Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 1149 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 230, CASPER,
WYOMING
Case No. C-164-Decided October 31, 1940
Jurisdiction : oil refining industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; interference in
formation of "inside" union.
Discrimination: charges of lay-offs, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices.
Mr. Marion A. Prowell, for the Board.,
Mr. James P. Kem, of Kansas City, Mo., and Mr. Richard Lowe, of
New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Harold Weston, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Local No. 230, Oil Workers
International Union, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-second `Region (Denver, Colorado), issued its complaint,
dated March 18, 1940, against Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Inc.,
Casper, Wyoming, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent and upon the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent laid off seven named employees 1 on
1 Robert Calvin, C. G. Humberson, Cammett Nelson, Joe Perpicb, Henry Scbauss, William
,3helton,'and Dan Sullivan.
27 N. L. R. B., No. 188.
1149
1150 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
March 15, 1939 , because of their membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union; and that prior to March 15 , 1939,2 and at all times there-
after, the respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its em-
ployees by discharging or laying off members of the Union , by dis-
couraging membership in the Union , by vilifying and criticizing mem-
bers of the Union, and by other acts . On April 19 , 1940,.the respondent
filed its answer denying the averments of unfair labor practices and
alleging affirmatively that the employees aiamed in the complaint.were
laid off only because their services were no longer required by the
i espondent.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Casper, Wyoming, on
April 18, '19, 20, 22 , and 23, 1940, before Gustaf B. Erickson, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues . At the conclusion
of the Board's case , and again at the close of the hearing , the respond-
ent moved to dismiss the complaint , on the ground that the evidence
failed to substantiate the allegations of the complaint . Ruling on
these motions was reserved by the Trial Examiner , and the motions
were thereafter ' denied in his Intermediate Report. During the
course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board
has reviewed all rulings by the Trial Examiner during the course of
the hearing and in his Intermediate Report and , except as indicated
below, finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . With such
exception the rulings are hereby, affirmed.
On June 7, 1940, It brief was filed by the respondent for the Trial
Examiner's consideration . Thereafter , the Trial Examiner issued
his Intermediate Report, dated July 30, 1940, copies of which were
duly served upon the parties , in which he found that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices , that it reinstate with
back pay the seven employees against whom the complaint alleged
that the respondent had discriminated , and that it take certain other
appropriate action to remedy the situation brought about by its unfair
labor practices.
On August 27, 1940, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and requested oral argument . On September 30,
1940, the respondent filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
2At the hearing , the complaint was amended to change the clause, "prior to March 15,
1939 , and at all times thereafter ," to, "during July 1935 , and at all times thereafter "
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. , 1151
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board on October 8, 1940, at Washington, D. C.
The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the
argument.
The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and the -briefs filed by the respondent. For the reasons set forth
below, we sustain the exceptions to the finding of the Trial Examiner
that the respondent iviolated Section 8 (3) of the Act. We find the
other exceptions to the Intermediate Report to be without merit except
in so far as .they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., a New York corporation, with-
its principal office in New York City, operates refineries in the States
of Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, and Wyoming, and, through certain subsidiaries, in the States
of Texas and California. The respondent also maintains' terminals
and operates service stations in a large number of States. Only the
respondent's refinery at Casper, Wyoming, is involved in the present
proceeding.
During 1938 and 1939 the respondent refined approximately 750,000
barrels of crude oil at its Casper, Wyoming, refinery each year. Dur-
ing each year the finished products of the Casper plant included gaso-
line, kerosene, road and fuel oils , and amounted annually to more than
$1,000,000 in value. Approximately 70 per cent of these products were
shipped to points outside the State of Wyoming. In the course and
conduct of its business, the respondent purchases quantities of ma-
chinery, pipe, tools, parts, materials, and supplies in States other than
Wyoming and causes them to be shipped to its refinery at Casper,
Wyoming.
During 1939 the respondent employed from 00 to 72 men at the
Casper refinery.
If. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 230, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership all production and maintenance employees
of the respondent at the Casper refinery, excluding clerical em-
ployees, and supervisory employees with - the right to hire and
discharge.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. TIM UNFAIR LABOR PRAOTIOES
A. Background
In the summer. of 1933 the respondent instituted in its Casper
refinery a plan of employee representation known as the Employees
Representation Plan. In the fall of 1933 the Union was organized,
and on July 5, 1934, an election was held to determine which of the
two organizations would represent the employees for purposes of col-
lective bargaining. The respondent's supervisory employees par-
'ticipated actively in the campaign leading to the election. Employee
William Shelton testified that Neal King, at the. time foreman of the
mechanical department, approached him on the day of the election
and asked him if he had voted. It is Shelton's testimony that when
he replied in the negative, King' said to him, "You want to vote
right. If the Union wins this election they will shut the plant.
You want to keep that in mind." Employee C. G. Humberson tes-
tified that prior to the election, King told him that a machinist
named Griffith wanted to see him in the machine shop. According to -
Humberson, when he saw Griffith the latter advised him that the em-
ployees had better think it over before they voted and that it was his
opinion that they would be better off if the election "went right."
Robert Calvin, another employee, testified that Foreman King advised
him just before the election that he thought the employees would be
better off if they "didn't have the Union" in the plant. The testi-
mony related above is uncontroverted and we find that the events
in question took place as testified.
Calvin also testified that prior to the election J. W. Glass, super-
intendent of the Casper refinery,3 called seven or eight employees
together and told them that he understood that someone had been
trying to get union members in the plant, and that "there was an
election coming up and so long as the Union was trying to get mem-
bership he thought it was his business to speak for the company."
According to Calvin, Glass then proceeded to observe that "he didn't
believe it was necessary for the men in the plant to belong to the
Union to get justice because * * * he had always given justice
at the plant, [and] that anybody who cared to could always come
into his office and talk to him as man to man." Glass did not directly
controvert Calvin's testimony but testified that, at the time in ques-
tion, he told the employees "that it was the policy of the company'
that a man could belong to any organization, church, lodge, or any-
thing else, or that it was not "necessary for him to belong to any
3 Glass was superintendent of the Casper refinery from November 1925 through May
1939, after which time he was succeeded by E. T Punvmll
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. 1153
organization in order to work at the plant." In reply to a question
on cross-examination, Glass stated that he did not recall saying that
it was not necessary for employees to have a union in order to get
along with the management. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Glass made the statements attributed to him by Calvin.
The election resulted in a slight majority for the Employees
Representation Plan. Except for the election of representatives on
two occasions and an election on July 5, 1934, there is no evidence
that the Employees Representation Plan functioned further.
Undoubtedly by the statements of King, Griffith, and Glass, the
respondent made clear to its employees its hostility to the Union.
The respondent, however, contends that the Board is barred from
admitting in evidence or considering acts which occurred prior to
July 5, 1935, since the Board had limited its complaint to acts after
July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act. There does not appear to
have been any surprise or lack of opportunity' for the respondent to
answer such evidence, and the respondent introduced evidence to meet
that put in by the Board. The acts above set forth took place prior
to-the effective date of the Act, and we_ make no finding of unfair
labor practices predicated upon them. They are relevant, however,
as background in the light of which subsequent alleged unfair labor
practices should be considered.
B: Interference, restraint; and coercion
During July and August 1935 the Union carried on a campaign
for membership. Forty-eight of respondent's 65 employees eligible
to membership in the Union signed a petition during those months,
in which they stated that they had joined the Union and
Requested a conference with representatives of the management
at its earliest convenience to begin negotiations to work out a col-
lective bargain and to agree on terms of employment and orderly
methods of settling the differences in the relation between manage-
ment and employees.
On August 22, 1935, the Union held a meeting of the respond-
ent's employees, the purpose of which was to thank the men for their
cooperation in having the petition signed. Shelton testified that all
employees, including foremen and Superintendent Glass, were in-
vited to attend, and that Bill Scott, a shift foreman, Cliff Goodnight,
foreman of the road oil laboratory, and H. J. Holcomb, foreman of
the routine laboratory, were among those present and addressed the
meeting after having been invited to do .so by the chairman 'of the
meeting. According to Shelton, Holcomb told the employees that
Superintendent Glass was a fair man,'that they did not need a union,
and that "it was a direct slap in Mr. Glass' face" to organize a union
323428-42-vol. 27-74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the plant . Shelton quoted Goodnight as saying that "he belonged
to the Musician 's Local in Casper , Wyoming, but he could do better
if he were going out to play as a non-union man . . . that he could
if he were in the Union, . . . [and that] he just belonged and car-
ried a card because he had to do it to play in the city orchestra, and
as far as the union [was concerned ] he never derived any benefit
from it." Shelton further testified that Scott told the meeting that
if the employees "fooled with that Union we [they] were going to
lose our sick benefits, and just practically lose everything ." Scott,
Goodnight , and Holcomb were not called upon to testify . Shelton's
uncontroverted testimony as to the meeting of August 22, 1935, was
corroborated generally by Henry Schauss , an employee , who testi-
fied that Shelton's statements were substantially correct. We find,
as did the Trial Examiner , that Foremen Holcomb, Goodnight; and
Scott made the statements set forth above.
On August 26, 1935, the Union notified the respondent of -the peti-
tion and requested a conference with its representatives at its earliest
convenience . Later that month the petition was presented to Super-
intendent Glass by the Workman's Committee which had been elected
by the union membership . According to Shelton 's uncontroverted
testimony , Glass refused to accept or examine the petition, and
stated, as his reason for not ' doing so, that if he read the names of
the employees thereon and any of them were severed from employ-
ment, the respondent might be charged with discrimination.'
Shortly before September 18, 1935, Superintendent Glass gave per-
mission to G. ShrefHer , an employee who did not belong to the Union,
to post a notice on the time clock . The notice was signed by J. Derr,
a shift foreman , and Shreffler , and requested that all employees inter-
ested in the formation of a collective bargaining plan for the employees
of the refinery assemble in the clock room on September 18 for "a
discussion and presenting of ideas along that line." Unofficial minutes
of the meeting , prepared by members 6f the Union immediately after
it had taken place, were introduced in evidence . These minutes stated
that Foreman King "busied himself" prior to the meeting requesting
employees to attend , and that, when some of the employees "started
out as if leaving the meeting ," King called them back. The minutes
also declare that the office force and all foremen attended the meeting.
According to the minutes , Shreffier acted as chairman of the meeting
and announced that his purpose was to revise the old Representation
Plan, which he said "had been a good thing -but was now contrary
to the Wagner-Connery Labor Disputes Act." He also allegedly told
• In November 1935 the Union again 'presented the petition to representatives of the
respondent, this time to. R. R Irwin, Glass' superior, and E C Marshall, of the respond-
ent's Kansas City office, as well as to Glass. The respondent's reply to the Union's proffer
of the petition was the same as that given in August 1935 by Glass.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. 1155
the employees that the Union petition had been rejected by the man-
agement, "and it was up to them to get up a plan that would be accept-
able to the management." It is further stated that A. Ideen, a union
employee, thereupon "spoke up" and declared that the Union had not
been notified that its petition "had been turned down." According to
,he minutes Shreffler then remarked that as far as the local manage--
ment was concerned, "he knew that it was not agreeable to them and
had been turned down." The minutes also relate that after some fur-
ther discussion the employees were asked to suggest a name for the
new plan of representation, and Foreman Davenport proposed the
name, "Employees Benefit Association," which Was accepted by the
chairman without the taking of a vote. Superintendent Glass, who
did not attend the meeting, but sat in his office within full view of%
what was going on, testified that he remembered the meeting being
held and knew its purpose. The statements set forth in the minutes
are uncontroverted and we find, in accordance with the conclusion of
the Trial Examiner, that the meeting of September 18, 1935, was spon-
sored by the respondent as part of a counter campaign to discourage
membership in the Union.
We find that the respondent, by the statements of its foremnen, Scott,
Goodnight, and Holcomb on August 22, 1935, and by the meeting of
September 18, 1935, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Alleged disci i'mination in regard to Zaire and tenure of employment
The complaint alleged and the Trial Examiner found that the re-
spondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of seven employees, namely, Robert Calvin, C. G. Humberson, Cammett
Nelson, Joe Perpich, Henry Schauss, William Shelton, and Dan
Sullivan.
A series of negotiations provide the background for the alleged dis-
crimination. On January 27, 1936, representatives of the Union and
the respondent met with a conciliator of the United States Department
of Labor named Sherman. An agreement was reached, reciting that
the respondent was willing to bargain collectively with the Unions
that seniority and ability would be considered in lay-offs, promotions,
and demotions. and that the management would confer With the Union
before any lay-off or dismissal. On March 8, 1937, the Union pre-
sented grievances relating, among other things, to alleged discrimina-
I During 1936 the Union twice called upon the respondent to negotiate a signed contract
Upon the first occasion Glass ieplied , "We will' not sign a contract, ' and upon the second,
Glass ' superior, Irwin , stated that a contract was not "essential " to the maintenance of
proper relationship with the Union The Union has at no time, however, charged, the
respondent with violating Section 8 (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion in regard to seniority. Superintendent Glass denied discrimina-
tion and referred the Union'to the respondent's employment policy, a
copy of which was posted on the bulletin board, which stated that in
making lay-offs and promotions the respondent would recognize ability
and character and, if all things were equal, also seniority of service.
On August 25, 1937, after the Union had complained to him that
the management at the Casper refinery had refused'to bargain with
the Union, E. C. Marshall of the respondent's Kansas City office, con-
ferred with representatives of the Union and the Casper management,
and considered various Union proposals. Upon the following day the
union committee again met with Marshall and during the-course of
discussion the latter observed, according to Shelton's uncontradicted
testimony, that he did not see "any reason why we can't have seniority.
That is one of the biggest troubles we have, seniority." At this con-
ference the conferees agreed upon a "Schematic Promotion Chart."
This chart is divided into two halves, the upper half referring to-
operating department employees, the lower half to mechanical depart-
ment employees. The various divisions of the operating and mechani-
cal departments are listed in their respective sections of the chart.
The lowest class of work shown in the mechanical department is that
of the laborers. Directly above the laborers on the chart are mechani-
cal "D" helpers who, apparently, are'generally utility men in the
plant. On the chart there appears a statement that plant seniority
was to be "considered" in lay-offs of laborers and mechanical "D"
helpers and that departmental seniority would be "considered" in
'lay-offs of employees above the mechanical "D" classification. The
chart was posted in the plant on August 27, 1937.
There is a sharp conflict of testimony concerning the interpretation
of the chart on the part of those who participated in the conference
of August 26, 1937, at which time the chart was promulgated. Shelton,
most active union member, testified that, according to the proper inter-
prpetation of the chart, strict seniority was to determine lay-offs of
laborers and mechanical "D" helpers. It is Shelton's testimony that
Marshall had stated at the conference of August 26 that "We will
leave mechanical `D' helpers strictly on plan) seniority." The Trial
Examiner credited Shelton's testimony and adopted his interpretation
that it was agreed that strict seniority was to govern lay-offs. Oil
the other hand, Henry Schauss, also prominent in Union activities
and a conferee in the August 1937 meeting, testified that seniority
and ability were both to be considered in making lay-offs and that the
Union never claimed that seniority alone would prevail. Superin-
tendent Glass testified that ability along with seniority were to be
considered in laying off employees in the groups in question and that
the respondent at no time agreed, to make seniority the sole factor of
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. 1157
determination. Foremen Kush and Scott testified to like effect. Mar-
shall was not called upon to testify. The respondent-contends that
the safe operation of the refinery makes it imperative that ability be
considered in the lay-off and retention of employees. Upon all the
evidence, especially in view of the nature of the respondent's business
and the' conflict in the testimony of the two union leaders, Shelton
and Schauss, we are not persuaded that the respondent at any time
agreed to make seniority of service the controlling factor in determin-
ing lay-offs of laborers and mechanical "D" helpers 6
On March 9l 1939, Shelton, as chairman of the Union Shop Com-
mittee, was given a written notice by Glass that 10 employees, includ-
ing Shelton and the 6 other union members named above, were to be
laid off on March 15, 1939. On March 12 and 13, 1939, representa-
tives of the Union met with the management, and Glass stated that
Marshall had told them that the lay-off was temporary and that em-
ployees would retain their seniority rights for a period of 1 year. On
March 15, 1940, the 10 employees were laid off. The respondent con-
tends that the lay-off s were necessary because of bad business condi-
tions and, at the hearing, introduced evidence in support of that
position. The Trial Examiner stated in his Intermediate Report that
the respondent's contention in that regard was not in dispute. We
agree with the Trial Examiner and find that business conditions
required the respondent to reduce its staff in March 1939.
Two of the seven, union members laid off, Henry Schauss, a carpen-
ter and painter, and Dan Sullivan, an insulator, were "Class B" work-
ers listed in that part of the Schematic Promotion-Chart where de-
partmental seniority was to be considered in determining lay-offs.
't'here was no showing that either Schauss or Sullivan had greater
seniority than employees retained in their respective departments or
that their ability warranted their retention by the respondent. The
respondent asserted that H. E. Green, its head insulator, and T. T.
Dinneen, a carpenter, who had considerably greater seniority than
had either Sullivan or Schauss, could attend to any insulation work,
carpentry, or painting that the respondent felt it necessary still to do.
There is no convincing evidence to refute this claim. We find that no
O In reaching this conclusion we have considered Glass' comments in April 1938, when
the management agreed to make a promotion according to strict seniority in adjusting a
grievance . At that time Glass observed :
we feel that the chart is wrong ; that particularly , in this case , ability should
be considered, but the chart was drawn and approved by the management and we
want to follow the chart as nearly as we can. This is the reason we have reconsidered
and placed the other man in this position
Largely on the basis of this statement , the Trial Examiner found that strict plant seniority
was to pievail in lay-offs of laborers and mechanical "D" helpers while the matter is
not free from doubt, we have concluded that the weight of the evidence does not support
the Trial Examiner ' s finding. -
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discrimination was practiced by the respondent in the teiinination of
the employment of Sullivan and Schauss.
The five other union members laid off were all mechanical "D" helpers
or laborers, subject to lay-off upon the basis of ability and plant
seniority. Before we proceed to discuss their cases, a preliminary
point must be considered. The Trial Examiner concluded that five
stillmen helpers , should have been laid off prior to some of the union
members and based his conclusion not only on the ground that strict
plant seniority was the determining factor, but also that the stillmen
helpers should be considered as on the same footing and in the same
category with laborors and mechanical "D" helpers. * Stilhmen help-
ers' work was listed in the upper half of the Schematic Promotion
Chart as part of the operating department, where departmental rather
than plant-wide seniority was to be colisidered. Shelton testified, how-
ever, that in the fall of 1937, when the stillmen helpers were employed,
the respondent agreed that if these employees were not needed in the
future, they would be demoted to mechanical "D" work before being
laid off, so that their ultimate lay-off would be governed, among other
factors, by plant rather than departmental seniority. On the basis
of this evidence, the Trial Examiner concluded that the five stillmen
helpers were to be considered as on the same footing as laborers and
mechanical "D" helpers in so far as lay-offs were concerned, and that
a laborer or mechanical "D" helper should have preference over any
stillmen helper who had less plant seniority. We do not agree with
this conclusion, since it does not logically follow that because the still-
men helpers might be transferred from the upper to the lower half of
the "Schematic Promotion Chart" when their work was slack, that
they are to be considered as though listed in the lower half of the chart
instead of the upper half when general lay-offs become necessary. We
find, therefore, that the respondent was under no obligation to con-
sider the stillmen helpers for lay-off on the same basis as laborers and
mechanical "D" helpers, but instead was entitled to apply depart-
mental seniority as to them.
Three of the union members laid off, R. TV. Calvin, C. H. Nelson, and
C. G. Humberson,, had less plant seniority standing than any, of the
other employees in the mechanical, "D" or laborer classifications.
There is. no proof that Calvin, Nelson, or Humberson possessed out-
standing ability in refinery work or that they were especially active in
union affairs.
Shelton, the union leader, and Joe Perpich, one-time union presi-
dent, both had from 4 to 7 weeks' greater seniority than two mechan-
ical "D" helpers, J. Speck and W. Dawson, who were retained. The
s w A Kuhn, Dan Legan , Harty McQueary, Herman Tholl, and _H G Winship
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC. 1159
respondent contends that Speck and 'Dawson were more essential
to the operation of the refinery than were either Shelton• or Perpich.
In support of this, Glass testified that Speck, a union member who
had served on several committees, was eligible for departmental
seniority in the power plant and was retained for relief work there.
Glass also testified that Dawson-was capable of serving the respond-
ent in a number of different capacities, notably as a welder, gas
engine operator, and tank gauger. There is no evidence to controvert
the foregoing testimony of Glass, or to establish that Shelton and
Perpich had any special ability which warranted their retention.
We' find that the respondent did not discriminate as to the hire
and tenure of employment of the men named in the complaint, and,
therefore , we shall dismiss this allegation.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES! UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth, in Section
III, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
set forth in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing/ com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We find that it is essential in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
certain activities and practices in which we have found it to have
engaged and , in aid of such order and as a means for removing and,
avoiding the consequences of such activities and practices, that it
be directed to take certain affirmative action, as- set forth in our
order.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1; Local No. 230, Oil Workers International Union, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., Casper, Wyo-
ming, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join,-or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through. representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act,:
(a) Immediately post, and keep posted for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicuous
places throughout its refinery at Casper, Wyoming, notices to its
employees stating that it will cease and desist in the manner set forth
in paragraph 1 of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that
the respondent discriminated as to the hire and tenure of employment
of Robert Calvin, C. G. Humberson, Cammett Nelson, Joe Perpich,
Henry R. Schauss, William R. Shelton, and Dan Sullivan be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
J