor.25
The third ground for Collins' discharge, his al-
leged generally unsatisfactory attitude and deport-
ment as an employee, is based on several separate
23 According to Blair 's information , Collins had been discovered in the
act of filling his automobile tank with diesel oil from the storage tank. The
supervisor instructed Collins' immediate supervisor to discipline him and
when he undertook to do so Collins lost his temper, threatened to whip the
supervisor who had orded him disciplined , and quit in a pique at what he
regarded the Company 's pettiness Although the amount of diesel oil Col-
lins had pilfered was not known to the supervisor , Collins admitted at the
hearing that he had taken a gallon of oil in a can and poured it into the tank
of his car because he was concerned that he might not have enough fuel to
travel the 8 or 9 miles to town He denied threatening to whip the super-
visor but admitted that he quit following the incident According to Collins,
hundreds of gallons of diesel oil were wasted in cleaning the drilling rig, and
he was outraged at the supervisor 's attitude in attempting to discipline him
for such a petty offense . Apparently Blair made no further investigation
and said nothing about the incident to Collins after he learned of it It is un-
necessary to resolve the conflict as to the amount of fuel taken or the cir-
cumstances involved.
21 Respondent arrived at this estimate on the basis of Blair's testimony
that when he reached the pumproom the mud covered an area 35 feet by
40 feet to a depth of 2 inches Based on the number of cubic inches to a gal-
lon, and the 42-gallon barrels used on the platform at a cost of $12 per bar-
rel, plus the same amount for transportation, totaling $24 , the mud Idss of
approximately 41 5 barrels amounted to $990 . It is assumed in favor of
Respondent that the arithmetic is correct . Although witnesses for the
General Counsel, including Barefield, the pit watcher who notified Collins
of the escaping mud as he was on his way down to the pumproom from the
rig floor, minimized the extent of the mud loss, Collins placing the loss at
10 barrels at most, some of it had undoubtedly escaped through the floor
drain, and it is probable that the loss was as large as Respondent con-
tended
21 Although Dewey was later disciplined in October 1966 for being late,
and downgrated to the job of roustabout, and subsequently discharged for
reporting to work I day late, he was rehired on December 5, and at the
time of the hearing was working for Respondent on the Mobil platform.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
incidents. One was that, contrary to company rules
or policy, he grew a beard and refused to remove it
until after Blair had requested him to do so two or
three times and threatened with discharge. He ac-
ceded to Blair's demand and shaved his beard.28
Without engaging in any legalistic or philosophi-
cal vagaries about the right of an employee to wear
a beard, one is puzzled as to the possible objection
an employer could have to the wearing of a beard
on a drilling platform where working and living
conditions in many respects resembled life at sea on
a merchant essel. Manifestly, Respondent did not
expect the crews to maintain the same tonsorial ap-
pearance on the platform as the men might on the
mainland . Respondent , however , maintains that the
rule was required in the interest of discipline and
sanitation, especially in view of the relatively close
quarters the men occupied. One need not cavil at
Respondent's rule or policy in this regard. The fact
is that Collins finally acceded to Blair's demand al-
beit under threat of discharge, and there is nothing
to suggest that Blair gave any further thought to the
matter until Collins' discharge.
Another incident involved Collins' alleged failure
to wear a protective or hardhat on the platform as
required by company rule. Considering the nature
and hazards of the operation, such a requirement is
certainly not unreasonable . According to Blair,
Collins preferred to wear a navy watch cap, a
preference which Collins explained was dictated by
the difficulty of wearing a hardhat while working on
the derrick in winds of 35 to 40 miles an hour gale
force. Sometimes, Collins testified, after descending
from the derrick he would forget to put on his hard-
hat.
The remaining incidents, advanced by Blair as
contributing factors in his decision to discharge
Collins, arose out the Company's avowed intention
of searching the luggage of the crews because of
suspicion that liquor was being brought onto the
platform, and because company tools were disap-
pearing. According to Blair, Collins reacted by
threatening to "whip " anyone attempting to search
his luggage. Toolpusher Roady quoted Collins to
the effect that anyone making such an attempt
would have to "whip" Collins first. Although Col-
lins testified that he could not recall his remarks in
this connection, his general attitude and demeanor
as a witness, not altogether devoid of belligerency,
suggest that he probably reacted with considerable
s« Another employee, who had grown a beard while on the platform, was
permitted to keep it until he had had an opportunity to have a photograph
taken with the beard to show his wife
27 Blair , who was present , went to the mailbox in the recreation room,
produced Collins' check, which had arrived on an earlier helicopter flight,
and handed it to him The Shell supervisor, obviously embrassed , did not
complain to Blair then or at any other time about Collins' outburst , though
Blair testified that this was because Shell and Respondent maintained a pol-
icy of avoiding intercompany conflict Collins testified that , although he re-
called the incident and regarded the loss of the mail " disgusting ," he could
not remember what he said at the time On the basis of the incident itself,
vehemence to the suggestion of any search of his
luggage. No evidence was offered to support the
need for the search, and there is no evidence that
Respondent actually carried out its intention. In
any event, we are not concerned with whether
Respondent was justified in its announced inten-
tion, which could scarcely have failed to evoke
resentment in the crew, but whether Respondent
relied on this incident as a factor in its decision to
discharge Collins.
Finally, Blair cited two further examples of Col-
lins' "poor attitude and temper." The first relates to
a remark Collins made when a Shell supervisor,
who had brought the mail in by helicopter, lost
some of the mail due to a gust from the propeller
which swept the mail overboard so that it could not
be retrieved. When the supervisor later came in to
the recreation room to apologize, Collins blamed
him for having lost his paycheck, and remarked
that "any stupid son of a bitch that would lose mail
like that" should "have his head knocked off. "2?
The other complaint of misconduct mentioned by
Blair involved Collins' alleged propensity for throw-
ing wrenches. According to Blair, it had been re-
ported to him that if Collins found that the wrench
did not fit, while working on a pump, he would toss
it away without looking to see where it might land,
and that it had been reported to him that once, Sis-
trunk, a crane operator, had to jump to avoid being
struck.28 Collins admitted that he probably threw a
wrench at sometime but could not fix the time, or
furnish any information regarding the incident.
Blair asserted that the instances cited demon-
strated Collins' lack of control of his temper and his
intractability in observing rules, which he summed
up as his "poor attitude," rendering him unsuited
for employment on the platform. Blair vacillated,
however, between whether Collins' overall attitude
or his neglect in shutting off the valves in the
pumproom with resultant loss of drilling mud was
the actual reason for his discharge. Thus, when Col-
lins went to Blair 's office for his paycheck following
his discharge, and asked Blair whether he could
conscientiously say that he was not doing his work,
Blair agreed that he was "a good worker," and said
that he had discharged him "strictly" because of his
"attitude."29 Yet, in the data regarding termination
of employees between March 1965 and January
1967, listing reasons for terminations, Respondent
gives as the reason for Collins' discharge "Lost
and judging by his temperament as manifested on the witness stand, it is
found that Collins made the remarks substantially as Blair testified
21 There was no showing that Sistrunk had registered any complaint re-
garding this incident Blair admitted, moreover , that he did not learn of this
incident until after Collins was discharged
2Y In fact, in his testimony Blair volunteered that Collins was "practically
keeping the pump room clean ," that he would actually " be down there
washing tanks and stuff when Harold Bloodworth and those guys, why it
was like pulling teeth to get any of them to do it," reiterating that it was
"just his attitude" which caused his discharge
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
drilling mud to inlet. Was belligerent with
pusher. "3°
With regard to Collins' alleged negligence result-
ing in the loss of drilling mud, the record suffi-
ciently establishes that such occurrences were not
infrequent , and Blair admitted that he never
discharged or disciplined any employees responsi-
ble for those derelictions.31 In fact, it appears that,
confronted with evidence of other instances of mud
loss, Blair shifted his position from maintaining that
the mud loss incident was, in effect, the precipitat-
ing cause for the discharge to reliance on poor at-
titude and temper as the reason . Respondent 's ulti-
mate position at the hearing that Collins was ter-
minated for his overall unsatisfactory attitude and
temper rather than for the mud loss (the reason as-
signed in the Company's payroll change) leads to
the conclusion that the mud loss incident was not a
determining factor in Blair 's decision to discharge
Collins.
As to the other incidents on which Respondent
relies, the alleged theft of diesel oil at Rig 35 must
be discounted as having no part in Blair 's decision.
Without regard to the merits of the charge, it is
clear that, although Blair had known of the incident
for some 3 months before Collins' discharge, he
made no mention of it to him or , so far as this
record reveals , to any management representative
and took no action to dismiss him. This incident ap-
pears to have all the earmarks of having been
dragged in as an afterthought in an effort to bolster
Respondent 's justification for the discharge.
As to the incident involving the contemplated
luggage search, the fact that neither Blair nor any
other management representative saw fit to
discipline or reprimand Collins for this belligerent
outburst is some measure of the lack of significance
Respondent attached to it.
The same may be said of the episode involving
the loss of mail by the Shell supervisor. Granted
that Collins made the remarks attributed to him, his
ungoverned rage at the loss of mail which he be-
lieved contained the mens' paychecks, while un-
doubtedly intemperate, not to say tactless, was not
considered so shocking or outrageous as to prompt
as much as a reproach from Blair, who was present.
Nor did the Shell supervisor himself rebuke Collins
for his outburst or protest to Blair or any of his su-
periors.
10 In the payroll change notice , perpared the day of Collins' discharge
and signed by Blair , the reason for the discharge is given as "This man has
stated he doesn ' t like the oilfield. Through negligence he let the mud get
away causing waste of expensive mud into the Inlet " Above this appears
the notation encircled "Not for Rehire." Blair testified that Collins had ex-
pressed himself on various occasions , including once in the messhall, when
Respondent 's Supervisors Lage and Wilson , and a number of the crew were
present , as "hat [ing] the oil field," and "the quicker he could get out of it
.. for good the better he would like it," Blair volunteering that he assumed
Collins was bitter because of his father 's death in an automobile accident
(Blair testified , incidentally , that he had known Collins' father, and that in
deference to his memory he did not discharge Collins sooner ) Asked on
cross-examination , however, whether he "like[d] platform life," Collins
testified, " It was the best oil field job that I had ever had "
175
With regard to Collins' violation of the rule about
wearing a protective hat, without gainsaying the im-
portance of this safety precaution or condoning
that failure to heed such a rule, apart from Collins'
testimony that it was not practical to wear such a
hat while working on the derrick in winds of gale
proportions, Blair conceded that Collins was not
the only problem in that regard, though he testified
that others were more cooperative. In any case,
since it is apparent that Blair did not undertake to
discipline Collins for his dereliction in this regard, it
is reasonable to conclude either that Blair did not
consider Collins' recalcitrance on this subject seri-
ous enough to wrrrant disciplinary action, or that
he was willing to overlook his obduracy just so long
as it suited his purpose to do so. Collins reluctance
to shave his beard and his ultimate capitulation
deserve no comment beyond what has already been
said. The matter of Collins' alleged proclivity for
hurling wrenches, while attended by the possibility
of serious consequences, not to be minimized, ap-
pears to have been based on a single isolated in-
stance, apparently provoked by a momentary sense
of frustration, and not, as Respondent contends,
chronic outbursts of temper. In any event, there
was no showing that Collins was ever reprimanded
or otherwise disciplined for engaging in such con-
duct.
In its brief, Respondent contends that Collins was
terminated because "his poor attitude and temper
were incompatible with life on the platform and
because his carelessness resulted in the loss of al-
most a thousand dollars worth of drilling mud."
Stated differently, Respondent maintains , in effect,
that it need not rely on each of the various grounds
for the discharge separately, but that all the ele-
ments combined provided good cause for its ac-
tion-on the theory that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. In so doing, however, Respon-
dent assumes the risk that the constant shifting of
position during the hearing, as to the grounds for
discharge, diminishes the validity of each of the
reasons separately advanced. One might wonder,
moreover, why Respondent tolerated an employee
who, by his attitude and temperament, was so ill
suited to working and living on an oil drilling plat-
form. Blair 's explanation that he hesititated to
discharge Collins sooner because of the pendency
of the Board proceedings, presumably the election,
31 Shell Drilling Foreman Furry testified that , although it is well known
by oilfield workers in the industry that mud loss should be avoided, he
warned the men at occasional safety meetings , as well as individually, of the
importance of preventing mud loss and the possibility of disciplinary action
for carelessness Although Furry mentioned one man, a pit watcher, whom
he had warned , it developed that the warning took place in or about July
1966 some 5 months after Collins' discharge This evidence is insufficient
to overcome the more positive evidence that mud losses did occur prior to
Collins' discharge which went unpunished Blair 's testimony that mud
losses had occurred when the drilling rig was first started and was operating
with inexperienced derrickmen , in contrast to Collins, whom he regarded
as experienced , does not meet the undisputed testimony of witnesses who
testified to other instances of mud loss, described earlier
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and his friendship for Collins' deceased father is not
persuasive.
Despite what has been said as to whether the
conduct in which Collins engaged afforded reasona-
ble cause for discharge, in the final analysis, cause
or lack of cause, reasonableness or lack of it for the
action taken, is material only insofar as it tends to
establish motivation. For, it is too well established
under the Act to require argument or citation
authority that an employer may discharge an em-
ployee with or without cause, providing only that
he is not motivated by reasons proscribed by the
Act; namely, to encourage or discourage member-
ship in a labor organization. By the same token, it is
equally well established that the burden is on the
General Counsel to prove the allegations of dis-
criminatory discharge rather than on Respondent to
disprove those allegations and establish the lawful-
ness of his conduct-that is to say, that he
discharged the employee for good cause. Of course,
once the General Counsel has established a prima
facie case of discrimination, the burden then shifts
to Respondent to establish that the discharge was
nondiscriminatory.
With these principles in mind, it may be assumed
that the conduct of which Respondent complained
may well have warranted discharge. The crucial
question is whether the reasons advanced by
Respondent, or any of them, were, in fact, the ac-
tual reasons for Collins' discharge or whether
Respondent utilized them as a pretext for eliminat-
ing an employee because of his union sympathies
and activities which Respondent opposed. In short,
once more we must come to grips with the ever
perplexing enigma of motivation.
It is, of course, indispensable to the General
Counsel's case to establish that at the time of the
discharge Respondent knew, or, at least, suspected
that Collins was a union adherent. It need not, how-
ever, be established, contrary to Respondent's con-
tention , that the person who actually discharged the
employee had personal knowledge or suspicion of
the discharged employee's union predilection if the
knowledge, actual or constructive, was commu-
nicated to Respondent, although here there is suffi-
cient evidence to support a finding that Blair him-
self knew, or, at least, suspected Collins' union ad-
herence.
It will be recalled that at the meeting in the latter
part of February, prior to the election, when Lage
addressed Olds' crew, Collins was the only
crewmember who responded to Lage's invitation to
ask questions. During his remarks Collins criticized
the Company's wage rates, and argued the issue of
comparative wage rates of platform crews with that
of those "on the beach." Whether Lage and Olds
inferred from this that Collins was a union ad-
vocate, it must be obvious that they realized that he
was dissatisfied with the disparity in wage rates
between the offshore and mainland crews, and that
he was speaking not only for himself but on behalf
of his fellow crewmembers, thereby engaging in
concerted, if not union, activities. Furthermore,
Olds, Collins' driller in charge of the crew, ad-
mitted that Collins told him of his union sym-
pathies, although Olds testified that he did not re-
port this to anyone else. Moreover, according to
Carter, in a conversation with Blair 3 or 4 days
after the election, in which the latter complained to
Carter that Collins was trying "to [obscenity] him,"
and that he had no intention of "stand[ing] there
like a cow," Blair also told Carter that Collins had
voted for the Union.32
Obviously, if Carter's testimony is credited, any
doubt that Blair was aware of Collins' union sym-
pathies is dispelled. Respondent, however, impugns
Carter's credibility because he did not mention
Blair 's more incriminating remarks until after his
memory had been refreshed by a pretrial statement
to a Board agent, and did not explain what Blair
had meant by the statement , "now Lloyd has done
this to me," until after a recess in the midst of his
testimony.
Carter, who testified as a witness for the General
Counsel, appeared to be a reluctant witness, visibly
hesitant, nervous, and embarrassed at being obliged
to furnish testimony damaging to Blair and the
Company. He was ill at ease and his discomfort
readily apparent, though this is only partially
reflected in the record. Often resorting to such an-
swers as "I don't really recall," "I couldn't really
say," when pressed for details, and before having
his recollection refreshed, later, at one point,
visibly upset, he murmured, "I am sorry, I can't
think."
At this point, a recess was called to permit the
witness to compose himself. Thereafter, Carter was
able to resume his testimony on direct and cross-ex-
amination without apparent difficulty. It may be in-
ferred that he further refreshed his recollection
from his signed statement during the recess.
Respondent's counsel sought to further impeach
the witness' testimony by statements given counsel
in October 1966 and on February 9, 1967, 4 days
before their hearing, in neither of which Collins was
mentioned, and in which Carter stated that neither
Blair nor any other supervisor had threatened him
or said that if the Union prevailed men would be
" In this conversation, Blair told Carter to "keep the men working and
not let up on them", that Blair had heard in town that Collins was "out to
[obscenity] him" and that others had tried it before without success, that
there were 16 or 17 "sons of bitches" who had voted for the Union and that
they had "better stay busy or he was going to get rid of them " Carter as-
sured Blair that he was not one of those who had voted for the Union and
that if he "run me off he would probably be running off one of the men that
voted for him " His recollection refreshed by a pretrial statement, Carter
recalled that Blair had said that he had been "good enough to put [Collins]
to work," and "now Lloyd has done this to me," adding that "everywhere
Lloyd went he had always made trouble " Carter asked Blair, "Did
what to you, Vernon9" Blair replied, "Well, he voted for the union, for one
thing " Carter observed that he thought Collins was a "very good hand," to
which Blair retorted, "that's beside the point "
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 177
discharged, everybody would have to work harder,
and would lose benefits . Although the record does
,not establish the exact date of the pretrial state-
ment taken by the Board agent , it is evident from
Carter's testimony that it was long before the earli-
est one obtained by Respondent 's counsel, and it
may be assumed that Carter's recollection of the
events was more reliable then than at the later
dates. Ultimately, he testified that his testimony was
based primarily on his recollection as refreshed by
his pretrial statement to the Board rather than on
his independent recollection.
Carter, who, though not regarded by Respondent
as a supervisor, actually directed his crew, was still
employed by Respondent at the date of the hearing,
and appears to have had no motive for furnishing
damaging evidence against Blair , Respondent's
highest supervisor on the platform , unless it were
true. His adbivalent feelings were clearly mani-
fested at the hearing. Whether he deliberately
withheld the salient facts from Respondent 's coun-
sel in a misguided effort to avoid implicating Blair
or because he lacked the courage to repeat them or
whether he merely forgot or overlooked Blair's
statements , it is found that Carter's testimony was
not successfully impeached by his pretrial state-
ments to Respondent's counsel. After carefully
weighing all the factors involved, it is found that
Blair made the statements to Carter as described in
this report, and that Blair was aware of Collins'
sympathies at the time of his discharge.
It will also be recalled that Blair told Bloodworth
about a week after the election, and after Collins
had been discharged, that Collins had been trying
to "[obscenity] him," as were the rest of "you
men," and on another occasion during that period
that he did not see how the men could "hitch your
wagon to that little union and Roy Dennis" (the
IUPW area organizer).
Again, on Saturday (February 26), following the
election, Blair told Barefield that he had already
"run off some men and ... was going to run off
some more." Since Collins was discharged on
February 22, 2 days after the election, and, as will
be seen, Arthur Gordon was discharged on Febru-
ary 24, it is reasonable to infer that Blair was speak-
ing of these men.
In view of this evidence, there can be no doubt
that Blair was aware of Collins' union sympathies at
the time of his discharge.
It is, of course, recognized that membership in or
activity on behalf of a union does not insulate an
employee against discharge for legitimate reasons.
Conversely, it is equally well established that valid
grounds for discharge will not preclude a finding of
discrimination if the employer was actually
motivated by a purpose to discourage union activi-
ties, and the grounds of discharge are merely a pre-
text for eliminating the union adherent. Moreover,
if the discharge is, in part , because of the em-
ployee's union allegiance and, in part, for valid
cause, the discharge is, nonetheless, violative of the
Act.
The evidence regarding the reasons advanced by
Respondent for Collins' discharge, while not to be
minimized , leads to the conclusion that the derelic-
tions were ( a) not serious enough to have war-
ranted disciplinary action; (b) engaged in by other
employees who were not subjected to discipline;
(c) tolerated by Respondent until the advent of the
two contesting Unions; and (d) seized on as a pre-
text for discharge when the results of the election
became known. That the results were inconclusive,
neither of the Unions having received a majority of
the ballots cast, does not detract from this conclu-
sion . The fact is that one of the Unions, the IUPW,
received a sufficient number of votes, 15, which,
depending on the disposition of the challenged bal-
lots, could have resulted in the certification of that
Union as bargaining agent.
That Respondent was opposed to union represen-
tation of its employees is abundantly clear, not-
withstanding the fact that Respondent' s managerial
hierarchy may not have instigated or authorized the
unfair labor practices committed by ranking super-
visors at the platform. Nor, does the fact that in its
campaign letters to the employees, in the state-
ments of its upper echelon officials, and instruc-
tions to subordinant supervisors, Respondent as-
serted and urged on its supervisors an attitude of
neutrality in the election and purportedly advised
employees that, irrespective of the results of the
election , it would abide by their decision, relieve
Respondent of the consequences of the conduct of
its supervisors. Moreover, in view of purported in-
structions to its supervisors, particularly toolpusher
(now drilling superintendent ) Blair, it can only be
concluded that he flagrantly disregarded his in-
structions, and, in view of his position in the
hierachy of the Company, even if he acted in viola-
tion of company policy, his conduct is, nonetheless,
attributable to Respondent. The fact that Blair's
statements and action became intensified after the
election leads to the inference that Respondent
condoned, if it did not actually approve, his con-
duct.
On the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire
record, including the evidence of Respondent's op-
position and hostility to the unionization of its em-
ployees; the intimidatory and coercive statements
of Supervisors Blair , Roady, and White, both before
and after the election; the admittedly satisfactory
work performance of Collins; the shifting and con-
flicting reasons advanced by Blair for Collins'
discharge; and the disparate treatment accorded
him in comparison to other employees who had
committed similar derelictions , it is hereby found
that Respondent discharged and thereafter failed
and refused to reinstate Collins, not, as Respondent
contends , because of his poor attitude and tempera-
ment or his quarrelsome , belligerent, or abrasive
behavior, but because of his union adherence, and
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent 's determination to eliminate a militant
union advocate, utilizing the purported grounds as
a pretext for its action.3
It is, therefore, found that by discharging Collins
on February 22, 1966, and thereafter failing and
refusing to reinstate him because of his union ad-
vocacy, thereby discriminating in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment to discourage member-
ship in a labor organization , Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3), thereby interfering with,
restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Arthur W. Gordon
Gordon was hired as a floor hand34 in November
1965, assigned to driller Olds ' crew, and worked at
that job until February 24 when he was discharged
by Bair allegedly for being asleep on the job.
It will be recalled that it was Gordon with whom
Blair had the conversation in January when he
called him down from the catwalk , questioned him
about "this union deal ," and told him that he had a
list of names of previous union adherents , including
Gordon 's, and insinuated that he had been involved
in violence at Reading & Bates . After readily ad-
mitting that he had been engaged in union activities
before, Gordon expressed his disaffection with
unions and Blair urged him to be sure to vote in the
election . It is reasonable to infer , therefore, that
Blair probably concluded that he had won Gordon's
allegiance . Gordon , however , acted as observer for
the APCC in the February 20 election. He was
discharged 4 days later , 2 days after Collins was ter-
minated.
According to Gordon , he went from the rig floor
to relieve Barefield , the pit watcher, for breakfast
at or about 5:30 on the morning in question. Fol-
lowing his custom , he checked the mud shakers to
see if they needed cleaning , checked the mud levels
in the tanks, and then went to the mud shack in the
same area , through a door , a step or two down from
the pit watching area, and examined the mud re-
port. Satisfied that all was in order, he sat down on
a chair next to the door in the mud checking shack.
The distance from the door to the nearest corner of
the mud checking shack is about 10 or 12 feet. In
the position he was seated, Gordon faced a wall
containing a window 3 or 3-1/2 feet from the floor,
about 2-1/2 feet wide, and occupying somewhat
less than the entire wall. The door was on his left.
According to Gordon, he was wearing a yellow
plastic hardhat or cap, sitting erect facing the
general direction of the door looking at the floor.
The peak or "visor" of his hat extended 3-1/2 or 4
inches from the hat. As he was seated, the mud
shakers were 18 to 20 feet away.
Gordon testified that he remained in this position
for about 2 minutes when someone tried to open
the door. He got up, opened the door, which he was
unable to open more than 6 inches, to find Blair
standing there. Then, according to Gordon, Blair
said, "I will have your check ready." Gordon
replied, "Oh, it's O.K., get it ready right now," add-
ing that he would like a "chopper" (helicopter) as
soon as possible.
Gordon started to leave to obtain his termination
slip, but changed his mind, went up to the rig floor,
and sought out Olds, who was at the controls,
drilling. Gordon told him that he was "one floor-
man short." When Olds asked him what he meant,
Gordon said that he had "just got run off." Olds
asked him the reason . Gordon replied, "I got
caught sitting down in the mudchecking shack."
Gordon then went to the driller's shack on the same
level and was followed by Ben White and John
Gnagy. He told them he had been fired and, when
they asked him the reason , repeated what he had
told Olds.
Gordon then went to Blair 's office where Ray
DeVille, a welder, and one of the Shell pushers
were also present. Gordon asked Blair for a ter-
mination slip and Blair said that the Company did
not issue such slips any longer . Gordon told Blair
that he would like him to have a "chopper" sent
out as soon as possible . Blair said that Gordon
would have to wait until daylight because there
would be no "choppers" out before then, but told
him he could finish his shift if he wished. Gordon
testified that no mention had as yet been made that
he had been sleeping.
Returning to the rig floor, Gordon helped the
men make one connection and then walked into the
driller's shack where he met DeVille signing the
'.' Respondent maintains that Collins' attitude was due, in part , to his in-
difference about his job resulting from his distaste for the oilfields and his
"economic independence " of that work because he was "regularly engaged
in commercial fishing for a livelihood " Since there is no contention that
Collins voluntarily terminated his employment , this is immaterial to a
determination of whether his discharge was discriminatory To the extent
that it may furnish any support for the contention that Collins manifested a
poor attitude , the evidence is of scant probative value, especially since Col-
lins testified that he considered his job on the platform the best he had ever
had in the oilfields, and that his commercial fishing business was of a more
or less seasonal nature Respondent further argues that after his termina-
tion Collins never sought employment in the offshore drilling industry
despite increased platform operations by other oil companies in Cook Inlet,
and that he quit his last mainland job in the oilfields to take care of his fish-
ing enterprise , which Collins denied This , in Respondent 's view, suggests
that Collins realized that his attitude and temper were incompatible with
working on a platform operation . Such a conclusion is not warranted by the
evidence As to Respondent 's contention that , " because the next manifes-
tation of Collins' 'could care less' attitude might result in serious injury to
someone or in more serious interference with the operations on the plat-
form ," the Board ought not to "second guess" Blair, the fact remains that
Blair himself did not consider that any of Collins' derelictions or short-
comings were serious enough to warrant discipline , to say nothing of
discharge , during the 5 months of his employment , until after the election
Respondent's contentions are found to be without meat
"The term is used interchangeably with the job classification of rotary
helper and roughneck , whose work is done on the oil rig floor below the
drilling derrick , in contrast to the job of roustabout, which involves general
labor and platform cleanup and helpers to crane operators
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 179
timebook. DeVille told Gordon that Blair had told
him that he had been sleeping . Gordon denied this
and told DeVille that Blair had merely caught him
sitting down , adding , according to Gordon, "For
that matter , my word is as good as his ." This, Gor-
don testified, was the first time since the incident
had occurred that any mention had been made that
Gordon had been sleeping in the shack. Gordon
went to his room and started changing his clothes
and packing his gear . He later went to Blair and
asked for his check because he heard the helicopter
arriving . Blair handed him his check and Gordon
left. According to Gordon, Blair made no mention
at this time of Gordon 's sleeping.
The following Wednesday, March 2, Gordon and
his wife were at a bar in Kenai with Olds and his
wife and Gnagy. According to Gordon, Olds told
him that Blair had come to his room after Gordon's
discharge and said , " I hated like heck to do it, but
he lied to me," referring to Gordon.35 Gordon
asked Olds for a reference and received a favorable
recommendation.
The importance of being alert in the discharge of
the duties of pit watching may readily be assumed,
and obviously the person relieving the pit watcher
must be expected to exert the same degree of
watchfulness . It is not altogether clear whether
there was an official rule against sleeping while on
the job, and it appears that prior to 1952 this was
tolerated by many of the drilling contractors. Since
then there has been a policy, if not a rule at
Respondent 's rig, that sleeping on the job is not
permitted. Indeed, Gordon himself testified that
although there was no rule, oral or written, posted
or otherwise, and he was never notified, that sleep-
ing on the job was ground for discharge , he took it
for granted that this would be the consequence of
such infraction . Regardless of whether such a rule
or policy existed , common experience would dic-
tate the advisability of prohibiting such conduct.
The question, however, is twofold; first, whether
Gordon was actually asleep at the time; and second,
whether that was the actual reason for his
discharge. The applicable principles have already
been stated with respect to Collins' case.
As to the first issue, the testimony is in direct
conflict. Blair testified that while making his rounds
on the platform he observed Gordon through the
partially glassed wall of the mud shack seated on a
chair, mouth open, and head tilted back. He did not
immediately approach him but instead proceeded
to wash the mud shakers which sifted the cuttings
from the drilling operations . This consumed about
15 minutes, during which Blair went about per-
forming tasks Gordon should presumably have been
doing, leaving him asleep undisturbed . When Blair
opened the door he was satisfied that Gordon was
asleep. Gordon admittedly did not see Blair through
the window as he came to the mud shack and did
not hear him approaching. It was not until Gordon
heard the door being rattled that he realized
someone was there. Blair, however, did not accuse
Gordon on the spot of having been asleep, nor did
Gordon protest his discharge. Moreover, Gordon's
statement to DeVille that his, Gordon's, word was
as good as Blair's as to whether he was or was not
asleep seems a curious way of denying that he was
asleep at the time. And, despite the efforts of the
General Counsel to diagram in minute detail, by
resort to distances and physical conditions, the
position in which Gordon was sitting, and to
establish that the visor on the hardhat Gordon was
wearing would have prevented Blair from telling
whether Gordon was actually asleep, the preponde-
rance of the evidence establishes that Gordon was
probably asleep or at least dozing when he was
discovered by Blair. Nevertheless, no explanation
was offered by Respondent as to why Blair did not
immediately rouse Gordon from his lethargy, and
remonstrate with him for being asleep on the job
and neglecting his chores, instead of leaving him
undisturbed while Blair himself, the highest
management supervisor on the platform, went
about performing Gordon's chores. This gives rise
to the inference that, far from being concerned
about finding Gordon asleep on the job, Blair was
more insterested in catching Gordon in flagrante
delicto than in remedying the possible hazard occa-
sioned by Gordon's somnolence.
Blair conceded that Gordon was at least a "pretty
fair hand," and, considering the fact that there was
an evident shortage of qualified and competent
drilling crew personnel, with the advent of addi-
tional offshore drilling operations in the area, one
may wonder why Blair peremptorily discharged
Gordon without as much as giving him a reason for
discharge or chance to explain. Respondent ap-
pears to contend, however, that this was so self-
evident to Gordon that it would have been idle to
point out the obvious. On the other hand, asked
why he did not protest to Blair at once if he felt he
had been unfairly discharged, Gordon testified, "I
knew from the day of the election my days were
numbered. It would be any day that I would
probably get run off and I have been through this
before. I had seen it done.36 There was no need for
an explanation."
Despite Gordon's adequate work performance
and the apparent shortage of competent personnel
Respondent contends that the policy prohibiting
75 The General Counsel contends that Blair's statement that Gordon had
lied to him referred to the conversation between the two men at the cat-
walk in January , when Gordon indicated his disaffection with unions and,
in the General Counsel 's view , tacitly assured Blair of his loyalty to the
Company . Since Gordon acted as the APCC observer , it is argued, Blair
concluded , that he had reneged on his tacit promise , and hence , had lied to
him Since there had been no discussion between Blair and Gordon relative
to his having been asleep, there would have been no occasion for Gordon
to deny it It is, therefore, unlikely that Blair could have been referring to
this when he told Olds that Gordon had lied to him
a" An obvious reference to his previous experience at Reading & Bates
353-177 0 - 72 - 13
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sleeping was of such importance as to require rigid
enforcement. The General Counsel, however, con-
tends that far from being strictly enforced the pol-
icy was discriminatorily applied as to Gordon.
Thus, the evidence establishes that after Day
discharged employee Baker because he believed he
had been asleep on the job Roady rehired him
when Baker denied he had been asleep. There was
no showing what means Roady took to satisfy him-
self that Baker had not been asleep beyond the Tat-
ter's naked assertion.37 By contrast, Blair did not
question Gordon about the incident, attempt to
ascertain whether there were any extenuating cir-
cumstances, or ask him whether he had anything to
say in mitigation of his dereliction. Granted that
Blair may have been satisfied that Gordon had ac-
tually been asleep, Blair's eagerness to take care of
the mud shakers and desanders, chores oridinarily
performed by the pit watcher or his relief man, in
this case Gordon, before waking him, and the
alacrity with which he notified him of his discharge
border on the verge of entrapment, and suggest that
Blair was lying in wait for an opportunity to
discharge him.
Asked on cross-examination whether the sleeping
incident was the only one on which he based his
decision to discharge Gordon, Blair testified that
one such incident was sufficient. Later in his
testimony, however, Blair advanced additional
shortcomings, relating to pipe slings and thread
protectors, which obviously had not been a factor
in his decision to discharge Gordon but imported
into the case as an afterthought.
In view of the foregoing, including the evidence
of the encounter between Blair and Gordon at the
catwalk in January, which clearly established Cor-
don's previous union affinity and his purported dis-
affection with unionization; the disparity of treat-
ment accorded Gordon compared with that shown
other employees; Blair's precipitate action in
discharging Gordon; his knowledge that Gordon
had acted as the APCC observer, a fact which con-
vinced him that Gordon was still a union adherent,
after having led him to believe that he had become
disenchanted with unions and would give his allegi-
ance to the Company, lead to the conclusion that
Blair obviously regarded Gordon's demonstrated
union support as an act of betrayal. Viewed against
Blair's obvious opposition and hostility to unions, as
manifested by his statements and conduct toward
his employees both before and after the election, it
becomes clear that Blair discharged Gordon in
retaliation for his union sympathies and adherence,
and seized upon the sleeping incident as a pretext
for eliminating a union protagonist in a fit of pique
and because of his chagrin at having been lulled
into a false sense of security regarding Gordon's
loyalties.
It is, therefore, found on the basis of the forego-
ing and upon the entire record that Blair discharged
Gordon on February 24, 1966, and thereafter failed
and refused to reinstate him, not because he found
him asleep on the job, but because of his union af-
filiation and activity, seizing on the sleeping in-
cident as a pretext, thereby discriminating in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage
membership in a labor organization, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3), and interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Sidney R. Sherwood
Sherwood was hired as a roustabout on
December 7, 1965, and was promoted on January
21, 1966, to the job of derrickman under driller
Olin "Blackie" Huckaby. According to Blair, Sher-
wood had been promoted while he was away on a
trip, and was surprised to find on his return of Sher-
wood's promotion because he and Roady had
discussed what a poor hand Sherwood had been as
a roustabout. Sherwood was discharged or laid off
on March 20, 1966.
Blair testified that the reason for Sherwood's ter-
mination was that the Company had ceased its
operation of a drilling rig at Lake Louise,
designated as Rig 35, and that, under company pol-
icy, if a rig is shut down , it retains its keymen such
as drillers and experienced derrickmen. Con-
sequently, when a driller named Kothe who had
been working on Rig 35 was laid off, Blair decided
to retain him, "bumping" the man in the next lower
classification. In choosing among Bloodworth,
Dewey, and Sherwood, he decided to release Sher-
wood because he had the least seniority and was
the least satisfactory of these employees.
Blair sent for Sherwood to notify him of his deci-
sion. According to Blair, Roady and Furry were in
the adjoining office with the door open. Blair told
Sherwood that Kothe was going to take his place,
that he was letting him go because of his poor
work, and that he did not feel it would be ad-
vantageous to him to let him replace another man
because he had better roustabouts than Sherwood.
Obviously chagrined, Sherwood told Blair that
when he first came to work there he had had a high
regard for him. Since then, however, he said he had
told the hands that if Blair bumped him he was
going to "whip" him, but now that it had happened
"he wouldn't lower himself" by doing so because
"that would make him a bigger [obscenity] than
[Blair] was."
" Another example of alleged disparity in treatment regarding enforce-
ment of the penalty of discharge for sleeping on the job related to Collins,
one of the dischargees Collins, who had laid down near the pumps, though
it was not shown that he was asleep, was not discharged , allegedly because
he was ill at the time Respondent contends that the fact that Collins was ill
distinguishes the case from Gordon's and, moreover, that Collins was still
trying to do his job This suggests that the policy was not inflexible but that
Respondent considered extenuating circumstances In Gordon's case, no
effort was made to discover whether such circumstances existed, Blair act-
ing peremptorily
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 181
Blair admitted that he knew that Sherwood was a
union supporter because, in Blair's words, Sher-
wood had "made a point of telling him" so in or
about mid-January, after Blair had learned of the
filing of the election petition . 38 Blair admitted that
at the time Kothe bumped Sherwood there were
probably roughnecks and roustabouts with less ser-
vice than Sherwood , but that although Sherwood
probably could perform satisfactorily on the derrick
his work as a roustabout was worse than any of the
others whom he retained . Blair also admitted, how-
ever , that while Sherwood was working as a
roustabout under Carter or Sistrunk neither they
nor any other crane operator or pusher complained
to Blair that Sherwood was a poor worker. Blair
testified , however , that he was able to observe the
men, while they were working , from a large window
in the office as well as when he was on the plat-
form . According to Blair , he and Roady both men-
tioned that Sherwood was a poor roustabout even
before Blair had left for Lake Louise.
Blair conceded that he never criticized Sherwood
directly or asked Roady or any other supervisor to
remonstrate with him about his work , explaining
that in view of Sherwood 's experience " it wasn't
necessary ." Blair also testified that he did not con-
sult with any of the crane operators or roustabout
pushers as to whether they might prefer Sherwood
to the others on their crews, testifying , " I didn't
want him back on as a roustabout . Sherwood
wouldn 't make any effort to clean up , he would
just work the derrick and wouldn ' t make any effort
to clean up his pump area ." Blair maintained that
whenever he asked Sherwood to do anything he
would reply with a stock answer, "I am doing all I
can do,' an answer frequently heard by driller
Huckaby, according to Blair.
It should be noted that the General Counsel does
not contend that Blair's action in permitting Kothe
to "bump " Sherwood was discriminatory . He does
contend , however , that Blair 's refusal to permit
Sherwood to "bump " a floor hand or roustabout
with less seniority was discriminatory . Respondent's
seniority roster and payroll data establish that there
were at least three floor hands or roustabouts at the
time of Sherwood 's termination with less seniority
than he .39 It is not clearly established that Respon-
dent normally followed strict seniority in regard to
"bumping ." In any event , it is conceded that in
Sherwood 's instance it relied entirely on work per-
formance as the criterion.
Sherwood testified that in a conversation with
Lage in the pumproom after he had addressed the
crew Lage asked him how he liked working for the
Company. Sherwood indicated that he was satisfied
with working conditions and the fringe benefits.
According to Sherwood, Lage then said that more
platforms would be starting up at Cook Inlet, which
would mean more job opportunities, and that if he
remained with the Company there would probably
be a chance for advancement.
Respondent maintains that the fact that Sher-
wood was promoted to the job of derrickman after
a month and a half as roustabout, and that Lage
may have indicated to Sherwood that there was
possibility of further advancement with the Com-
pany is irrelevant.40 As to the first position, Respon-
dent argues that a man might perform satisfactorily
as a derrickman yet perform poorly as a roustabout.
This position seems illogical because it is
predicated on the premise that an employer who is
dissatisfied with the work of an employee would
promote him to a more highly skilled job at a
higher wage scale as a means of retaining an un-
satisfactory employee. Respondent does not con-
tend that it promoted Sherwood to derrickman
because of any labor shortage. As to the second
point, that Lage had held out some promise to
Sherwood of further promotion, this, Respondent,
contends, was merely in keeping with its policy of
promoting from within, and since there was no
showing that Lage's remarks were prompted by any
personal knowledge of his work performance, they
may be dismissed as an effort to retain the good will
of its employees without actually making any
definite commitment.
Sistrunk, Sherwood's pusher, testified that he was
obliged to speak to Sherwood because he spent too
much time sitting down or talking; that Sherwood
resented instruction and would give Sistrunk "back-
talk," giving rise, according to Sherwood's own ad-
mission , to the impression that because he gave Sis-
trunk "a lot of razzing and stuff," and criticized
him for the way he operated the crane, "trying to
get him to do things to my way of thinking,"
whereas Sistrunk persisted in doing it his way, that
Sherwood and Sistrunk "didn't get along."
It is conceivable that an employee who has not
proven satisfactory in one type of job might very
well perform more acceptably in another. Indeed,
this is substantially Respondent's position with re-
gard to Sherwood. What does not seem convincing
is the likelihood that the employer would be suffi-
ciently concerned about the welfare of an employee
whose general attitude toward his roustabout
pusher, with whom he was required to work in daily
contact, was so abrasive as to create an impression
that he and the pusher were "at each other's
ax This occurred , Blair testified , in the restroom on the messhall deck,
while several of the men were discussing unionization According to Blair,
Sherwood spoke up , " Well, I am a union man and always will be," and that
he wanted Blair to know it.
" Phil Newman , a floorman, hired January 24, 1966, William Kitchens, a
roustabout , hired March 2, 1966 ( less than 3 weeks before the bumping),
and R W Honeysett, a roustabout, hired January 19, 1966
40 Without engaging in semantics , "insignificant" may perhaps better
apply
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
throats. "91 Furthermore, despite the fact that Blair,
Roady, and Reamer were critical of Sherwood's
work and Roady testified that long before the elec-
tion, while Sherwood was still a roustabout, he was
obliged to tell him that if he wanted to continue
working for the Company he would have to stop
killing time, there was no showing that Sherwood
had ever been disciplined or warned of the con-
sequences of his shortcomings or derelictions
beyond the mild reprimand administered by Roady.
Instead, Sherwood was merely shifted to a higher
rated, better paying, and more desirable job. This
action is inconsistent with Respondent's position
that he laid Sherwood off instead of permitting him
to bump a junior roustabout because his work had
been unsatisfactory. A month after the election,
however, having threatened to "run off" every
crewman who had voted for the Union, and obvi-
ously convinced that Sherwood, because of his in-
dependent attitude as an employee, had voted for
one of the Unions, Respondent seized upon the first
opportunity which presented itself to eliminate
Sherwood.
The General Counsel has established a prima
facie case of discrimination in regard to Respon-
dent's failure to permit Sherwood to bump a junior
roustabout which has not been overcome by
Respondent. With regard to its failure to recall and
reinstate Sherwood, however, the situation is dif-
ferent.
Sherwood practically conceded that he had
threatened to `whip" Blair if he ever bumped him.
Although Sherwood could not recall anything else
he said on the occasion of his layoff, Blair testified
that Sherwood referred to him in an obscenely
derogatory manner, and said he had changed his
mind about whipping him because that would put
him in the same class as Blair, repeating the ob-
scene word. Blair, Roady, and Reamer confirmed
that Sherwood had called Blair a (obscenity) on
several occasions. Reamer, who was present on one
occasion, testified that he anticipated that there
would be a fight between the two men.42
Respondent contends that because of Sherwood's
threatening and abusive attitude toward his super-
visor it should not be required to recall Sherwood
or offer him reinstatement either as a derrickman
or roustabout. Moreover, Respondent argues, the
abusive language used by Sherwood provided clear
cause for discharge.43 The difficulty with this argu-
ment is that Respondent at no time contended that
it discharged Sherwood for any reason-only that he
was bumped by another employee, and that
Respondent refused to permit him to bump
downward. Its contention, however, that, even if
Sherwood had been discriminatorily denied the
right to bump, Respondent should not be required
to reinstate him because of his threatening, abusive,
and obscene remarks has merit.94
It is, therefore, found that by his threatening,
abusive, and obscene language to Blair, and by his
remarks to employees about such threats, Sher-
wood had forfeited his right to reinstatement and
backpay, and neither of these remedies will be
recommended with respect to this employee.
4. David LeRoy Gardner
Gardner was hired initially on March 25, 1965,
working the first 3 days as a motorman, then as a
roustabout for crane operator Carter. In October
and December 1965 he "roughnecked" on driller
Olds' crew. According to Gardner, his union sym-
pathies and activities were well known among the
crew and Olds was aware of it, although Gardner
tried to conceal it from driller Troy White, who,
Gardner testified, was intensely disliked by his
crew. Gardner had received a quantity of union
authorization cards from Orville Swain, a fellow
employee in December 1965, gave a portion of
them to John Copeland, and distributed others him-
self. He secured signed authorization cards from a
number of employees whom he named.
Gardner acted as IUPW observer in the election.
Next morning, while he was entering his time in the
timebook in the "dog house" (drilling shack), he
discovered that he had been "docked" for 6 hours
for time spent on the election. When Gardner
protested this to Blair , he was told that since he had
been working for the Union the day before they
should pay him for his time, commenting that
Gardner was a union organizer anyway. Gardner
wrote the Company, however, and was later reim-
bursed for the 6 hours at regular pay. Although he
claimed he should have been paid at the overtime
rate, he agreed to accept the amoung tendered him.
It will be recalled that Blair called on Gardner at
his home before the election to notify him of the
change in the date of the election from Monday,
the 21st, to Sunday, the 20th. According to
" Respondent 's argument that slight significance can be attached to
Sherwood's promotion to derrickman because it had been "engineered,"
without Blair's knowledge, by some of the men on one of the crews who
had previously worked with Sherwood, believing he would perform better
as a derrickman , is unconvincing This appears to ignore the fact that Blair
was the highest supervisory employee on the platform who had unchal-
lenged authority to hire and fire
'p Sherwood testified that he could recall only his remark that he would
"whip his " but conceded that he probably did not stop there
Citing, as example , The Lau B/over Company, 146 NLRB 1226, 1234
as N L R B v Bin-Dicator Company, 356 F 2d 210 (C A 6), N L R B v
R C Can Company, 340 F 2d 433 (C A 5) "[1]t is difficult for us to judi-
cally enforce a renen al of a relationship that bids ill for all concerned," quot-
ing N L R B v National Furniture Mfg Co , 315 F 2d 280 (C A 7), 1963
The purposes of the Act are not served by " requiring an employer to keep
in its plant anyone with the propensities for the kind of animal exhuberance
displayed" by the dischargee Id Respondent also argues that Sherwood,
according to the testimony of Blair, Roady, and Reamer , stated that he
would not work for Respondent again , thereby waiving his right to rein-
statement, and that the Board will not order reinstatement or backpay
While this may be the case where an employee , who has been discrimina-
torily discharged or laid off, waives reinstatement , such waiver must be
clear and unequivocal , a situation not shown here
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
Gardner, he would have missed the election if Blair
had not come to his home to notify him of the
change. The discussion that took place between the
two men on this occasion, in which Blair asked
Gardner, who was not scheduled to begin his next
tour until Monday, to return a day early so he could
vote and continue his tour thereafter, and the other
matters discussed, including Blair's statements of
threatening loss of privileges and withdrawal of
benefits if the employees voted for a union, cul-
minating in his request that he made certain to vote
in the election have alreay been detailed.
Gardner was also among the employees in the
washroom when Blair came in to repair the valves
the Saturday after the election, and delivered him-
self of the tirade described elsewhere'45 which con-
cluded with his threat to "run off" everyone of the
17 employees who voted for the Union, beginning
with Gardner and Barefield, to whom he was ad-
dressing his remarks.
Gardner last worked on the platform on May 1,
1966, and was terminated on May 7 or 8, 1966, al-
legedly for reporting late after his 5-day off period,
on recommendation of Shell Drilling Foreman Fur-
ry.
to May 1, the crane operator and his
roustabouts worked a 12-hour tour from 6 a.m. to 6
p.m., working nights only in cases of emergency.
During the week of May 1, while Gardner's crew
was on its 5 days off, because of increased con-
struction and expanded diving operations, Shell de-
cided to maintain a crane operator and crew of
roustabouts on duty 24 hours a day.
Furry notified Blair of his decision and he, in
turn, informed Carter that a crane operator would
be required to be on duty around the clock, and in-
structed Carter to advise his crew to report for
work at 6 p.m. Friday, instead of 6 a.m. Saturday.46
Carter notified Gardner of the change in schedule
and confirmed this by telephoning the platform.
Neither Carter nor Gardner reported for work as
required. Carter, however, went to the heliport that
day and notified the platform by radio-telephone
that he was too ill to report and that he would try to
do so the following day. Gardner arrived at the
heliport the day he was to report and learned from
the helicopter pilot or mechanic that Carter would
not be going to the platform until the next day.
Gardner, however, did not communicate with the
platform by radio to ascertain whether he was ex-
pected to report in any event, concluding that since
Carter would not be going out that day there was
no need for him to do so. He returned home and
the next day went to the platform with Carter to re-
port to work.
When Furry learned that Carter would not be re-
porting for work as scheduled, he awoke Blair, who
'' Referring here to Blair's remarks , which Respondent's counsel whimsi-
cally refers to as Blair 's "imagery about a cow."
'° It is not altogether clear whether this necessitated the men to report 12
183
was off duty and asleep at the time, and told him
that Carter had called in to say that he was ill, and
that unless Gardner had a good excuse for failing to
notify the platform he would be terminated.
According to Respondent, company rules require
an employee who fails to report for his tour without
notifying the platform in advance or without having
a good excuse to be dismissed. The necessity for
this rule is justified, Respondent contends, because
no helicopter service is available at night, and since
the crews work 12-hour shifts, if a crewmember
fails to notify the platform, it may not be possible to
have a substitute brought from the mainland, with
the result that the crew may be required to work
with one less man or a member of the crew being
relieved may be required to work overtime beyond
his regular tour. The rule, according to Blair, has
been explained to the crew and is well known to all
employees.
The General Counsel concedes that unexplained
absences ought not to be condoned. He contends,
however, contrary to Respondent, that the rule has
not been strictly enforced. According to Respon-
dent, the rule has been enforced to the extent that
second time offenders, and sometimes first, have
been dismissed.
Blair's testimony establishes, however, that he
sometimes gave employees violating the rule a
second chance, and that as a matter of fact he did
so in Gardner's case, under circumstances presently
described. On the other hand, maintaining that the
rule was, nevertheless, uniformly enforced, Blair
testified to some 13 instances in which he claimed
that the rule had been invoked. Yet, as to four em-
ployees, mentioned by name, Blair testified that
each of them was late at least once without being
discharged. It is not shown, howe- er, whether any
of these men had notified the platform in advance
that they would be tardy.
Blair's admission that he sometimes overlooked
the first or even second or third unreported
absence was undoubtedly prompted by the
evidence of Robert "Bob" Honeysett, a roustabout
on Carter's crew, that in May or June 1966 he did
not return to the platform after one of his 5-day off
periods but instead looked for a drilling job. He
notified his pusher, "Cap" Day, that he would be a
day or two late. He did not, however, report at the
end of that period. After a lapse of a week, without
further notifying his pusher, Honeysett telephoned
to the platform to find out whether he could have
his paycheck and gear sent out.
In a conversation with Blair, Honeysett told him
that he did not care for nightwork, and mentioned
that Blair was trying to "run us off." Blair told him
it was "all in [his] head," and asked him to return
to work. Honeysett started working nights the fol-
hours earlier than usual or 12 hours later but it is unnecessary to resolve
this doubt
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing Sunday. With the two other crewmembers
he reported late. He testified, however, that he be-
lieved he called in, phrasing his answer, "I must
have because it was a rule.... Yes, I believe I did.
Joseph "Ronald" Dewey, a roughneck on driller
Troy White's crew ( later a derrickman on driller
Olds' crew), testified that in 1965 he failed to
return to work on time after his 5 days off due to
illness, that it was a day or two before he notified
the p' latform, and that he was not disciplined. Later,
while a member of White's crew, he was a day late
because of personal business (an appointment with
his lawyer), without notifying the platform. When
he finally reported, he told Blair he had had trouble
with his car and could not get to a phone. Blair
reprimanded him but Dewey was not otherwise
disciplined . When he was absent without notifying
the platform a third time, he was demoted from
derrickman to roustabout. He was, however, later
promoted to the job of derrickman. Finally, in Oc-
tober, when he was several days late without notifi-
cation , he was terminated. He was later rehired,
however, on December 5, 1966, and was still work-
ing for Respondent on its Mobil platform at the
time of the hearing."
With regard to Gardner, Blair testified that his
failure to notify him that he would not report when
scheduled was, in fact, the second time this oc-
curred. The first time, according to Blair, was in the
summer of 1965 when Gardner allegedly
overstayed his leave of absence without notifying
Blair in advance.
According to Gardner, however, shortly before
June 29, 1965, he asked Blair to extend his 5-day
off period to 8 days. Blair agreed . Gardner did not
return at the end of that interval and remained
away from the platform for the rest of the summer,
but returned in September to replace an employee
returning to college.
Gardner's version of this absence differed from
Blair 's. According to Gardner, on or about June 10,
1965, he notified Blair that he would like some
extra time off to spend with visiting relatives. Blair
suggested that Gardner work beyond his regular 10-
day tour until his relatives arrived, and then take 8
days off instead of his normal 5 days to make up for
the extra time worked. Gardner agreed. After his
10-day tour as roustabout, Gardner was assigned to
the job of pit watcher on driller Dennis ' crew, and
worked at that job 2 or 3 days. According to
Gardner, he worked on Dennis' crew 4 days after
his return from his 8 days off.
While still working on Dennis' crew, Gardner's
wife sent a message to the platform that she would
have to leave home to attend her father who had
taken ill, and that Gardner would be required to
" According to Gardner 's undenied testimony , two other employees,
Bush and MacElway , who were late reporting , were not discharged,
although Gardner did not know whether they had called in
4H Blair also testified that he had observed Gardner working at his nets. It
return to the mainland to take care of the commer-
cial fishing business they operated. In the early
morning hours , while Blair was asleep, Gardner
went to his room and roused him. Explaining the
circumstances, Gardner told Blair that he would
need a 30-day leave of absence (though it does not
appear that he referred to it in those terms ). Blair
consented and told him to take as much time as he
needed and to return when his personal problem
was resolved.
In July Gardner encountered Blair at an automo-
bile dealer's place of business in Anchorage.
Gardner told Blair that he was still engaged in fish-
ing and that he would be through in September.
According to Blair , Gardner said he was doing so
poorly in his fishing, business that he wanted to
return to his old job.
On September 8, Gardner made application for
reemployment to Shell Production Foreman John
Ball. Toolpusher Roady called on Gardner at his
home and told him to be at the heliport at 6 p.m. if
he wanted to go to work. He was rehired and went
back to work as a roustabout.
When Carter and Gardner reported to the plat-
form on May 8, 1966, the night after they had
originally been scheduled to report, Shell Drilling
Foreman Furry called them to his office and de-
manded to know why Gardner had not notified the
Company that he would not report that night.
Although Gardner admitted, as Carter had told
Furry, that Carter had notified him of the newly
scheduled night tour, Gardner, according to Furry,
said that he had not been properly notified and that
he felt the Company should have telephoned him.
Gardner himself testified, "I told Mr. Furry that I
thought it was pretty cheap that they could not
have given me a phone call.' Furry quoted Gardner
as saying that he did not think Santa Fe or Shell
was "man enough to call him." Gardner protested
that he was being fired because of his union activi-
ties. Furry denied it.
Gardner told Furry that he had gone to the
heliport the night before and been told by the pilot
or mechanic that Carter was not going out to the
platform until the following night. Furry testified
that he believed Gardner and did not feel it neces-
sary to verify his statement. He also testified that
Gardner said that he had expected to be discharged
and alreay had another job lined up "on the beach"
(mainland).
Furry testified that he would not have terminated
Gardner if he had given him a satisfactory excuse,
but that he did not consider his excuse sufficient
because he "had been on the platform long enough
to know how we operated, and if it hadn't been
defiance, he would have called us on the radio and
will be recalled that in the washroom discussion on the Saturday after the
election, Blair warned Gardner, "You won' t be getting time off to go fish.
ing, either ," confirmation of Gardner 's testimony regarding the leave of
absence
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
asked us [himself] if he was supposed to come to
work. He wouldn't have asked the helicopter pilot,
[who] can't usually tell you anything about our
operations. They just fly back and forth. "49
Respondent contends, moreover, that both
Carter and Gardner were disgruntled at being
required to work the night tour, and intimate that
this was a factor in their failure to report the first
night as scheduled, and that as to Gardner, he had
deliberately and defiantly failed to call in. To sup-
port its contention that Gardner admittedly in-
tended to work only one night tour from 6 p.m. to 6
a.m. and then quit, Respondent points to the
evidence that when Gardner went out to the plat-
form he had already accepted a job with Northern
Oil Operations (where he was, in fact, working at
the time of the hearing), and had only gone to the
platform to collect his clothes and obtain a night's
work. In fact, according to Respondent, Gardner
"goaded Furry [ and Blair] into firing him." -i0
On this basis, Respondent contends that it may
not, in any event, be required to reinstate Gardner
or reimburse him for more than 12 hours of
backpay since Gardner told some of his fellow
crewmen as he was packing to leave on the
helicopter that he was going to work for Northern
Oil Co., that he had taken all he could from the
Company, and that if he had not been fired he
would have quit next morning . Relying on
Tomahawk Boat Manufacturing Corporation, 144
NLRB 1344, 1345, footnote 2, Respondent main-
tains that a discharged employee is not entitled to
backpay beyond the date he would have worked if
he had not been discriminatorily discharged.
Moreover, it is not alleged or contended that
Gardner was constructively discharged.
Finally, Respondent contends that since it was
Furry, a Shell supervisor, rather than Blair, who
would make the decision to discharge Gardner, and
there is no evidence of union animus on the part of
Shell, there can be no finding that Respondent is
responsible for the discharge which, in any event,
was for cause . What this overlooks is the fact that,
although because of the unusual arrangement
between Shell and Respondent, Furry may have de-
cided on the discharge, instructing Blair that if
Gardner did not have good reason for not notifying
the platform he was to be discharged, and told Blair
to make out Gardner's discharge papers, Blair con-
firmed and ratified, if he did not, in fact, participate
in this decision, and actually accomplished the ter-
mination . In effect, although Furry made the
recommendation , it was actually Blair who carried
it out as an act of the Company.
a" As examples of adequate excuses, Furry cited car breakdown,
snowstorm , or "just not being able to make it," and testified that Gardner's
statements that the Company should have called him directly , that it was
not "man enough " to call him , and his reliance on the helicopter pilot's in-
formation as a basis for not calling in "simply too feeble" an excuse
Gardner testified that Furry said he knew that he had a telephone at home
but that he did not regard it as the Company 's job to notify him
185
Moreover, under Respondent's contractual ar-
rangement with Shell, while drilling and roustabout
crews are employed by Respondent, Shell person-
nel frequently exercise direct supervision over
Respondent's employees, and since the pushers for
the respective Companies alternate shifts, drilling
crews are under the supervision of a Shell super-
visor 50 percent of the time. It is, therefore, im-
material that Furry may have instigated Gardner's
discharge and that there may have been no
evidence of union animus on the part of Shell. It is
clear that, in instigating Gardner's discharge, Furry
was acting for or in the interest of Respondent, in
effect, as an employer, and that his action was
ratified or adopted by Respondent through Blair, its
highest supervisor on the platform. Respondent's
attempt to shift from Blair, its principal activist in
the commission of unfair labor practices, to Shell
Supervisor Furry, the onus for the termination, may
be viewed as a transparent effort to relieve him of
the responsibility for Gardner's discharge. Respon-
dent's contention is rejected.
Furry and Blair gave conflicting versions of their
discussions leading to the decision to discharge
Gardner. According to Furry, his discussion with
Blair took place the day after Gardner's failure to
report, when Furry told Blair that, if Gardner did
not have a satisfactory excuse for not calling in, he
was to be discharged. Blair, however, testified that
the discussion occurred the night Gardner failed to
report, as confirmed by his pretrial affidavit, and no
mention is made that Gardner would be discharged
unless he had a good excuse. In his affidavit Blair
asserts that mention was made in the discussion
that Gardner'had no excuse for not notifying the
platform since he had a telephone, whereas Carter
had communicated with the platform even though
he had none. According to Furry, there was no
mention of this in their discussion.
It may also be observed that in Blair's affidavit he
states that, because of Gardner's dereliction in noti-
fying the platform, Respondent was required to
have another crane operator and some roustabouts
work overtime. Since Carter had actually notified
the platform that he would not be able to report,
the need for having the crane operator work over-
time could hardly have been attributable to Gard-
ner's failure to call in. Moreover, Furry testified
that he himself operated the crane on the night
Carter failed to report, without the need for
roustabouts, and that he operated the crane only
about an hour and a half.
Furthermore, according to Furry, Honeysett,
another member of Carter's crew, failed to report
5' Respondent's contention that Blair could never have intended
the 30-day leave of absence to last 70 days, despite Gardner's testimony
that Blair had told him to take what time he needed, is inconsistent with
Blair's reliance on Gardner's reemployment as evidence that he had ac-
tually given Gardner a second chance after his alleged failure to notify the
Company that he was not returning to work after his 30-day leave of
absence
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until 16 or 24 hours after he had been scheduled to
report, and, so far as is shown, did not notify the
platform that he would be late or offer any excuse
for his tardiness. Despite this, Furry did not take
this up with Blair, testifying, "I gave up on
Honeysett." Nevertheless, Honeysett was not
discharged or otherwise disciplined.
When these facts are viewed against the
background of Blair's coercive interrogation of and
statements to employees, including threats of
withdrawal of benefits and privileges, and specifi-
cally his remarks to Gardner and Barefield during
the washroom incident, and his threats to eliminate
all employees who voted for the Union, especially
Gardner and Barefield, and the disparate treatment
accorded Gardner, and the other factors previously
detailed, the conclusion is irresistible that Respon-
dent discharged Gardner on May 8, 1966, not
because of his failure to notify the platform that he
would not report on schedule but in retaliation for
his union sympathies and activities.
It is, therefore, found that by discharging
Gardner, on or about May 8, 1966, Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployees to discourage membership in a labor or-
ganization, thereby engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3), and in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Acts'
5. Ernest Newell Barefield
Barefield was hired in December 1965 as a
roughneck or pit watcher, working on driller Olds'
crew until his discharge on June 9, 1966.
It is undisputed that at the time of his discharge
he was discovered reading a magazine in the mud
loggers shack during his tour of duty. The conflict
in the testimony relates primarily to the length of
time he was in the shack and the circumstances
which preceded it.
When Barefield reported on his tour at midnight,
the drilling equipment was being removed from the
hole and preparations were under way to shut down
the power to permit replacement of a generator.
According to Barefield, he was making prepara-
tions for the power shutdown, filling the hole with
mud. After receiving a call from the motor room
and reporting that everything was "O.K." in his
area, Barefield went out to the breezeway where
smoking was allowed, and the whole crew, includ-
ing driller Olds, had gathered. Barefield does not
smoke but the others "lit up."
After the break, Barefield returned to the pit
watching area where he remained for a minute,
11 Since Gardner testified that he had intended to quit his job the morn-
ing after he was discharged without regard to the discrimination against
him, and had obtained or was about to obtain another job at which , in fact,
he was still working at the time of the hearing, it is found that Respondent
did not discriminate against Gardner by failing to reinstate him to his
and, finding that there was nothing that needed to
be done, went back to the breezeway and then to
the rig floor. The floor hands were there doing
nothing in particular, preparations for the shutdown
having been completed. Barefield then went to the
shack to make out his time. The entire crew, except
the motorman, went out on the catwalk for a
smoke.
At or about 8 a.m., several hours after the power
had been shut down, Barefield headed back for the
pit watching area. Passing the mud logger shack
and hearing the sound of an adding machine, he en-
tered the shack where he found a Shell pumper
using the machine. After a brief conversation about
loss of production caused by the shutdown, the
pumper left but Barefield stayed on. He sat down,
picked up a magazine and began reading idly.
Several minutes later Roady and Olds came in.
Roady told Barefield to change his clothes and
"catch the chopper," telling him that he was fired.
Barefield merely said, "O.K.," and went to his
room to pick up his things. Roady came to the door
and told him to get his time. Roady made it out,
placed it in a sealed envelope, and told Barefield to
give it to Blair when he reached the mainland and
get his money. Barefield asked for a termination
slip for purposes of unemployment compensation
but was told that the Company was not issuing
them anymore. Barefield asked Roady the reason
for discharge. Roady told him that he had been
sitting down reading a magazine when he could
have been doing cleanup work. Barefield said that
there had been no power, pointing out that other
men had been standing around smoking, testifying
that the whole crew had been "goofing off" for
about 3 hours.
According to Barefield, other crewmen had used
the logger's shack which was located about 10 feet
from the pit area, and Olds himself had smoked
there; there was a coffeepot in the shack and he
had "bummed" coffee there himself. Moreover,
Barefield testified, there was a telephone in the
shack and no one had tried to reach him.
As for the reason he said "O.K." without protest-
ing when told that he was discharged, Barefield
testified that he was shocked-he could not un-
derstand why he was being discharged-and that
Roady walked out before he could ask.52
Roady testified that when he went to the pit area
during one of his routine inspections he had ex-
pected to find Barefield, the pit watcher , cleaning
the sand trap, but instead found the area deserted.
He assumed that the pit watcher was working with
the crew on the lower deck. When he found no sign
of him, he questioned Olds about it. Olds said that
he thought Barefield was in the pit. Roady told him
former or substantially equivalent employment.
" Although Roady testified that when he told Barefield to get his clothes,
Barefield said nothing , Roady acknowledged that in a pretrial affidavit, he
said that when he told him he was fired, Barefield asked, "Do you mean
it?"
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
that he was not and the two men started looking for
Barefield . Each of the two supervisors made a
separate tour53 of the platform but could not find
Barefield. Roady and Olds met when they had
completed their independent searches , and it oc-
curred to them that they had not looked for
Barefield in the logging shack , which , according to
them, had not been used by Santa Fe personnel
since the well loggers had left the platform.
Respondent contends that despite the power
shutdown there was other work to do which the rest
of the crew was doing . Barefield conceded that,
when the shutdown became necessary , Olds told
the crew to keep busy.
Olds testified that he told his crew to do as much
cleaning and painting as they could and that when
he asked Barefield to help he was told that he had
work to do in the pit area . The rest of the crew did
occupy itself scraping and painting the catwalk and
other areas.
As to the length of time he was in the shack,
Barefield maintains that it was a matter of minutes.
According to Roady, he had been looking for
Barefield for 1-1/2 or 2 hours. Olds testified that,
from the time Roady first questioned him about the
whereabouts of the pit watcher until Barefield was
located , an hour had elapsed.
Respondent appears to contend that the length of
time Barefield was in the shack is not relevant.54
What Respondent really objected to was that
Barefield had "hid out avoiding work when he was
supposed to be, and the rest of the men were, work-
ing. ' Olds testified that he himself would have
discharged Barefield if Roady had not decided to
do so. Both men, however, testified that although
Barefield 's discharge was due to the single incident
described, he had for some time been somewhat
"lackadaisical" about his work and had been wast-
in too much time.
It may be conceded that Barefield's conduct
could have furnished ample cause for discharge.
However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the
fact that cause for the discharge may have existed
does not preclude a finding of discrimination if the
other circumstances warrant such a finding.55
Applying this rationale to the facts regarding
Barefield 's case, a finding is warranted that his
discharge was discriminatory. In addition to what
53 Not to be confused with tour of duty (pronounced to rhyme with
"tower" in the industry).
5' Respondent contends in its brief , however , that if the time element is
relevant the supervisors estimate of the length of time Barefield was in the
shack is more generous to him than is warranted by his own testimony
Thus, since Barefield indicates that he was discovered in the shack at 8 a.m.
(or even 7 or 7:30 a m.), and the rig had been shut down about 3 a.m , al-
lowing a half-hour to an hour for Barefield to complete his chores after the
shutdown , he must have spent nearly 4 hours in the shack . This seems
highly improbable and, in any event , does not take into account the time
spent during the breaks with the other crewmembers and the time con-
sumed in his trips between the deck and the pit
5.5
The case cited in the General Counsel 's brief is apposite "We do not
agree with the proposition which respondent apparently tries to urge
upon this court, to the effect that if we find that cause existed for the
187
has been shown with regard to Respondent's con-
duct constituting interference, restraint, and coer-
cion, it will be recalled that Barefield, together with
Gardner, was specifically singled out for reprisal by
Blair in the washroom encounter. About 2 weeks
before the election, in a conversation with Barefield
in the pit area, Blair discussed the approaching
election, told him that he saw no need for a union,
and that the Union had never accomplished
anything for the men in the oilfields. Roady had
made similar remarks to Barefield. It is uncon-
tradicted that Barefield told Blair that if he was in-
terested Barefield had a union card in his hip
pocket, although he did not know how he would
vote. A few days after the election, Blair delivered
himself of his scurrilous tirade, referring to men
who had already been run off and others who
would follow. Barefield had worked in the oilfields
for 20 years, 7 in Alaska for four drilling contrac-
tors. Considering the increase in offshore oil opera-
tions in Cook Inlet, and the apparent dearth of
qualified oilfield personnel; Barefield's apparently
satisfactory work performance; the absence of any
evidence that he had been disciplined at any time
prior to the occasion under discussion; the
precipitate action in discharging him, without prior
warning, investigation or opportunity to offer any
explanation in mitigation of his misconduct; and the
other factors previously discussed, it is evident that
Respondent discharged Barefield on June 9, 1966,
and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him
because of his union adherence and activities and
not because he had loitered in the logger's shack to
escape doing maintenance work on the platform
during the power shutdown, seizing this as the earli-
est opportunity for fulfilling Blair's threat to rid the
Company of all union adherents.
It is, therefore, found that by discharging
Barefield on June 9, 1966, and thereafter failing
and refusing to reinstate him because of his union
adherence and affiliation to discourage membership
in a labor organization, Respondent has dis-
criminated in regard to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3),
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
discharge of any of these men, then we will have to conclude that they
were discharged for cause and that 'motive ' for discharging the men is not
controlling . This court has previously answered this idea adversely to
respondent, in Wells Inc v N.L R.B., 9 Cir , 1947, 162 F.2d 457, 459-
460, where we stated
"Nor, under the special facts of the case, is motive for the
discharge irrelevant , as Wells alternatively asserts The prohibi-
tion of § 8 ( 3), by its plain terms, extends to any discriminatory
discharge the purpose and manifest effect of which is to
discourage employee membership in a labor organization The ex-
istence of some justifiable ground for discharge is no defense if it
was not the moving cause " Cites authority .] [Emphasis sup-
plied ] N L R B v Texas Independent Oil Company, Inc , 232 F 2d
447 (C.A 9)
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In arriving at the conclusions as to the dis-
criminatory discharges, the data prepared by
Respondent showing a comparison of terminations
and hires in the calendar year 1966 with those for
1965, which reflects less turnover in 1966 after the
election than the comparable period for the preced-
ing year when there had been no union activity, has
been fully considered. Respondent argues that this
demonstrates the fallacy of the General Counsel's
contention that Blair was determined to pick off the
men who voted for the Union one at a time At
most, the evidence adduced by Respondent
establishes that it did not eliminate all union ad-
herents, and it has long been held that an em-
ployer's failure to discharge all union sympathizers
is not probative of the facts that the discharges
made were not discriminatorily motivated.56
6. The charge that the men were required to work
harder after the election
Although not specifically alleged as a violation of
Section 8(a)(1), evidence was introduced to show
that following the election Respondent made the
men work harder in retaliation for the showing
made in the election. Since the issue was fully
litigated and has been dealt with at some length in
Respondent's brief, this evidence has been con-
sidered as though formally alleged in the con-
solidated complaints.
Various employees testified that Respondent did,
in fact, work the men harder, and maintained closer
scrutiny over their work and conduct than before
the election. Others testified that they were
required to do no more than what amounted to es-
sential maintenance.
Respondent maintains that during the preelection
period the men frequently congregated in groups in
the washroom and elsewhere on the platform to
discuss the approaching election. Although, accord-
ing to Respondent, there was a rule against such
conduct while the men were on duty, this rule was
relaxed , according to Blair , to permit the men free
discussion . With the election over , Blair was deter-
mined that the men should get back to work lest
se "An employer's failure to discharge all the union adherents does not
necessarily indicate an absence of discriminatory intent as to those he did
discharge " W C Nahors Company, 89 NLRB 538, enfd 196 F 2d 272
(C A 5), Daro Test Corporation, 81 NLRB 976, Steuart Warner Corpora-
tion, 55 NLRB 593 It is not necessary nor is it ordinarily feasible to
discharge or fail to recall every union member or adherent in order to
discourage union activities This may be accomplished by making "an ex-
ample " of some of the union adherents N L R B v Link-Belt Co 311 U S
584, 602, N L R B v National Garment Co, 166 F 2d 233, 238 (C A 8),
cert denied 334 U S 845, Montgomery Ward & Co v N L R B , 107 F 2d
555, 559 (CA 7), F W Woohiortli Co v NLRB, 121 F 2d 648,
661-662 (C A 2), Shedd-Broun Mfg Co , 102 NLRB 742 (Supplemental
Decision and Order, 103 NLRB 905), enfd 213 F 2d 163, 174 (C A 7),
Broil and Marine , Inc , 112 NLRB 1442, fn I
" Shell Drilling Superintendent Woodson , who had visited the platform,
and Furry testified that the inspections had resulted in a "bad report" for
lack of cleanliness , inattention to safety requirements , fire hazard , and the
like, and that work began almost immediately to remedy these conditions
they fall into the habit of "bunching up" as they
had been doing, as well as to perform necessary
maintenance work on the rig, which had been
neglected. Furthermore, Blair testified, there had
been some clarification of his authority. Until then,
according to him, Shell supervisory personnel had
been inclined to exercise supervision over Respon-
dent 's pushers and drillers , sometimes to the extent
of countermanding Blair's assignment of crewmem-
bers to maintenance work so that they could be
utilized in production.
Moreover , according to Blair , Shell Area
Manager John Spear , as well as both Shell, Santa
Fe, and State of Alaska inspectors, who had visited
the platform during the early stages of the opera-
tion, had been critical of conditions on the plat-
form, and Blair was eager to remedy these condi-
tions.57 He testified that the reason he did not do so
before the election was that he was apprehensive
that "someone would take the cleaning and extra
work we might have to do, some offense against
people there for the way they might vote." Con-
sequently, after the election, Blair embarked on a
determined effort to have the platform cleaned up.
Outside help was recruited when necessary. There
is little doubt, however, that Shell's chief concern
was to obtain production. Thus, when Drilling
Foreman Troy White protested to Blair that he
could not clean up his area and "make hole"
(drilling ) at the same time, Blair told him to shut
the rig down and apply himself to cleanup work.58
It is evident that the men preferred to work at
drilling rather than on maintenance , but Respon-
dent asserts that maintenance work is not only
necessary but customary in the oil drilling indus-
try.59 The necessity for maintaining safety on an
offshore drilling platform should be obvious, and
there is no need to belabor the point. The record
clearly establishes that after the election Respon-
dent embarked on an intensive cleanup campaign.
Undoubtedly this aspect of the operation had been
badly neglected due to the overriding objective of
"making hole" in the endeavor to strike oil. The is-
sue, however, is whether the cleanup campaign,
which may very well have been necessary, was util-
When Shell Manager Lage later visited the platform conditions had im-
proved
51 According to Respondent , during this cleanup operation , equipment
which had been lying on the platform and creating a hazard to the men
filled three large carrying baskets
5H Respondent points to Bloodworth's testimony as an excellent synthesis
of the problem He testified
I have been on a few rigs myself and a lot of times , I don't know what
causes it, but they get in too big a hurry, in trying to make a hole again
[sic] Maybe the company had, which in this case would be Shell,
would come out and say , "You have got to get this thing cleaned up "
Men fall over something and get killed , fall through a hole This hap-
pened before It happens all the time when they start drilling right
away before they have everything hooked up I say maybe once a year
it will happen on a rig They will shut down and say, "You get this
thing cleaned up, so we can start working again before somebody gets
killed or hurt bad "
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY
ized by Respondent, in the persons of Blair and
Troy White, as a means of retaliation against the
crews for their support of unionization, as demon-
strated by the results of the election. In making this
determination, one must, of course, avoid the pitfall
of the post hoc ergo propter hoc rationale.
As has been seen, opinion even among the em-
ployees was divided as to whether the men were
being pushed harder after the election. Carter, for
example, a crane operator, who incidentally
testified that Blair had charged him with making
the men work harder, testified in response to that
question, "I believe so. It is pretty hard to say ...
we kept pretty busy, but I believe there was a lot
more tense feeling . . . ." Gardner testified more
positively that Blair was watching "all the time,"
and, "we was all being pushed extra hard, punish-
ment for voting for the union ." Gardner, however,
conceded that he was treated no differently than
Carter or Honeysett, though this, of course, while
perhaps indicating nondiscriminatory treatment,
does not establish that the men were not worked
harder. Moreover, Respondent's contention that
since Gardner received his orders from Carter,
who, in turn, received his orders from Landers or
Reamer, both Shell employees, Shell rather than
Respondent was responsible for any increase in the
nature or extent of the cleanup work by the crew.
For reasons previously stated in regard to a similar
contention regarding Gardner's discharge, the argu-
ment is notpersuasive.
In evaluating Respondent's motivation in this re-
gard, it must be remembered that Blair told Carter
that if the Union won the election they would have
to drive the men harder, although this was based on
the premier that the Union should obtain a wage in-
crease . Blair 's remarks to the crew after the elec-
tion that he wanted to see nothing but "... from
now on," and Troy White's similar remarks that
"there won't be anything but ... holes" thence-
forth, and that the Company was "going back to
the old Rocky Mountain style of drilling," certainly
presaged the kind of retaliation which, it is claimed,
Respondent later imposed.
Nevertheless, in view of the conflicting subjective
reactions of the witnesses for the General Counsel,
the evident need for intensified cleanup and main-
tenance work on the platform, the obvious bias and
interest of Gardner in testifying that the men were
being punished for voting for the Union, the
evidence, while gravely suspicious, is too inconclu-
sive to establish that the admittedly intensified
cleanup campaign was in retaliation for the at-
tempted unionization of the employees.
It is, therefore, found that the allegation that
Respondent imposed harder working conditions
upon the employees after the election has not been
sustained by the preponderance of the evidence,
and it will be recommended that the complaint in
this respect be dismissed.
With regard to the objections to the election, it
189
has been found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), previously fully detailed, before the elec-
tion. It has been held that such a finding is a fortiori
grounds for setting aside the results of the election,
and it is clear, moreover, from the events occurring
before the election that it was not conducted under
the laboratory conditions which the Act requires.
Respondent's disposition to interfere with the elec-
tion is further borne out by the subsequent unfair
labor practices in which Respondent engaged.
It will, therefore, be recommended that the
results of the election held February 20, 1966, be
set aside.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the conduct
previously detailed. It will be recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has
been found that Respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of em-
ployees by discharging, and thereafter failing and
refusing to reinstate, Lloyd W. Collins on February
22, 1966, Arthur W. Gordon on February 24, 1966,
and Ernest N. Barefield on June 6, 1966; by
discharging David L. Gardner on May 8, 1966, and
by denying Sidney R. Sherwood the right to dis-
place an employee with less seniority, after laying
him off on March 20, 1966. It will therefore be
recommended that Respondent offer Lloyd Collins,
Arthur Gordon, and Ernest Barefield immediate
and full reinststament, without loss of seniority or
other rights and privileges, to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent employment, and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have sustained
by payment to them of a sum of money equal to
that which they would have earned from the date of
the discrimination against them to the date of offer
of reinstatement, less their net earnings during such
period. Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on said backpay
shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent per
annum as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716. Since the record establishes that
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
David Gardner intended to terminate his employ-
ment voluntarily the day after he was discrimina-
torily discharged, irrespective of the discrimination
against him, it will not be recommended that he be
offered reinstatement for reasons stated in connec-
tion with the discussion of his discharge. It will,
however, be recommended that he be made whole
for any loss of pay sustained by him as a result of
Respondent's discrimination against him in the
same manner as the employees above mentioned.
Although it has been found that Respondent also
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Sidney R. Sherwood, for reasons
discussed in relation to his discharge, it will not be
recommended that he be offered reinstatement or
backpay in consequence of Respondent's dis-
crimination against him.60
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Santa Fe Drilling Company , Respondent
herein , is, and at all times material herein has been,
an employer engaged in commerce and in a busi-
ness affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Alaska Petroleum Crafts Council, the APCC,
herein , is, and at all times material herein has been,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. International Union of Petroleum Workers,
AFL-CIO, the IUPW herein , is, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
4. By the coercive interrogation and statements
of Blair , Roady , and White concerning their union
adherence and activities ; by the threats of
discharge , increased work , or withdrawal of
benefits and privileges previously detailed; and by
the discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure
of employees , as above described , Respondent has
interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discharging Lloyd Collins on February 22,
1966, Arthur Gordon on February 24, 1966, David
Gardner on May 8 , 1966, and Ernest N. Barefield
on June 6 , 1966, and by failing and refusing to rein-
state said Collins , Gordon , and Barefield; and by
denying Sidney R. Sherwood the right to displace
an employee with less seniority , after laying him off
on March 20 , 1966, because of their union ad-
herence or affiliation to discourage membership in
a labor organization , Respondent has engaged in
80 In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices in which
Respondent has been found to have engaged, including discrimination in
regard to hire and tenure of employment, it is found that there is likelihood
of the continuance of such unfair labor practices in the future It is, there-
fore, recommended that Respondent be restrained from interfering with,
and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(3), thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7, and violating Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. Except as found above, Respondent has not
engaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the con-
solidated complaints.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, found
above, are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and the entire record in this
case, it is hereby recommended that Santa Fe
Drilling Company, of Santa Fe Springs, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, laying off, or otherwise dis-
criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment
of his employees, to discourage membership in a
labor organization, because they have engaged in
union or other protected concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection.
(b) Interrogating employees or making state-
ments to them concerning their union membership
and activities; threatening them with discharge, in-
creased work, withdrawal of privileges and benefits,
because they have engaged in union or other pro-
tected concerted activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be af-
fected 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
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Lloyd W. Collins, Arthur W. Gordon,
and Ernest N. Barefield immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
them whole in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make David L. Gardner whole for any loss
of earnings sustained by him as a result of Respon-
dent's discrimination against him, in the manner set
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
restraining , and coercing employees in any other manner N L R B v
Entwistle Manufacturing Co, 120 F 2d 532 (C A 4), May Department
Stores v NLRB , 326 U S 376, Bethlehem Steel Co v NLRB , 120 F 2d
641 (CADC)
SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY 191
(c) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve until compliance with any order for
reinstatement or backpay made by the Board, and,
upon request, make available to said Board or its
agents, for examination and copying , all payroll
records, social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
required to analyze and determine the amount of
backpay due.
(e) Post at Shell platform "A", Middle Shoals,
Cook Inlet, Alaska, and at all other places where
notices to employees are usually posted by Respon-
dent , and mail , postage prepaid , to each of the em-
ployees found herein to have been discriminated
against by Respondent , at their last known ad-
dress,61 copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix. "82 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's duly authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify said Regional Director , in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.63
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the con-
solidated complaints be dismissed insofar as they al-
lege violations which have not been found.
Having found that, during the period between the
filing of the petition for representation and the date
of the election, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, it is recommended that the election, held
on February 20, 1966, in Cases 19-RC-3851 and
Si In view of the nature of Respondent 's offshore platform oil drilling
operation , and the unlikelihood of access to the platform by any of the dis-
cnmmatees , to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is recommended that
Respondent be required to furnish copies of the notice to the dis-
criminatees by mail , in addition to the usual posting requirements
a' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words " a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
a' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
paragraph 2(f) thereof shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith "
19-RM-598 , be set aside , and that the Regional
Director directs that a new election be held when
he is satisfied that the effects of Respondent's un-
fair labor practices have been dissipated.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that , unless on or
before 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision , Respondent notifies said Regional
Director that it will comply with the foregoing
recommendations , the Board issue an order requir-
ing Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our
employees in Alaska Petroleum Crafts Council,
or International Union of Petroleum Workers,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization
by discriminating in any manner in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment of our employees,
except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or make coercive
statements to our employees concerning their
union adherence and activities; threaten them
with discharge, increased work, or withdrawal
of benefits; or discharge, lay off, or refuse to
reinstate employees as a means of interfering
with, restraining , or coercing them in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named Unions or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of 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 or-
ganization as a condition of employment, in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Lloyd W. Collins, Arthur W.
Gordon, and Ernest N. Barefield immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make David L. Gardner whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
the above-named labor organizations or any other
labor organizations.
SANTA FE DRILLING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note : We will notify the above-named employees
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building , 500 Union Street,
Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.