T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 376 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of T. W. Pmr.T.rps GAS & On COMPANY and UTmITY
Woiu nS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE LOCAL UNION #242 (C. I. 0.)
Case No. C-2623.-Decided July 16, 1943 '
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 21,1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions.
Oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on
June 8, 1943. The Board has considered the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil
Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or 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 :
51 N. L. R. B., No. 76.
376
T. W. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL COMPANY 377
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its estab-
lishments located in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler,
Beaver, Clearfield, Clarion, Jefferson, Indiana, and Westmoreland of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at
least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to
its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1
(a) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent's employees are free
to become or remain members of Utility Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, Local Union #242 (C. I. 0.) or any other labor organization,
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such organiza-
tion;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. S. Craig Carnes, for the Board.
Reed , Smith , Shaw & McClay , by Mr. Nicholas 17nkovic, of Pittsburgh , Pa., and
Mr. John L . Wilson and Mr. Rolland L. Ehrman, of Butler, Pa., for the
respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CABE
Upon a charge duly filed on January 11, 1943, by Utility Workers Organizing
'Committee, Local Union #242 (C. I. 0.), herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for
the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated April
17, 1943, against T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Company, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent by certain of its officers, agents, representatives and em-
ployees had interfered with, restrained and coerced, and was interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, in that from on,or about February 1, 1941, it dis-
paraged the Union and. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local
Union No. 12201, hereinafter called District 50; in that it advised , urged and
warned its employees to refrain from joining said unions ; in that it discouraged
membership and activity of its employees in said unions; in thatit interrogated
its employees concerning their affiliation with said unions ; and in that it made
efforts to ascertain the extent to which its employees had become affiliated with
said unions and the names of the employees belonging to said unions.
On or about April 28, 1943, respondent filed an answer in which it denied
that it had committed any unfair labor practices and„questioned,the right of
the Union to file charges involving the commission by the respondent of unfair
labor practices with regard to District 50.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Butler , Pennsylvania, on May 3 and'
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4, 1943, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly .designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. The respondent rested its case at the close of the Board's
case and produced no witnesses. At the close of the case, the attorney for the
Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof in regard to formal var-
iances The motion was granted without objection. At the close of the case
the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for, lack of proof. Ruling on
this motion was reserved, and the motion is hereby denied.
At the close of the hearing, the attorneys for the Board and the respondent
presented oral argument on the record before the undersigned. None of the parties
filed briefs although given an opportunity to do so.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Company is a Pennsylvania corporation having its
principal office and place of business at Butler, Pennsylvania. The respondent is
engaged in the production, transmission, distribution and sale of natural gas
and in the production of crude oil.
Purchases of material, machinery and equipment by the respondent for,use
in its operations consist principally of pipe, meters, wire line, cordage, valbes,
gas compressors, engines, and other oil and gas well supplies. The value of such
purchases of equipment and supplies totals in excess of $100,000 annually, of
which approximately 10 percent is purchased from sources outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. -
During the year 1942 the respondent produced natural gas valued in excess of
$3,750,000. At least 50 percent of the natural gas produced by the respondent
during the year 1942 was sold to companies that are engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of, the Act. The balance of the natural gas produced.
by the respondent is furnished to other natural gas companies for consumption,
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to small commercial and residen-
tial consumers. During the year 1942 the respondent produced crude oil with a
value in excess of $40,000. Crude oil produced by the respondent is sold to four
companies , viz., Quaker State Refining Company, Southern Pennsylvania Oil
Company, Valvoline Pipe Lines Company and Pennsylvania Refining Company.
At least 50 percent of the crude oil produced by the respondent is sold to the
Quaker State Refining Company, which company is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
The crude oil produced by the respondent and sold to the above mentioned
companies is delivered to the National Transit Company, a common carrier en-
gaged in the business of transporting crude oil by pipe lines. The respondent's
business was approximately the same as above during the year 1941. The
respondent produces crude oil in Allegheny and Butler Counties, and its natural
gas business is conducted in Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler, Beaver, Clearfield,
Clarion, Jefferson, Indiana, and Westmoreland Counties of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The undersigned finds that the respondent is engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act 1
I
1 Matter of Pueblo Gas ct Fuel Company, 23 N. L. R. B . 1028; Matter o t Consumers Power
Company, 9 N. L. R . B. 701.
T. W. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL COMPANY 379
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local Union #242, (C. I. 0.), is a
labor organization which admits to membership employees of the respondent.
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Local Union No. 12201, is a
labor organization which admitted to membership employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The employees of the respondent held a meeting on December 27, 1940, to con-
sider union organization. On January 23, 1941, another meeting was held and
a representative of District 50 attended. An application for a charter was made
to District 50 on February 5, 1941, and the charter was granted. About 25
employees attended the meeting on January 23 and about 65 employees attended
.a meeting on February 5. At the latter meeting permanent officers were elected
and J. William Cheers was elected president. Thereafter meetings were held
every 2 weeks.
On July 14, 1941, District 50 filed with the Board a petition for investigation
and certification. Pursuant to an agreement for consent election, an election
-was conducted by the Board on August 21, 1941. Prior to the election, District
50 had waived the alleged use of unfair labor practice charges as a basis for
objections to the election, which charges had been previously filed on April 1,
1941, by District 50 with the Board. Out of a total of 235 employees in the
appropriate unit who were eligible to vote, 81 votes were cast for District 50
and 129 votes were cast against District 50. On August 23, 1941, District 50 filed
objections to the election. These objections were dismissed by the Board by
letter dated September 10, 1941. The objections to the election did not involve
the charges of unfair labor practices that had been waived.
Cheers remained president of the District 50 Local until July of 1942 at which
time the Local changed its affiliation from District 50 to Utility Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, affiliated with the C. I. O. The employees were granted a
charter as Local #242 by Utility Workers Organizing Committee. This Local
bad the same officers as did the District 50 Local. Cheers continued as presi-
4ent of the Union until the latter part of September 1942 when he was no longer
employed by the respondent.2
On December 30, 1942, the charges of unfair labor practice filed with the
Board by District 50 were withdrawn'
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion '
District 50 conducted a campaign for members in January and February of
1941 . In the early part of March 1941 , J. William Cheers had a conversation
-with John Sweeney, a warehouse superintendent . With respect to this con-
versation , Cheers testified as follows :
... And he [ Sweeney] came where I worked in the room and told me
that T. W. Phillips and B . D. Phillips were very much opposed to the
' The testimony of Cheers is uncontradicted. As noted above, the respondent did not
call any witnesses in its defense. T. W. Phillips and B. D. Phillips were president and vice
president, respectively, of the respondent. a
8 Respondent urges that the fact that the alleged unfair labor practices were committed
'while the employees were members of a union other than the charging Union, defeats the
jurisdiction of the Board. The undersigned finds the respondent's contention to be without
merit.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union and would not want it to go through and were willing to do anything
for the fellows if we would drop the union ...
Cheers also had a conversation with John Phillips, the low pressure distri-
bution superintendent in the early part of March 1941, which concerned an
employee by the name of John Crawford. Cheers testified that Crawford had
come to him and asked for the return of his union card, stating that he de-
sired a favor from the respondent and that it would not be granted unless he
dropped out of District 50. Thereafter, Phillips asked Cheers if Crawford had
". . . lifted his card from the union" and Cheers replied that he had destroyed
the union card.
About the middle of March, 1941, Cheers had a conversation with Ben
Phillips, Jr., assistant field superintendent. Cheers testified about it as follows:
I asked him what objection his father had to us having the union, and
he stated that the Company had been in the family's hands for years, and
that it would not want the Company broken up, and that if the Union
went through, that they would sell the Company to a bigger Company, and
all of us would lose our positions. The other Company would send their
men in to run it.
In August 1942 Cheers had another conversation with Sweeney. During the
lunch hour Cheers was discussing the changeover to the Utility Workers Organiz-
ing-Committee with W. Allen Johns, a foreman, when Sweeney walked past and
stopped to listen; when Cheers returned to work, Sweeney came to him and
told him that he did not want to hear any more union talk around the ware-
house, that he would take him (Cheers) off the job if he heard any more
union talk, and that if he had to he would take a piece of pipe and "knock (his)
damn head off."
Woodrow Camp, an employee, became a member of District 50 about Feb-
ruary 5, 1941, and frequently attended the union meetings. At some time in
1941 Camp had a conversation with W. Allen Johns, the Kittanning District
foreman. Johns called Camp into his house and asked him what he knew
"about this forming a union ," and when Camp said he did not know anything
about it, Johns said "Did you know that there was a meeting at Ford City
this afternoon ?" Camp replied he did not know a thing about it . Johns.was
Camp 's foreman.
Concerning a conversation with Ralph A: Beach, assistant field superintend-
ent, on February 12, 1941, Camp testified as follows :
Well, Mr. Beach told ... there was two of us working together, Mr.
Mohr and I. He called one of us to the side at the time. He said to me,
"Wood, what did you think of the raise?" I said : "It was pretty nice."
Then he asked me, "What is the matter with the men, aren't they satis-
fied?" I said, "I don't know." He said, "You don't have to belong to a
union to work with the Phillips Gas Company." He said, "Before you do
anything why," he said, "think it over and not to give us a stab in the
back or a kick in the pants," that he had to work for a living too.
Charles R. Mohr, an employee, joined District 50 in the latter part of Janu-
ary 1941 and was on the membership committee. On or about February 6,
1941, Mohr engaged in the following conversation with Johns, his foreman at
the latter's home :
' As has been stated, the respondent offered no proof in contradiction of the testimony
of the Board's witnesses. The undersigned was favorably impressed with the latters'
demeanor as witnesses , and credits their testimony In all respects.
F
T. W. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL COMPANY 381
Well, he asked me if I attended the meeting at Ford City. I told him
that I had, and he wanted to know what went on. I told him nothing
definite, and he wanted to know how many of the boys from the district
were at the meeting, and I told him if he wanted to know anything about
any of the rest of the boys, he would have to talk to them, and he said to
me, he said, "I am not telling you to join the union and I am not telling
you not to join it," but he said, "There will be a depression." He said,
"If I were you, I would think it over very carefully." .. .
The meeting referred to by Johns at Ford City was the union meeting held on
February 5, 1941.
On February 19, 1941, Johns asked Mohr how many employees belonged to
District 50. Mohr refused to tell him.
Mohr testified as follows about a conversation with Ralph A. Beach on Feb-
ruary 12, 1941:
W. C. Camp and I were repairing a gate leak on the main line. about
11:30 in the morning. R. A. Beach and W. G. Beach and W. A. Johns
drove into where we were working. R. A. Beach called me off to the side
and he said, "Charley, we are going to give the boys a $10 a month raise."
He said, "We are also going to give you an extra week's vacation ; we are
going to cut your hours to 44 hours a week." He said, "Of course, you
know what caused this." To which I made no reply.
On the 19th of February, 1941 Mohr was called into the Kittanning office.
W. D. Beach, (previously referred to by Mohr as W. G. Beach), field superin-
tendent, Ralph A. Beach, Johns, and Walter Bable, an employee, were present.
Mohr testified that the following conversation took place between him and
R. A. Beach :
... He asked me if I belonged to the union. I told him I did, and he
said that Mr. Phillips, B. D. Phillips, had made a lot of new locations for
wells to be drilled, and he said if the union grew 5 that they would shut
down the drilling; shut down their old tools and contract their drilling
and piping line, and he said, "Of course, that will throw a lot of men out
of work."
Frank Fulkman, an employee, joined District 50 in the latter part of January
1941. Prior to February 5, ,1941, R. A. Beach came to Fulkman's home and wanted
to know why the employees were dissatisfied. Fulkman replied that the hours
were too long and the pay unsatisfactory. Beach replied that he thought, they
could get together and work it out for themselves without having "some outside
one come in"; and that there was a depression coming along and he needed his
job as did Fulkman. Concerning another conversation with Beach in March of
1941, Fulkman testified as follows :
He [Beach] said a lot of the boys had dropped out of the union; they were
too hasty in joining and wanted me to drop out of it, see if I couldn't see
their side of it, and thought they would get along better without a union
than they would with a union."
W. D. Beach was also present while these remarks were made.
5 There is an error in the transcript in this instance, as it reads "withdrew." The under-
signed recollects that the witness used the word "grew" and, therefore, orders that the
transcript be corrected accordingly.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In March of 1941 Earl Glass, the drilling superintendent , made some remarks
to Fulkman . Concerning them , Fulkman testified as follows :
He [Glass] accused me of going up in the upper Countries trying to get
the fellows to join the Union at night, and said if we ever went CIO, if
any of the CIO went around the drilling rigs, Ben Phillips would shut them
down and let them rot.
He accused me of going up at night contacting these fellows trying to
get them to'join the Union . I told him that was the only way I could get
up there at night. They don't send me up in the daytime . They sent me
up at night . He told me he wouldn't send me in the daytime. I had to go
at night. He said, "You know the reason of that." I said, "Sure because
I Joined the Union." He said, "Sure."
Clyde Lockhart , an employee , joined District 50 in the latter part of January
1941 and wore a District 50 button while at work On February 19, 1941, W. D.
Beach , R. A. Beach , and Johns came to Lockhart 's home. Lockhart testified that
the following then transpired :
Well, they came in and asked me or said, rather , that they understood
from reports that came in that I had joined up with the Union. He asked
if I had, and I said I did, and he asked me if I was at any meetings. I said
I was. He didn't say any particular meeting or anything and I said I was.
He asked what went on. And 'it just happened at this meeting we were
in there was no organizer there, just a friendly meeting. I said there was
nothing more than just a social meeting at that meeting just before that,
prior to that time, that is the one I figured they referred to, and they told
me to think it over well before I went too far in the Union, that there had
been some of the former men, stating their names, had come to them and
told them that they were done with the Union, that they didn 't see why,
but they said they were done with the Union , and he named three men that
were supposed to have made this statement to them that was done with
the Union . And he named the men. The one was Frank Fulkman, Fred
Dimmit, and Jud Klingensmith, .. .
Yes, they said to me, they said to me rather to drop my Union activities
and to talk to the men and to tell and to try to persuade them to drop their
union activities . And I told him-I told them if the other men would drop
the Union activities I would too , and R A. Beach stated that every man
had to make up his mind , that they couldn't do it that way , that each man
had to make up his own mind, and went on and stated for me to do that,
drop my union activities , and by doing so, it would be doing them a favor, .. .
W. S. Bable, an employee, became a member of District 50 on February 5, 1941.
On February 5, 1941, R. A. Beach came to Bable's house. Bable testified that
the following conversation took place :
He [Beach] told me he understood that there was union activities going
on and he wanted to know what I knew about it. He said any difference
that was between the Company and the employees could be remedied without
going to the extremity of the union and he wanted me to give the union an
idea of what I thought before I signed up , as Phillips never had a union, and
didn 't want none now.
A few days later Bable again talked with R. A. Beach, W . D. Beach also being
present. With respect to this talk , Bable gave the following testimony :
He [R. A . Beach] told me he understood the men were dissatisfied and
wanted to know what was -the reason . I told him I figured the wages were
T. W. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL COMPANY 383
too low and the hours were too long and the men should have seniority
rights, and if the Union was formed, seniority rights would be a clause in
the union. He told me he didn't think the wages were any lower than any
other company's at that time, and I told him I had talked to men employed
by other companies, and they said their wages were higher than ours, so he
said he would investigate and see, and he did, a couple of days later he noti-
fied me that they had made a check and found that wages would be raised
and wanted to know what I thought about that. I told him I thought it was
very good. He said, "Don't you think we could get along without a union
now I"
I told him I would take the matter up with the boys at a meeting,
and see what they thought about it. He said the union matter was one
matter I should decide for myself.
On February 19, 1941, Bable had another conversation with R. A Beach at the
Kittanning office with W. D Beach, Johns, and C. R Mohr, an employee, present.\
With respect to this conversation, Bable testified as follows :
R. A. Beach asked me if me and Mr. Mohr had attended meetings and
signed cards. We told him we did. He said, "I didn't know you fellows
had signed up and attended meetings." He came into his office the evening
before and found on his desk lists of rigs that was to tore down and moved
to a new location.
I took the matter up with Mr. B. D. Phillips, [the witness was quoting R. A.
Beach] and B. D. told him if the union was dropped they would move the
rigs to new locations and drill the well. If not, they would contract all their
drilling and pipe laying and the men would be out of work. R. A. Beach
asked me what good a union would be if they shut down the work.
W R. McCollum was employed by the respondent for about 25 years until
January 9, 1941. His employment was not steady since he was only employed
when the respondent had drilling work. He did not perform any work for the
respondent after January 9, 1941. He joined District i;O on February 5, 1941.
On May 3, 1941, Earl Glass, superintendent of drilling, told McCollum and Mc-
Nutt, another employee, to report for work at the Butler office. McCollum and
McNutt were met at the Butler office by R. A. Bech and Glass. -McCollum testi-
fied as follows concerning a conversation that took place in Beach's office :
Well, the first thing that was said, he [Beach] wanted to know if we
were in favor of the union, asked what we knowed about it, he said, "If
you are one hundred per cent in favor of the union, we don't want you
to go on that well. If you are in favor of the Company one hundred per
cent, you can work on it at once, but if you are in favor of the union,
you can't go "
He asked me what I thought of it. I said, "It is just like this, if every-
body else joined that union, I ain't going to be called a scab." That was
,my answer. "My goodness," he said, "If we had the rig half torn up, it
will be torn down." He also said, "If you go on this Beal Well to work,
and anybody comes in the rig and mentions union, he can go out."
Mr. Beach stated that it cost $25 to join the union. He said it was no
good, nobody belonged to it, would not be any good. He further stated,
if the Union went through, that the Company would quit drilling operations.
Since May 3, 1941, McCollum had not been called on by the respondent for
any drilling work up to the time of the hearing.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. R. Milligan was employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing
and had been so employed for about 25 years. In the latter part of January
1941, Milligan had a conversation with R. A. Beach in the presence of Johns.
Milligan testified that Beach said to him, "If you have any trouble, come to me
and not to the union . . . There will be a little raise coming, $10.
During the latter part of January, 1941, Milligan also had a conversation
with Johns. With respect to this conversation, Milligan testified :
He told me if I joined the union, I would tramp brush up to my hips,
walk the line if the brush got up to my hips around there.
A. K. Bleakney was employed by the respondent for about 18 years up to
March 15, 1943. He became a member of District 50 on January 23, 1941.
R. A. Beach had a conversation with Bleakney on February 4, 1941. Bleakney
testified about it as follows:
He [Beach] told me there had been three different ones in his office the
evening before and told him that I was agitating the union and making
trouble between other employees... .
Yes, he told me not to join the union, and be wanted to know what the
boys wanted ... "Think it over" ; he said, "Give us a boost, not a kick."
He said "Remember when a man gets to be around 40 years old, his hair
gets mighty thin on top for holding a job."
The undersigned finds that by the foregoing remarks of John Sweeney, John
Phillips, Ben Phillips, Jr., W. Allen Johns, Ralph A. Beach, W. D. Beach, and
Earl Glass, all of whom were supervisory employees of the respondent, by the
threat to assign Milligan to more arduous duties if he should join District
50, by the implied threat to discharge Bleakney if he joined District 50, and by
the denial of employment to McCollum for favoring District 50, the respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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
1. District 50, United Kline Workers of America, Local Union No. 12201 and
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local Union #242 (C. I. 0.) were and
are labor organizations 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 practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
T. W. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL COMPANY 385
3. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
the undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent, T. W. Phillips Gas &
Oil Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
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, 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) Post immediately notices to all its employees in conspicuous places in
and about its establishments located in the Counties of Allegheny, Armstrong,
Butler, Beaver, Clearfield, Clarion, Jefferson, Indiana, and Westmoreland of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and maintain said notices for a period of at
least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating: (1) that the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in
paragraph 1 (a) of these recommendations; and (2) that the respondent's em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of Utility Workers Organizing
Committee, Local Union #242, (C. I. 0.) or any other labor organization, and that
the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such organization ;
(b) File with the Regional Director for the Sixth Region on or before ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing
setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has com-
plied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notify said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 2, as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building,
Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
As further provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case to
the Board.
Joan H. EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 21, 1943.