Santa Fe Drilling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SANTE FE DRILLING COMPANY
Santa Fe Drilling Company and Alaska Petroleum
Crafts Council and International Union of Petrole-
um Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA-3324-1,
19-CA-3328,19-CA-3470,19-RC-385 1, and
19-RM-598
June 15, 1970
ORDER DENYING MOTION
By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH , BROWN , AND JENKINS
On May 2 , 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding ,' finding that the Respondent,
Santa Fe Drilling Company, violated Section
8(a)(1) by threats and coercive statements to em-
ployees and Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) by discrimina-
torily discharging employees because of their union
activity . The Board ordered the Respondent to
cease and desist from the unfair labor practices
found and to reinstate and make whole the em-
ployees discriminatorily discharged or laid off.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed a petition for
review of the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the
Board filed a cross -petition for enforcement of its
Order . The court enforced the Board 's Order in its
entirety , except for the finding that Respondent un-
lawfully discharged employee Barefield. With
respect to Barefield , the court remanded the case
to the Board for its determination as to whether or
not it saw fit to draw inferences from the record
that Supervisor Roady who discharged Barefiled
had knowledge of Barefield 's union activities and
that Respondent's discharge of Barefield was
based on such union activities.2
On February 3, 1970, the Board issued a Supple-
mental Decision and Order3 in accordance with the
court 's remand . Based on inferences drawn from
the record as a whole, we reaffirmed our adoption
of the Trial Examiner's finding that Barefield was
discriminatorily discharged and our Order that the
Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges , and make him whole in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy." Thereafter, on March 20, 1970, the
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Board 's Supplemental Decision and Order. The
' 171 NLRB No 27
2 Santa Fe Drilling Company v NLRB , 416 F 2d 725 (C A 9)
3 180 NLRB 1049
361
Respondent also filed a brief in support thereof,
which has been carefully considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, as amended , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board having duly considered the matter, for
the reasons set forth below, finds the reasons ad-
vanced by the Respondent in its motion insufficient
to cause the withdrawal of our Supplemental
Decision and Order and to now dismiss the com-
plaint with regard to the discharge of Barefield.
The thrust of the contentions raised by the
Respondent in its Motion for Reconsideration is
that our bases for inferring that Respondent knew
of Barefield 's union activity at the time he was
discharged and for inferring that such discharge
was motivated by union animus are not valid. The
Respondent further questions whether such
knowledge by Supervisor Blair in this regard and
statements by tool pusher Roady and Blair indicat-
ing opposition to unionism , which we relied on in
our Supplemental Decision , even if directed at
Barefield , are relevant or have probative value.
As pointed out in our Supplemental Decision,
Respondent 's knowledge of union activities may be
inferred from the small size of the work force and
the nature of the off-shore oil drilling operation, as
well as from Blair 's express statement. From the na-
ture of the operation we find it not only reasonable
to infer that little in the way of union activity or
sympathy , or even suspected union activity or sym-
pathy, on the part of any employees escaped the
notice of its supervisors , but also to infer that the
individual supervisors had an antiunion attitude
toward the employees.4
Thus, we find it significant that Supervisor Blair
spoke to Barefield individually in the pit area a few
weeks before the election , discussed the pending
election , and told Barefield that Blair did not think
that there was any need for a union and a union
had never helped anybody in the oil fields . Contra-
ry to the interpretation which the Respondent
would place upon Barefield 's response , we find that
Barefield expressed no sympathy with Blair 's views,
but rather indicated that he had a union card in his
"hip pocket right at the time ." We view such
response , not as "totally equivocal," but as an affir-
mative lack of enthusiasm for Blair's antiunion
views and as the response of an employee who was
not unfavorable to the union.
4In reaffirming his view that Barefield was unlawfully discharged,
Member Brown finds it unnecessary to draw any inferences from the small
size of Respondent's work force and the nature of Its operation
183 NLRB No. 44
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We also find significant that soon thereafter
Roady advised Barefield that a union was not
necessary and that "you [have] got a good job,"
and on the day of the election, soon after the Board
agent who conducted the election left, Roady told a
small group of employees, including Barefield, who
were in the recreation room, "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."
Finally, we attach high significance to Blair's
warning to Barefield and Gardner, not long after
the election and the above incidents, in which he
castigated those who voted for the Union and in-
dicated that he was going to run every one of them
off the job, "and you two are going to be first." We
do not believe that Blair's statement can be
dismissed as a mere figure of speech. As previously
found by the Board and affirmed by the court, Col-
lins and Gordon were then discriminatorily
discharged and after this statement Gardner too
was discriminatorily discharged. The inescapable
import of Blair's statement was that the Respondent
intended to rid itself of union adherents or em-
ployees it considered union adherents and that at
' See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc, 181 NLRB 611. We also find without merit
the Respondnet's contention that Barefield would have been discharged in
any event by Supervisor Ray Olds, if Barefield had not been discharged by
Roady We find such contention speculative and irrelevant Nor do we find
merit in the Respondent 's contention that after the election there is no
the very least Barefield was associated by the
Respondent as being in this category.
Accordingly, we find that the arguments raised
by the Respondent in its motion and supporting
brief are without merit. Contrary to the Respondent
it is our view that the discharge of Barefield must
be considered against the background and in the
context of Respondent's pattern of coercive con-
duct and discriminatory discharges , as found by the
Board and affirmed by the court, rather than as a
single isolated incident involving only Roady and
Barefield, unrelated to attempts of the Respondent
to rid itself of the Union and employees it believed
to be union adherents. We reaffirm our finding that
the record considered as a whole supports the in-
ference that Barefield was unlawfully discharged.
Thus, the circumstances in which he was
discharged-the precipitate manner in which it
took place, the disregard of his long oilfield work
experience and satisfactory prior employment
record, the absence of evidnce that he had been
warned about or even previously involved in a
similar minor infraction, and the admitted dearth of
qualified oilfield personnel-support the inference
that he was discharged because of union animus
and not because of his alleged misconduct.5
showing that it engaged in a systematic campaign "to pick off union ad-
herents " It has long been held that an employer's failure to discharge all
union sympathizers does not necessarily indicate that a particular discharge
was not discnminatonly motivated See cases cited in fn 56 of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision