Sun Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 833 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SUN OIL COMPANY and LOCAL 389, OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO and MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT OIL
WORKERS' UNION INCORPORATED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUN OIL
COMPANY DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. 7-CA-65.Decided April 28, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 8, 1949, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the Independent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions, exceptions, and mod-
ifications hereinafter set forth 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. The requests of the Respondent
and the Independent for oral argument are hereby denied , as, in our opinion , the record,
including the exceptions and briefs, adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties.
2 After the time for filing exceptions in this case had expired, the Respondent filed a
motion for leave to file additional exceptions ". . . consisting of objections as a matter of
law to all findings of unfair labor practices, and/or its liability therefor, antedating by
more than six months the filing of the original charge of March 26, 1948, . . . We hereby
deny this motion. Such additional exceptions would be untimely filed ; and no reason is
shown why they were not filed within the period previously allowed. In any case, we
regard the events, antedating September 26, 1947, as background which throws light and
imparts meaning to the events which occurred thereafter, and we find that the Respondent
violated the Act by the conduct in which it engaged after September 26, 1947. Florida
Telejihone Corp ., 88 NLRB 1429.
. 89 NLRB No. 104.
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent unlawfully
dominated, as well as supported, the Association and that the Inde-
pendent is the successor to the Association.3 We reject a contention
of the Respondent and the Independent that the Trial Examiner erred
prejudicially in excluding testimony of employees as to their subjective
intent in becoming members of the Independent and in rejecting offers
with respect thereto. However, we have considered all such testimony
offered and conclude that it does not overcome more positive evidence
in the record that the Respondent violated the Act as found by the
Trial Examiner.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent furnished illegal
support to the Independent by, among other things, recognizing the
Independent and entering into a contract with it while the Union's
petition for certification was pending before the Board. The re-
spondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred in making this find-
ing, on the ground that the Union's representation claim was spurious
and therefore no real question as to representation of employees existed.
On the basis of the record, we are not convinced that this contention
has merit in fact. In any event, we find that a real question as to
representation of employees existed at the time of recognition of the
Independent, and that the Respondent usurped the Board's exclusive
function to determine questions concerning representation of em-
ployees and rendered unlawful support to the Independent, by execut-
ing an exclusive bargaining contract with it while a proceeding was
pending before the Board to determine the representative for collective
bargaining. The Ens/aer case (74 NLRB 1443), relied on by the Re-
3 The Intermediate Report contains erroneous statements which do not affect our ultimate
conclusions. According to the Trial Examiner, Ralph Bennett testified that the Union did
not file a representation petition in 1945 because it feared that the Respondent would
resort to reprisal against the employees ; and the Trial Examiner stated that the employees
were advised that the Respondent had refused a union representative permission to attend,
the meeting of March 9, 1945, referred to in the Intermediate Report. We reject these
statements as inaccurate.
The Trial Examiner found that the Independent's constitution and bylaws bases selec-
tion of representatives on departments and provides for forfeiture of the office of repre-
sentative upon transfer of the incumbent from one department to another ; and, in noting
the differences between the Association and the Independent, the Trial Examiner stated
in substance that the Independent's constitution and bylaws, unlike the practice in the
Association, eliminated the requirement of 1 year's employment as a qualification to be a
representative. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the Independent's constitution and
bylaws does not eliminate this requirement ; in fact, it expressly continues in effect the
identical 1-year employment qualification for representatives, or members of the board of
directors, their counterpart in the Independent. The Independent's constitution and
bylaws does not expressly provide for forfeiture of office in the event of transfer of a
representative from one department to another. But under the circumstances the provi-
sions of the constitution and bylaws taken as a whole do not appear to be inconsistent with
an interpretation that the Independent intended to continue in this respect the practice
which existed in the Association, particularly as the Independent's first set of board of'
directors, being the last set of Association representatives, was elected on a departmental
basis. In any event, we find that the Independent exists as an employer-dominated organ-
ization and that its disestablishment is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
e
SUN OIL COMPANY 835
spondent in its brief, is distinguishable from the instant case as there
one of the two rival unions became defunct; thus the employer was
no longer confronted with a real question as to representation at the
time the employer executed a new contract with the incumbent union..
3. As the Association, the predecessor of the Independent, has ceased
to function, the Trial Examiner recommended that it not be dis-
established, but that the Respondent be directed to cease and desist,
from recognizing the Association in the event that it should subse-
quently resume functioning. In addition to adopting these recom-
mendations, as well as the remaining recommendations set forth in.
the Intermediate Report, we shall also direct the Respondent to dis-.
establish the Association, if and when it should resume functioning 4
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Sun Oil Com
pany, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
'(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Sun Oil
Company Drivers, Warehouse and Maintenance Employees Associa-.
tion, in the event that it returns to active existence, or its successor,.
Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incorporated, or any-
other labor organization;
(b) Recognizing Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incor-
porated, or Sun Oil Company Drivers, Warehouse and Maintenance
Employees Association, in the event that the latter organization
returns to active existence, as a representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts, supplements thereto or
modifications thereof, with Michigan Independent Oil Workers'
Union, Incorporated;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Local 389, Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
The Russell Mfg. Co. Inc., 82 NLRB 1081, 1085.
889227-51-vol. 89 54
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish , Michigan Independent Oil Workers ' Union, Incorpo-
rated, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or any other conditions of
employment , and refrain from recognizing , or in any manner dealing
with, and completely disestablish , Sun Oil Company Drivers, Ware-
house and Maintenance Employees Association , in the event that
organization returns to active existence;
(b) Post at its plants in Hamtramck and River Rouge , Michigan,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.5 Copies
of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Seventh
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent , be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT OIL
WORKERS ' UNION, INCORPORATED, as the representative of any of
our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recog-
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER." on this notice,
the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORC-
ING."
SUN OIL COMPANY 837
nize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL DISESTABLISH SUN OIL COMPANY DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE
AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION as the representative
of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize it, or any successor thereto, for any of the above pur-
poses in the event that it returns to active existence.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor organization or contribute financial
or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all.agreements and con-
tracts, supplements thereto or modifications thereof, or any super-
seding contract with MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT OIL WORKERS'
UNION, INCORPORATED, or any successor thereto.
WE WILL NOT 1n any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL 389, OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, of any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all of such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
SUN OIL COMPANY,
E?iaployer.
Dated----------------- By------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Jerome H. Brooks, Esq ., for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Leo I. Franklin and Richard Ford , for the Respondent.
Wendell Brown , Esq., for the Independent.
Messrs . C. J. Ossege and Earl Bacrnett , for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed, respectively, on March 26,
1948, and May 31, 1949, by Local 389, Oil Workers International Union, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the
838 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein respectively
called the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for the
Seventh Region ( Detroit , Michigan ), issued his complaint on September 23,
1949 , against Sun Oil Company , 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 S ( a) (1) and ( 2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, hereiu•
called the Act.
Copies of the complaint , the charge , and the amended charge , together with,,
notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon the Respondent , the Union,
and Michigan Independent Oil Workers ' Union , Incorporated , herein called the-
Independent , a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be existing in vio
lation of the Act and which is a party to a collective bargaining contract with
the Respondent herein.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged, in sub-
stance, that the Respondent (1) dominated, interfered with the administration-
of, and contributed support to , Sun Oil Company Drivers , Warehouse and Mainte-
nance Employees Association, a labor organization , herein called the Association,.
and its successor , the Independent , and (2 ) since. November 10, 1947, engaged in
certain stated acts of interference , restraint , and coercion in violation of the.
Act.
On October 5, 1.949, the Respondent duly.filed an answer admitting certain.
factual allegations of the complaint with respect to its corporate structure and,
operations but denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. On.
October 14 , 1949 , the Independent duly filed an answer denying the allegations.
of the complaint with respect to its domination by the Respondent and its con-
nection with the Association.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was duly held from October 1S to November 4,
1949, at Detroit , Michigan, before Howard Myers, the undersigned Trial Ex
aminer, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The General Counsel,.
the Respondent, and the Independent were represented by counsel , the Union by
representatives . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine-
witnesses , and to introduce evidence relevant to the issues was afforded all
parties. At the conclusion of the General Counsel ' s case - in-chief , counsel for-
the Independent moved to dismiss the complaint as against the Independent for-
lack of proof . The motion was denied . At the conclusion of the taking of evi-
dence, oral argument was had in which counsel for the General Counsel, for the
Respondent , and for A e Independent participated . The undersigned then advised,
the parties that they might file with him briefs and proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law on or before November 19, 1949. Briefs have been re-
ceived from counsel for the Respondent and from counsel for the Independent
which have been duly considered by the undersigned . The undersigned also has
carefully considered tie proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by
the Respondent . These findings and conclusions are disposed of in accordance.
with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations made below.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from his observation of the witnesses,.
the undersigned makes tl:e following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sun Oil Company, a New Jersey corporation, has its principal place of busi-
ness in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and!
SUN OIL COMPANY 839
,distribution of petroleum and petroleum products. The Respondent maintains
plants, among others, at Hamtramck and River Rouge,-both located in the
metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan, the employees of which plants are the
,only ones involved in these proceedings.
During the fiscal year ending July 1, 1949, the Respondent transported, or
caused to be transported, from points located outside of the State of Michigan
for use and sale at its aforesaid Detroit, Michigan, plants over one million dollars
worth of gasoline and other petroleum products.
The Respondent concedes, and the undersigned finds, that it is engaged in
,commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
'Local 389 , Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Respondent . Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incor-
porated, unaffiliated , is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
.of the Respondent . Sun Oil . Company Drivers , Warehouse and Maintenance
Employees Association , unaffiliated , was a labor organization, admitting to
.membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of, interference with, and support of the Association and the
Independent; interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Formation and history of the Association
So far as it appears, there was no organizing activity among the Respondent's
employees at its Detroit, Michigan, plant' prior to 1933.
During the NRA days a labor organization was formed among the employees.
The record is silent as to how, or just when, that organization came into being.
he record is clear, however, that the Association was formed sometime around
1937, and, as the Respondent's counsel conceded during oral argument in the
instant proceeding, was "a successor" to the organization that was in the plant
,during the NRA days.
The Association had no constitution or bylaws. Neither had it any written
rules or regulations. Membership therein was automatic but carried with it
no obligation to pay initiation fees or dues. There were no general meetings
of the membership without officials of the Respondent being)present during all or
part of the meetings?
The Association was governed by representatives who were elected annually
by the nonsupervisory employees. Each department selected one or more of its
.group to represent it. A member could not vote for representatives until he
had been employed at the plant for at least 6 months nor was he eligible to become
.a representative until he had been employed at the plant for 1 year. All meetings
1 Prior to 1948, the Respondent had but one plant in the metropolitan area of Detroit
and that was, and still is, located at Hamtramck, Michigan. Sometime in 1948, a plant
was opened by the Respondent at River Rouge, also located in the metropolitan area of
Detroit. At the commencement of operations at the latter plant employees were recruited
from the Hamtramck plant and some new employees hired. The Hamtramck and River
Rouge plants are referred to in the record, respectively, as Plant No. 6 and Plant No. 7.
2 The only exceptions were one meeting held in the Respondent's garage in February
7948, and two or three held thereafter in a public hall near the plants.
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and other business of the Association were transacted by the representatives on
company time and property, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent.
For the first 8 years or so of its existence, the Association had no officers. In
about 1944, a representative thereof discussed with the Respondent's then district
manager the advisability of the Association having officers. The said district
manager stated that he believed that it should have officers. Thereafter, with-
out submitting the question to the membership, the duly elected representatives
annually selected the officers from among themselves. The representatives, how-
ever, continued to be the governing body.
The representatives met with management usually about once a month (or more
often, as occasion therefor arose) to discuss questions involving wages and work-
ing conditions of the employees. About every 3 months. management met with
the rank-and-file members and discussed management-employee problems. The
latter meetings were usually held after the normal workday and were preceded by
a meal furnished and paid for by the Respondent. The top management official
presided.' These meetings, like those held with the representatives above, were
either held on company property or at a place hired and paid for by the
Respondent. The members and representatives were not only paid by the
Respondent for the time spent attending meetings, but the representatives also
were paid their regular wages for time spent on Association business. When
meetings with management ran past the normal meal hours, the Respondent
supplied and paid for the representatives' meals.
All meetings of the Association, prior to February 1948, were conducted on the
Respondent's premises free of charge and with the Respondent's permission.
Until December 1948, all elections of representatives were conducted on company
time and property with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. At times,
the ballots were opened and recorded in the presence of supervisory employees.
The Respondent supplied free of charge the paper and other equipment necessary
for the preparation of the ballots used at the elections. It also supplied without
charge the stationery and stenographic help for the preparation of the Asso-
ciation's minutes and correspondence. Moreover, supervisory officials of the
Respondent aided officers and representatives of the Association in the prepara-
tion of many letters addressed to the Respondent concerning Association business.
The minutes of the meetings with management were prepared by management
in cooperation with the Association's secretary, and after being corrected were
signed by the Association's representatives who had attended the meeting as
well as by representatives of management.
On February 22, 1W8, the Association held a general membership meeting in
the Respondent's garage. No official of the Respondent was present. Permis-
sion, however, to hold the meeting was obtained from the Respondent after the
purpose thereof, and topics to be discussed thereat, had been first disclosed to
the Respondent. The Respondent charged the Association a nominal fee of one
dollar for the use of the garage.
This was the first general meeting of the Association, according to the
credible evidence, held without the presence of management at some stage thereof.
The main topic of discussion at this meeting was whether to retain the group
health plan then existing at the plant or to change to another plan.
About a week or ten days after the aforesaid meeting, the Association held
its first general meeting off the Respondent's property. No official of manage-
ment attended this meeting. It was held at a public hall near the plant and the
cost for the use thereof was defrayed from the proceeds of a collection taken up
SUN OIL COMPANY 841
at the aforesaid garage meeting. The discussion at this meeting was primarily
confined to the benefits of the several health insurance plans. There was con-
siderable discussion, however, with respect to the question of the employees
affiliating with the Union or whether the employees should remain in the Associ-
ation. Earl Burnett, a representative of the Union, addressed the meeting and
outlined the advantages of affiliation with the Union, and answered questions of
the employees regarding the Union.' Other speakers stated their reasons why
the employees should not join the Union. No final action was taken by the
membership regarding union affiliation or with respect to health insurance plans.
On March 2, 1948, the Association representatives held their regular monthly
meeting with management. The question was -brought up, and discussion had,
thereon, regarding the possibility of incorporating the Association and otherwise
strengthening its structure. No decision with respect thereto was made.
On March 9. 1948, a general meeting of the Association was held at a public
hall at the expressed request of the Respondent. The Respondent hired and
paid for the use of the hall. After the members of the Association and the
officials of the Respondent had dined together, at the expense of the Respondent,
the meeting was called to order by the Respondent's newly appointed district
manager, Thomas Horrocks.
Horrocks and the other attending officials of the Respondent sat at the same
table located at the head of the meeting with the representatives and officers of
the Association. Horrocks presided. Earl Burnett had requested permission
to attend this meeting but Ralph Bennett, the Association's then president, to
whom the request was made , refused Burnett 's request . Bennett testified, and
the undersigned finds, that he told Burnett, to quote Bennett, "No, we weren't
calling the meeting ; the Company was calling the meeting ; if you wanted to go
to the meeting, to call Mr. Horrocks." Bennett further testified, and the under-
signed finds, that the rank-and-file members knew that one of the matters to be
discussed at the meeting was the question of certain structural changes to be
made in the Association setup ; that they also knew that Burnett wanted to again
address the membership with respect to the employees abandoning the Association
and joining the Union ; and that they had been advised that management had
refused to allow Burnett to attend. Bennett further admitted that he told
Horrocks that Burnett requested permission to attend the meeting and that
Horrocks refused to allow Burnett to attend.
After Horrocks had addressed the meeting and discussions and decisions had
been reached with respect to certain grievances and other management-employee
problems, Bennett requested Horrocks and the other managerial officials to leave
the hall. They did as requested.
Ballots were then distributed and the members voted secretly as to the follow-
ing issues , among others :
3 From about 1943 , the Union has intermittently made concerted drives to organize the
Respondent ' s employees . One such drive was vigorously started early in 1948. Many
employees who had been active in the Association and the Independent had joined the
Union at one time or another . In fact, Ralph Bennett , the then president of the Asso-
ciation , testified , and the undersigned finds , that about 1945 he was active in the plant
in behalf of the Union at which time a majority of the employees had joined the Union,
but that no demand for recognition had been made upon the Respondent , or a representa-
tion petition filed with the Board , for the Union ' s officials desired to secure 100 percent
representation before taking such action because they feared the Respondent ' s reprisal
against the employees.
;842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I Am Satisfied With The Sun Employees Association As It Is.
I Would Be Satisfied With The Sun Employees Association If It Were
Strengthened By A Charter, A Constitution And A More Detailed Contract
With Dues.
`Thirty-five members voted for the first proposition ; 14 against. There were 92
ballots cast in favor of the second proposition and 14 against.
About a week after the meeting discussed immediately above, Horrocks called
Carl Yungkans, the Union's most active leader in the Respondent's plant, into
Superintendent Peters' office, and there, in the presence of Bennett, Peters, and
one or two Association's representatives, Horrocks said to Yungkans, according
to Bennett's testimony, if Yungkans "was caught working for the C. I. O. on
.company time or company property he would be dismissed." Yungkans testified
that besides Peters and Bennett there were also present several other representa-
tives of the Association and that after Horrocks had cautioned him about having
any more accidents while driving the Respondent's trucks,' Horrocks told him, to
quote Yungkans, "if I continued to organize on company property or time ( for the
-C. I. O.)-or made any licentious or libelous statement against the Company,
.or the Association representatives, that steps would be taken" by the Respondent
with respect thereto.
Horrocks admitted that he told Yungkans to desist from engaging in all activi-
ties on behalf of the Union on company time or on company property. He added,
-however, that at the same time he also told Bennett that he had to stop all activi-
ties on behalf of the Association on company time or on company property. With
regard to Iorrocks' remarks to Yungkans about not engaging in union activities,
Peters' testimony is in substantial accord with that of Horrocks. Upon the
entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Yung-
kans' testimony is substantially in accord with the facts and that Horrocks made
-the statement attributed to him by Yungkans. The undersigned rejects Horrocks'
testimony that he demanded that all discussions and activities in behalf of all
unions be discontinued because they impeded the employees in doing their job
.assignments properly. The record is manifestly clear that the Respondent did
not, nor does it, want the Union in its plants, and that Horrocks and the other
officials of the Respondent were, and are, determined to carry out this policy.
This finding is buttressed by the fact that while cautioning Yungkans to discon-
tinue his activity in behalf of the Union, the Respondent thereafter allowed the
representatives and officers of the Association to conduct the business of the
-Association on company time and property and continued its practice of paying
representatives and members their regular wages while engaged in Association
matters.
During the balance of the year the Association intermittently held general
.membership meetings, some with and some without management being present.
In September, it conducted an election on company time and property, with
Respondent's permission, to fill certain vacancies which had occurred in the ranks
•of representatives.
In the fore part of December 1948, Bennett received a telephone call from
a man who described himself as Mr. Stewart. Bemwtt testified that he did
4 After attending the March 9 meeting, Yungkans returned to the plant to work his
-shift. As he was driving a truck in the plant he damaged it. The usual hearing was had
with respect to the incident and the committee, appointed by management and the Asso-
ciation , decided that the accident could have been avoided had Yungkans used more care.
SUN OIL COMPANY 843
not know the person who called nor did the person describe himself other than
to give his last name . According to Bennett , Ste,,yart suggested that he consult
Wendell Brown , the then president of the Detroit Bar Association, if the
Association desired to retain a lawyer to secure a charter . The following
week, about December 9, Bennett , without consulting anyone connected with
the Association , conferred with Brown.
On or about December 15, the Association held its annual election of repre-
sentatives . This time the election was held in automobiles parked directly
outside the respective gates of the Respondent 's plants . As the employeesi
reported for work or left the plant at the end of their respective shifts, they
marked their ballots and placed them in boxes which had been placed in the
automobiles for that purpose.
2. The abandonment of the Association, the genesis of the Independent, and the
recognition of the latter by the Respondent
On December 17, the newly elected representatives of the Association, accom-
panied by Bennett, whose term of office as president of the Association was
not due to expire until the end of December 1948, conferred with Brown at
his office. There, according to the minutes of that meeting, the representatives
(1) elected officers from among themselves for the coming year; (2) agreed to
form an independent union ; and (3) authorized Brown to prepare a constitution,
and bylaws and articles of incorporation for the new organization.
On or about December 28, the representatives again met with Brown and
further discussed with him the advisability of forming the Independent. This
meeting with Brown, like the former, was held without any of the employees,
except Bennett, being aware of it or having authorized the representatives to
take such action.
During the first week of January 1949, the representatives of the Association
held their usual monthly meeting with management. The representatives were
paid, as in the past, for the time spent traveling to and from and while con-
ferring at this meeting with management. The meeting, according to the
minutes thereof, proceeded along the same lines that the former meetings had
taken.
On January 12, the representatives called a meeting of the membership of
the Association at a public hall. The purpose thereof was to have the members
sign the proposed articles of incorporation and the proposed constitution and
bylaws that had been prepared by Brown. Beginning at about 3 p. m., about
160 employees appeared at the hall and signed the above-described papers..
The meeting lasted until about 6 or 6: 30. Brown answered the occasional ques-
tions put to him about the documents and Robert Wallace, the Association's
then secretary, read the contents of the documents at the opening of the meeting..
At no one time were there more than 20 or 30 employees present. The employees.
would drop into the hall, sign the documents, and then depart.
The proposed charter submitted to the employees at the above-described
meeting, named as directors of the Independent the same persons who had been
elected representatives of the Association at the December 1948 election. The-
Independent's constitution and bylaws, adopted at the same meeting, contain
many features under which the Association had operated. Moreover, the con-
stitution and bylaws provide that the term of office of the representatives.
expires with their termination of employment with the Respondent or upon,
their transfer out of the respective departments that had elected them.
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After about 90 percent of the employees had signed the proposed articles of
incorporation, either at or after the aforesaid meeting of January 12, the docu-
Inent was duly filed with the proper officials of the State of Michigan and a
charter obtained in the latter part of January 1949.
The credible evidence clearly indicates, and the undersigned finds, that the
great majority of the employees were not informed before or at the time they
signed the afore-mentioned documents that a new organization was being formed,
but, on the other hand, they were led to believe that the representatives were only
carrying out the desires of the Association's membership as expressed at the
meeting of March 9, 1948, and making necessary arrangements for incorporat-
ing.the Association and adopting a constitution and bylaws for it.
While the aforesaid meeting was in progress, the Union telegraphed the Re-
spondent that it represented the majority of the Respondent's employees, re-
quested a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining. con-
tract, cautioned the Respondent not to recognize or to deal with any other labor
organization, and concluded with the advice that the Union was about to file a
representation petition with the Board. The Respondent did not answer the
telegram.
On January 21, 1949, the Union duly filed with the Board a representation
petition.
On February 2, 1949, the following letter, signed by Arthur Siess, the person
elected president of the Association in Brown's office on December 1.8, and who
assumed the duties as president of the Independent was handed to the Re-
spondent by Siess and Harpster, one of the representatives of the Association
and a director of the Independent.
SUN OIL COMPANY
1847 Woodward Avenue,
Detroit 1, Michigan
(Attention: Mr. T. S. Neal and Mr. Thomas Florrocks)
GENTLEMEN : You are hereby notified that the collective bargaining agree-
ment made between your company and the undersigned, under date of Oc-
tober 23, 1941, as last amended by an agreement dated January 16, 1948, is
hereby terminated.
The undersigned Association has determined to withdraw as collective
bargaining agent for the members thereof. Accordingly, our representa-
tives will not meet with you, hereafter.
Very truly yours,
SUN OIL COMPANY DL'IvEns WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
By ARTHUR C. SIESS, Its President,
20009 Irvington, Detroit 3, Mich.
Feb. 2, 1949.
The above letter was prepared by Brown, the Independent's attorney, written
on a typewritten letterhead of the Independent, signed by the Independent's
president, and delivered by two officials of the Independent. At no time did any
rank-and-file member of the Association authorize the issuance of the letter nor
did the membership take any action with respect to disestablishing the Associa-
tion.as their collective bargaining representative. Furthermore, the record is
clear and the undersigned finds, that the employees were not cognizant of the
letter at any time prior to its acknowledgment by the Respondent on April 2,
SUN OIL COMPANY 845
1949, on which date the Respondent wrote the Independent that the Respondent
recognized it as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in
Plants Nos. 6 and 7. When Harpster was asked specifically whether he was act-
ing for the Independent or for the Association when he delivered the letter to the
Respondent he replied that he did not know. Harpster, like the other employees,
always considered the Independent and the Association to be one and the same
organization.
Beginning on April 5, and continuing until April 27, the Independent met with
management weekly to discuss a proposed contract. On the latter date the Inde-
pendent signed the contract which is now in effect. The Respondent signed it
on May 2.
B. Concluding findings
That the Association existed at all times in violation of the Act is too clear
for discussion. In fact, at the hearing the Respondent's counsel conceded that
the Respondent contributed financial and other support to the Association. He
contended, however, that the Respondent did not dominate the Association. This
contention is not supported by the record. The measure of control reserved to
the Respondent over the organization, its officers and representatives, and the
support and financial assistance extended to it by the Respondent.clearly indi-
cates that. the Association was incontestably a company-dominated labor organ-
ization.
It is evident from the credible evidence, as epitomized above, that the Respond-
ent permitted the Association to hold its elections 6 and conduct all its other
business on company time and property ; that representatives, officers, and mem-
hers were paid by the Respondent for the time spent by them at Association
meetings and while engaged in other business of the Association; that the
Respondent controlled the administration of the Association through the reten-
tion in its employ of representatives for it could unseat any elected representa-
tive by transferring him to another department of the plant or by discharging
him ; that the employees were limited in their free choice of representatives;
that membership in the Association conferred only the right to vote in the annual
election of representatives, provided the employee had been in the plant for 6
months; that an employee was not eligible to become a representative until he
had been employed in the plant for at least 1 year; and that the officers were
elected by the representatives and not by the members. Finally, since there was
no provision for dues or other form of self-financing, the Respondent was in a
position to assure its domination over the Association by subsidizing it. This it
did by permitting the Association's elections and its other business to be trans-
acted on company time and pfoperty and by paying the officers, representatives,
and members for time spent on Association business. The entire record indi-
cates, and the undersigned finds, that the Association existed and functioned only
through the Respondent's control, participation, financial support, and suffer-
ance. In short, the Association was used by the Respondent as a substitute for
collective bargaining and, as such, was a device which has been repeatedly and
consistently held by the Board and courts to be an outlawed form of labor
organization.'
° On its own volition , the Association discontinued this practice after December 1948.
° See N . L. R. B. v . Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co ., 308 U . S. 241 ; N. L. R. B.
v. Baldwin Locomotive Works , 128 F. ( 2d) 39 ( C. A. 3) ; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. N. L.
R. B., 120 F. ( 2d) 641 (App. D . C.) ; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 112
F. (2d) 657 (C. A. 2) ; Budd Manufacturing Co. v. N: L. R.'B., 138 F. (2d) 86 (C. A. 3)
and N. L . R. B. v. Rath Packing Co., 123 F. ( 2d) 684 ( C. A. 8).
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned is of the opinion, and finds, that the Independent exists as•
a continuation of, and successor to, the Association and, thereby, inherited the
Association's taint of illegality.
The principle is well established that where an organization appears, as here,.
to be the outgrowth of a predecessor which has been dominated and supported
by the employer, it may properly be found that the new organization inherits the
infirmities of the old unless the employer, prior to its formation, has unequivo-
cally and publicly disavowed and disestablished the original illegal union and
given adequate assurances directly to the employees of their freedom from
further employer interference in their choice of a bargaining representative..
In short, the employer is under a duty to create among his employees an atmos-
phere of genuine freedom of choice.
Under these circumstances, the duty of the Respondent was plain.. In corn-
menting upon similar cases decided by the Supreme Court,' Judge Learned Hand_
in Western Union Telegraph Company v. N. L. R. B.8 said:
The theory on which the Supreme Court went, as we understand it, was-
that an unaffiliated union, known for long to be favored by the employer,
carries over an advantage which necessarily vitiates its standing as exclu-
sive bargaining agent. It cannot remain such until measures are taken
completely to disabuse the employees of any belief that they will win the.
employer's approval if they remain in it, or incur his displeasure if they leave.
The Respondent's duty in connection with the formation of the Independent
was also plain. As the Court said in the Western Union case, an "absolute and
public cleavage between the old and new" was necessary. In the Ti estinghouse
Electric case,' Judge Learned Hand, commenting on the disestablishment order-
in the Newport News case, supra, said :
The reason for this was that, although the new union would be lawful,,
if freely formed, it had in fact arisen out of the earlier organization, and
the company had done nothing to mark the separation between the two, and
publicly to deprive the successor of the advantage of its apparently con-
tinued favor . . . the employees at large had not been advised that the,
company was wholly indifferent whether they joined the new union, and
that, as it might, and probably did, appear to be a successor of the old, the
separation should have been made plain, and with it the discontinuance of
any continued countenance from the employer. The theory is that in cases
such as this, where an unaffiliated union seems to the employees at large to
have evolved out ofan earlier joint organization of employer and employees,
the Board may take it as datum, in the absence of satisfactory evidence to.
the contrary, that the employees will suppose that the company approves
the new, as it did the old, and that their choice is for that reason not as free.
as the statute demands.'0
Here, the Respondent did nothing to "disabuse the employees" of the reason-
able impression and belief that the Independent had the same management favor
and support which was enjoyed by the Association; it not only made no "public-
7N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261; N. L. R. R. v. Newport
News Shipbuilding Co., 30S U. S. 241; and N. L. R. B. V. Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453.
8113 F. ( 2d) 992 (C. A. 2).
.8Westiaghonse Electric Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. A. 2).
10 See also N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584; and N. L. R. B. v. Southern Beli
Telephone and Telegraph Co., 319 U. S. 50.
SUN OIL COMPANY 847
cleavage" announcement, but made no public announcement whatsoever ; it did
nothing publicly to disavow the Association and to inform its employees of their
freedom in self-organizational matters and of the Respondent's complete in-
difference in that regard, thereby making plain the separation between the
Association and the Independent.
The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the Respondent's failure to give
.suitable publicity to its abandonment of the Association and to any indifference
it may have had regarding its employees' organizational activities, especially
when viewed in the light of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the
Independent, confirmed the impression and belief which could reasonably arise
in the minds of the employees that the Independent- was the alter ego of the
Association. The process of transition from the Association to the Independent
was done by employees (representatives and officers of the Association) who
had previously demonstrated their willingness to submit to the Respondent's
wishes with respect to labor relations. The significance of the duplication of
personnel coupled with substantial continuity of existence was noted by the
Court in International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29
(App. D. C.) aff'd 311 U. S. 72, as indicative of continued company domination'1
Like the Association, the Independent's constitution and bylaws (prepared by
the Association's representatives and officers) bases its selection of representa-
tives on departments ; provides for forfeiture of the office of representative upon
transfer from one department to another, or upon termination of employment
with the Respondent. In fact, the only gesture made in the direction of dif-
ferentiating the Independent from its illegal predecessor was to provide for the
payment of initiation fees and dues and the elimination of the length of time
of employment at the plant to become eligible to vote for, or to become, a repre-
sentative. Not only was there no interval in the transfer of allegiance, no
"line of fracture," no "absolute and public cleavage between the old and the
new," but there was an actual overlapping between the abandonment of the
Association on the one hand, and the formation of the Independent on the other,
including the actual transfer of the books and records of the Association to the
Independent. In short, there was no separation or disavowal, as required by
the Act, to mark the end of the Association and the genesis of the Independent;
the assurances so essential for the liberation of the employees from the restraints
of long continued employer domination are plainly absent in this case. All these
factors inevitably carried the conviction to the employees that the Independent
stemmed from the Association and like it had the continued approval and sup-
port of the Respondent and therefore the employees' choice of representatives
was not the free choice vouchsafed to them by the Act.
The Respondent, moreover, denied the Union the same organizing privileges
in the plants which were accorded to the Independent. It threatened Yung-
kans, whom the Respondent knew to be the spearhead of the Union's 1948 or-
ganizational campaign among the employees, with discharge if he continued
his activities in behalf of the Union on company property even during non-
working hours. No similar action was taken against members of the Inde-
pendent who knowingly were acting in behalf of their organization. Such
disparate treatment constitutes a form of support to the Independent prohibited
by the Act.-
By executing the contract with the Independent at a time when the Union
also was claiming to represent the majority of the employees, the Respondent
11 See also Texas Co. v . N. L. R. B., 119 F. ( 2d) 23 (C. A. 7).
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pointedly indicated its favoritism for the Independent and sought thereby to
secure its position as a bulwark against the Union. A neutral employer con-
fronted with the conflicting representation claims of two rival unions, par-
ticularly where, as here, there is on file with the Board a representation peti-
tion would not negotiate a contract with one of them without first resorting
to the procedures of the Act for the determination of representatives. In
executing the contract with the Independent, the Respondent enhanced the
prestige of the Independent and thus gave it an advantage over the Union.
Such assistance constitutes, in the circumstances, a form of support prohibited
by the Act.
The Respondent relies heavily upon N. L. R. B. v. Dwncan Foundry and
Machine Works, 142 F. (2d) 594 (C. A. 7) in support of its position that the
Independent is not existing in violation of the Act. In that case the employer
not only repudiated the illegal organization prior to the formation of a new
organization but explicitly notified the employee-representatives of the old one
that the future organization of the employees was a matter exclusively for
them to decide. Shortly thereafter, at a mass meeting attended by more than
half of the employees, the employer's decision repudiating the illegal organiza-
tion and its assurances of neutrality were expressly conveyed to the employees.
In the course of the meeting, after the employer's position had been announced,
the employees voted down a motion to retain all the officers of the illegal organ-
ization ; defeated the president of the old organization, who had been nomi-
nated for office in the new, and rejected a proposed agreement with the em-
ployer, previously prepared by the representatives of the old organization
because the employees had no hand in its composition. Under those circum-
stances, the Court said, "the evidence establish[ed] beyond peradventure an
honest, active and successful effort by [the employer] to effectuate its detach-
ment and clear understanding of the attitude of the employer in this regard
upon the part of the employees." These facts are not present in the instant
case.
The Respondent and the Independent also contend that the Independent,
whatever its original deficiencies, is presently a free organization because of
its militant and successful bargaining history. The fact that the Independent
may have obtained some measure of success during its bargaining relation-
ships with the Respondent cannot, and does not, cleanse the Independent of its
illegal taint.12
In its brief, and at the hearing, the Respondent maintained that as a conse-
quence of certain statements by Francis E. Burger, the Board's field examiner
to whom the charge herein had been assigned for investigation, the employees
took no action between March 9, 1945, until December 1948, to form a new organ-
ization. Several witnesses, including representatives of the Association, testi-
fied that Burger informed them that the Assocation was company dominated and
illegal and that any organization stemming therefrom would likewise be illegal.
Some witnesses also testified that Burger read to them from a statute and from
what he read they had received the impression that they would make themselves
liable to criminal penalties if they participated in the formation of a new labor
organization. Burger, in the main, denied making the statements attributed
to him by the several witnesses. The undersigned is of the opinion that it would
12 Corning Glass Works v. N. L. R. B., 118 F. (2d) 625 ( C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v . Southern
Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 319 U. S. 50 ; and N. L. R. B. V . Link-Belt Co., 311
U. S. 584.
SUN OIL COMPANY 849
serve no useful purpose to here resolve the conflict of the testimony regarding
the remarks attributed to Burger for Burger's opinions and remarks have no
probative value with respect to the issues herein involved and certainly they are
not material or relevant to the issues as to whether the Association existed in
violation of the Act or whether the Independent is existing in violation thereof.
The undersigned finds upon the entire record in the case, that the Respondent
dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and with
the formation and administration of the Independent, and contributed support to
both of them, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, thereby inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned further finds that by pro-
hibiting union adherents to engage in activities in behalf of the Union on com-
pany properly during nonworking hours while permitting the Independent's
adherents to do so and in executing a contract with the Independent under circum-
stances set forth above, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section S (a)
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and such of them as has been found to be unfair labor
practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section S (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, the undersigned will recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above, the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the admin-
istration of the Association and with the formation and administration of its
successor, the Independent, and has contributed support to them. Since the
Association has ceased to function, the undersigned will not recommend its
disestablishment; but since this organization has been succeeded by the Inde-
pendent, with which the Respondent is currently dealing, the undersigned will
recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from recognizing the Associa-
tion, in the event that it should subsequently resume functioning. Moreover,
the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the present existence of the Inde-
pendent and its continued recognition constitute a continuing obstacle to the exer-
cise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them under the Act. Therefore,
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to free the employees from the
effects of the Respondent's -unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recom-
mend that the Respondent withdraw all recognition from the Independent as
the representative of any of the Respondent's employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and conditions of employment and to completely
disestablish it as such representative.
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As previously found, the Respondent's conduct in executing the contract of
April 27, 1949, with the Independent constituted unlawful assistance to the
Independent. This contract has been a means whereby the Respondent has
utilized, the unlawfully dominated and supported Independent to frustrate self-
organization and to defeat genuine collective bargaining by the employees. The
undersigned therefore recommends that the Respondent cease and desist from
giving effect to said contract or to any renewal, extension, modification, or
supplement thereto. Nothing herein shall. be taken to require the Respondent
to vary those wages, hours, seniority, and other substantive features of its rela-
tions with the employees themselves, which the Respondent has established in
performance of the said contract or any revision, extension, renewal, or modifica-
tion thereof.
The maintenance of a lineage of company-dominated and supported organiza-
tions presents a ready and effective means of obstructing self-organization of
employees and their choice of their own representatives for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining. The Respondent's long domination and interference with two
successive labor organizations, its contribution of support to them, and the
threat to discharge the known adherent to the Union for soliciting employees to
join the Union during his nonworking hours, ran the gamut of interference,
restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. Because of
the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned
is convinced, and finds, that the unfair labor practices are persuasively related
to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and a danger of their
commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's
conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless
the Respondent is ordered to cease and desist therefrom. In order, therefore,
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to pre-
vent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAw I
1. Local 389, Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incor-
porated, are labor organizations, and Sun Oil Company Drivers, Warehouse and
Maintenance Employees Association, was a labor organization, within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Sun Oil Company
Drivers, Warehouse and Maintenance Employees Association, by dominating and
interfering with the formation and administration of Michigan Independent Oil
Workers' Union, Incorporated, and by contributing support to them, the Respond-
ent has engaged in, and as to the Independent, is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. 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 practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
SUN OIL COMPANY 851
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent,
Sun Oil Company, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Sun Oil Company
Drivers, Warehouse and Maintenance Employees Association, or its successor,
Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incorporated, or any other labor
organization ;
(b) Recognizing Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incorporated, as
a representative, of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to any and all contracts, supplements thereto or modifica-
tions thereof, with Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incorporated;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Local 389, Oil Workers International Union, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestab-
lish, Michigan Independent Oil Workers' Union, Incorporated, as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or any other conditions of employment, and refrain from recognizing Sun Oil
Company Drivers, Warehouse and Maintenance Employees Association, in the
event that organization returns to active existence ;
(b) Post at its plants in Hamtramck and River Rouge, Michigan, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
859227-51-vol. S9-55
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington
25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing -setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof; and
any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief
in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs
shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and
shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double
spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board
shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.S5. As further provided in
said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 8th day of December 1949.
HOW ARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT OIL WORKERS' UNION,
INCORPORATED, as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose
of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not
recognize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any and all agreements and contracts, 'supple-
ments thereto or modifications thereof, or any superseding contract with
MICHIGAN INDEPENDENT OIL WORKERS' UNION, INCORPORATED, or any suc-
cessor thereto.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist L-)OAL 389, OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
SUN OIL COMPANY 853
UNION, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
SUN OIL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------------- By------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.