Sunray Oil Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 942 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SUNRAY OIL CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO
Case No. 16-CA-72.-Decided April 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 16, 1949, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief and the
Respondent filed an opposing brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the modification noted below.2
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man
panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members (Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
2 We construe , as the Trial Examiner apparently did, Maintenance Foreman Hendricks'
response to employee Ryan's inquiry as to when he might receive a wage raise that he
should "start going to shows more often, or prayer meetings , on Wednesday nights" as a
warning to Ryan to stay away from union meetings , which were held on Wednesday
evenings , if he wanted a wage raise . Although we do not share the Trial Examiner ' s doubt
that this statement constituted interference , restraint , and coercion, within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we agree with him that because of its wholly isolated
character a cease and desist order is not warranted.
We also find no merit in the General Counsel ' s exception to the Trial Examiner 's failure
to find violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act a letter not mentioned in the Intermediate
Report, which the Respondent sent to employees on June 15, 1948. Although anti-union
in tenor, the letter contained no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit to employees.
82 N. L . R. B., No. 116.
942
SUNRAY OIL CORPORATION 943
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 complaint issued herein
against the Respondent, Sunray Oil Corporation, Duncan, Oklahoma,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.